Remember the CT that the flight 93 picture was fake?

[Jonnyclueless]

Remember how 9/11 cultists claimed that the picture of the smoke cloud was fake because a plane impact couldn't produce a dark colored cloud and that only a missile (or weapon of choice) could?

Here's an article with pictures from the Madrid plane crash and guess what color the smoke is? And guess what incident it looks similar to.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,425382,00.html

[steve s]

[CT mode]An obvious false flag op.:cool:[/CT mode]

Steve S

[Jontg]

But seriously, can we find a better source than Fox News? If they told me the sky was blue, I'd go check.

[firecoins]

But seriously, can we find a better source than Fox News?
Does the black cloud lean to the right?

[Jontg]

It's just that no Truther's going to be convinced by a Fox News article--to them, it's not just a propaganda outlet, it's literally incapable of telling the truth.

[Jonnyclueless]

I intentionally used Fox news. There's this misconception that because it says FOX that it's wrong. This is just ignorance that shows many people do not understand the difference between pundits and news. FOX pundits give their biased opinions on politics. That's not the news. A picture is a picture and it didn't come from FOX news. It's going to be the same picture on every news outlet.

[T.A.M.]

Clearly this entire story was fabricated by the Fox News Element of the NWO, in order to quash the "myth" that the Flight 93 Pic was a fake. I bet McClatchey was leading the project.

TAM;)

[jhunter1163]

Does the black cloud lean to the right?

We have a Golden Guffaw winnah!

[Unsecured Coins]

I'm Unsecured Coins, and I approve this Guffaw

[Drudgewire]

Yeah, that one rocked fc. :newlol

[Jontg]

The actual veracity of the outlet notwithstanding, the mere fact that the link is to a FOX website reflects poorly on the user--if I tried to use it, somebody might think I actually watched FOX News.

[Drudgewire]

The actual veracity of the outlet notwithstanding, the mere fact that the link is to a FOX website reflects poorly on the user--if I tried to use it, somebody might think I actually watched FOX News.


I rarely watch news anymore thanks to the speed of the Internet but Megyn Kelly could report names out of the phone book to me all day. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/swoon.gif

[Jontg]

And Palin might once have been mildly attractive back in the Devonian Period. Doesn't mean I'd wanna be seen with her.

[Drudgewire]

And Palin might once have been mildly attractive back in the Devonian Period. Doesn't mean I'd wanna be seen with her.


Chicks with guns are automatically hot.

[Jontg]

Psycho chicks with guns are hot, and then only when they're in their twenties. Palin might be badass if she governed from a cave on the tundra or something. Maybe shot a few people.

[Travis]

Does anyone know of any time that Fox News has actually fabricated something like a picture?

Frankly I don't see any reason one should regard Fox News as being any more unreliable than, say, MSNBC or CNN.

[Travis]

Chicks with guns are automatically hot.

Especially if their name is Summer Glau.....rowr.

[Jontg]

They're a right-wing propaganda outlet; they probably never resort to outright fabrication of evidence, but they're the last source a Truther would believe.

[Jonnyclueless]

They're a right-wing propaganda outlet; they probably never resort to outright fabrication of evidence, but they're the last source a Truther would believe.

Here try this one:



We're not here to make twoofers believe something they already decided not to believe to begin with. The only reliable news source is one that tells them what they already decided. No one here cares what a twoofer believes.

PS - And it's not a right-wing site, nor propaganda outlet.

[Jontg]

I care! I used to be one of these people, they can't be irredeemable! The whole point of debunking is to deconvert Truthers--to help them--not laugh at our own cleverness!

[Smackety]

Here try this one:



We're not here to make twoofers believe something they already decided not to believe to begin with. The only reliable news source is one that tells them what they already decided. No one here cares what a twoofer believes.

PS - And it's not a right-wing site, nor propaganda outlet.

:jaw-dropp

[Jonnyclueless]

Some of you seem to be just as bad as twoofers and just don't get it. Just like twoofers, you ignore actual content and material and instead use automatic stereo-types. How is that any different than what conspiracy theorists do?

I challenge any of you to point out anything that is right-winged in the article I posted. Go right ahead.

[Brainache]

I care! I used to be one of these people, they can't be irredeemable! The whole point of debunking is to deconvert Truthers--to help them--not laugh at our own cleverness!

I see your point, but all of the talking points brought up by Truthers in the last seven years have already been debunked.

All we have left of the TM is a small group of die hard true believers who don't respond to logic.

I also see your point about using Fox news as a source. Truthers will dismiss it out of hand and frankly I don't blame them. Rupert Murdoch is the worst thing to happen to journalism since William Randolph Hearst.

I suppose there will always be a new crop of 15 year-old wanna-be radicals who will fall for this Truther garbage and we need to be here to present truth to them (as opposed to Truth), but the smart ones will probably figure it out for themselves and the crazy ones won't be convinced no matter what we do.

[Smackety]

Some of you seem to be just as bad as twoofers and just don't get it. Just like twoofers, you ignore actual content and material and instead use automatic stereo-types. How is that any different than what conspiracy theorists do?

I challenge any of you to point out anything that is right-winged in the article I posted. Go right ahead.

Oh... in the article you posted, well, that is a whole different set of goalposts isnt it?

[T.A.M.]

Here try this one:



We're not here to make twoofers believe something they already decided not to believe to begin with. The only reliable news source is one that tells them what they already decided. No one here cares what a twoofer believes.

PS - And it's not a right-wing site, nor propaganda outlet.

Sorry Jonny, but I gotta disagree with you on your PS.

While the article in question may be straight up, Fox News, is ABSOLUTELY a Right Wing News Agency. Have you watched Hannity or O'Reilly, their two biggest programs. Have you watched their coverage of the primaries or the election?

I will say that when the topic is NOT POLITICAL, they can be unbiased and informative, but that is where it stops.

TAM:)

[Travis]

Sorry Jonny, but I gotta disagree with you on your PS.

While the article in question may be straight up, Fox News, is ABSOLUTELY a Right Wing News Agency. Have you watched Hannity or O'Reilly, their two biggest programs. Have you watched their coverage of the primaries or the election?

I will say that when the topic is NOT POLITICAL, they can be unbiased and informative, but that is where it stops.

TAM:)

Then we are in agreement that their pundits are biased but their actual news reporting is not.

[T.A.M.]

Then we are in agreement that their pundits are biased but their actual news reporting is not.

I think facts are facts, and that when they provide facts, and I see them verified by multiple news sources, I trust them.

When it comes to the angles they take, and the amount of time they dedicate to various issues, in the political forum, they are CLEARLY RIGHT WING, and I would say almost HOSTILE to those on the other end of the political spectrum.

TAM:)

[jhunter1163]

Then we are in agreement that their pundits are biased but their actual news reporting is not.

And that Megyn Kelly is smokin' hot.

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

I care! I used to be one of these people, they can't be irredeemable! The whole point of debunking is to deconvert Truthers--to help them--not laugh at our own cleverness!

If that's the case I've clearly signed up for the wrong website. :(

I guess it doesn't really matter what the source is. The burden of proof is still on the shoulders of the 9/11 deniers to prove that a plane crash could never cause such a cloud. Claims they don't seem able to back-up.

[msp67]

The burden of proof is still on the shoulders of the 9/11 deniers to prove that a plane crash could never cause such a cloud. Claims they don't seem able to back-up.

Because its nonsens.
Recently, an expert by 'Bundesstelle für Fluguntersuchungen' (the german NTSB)
was shown the McClatchey pic an he confirmed in front of a tv camera:
"This pic is typically for an high speed plane impact. The whole fuel deflagrated and thats it."
I linked for it on my page, especially for german readers... ;=)
mosaik911dehtmlvom_rauchpilz_zur_storyhtml

Sorry, i cant link directly.

[NickUK]

Because its nonsens.
Recently, an expert by 'Bundesstelle für Fluguntersuchungen' (the german NTSB)
was shown the McClatchey pic an he confirmed in front of a tv camera:
"This pic is typically for an high speed plane impact. The whole fuel deflagrated and thats it."
I linked for it on my page, especially for german readers... ;=)
mosaik911dehtmlvom_rauchpilz_zur_storyhtml

Sorry, i cant link directly.

Think this is the link you mean?

http://www.mosaik911.de/html/vom_rauchpilz_zur_story.html

[Jonnyclueless]

Sorry Jonny, but I gotta disagree with you on your PS.

While the article in question may be straight up, Fox News, is ABSOLUTELY a Right Wing News Agency. Have you watched Hannity or O'Reilly, their two biggest programs. Have you watched their coverage of the primaries or the election?

I will say that when the topic is NOT POLITICAL, they can be unbiased and informative, but that is where it stops.

TAM:)

Guys, you can't be serious. This is NOT the FOX news channel. There is no Hannity and Colmes here. This is a news web site. Read any of the news articles and show me the right-wing agenda.

This is NOT pundits. You guys need to learn the difference between news and pundits. ALL pundits are biased and give a political perspective that is left, right, wingnut winged. That's their job. But this is about news.

If people are going to confuse the news with pundits and make generalizations while ignoring the actual content, then that is no different than what CTs do.

[Jontg]

I know the difference. The people I would show this link to don't. That was my point.

[T.A.M.]

Guys, you can't be serious. This is NOT the FOX news channel. There is no Hannity and Colmes here. This is a news web site. Read any of the news articles and show me the right-wing agenda.

This is NOT pundits. You guys need to learn the difference between news and pundits. ALL pundits are biased and give a political perspective that is left, right, wingnut winged. That's their job. But this is about news.

If people are going to confuse the news with pundits and make generalizations while ignoring the actual content, then that is no different than what CTs do.

Pundits aside, it is a part of Fox News, and while as I said, the facts are the facts, and reporting them can be without angle, There is no doubt in my mind, in terms of what is covered, and how much time (or in the website case, space) is dedicated to various stories (ie, how much time is devoted to Reverend Wright, versus REAL coverage on the idiocies of Sarah Palin, how much time is dedicated to "The Surge" versus the "Awakening"), Fox leans heavily Right Wing...

All of that said, as I have not thoroughly looked through their site (couldn't be bothered most times), I will give it the benefit of the doubt, and assume on this non political topic, it is fair and balanced.;)

Personally, I prefer CNN, as it is somewhere in between MSNBC (Seems to lean quite Left now) and Fox (seems to lean very Right), in terms of news coverage. I prefer MSNBC for my punditry.

TAM:)

TAM:)

[ktesibios]

I think I see jontg's point- that twoofers would dismiss anything obtained from Fox News out of hand and probably claim that the picture must have been faked. They do the same thing for any information that comes from any official source.

However, if you read the story on the Fox Web site, it says right up front that it's a wire service story, distributed by the Associated Press. That provides a handy way to trace back to a more original source.

A search on the AP Web site turns up this link (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_SPAIN_PLANE_CRASH?SITE=MABED&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT) to the same story on the South Coast Today site, which, just like the story on the Fox site, explains that the video was "released Thursday on the Web site of the newspaper El Pais".

That in turn leads, via a bit of investiGoogling, to the original story (http://www.elpais.com/articulo/espana/juez/pide/PAIS/cese/difusion/video/accidente/elppgl/20080919elpepunac_18/Tes) on the El Pais Web site, complete with the video. And here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/spain/2984223/Madrid-air-crash-Spanish-newspaper-releases-video.html) is the same video on the Telegraph Web site.

That's the neat thing about wire service stories- they turn up all over the place, so if one secondary source is unpalatable, you have an excellent chance of finding another.

While the CT mentality could well ignore information from Fox, or the Torygraph, it will take some interesting mental contortions to claim that a Spanish newspaper with a Social Democrat orientation which embarrassed the Bush administration by publishing the Bush-Aznar memo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush-Aznar_memo) is under neo-con control.

[leftysergeant]

It is not FOX's tape. It is the tape that the airport released to all newsagncies.

More important than Shanksville, the way the flames propogated is identical in nearly all regards to the way they propogated at the Pentagon.

Clearly, since the two are so alike, the damage at the Pentagon was done by an aircraft full of fuel rather than a missile.

[Jonnyclueless]

I challenge anyone to find a news article on the web site and point out that it is right leaning. If anything FOX web site will report news that isn't preferable to the right-wing before the left-wing based new sites do.

And as mentioned already (and is pretty obvious) , CTers don't find ANY source that does not tell them what they want to hear as being reliable. It doesn't matter if it's FOX, or anyone else. If it doesn't fit their believes, it's government controlled media. If FOX news web site tells them something that fits their beliefs, then for that moment it becomes the most trusted news source available because if the right-wingers (which isn't true) report it, then it REALLY must be twoo.

[JihadJane]

Some of you seem to be just as bad as twoofers and just don't get it.

Wow! That weally is wery tewibble.

[Drudgewire]

Psycho chicks with guns are hot, and then only when they're in their twenties. Palin might be badass if she governed from a cave on the tundra or something. Maybe shot a few people.


Like McCain would have ever picked a running mate who's never emptied a clip into someone. :D

[Travis]

While the CT mentality could well ignore information from Fox, or the Torygraph, it will take some interesting mental contortions to claim that a Spanish newspaper with a Social Democrat orientation which embarrassed the Bush administration by publishing the Bush-Aznar memo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush-Aznar_memo) is under neo-con control.

I none-the-less eagerly anticipate their attempt to do so which will no doubt play off the Bush-Anzar memo as a deliberate bit of disinfo to give them credibility.

[T.A.M.]

And as mentioned already (and is pretty obvious) , CTers don't find ANY source that does not tell them what they want to hear as being reliable. It doesn't matter if it's FOX, or anyone else. If it doesn't fit their believes, it's government controlled media. If FOX news web site tells them something that fits their beliefs, then for that moment it becomes the most trusted news source available because if the right-wingers (which isn't true) report it, then it REALLY must be twoo.

Agreed. That is the difference. While I, as a left winger, do not use Fox News much as a news source, I do use other sources such as CNN, and MSNBC, and I use all three to corroborate a story as legit. That way you get all the facts, and both sides of the spin.

As for the website, you are honest enough Jonny, so if you say it is legit, I will not argue it from here. Like I said, facts are facts.

TAM:)

[1337m4n]

Wait...what was the topic of this thread?

[Brainache]

Wait...what was the topic of this thread?

Ummm... Killtown is a lying scumbag?

[Travis]

Ummm... Killtown is a lying scumbag?

....in other news water is still wet.

[gumboot]

Does anyone know of any time that Fox News has actually fabricated something like a picture?

Frankly I don't see any reason one should regard Fox News as being any more unreliable than, say, MSNBC or CNN.


Funnily enough fabrications and manipulations of news photographs are usually done by independent photographers who "enhance" their photos to make them more exciting so more news agencies will buy them, or alternatively the photos are staged by the participants who round up unsuspecting and story-hungry journalists who don't think to question whether what they're observing is genuine or not.

At best you can accuse news agencies of eagerly swallowing stories that support their bias while turning critical skepticism on stories that counter their bias.

Of course they have been known to do much worse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_journalism_scandals).

[gumboot]

Ummm... Killtown is a lying scumbag?


I demand you apologise immediately for your totally uncalled for remark. That was a totally inappropriate comparison.

Scumbags at least have some redeeming features.

[CurtC]

While I relish the opportunity to bash Killtown's ideas as much as the next person, I don't think this photo/story are that much like the 93 smoke cloud. Some of Killtown's objections were that the 93 cloud was too gray and did not connect to the ground (and therefore slope with the breeze).

This JK5022 flight crashed at low speed and burst into flames, therefore the stuff burning was on the ground and the smoke cloud was connected to the ground. Flight 93's fuel was atomized by the crash into the surrounding air where it ignited and burned up all at once - it didn't burn the ground so smoke didn't continue to rise up in a stream. In fact, this JK5022 smoke plume is what Killtown said 93's plume should have looked like. The whole problem was that he didn't have the imagination to see the difference between a low-speed crash and a high-speed one.