Hopsicker calls for more investigative journalists

[abenja1]

Obviously, any journalist who doesn't agree with the accusation will be outraged, regardless of what they believe really went down on 911. That's not contradictory - a journalist may suspect MIHOP, e.g., but knows his/her boss would never countenance them spending their time on this, spike any stories suggesting MIHOP, and maybe get fired, in the end, just for trying. Of course, if the journalist believes Condoleeza Rice's lie that "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile." - in other words, not mega-OOPS, but just OOPS - then they will be even more incensed.

Rather more likely, I believe, is that journalists will internalize the values of their professional environment, as described by Noam Chomsky in Necessary Illusions - Thought Control in Democratic Societies. See pp. 10 - 12, where Chomsky describes journalists often meeting very high standards, the problem being "choice of topics and highlighting of issues, the range of opinion permitted expression, the unquestioned premises that guide reporting and commentary, and the general framework imposed for the presentation of a certain view of the world".

Oh, the irony of Chomsky not applying such an analysis to 911 matters. Why bother, since, according to Chomsky, the issues raised by 911 Truthers is based on "rumors"! (Implying that there's nothing more.) But I digress.

Such a properly indoctrinated journalist is also likely to be outraged, since they will treat the very premise as a total lie.

William Pepper reported that reporters he talked to regarding the MLK trial frankly told him that they wouldn't report the full truth because it would "cost them their jobs". So, considering how many journalists there are and different media outlets, it's also got to be the case that there are LIHOP'ers and MIHOP'ers amongst them, but they are keeping their mouths shut, for fear of losing their jobs. If you told a journalist such as this that they are helping to cover up a mass murder, they may agree with you, and then (correctly) point out that there's not a lot that they can do about it, unless they're willing to risk their job, and they likely would never get printed before they got the axe, anyway.

In short, the answer depends on the journalist, but even enumerating likely cases give no cause for believing that 911 Truther's are helping their case by making such accusations. I suppose you might find an occasional journalist who is not indoctrinated, believes in either LIHOP or MIHOP, is willing to suffer the consequences of bucking the system (which will be painful, financially and professionally), but plunges in, despite everything. You know, prodded by a 911 Truther who's shamed them by accusations of participating in a coverup.

A question: How long will such a journalist last? If they're financially like most Americans, probably not too long. Which is one reason that I am calling for crowd-funding of investigative journalists. Any activist notion which ignores financial realities is shooting itself in the foot.

Another problem is access. Evidence is often held by the (corrupt) government. Even journalists in the system can't get access. Who in their right mind thinks that the Pentagon, e.g., will turn over it's videos of whatever hit it to an independent journalist, and not turn it over to the NY Times? Even our hypothetical, completely ethical, non-indoctrinated journalist will not have a free run of evidence, even if he/she should win the Lotto and not have to worry about feeding his/her family.

So, the greatest opportunity lies in something like the gumshoe work of a Daniel Hopsicker. The government can hide evidence, but hiding people is another matter. I think Hopsicker has claimed that the names of the German couple who helped Atta get to Germany have still not been made public.* I find it hard to believe that gumshoe work cannot ferret out this information, as well as additional information about their associates.

A far more interesting question would regard completely independent journalists who are not beholden to power, and financially completely independent. Two that I can think of are Greg Palast (I don't think he draws a salary, anymore, from a UK paper, but I'm not really sure) and Gary Null.

Greg Palast, AFAIK, just believe in OOPS, and has called Professor Jones a "fruitcake". Gary Null, OTOH, has stated on air (IIRC) that the air defence response was so poor that it had to have been tampered with, and he did have Mike Ruppert on as a guest. I don't know what his position is, nowadays, and I don't think he's done any original investigative reporting on the subject, like Daniel Hopsicker. Considering all of the big players and corruption that Gary Null regularly takes on, it would be absurd to accuse him of helping in a coverup. E.g., he once had a series of 1 hour radio programs, consisting about roughly 50 segments, on the JFK assassination. As he puts it, "there is so much evidence of a conspiracy that you could drive a truck through it". Definitely not your knee-jerk conspiracy-denier.... So, the right question to put to Gary Null is probably "if you haven't done any investigative reporting into the 911 conspiracy, what are you waiting for?"

OTOH, if you told Palast that he was helping in a coverup, he'd probably call you a fruitcake.

* I'm embarrassed to say I've forgotten, already, but don't want to check it out, right now.

Let's take Seymour Hersh. He could be considered the modern king of investigative journalism. If 9/11 was an inside job, it would be already published with his name under it. However, if Seymour Hersh decided to investigate 9/11 and came up with nothing, he would be called a shill, tool, or any other term. It's a no-win situation because journalists have nothing but flimsy evidence to go on, and when truthers are told that, the name calling starts and journalists are called co-conspirators. Have you read Morgan Reynolds? The genius wrote this: "The public will find out that Katie Couric, Peter Jennings Charles Gibson and the beloved leadership of corporate media were accessories to mass murder. Media are the enforcement arm of the powers-that-be, the mind control engine, the propaganda matrix. " You really think you will get help from the same people that are being accused by your groups, truthers, of being murderers?

 

[Brainster]

I'm sure every investigative reporter on the planet has been pitched this story, and they've taken about ten minutes to figure out it's a tissue of lies.

 

[sleahead]

=Brainster;3726628]I'm sure every investigative reporter on the planet has been pitched this story, and they've taken about ten minutes to figure out it's a tissue of lies.

Absolutely. There are news ogranisations and journalists outside America who would love to serve up Bush's head on a platter about 9/11 or anything else, but they haven't done so. Wonder why, twoofers?

As regards verifying Hopsicker, I would like Hopsicker to publish the full, unedited, untwoofified emails he received from Mohamed Arajaki.

 

[metamars]

What "specific example" and what "general point" were you attempting to illustrate? Neither is even remotely clear from your prior post.

The general point is that a truly independent journalist, unafraid of and not indoctrinated against challenging power, will have even less access to evidence than journalists in the system.

The NY Times journalists are "in the system", while Gary Null, e.g., is not. If the Pentagon is ever going to show any of the numerous videos that they have of whatever struck the Pentagon, who do you think they're going to do this with, a NY Times reporter, or Gary Null? Of course, the NY Times reporter. So, the case of the Pentagon + it's video evidence + {Gary Null vs. NY Times journalist} constitute the specific example.

On the other hand, being a NY Times reporter gives no advantage, wrt contacting people who are not tucked away in some government vault. As, for example, the people that Daniel Hopsicker interviewed in Florida.

Speaking of evidence, if NIST ever decides to allow a 3rd party to take samples from the "meteor" which they are hogging, do you that it will more likely be somebody from Popular Mechanics, or the Scholars of 911 Truth and Justice? That latter aren't investigative journalists, but do some investigation, and are outside of the system.

 

[metamars]

Let's take Seymour Hersh. He could be considered the modern king of investigative journalism. If 9/11 was an inside job, it would be already published with his name under it. However, if Seymour Hersh decided to investigate 9/11 and came up with nothing, he would be called a shill, tool, or any other term. It's a no-win situation because journalists have nothing but flimsy evidence to go on, and when truthers are told that, the name calling starts and journalists are called co-conspirators. Have you read Morgan Reynolds? The genius wrote this: "The public will find out that Katie Couric, Peter Jennings Charles Gibson and the beloved leadership of corporate media were accessories to mass murder. Media are the enforcement arm of the powers-that-be, the mind control engine, the propaganda matrix. " You really think you will get help from the same people that are being accused by your groups, truthers, of being murderers?

I've already answered this question, and at some length. How do you interpret my statement

In short, the answer depends on the journalist, but even enumerating likely cases give no cause for believing that 911 Truther's are helping their case by making such accusations.

? Did you misunderstand what I wrote, or did you just miss it?

 

[metamars]

I'm sure every investigative reporter on the planet has been pitched this story, and they've taken about ten minutes to figure out it's a tissue of lies.

Baloney. Sander Hicks is almost surely a counter-example, and I would guess Gary Null is, also. Your guess is duly noted, but I'm not impressed.

One way to find out what independent investigative journalists, who have a history of challenging power and not self-censoring their work, in a manner that Noam Chomsky would recognize, know of Hopsicker's work, and what they think about it, is to ask them. In fact, unless you're psychic (in which case, the Amazing Randi has a big prize for you), that's probably the only way to find out. If you decide to make a survey, do let us know what you found out, won't you?

I've already seen how "debunkers" presume to speak for the civil engineering community, without having asked them, so arguments relying on an implicit psychism don't impress me.

However, if you want to amuse us, why don't you give us a report of truly independent investigative journalists who you have contacted, yourself, with the questions "Do you know of Daniel Hopsicker's work"? and "Do you believe that it deserves to be independently verified? If not, why not?"

 

[metamars]

Absolutely. There are news ogranisations and journalists outside America who would love to serve up Bush's head on a platter about 9/11 or anything else, but they haven't done so. Wonder why, twoofers?

Ahhh-h-h-h, it's quite presumptuous to think that even the most dedicated journalist could expand on Hopsicker's information to the extent of being able to connect the 911 plot, starting from Mohammed Atta, all the way back to Bush. Lacking subpoena power and access to classified documents, I'd be stunned if anybody could do so.

Also, as far as I can tell, it's atypical for investigative journalists to do foreign scandals. E.g., Gary Null has probably covered corruption of the American FDA hundreds of times. I'd guess that he's covered corruption of foreign equivalents zero times.

Even so, this is an interesting question. Perhaps somebody will actually investigate it, and be able to inform us with more than just a guess, dubiously presented as inevitable fact.

 

[metamars]

One way to find out what independent investigative journalists, who have a history of challenging power and not self-censoring their work, in a manner that Noam Chomsky would recognize, know of Hopsicker's work, and what they think about it, is to ask them.

Ooo, this was a particularly bad choice of words. Noam Chomsky is quite the theoretician, but when it comes to 911, and other famous conspiracies, "recognize" is not the right word. He's a good guy, but he is ironically well described by his own words, in the quote I posted earlier from Necessary Illusions.

Perhaps I should have said "normally would have recognized, had it not been for his blind spot regarding evidence for conspiracy".

 

[sleahead]

Ahhh-h-h-h, it's quite presumptuous to think that even the most dedicated journalist could expand on Hopsicker's information to the extent of being able to connect the 911 plot, starting from Mohammed Atta, all the way back to Bush. Lacking subpoena power and access to classified documents, I'd be stunned if anybody could do so.

I wasn't thinking about Hopsicker's work in particular, but 911 conspiracy theories in general.

Also, as far as I can tell, it's atypical for investigative journalists to do foreign scandals. E.g., Gary Null has probably covered corruption of the American FDA hundreds of times. I'd guess that he's covered corruption of foreign equivalents zero times.

This maybe so in the US, but here in the UK TV and print journalists are most assuredly interested in scandals in the US, and the 9/11 conpiracy claims represent one huge scandal. You think no journalist has taken a look? Monbiot has.

Do you agree that Hopsicker should publish the Arajaki emails?

 

[abenja1]

Metamars, you seem to think journalists would be afraid. Were journalists afraid with Watergate? CIA Prisons? Abu Gahrib?

 

[metamars]

This maybe so in the US, but here in the UK TV and print journalists are most assuredly interested in scandals in the US, and the 9/11 conpiracy claims represent one huge scandal. You think no journalist has taken a look? Monbiot has.

"Taken a look" might be weasel words for "taken a cursory look, then decided my job wasn't worth it". Whoever Monbiot is, please explain to us if he has taken more than a cursory look, as would be evidenced, e.g., by setting foot in Venice, FL, and talking to some of the people that Hopsicker talked to. He can then inform us whether Hopsicker's tales of FBI people showing up weekly to intimidate these witnesses is true or not. Hopefully, with these people on video. Especially the tough vet Hopsicker talked about - he sounds like a real hoot.

Do you agree that Hopsicker should publish the Arajaki emails?

Sure, why not? If they're BS, why should Hopsicker be afraid of them? Indeed, whatever details lie therein might prove fertile ground for showing either that Hopsicker made stuff up, or somebody was making stuff up for Hopsicker's detriment. In other words, leads to pursue should the 911 Truth community ever correct it's current failure and pony up the cash to fund investigative journalists, as Hopsicker himself has called for. (sort of)

For that matter, has Arajaki published his emails? If not, why not? Can we interview him? Take his picture and show it to Amanda Keller's stripper ex-co-workers to see if they recognize him? (Along with Mohammed Atta's picture, of course.)

 

[metamars]

Metamars, you seem to think journalists would be afraid. Were journalists afraid with Watergate? CIA Prisons? Abu Gahrib?

Were the reporters that William Pepper talked to afraid of losing their jobs? If we take them at their word, yes they were.

 

[Major_Tom]

Metamars, you have some interesting ideas. Some questions:

1) Are there any organizations or websites within the 911 Truth community that use the system of asking for small donations to focus towards investigative journalists that seem promising to you?


2) Have you noticed how groups like STJ911 and the website by Jim Hoffman are very agenda-driven? It is as if they are not investigating anything honestly.

Take, for example, the STJ911 forum, of which you are a member. It is unilaterally controlled by one moderator who seems intent on destroying any useful discussion or research direction before they produce fruit.

Do you remember how Lon Waters, the only person who was working in the direction of producing a FEM of WTC 1 and 2 received basically no support or help whatsoever?

Unfortunately, less scientific but popular sites like 911 Blogger rely almost exclusively on Steven Jones, STJ911, AE911T ect...for their technical facts.

In short, do you see how the domination of groups such as these over technical facts and research focus (or lack of) has put a strangle-hold over the possiblility of progress such as you describe?


3) Concerning knowing the truth about what actually happened to WTC 1 and 2, there are 2 straightforward ways this could have been done

a) A decent forensic study of core and perimeter column sections from the collapse initiation zone.

b) A decent FEM of the towers focusing on the unknowns behind collapse initiation.

The criminal destruction of evidence has ruined the possibilities of (a).

Metamars, why do you think the research groups involved in 911 truth have been so ignorant concerning the importance of a decent FEM?



The ideas you propose about using small donations are good. But the sites already established to do this are lost in self-perpetuating assumptions concerning what are important directions for follow-up and what are not.

Dominated by people like "Vic", one of the only questions remaining is whether the group STJ911 is intentionally destroying itself or whether it is just happening by accident.


Note: An independent analysis of WTC dust samples would be nice but it seems that Steven Jones is in sole possession of them and isn't in the mood to share. An independent examination could possibly be done free of charge if Steven would simply let others see more than a handful of spectra.


I have other questions but this forms a fair introduction.

 

[DGM]

The criminal destruction of evidence has ruined the possibilities of (a).

.

Not to derail but please stop lying.

 

[sleahead]

"Taken a look" might be weasel words for "taken a cursory look, then decided my job wasn't worth it". Whoever Monbiot is, please explain to us if he has taken more than a cursory look, as would be evidenced, e.g., by setting foot in Venice, FL, and talking to some of the people that Hopsicker talked to. He can then inform us whether Hopsicker's tales of FBI people showing up weekly to intimidate these witnesses is true or not. Hopefully, with these people on video. Especially the tough vet Hopsicker talked about - he sounds like a real hoot..

Again, I talking about 9/11 conpiracy theories in general when I mentioned Monbiot, not specifically about Hopsicker's work. He has not to my knowledge looked at Hopsicker's work, nor should anyone bother, in my opinion. Not at least until Hopsicker clarifies what he actually believes. He has Atta living with Keller in the Spring of 2000 here, but here here it is the Spring 2001?

Sure, why not? If they're BS, why should Hopsicker be afraid of them? Indeed, whatever details lie therein might prove fertile ground for showing either that Hopsicker made stuff up, or somebody was making stuff up for Hopsicker's detriment. In other words, leads to pursue should the 911 Truth community ever correct it's current failure and pony up the cash to fund investigative journalists, as Hopsicker himself has called for. (sort of)

Are any of Hopsicker's fanboys calling for him publish these, or am I alone in doing so?

For that matter, has Arajaki published his emails? If not, why not? Can we interview him? Take his picture and show it to Amanda Keller's stripper ex-co-workers to see if they recognize him? (Along with Mohammed Atta's picture, of course.)

As far as I'm aware, Arajaki has not published these emails. If he's the real deal, why should he? He was just pointing out to Hopsicker that Keller was a liar and that he was her boyfriend, not Atta. Can we interview him? Ask Hopsicker, he has the contact details. Can we have his picture? Ask Hopsicker, he may have one.

 

[metamars]

Again, I talking about 9/11 conpiracy theories in general when I mentioned Monbiot, not specifically about Hopsicker's work. He has not to my knowledge looked at Hopsicker's work, nor should anyone bother, in my opinion. Not at least until Hopsicker clarifies what he actually believes. He has Atta living with Keller in the Spring of 2000 here, but here here it is the Spring 2001?

Wow, what a stark inconsistency. It's hard to believe that these stories would have remained on his web site like this, for so long. I sent him an email about this. If he replies, I'll post.

Are any of Hopsicker's fanboys calling for him publish these, or am I alone in doing so?

How on earth would I know?

As far as I'm aware, Arajaki has not published these emails. If he's the real deal, why should he? He was just pointing out to Hopsicker that Keller was a liar and that he was her boyfriend, not Atta. Can we interview him? Ask Hopsicker, he has the contact details. Can we have his picture? Ask Hopsicker, he may have one.

See http://www.madcowprod.com/05022005.html

Hopsicker is claiming that Mohammed Arajaki was an alias of M. Atta, as per the Finnish government. Unfortunately, he gives no reference to support this. (Though he mentions Amanda Keller, herself, as stating this.) However, he does show a reproduction of a microfiche version of the Sarasota Herald Tribune quoting Amanda's sister, saying "He would leer." and "God was he creepy."


Furthermore, he shows a pictures of whoever it is that is claiming to be Arajaki, sent by 'Arajaki'. He looks nothing like Mohammed Atta. The picture is of a handsome man, who doesn't leer, and doesn't look creepy.

Furthermore, the Sandpiper apartment manager id'ed the Mohammed Atta that we all know and hate as the one that was at Keller's apartment.

But Amanda Keller was far from alone in identifying Mohamed Atta as the man she had lived with for several months. In the days after the attack every one of the local newspapers in the area—the Sarasota Herald Tribune, Charlotte Sun, and Venice Gondolier—ran eyewitness accounts of Atta at the Sandpiper, across the street from the Venice Airport.

"Charles Grapentine, the manager of Sandpiper Apartments on Airport Avenue in Venice, said he remembers seeing Atta at the complex for about three weeks in April. He said Atta was living in the apartment of Amanda Keller."

"In a telephone interview late Friday, Keller said she met Atta through a friend and let him stay in the apartment with her and her then-boyfriend, Garrett Metts, because she felt sorry for him. She said authorities told her not to say anything at all about Atta," the paper reported.

"I can't really discuss anything," she said. "I'm afraid I'll get in trouble."

Mr. Garrett Metts would be a good person to talk to, also, don't you think? Wouldn't most men know something about live-in guests of their girlfriends?

In short, the handsome-Mohammed-living-with-Amanda theory looks to be total BS. Still, I see no harm in publishing 'his' emails verbatim. (Considering the JREF rules for publishing emails verbatim, Hopsicker might require permission from 'Arajaki', first.)

 

[metamars]

Metamars, you have some interesting ideas. Some questions:

1) Are there any organizations or websites within the 911 Truth community that use the system of asking for small donations to focus towards investigative journalists that seem promising to you?

Not that I know of. The reason that I make posts calling for this is in the hope of helping to bring it into being. As the infrastructure for these sorts of efforts takes a mature form (again, see newassignment.net), I'm optimistic that it will be applied to worthy causes, even if it doesn't catch on in the 911 sphere.

I think it still could, if there was a unified effort across the world to push it by 911 activists. Most likely, though, this won't happen, 911 having happened a few years to early, so to speak.

2) Have you noticed how groups like STJ911 and the website by Jim Hoffman are very agenda-driven? It is as if they are not investigating anything honestly.

Take, for example, the STJ911 forum, of which you are a member. It is unilaterally controlled by one moderator who seems intent on destroying any useful discussion or research direction before they produce fruit.

Most of the membership isn't active, and it certainly seems to me that most published articles have single authors. When you say that it seems that "they" are not investigating anything honestly, not only are you not talking about most of the membership, but you're suggesting collusion that hides it's tracks well, by utilizing the (mostly) distinct efforts of members.

As for being "agenda-driven", as I mentioned to gurich, America is in the dumps because citizens don't take part sufficiently, so joining a 911 group is a fine thing. But you're almost asking for trouble if you mix politics and science, and when you wear your science hat, you have to completely forget about politics. (To the best of your ability, anyway.) I find the ability of some of our members to separate these two functions to be wanting, to say the least.

Do you remember how Lon Waters, the only person who was working in the direction of producing a FEM of WTC 1 and 2 received basically no support or help whatsoever?

Yes, unfortunately. That's because of the low amount of participation, not because there was a conspiracy to marginalize his work.

Unfortunately, less scientific but popular sites like 911 Blogger rely almost exclusively on Steven Jones, STJ911, AE911T ect...for their technical facts.

That's not unexpected, considering the large amounts of credentialed individuals who have signed up. However, if your point is that stj911 and ae911truth enjoy a perception of having vetted their information properly beyond what is deserved, I agree with you. Unfortunately.

In short, do you see how the domination of groups such as these over technical facts and research focus (or lack of) has put a strangle-hold over the possiblility of progress such as you describe?

I'd never really thought of it that way, but it's possible. I tend to think of lack of verification of Hopsicker's work (to give an example of investigative reporting that could have been performed, but has not) and low level of techinical analysis, especially computer FEM's, by stj911, as having in common a lack of money, which, in turn,was and is made almost inevitable for the same reason. The institutions which should be performing these functions (basically government and media) have failed. They're the ones with the bucks. Thanks to the internet, though, there was and is an option for funding, which has been demonstrated in this Presidential election cycle. And that is crowd-funding. Crowd-funding would have solved both problems, though you could argue that stj911/investigative journalism would have competed for the same dollars.

3) Concerning knowing the truth about what actually happened to WTC 1 and 2, there are 2 straightforward ways this could have been done

a) A decent forensic study of core and perimeter column sections from the collapse initiation zone.

b) A decent FEM of the towers focusing on the unknowns behind collapse initiation.

The criminal destruction of evidence has ruined the possibilities of (a).

Metamars, why do you think the research groups involved in 911 truth have been so ignorant concerning the importance of a decent FEM?

I don't think they're ignorant. It's just that, if nobody is paying for such an analysis, the only alternative is volunteer efforts. Furthermore, even with a budget of, say, $30 million, I'm still not confident that computer horsepower is there to follow a collapse through the first 4 seconds, let's say. Lon was only looking to follow the example of the research done in China, but I want to see a FEM with hydrodynamics, and all. Unless I see plumes falling out of the FEM, I'm not likely to believe it's just wind.

The ideas you propose about using small donations are good. But the sites already established to do this are lost in self-perpetuating assumptions concerning what are important directions for follow-up and what are not.

Dominated by people like "Vic", one of the only questions remaining is whether the group STJ911 is intentionally destroying itself or whether it is just happening by accident.

It's hard to know what's really going on in somebody else's head. If you take "Vic" at face value, she is trying to protect stj911, not destroy it. However, I'm really disillusioned by the sleight to gurich, so much so that I'm thinking of quitting. I'm also not happy with the fact that Greening's reasonable questions regarding microspheres have not been answered, AFAIK.

Who knows, maybe someday there will be a credentialed, moderated JREF forum, where only scientists and engineers can post, and ideas with no support simply get very little response, rather a moderator deciding what is acceptable and what should be marginalized into a "debunking" forum.

Note: An independent analysis of WTC dust samples would be nice but it seems that Steven Jones is in sole possession of them and isn't in the mood to share. An independent examination could possibly be done free of charge if Steven would simply let others see more than a handful of spectra.

By whom? And why do you say that he is not in a mood to share?

 

[johnny karate]

Since I'm not about to read through his numerous long and rambling posts, could someone tell me if metamars ever offers a remotely plausible explanation why the entire worldwide media decided unanimously to not report the "truth" behind the murder of 3,000 people from over 90 countries and the subsequent conspiracy to cover it up?

 

[MarkyX]

Were the reporters that William Pepper talked to afraid of losing their jobs? If we take them at their word, yes they were.

Is that what your argument comes down to? "9/11 was an inside job and anyone who disagrees with me is afraid" ?

Seriously?

 

[fullflavormenthol]

Since I'm not about to read through his numerous long and rambling posts, could someone tell me if metamars ever offers a remotely plausible explanation why the entire worldwide media decided unanimously to not report the "truth" behind the murder of 3,000 people from over 90 countries and the subsequent conspiracy to cover it up?

Nope. He is stalling with the ol' "they are afraid" and "they are part of the conspiracy" arguments. Well I think he is also stuck on the media being corporate controlled. Of course ignoring any of the respected independent media outlets.