Deconstructing Deceit: 9/11, the Media, and Myth Information

[atavisms]

Worth reading:

http://www.projectcensored.org/assets-managed/pdf/DeconstructingDeceitOnlineEd.pdf

"Alternative narratives to mythic history that have been overlooked, actively ignored, or censored offer many paths to knowledge and to help understand the present. Media mythmakers and their political allies continue to project their grand narratives on the world, anchored in fear, xenophobia, and unaccountability, rather than to report or reflect a complex, chaotic, frightening reality. Thus they present only one acceptable analysis. Although Internet alternatives are increasingly available, this is hardly the role of a free press in a democratic society."

[BigAl]

You are making no factual points and are now on ignore.

[TokenMac]

I'll give it a look, but like BIg Al said with no real point to your post it would be better if it was posted here. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=144954)

[TruthersLie]

Worth reading:

http://www.projectcensored.org/assets-managed/pdf/DeconstructingDeceitOnlineEd.pdf

"Alternative narratives to mythic history that have been overlooked, actively ignored, or censored offer many paths to knowledge and to help understand the present. Media mythmakers and their political allies continue to project their grand narratives on the world, anchored in fear, xenophobia, and unaccountability, rather than to report or reflect a complex, chaotic, frightening reality. Thus they present only one acceptable analysis. Although Internet alternatives are increasingly available, this is hardly the role of a free press in a democratic society."

I gave it 20 pages and realized how much of my time I wasted.

Don't bother, it is just a rehash of the same old same old bs.

historical inaccuracies, deficient historical understanding, and lying about the dead.

tsk tsk tsk.

[beachnut]

Worth reading:

http://www.projectcensored.org/assets-managed/pdf/DeconstructingDeceitOnlineEd.pdf

"Alternative narratives to mythic history ... are increasingly available, this is hardly the role of a free press in a democratic society."
You can use the paper to expose David Ray Griffin as a hearsay expert on 911 which amounts to being a liar. You have to use sound judgment and the paper's sources to come to that conclusion. The biggest enemy for this paper is the paper's sources. The paper debunks itself. The paper is a failed attempt to present the same evidence all truthers have; Nothing. Truthers have the same hearsay, lies and fantasies this paper has.

Why post a fact-free 911 tripe paper. The side you picked does not include evidence or science. (unless you meant to expose this failed paper)

This is the standard biased propaganda for the delusional web site, 911Truth.org, which stands for ignorance and lies on 911. The standard paper you can expect from 911Truth.org; dumbed down for fringe conspiracy theorists.
Did you mean "worth reading" to see how stupid it was, or worth reading because you are fringe conspiracy theorist who thinks the paper has merit?

[Dave Rogers]

Worth reading:

I disagree.

Dave

[Foolmewunz]

Edited for topic.

As to the OP. Sorry - it's all foot-notey and everything, but it's mostly conjecture and opinion. I don't see any evidence there, and I don't see anything new.

(It seems to be just one chapter in a major work. I shudder in anticipation.)

[Cuddles]

Let's try again, only with the topic in the OP this time.

[Dave Rogers]

It's just another piece of conspiracy theorist why-won't-they-take-us-seriously pice of whining. It starts from the false premise that there is credible evidence for all its conjectures, elevates David Ray Griffin to the status of competent historian, repeats a bunch of carefully overstated and misinterpreted pieces of history as precedent of false flag attacks, and then recycles a load of typical truther "Don't you find this strange" pieces of innuendo. And it fails to address the most probably hypothesis as to why the media present the attack of nineteen Jihadists on 9/11 as fact: that it actually is fact, and that the evidence presented against it is a load of ***********.

Seen it all before. Still nothing worth seeing.

Dave

[HeyLeroy]

Hey, atavisms, why are you ignoring your other thread? You've left some questions unanswered. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5144035&postcount=199)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/619745a54bbe44f13.gif

[HeyLeroy]

Bump for atavisms

[Brainster]

It's the same old crap; they even put in the bit about how Osama isn't wanted for 9-11. Boooooring!

[alienentity]

It's the same old crap; they even put in the bit about how Osama isn't wanted for 9-11. Boooooring!

Same Old Crap as in SOCkpuppet.:p

[twinstead]

Same Old Crap as in SOCkpuppet.:p

Oh no he di'int

[dudalb]

You can use the paper to expose David Ray Griffin as a hearsay expert on 911 which amounts to being a liar. You have to use sound judgment and the paper's sources to come to that conclusion. The biggest enemy for this paper is the paper's sources. The paper debunks itself. The paper is a failed attempt to present the same evidence all truthers have; Nothing. Truthers have the same hearsay, lies and fantasies this paper has.

Why post a fact-free 911 tripe paper. The side you picked does not include evidence or science. (unless you meant to expose this failed paper)

This is the standard biased propaganda for the delusional web site, 911Truth.org, which stands for ignorance and lies on 911. The standard paper you can expect from 911Truth.org; dumbed down for fringe conspiracy theorists.
Did you mean "worth reading" to see how stupid it was, or worth reading because you are fringe conspiracy theorist who thinks the paper has merit?


Project Censored used to have some use as a media watchdog, but has gone totally bonkers over the last few years as it's founder has drifted further and further to the extreme left.