A Vain Attempt to Find Common Ground Between Corporate News and Public News Broadcasts
Name: Joel Walker
Husband, Father, and future Air Force officer. With a moderately liberal outlook on the world.
visited *loading* times
I grabbed this off of the website http://911scholars.org/. I would love to hear comments from my peers on this one as I had only heard of it recently.
The Science of 9/11: What's Controversial, What's Not
Propaganda by the government and the corporate media would have us believe that the 9/11 "inside job" hypothesis is not merely controversial but unsupported by proof. That is wrong. Academics, experts, and scholars who have examined the physical evidence and considered this event within its historical context tend to converge in agreement that the inside-job hypothesis is, in fact, strongly supported by the available evidence, while the version advanced in The 9/11 Commission Report is not only false but provably false and in crucial respects physically impossible. That the official account of 9/11 is a lie and that 9/11 appears to have been an inside job is no longer a matter of serious scientific debate.
Even though the broad outlines of what happened are no longer controversial--for example, we know that The World Trade Center was intentionally demolished by a high-energy causal process physically unrelated to plane crashes and resulting fires--the precise details of how the perpetrators carried out the attack remains the subject of intense controversy. From a political point of view, this controversy may be insignificant. What we know with relative certainty about 9/11 is already the story of the century: it demands re-thinking our history, our politics, perhaps even our way of life. But from a scientific rather than political standpoint, controversial questions about what may have happened on 9/11 are fascinating and challenging--not least of all because they could lead to a better understanding of 9/11 with respect to its social and political significance.
In an attempt to clarify these matters, Scholars for 9/11 Truth will be hosting a conference entitled "The Science of 9/11: What's Controversial, What's Not", to be held in mid- to late-July in Madison, WI. I think we can all agree that the most important dimension of our efforts is explaining why the "official account" that the government has advanced cannot be sustained. Since there can be disagreements even here about what we should or should not emphasize and what has or has not been proven to an extent that is sufficient to emphasize them as "refutations" of the government's account, I am inviting Barrie Zwicker to organize the opening session, a panel discussion on "disproofs" of the government's account.
Following the opening session, there will be a keynote speaker and five major sessions devoted to the issues that have tended to divide us. As the program chair, I am inviting Steve Jones to organize a panel discussion of the use of conventional means for destroying the Twin Towers. [Editor's note: I regret to report that Steve Jones has declined.] I am inviting Judy Wood to organize a panel discussion on non-conventional means, including high-tech directed energy weaponry, that might have been used to destroy the World Trade Center. I am inviting Morgan Reynolds to organize a panel on planes/no planes at the WTC and George Nelson on the Pentagon and Shanksville. Each of these sessions would be of 2 1/2 to 3 hours duration. I anticipate there will be a registration fee of $100 for the week-end long conference, which will include a keynote address on Saturday evening.
While the program is at its tentative and preliminary stage, I am open to suggestions for possible participants and additional topics. There may be changes in the individuals responsible for some of these panels, but my expectation would be that their focus will remain the same. Anyone who has ideas they would like to share with me is welcome to forward them to me at jfetzer@d.umn.edu at their earliest convenience. This conference should provide an opportunity for experts on complex and technical scientific questions to explain their research and its significance. My hope is that by "agreeing to disagree," and by subjecting each others' research to rigorous but collegial criticism, the attention-getting controversial aspects of 9/11 research may be turned into a benefit, rather than a distraction, in the larger process of seeking and exposing the truth about 9/11.
James H. Fetzer
Founder
Scholars for 9/11 Truth
Here's an excerpt from an email that a local lobbying group sent to its members. I see a couple of media values being refered to...do you?
Writing a letter to the editor of your local newspaper is a quick and easy way
to effectively bring important issues to light. The keys to writing an
effective letter are as follows:
Make one clear point and stick to it!
Most papers require it to be 250 words or less
Don't exaggerate - it's great to express feelings, but avoid hyperbole
If you can, tie your letter to a recent article
Explain how this issue affects you personally
This is an excerpt from an email Mr. Moeller sent recently. It just might give us all a little hope to hear about the process and how it can work. If anyone is interested I can email you the entire letter.
* Memorials. With these products, we express an opinion or send a message to a government body outside Washington. Memorials are often used to bring an issue to the floor, and to start a conversation about the important challenges that face not only the citizens of Washington but the whole country.
Today, the Health Care Committee passed House Joint Memorial 4005. This memorial requests Congress to guarantee that very citizen is entitled to receive all medically necessary care under a universal health-care system. Universal is sometimes misunderstood to mean “single payer”. I do not mean single-payer when I use the word universal and I also believe that there is a place in the private market for any universal system that is designed. I encourage you to read the memorial yourself. (See Below) I brought this memorial forward at the request of one of the citizens of the 49th District.
Approximately 46 million Americans do not have health-care coverage. My memorial requests that Congress enact federal legislation guaranteeing every person in the United States all medically necessary care under a universal health-care system. The system would include guarantee that health care is affordable and cost-efficient — and that it provides comprehensive benefits, promotes prevention and early intervention, provides parity for mental health, and promotes quality and better health outcomes.
Will this memorial force Congress to make sure every citizen has health care? Unlikely.
Will memorials from every state ensure that every citizen has health care? Maybe.
Does this memorial force the Washington Legislature to discuss the possibility of health care for everyone? Absolutely! The only way to solve our health-care crisis is for both legislators and citizens to discuss all the possibilities. That’s the only way we’ll come up with solutions. I filed this memorial to try to facilitate those discussions.
I attempted to post this as a comment on the class blog, but was denied access.
Rather than make the obligatory codemning statement about the authors of the article I would like to point out that the article in question neatly pandered to the current media values. More disturbing than the content and purpose is the response! Now, I admit that I stopped reading comments after about a dozen (which may speak to my lack of attention span or the monotony of the comments). Instead of spouting rhetoric in protest perhaps this would have been the place to start an intelligent debate over social reforms, or legislative options in human rights.
I wanted to post what I put together for our second writing assignment as a way to give those who need ideas a place to get started. I know my writing isn't the best, but please realize that the prof reads this and if you copy it you'll probably get nailed for plagiarism. Not that anyone needs to, or that my stuff is worth plagiarising, but I figured a disclaimer couldn't hurt.
Democracy. Does the story in some way affect the structure of our democracy and the freedoms we enjoy? If the subject changes the balance of power between the branches of government (which theoretically includes the populous) it should meet a new Threshold value.
Threshold. The new threshold would have to shed the old ideas of “interesting” and assume that if an event affects enough of us it is interesting and therefore newsworthy. Because importance is a subjective term it would stand to reason that it can remain, but would require a new standard. Currently threshold is tied closely to celebrity. It is deemed important or interesting if the “right” people are involved. Can I just say Anna-Nicole Smith? How is that newsworthy??? That tie needs to be severed and replaced with the idea of Balance as I posited above.
I read a great interview on Democracy Now about a couple of different groups promoting Health Care Reform. Interestingly enough one of the groups involves a couple of Huge Corporations including AT&T, Intel, and Wal-Mart. The other group is taking more of a grass-roots approach and has found sponsorship for a bill in Congress which proposes to REMOVE INSURANCE COMPANIES from the equation, saving an estimated one-third of health care costs. An interesting move and I wonder what kind of coverage this one will get? I plan on scanning the MSM for some signs of this. Perhaps if AT&T, Intel, and Wal-mart got behind HR 676 we could have a fun media bonanza where the benevolent (wink-wink) CEO's face-off against the Evil Insurance companies! I wonder who has closer ties to MSM oulets?
Video Games, Music, Reality TV....when is there time to care? When the babyboomers have forgotten the 60's how will we firmly grasp the enormity of the position we're in? We (Gen-X a term which I despise) have steadily drifted into a bog of slothful indifference. As a generation we have fallen into the trap of allowing the media influenced blue hairs to elect our representatives and direct our legislation. As a voting group (sic) it is my impression that we feel politically impotent. With the aged voters voting en masse does our vote count? Where can we find our political identity? Will our news sources please give us the resources we so desperately need to make informed decisions?!
As my first attempt at blogging I felt the need to voice some of my concerns. In the future I will endeavor to bring news stories from both the corporate news and the public sources in the hope of addressing some of the issues I've raised above. Enjoy the ride....I know i will.
Walker
nathanwebster on Any thoughts?
iconoclast on An update on Health ...
iconoclast on Any thoughts?
jcwalker on An update on Health ...
Zeto520 on An update on Health ...
Mo'nonymous on Looks like someone h...
jcwalker on Looks like someone h...
AnnaLouise on Looks like someone h...
iconoclast on The Rape Article
iconoclast on An update on Health ...
Template by motime.com