Support 911Blogger


9/11 Truth Confronts Amy Goodman & Democracy Now! ~ Cal Poly San Luis Obispo

Published on Nov 7, 2012 by slo911video

9/11 Truth Confronts Amy Goodman & Democracy Now! ~ Cal Poly San Luis Obispo 20Oct12 - - - Mark Phillips, mechanical engineer, and member of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth: (AE911TRUTH.ORG), had dinner with Amy Goodman twice since 9/11, and was largely responsible for getting Goodman on local public radio: KCBX FM 90.1, for the San Luis Obispo county. Phillips provided Goodman with evidence of the controlled demolition of all three World Trade Center skyscrapers on September 11, 2001 at a dinner, in New York, three years ago. At that dinner Phillips gave Goodman copies of the NIST report about the free-fall collapse of World Trade Center building 7, a copy of the newly released peer reviewed scientific paper published in the Open Chemical Physics Journal 2009: "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9-11 World Trade Center Catastrophe". This evidence of controlled demolition of the World Trade Center buildings on 9/11, as well as an entire packet of information was provided to Goodman at the dinner three years ago. Goodman was in New York on 9/11, and was an eyewitness to the 47 story free-fall demolition/collapse of World Trade Center building 7, at 5:20pm. Phillips pleaded with Goodman this year, and in the past, to interview one of the authors of the Active Thermite paper on the radio. There has been an entire media black out on the subject, with the exception of George Noory on Coast to Coast AM and the Alex Jones Radio Show. No others, to date, have discussed the Active Thermite paper. Perhaps one day soon Amy Goodman will be brave enough to at least have this debate on the air and get this truth to millions of Americans unaware of this incredible evidence. The wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and loss of freedoms in the United States all resulted because of 9/11.

Great job

You stated in the beginning how you were a signatory of AE but not tehre to represent AE. That's a good stance but your video is clearly worthy as an AE event.

he's also an engineer

great work , mark

A very frightened woman.

It is abundantly clear that Ms. Goodman is extremely scared about this topic; she has undoubtedly been read the proverbial "riot act"... in which she somehow was informed the following, or similar:

"You are popular, you are a household name, you have a wide reach, a public voice, a solid career in the media, and a bright future. If you go as far as questioning what the American public has been told about 9/11, you can be assured that all this will change, and not for the better. You have been warned".

Ms. Goodman undoubtedly has a sense of self-preservation, not just for her media outlet, but for her actual life and those of her immediate family members. Those who carried out 9/11 were psychopaths to whom the deaths of 3000 Americans was merely "collateral damage" in order to achieve their geo-political and ideological agendæ. For these people, to arrange for the termination of an inconvenient press person - such as Amy Goodman if she publicly questioned 9/11 - would no more an issue than choosing whether to eat cornflakes of rice krispies for breakfast. Pursuing 9/11 Truth in America can be hazardous, as many have found - careers have been terminated and researchers/witnesses have died in suspicious circumstances. I very much doubt that "Muslim extremists" are trying to keep her - and the rest of the corporate media - quiet.

In a way, I understand Ms. Goodman's attitude, but disagree with it, 100%. It is infuriating, that by refusing to question 9/11, she is helping keep the terrorists from getting the justice they so deserve, and what America and the world so needs.

A Complete Phony

She was interested enough to watch the demolition and knew herself she heard it and I'm guessing she was invited to see it. I would completely write her off. Does it matter if she's afraid? Not at all. Those who are decent people would take another job where they don't have to deny the truth.

I'm with you marzi.

She is a deceiver.

I can't stand hearing someone touted as truthful, courageous, blah, blah and then watch them cower over 911Truth.

Being in the Right Place

Joe,

Thanks. As to Amy being right near Building 7 which was about to make news and not somewhere else investigating, the coincidence of this is unlikely without a tip.

BlackOps

Invited to watch?

Amy is on video, clearly terrified, running from 7. Making these huge leaps to "invited to see it" is not only unscientific, it avoids the real issue of WHY people avoid discussing 9/11. You don't need to tell people to avoid it, those that are still in shock from the events do so automatically.

I am not defending her as somehow being objective. I am just pointing out that some have a tendency to make everything into a monolithic conspiracy, and it's really not that simple. It would be like telling Jane Standley ahead of time "now read this script....".

I doubt anyone was told exactly what was going to happen ahead of time other than people that needed to know for the op to succeed. Clearly they (whoever they are, see "Demolition Access to the WTC") messed up, 7 was not supposed to go down 5 hours later. But they are not stupid.

http://911blogger.com/news/2012-06-13/truth-and-why-smart-people-are-stupid

sigh.

Respect and all things considered, not an easy situation for either of you, and kudos for trying but, gotta say, it came across like a writ serve... This was a book launch. You only get a MOMENT. It takes some kind of luck , some kind of theatrical or divine intervention to pull off an 'information counter strike' under these circumstances - getting into huff and walking off not a good look pardon me for saying.

Anyway. Good on you. At least you tried.

Mark should give the information to Amy again

as she did say she would take any information he had. He could give it to her again by mailing it and explaining his exasperation with her not using it after he gave it to her three years ago, given the importance of the issue.

There could be a number of reasons why she hasn't had anything serious on the issue on the show. One could be the level of public knowledge and not wanting to be viewed as conspiracy theory oriented. This has changed concerning this event in the last three years as a number of media people like CPT 12 Colorado and Geraldo Rivera have had people like Richard Gage and myself on.

A DVD of 911: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out should also be included in any packet sent to her, with it also mentioned that it was aired by CPT 12.

I wouldn't close the door as these are different times and you never know if an opening is possible. Barack Obama is in for a second term now.

We could all do something...

Amy Goodman
Democracy Now!
207 W. 25th St., Floor 11
New York, NY 10001

Call: 1 (212) 431-9090
Fax: 1 (212) 431-8858

http://www.democracynow.org/contact/

If you email them please be sure to include this link: http://video.pbs.org/video/2270078138/

And...?

'Barack Obama is in for a second term now.'

Yes, and he's pushed the same 'war on terror' claptrap to expand his drone wars, even as the CIA continues to work with militant Islamic groups to destabilize regimes in the region. He's also kept invoking those same pretexts to preserve and expand upon the Bush regime's horrendous legacy of unbridled executive power, silencing whistleblowers, and trashing the Bill of Rights. And it is this Bush-Obama regime of unending war and permanent suspension of the Constitution which was ratified by 99% of the electorate on Tuesday. The attitude of the entire political establishment re 9/11, with both its Republican and Democratic wings and the major news media, is reminiscent of that of Governor Wallace towards race segregation: '9/11 official story now, 9/11 official story forever.' Question any of its essentials, and you will be ridiculed, placed beyond the pale of opinions and information deemed worthy of consideration. The reason, of course, is that this information is so potent in its political ramifications, in ways not favorable to their imperial and police state agendas.

I do agree when you say, 'I wouldn't close the door....' I just wouldn't expect the overall climate of opinion in Washington or the major news media to change from what it has been.

For whatever it is worth

in my opinion Obama seems to be trying to wind down the myth and end the war in Afghanistan, and he did pull the troops out of Iraq.

One has to realize that it would have probably been political suicide in 2008 for Obama to simply come out for a new 911 investigation. I am not sure he would ever support it, as he told George Stephenopolous that he wanted to look to the future and move forward when asked about a new investigation as president-elect in December 2008. He may feel it could do more harm than good in the sense of possibly bringing down the government, with a possibility of going from a frying pan to a fire and losing the chance to change things from within, which I believe he feels has a better chance of succeeding.

However, I don't think he agrees with those who perpetrated it and their agenda, as he is for renewable energies and real energy independence against the largely Republican position of only supporting non-renewables like oil, coal, and dangerous nuclear fission in its present form.

My instinct here is that Barack Obama believes a frontal attack on this issue is not viable and would prove futile since the opposition had time to create the public perception ahead of time and is still entrenched enough in government to stop him on it and possibly shelve everything he wants to do if he gives them that ammunition. However, given enough time and public education by groups like AE911Truth that equation may change.

I do not want to argue the points here and am only putting them out to engender thought. I did identify them as opinion and instinct based on what is going on.

More food for thought, FWIW

Okay--opinions, instincts, food for thought. I can appreciate that, and have some of my own.

First of all, something I think no one should be mistaken about--but that many still are--is that Obama and Panetta in fact sought to extend the U.S. occupation in Iraq. Only when they were unable to persuade the Iraqi government to drop its requirement that U.S. troops be subject to Iraqi courts did they desist from these efforts and comply with the December 2011 withrdrawal date that had been negotiated by the Bush administration in 2008. It is arguable that revelations of U.S. war crimes provided by wiki leaks stiffened the resolve of the Iraqi government to resist these appeals from the Obama administration (whose position on wiki lieaks is well known):

http://www.salon.com/2011/10/23/wikileaks_cables_and_the_iraq_war/

People often seem to me to project onto public figures, and into their thoughts, the beliefs, opinions, and inclinations which they wish them to have (the imagery which this sometimes brings to mind for me is of someone dying of thirst in the desert who imagines there is an oasis in front of them). Point out evidence to the contrary regarding this public figure, and the reaction from supporters is sometimes reminiscent of that of a battered spouse: 'But that's not really him.'

Regarding issues relating to energy for example, I've encountered opponents of gas fracking who imagine that Obama is on their side, when the truth is anything but:

http://www.cantonrep.com/news/x1107515432/Obama-on-fracking-I-am-a-big-promoter-of-natural-gas

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57478320/fracking-boon-could-boost-obama-in-ohio/

I do understand that the question of transitioning away from non-renewables includes more than one's stand on the issue of fracking, but I do think it's important to point this out. As I expect there are important points about it that you could raise.

That it would have been political suicide to come out for a new 9/11 investigation in 2008 is no reason for me to believe Obama ever wanted one. The change from within that he would like to achieve means changes that do not alienate the most powerful interests. I expect that uncovering the truth of 9/11 and the widespread public awakening that that would entail is something which will consistenly be found to be incompatible with those interests.

Of course I am grateful for the continuing public education efforts of AE 911 Truth and others, and whatever awakening, and pressures on public officials, may be achieved.

Thought re. interviewing potentially uncooperative folk..

It is easy to say this in hindsight, but perhaps when trying to interview, or pass 9/11 information along to someone who may be be potentially unreceptive (as in this case), maybe it would be a good idea to wait at the *end* of the line when there is nobody behind you. Amy was clearly using the excuse of " I can't give you any time now because there are a bunch of people behind you, all waiting their turn" to have their book signed... and she was justified in doing so. In these situations, it would also be better to wait, because when there are fewer people in the room, the sound will be of better quality and far more intelligible, on account of less ambient noise (conversation, scraping chairs etc). Video cameras with inbuilt microphones will pick up everything, and often the words of the interviewee are often hard to pick out in book signing encounters or similar.

It would also have been great to have taken up Ms. Goodman's offer to re-read the "Active Thermitic Material" study,, and filmed her receiving it the so she could be called on it in a future potential encounter. Just my 2¢.