Gag Order

[rwguinn]

Just because we haven't seen any evidence of a gag order doesn't prove there isn't one though. It just means we haven't seen any and therefore cannot assume there is one. But again, it doesn't prove there isn't one.

The main point being that there are plausible circumstances such as a gag order or simply privileges that prevent them from speaking. And this does not in any way prove any kind of conspiracy. It simply means that there could have been some legitimate merit to the original source before it was spun into a conspiracy.

And again (while I disagree since there are several key trials coming up, one involving the very mastermind of 9/11) even if there is no trial that could warrant an order, there likely could have been at some point in time when the author who wrote the claim was doing research. Many such claims are actually pretty old, and it's likely that this one originated many years ago before the Mussaoui Trial.

frrom a total layman's perspective, and being engineering logical (as opposed to lawyer logical);
The purpose of a gag order is to keep the involved parties from prejudicing the public--"trying the case in the media" as it were.. The only way this makes any sense is to make the gag order public, so that the involved parties can cite it as the reason they aren't talking, rather than because they have something to hide.
I know that if one is in legal trouble, the first thing the lawyer says is "Don't talk to anyone. Make no statements!". The News media can then say "He DECLINED to commenton advice of attorney", of, if they think you're actually guilty and want to prejudice people, "He REFUSED to make comment..."

 

[beachnut]

You mean mainstream media journalists reports like this...

The UFO Phenomenon -- Seeing Is Believing
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Primetime/story?id=468496

Fox News: Al Qaeda is causing the CA wildfires.

Wedding Picture Appears Paranormal
An Aurora couple has a photo that appears to have a demon in it.
Again from Fox News.

Does your house have ghosts?-CNN

So you are judging media by the stories and the topics they write on, not the quality, accuracy, and honesty. It is far better to prove Szymanski wrong by the quality, accuracy, and honesty of his reports rather than the title of his articles.

Failure to make your point; move back 3 threads.

 

[BenBurch]

Sabrina, thanks for the answers and for working to defend the USA.