C-Span 911 symposium (VIDEO)

[mogster]

9/11 American Scholars Symposium Panel Discussion

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4258946892514662399

[BelgianMadCow]

1. a quick recommend for a worthy video, caught it yesterday too

things like this should NOT go down the memory hole.
Or to the basement, but that is just imho.

Thanks for the link!

[Cobalt Violet]

2. Another quick recommend.

Because you can't recommend from that other forum.:kick:

[BelgianMadCow]

4. my point exactly - be quick on the rec people!

[Cobalt Violet]

5. Good idea.

I watched it last night at 11:00 after work. I hope to see it again. I think it's on a 2:15 EST today.

[Jeanette in FL]

3. Thanks for the link

another K&R, can we get one more to get it on the front page before it disappears.

[mom cat]

6. Thanks so much fot the link mogster.... bookmarked!

:yourock:

[Gin]

7. I watched part of that..and then watched Loose Change 2 video...

very detailed.............very interesting.

[BelgianMadCow]

8. Loose change 2 - got a link?

I saw a 1.5 h documentary that was chilling to the bone, think that was part one, not sure.

*goes looking*

[BelgianMadCow]

9. I you meant loose change 2nd edition, I found it back

my original bookmark was dead, but I found the video on google :

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1519312457137943386&q=Loose+change

It's the one I saw. Three times, actually.

[Gin]

10. google>>>>>>>> loose change .com

this is what I watched...it was the second edition...

http://www.loosechange911.com/

[napi21]

21. I hadn't seen that video before. WOW!

I have to admit, I think people need to watch that one before watching the c-span coverage of the symposium. I think the video give a lot of credibility to the guys on the panel.

The author di sound pretty radical, even to me.

[radfringe]

11. I watched it last night on C-Span

don't know what to think about it...

On one hand they made some very good points, and I do agree the bushies and buddies were involved with 9-11

On the other hand I had a hard time with Bowman and Fertik (sp? the guy with glasses and sideburns) --

Bowman didn't really offer much - he was just spouting his campaign soundbites..

Fertik ranted alot.

Like I said - I agreed with alot of their points...but (please no flames) if I was Joe Six-pack channel surfing and saw this show I would have sloughed it off as a nut-job group...

If they want to go mainstream, they have to get mainstream with their presentations.

[marions ghost]

13. seems to me

this was well within Joe Sixpak's scope of understanding. I don't sell Joe so short.

Anyway I would not say Joe Sixpak is the "mainstream." Only a percentage of mainstream.

We are all so used to the lies. It's hard for the average person to accept the implications, no matter what the presentation.

[radfringe]

14. poor choice of terms

by Joe sixpack I meant the general public.

I know enough about 9-11 and am skeptical enough about the bush explaination so I was willing enough to get past the "first impressions" - but how much would the general public be in getting past the initial impression of the panel?

The appearances of the panelists do count - perhaps even more than what they say in getting people to listen for the first time.

I'm not discounting or poo-pooing what they had to say - just commenting on the presentation as a whole. It's a matter of marketing as much as getting the truth out there.

If someone is not perceived as being credible - it won't matter how much truth they speak, the general public isn't going to listen.

Just look at how bush is presented to the public - he's neatly dressed in a suit and tie, splashy backdrops, "haloed" photos, flags, military personel and/or a crowd behind him. All the window-dressing and eye-candy to give him an air of credibility.

Once you have stopped being dazzled by the props and really listen to him - then you start to question his credibility.

now, I'm not saying this group needs marching bands and a laser light show - but they do need to be aware that they need to present an air of professionalism and credibility.

According to the polls, the public is pretty much disgusted with bush - this is good because it opens their minds to other possibilities - like those presented by the 9-11 panel.

[marions ghost]

15. OK

I don't see how you use "Joe Sixpak" as being equivalent to the general public. The term "Joe Sixpak" is a derogatory term for working class people, implying they are all beer-guzzling ignoramuses. Which I think is not true. Some, but certainly not all. And they are a fraction of the general public.

But beyond that categorization, what exactly did you find to be "unprofessional" about the panel? What kind of bad impression did they make on you? You can't expect perfection in this kind of unrehearsed panel discussion, but I thought they did a good job getting the main issues across. Did you want it to seem more polished or something? I thought this presentation was very dignified and the presenters credible.

I think 'the general public' IS tired of the "window-dressing." They see it as false now.

[radfringe]

16. The presentation

seemed disjointed with each person presenting their theory

One is pointing only at the bushies, another is pointing at a world-wide conspiracy, a third is saying it's the military-industrial complex and the fourth just gave his campaign soundbites

The moderator seemed extremely concerned over the time (i.e. move along we only have 2 hours of TV time so lets cram as much info as possible in the time allowed)

The general public is tired of window-dressing.

ok, I've been biting my tongue about this, and I'll probably get flamed for putting it bluntly - but based on first impressions (this being the first time I saw this group) - they came across like a bunch of tin-foil hatters, complete with a tinfoil bio-suit.

In our world - the MESSENGER is as important as the MESSAGE.

Sorry if this upsets you.

That being said - I agree with the premise of their theories and do not knock the information presented. But if they want to get the info out there in the mainstream they have to look mainstream, and that may require sprucing up the windows

[FourScore]

17. Absolutely, radfringe!

You are so right. I convinced my mother (a very liberal woman who refused to believe the gov't had anything to do with 9-11)and my husband to watch this show. My Mom sat and watched the entire thing. Her response today was quite in line with what you are saying. She thought Steve Jones was the best presenter. Otherwise, she found the things the others were saying as compelling, but their presentations were so obnoxious (for lack of a better word) that it actually took away from the message. She used Alex Jones as an example. She said he sounded shrill, whereas if he had just presented the evidence in a less aggressive fashion then it would have been easier to listen to for such a long length of time. She thought the content was very compelling, but said they weakened their case with their verbal barrage. They just came across as nutty. Thank goodness she is open minded.

My husband was also very interested in the content, but thought everyone but Steve Jones came across as wacky because they made alot of bold statements without substantiating any of it. It was sort of like they were preaching to the choir. For those who are hearing this info for the first time, a more detailed, level-headed explanation about the PNAC and their motives would have been more helpful. Or a more comprehensive explanation of the military stand-down. My husband is an engineer with an MBA. He needs substantiated facts. Not bold unsubstantiated yelling. They really needed to tone down their presentation and be more thoughtful to the listener hearing this for the first time.

Everyone knows they are angry, but shouting at the listener was uncalled for. It seemed more like a tinfoil hat cheerleading session. And I am a complete MIHOP believer and supporter.

The good things: my Mom and my husband are truly considering what they heard last night. They are both very disturbed by it. My husband watched the WTC7 videos online after the show. He is quiet about it now which means he is processing what he heard. My mother wants more info but is very afraid they may be right. Both of them said it was Steve Jones' thoughtful presentation that gave the show any credibility.

I think it's great they got on c-span and I applaud c-span for airing the show. It's a great start. I do think there is room for much improvement on presentation.

There will be other opportunities. People are waking up to this more and more every day.

Incidentally, I would really love to see Russell Pikering from http://pentagonresearch.com/index.html and Jim Hoffman from http://911research.wtc7.net/ on a panel with Dr. Steven Jones next time. I think that would be supurb!

[marions ghost]

18. different pitches

for different folks I guess. I think all the presenters could ever hope to do was spur viewers into doing some research themselves. The panelists only had time to give them the gist. As far as the showing of passion, for ex--Bob Bowman, well that appeals to some and not others. These days a little fiery rhetoric is rare...it's rare to see anyone show they care. It didn't bother me--made me want to know more about his background and why he is running on this. It certainly didn't make me feel he lacked credibility. I was glad to hear someone say they want to get to the bottom of this. There are too many questions.

[marions ghost]

19. Nothing upsets me at all

say what you think. But I just thought they couldn't have done a lot to improve on "appearances." I preferred this to staged and rehearsed speechmaking anyday. I think the mainstream viewer can sort out that these are different perspectives and opinions--which always seems "disjointed."

I don't think people trust "slick" anymore, not after the Booshies and the DeLays and the Lays.

[BelgianMadCow]

12. both "Loose change" and this panel are gems

hopefully, enough people still wonder...

[mirandapriestly]

20. The link doesn't work for me

Did anyone else have a problem?

[napi21]

22. Which one did you try? I tried the direct one and it didn't work for me

byt I did the google one and it was fine! BEWARE, it's 1 1/2 hours long! I didn't realize that, and I had to make dinner in the middle of watching it.

Here's the one I used:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1519312457137943386&q=Loose+change