Interesting Analysis of Changing Media Attitudes toward 9/11 Alternative Theories

[RedIbis]

Full article here. (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17624)

This article gives a good overview of international media coverage of alternative views on 9/11 in 2009. The article makes a strong case that instead of 9/11 "Truth" disappearing or evaporating, it is receiving more neutral if not, favorable coverage.

Abstract

In the past year, in response to emerging independent science on the 9/11 attacks, nine corporate, seven public, and two independent media outlets aired analytic programs investigating the official account.

Increasingly, the issue is treated as a scientific controversy worthy of debate, rather than as a "conspiracy theory" ignoring science and common sense.

This essay presents these media analyses in the form of 18 case studies.[...]

[aggle-rithm]

Full article here. (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17624)

This article gives a good overview of international media coverage of alternative views on 9/11 in 2009. The article makes a strong case that instead of 9/11 "Truth" disappearing or evaporating, it is receiving more neutral if not, favorable coverage.

[...]

It doesn't really matter what the media attitudes are, the facts continue to speak for themselves.

Among most JREF forum members (it's been my experience), the media are looked upon with disgust for their credulous attitudes towards all types of woo. It's all about the bottom line, and sensational idiocy sells.

[RedIbis]

It doesn't really matter what the media attitudes are, the facts continue to speak for themselves.

Among most JREF forum members (it's been my experience), the media are looked upon with disgust for their credulous attitudes towards all types of woo. It's all about the bottom line, and sensational idiocy sells.

Except for Popular Mechanics, right?

[defaultdotxbe]

it shows the attitudes changing from 9/11 being "off limits" from a marketing standpoint to it being ok to sensationalize to make a few bucks, and when they got there they found the truthers already firmly dug in

[bill smith]

It doesn't really matter what the media attitudes are, the facts continue to speak for themselves.

Among most JREF forum members (it's been my experience), the media are looked upon with disgust for their credulous attitudes towards all types of woo. It's all about the bottom line, and sensational idiocy sells.

Yes..nobody can really trust the media. One minute they are on your side and hiding 9/11 and the next they are showing signs of jumping ship. Who can blame them really. They have to look to their survival after all in a post 9/11- exposure world. Still I suppose it was good for you guys while it lasted.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5622863&postcount=2236 hyperlink

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5622867&postcount=2237 other hyperlink

[TruthersLie]

Full article here. (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17624)

This article gives a good overview of international media coverage of alternative views on 9/11 in 2009. The article makes a strong case that instead of 9/11 "Truth" disappearing or evaporating, it is receiving more neutral if not, favorable coverage.

[...]

You are right. Now if onlty they could get this claptrap through peer review.

They take the easiest (and weakest) method of research the case study and then try to spin it.

But then again, when looking over this webpage, it isn't hard to see the bias and political spin.

So lets see them get this through an independent journal. I'd love to see it in a "peer reviewed" journal.

Why is it that truthers can't EVER be bothered to get things through peer review?

[Unsecured Coins]

more drivel from the masses. I actually stayed awake for this?

[16.5]

What an utterly bizarre article.

It talks about the "nano-thermite article" as representing some sort of sea change in the truth movement. We all know, of course, that article is a complete joke, and one of the top ten most embarrassing moments for the Truthers.

Great article! Except I saw it on the Loose Change Forum. Talk about great evidence that the Truth movement is growing, it was the only post on the board that day. SNERK!

[switchpoint]

Full article here. (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17624)

This article gives a good overview of international media coverage of alternative views on 9/11 in 2009. The article makes a strong case that instead of 9/11 "Truth" disappearing or evaporating, it is receiving more neutral if not, favorable coverage.

[...]

In so far as the mainstream media is concerned "inside job" = "tinfoil hat". I know you would want to think otherwise, but there it is. The fact that some media outlets, from time to time, on otherwise slow news days or lacking anything else that may sell product, will include stories about nutjob conspiracies is not proof that the conspiracy "theory" is catching on.

[Par]

This article gives a good overview of international media coverage of alternative views on 9/11 in 2009. The article makes a strong case that instead of 9/11 "Truth" disappearing or evaporating, it is receiving more neutral if not, favorable coverage.


Well, on a skim, there’s a post hoc, numerous petitios and the lack of a methodology, but other than that, sure.

[DGM]

I've watched programs about ghosts, faked moon landings, big foot, Titanic raising, alien encounters and a host of other woo. None of these have gained any traction, what makes "truthers" think their ideas will, considering they are based on the same amount of proof? Is this another "we don't need facts, only doubt"?

[RedIbis]

What an utterly bizarre article.

It talks about the "nano-thermite article" as representing some sort of sea change in the truth movement. We all know, of course, that article is a complete joke, and one of the top ten most embarrassing moments for the Truthers.

Great article! Except I saw it on the Loose Change Forum. Talk about great evidence that the Truth movement is growing, it was the only post on the board that day. SNERK!

The 18 cases they study are all from 2009 and all are from international media outlets. This has nothing to do with your obsession with Loose Change.

[TruthersLie]

Full article here. (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17624)

This article gives a good overview of international media coverage of alternative views on 9/11 in 2009. The article makes a strong case that instead of 9/11 "Truth" disappearing or evaporating, it is receiving more neutral if not, favorable coverage.

[...]

But lets start our analysis of this "paper."

Shall we begin?

In the abstract they already start showing their Woo.
This more open approach taken in the international media – I could also have included the Japanese media – might be a sign that worldwide public and corporate media organizations are positioning themselves, and preparing their audiences, for a possible revelation of the truth of the claim that forces within the US government were complicit in the attacks – a revelation that would call into question the publicly given rationale for the military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.


Did you notice that? The abstract is making a unsubstantiated claim. Here I'll highlite it. That isn't what an real abstract is for in any journal article. Not unsubstantiated claims that have nothing to do with the paper you are writing.

Lets continue.
First paragraph of the "paper"

Until 2009, doubts about the official 9/11 story were briefly entertained by the mainstream media on each anniversary of the event, allowing the independent research community only a fleeting moment once a year to publicly voice its findings.

Where is a single citation? Not one. Go figure. Making a claim w/out any citaitons. Tsk tsk tsk.

And it doesn't get any better. Massive claims follow in the next two sentences, but no citations are made. wow. I could tear apart each starting sentence in this "introduction" for failing to provide citations to support the claims... but that is too easy.

The introduction is all over the place, but we steadily get into the WOO.

Nano thermite rears its ugly head.

A peer-reviewed paper published in the Open Chemical Physics Journal on April 3, 2009,2 reported that a little known high-tech explosive called nano-thermite was found throughout the World Trade Center dust.


so we have a lie that it is peer reviewed, a lie that it is an "explosive" and a lie that it was found "throughout" the wtc Dust. Wowsers. Massive claims from ignorance not supported (even by the paper they claim).

They then show how unorganized they are because they segue from nanothermite into 18 case studies... wow. I mean with this APA format and the "unreacted thermite" it should be a slam dunk for some peer reviewed journal to snatch them up. They should wait by the telephone. That call will be coming soon.

I won't even delve into all of the issues with her "case studies." This is a craptacular piece O fail.

But then again looking at who the author is
Elizabeth Woodworth is a retired professional health sciences librarian

yet another truther talking about stuff outside of her education or expertise. It really is a shame.

Red, you might actually want to take an experimental design course, or a research methods class... It would keep you from falling for this crapola.

Lets get into the meat and potatoes of it though.

[Scott Sommers]

Did anybody read the article in the link? The list includes
1. National Geographic coverage of 911 - and we all know how that went.
2. FOX News - and we all know where FOX News stands on 911.
3. BBC Conspiracy Files.
4. Jessie Ventura
as examples of media coverage of 911.

Almost all the others were outside the USA, particularly Europe and NZ.

I'm not sure it says much of anything except that the USA has finally run dry as a source of support for 911 Truth and they have had to make their way outside of the USA. It'll grab a bunch of attention until it gets killed by local scientists and engineers. A bunch of mostly young loosers will hang onto the idea believing it's somehow anti-American. The irony would be if they started sending money to the right-wing pro-American isolationist whackos that support the idea in the USA.

But the reality is that 911 Truth will remain a phenomena that almost no one will have heard of. It will remain found only through experience with Youtube, Facebook and other Internet forums - which is to say, it does not exist.

[Par]

What an utterly bizarre article. It talks about the "nano-thermite article" as representing some sort of sea change in the truth movement. We all know, of course, that article is a complete joke, and one of the top ten most embarrassing moments for the Truthers.
Well, on a skim, there’s a post hoc, numerous petitios and the lack of a methodology, but other than that, sure.


Indeed. It presupposes the legitimacy of that "paper" and thus the existence of thermite. That was once such petitio.

[Par]

Well, on a skim, there’s a post hoc, numerous petitios and the lack of a methodology, but other than that, sure.The 18 cases they study are all from 2009 and all are from international media outlets...


What were the selection criteria for the case studies?

[DGM]

Except for Popular Mechanics, right?
Popular Mechanics did an article on building an alien space craft that could defy all sorts of laws of physics (I can't recall the issue). So, no.

[Scott Sommers]

The 18 cases they study are all from 2009 and all are from international media outlets. This has nothing to do with your obsession with Loose Change.

What does "international media outlet" refer to? It has a webpage? It circulates paper volumes internationally? If that's the case, several of their examples are wrong. Programs filmed in Dutch, Norway and German languages may make it to international viewing, but they would hardly be "international media outlets" except for the fact that their signals can be picked up outside the borders of these nations. Interestingly, three of these examples are Norwegian.

In any case, no. 7 the Metroactive and the Santa Barbara Independent are in no sense "international media outlets"

Oh, I forgot, no. 13 was the case where he got roasted by the NZ radio host. There's a link to this some on JREF.

About one-quarter of the reports cited were scathing attacks on Gage and 911 Truth. And if the writers are willing to cite the Santa Barbara Independent as a source, there must be zillions of similarly placed news sources that have whacked Gage and the others.

[Scott Sommers]

Global Research is one of those subscriber written periodicals like that architecture thing that Gage submitted something to. I wouldn't doubt if Gage is behind this one and is systematically searching the net for subscriber written news websites he can infultrate.

If you go here (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=section&sectionName=membership)
you'll find the following statement about how contributions are received by Global Research


We invite Subscribers to become Global Research Members
We have been able to develop our activities thanks to contributions from our readers. To maintain our independence, we do not seek donor support from private or public foundations.

Our commitment is to make Global Research articles available to the broadest possible readership, on a noncommercial basis, without the need for a login for paid subscribers.

With a view to achieving the above objectives, while improving the form and content of our website, we have a membership program for regular Global Research readers.

Please help us in these endeavors, with a monthly or annual contribution.

Become a Global Research Member online or by mail (see below):

Becoming a Member essentially constitutes an endorsement of the Global Research website.

And how does one become a subscriber?

Subscribe: By entering your email in the above form, Global Research will send you, without charge, our E-Newsletter. Subscribers will receive free of charge by email our frequent send-out of Global Research Feature Articles.

[MarekM]

Looking for an indication of the meticulous research that went into this article?

Look no further than the reliable "Google Hits Count" argument:

Its impact on the media is shown by the fact that the New Statesman placed Dr. Griffin (who scores 200,000 results when googled) above Venezuela's President, Hugo Chavez, (who scores over 11 million results) on its list of influential people.

:D

[funk de fino]

The 18 cases they study are all from 2009 and all are from international media outlets. This has nothing to do with your obsession with Loose Change.

Its a load of claptrap and you know it. Scraping the bottom of the barrel now eh?

[MRC_Hans]

The media coverage and neutrality is also periodically rising and falling on ghosts, faith healing, various religions, etc.

How is this the sign of anything?

ETA: A very large percentage of daily outlets and periodicals feature regular horoscopes. However, astrology remains crap.

Hans

[16.5]

This article gives a good overview of international media coverage of alternative views on 9/11 in 2009. The article makes a strong case that instead of 9/11 "Truth" disappearing or evaporating, it is receiving more neutral if not, favorable coverage.

[...]

What an utterly bizarre article.

It talks about the "nano-thermite article" as representing some sort of sea change in the truth movement. We all know, of course, that article is a complete joke, and one of the top ten most embarrassing moments for the Truthers.

Great article! Except I saw it on the Loose Change Forum. Talk about great evidence that the Truth movement is growing, it was the only post on the board that day. SNERK!

The 18 cases they study are all from 2009 and all are from international media outlets. This has nothing to do with your obsession with Loose Change.

1. Dodge on the fact that the Super Thermite article is freaking garbage: NOTED.

2. Dodge on the fact that the Loose Change forums are a ghost town, therefore rebutting your contention that The Truth is Growing: NOTED.

3. Made up claim that I have an Obsession with Loose Change: NOTED. Citation needed, Red.

Again, great article. Say the Tribune Today has a major article today about a major media outlet's new series about "GHOSTBUSTERS." Thought you'd be interested, that has GOT to be proof of ghosts!

[Par]

3. Made up claim that I have an Obsession with Loose Change: NOTED.


Even if it were true, it would be an argumentum ad hominem circumstantial; so you can note that as well, should you care to!

[RedIbis]

2. Dodge on the fact that the Loose Change forums are a ghost town, therefore rebutting your contention that The Truth is Growing: NOTED.

3. Made up claim that I have an Obsession with Loose Change: NOTED. Citation needed, Red.



Since the article never mentions Loose Change and its forums, the irony here is NOTED.

[Loss Leader]

Full article here. (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17624)



Ha ha! Just because something pretends to be intellectual, doesn't mean it isn't written by a frootloop on a batpoop crazy website that also questions whether the humanitarian effort in Haiti is really an invasion.

No reason to believe the author of the original article, thus no reason to debate the topic.

[16.5]

Since the article never mentions Loose Change and its forums, the irony here is NOTED.

The fact that you don't understand "irony" is, of course noted, as is you dodge of the super thermite garbage, and your failure to cite my alleged obsession with Loose Change.

NOTED!

Red, perhaps you missed the fact that while most of your OP's are simply spam from other truther web sites, my point was that I had already seen your spam from other web sites on another web site.

One that is as moribund as the rest of the Truth movement.

If you wish to respond, please respond to that part of my post pointing out that the super thermite article is a class one joke.

kthxbye

[BigAl]

Full article here. (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17624)

This article gives a good overview of international media coverage of alternative views on 9/11 in 2009. The article makes a strong case that instead of 9/11 "Truth" disappearing or evaporating, it is receiving more neutral if not, favorable coverage.

[...]

I don't see anything in the way of "independent science" cited in that article that one of my engineering professors would give me a passing grade for.

Michel Chossudovsky is the boss at Global Research. a google for "Michel Chossudovsky 9/11" finds he's an old hand at writing kook 9/11 stuff.

He seems to have some anti-Semitic tendancies. http://www.redicecreations.com/specialreports/2005/08aug/mchossudovsky.html

Assuming this "Global Research" is the same one Red found, here is the rundown on who and what it is. I find it interesting that under "Articles", only one one is listed and that is an article about themselves.

Global Research is the website published by the Canadian non-profit group, the Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG).[1]

The editor of the website is Michel Chossudovsky, who is also a Director of CRG.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Research



Personnell

* Michel Chossudovsky, Director, Editor of GlobalResearch.ca
* Micheline Ladouceur, Associate Director, Editor of CRG's French language website, Mondialisation.ca, and editor of the Portuguese and Spanish pages.
* Eric Waddell, Quebec City, Qc, Associate Director.
* Maja Romano, Administration and Research Coordinator

CRG Research Associates

* Jules Dufour, Chicoutimi, Qc, Research Associate
* F. William Engdahl, Frankfurt, Germany, Research Associate
* Steven Lendman, Chicago, Illinois, Research Associate
* Andrew G. Marshall, Vancouver, BC, Research Associate
* Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Ottawa, Ont, Research Associate

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Centre_for_Research_on_Globalisati on












Michel Chossudovsky "is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa. He has taught as Visiting Professor at academic institutions in Western Europe, Latin America and Southeast Asia, has acted as economic adviser to governments of developing countries and has worked as a consultant for several international organizations including the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the African Development Bank, the United Nations African Institute for Economic Development and Planning (AIEDEP), the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the International Labour Organization (ILO), the World Health Organisation (WHO), the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).

"Dr. Chossudovsky is past President of the Canadian Association of Latin American and Caribbean Studies. He is member of a number of research organisations including the Committee on Monetary and Economic Reform (COMER), the Geopolitical Drug Watch (OGD) (Paris)and the International People's Health Council (IPHC).

"His recent book entitled The Globalisation of Poverty: Impacts of IMF and World Bank Reforms, Third World Network, Penang, Zed Books, London, 1997 has been translated into several languages. Dr. Chossudovsky is a frequent contributor to Le Monde diplomatique, Thirld World Resurgence and Covert Action Quarterly.

"His publications have been translated into more than twenty languages. Chossudovsky is an active member of the anti-War movement in Canada and has written extensively on the War in Yugoslavia. He is the author of a forthcoming book entitled War and Globalisation, the Balkans and Beyond.

"His most recent book is "The Globalization of Poverty. Impact of IMF and World Bank Reforms" (Zed Books 1997) which is based on his studies of and visits to more than 90 countries. You'll find several of his most recent articles on TFF's website.

"Professor Chossudovsky joined TFF as adviser in 1999." [1]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Michel_Chossudovsky

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Since the article never mentions Loose Change and its forums, the irony here is NOTED.

Since Loose Change isn't the highest grossest film of all time:

1: Avatar
2: Titanic
3: Ben Hur

Irony, definantly NOTED!

[T.A.M.]

running my mouse cursor over the link in the OP was all I had to do.

oiiih!

TAM

[Edx]

Full article here. (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17624)

This article gives a good overview of international media coverage of alternative views on 9/11 in 2009. The article makes a strong case that instead of 9/11 "Truth" disappearing or evaporating, it is receiving more neutral if not, favorable coverage.

[...]

The new "science" about 911 which is obviously referring to the Jones/Harrit paper is just like new Intelligent Design claims that come out. They are just rehashes of old arguments made to try and seem current and new and different.

[RedIbis]

running my mouse cursor over the link in the OP was all I had to do.

oiiih!

TAM

By referencing the 18 case studies, the article is suggesting that 9/11 alternative theories are not only receiving international attention, but that attitudes toward such questioning has moved from the realm of name-calling mariginalization to more neutral reporting of such claims.

Since you wouldn't have gotten that from running your cursor over the thread title, I figured I'd clue you in.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

By referencing the 18 case studies, the article is suggesting that 9/11 alternative theories are not only receiving international attention, but that attitudes toward such questioning has moved from the realm of name-calling mariginalization to more neutral reporting of such claims.

Since you wouldn't have gotten that from running your cursor over the thread title, I figured I'd clue you in.

Here's a question for you Red: "Why doesn't the Media have the evidence from the Truth Movement?"

A: The TM has no evidence.
B: The TM is using the Media for political gain.
C: The TM is in it for money.
D: All of the above.

I'd pick D, because it's a reliable answer!

[TruthersLie]

By referencing the 18 case studies, the article is suggesting that 9/11 alternative theories are not only receiving international attention, but that attitudes toward such questioning has moved from the realm of name-calling mariginalization to more neutral reporting of such claims.

Since you wouldn't have gotten that from running your cursor over the thread title, I figured I'd clue you in.

By actually knowing how to run a case study research paper, I can easily tell you that this "article" is absolutely crap JUST FROM THE ABSTRACT.

Red, why can't truthers EVER get past peer review into a REAL journal?

Why must you try to take a ******** "article" (which wouldn't pass my research methods course btw) and try to spin it?

Case studies are the WEAKEST of the research methods as they cannot be replicated and are not very valid outside of the group.

Why didn't this great "researcher" do a simple meta analysis of ALL the news/media coverage of 9/11 truth? It would have been a MUCH better paper (and in fact could get published in about a dozen different journals)... Oh.. I got it, because a meta analysis wouldn't allow a truther to try to LIE by using cherry picked data.

Got it.

Is that all you got?

ETA: A meta analysis would have taken about the same time as finding these "case studies" (which they are not, there is no defintion of the methodology for how and why these articles were chosen... .what is it with truthers and having **** methodology in their "papers/articles?"

[beachnut]

Full article here. (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17624)

This article gives a good overview of international media coverage of alternative views on 9/11 in 2009. The article makes a strong case that instead of 9/11 "Truth" disappearing or evaporating, it is receiving more neutral if not, favorable coverage.

[...] For dolts who like conspiracy theories 911 truth is in the news receiving what a Bigfoot cult gets, coverage to fill in on slow days. An article is by a nut case conspiracy theorists who lies to make up her lie. Good find, another nut case in 911 truth showing that some idiots in making up some news don't know math, physics or the meaning of evidence. Good job.

911 has moved from an event to being like Bigfoot siting, a dirt dumb delusions but still news. You have pointed out the failure of 911 truth to earn a Pulitzer Prize due to dirt dumb delusion not becoming evidence after 8 years of stupid ideas by 911 truth repeated until they find the next gullible knowledge free person who wants to join the delusional ideas on 911 club titles like a 1984 organization, "911 truth", where no lie is too stupid to be repeated.

Woodworth is a full blown no evidence 911 conspiracy theorists nut case who tried to hide behind her failed work; proof she is a anti-intellectual conspiracy theories on the fringe; look where her work is published. She is the personification of failed 911 truth.

She believes the dirt dumb hearsay inspired delusions of DRG. That makes her biased opinion more worthless as she lines up on the side of idiotic delusions. Trying to support 911 truth after 8 years of stupid statrements by fringe consparyc theroiest like Dr. David Ray Griffin.



You still have a thing for Gravy; how cute

www.globalresearch.ca (http://www.globalresearch.ca/) Your source, a great source for woo, where people can spew hearsay and support the evidence-free liars of 911 truth

[aggle-rithm]

By referencing the 18 case studies, the article is suggesting that 9/11 alternative theories are not only receiving international attention, but that attitudes toward such questioning has moved from the realm of name-calling mariginalization to more neutral reporting of such claims.


Maybe they've gone numb, like the rest of us.

[WildCat]

globalresearch lol!

I won't believe it until it's verified by the Weekly World News. :p

[UNLoVedRebel]

"The Media Response to the Growing Influence of the 9/11 Truth Movement."

:dl:

[UNLoVedRebel]

Full article here. (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17624)

This article gives a good overview of international media coverage of alternative views on 9/11 in 2009. The article makes a strong case that instead of 9/11 "Truth" disappearing or evaporating, it is receiving more neutral if not, favorable coverage.

[...]

If you're looking for media that target CT believers, here's a real academic article. (Note the actual science they used.)

http://www.aejmc.org/_scholarship/research_use/jmcq/07sum/stempel_text.pdf

[T.A.M.]

I have briefly surfed through the article. It is basically a shallow attempt to analyze trends and or changes in attitude in media coverage of the 9/11 truth movement. This is done through one persons opinion and the changes she sees via a number of documentaries and "papers" that were produced on the subject or related subjects in the calendar year 2009-2010.

I won't even begin wrt the problems with this paper, as it makes the Jones paper look like Nobel material.

Red, why waste our time with such tripe?

TAM:)

[R.Mackey]

Eh, typical.

We already have a stickied thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=61402) about the "media response." It has been both strong and almost unanimously negative.

I would agree, however, that the media attitude is changing -- from hostility to complete apathy. Nobody cares about the Truth Movement anymore, and that goes double for Truthers themselves.

[UNLoVedRebel]

I picked a paragraph at random. Let's try to name all the fallacies.

This hour-long documentary was the first truly fair opportunity in North America for advocates of the "unofficial story" of 9/11 to present some of their case on mainstream television.1 Representatives of the "official story" were also given time to speak, but their case was patently weaker.2 This imbalance was allowed by the producers, and indeed by the Canadian government, to stand. Aired several times across Canada, this program drew unusually high viewer commentary.3

1No True Scotsman
2Bare Assertion Fallacy
3Citation needed

[DavidJames]

9/11 CTists are so desperate for affirmation they will latch onto anything which helps them feel comfortable with their delusions.

[defaultdotxbe]

Since Loose Change isn't the highest grossest film of all time:

1: Avatar
2: Titanic
3: Ben Hur

Irony, definantly NOTED!
i prefer the inflation-adjusted list myself:

1: Gone with the Wind
2: Star Wars
3: The Sound of Music

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

i prefer the inflation-adjusted list myself:

1: Gone with the Wind
2: Star Wars
3: The Sound of Music

Clark Gable on 9/11 CTs: "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn!"

Darth Vader on the CTs: "Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed."

Julie Andrews on the CTs: "The hills are alive, with the sound of music!"

:D

[RedIbis]

Eh, typical.

We already have a stickied thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=61402) about the "media response." It has been both strong and almost unanimously negative.

I would agree, however, that the media attitude is changing -- from hostility to complete apathy. Nobody cares about the Truth Movement anymore, and that goes double for Truthers themselves.

Proving that you didn't even bother to scan the examples they cite.

[Scott Sommers]

Proving that you didn't even bother to scan the examples they cite.

I can't speak for others, but I have read through the whole thread. What are you talking about? Is the implication the thread contains some kind of iconoclastic literature that demonstrates changing media attitudes toward 911? That's not true. As a compendium of current media positions on 911, the thread is unambiguously negative.

By the way, who is Elizabeth Woodworth? I couldn't find anything else written by her, unless she's the Canadian fiction writer.

[TruthersLie]

Proving that you didn't even bother to scan the examples they cite.

Proving that (yet again) you have to scrape the bottom of the barrel and use any BS thing you can to try to feel like you have a valid POV.

Again and again red, why won't you even bother to DEFEND the crap you spew?

Oh wait, I forgot. That isn't your style.

ETA: Lets go back to this essay (it isn't a paper, and I have real difficulty calling it an article). Now compare that with the example of a REAL study of the media attention that was already posted.
http://www.aejmc.org/_scholarship/research_use/jmcq/07sum/stempel_text.pdf

Just from the abstract in this REAL paper, I can already see a vast difference. It is called science, scholarship and research. This is the thread o' fail.

[RedIbis]

I can't speak for others, but I have read through the whole thread. What are you talking about? Is the implication the thread contains some kind of iconoclastic literature that demonstrates changing media attitudes toward 911? That's not true. As a compendium of current media positions on 911, the thread is unambiguously negative.

By the way, who is Elizabeth Woodworth? I couldn't find anything else written by her, unless she's the Canadian fiction writer.

The article makes a persuasive argument that 9/11 "Truth" (as they call it) is being reported in international media outlets more objectively than in recent years.

What is particularly irksome for the resident debunkers is when this discussion moves from the realm of kooky conspiracy theories to genuine skepticism.

[Thunder]

9-11 Truth is dead.

All we have now, is 9-11 Truth, Part Deux. a shadow of its former self.

and nobody really cares.

[TruthersLie]

The article makes a persuasive argument that 9/11 "Truth" (as they call it) is being reported in international media outlets more objectively than in recent years.


********. More **** and now red you have earned your PhD (piled higher and deeper).

This "essay" is psuedo scientific claptrap that uses the absolute EASIEST and lowest validity/reliability methods of using case studies.

It doesn't define how the case studies were chosen. It doesnt' provide any decent organization and is all over the place. This isn't a scientific paper by any stretch of the imagination.

Why can't you every get past peer review ANYWHERE? It has been 8 years... even the most pathetic truther could have gone through university and learnd how to do real research.


What is particularly irksome for the resident debunkers is when this discussion moves from the realm of kooky conspiracy theories to genuine skepticism.

Unfortunately, this "essay" (which would fail my research methods class for how bad it is) doesn't do anything except show how shoddy truthers are when it comes to scholarly works.

Now run away again widdle birdy.

[Thunder]

What is particularly irksome for the resident debunkers is when this discussion moves from the realm of kooky conspiracy theories to genuine skepticism.

9-11 Truth, Part Deux, follows NONE of the rules of scientific skepticism, and follows ALL of the rules of pseudo-skepticism.

Truthers argue that 9-11 was an inside job, and the collapses of the WTC were controlled demolitions, and yet they have FAILED to provide the evidence and scientific basis required for such an outlandish hypothesis.

the burden is on YOU guys, to prove your theory, and you have failed...miserably.

[Drudgewire]

By the way, who is Elizabeth Woodworth? I couldn't find anything else written by her, unless she's the Canadian fiction writer.


I anxiously await her next dissertation on the shift in media attitudes regarding the great "Is Miley Cyrus really Hannah Montana" cover-up. :tinfoil

[UNLoVedRebel]

Proving that you didn't even bother to scan the examples they cite.

Proving that you've never bothered to read an academic article and get duped by trash online media.

If you were familiar with academic papers, you wouldn't waste your time reading this nonsense. An academic paper in APA format has the following:

ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
METHODS
subjects
materials
procedure
RESULTS
DISCUSSION

Subsections are in lowercase

The paper you cited has none of the above. And no, it doesn't have any of them. Just because you label something an abstract, doesn't mean that it is. Not only would this fail an 200 level university methodology course, it would fail a high school psychology class.

[DavidJames]

What is particularly irksome for the resident debunkers is when this discussion moves from the realm of kooky conspiracy theories to genuine skepticism.What is irksome for me are people who think they really know what happened on 9/11 and instead of actually doing something about it post on Internet forums. Then get "irked" when they are laughed at, ignored and ridiculed.

Edit - Actually, it's not "irksome" for me as I'm not so much "irked" as filled with sadness for them.

[BigAl]

The article makes a persuasive argument that 9/11 "Truth" (as they call it) is being reported in international media outlets more objectively than in recent years.

What is particularly irksome for the resident debunkers is when this discussion moves from the realm of kooky conspiracy theories to genuine skepticism.

Yet after 9 years nobody that makes Twoofer claims will speak in public where there is a Q&A microphone they don't control and accept questions from people with relevant expertise.

[Woody-]

I believe this is from the same "researcher"

http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2009/01/02/alternative-theory-of-911-by-elizabeth-woodworth/

Near the bottom she give her credentials

Elizabeth Woodworth is a retired Canadian professional librarian, a career public servant, and a freelance writer on social justice issues.

What exactly is a professional librarian?

[BigAl]

I believe this is from the same "researcher"

http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2009/01/02/alternative-theory-of-911-by-elizabeth-woodworth/

Near the bottom she give her credentials



What exactly is a professional librarian?

A professional librarian.

[R.Mackey]

Ironically, if Truthers paid more attention to librarians, as in actually asked them for help while doing real research, there probably wouldn't be any Truthers. :p

[Cl1mh4224rd]

The 18 cases they study are all from 2009 and all are from international media outlets.


Umm... if they're all from a single year, how can the article possibly claim there's a change? ETA: Ahh, yeah... so they're only looking at how the attitude has changed over the course of a single year... eight years after 9/11? Yeesh...

Also, the last 3 case studies are actually from 2010. Great eyes there, RedIbis. Can't even get the details of an article that supports your position correct. You truly are the poster child for 9/11 Truth.

[Drudgewire]

What exactly is a professional librarian?

One who:

1. Has a thorough understanding of and employs the Dewey Decimal System.
2. Keeps track of overdue books and assigns fines based on the length out past due date.
3. Trains chosen teenage girls to protect Sunnydale from the vampire menace.

http://i46.tinypic.com/2626tjt.gif

[Scott Sommers]

There seems to be a reading issue involved in our disagreement. The original post that our exchange refers to is not related to the Elizabeth Woodsworth article. Instead, it refers to a post and link from MacKay

We already have a stickied thread about the "media response." It has been both strong and almost unanimously negative.

You then commented

Proving that you didn't even bother to scan the examples they cite.

Your more recent comment is that
The article makes a persuasive argument that 9/11 "Truth" (as they call it) is being reported in international media outlets more objectively than in recent years.

My response to this was that if you read Mackay's original link, it's clear that the articles linked to DO NOT in anyway support the position there is a Truther position in the media or that it has changed. I suspect your original position is wrong and that Mackay has read the thread. In your more recent post, you are confused about the topic of the original comment.

I shouldn't complain too much about this because I do this sort of thing all the time. But your more recent point has nothing to do with MacKay's original point that you responded to.

As for the article? Well, it certainly sums up the Truther position. Since anyone can pay a fee to be a member of Global research and with that status submit an article, its presence in the periodical means nothing at all. In fact, as I point out, at least one quarter of the citations completely trash Gage and are keeping in the tradition of mainstream "international media outlets" to treat Truthers and Truthing like it is a joke.

[AJM8125]

I'd like to read the article red links to but it's unavailable:

Warning: mysql_connect() [function.mysql-connect]: Can't connect to MySQL server on '10.8.12.13' (64) in /mnt/w0810/d01/s09/b024e3b0/www/index.php on line 57
Not connected : Can't connect to MySQL server on '10.8.12.13' (64)

Which one of you fried the server?

[Sam.I.Am]

One who:

1. Has a thorough understanding of and employs the Dewey Decimal System.
2. Keeps track of overdue books and assigns fines based on the length out past due date.
3. Trains chosen teenage girls to protect Sunnydale from the vampire menace.

http://i46.tinypic.com/2626tjt.gif

Protects and collects mystical artifacts. Such as Excalibur and the Judas Chalice

http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/9244/thelibrarian0831833.gif

[funk de fino]

The article makes a persuasive argument that 9/11 "Truth" (as they call it) is being reported in international media outlets more objectively than in recent years.

No, it does not.

What is particularly irksome for the resident debunkers is when this discussion moves from the realm of kooky conspiracy theories to genuine skepticism.

It doesnt.

[T.A.M.]

What is particularly irksome for the resident debunkers is when this discussion moves from the realm of kooky conspiracy theories to genuine skepticism.

evidenceless based opinion noted. Well done, in keeping with the MO of the TM.

TAM:)

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

The article makes a persuasive argument that 9/11 "Truth" (as they call it) is being reported in international media outlets more objectively than in recent years.

What is particularly irksome for the resident debunkers is when this discussion moves from the realm of kooky conspiracy theories to genuine skepticism.

That's because the TM has been slowly dying out, which makes Truthers a rare breed in the Media spotlight. If the TM can't seek National Media, they'll seek attention from countries who don't want no part in it or hear what the TM has to say. Those countries know what the TM is up to, to get a foreign Government power to overthrow the U.S. Government. In the U.S. Constitution, we as American citizens have a right to defend & uphold the Constitution from enemies, both foreign & domestic. The TM is an enemy to the American citizens & we will do everything in our power to stop the TM & their cult followers. You are such an enemy!

In order for it to become "genuine skepticism", you really need evidence first before being a skeptic.

[LightinDarkness]

Umm..what analysis is in this article? All she did was summarize the shows with their own biases in mind.

Love the credentials of the author:
Elizabeth Woodworth is a retired professional health sciences librarian, and a freelance writer.

[aggle-rithm]

Umm..what analysis is in this article? All she did was summarize the shows with their own biases in mind.

Love the credentials of the author:
Elizabeth Woodworth is a retired professional health sciences librarian, and a freelance writer.

If she writes on article on the effect of the Dewey Decimal System on Swollen Prostates, I'm there. Otherwise, she's outside her area of expertise.

Where have I heard that before?

[aggle-rithm]

Ironically, if Truthers paid more attention to librarians, as in actually asked them for help while doing real research, there probably wouldn't be any Truthers. :p

Those librarians and their fancy cars and their summer homes in Florida...think they're better than me!

mutter, mutter

[16.5]

I love how this idiot claims that edutainment documentaries on basic cable mean that people are taking the "science" seriously."

That is quality thinking for the You Tube generation!

Make sure you read her self published novel! The November Deep. I made it to the second page when I burst out laughing. His "Irish Lisp."

BWHAHAHA!! Another winner Red Ibis!!

[carlitos]

I went to look for her 'novel' and found another post that was critical of Israel. That's probably a coincidence, right?

ETA - She had me at his "Irish Lisp" but lost me at his "tweed back." She's exacerbating librarian stereotypes with her fiction.

[aggle-rithm]

She's exacerbating librarian stereotypes with her fiction.

All she needs is a little Kramer.

[dudalb]

A professional librarian.

Shirely Jones as Marian The Librarian in "The Music Man" comes to mind.

"He Left The Library Buidling to River City, But He Left the Books to Her"...

[carlitos]

I had to google the Kramer reference. Funny.

[A W Smith]

Shes just about to close up the library!

cS562kV-xcs

[banquetbear]

Case Study 13: New Zealand TV's "Close Up" hosts Architect Richard Gage, November 27, 2009


[...]

Concluding Comment: (Public). New Zealand's national television station allowed open and unopposed discussion, by the founder of the world's largest professional organization calling for a new 9/11 investigation, of the claim that nano-thermite was used in a controlled demolition of the World Trade Center. The coincidence that this program and the CBC's "The Unofficial Story" both aired on the same day may prove to be a turning point in media coverage of the 9/11 issue.



...Just had to point out something.

Firstly: while TVNZ is New Zealand's "national broadcaster", there has been significant debate over its adherence to its charter. The ten minute segment on Close-Up was a puff piece-it was not serious journalism or even an attempt at it:

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/tvnz_story_skin/111535?format=html

Richard Gage was also on Kim Hill's show: which I have posted about before. A link to that interview is here:

http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/saturday/20091121

In terms of relevance to the study: I would say that the Kim Hill interview would be much more significant than a ten minute human interest story: I wonder why the author of the study didn't use the Kim Hill interview as her case study?

[TruthersLie]

BAnquetbear.

That would be because the author of this "study" is a truther who is using psuedo scientific claptrap that may sound good to the uninformed truther masses.

AFter all Red Ibis fell for it.

That is why. Very simple.

[RedIbis]

BAnquetbear.

That would be because the author of this "study" is a truther who is using psuedo scientific claptrap that may sound good to the uninformed truther masses.

AFter all Red Ibis fell for it.

That is why. Very simple.

Fell for what? An analysis and summary of instances where international media are treating 9/11 alternative theories more objectively?

Here's another:
http://www.stratfordgazette.com/stratford/article/86274

[16.5]

Fell for what? An analysis and summary of instances where international media are treating 9/11 alternative theories more objectively?

Here's another:
http://www.stratfordgazette.com/stratford/article/86274

Oh, the Stratford Gazette! Founded in 1883 by Johnny Newspaperseed, the Stratford Gazette is Stratford's number one newspaper - in fact, after merging with The Stratford Times, Stratford Post, Stratford Globe, Stratford Herald, Stratford Jewish News and Hot Sex Weekly, it is now the only major newspaper in Stratford. At one time it was free, but the price has risen over a period of time and is currently sold at 50¢.

/cool story bro

[TruthersLie]

Fell for what? An analysis and summary of instances where international media are treating 9/11 alternative theories more objectively?


Again and again Red you choose rather crappy support. This is an essay written by someone OUTSIDE OF THEIR FIELD, using ****** methodology, not following any framework that is ALL OVER THE *********** PLACE and you want to claim it is a "summary of instances where international media are treating 9/11 alternative theories more objectively." This is a crap psuedo science piece that uses the WEAKEST methodology because it allows for people to cherry pick their data.

again and again, a simple quesiton red. Why didn't she just do a meta analysis of the COMPLETE coverage and determine the % of postive and negative coverage? It would have been MUCH better in terms of the "science," it would have taken about the same amount of time, and it would actually have VERIFIABLE RESULTS.

Why is that sooooooo hard to understand? You really should try to take a research methods course, probably coupled with an experimental design course. It would help you out soooooooooo much.


Here's another:
http://www.stratfordgazette.com/stratford/article/86274

No thanks. I wasted 30 minutes of my life reading your last "article." Which I then proceded to destroy JUST FROM THE ABSTRACT. Why is it that truthers can't do simple science? It isn't that hard.

ETA: actually I looked... it is ROFLMAO funny. I mean it is full of LIES, distortions and the rest.... wow... amazing. What is rather upsetting is that some staff reporter actually was paid to write that article. I hope they lost their job for it because it is riddled with inaccurate information.

Yet again, another failure from the bird. now fly away instead of discussing how bad your "interesting analysis of changing media attitudes towards 9/11" essay really is.

[RedIbis]

Oh, the Stratford Gazette! Founded in 1883 by Johnny Newspaperseed, the Stratford Gazette is Stratford's number one newspaper - in fact, after merging with The Stratford Times, Stratford Post, Stratford Globe, Stratford Herald, Stratford Jewish News and Hot Sex Weekly, it is now the only major newspaper in Stratford. At one time it was free, but the price has risen over a period of time and is currently sold at 50¢.

/cool story bro

What are you babbling about?

[Par]

[The piece] presupposes the legitimacy of that "paper" and thus the existence of thermite. That was once such petitio.What were the selection criteria for the case studies?


Hast thou nowt for meh?

[16.5]

What are you babbling about?

I'm just saying that your latest link was one hell of a *********** heavy hitter of a media outlet.

Good job RED!

[aggle-rithm]

Yet again, another failure from the bird. now fly away instead of discussing how bad your "interesting analysis of changing media attitudes towards 9/11" essay really is.

As a quote from a "Friends" episode I recently saw goes: "Playing fast and loose with the meaning of the word 'interesting'."

[TruthersLie]

Bumpie for Red Ibis. Please respond to the simple questions inside of the quote.

Again and again Red you choose rather crappy support. This is an essay written by someone OUTSIDE OF THEIR FIELD, using ****** methodology, not following any framework that is ALL OVER THE *********** PLACE and you want to claim it is a "summary of instances where international media are treating 9/11 alternative theories more objectively." This is a crap psuedo science piece that uses the WEAKEST methodology because it allows for people to cherry pick their data.

again and again, a simple quesiton red. Why didn't she just do a meta analysis of the COMPLETE coverage and determine the % of postive and negative coverage? It would have been MUCH better in terms of the "science," it would have taken about the same amount of time, and it would actually have VERIFIABLE RESULTS.

Why is that sooooooo hard to understand? You really should try to take a research methods course, probably coupled with an experimental design course. It would help you out soooooooooo much.



No thanks. I wasted 30 minutes of my life reading your last "article." Which I then proceded to destroy JUST FROM THE ABSTRACT. Why is it that truthers can't do simple science? It isn't that hard.

ETA: actually I looked... it is ROFLMAO funny. I mean it is full of LIES, distortions and the rest.... wow... amazing. What is rather upsetting is that some staff reporter actually was paid to write that article. I hope they lost their job for it because it is riddled with inaccurate information.

Yet again, another failure from the bird. now fly away instead of discussing how bad your "interesting analysis of changing media attitudes towards 9/11" essay really is.

[gumboot]

Firstly: while TVNZ is New Zealand's "national broadcaster", there has been significant debate over its adherence to its charter. The ten minute segment on Close-Up was a puff piece-it was not serious journalism or even an attempt at it:


It probably needs to be pointed out that New Zealand is a very small country where very little noteworthy news occurs, and programmes like Close Up are constantly on the prowl for something - anything - interesting enough to look at.

Gage was in Auckland for his "The Hard Evidence Down Under" tour, and gave a presentation at an Auckland community hall. About 150 people turned up, out of a city of 1.2 million. Impressive. :rolleyes: Scientology has about 1,700 members here, to give you an appreciation of how insignificant this "movement" is. I didn't even know he was here at all until it was raised in this thread, and I monitor the major local newspapers every day.

[mythstifieD]

It doesn't really matter what the media attitudes are, the facts continue to speak for themselves.

Among most JREF forum members (it's been my experience), the media are looked upon with disgust for their credulous attitudes towards all types of woo. It's all about the bottom line, and sensational idiocy sells.

What I find interesting is that CT's an Skeptics both tend to hate the MSM. Makes you wonder why they're in business at all!

Oh yeah, I guess we're minorities :)

[abenja1]

This is how it goes with media and 9/11 truthers. When media gives what the 9/11 truth community precieves as fair and balanced coverage, they cheer and claim the MSM is on their side (ex. History Channel airing Loose Change). When the media gives what is preceived by the 9/11 truth communtiy as unfair coverage, they are paid government shills who are trying to save their own hide (ex. when History Channel airs programs debunking conspiracy theories). Notice the hypocritical trend.

[Par]

Has he run away again?

[RedIbis]

And another neutral story. 9 years after the fact and rather than present (from a very right wing newspaper, no less) Gage & co. as kooky conspiracy theorists, this is presented as simple questioning.

This is the debunker's worst nightmare, when this discussion is presented as genuine skepticism.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/22/inside-the-beltway-70128635/

[DGM]

.

This is the debunker's worst nightmare, when this discussion is presented as genuine skepticism.
I don't really think so. I'm all for "truthers" putting their ideas out to the public. I want "truthers" to write papers and submit them to legitimate journals and universities. They don't of course, because the "biggies" that write them know it's all a scam and they don't want their gravy train ride to end.

[TruthersLie]

And another neutral story. 9 years after the fact and rather than present (from a very right wing newspaper, no less) Gage & co. as kooky conspiracy theorists, this is presented as simple questioning.

This is the debunker's worst nightmare, when this discussion is presented as genuine skepticism.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/22/inside-the-beltway-70128635/

This is off topic and is NOT what you covered in your OP.

Please respond to the ON TOPIC questions and response to your post in the following quote
Again and again Red you choose rather crappy support. This is an essay written by someone OUTSIDE OF THEIR FIELD, using ****** methodology, not following any framework that is ALL OVER THE *********** PLACE and you want to claim it is a "summary of instances where international media are treating 9/11 alternative theories more objectively." This is a crap psuedo science piece that uses the WEAKEST methodology because it allows for people to cherry pick their data.

again and again, a simple quesiton red. Why didn't she just do a meta analysis of the COMPLETE coverage and determine the % of postive and negative coverage? It would have been MUCH better in terms of the "science," it would have taken about the same amount of time, and it would actually have VERIFIABLE RESULTS.

Why is that sooooooo hard to understand? You really should try to take a research methods course, probably coupled with an experimental design course. It would help you out soooooooooo much.



No thanks. I wasted 30 minutes of my life reading your last "article." Which I then proceded to destroy JUST FROM THE ABSTRACT. Why is it that truthers can't do simple science? It isn't that hard.

ETA: actually I looked... it is ROFLMAO funny. I mean it is full of LIES, distortions and the rest.... wow... amazing. What is rather upsetting is that some staff reporter actually was paid to write that article. I hope they lost their job for it because it is riddled with inaccurate information.

Yet again, another failure from the bird. now fly away instead of discussing how bad your "interesting analysis of changing media attitudes towards 9/11" essay really is.

[Foolmewunz]

And another neutral story. 9 years after the fact and rather than present (from a very right wing newspaper, no less) Gage & co. as kooky conspiracy theorists, this is presented as simple questioning.

This is the debunker's worst nightmare, when this discussion is presented as genuine skepticism.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/22/inside-the-beltway-70128635/

Red,
I thought only Bill Smith was loonie enough to quote the Moonies as a "news source". You're really one-upping yourself.
Why can't conspiradroids get this straight: When you quote "The Post" or "The Times", try to make sure the former is the Washington Post, not the NY Post, and that the latter is the NY Times, not the Washington Times.


ETA: Yes, Bill used this as proof of MSM attention to Gage's worldwide press conference. It's a op-ed type column in the MoonieGram.

[Hokulele]

Red,
I thought only Bill Smith was loonie enough to quote the Moonies as a "news source". You're really one-upping yourself.
Why can't conspiradroids get this straight: When you quote "The Post" or "The Times", try to make sure the former is the Washington Post, not the NY Post, and that the latter is the NY Times, not the Washington Times.


But, I am finding stundies in the comments there. You are no fun at all. :(

[Dave Rogers]

This is the debunker's worst nightmare, when this discussion is presented as genuine skepticism.

Actually, my worst nightmare is the one with the giant scissors and the roller-skating wolves, but maybe that's just me. In fact, though, an open discussion of the issues tends to be the conspiracy theorist's worst nightmare, which is why Richard Gage prefers to speak to rooms full of supporters and why 9/11 conspiracist forums like to split off anybody who disagrees with the conspiracy theory into a ring-fenced sub-forum so they can't introduce a dissenting voice into the main discussion. In general, we aren't the ones trying to stifle debate.

Dave

[RedIbis]

[...] and why 9/11 conspiracist forums like to split off anybody who disagrees with the conspiracy theory into a ring-fenced sub-forum so they can't introduce a dissenting voice into the main discussion. In general, we aren't the ones trying to stifle debate.

Dave

What subforum are we in now?

[aggle-rithm]

What subforum are we in now?

We are in the one where we discuss 9/11 conspiracies. 9/11 conspiracies are not discussed anywhere else on the JREF forums.

There is no place where we get together and slap each other on the backs in our agreement that what appeared to happen on 9/11 is actually what happened, in an environment free of truthers. There is only this sub-forum, and truthers are welcome.

Anyone who wants to can put forth any claim they want to about 9/11. We only ask that they produce evidence for their claims.

We don't require it. We (or our mods) don't threaten people with suspensions or banning if they don't present evidence. We just ask.

If you can't or won't, then you will be subject to ridicule. That's the price you pay for bringing nonsense to a community of skeptics.

[RedIbis]

There is no place where we get together and slap each other on the backs in our agreement that what appeared to happen on 9/11 is actually what happened, in an environment free of truthers. There is only this sub-forum, and truthers are welcome.


Only a place where debunkers get together and slap each other on the backs in agreement that what appeared to happen on 9/11 is actually what happened in an environment very hostile to anyone who happens to disagree with the prevailing view. Congrats on maintaining the forum's mission.

[dtugg]

Only a place where debunkers get together and slap each other on the backs in agreement that what appeared to happen on 9/11 is actually what happened in an environment very hostile to anyone who happens to disagree with the prevailing view. Congrats on maintaining the forum's mission.

Yeah, it's a real shocker that on a skeptic's forum, rational people far outnumber the nutjobs. It's also a shocker that rational people don't like nutjobs spewing lies about the deaths of 3000 people and apologizing for the terrorists that murdered them.

[MaGZ]

The article makes a persuasive argument that 9/11 "Truth" (as they call it) is being reported in international media outlets more objectively than in recent years.

What is particularly irksome for the resident debunkers is when this discussion moves from the realm of kooky conspiracy theories to genuine skepticism.

If this is the case then it is happening only in Europe.

[funk de fino]

And another neutral story. 9 years after the fact and rather than present (from a very right wing newspaper, no less) Gage & co. as kooky conspiracy theorists, this is presented as simple questioning.

This is the debunker's worst nightmare, when this discussion is presented as genuine skepticism.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/22/inside-the-beltway-70128635/

ha ha, fail again

[Foolmewunz]

Only a place where debunkers get together and slap each other on the backs in agreement that what appeared to happen on 9/11 is actually what happened in an environment very hostile to anyone who happens to disagree with the prevailing view. Congrats on maintaining the forum's mission.

Yeah, well welcome to the internet, RedIbis.

Do you think I'd get a warm greeting and respectful treatment over at PrisonPlanetForums? They'd ban me on sight of my user name.

Do you know how many debunkers were thrown off of PFT and LC?

Can you imagine what would happen if I took my atheist views over to a fundie biblethumper site?

How about my fondness for a good binge over at a teatotalers site?


You come to a bastion of skeptics, known in the CT micro-industry for tearing apart conspiracy theories as a hobby (if not a way of life for some), and are surprised that we trash your foolish views?

You join a web-based forum based on interests. If your interest is in proving the ridiculous points of the 911 Truth Conspiradroid Movement, then maybe you want to check out some more friendly environs.

[Dave Rogers]

What subforum are we in now?

The one where everybody is allowed to express any view on 9/11. For some reason, we don't feel the need for one where people are only allowed to agree with the party line.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

Only a place where debunkers get together and slap each other on the backs in agreement that what appeared to happen on 9/11 is actually what happened in an environment very hostile to anyone who happens to disagree with the prevailing view. Congrats on maintaining the forum's mission.

So remind me, how long ago did you get banned from this forum for dissenting?

Dave

[Scott Sommers]

And another neutral story. 9 years after the fact and rather than present (from a very right wing newspaper, no less) Gage & co. as kooky conspiracy theorists, this is presented as simple questioning.

This is the debunker's worst nightmare, when this discussion is presented as genuine skepticism.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/22/inside-the-beltway-70128635/

Ya, I know I got beat to this, but here it is from the source of all truth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times)

The Washington Times is a daily broadsheet newspaper published in Washington, D.C., the capital of the United States. It was founded in 1982 by Unification Church founder Sun Myung Moon, and has been subsidized by the Unification Church community. The Times is known for its conservative stance on social and political issues...The Washington Times has lost money every year that it has been in business. By 2002, the Unification Church had spent about $1.7 billion subsidizing its operation of the Times...In his 2003 book, Lies (And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them): A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right, comedian, author, and later senator Al Franken devoted a chapter to criticizing the Times after executive editor Wesley Pruden re-wrote a reporter's story—without the reporter's knowledge—about Franken's performance at a White House party. According to Franken, the rewrite was made to appear as if Franken had received a negative reception, which he says was not the case.

You didn't know it was the Washington TIMES did you Red? You thought it was the very famous and well-respected.Washington Post (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Post), didn't ya. Bet ya' did. Bet ya' did. And that's giving you credit. I don't really think you made this mistake because you can't read properly or you really thought the Washington TIMES is respectable.

[Dave Rogers]

Just to reinforce a point RedIbis would very much like to obscure, this forum is divided up by subject matter. The notorious 'skeptic's subforum' that can be found on some truther discussion boards is split off according to the opinions that may be expressed. There is no segregation of this forum on the basis of the poster's opinion, therefore there is no convenient way to exclude any body of opinion from the mainstream discussion. Strangely, it's only those who RedIbis feels don't fear open discussion who nevertheless restrict it.

Dave

[RedIbis]

Ya, I know I got beat to this, but here it is from the source of all truth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times)



You didn't know it was the Washington TIMES did you Red? You thought it was the very famous and well-respected.Washington Post (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Post), didn't ya. Bet ya' did. Bet ya' did. And that's giving you credit. I don't really think you made this mistake because you can't read properly or you really thought the Washington TIMES is respectable.

I'll take that bet. I'm very familiar with a wide range of media sources, including the arch-conservative Times.

What's interesting about this example is that it comes from such a conservative source when any such suggestion of Bush admin involvement is usually met with the greatest vehemance. It illustrates the point of the OP, that media attitudes are changing towards such questioning.

[Foolmewunz]

I'll take that bet. I'm very familiar with a wide range of media sources, including the arch-conservative Times.

What's interesting about this example is that it comes from such a conservative source when any such suggestion of Bush admin involvement is usually met with the greatest vehemance. It illustrates the point of the OP, that media attitudes are changing towards such questioning.

Nice dodge, Red.

But it's not its conservative-ness that we're pointing out about the Times but the fact that almost not sane person would cite the Washington Times as a major news organ and therefore proof of the acceptance of reporting on 911 conspiracies in by major news organizations/services.

We're pointing out that it's like quoting articles in The Pennysaver as credible proof of.... well, of anything.

[Hokulele]

But it's not its conservative-ness that we're pointing out about the Times but the fact that almost not sane person would cite the Washington Times as a major news organ and therefore proof of the acceptance of reporting on 911 conspiracies in by major news organizations/services.


I think this is a classic example of CTists willing to partner up with those, er, less rational in order to promote their agenda. It doesn't matter to them just how nutbar a group is as long as they are open to the CTist's message. This is why they wake up on a Sunday morning in bed with a neo-Nazi wondering why everyone who was at the bar Saturday night accuses them of anti-semitism and general loonieness.

[TruthersLie]

What subforum are we in now?

I believe it is the subforum of a red bird running away every time he is shown to be wrong.

Yet again, why won't you address the substance of the critical examination of your "article?"

Is there a reason for this cowardice?

[TruthersLie]

I'll take that bet. I'm very familiar with a wide range of media sources, including the arch-conservative Times.

What's interesting about this example is that it comes from such a conservative source when any such suggestion of Bush admin involvement is usually met with the greatest vehemance. It illustrates the point of the OP, that media attitudes are changing towards such questioning.
(emphasis mine, just incase red plays dumb)

Great. Then you should have at least one peer reviewed journal article in any psychology, sociology, or linguistics journal which supports this claim.

Oh wait... you are trying the normal truther tactic of pointing to something on the net, and claiming it is a valid piece of research.

We have already covered how much BS this essay is. We have covered that JUST FROM THE ABSTRACT it was crap. We have covered that it doesn't include citations for claims. We have covered that the case study is by far the weakest and least reliable method of research. We have covered that this "study" could have been done much better, faster and more indepth with an meta analysis of ALL of the media presenting the "truth" movement (wait... I thought you said that doesn't exist?). And yet you come in and spew crapola.

Please. pretty please. PRETTY PLEASE WITH ICE CREAM ON TOP can you just give us one piece of REAL science. You know. Real studies, with real conclusions.

I understand that you do not understand basic science. I got that. I understand that you fall for this crap. I got that too. I"m just asking for one peer reviewed journal article. Just one that supports your nuttiness. Is that so much to ask for?

[RedIbis]

I believe it is the subforum of a red bird running away every time he is shown to be wrong.

Yet again, why won't you address the substance of the critical examination of your "article?"

Is there a reason for this cowardice?

Please stop whining.

[RedIbis]

Great. Then you should have at least one peer reviewed journal article in any psychology, sociology, or linguistics journal which supports this claim.


Do you really not understand the difference between media outlets and scholarly journals?

[beachnut]

Do you really not understand the difference between media outlets and scholarly journals?

9/11 Truth Crazies Enthusiasts Return to SF for Press Conference (http://sfist.com/2010/02/19/911_truth_crazies_enthusiasts_retur.php)

Is that why Jones has to pay to have his papers published in a vanity journal? The scholarly journals know his ideas are poppycock like yours.

Changing media attitudes; yes they are calling 911 truth what it is; Crazies!

[TruthersLie]

Do you really not understand the difference between media outlets and scholarly journals?

Poor red.

You point us to an "article" in which massive claims are made. This "article" is crap. Pure and simple.

Yet you still want to try to use it as a source.

I demolished this "article" after reading JUST THE ABSTRACT and the introduction.

Can you please... pretty please provide ANY type of scientific support to this weak (and I mean extremely weak) "article?" Yes or no?

it is really very simple. You make the claim, now try to back it up.

[TruthersLie]

Please stop whining.

Off topic and reported.

Please answer the questions posted to you or admit that this is crap and utterly useless.

It is a very valid criticism of your "support" for your OP.

[Scott Sommers]

I'll take that bet. I'm very familiar with a wide range of media sources, including the arch-conservative Times.

I'm sorry. It was was hard to tell from your post that you have such familiarity.

What's interesting about this example is that it comes from such a conservative source when any such suggestion of Bush admin involvement is usually met with the greatest vehemance. It illustrates the point of the OP, that media attitudes are changing towards such questioning.

Why? It's a bad newspaper that has huge financial problems. They clearly have no sense of what proper journalism is. They are the media wing of a bizarre Christian cult. Who knows why they print what they print? And what's more, who cares?

Just some words of advice here. You seem a little confused about what you call 'debunkers', but what I would call mainstream society. Citing something from the Washington Times has no significance at all about media attitides toward 911 Truth. None. You might as well be citing Watchtower (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Watchtower) or the Plain Truth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Plain_Truth). That you would puncuate your 'evidence' with a statement like
This is the debunker's worst nightmare
makes you just seem uninformed about what you need to make an impact on us or on almost anyone else. I hope I don't breach any rules of protocol here when I say, it makes you appear uneducated.

[RedIbis]

I'm sorry. It was was hard to tell from your post that you have such familiarity.
.

Really? I clearly identified their perspective when I said,

And another neutral story. 9 years after the fact and rather than present (from a very right wing newspaper, no less)

Bolded to make the point.

[Profanz]

Conspiracy in general is just getting bigger. This happened primarily in my opinion from the inadequate investigations surrounding the JFK assassination.. There is just distrust on a large scale. That's marketable. Especially since so many people now distrust the investigation into 9/11. JFK was huge and still is. 9/11 conspiracy is huge and just keeps getting bigger. Especially with younger people. I wasn't born yet when JFK was killed and I still have my doubts and I'm still very interested in it. The media isn't going to pass up on that kind of interest surrounding 9/11. They've tried. They just can't. Give the people what they want.

Especially since the debunking movement still can't put it all to rest. It's been 9 years.

[Thunder]

9/11 conspiracy is huge and just keeps getting bigger. Especially with younger people.

wrong. 9-11 Truth is getting smaller every year.

how many folks do u think will show up at GZ this September 11th? maybe 200?

as a mass-movement, you all have utterly failed.

:p

[RedIbis]

wrong. 9-11 Truth is getting smaller every year.

how many folks do u think will show up at GZ this September 11th? maybe 200?

:p

That's hardly the barometer by which to judge people's interest in studying the fraud and cover-up of the official story.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Give the people what they want.


But isn't that exactly why the majority of you people relegate yourselves to the Internet almost exclusively? Why would you suddenly want to get in bed with mainstream media again; because you think they're telling you what you want to hear?

Seems kind of pointless...

Oh, right. It's just a popularity contest for you, it seems.

Especially since the debunking movement still can't put it all to rest. It's been 9 years.


That's not how it works, champ. The logical point of view is that, even after 9 years, 9/11 truthers haven't proven their case. That goes even more significantly for JFK assassination nutters and Moon landing loons. They've had even more time to prove their case and still haven't managed to do so.

But if those are the "stars" you're shooting for, be my guest. The rest of humanity will continue to march forward, actually accomplishing things, without you.

[Pardalis]

I thought truthers didn't trust mass media, now they find it validating that they're talking about them? :confused:

[DavidJames]

Especially since the debunking movement still can't put it all to rest. It's been 9 years.People believe crazy things. Bigfoot, magnets cure illness, talking to dead relatives, astrology and CT's. The human mind is susceptible to all sort of illogical thinking.

Religious beliefs dominate thought throughout the world, 100% based on faith.

"debunking" is irrelevant and isn't effective against such ingrain, inherently flawed thinking.

It's all about belief and little about facts.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I thought truthers didn't trust mass media, now they find it validating that they're talking about them? :confused:


"It's a trap!"

[Thunder]

That's hardly the barometer by which to judge people's interest in studying the fraud and cover-up of the official story.

its the one i use.

[RedIbis]

its the one i use.

That's not particularly shocking.

[Foolmewunz]

That's not particularly shocking.

Well, no it wouldn't be, would it? You believe that "powers" within the US government conspired to kill off more than 3000 people and destroy billions of dollars in property and earnings, all with an impossibly vast conspiracy and technology that didn't exist.

So, essentially, you're sort of like the Mikey of beliefs. You'll believe anything.

[aggle-rithm]

Conspiracy in general is just getting bigger. This happened primarily in my opinion from the inadequate investigations surrounding the JFK assassination..

In MY opinion, it happened because modern technology has made it possible for any idiot to quickly reach a large audience.

[funk de fino]

That's hardly the barometer by which to judge people's interest in studying the fraud and cover-up of the official story.

Except there was no fraud and cover up. The 911TM just study the lies and incompetence from morons then repeat it. Certain suckers then lap it up and post threads here which are pitiful.

[Dave Rogers]

That's hardly the barometer by which to judge people's interest in studying the fraud and cover-up of the official story.

What a classic piece of conspiracist thinking. A piece of evidence disagrees with what you want to believe, so you automatically discard that piece of evidence. Care to justify your assertion that a decline in activism is not evidence of a decline in interest?

Dave

[Scott Sommers]

Really? I clearly identified their perspective when I said,



Bolded to make the point.

My point is that you can't tell the difference between right-wing and wing-nut. This is a paper run by a Christ-based anti-Communist cult. Opposing North Korean political ideology does not make you right-wing. This is a paper that is run as an extension of a cult that defrauds people (http://www1k.mesh.ne.jp/reikan/english/active/active.htm) of money and this (http://www1k.mesh.ne.jp/reikan/english/judement/fukuoka/fuku12.htm), use bizarre indoctrination techniques (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Making_of_a_Moonie:_Choice_or_Brainwashing%3F) , as well as numerous other questionable practices.

The Unification Church is NOT a right-wing organization. They are a wing-nut religious cult that runs a newspaper. This newspaper reflects their anti-North Korean ideology. If you can't get this, you should stop reading newspapers because you probably can't understand them properly. But then we already know this.

[BigAl]

My point is that you can't tell the difference between right-wing and wing-nut. This is a paper run by a Christ-based anti-Communist cult. Opposing North Korean political ideology does not make you right-wing. This is a paper that is run as an extension of a cult that defrauds people (http://www1k.mesh.ne.jp/reikan/english/active/active.htm) of money and this (http://www1k.mesh.ne.jp/reikan/english/judement/fukuoka/fuku12.htm), use bizarre indoctrination techniques (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Making_of_a_Moonie:_Choice_or_Brainwashing%3F) , as well as numerous other questionable practices.

The Unification Church is NOT a right-wing organization. They are a wing-nut religious cult that runs a newspaper. This newspaper reflects their anti-North Korean ideology. If you can't get this, you should stop reading newspapers because you probably can't understand them properly. But then we already know this.

Here's a documentary on Moon's church in 6 10-minute parts.

The Unification Church part 1 of 6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOY3Sxe4TeE


He's subsidized the Washington Times to the tune of a billion bucks over the years.

[Scott Sommers]

9/11 conspiracy is huge and just keeps getting bigger. Especially with younger people.

I thought we went through this one ages ago. Is this why they can't get more than a handful of people out to a rally? Let me tell you one more time...We Are Change holds a rally every year in New York at Ground Zero on September 11...every year the number goes down. You dip heads claim you got 80,000 bazillion signatures on a petition, but then you hold a rally for the same petition and it got a hundred people. And guess what? It's the same hundred people who went the 911 rally at Ground Zero. Do you know that rally had people come from Ohio and Georgia and all over the USA? It was a dogawned national rally and there was only a hundred people there.

Babble on Truther friend, say whatever you want. We'll still love you here at JREF. But just go try striking up a conversation with a stranger about 911 or better yet, bring it up next time you're on a date - if you do that sort of thing. Why not go down to the nearest fire station and try to sign up some of the firefighters to one of those petitions you guys have around. You'll see how "huge" it is.

[RedIbis]

My point is that you can't tell the difference between right-wing and wing-nut. This is a paper run by a Christ-based anti-Communist cult. Opposing North Korean political ideology does not make you right-wing. This is a paper that is run as an extension of a cult that defrauds people (http://www1k.mesh.ne.jp/reikan/english/active/active.htm) of money and this (http://www1k.mesh.ne.jp/reikan/english/judement/fukuoka/fuku12.htm), use bizarre indoctrination techniques (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Making_of_a_Moonie:_Choice_or_Brainwashing%3F) , as well as numerous other questionable practices.

The Unification Church is NOT a right-wing organization. They are a wing-nut religious cult that runs a newspaper. This newspaper reflects their anti-North Korean ideology. If you can't get this, you should stop reading newspapers because you probably can't understand them properly. But then we already know this.

What in the hell are you talking about? You're suggesting that THe Washington Times is a Moonie paper?

[RedIbis]

What a classic piece of conspiracist thinking. A piece of evidence disagrees with what you want to believe, so you automatically discard that piece of evidence. Care to justify your assertion that a decline in activism is not evidence of a decline in interest?

Dave

What this is is a classic piece of debunker "logic." You are evaluating worldwide interest in researching alternative theories on 9/11 by the amount of people who are able to attend an event in Manhattan.

For instance, I was born in NYC, I still have many friends and family there. I've been to GZ about 10 times and never have I been able to make it to GZ on 9/11.

So has my interest declined?

[BasqueArch]

What in the hell are you talking about? You're suggesting that THe Washington Times is a Moonie paper?

...
The Washington Times was founded in 1982 by Unification Church leader Sun Myung Moon[1], who has said that he is the Messiah and the Second Coming of Christ and is fulfilling Jesus' unfinished mission.[2][3] Bo Hi Pak, Moon's chief aide, was the founding president and the founding chairman of the board.[4] In 1996 Moon discussed his reasons for founding the Times in an address to a Unification Church leadership conference, saying "That is why Father has been combining and organizing scholars from all over the world, and also newspaper organizations, in order to make propaganda."[5] In 2002 Moon said: "The Washington Times is responsible to let the American people know about God" and "The Washington Times will become the instrument in spreading the truth about God to the world."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times

[Scott Sommers]

What in the hell are you talking about? You're suggesting that THe Washington Times is a Moonie paper?

Have you read anything posted here? Yes. The Washington TIMES is completely owned by the Unification Church of Sun Myung Moon. Ohhhh, I see. You don't know that the Unification Church = Moonies.
Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unification_Church) ya' go rocket scientist.
The Unification Church is a new religious movement founded by Korean religious leader Sun Myung Moon.

and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times)
The Washington Times is a daily broadsheet newspaper published in Washington, D.C., the capital of the United States. It was founded in 1982 by Unification Church founder Sun Myung Moon, and has been subsidized by the Unification Church community.

and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonie_(Unification_Church))
Moonie (plural Moonies) is a term which refers to members of the Unification Church; it is derived from the name of church founder Sun Myung Moon.

ha, ha, ha, ha, ha...yes, Red, I'm laughing at you.

http://antimoon.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/rev-moon.jpg

[RedIbis]

Fair enough, I really didn't know that. I knew the WT was a right wing paper, but I had no idea they were associated with the Moonies.

[Scott Sommers]

In 1996 Moon discussed his reasons for founding the Times in an address to a Unification Church leadership conference, saying "That is why Father has been combining and organizing scholars from all over the world, and also newspaper organizations, in order to make propaganda." In 2002 Moon said: "The Washington Times is responsible to let the American people know about God" and "The Washington Times will become the instrument in spreading the truth about God to the world."

Always a sign of commitment to good journalism.

http://www.cultnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/04/moonandwife.jpeg

[Scott Sommers]

Fair enough, I really didn't know that. I knew the WT was a right wing paper, but I had no idea they were associated with the Moonies.

Are you going to apologize for your link? Or perform some other act of contrition in recognition of the error of your ways?

[RedIbis]

Are you going to apologize for your link? Or perform some other act of contrition in recognition of the error of your ways?

No, I'd rather people watch you gloat like a schoolboy over a rather innocuous oversite.

One link doesn't change the focus of the thread or the OP, as much as you'd like your ad hominem attack to invalidate all of the other examples.

[Scott Sommers]

No, I'd rather people watch you gloat like a schoolboy over a rather innocuous oversite.

One link doesn't change the focus of the thread or the OP, as much as you'd like your ad hominem attack to invalidate all of the other examples.

But sure it does, Red. For you, printing something positive about 911 makes it a quality paper. Even after several of us has posted that the Washington Times was owned by the Moonies, you still just ignored us. In fact, you stated repeatedly that you're well informed about the media and know the difference between the Post and the Times. I personally had never heard of the Washington Times before your link. But I presume anyone writing positively about 911 Truth must be nuts. I was right.

Go read your posts again. In hindsight, you come across like a nut. Doesn't this tell you something about where you in relation to rest of the world?

[TruthersLie]

I am still waiting for you to support your OP with any peer reviewed article which supports your claim.

Any idiot can find examples which support the claim and then try to use the "case study" method to try to inflate the value of those ideas.

Please, red. Pretty plesae. PRovide any REAL scientific study which supports your OP or admit you are full of crap (and wrong again).

But I don't expect to see that... I expect to see you run away again.

P.S. Please respond and let us know how this "article" is
1. valid in any way
2. has any reliability
3. is an accurate assessment of current media attitudes.

I eagerly await your reply.

[RedIbis]

But sure it does, Red. For you, printing something positive about 911 makes it a quality paper.

Where did I say that?

[Dave Rogers]

What this is is a classic piece of debunker "logic." You are evaluating worldwide interest in researching alternative theories on 9/11 by the amount of people who are able to attend an event in Manhattan.

Which seems a reasonable metric, given that said event is closely related to the subject of the movement. A decline in overall interest would reasonably be accompanied by a fall-off of attendence, therefore a fall-off in attendence can be taken as at least suggestive of a decline in interest.

Rather than simply sneering, would you like to make at least a token effort at refutation? As usual, you've claimed the existence of a counter-argument without actually articulating one.

Dave

[Jackanory]

For one thing there were 7 bldgs destroyed at the WTC. Secondly, your murderous fantasies have nothing to do with this thread.

ROFLMFAO... A twoofer trying to differentiate the madness of another. Classic.

The more media attention you get RedIbis the better IMO. Give it to them for free. Encourage it. Grasp it. You could then have a less anonymous arena for self ridicule and we could all put a face to the name. The outcome would be the same. Just that more of the planet would now what dilluded people do in their spare time. It would certainly beat the drivel we get in the press about duff pop stars shagging footballers and footballers shagging duff wanna be popstars.

Tried contacting any of the press with your story lately? Thought not. Just talk as usual. Too scared to commit but talking about doing something is always theraputic i suppose.

[TruthersLie]

Bumpie for Red Ibis (who I must say at least is trying to help out a fellow twoof and inform him that is is incorrect and off topic.) You go RED. Now if you would just answer the simple questions I posted for you.

I am still waiting for you to support your OP with any peer reviewed article which supports your claim.

Any idiot can find examples which support the claim and then try to use the "case study" method to try to inflate the value of those ideas.

Please, red. Pretty plesae. PRovide any REAL scientific study which supports your OP or admit you are full of crap (and wrong again).

But I don't expect to see that... I expect to see you run away again.

P.S. Please respond and let us know how this "article" is
1. valid in any way
2. has any reliability
3. is an accurate assessment of current media attitudes.

I eagerly await your reply.

[Jackanory]

What in the hell are you talking about? You're suggesting that THe Washington Times is a Moonie paper?

Ignorance is bliss. Arrogance is to come!

The OP is based on ignorance and the belief that the worlds media is changing its attitudes. It will only do this after very careful examination of any evidence put in front of it. The 911 truth movement have none.

If the worlds media does ever jump on the 911 conspiracy theorist bandwagon then it will be to ridicule its members. The 911 truth movement know this, so do little or nothing to actually gain the exposure they so loudly (on the internet) proclaim. Silent freedom fighters if ya like. Like silent explosives.

I would simply mention Piers Morgan. The UK editor who foolishly ran with a huge story about British servicemen torturing people. He printed it with photographs as 'proof'. It ran for weeks. Whilst the anti war brigade went wild, servicemen in my unit and manyservicemen in UK military units around the world knew full well that it was all spoof. We knew because we where in a position to know. We had the experience to know. We had the knowledge to know. How? Why? Because we recognised the military vehicles in those photos. We recognised the uniforms in those photos. Neither was ever deployed to the theatre of operation where this supposed torture took place. Piers Morgan was a gullible fool who jumped on the bandwagon and went with it. An educated editor who supposedly did his due dilligence.

He was sacked for doing so and is now a TV media whore with his tail between his legs. Despised by the average British sqauddie.

David Icke also springs to mind.

The media will rip you and your friends apart RedIbis. Let it come i say. You know it. I know it. The world just needs to read about it and then put your sad disorganisation to rest. Please feel free to contact the editors or producers of any media outlet around the world with your name, address and story. 9 years and still waiting.

[Tricky]

A few posts sent to AAH for rule 11. While we allow a good deal of latitude in how you discuss a topic, we do not allow members to insert their pet topic into every unrelated thread they participate in.

[TruthersLie]

Since red Ibis is handwaving in another thread... I think I need to bump this for him.

I am still waiting for you to support your OP with any peer reviewed article which supports your claim.

Any idiot can find examples which support the claim and then try to use the "case study" method to try to inflate the value of those ideas.

Please, red. Pretty plesae. PRovide any REAL scientific study which supports your OP or admit you are full of crap (and wrong again).

But I don't expect to see that... I expect to see you run away again.

P.S. Please respond and let us know how this "article" is
1. valid in any way
2. has any reliability
3. is an accurate assessment of current media attitudes.

I eagerly await your reply.

Red if you don't respond, I'll take that as an admission that your "analysis" is crap and you know it is.

[Hokulele]

Fair enough, I really didn't know that. I knew the WT was a right wing paper, but I had no idea they were associated with the Moonies.


Um, Foolmewunz pointed that out immediately after you posted the link to the article. Did you not read his post?

[RedIbis]

Um, Foolmewunz pointed that out immediately after you posted the link to the article. Did you not read his post?

Apparently not since I have no problem admitting when I've learned something new.

[Hokulele]

Apparently not since I have no problem admitting when I've learned something new.


I wasn't suggesting you have issues with learning new things, just wondering if he was on ignore or something, as this was brought up immediately.

[RedIbis]

I wasn't suggesting you have issues with learning new things, just wondering if he was on ignore or something, as this was brought up immediately.

I don't put people on ignore, but I also don't read every post in every thread since they tend to turn into pile-ons.

[Hokulele]

I don't put people on ignore, but I also don't read every post in every thread since they tend to turn into pile-ons.


Well then, maybe you learned two things today.

[Dog Town]

...over a rather innocuous oversite.

See here, Redibis, this is exactly why twoofers are a sad lot.
Not having a clue about sources, touted as gospel, is innocuous. Sad really.

[RedIbis]

Well then, maybe you learned two things today.

What was the other?

[RedIbis]

See here, Redibis, this is exactly why twoofers are a sad lot.
Not having a clue about sources, touted as gospel, is innocuous. Sad really.

Well, what makes you a sad lot is that I never suggested the source was gospel. But more importantly, the story was making no claims itself, but simply reporting on Gage's organization.

Hopefully, the impervious "skeptics" realize that this is nothing more than simple ad hominem. The origins of this one source has no bearing on its rather neutral reporting.

[Hokulele]

What was the other?


That in your haste to skip over the dog piles, you may miss valuable information that will come back to bite you in the neck.

[RedIbis]

That in your haste to skip over the dog piles, you may miss valuable information that will come back to bite you in the neck.

True, it was just crushing to find out this tidbit. It destroys the entirety of my research.

[Hokulele]

True, it was just crushing to find out this tidbit. It destroys the entirety of my research.


It certainly destroys the entirety of your research skill credibility.

[RedIbis]

It certainly destroys the entirety of your research skill credibility.

That would put your logic skills into question for the reasons I've outlined two posts ago.

[funk de fino]

Fair enough, I really didn't know that. I knew the WT was a right wing paper, but I had no idea they were associated with the Moonies.

Epic, just epic.

[funk de fino]

What this is is a classic piece of debunker "logic." You are evaluating worldwide interest in researching alternative theories on 9/11 by the amount of people who are able to attend an event in Manhattan.

How about worldwide protests? Can we judge it on that?

For instance, I was born in NYC, I still have many friends and family there. I've been to GZ about 10 times and never have I been able to make it to GZ on 9/11.

So has my interest declined?

No, you just do not care enough.

[Hokulele]

That would put your logic skills into question for the reasons I've outlined two posts ago.


Not at all. Your implication that this story should be taken out of the context of the publication in which it was presented shows the same predilection towards cherry-picking that infests the article presented in the OP. Any neutral or favorable reference to 9/11 CT, regardless of the obscurity or, to be blunt, nutbarishness of the presenter is considered a "hit". There are no references to the "misses".

In addition, you were presented with evidence that this is a fringe publication from the very beginning, but ardently tried to defend it as being worthy of respect. Only when forced to confront the fact that it can in no way be considered in such a light, did you retreat to wha you viewed as a more easily defended position.

RI: Here is another example of mass media reporting on 9/11 in a neutral manner.
FMW: Mass media? What is mass about it? It is a biased rag owned and operated by a bunch of bananas.
RI: <Ignores point>
SIT: Bananas.
RI: I am very familiar with the Times. It is a conservative publication.
FMW: :Banane01:
BN: <Example of a non-nutter media presence calling CTists "Crazies".>
SIT: :Banane25:
RI: I know all about that paper. <Cites self>
SIT: :Banane48:
BA: :Banane49:
RI: What in the hell are you talking about? You're suggesting that THe Washington Times is a Moonie paper? <This, after claiming to be very familiar with the paper, even after several links demonstrating the link to the Moonies.>
BA2: :bananapowerslide:
SIT: :Banane54:
RI: Oopsie.

[carlitos]

I know that the WT are owned by moonies, but I never considered the paper 'fringe' in the fringiest sense. The conservative editorial page is sane, compared to 'fringier' places like Joseph Farah's World Net Daily, for instance. Not defending them in this instance, it's just that I don't consider 'fringe' the same as I used to before reading at this forum. :)

[Hokulele]

I know that the WT are owned by moonies, but I never considered the paper 'fringe' in the fringiest sense. The conservative editorial page is sane, compared to 'fringier' places like Joseph Farah's World Net Daily, for instance. Not defending them in this instance, it's just that I don't consider 'fringe' the same as I used to before reading at this forum. :)


Fair point. "Fringe" doesn't necessarily mean bat-poo crazy, although it does imply such. I generally consider a media outlet to be "fringe" when they make it quite clear they are a catering to a very targeted minority, which is pretty much the opposite of what "mass" media tries to accomplish. As I understood the paper in the OP, it was supposed to be an analysis of the mass media.

[carlitos]

Yeah, she's out way over her skis, and some editor actually let that pass. I have a hunch that they are skeleton-staffed and mostly run wire stuff. Maybe that's the plan - present normal news and slip the crazy stuff in between.

[RedIbis]

Fair point. "Fringe" doesn't necessarily mean bat-poo crazy, although it does imply such. I generally consider a media outlet to be "fringe" when they make it quite clear they are a catering to a very targeted minority, which is pretty much the opposite of what "mass" media tries to accomplish. As I understood the paper in the OP, it was supposed to be an analysis of the mass media.

And the Times report was not one of her examples. It was mine.

[beachnut]

The fringe media like Alex Jones, and other nut case fringe brain burnt out with steroids media, support 911 truth because delusions are all that work for them and their dumbed down audience.

Rational media, people who can use logic see 911 truth alternative theories as crazy. What is new?

The article was written by a delusional 911 cult member in the 911 truth movement. Is there really a 911 truth movement?

That is no news stories, it is propaganda. 911 truth does not make enough money to interest the news. If they were bilking millions from many with their lies, that could be a story. Gage's travel scam expenses are in the noise like the terrorists they apologized for, under the RADAR spending nothing unusual.
The person writing the article is one of these; a 911 truther, making up propaganda to feel good about their failure.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/standup.jpg
to spread the truth... or make up propaganda, or both... ending up spewing lies, due to ignorance

[TruthersLie]

Apparently not since I have no problem admitting when I've learned something new.

GREAT.

In the process of ANSWERING the simple questions I put forth to you, you will learn A LOT about scientific inquiry, methodology and research methods.

In case you missed them here they are again for you. Now try to answer the questions (you can thank me for what you learned when you are done). I eagrely await your responses.

I am still waiting for you to support your OP with any peer reviewed article which supports your claim.

Any idiot can find examples which support the claim and then try to use the "case study" method to try to inflate the value of those ideas.

Please, red. Pretty plesae. PRovide any REAL scientific study which supports your OP or admit you are full of crap (and wrong again).

But I don't expect to see that... I expect to see you run away again.

P.S. Please respond and let us know how this "article" is
1. valid in any way
2. has any reliability
3. is an accurate assessment of current media attitudes.

I eagerly await your reply.

[TruthersLie]

And the Times report was not one of her examples. It was mine.

You are so right they are examples, not case studies (she should really look that up, and so should you). In fact some of her examples are JUST AS BAD.

Which is why it is a crap essay (not even an article and definately not an "analysis.")

Try again.

Come on red. Why wont' you answer and support your claim that there is anything in this "analysis?"

[WildCat]

What in the hell are you talking about? You're suggesting that THe Washington Times is a Moonie paper?
Epic FAIL!

:dl:

[WildCat]

Fair point. "Fringe" doesn't necessarily mean bat-poo crazy, although it does imply such. I generally consider a media outlet to be "fringe" when they make it quite clear they are a catering to a very targeted minority, which is pretty much the opposite of what "mass" media tries to accomplish. As I understood the paper in the OP, it was supposed to be an analysis of the mass media.
The WT actually had some pretty good war coverage post 9/11 for a while. It's like the History Channel, some of it is respectable and some of it is a steaming pile of woo.

[Profanz]

Lets face it truthers. We have lost the media war to the debunkers. The intellectual political genius Glen Beck is now a debunker. Almost everyday now on his radio show. He is on Fox TV too isn't he? All is obviously lost for 9/11 truth.

BAH HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!! hee hee hee ah hem

scuse me

I'm sorry. I though of something funny.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Lets face it truthers. We have lost the media war to the debunkers.


Wait... We had a media war with you truthers? Huh. I didn't even notice.

[Pardalis]

Not at all. Your implication that this story should be taken out of the context of the publication in which it was presented shows the same predilection towards cherry-picking that infests the article presented in the OP. Any neutral or favorable reference to 9/11 CT, regardless of the obscurity or, to be blunt, nutbarishness of the presenter is considered a "hit". There are no references to the "misses".

In addition, you were presented with evidence that this is a fringe publication from the very beginning, but ardently tried to defend it as being worthy of respect. Only when forced to confront the fact that it can in no way be considered in such a light, did you retreat to wha you viewed as a more easily defended position.

RI: Here is another example of mass media reporting on 9/11 in a neutral manner.
FMW: Mass media? What is mass about it? It is a biased rag owned and operated by a bunch of bananas.
RI: <Ignores point>
SIT: Bananas.
RI: I am very familiar with the Times. It is a conservative publication.
FMW: :Banane01:
BN: <Example of a non-nutter media presence calling CTists "Crazies".>
SIT: :Banane25:
RI: I know all about that paper. <Cites self>
SIT: :Banane48:
BA: :Banane49:
RI: What in the hell are you talking about? You're suggesting that THe Washington Times is a Moonie paper? <This, after claiming to be very familiar with the paper, even after several links demonstrating the link to the Moonies.>
BA2: :bananapowerslide:
SIT: :Banane54:
RI: Oopsie.

Alright, that's it. You've just been nominated, lady.

[beachnut]

... he intellectual political genius Glen Beck is now a debunker. ...
I'm sorry. I though of something funny.
It is good you though of something funny, because you have not thought of anything rational on 911.

You have a genius you are upset he knows 911 truth is based on lies and moronic delusions; Glen Beck. Wow. Glen is not on FOX, but Glenn is. Your genius friend Glen must of lied about being on FOX.

At FOX they have a guy who says 911 truther are dolts, almost the same name as your genius; but his name is Glenn Beck, not Glen Beck. But they can't be the same your Glen is a genius. Funny how the both see 911 truth as big lies.

The media is changing, they have less tolerance for persistent ignorance and they call 911 truth a fringe group of crazies. Your genius Glen, and Glenn at FOX got something right. What a conscience, nevertheless...

[BasqueArch]

Full article here. (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17624)

This article gives a good overview of international media coverage of alternative views on 9/11 in 2009. The article makes a strong case that instead of 9/11 "Truth" disappearing or evaporating, it is receiving more neutral if not, favorable coverage.

[...]

I checked with Google re number of news hits for “9/11 truth” and “Michael Jackson”.
1. Search Google for “phrase”, 2. Click [News], 3. Click [Year}

Results:

...2008 .............2008 ..............2009 ........2009
... “9/11 truth” ... “ M.Jackson ... “9/11 truth” .“M.Jackson

Jan ---42 ---1770 ---7 ---2460
Feb ---38 ---2570 ---6 ---2510
March -39 ---2160 ---24 ---4740
Apr ---29 ---1580 ---14 ---2740
May --- 20 ---1910 ---7 ---3280
June ---25 ---1680 ---20 ---21800
July ---25 ---1910 ---18 ---33300
August -29 ---2460 ---19 ---15100
Sept ---34 ---2180 ---57 ---9860
Oct ---22 ---2380 ---16 ---10600
Nov ---14 ---3010 ---25 ---8540
Dec ---14 ---2460 ---11 ---11300
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total ----331 --- 26,070 ---224 ---126,230

Results for “9/11 conspiracy” was about the same as “9/11 truth.”

Conclusions:
1. “9/11 truth” evaporated in interest 2008-2009 by 32%
2. Michael Jackson is King of Pop.

[TruthersLie]

I checked with Google re number of news hits for “9/11 truth” and “Michael Jackson”.
1. Search Google for “phrase”, 2. Click [News], 3. Click [Year}

Results:

...2008 .............2008 ..............2009 ........2009
... “9/11 truth” ... “ M.Jackson ... “9/11 truth” .“M.Jackson

Jan ---42 ---1770 ---7 ---2460
Feb ---38 ---2570 ---6 ---2510
March -39 ---2160 ---24 ---4740
Apr ---29 ---1580 ---14 ---2740
May --- 20 ---1910 ---7 ---3280
June ---25 ---1680 ---20 ---21800
July ---25 ---1910 ---18 ---33300
August -29 ---2460 ---19 ---15100
Sept ---34 ---2180 ---57 ---9860
Oct ---22 ---2380 ---16 ---10600
Nov ---14 ---3010 ---25 ---8540
Dec ---14 ---2460 ---11 ---11300
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total ----331 --- 26,070 ---224 ---126,230

Results for “9/11 conspiracy” was about the same as “9/11 truth.”

Conclusions:
1. “9/11 truth” declined in interest 2008-2009 by 32%
2. Michael Jackson is King of Pop.

Now basque...

It isn't well laid out, your methodology isn't posted and it is still a DAMN sight BETTER than the crap Red is trying to peddle.

[BasqueArch]

Now basque...

It isn't well laid out, your methodology isn't posted and it is still a DAMN sight BETTER than the crap Red is trying to peddle.

There's a truther mole in JREF that's ruining my posts. :D
Where were you at 4:49 AM.

[abenja1]

Still waits for Profanz to respond to my post.

[MIKILLINI]

Yes..nobody can really trust the media. One minute they are on your side and hiding 9/11 and the next they are showing signs of jumping ship. Who can blame them really. They have to look to their survival after all in a post 9/11- exposure world. Still I suppose it was good for you guys while it lasted.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5622863&postcount=2236 hyperlink

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5622867&postcount=2237 other hyperlink

Looks as though wishful thoughts and chasing cars are still a major hobby of yours, Bill.

[Scott Sommers]

Well, what makes you a sad lot is that I never suggested the source was gospel. But more importantly, the story was making no claims itself, but simply reporting on Gage's organization.

Hopefully, the impervious "skeptics" realize that this is nothing more than simple ad hominem. The origins of this one source has no bearing on its rather neutral reporting.

Just admit, you got the crap kicked out of you. You can't tell junk newspapers from good ones. You don't know the Washington Post would never report on a 911 Truth event.

Maybe you don't care and maybe your other Truther buddies tell you what a hero you are for fighting it out with all those those rude JREF fellows. I can only imagine what ignorant, uninformed people tell themselves to feel clever. But face it, you can't tell the difference between newspapers - good, bad, conservative, nut case - they're all the same to you. And sticking your fingers in your ears and making noises so you can't hear what we're saying doesn't change it. You looked stupid in this last exchange.

[RedIbis]

Just admit, you got the crap kicked out of you. You can't tell junk newspapers from good ones. You don't know the Washington Post would never report on a 911 Truth event.



This isn't the schoolyard, so no need for the juvenile bluster, besides...

you're wrong. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/07/AR2006090701669_pf.html)

[TruthersLie]

I see that red is back and doing his normal.

Please answer the following or support your claims.

I am still waiting for you to support your OP with any peer reviewed article which supports your claim.

Any idiot can find examples which support the claim and then try to use the "case study" method to try to inflate the value of those ideas.

Please, red. Pretty plesae. PRovide any REAL scientific study which supports your OP or admit you are full of crap (and wrong again).

But I don't expect to see that... I expect to see you run away again.

P.S. Please respond and let us know how this "article" is
1. valid in any way
2. has any reliability
3. is an accurate assessment of current media attitudes.

I eagerly await your reply.

Or do you concede that your OP and the support is the craptacular fail that I have told you for 5 pages now?

Please support your "analysis" essay. Pretty please.

[beachnut]

This isn't the schoolyard, so no need for the juvenile bluster, besides...

you're wrong. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/07/AR2006090701669_pf.html)
The Post was making fun of 911 truth! Failure is 911 truth. Lack of comprehension is 911 truth.

The Post knows they are crazy. Crazy conspiracy nuts can't see the Post's parody of the dolts who think they run 911 truth.

Some days the 9/11 truth movement resembles an Italian coalition government -- dissolution is a certainty. Honegger and Griffin believe bombs brought down the twin towers but have little truck with make-believe planes. There's a faction that says the Mossad did it and another that says that's insane, and maybe anti-Semitic.

The Post sees 911 truth as crack pots, too stupid to be important.

2006? lol, the media calls 911 truth crazies. Cool

[16.5]

That's hardly the barometer by which to judge people's interest in studying the fraud and cover-up of the official story.

While Red is receiving the beat down that he so richly deserves, let us pause to remember this stundie quality piece of tripe.

We all recall the stirring March to Selma where no one showed up.

And who could forget Dr. King's dramatic speech in Washington to a few dozen people.

And the anti-Vietnam and subsequent anti-war rallies, all of which primarily took place from 2 to 3 on sunny afternoons before a select group of family members, although they were frequently canceled when the temperature dipped below 50.

Berlin War? Fell after an onslaught of e-mails.

The Velvet Revolution? Spam.

Yes, Red, public demonstrations are "Hardly" the type of thing anyone would notice.

[Profanz]

This isn't the schoolyard, so no need for the juvenile bluster, besides...

you're wrong. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/07/AR2006090701669_pf.html)

I don't know how you do it Red. You stay so polite. You own them time and time again and they come at you with everything they got and you show time and time again that what they got ain't much.

Have you ever even been suspended? I mean they have tried everything to shut you up. It must kill them that you are still here. I wish I had the patience.

[Scott Sommers]

You own them time and time again and they come at you with everything they got and you show time and time again that what they got ain't much.

Is this a joke? Didn't you just read about Washington Times? It wasn't just Red. Truthers all over America seem to be having the same probelem reading.

Ohhhhh, I get it now. I read about this in one of those pop psychology books. It's some sort of therapy you can do with your friends. Right? If you do something really stupid you go find some others just like - stupid and foolish. Then you all get together and tell each other how clever you are. Its suppose to have a really powerful effect on your self-confidence. Red, is it working? Do you feel clever and smart now?

[TruthersLie]

I don't know how you do it Red. You stay so polite. You own them time and time again and they come at you with everything they got and you show time and time again that what they got ain't much.

Have you ever even been suspended? I mean they have tried everything to shut you up. It must kill them that you are still here. I wish I had the patience.


No instead you have the Obsessive compulsive attitudes... it must take soem serious determination to come back again and again and again....

[Profanz]

Ohhhhh, I get it now. I read about this in one of those pop psychology books. It's some sort of therapy you can do with your friends. Right? If you do something really stupid you go find some others just like - stupid and foolish. Then you all get together and tell each other how clever you are. Its suppose to have a really powerful effect on your self-confidence.

This is perfect. This is exactly what this subforum and debunkers are all about. It's your last haven. Are you feeling any better yet?

[16.5]

This is perfect. This is exactly what this subforum and debunkers are all about. It's your last haven. Are you feeling any better yet?

I am afraid it is true, people, this is our last haven, well this and the entire *********** real world.

However, as Red has so astutely pointed out in this thread, the Washington Times is not a moonie rag, and No One Cares about the real world.

Well done Red! Man the internet, Full Fail Ahead!

[Scott Sommers]

This is perfect. This is exactly what this subforum and debunkers are all about. It's your last haven. Are you feeling any better yet?

That's so right. You Truthers have me on the run. And I'm such an important person in the New World Order that having me on the run is a real victory. Besides, we all know that 911 Truth is sweeping the nation. It tears apart families, friends, and colleagues. It fills the streets with angry protests. Professions, politicans, firefighters and police have all joined in the call for a 911 revolution. I know my days as an operative for the NWO are numbered. Justice is coming my way and it's got a number. That number is nine hundred ten and one.

[Profanz]

Well done Red!

Yes. That's what I said.

[Profanz]

This is perfect. This is exactly what this subforum and debunkers are all about. It's your last haven. Are you feeling any better yet?

That's so right.

Well thank you.

[Thunder]

Besides, we all know that 911 Truth is sweeping the nation. It tears apart families, friends, and colleagues. It fills the streets with angry protests. Professions, politicans, firefighters and police have all joined in the call for a 911 revolution. I know my days as an operative for the NWO are numbered. Justice is coming my way.

yup. we are finished.

everywhere I go, everywhere I turn, folks are talking about 9-11. its inescapable. you can't get away from it.

my office is filled with talk about wtc 7 and shanksville, its rediculous. no one wants to work. they just talk about Loose Change and how cool Dylan is.

just last week, thousands of Truthers marched down my street. they are clearly taking over.

once the revolution takes hold, we will all be held accountable for our crimes.

wanna be my cell mate?

[Scott Sommers]

wanna be my cell mate?

At least you know the difference between the Times and the Post.

[16.5]

Yes. That's what I said.

I know ya did, lil Buckaroo! Right after Red's lies (that he knew all about the Moonie Washington Times) and idiocy (that public demostrations are "Hardly" the way to show one's support for a cause) were exposed, you came right here and fired out your support for him, just like the big kids!

I mean Red found an article from 2006 to support his OP about Changing Media Attitudes regarding Da Twoof (sorry to interupt myself, but can i get a laughing dog here, bwhahahahah, do you think red knew it was from 2006?)

Good for Red! Now, for you big boy, how about a glass of milk and right up for your nap!

[RedIbis]

I don't know how you do it Red. You stay so polite. You own them time and time again and they come at you with everything they got and you show time and time again that what they got ain't much.

Have you ever even been suspended? I mean they have tried everything to shut you up. It must kill them that you are still here. I wish I had the patience.

No, I've never been suspended. My worst infractions amount to commenting off-topic. It's not hard to stay polite. I don't take any of this personally. I also realize that truly civil debate is not won by petulance but by an evaluation of all available material.

But yes I do think it bothers a lot of posters here that I'm still here, still post, still remain polite, and that this attitude of the small but persistent group of us who have been able to debate without invective have chased away the likes of the now retired debunkers.

[Thunder]

No, I've never been suspended. My worst infractions amount to commenting off-topic. It's not hard to stay polite. I don't take any of this personally. I also realize that truly civil debate is not won by petulance but by an evaluation of all available material.


polite?

you do realize how VERY rare you are, among truthers.

i'd bet that some Truthers would go as far as to accuse you of being a make-believe truther, because of your control of your emotions and your refusal to attack...the "enemy".

[16.5]

No, I've never been suspended. My worst infractions amount to commenting off-topic. It's not hard to stay polite. I don't take any of this personally. I also realize that truly civil debate is not won by petulance but by an evaluation of all available material.

But yes I do think it bothers a lot of posters here that I'm still here, still post, still remain polite, and that this attitude of the small but persistent group of us who have been able to debate without invective have chased away the likes of the now retired debunkers.

Cool Story Bro! Hey, Red, did you hear about the Protest at Berkeley last night? Dumb asses should have listened to you! There is nothing that show's one's commitment to a cause than sitting around a computer conspira-spanking! I bet it was even chilly out there, too.

You should have said: “Students, protesting is “Hardly” the way to show your interest in the cause.”

Hardly, hardlyhardlyhardly

HARDLY!!!

[TruthersLie]

No, I've never been suspended. My worst infractions amount to commenting off-topic. It's not hard to stay polite. I don't take any of this personally. I also realize that truly civil debate is not won by petulance but by an evaluation of all available material.


again and again. Please provide some material we can evaluate. So far we have bad reading comprehension, cherry picked information, and a massive amount of personal incredulity and ignorance.


But yes I do think it bothers a lot of posters here that I'm still here, still post, still remain polite, and that this attitude of the small but persistent group of us who have been able to debate without invective have chased away the likes of the now retired debunkers.

No red. What really, REALLLLLY bothers posters here is your common tactic of posting something, getting shredded for it and then running away and ignoring the valid criticisms (and destruction) of your point while you ignore it.

that is what is realllllly bothering.

But I'm sure that you won't do that with this OP you started right?

Lets go over it again please.
1. You call this an article. Where was it published? Who vetted it? Who wrote it?
2. Now that we know it is an internet essay (not an article, not a paper) can you please back up the valid criticism of this essay?

or will you just do what you have been doing (you know mistaking the times and post, and just being evasive?)

3. If you consider the POV of this essay as valid, then can you please (pretty please) point me to a valid peer reviewed journal article which examines how truthers (wait I thought you said they don't exist?) are getting better media coverage to support your claims?

[MIKILLINI]

No, I've never been suspended. My worst infractions amount to commenting off-topic. It's not hard to stay polite. I don't take any of this personally. I also realize that truly civil debate is not won by petulance but by an evaluation of all available material.

But yes I do think it bothers a lot of posters here that I'm still here, still post, still remain polite, and that this attitude of the small but persistent group of us who have been able to debate without invective have chased away the likes of the now retired debunkers.

After all the evaluation done on the material Red, just how much solid, compelling evidence have you collected? Is it enough to overshadow what many other investigations have concluded?

ETA: While you're at it, could you address the points made by TruthersLie?

[RedIbis]

After all the evaluation done on the material Red, just how much solid, compelling evidence have you collected? Is it enough to overshadow what many other investigations have concluded?

ETA: While you're at it, could you address the points made by TruthersLie?

Do you really think I have an obligation to address brilliant questions such as these,

TruthersLie: You call this an article. Where was it published? Who vetted it? Who wrote it?

[bill smith]

It seems that even the media are talking about how attitudes have changed. It's all plain sailing from here I guess.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RMX__oMKNA&feature=player_embedded#

[Telltale Tom]

It seems that even the media are talking about how attitudes have changed. It's all plain sailing from here I guess.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RMX__oMKNA&feature=player_embedded#

Yes we have got them on the run. We don't need to publish anything. All we need is to seed doubt. Even in this forum all we need to do is put in a few posts like this and you guys make such a fuss that its obvious to me that somebody must be hiding something. So you can see why a new investigation is needed

[Profanz]

again and again. Please provide some material we can evaluate. So far we have bad reading comprehension, cherry picked information, and a massive amount of personal incredulity and ignorance.



No red. What really, REALLLLLY bothers posters here is your common tactic of posting something, getting shredded for it and then running away and ignoring the valid criticisms (and destruction) of your point while you ignore it.

that is what is realllllly bothering.

But I'm sure that you won't do that with this OP you started right?

Lets go over it again please.
1. You call this an article. Where was it published? Who vetted it? Who wrote it?
2. Now that we know it is an internet essay (not an article, not a paper) can you please back up the valid criticism of this essay?

or will you just do what you have been doing (you know mistaking the times and post, and just being evasive?)

3. If you consider the POV of this essay as valid, then can you please (pretty please) point me to a valid peer reviewed journal article which examines how truthers (wait I thought you said they don't exist?) are getting better media coverage to support your claims?

What is really bothering is that you or any other debunker just can't put it all to rest. Will today be the day? Nope. We should all just remain in the dark like good little subjects because we are not important enough to know exactly what happened that day. Right?

[bill smith]

Yes we have got them on the run. We don't need to publish anything. All we need is to seed doubt. Even in this forum all we need to do is put in a few posts like this and you guys make such a fuss that its obvious to me that somebody must be hiding something. So you can see why a new investigation is needed


Well Tom it's not too difficult to sow doubt where there is already extreme doubt..The debunkers now only highlight the fact that 9/11 was an inside job. That's why they are beginning to fade away. It was bound to happen around now as they watch the writing on the wall turn neon.

[Jackanory]

Yes we have got them on the run. We don't need to publish anything. All we need is to seed doubt. Even in this forum all we need to do is put in a few posts like this and you guys make such a fuss that its obvious to me that somebody must be hiding something. So you can see why a new investigation is needed


Brilliant post. Spot on. Couldnt have put it better myself. Evidence is just a minor thing getting in your way. Cool.

Seems that creating a fuss and sowing doubt is a failed cocktail to gain a new investigation. Classic stuff. Gotta love em.

[Jackanory]

What is really bothering is that you or any other debunker just can't put it all to rest. Will today be the day? Nope. We should all just remain in the dark like good little subjects because we are not important enough to know exactly what happened that day. Right?

Nobody but yourself keeps you in the dark. Get out that basement. Inferior complex or not, who was it that llabled you as a subject? Too many personal issues to deal with! Try one at a time. Being here and believing in woo wont help you.

[Grizzly Bear]

Conspiracy theories are kind of like religion. No matter how concise the explanation some opinions just don't change. It's sad but true. Kennedy conspiracies are still around but they're not making any meaningful impact these days.

[Jackanory]

Look. No buses for an hour then 3 come at the same time.

[bill smith]

The media and their masters think we are mushrooms. They keep us in the dark and feed us poop.

[aggle-rithm]

Yes we have got them on the run. We don't need to publish anything. All we need is to seed doubt. Even in this forum all we need to do is put in a few posts like this and you guys make such a fuss that its obvious to me that somebody must be hiding something. So you can see why a new investigation is needed

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/51464b899467cbf4b.jpg

[Telltale Tom]

The media and their masters think we are mushrooms. They keep us in the dark and feed us poop.

Actually they feed us these thousand page reports but I don't understand them either. At least I can understand the ae911truth powerpoints

[bill smith]

Actually they feed us these thousand page reports but I don't understand them either. At least I can understand the ae911truth powerpoints

No it's NIST that issue the huge 10.000-page type reports. Not the media. You are talking about 'Blueprint for truth ' I think. The ae911truth.org presentation ? The powerpoint is somewhat simplified to be easy for people to understand. The 2-hour DVD is a little more difficut but you don't need to worry about that. Other very capable Truth-guided hands will take care of that. Keep the faith Tom.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

No it's NIST that issue the huge 500-page type reports. Not the media.

You're off by 9500 pages.

Don't know much about 9/11, do ya?

[TruthersLie]

Do you really think I have an obligation to address brilliant questions such as these,

Anyone with any academic or intellectual honesty and integrity would.

You presented this OP. You presented this "article" to support your claim.

You have had your ass handed to you for the piss poor quality of this "article." Instead of showing where this was published (hint, if it shows up only on a conspiracy webpage that really isn't an "article" in most senses of the word) you have ignored questions about it.

Instead of supporting your claim that the "article" shows "interesting analysis of changing media attitudes towards 9/11" by showing that this is a valid scientific analysis, you have ignored questions and concerns about it.

Instead of supporting your claim with real peer reviewed articles (you know from real journals, which use real science, real research methodologies) you hand wave it away and ignore it.

Yup... What else should we expect from a twoof?
piss poor reading comprehension? check
piss poor research skills? check
piss poor critical thinking skills? check
ignorance and arrogance? check

now of course, you could easily, EASILY fix all of that by answering my simple questions and by supporting your BS OP. But will you? Of course not.

[TruthersLie]

What is really bothering is that you or any other debunker just can't put it all to rest. Will today be the day? Nope. We should all just remain in the dark like good little subjects because we are not important enough to know exactly what happened that day. Right?

Oh boo hoo twoof.

Please, pretty please provide a list of how we are remaining in the dark over the events of 9/11?

Provide just one piece of evidence that shows it was NOT 19 hijackers who took over 4 jets and crashed 3 of them into buildings and a field in pennslyvania.

So again and again... after 8 years you have how many peer reviewed engineering journals which say that NIST is wrong? In ANY LANGUAGE? FROM ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD?

What? I can't hear you. Speak up.

[MIKILLINI]

You're off by 9500 pages.

Don't know much about 9/11, do ya?

Oh look, Bill did some editing. :rolleyes:

[MIKILLINI]

The media and their masters think we are mushrooms. They keep us in the dark and feed us poop.

Wow Bill, you have evidence of this?

[NutCracker]

This is perfect. This is exactly what this subforum and debunkers are all about. It's your last haven. Are you feeling any better yet?

The truther's projections never fail to be on target.

Look pally boy:

We 'debunkers' have the facts, science and logic on our side.

You truthers have falsehoods, fantasy disconnected from reality and logical fallacies on your side.

And is it we, this evel, evil, 'debunkers', who are intellectually masturbating?

[BigAl]

Originally Posted by Profanz
This is perfect. This is exactly what this subforum and debunkers are all about. It's your last haven. Are you feeling any better yet?

The truther's projections never fail to be on target.

Look pally boy:

We 'debunkers' have the facts, science and logic on our side.


And all the eyewitnesses.

[Jackanory]

Wow Bill, you have evidence of this?

Soon he will only have 30 days to get it. In the UK anyway. Seems that the UK has decided that the truthers are a pain in the arse. Records of UFO sitings are now only to be kept for 30 days. If ya havnt put in a FOIA within that time - tough ****. Wonder how long it is before the NWO does the same for 911? After all, its only been 9 years and what they done so far?

[MIKILLINI]

Soon he will only have 30 days to get it. In the UK anyway. Seems that the UK has decided that the truthers are a pain in the arse. Records of UFO sitings are now only to be kept for 30 days. If ya havnt put in a FOIA within that time - tough ****. Wonder how long it is before the NWO does the same for 911? After all, its only been 9 years and what they done so far?

The NWO likes to keep an open mind, it helps with the flow of information. Speculative and circumstantial garbage gets tossed out. Fact-based evidence is how we roll.

Truthers are the closed loop tape that runs over and over; Unable to gather or record any new information.

[MIKILLINI]

Do you really think I have an obligation to address brilliant questions such as these,

If you don't care to address the points made, then my expectations of you not doing so are correct.

[aggle-rithm]

Actually they feed us these thousand page reports but I don't understand them either. At least I can understand the ae911truth powerpoints

There is NO FREAKING WAY you're for real.

[aggle-rithm]

Oh boo hoo twoof.

Please, pretty please provide a list of how we are remaining in the dark over the events of 9/11?


It's only their own lack of edification that keeps them in the dark. And it's THE GUBMINT's FAULT.

How DARE they make learning things so difficult! Why can't they just show us Power Point presentations that explain physics, instead of getting into all that dumb mathematics? Why do you have to spend so much time in school to become an engineer when it's obvious how buildings are made?

[RedIbis]

If you don't care to address the points made, then my expectations of you not doing so are correct.

You can most certainly expect my not answering inane questions, for which the simplest of searches will answer.

[TruthersLie]

GREAT.

Then do a simple search and show us were this "article" was published. (showing up on a conspiracy website does not an article make).

Please show us any support for your claim based on a BS "article," I'll happily take any PUBLISHED journal article, convention synopsis, peer reviewed journal articles, or even any masters thesis/PhD dissertation.

I'm not asking for you to teach the children of the world to read (heaven forbid), but just to support your OP with real research. It should be easy to find. Google scholar is rather simplistic, but I"ll take it.

Is that too hard for you?

Maybe you could step up your research and explain why the author of this "article" didn't use a meta analysis to support the claim?

But I expect you to run and hide (like normal).

Par for the course with red ibis. tsk tsk tsk.

ETA: Can you please, (pretty please) explain to me why anyone should put any stock in a "analysis" that uses under 15 case studies (for which the methodology is lacking, the analysis is poor, and the assumptions abound)?

I'm asking you very nicely red. Can you please explain to the audience how this "article" does anything except cherry pick data?

i really do want to understand your methodology, and attitudes.

[16.5]

You can most certainly expect my not answering inane questions, for which the simplest of searches will answer.

"You can HARDLY expect my answer to inane questions, for which the simplest of searches will answer."

Fixed that for you, bro!

[TruthersLie]

You can most certainly expect my not answering inane questions, for which the simplest of searches will answer.

Red.

You keep using words that do not mean what you think they mean.

My questions and criticisms are not inane. They are very pertinent and on topic.

Where was this published? Who published it? Who wrote it? And Who vetted it?

All of those are incredibly important when judging bias and the level of research involved.

I want you to answer those questions so you can see just how craptacular this "analysis" is.

So who wrote it? A health librarian. Someone who is WAY outside of her field, and who should know case study methodology much better.


Where is it published? On a conspiracy theory website... not in any journal. Not in any publication... so the level of the publication is rather lacking (wouldn't you agree?)

Who vetted it? Oh the author... it didn't go through peer review at all. Which explains all of the errors in it.

Now if you care to defend those questions, I'd love to read them. That is why I keep asking you. You keep trying to make it sound like your OP has any validitiy, and I have shown you repeatedly that case studies are the WEAKEST methodology possible for the questions and conclusions drawn.

Can you explain why the author didn't do a simple meta analysis? It would have conclusively shown any changes in the media attitdues towards 9/11. It would have taken just about the same amount of time.

yet instead of doing that simple (and it is simple) methodology, they try to pass off this...

Please red. Pretty please can you explain how this piece of crap has any validity, reliability or information that is of any use?

[TruthersLie]

Red.

In post 13 I tore this "article" / "analysis" apart. And instead of even bothering to reply you have just ignored it.

so here is the reply from post 13. Please reply to the issues I raised. It should be easy.

But lets start our analysis of this "paper."

Shall we begin?

In the abstract they already start showing their Woo.


Did you notice that? The abstract is making a unsubstantiated claim. Here I'll highlite it. That isn't what an real abstract is for in any journal article. Not unsubstantiated claims that have nothing to do with the paper you are writing.

Lets continue.
First paragraph of the "paper"


Where is a single citation? Not one. Go figure. Making a claim w/out any citaitons. Tsk tsk tsk.

And it doesn't get any better. Massive claims follow in the next two sentences, but no citations are made. wow. I could tear apart each starting sentence in this "introduction" for failing to provide citations to support the claims... but that is too easy.

The introduction is all over the place, but we steadily get into the WOO.

Nano thermite rears its ugly head.


so we have a lie that it is peer reviewed, a lie that it is an "explosive" and a lie that it was found "throughout" the wtc Dust. Wowsers. Massive claims from ignorance not supported (even by the paper they claim).

They then show how unorganized they are because they segue from nanothermite into 18 case studies... wow. I mean with this APA format and the "unreacted thermite" it should be a slam dunk for some peer reviewed journal to snatch them up. They should wait by the telephone. That call will be coming soon.

I won't even delve into all of the issues with her "case studies." This is a craptacular piece O fail.

But then again looking at who the author is


yet another truther talking about stuff outside of her education or expertise. It really is a shame.

Red, you might actually want to take an experimental design course, or a research methods class... It would keep you from falling for this crapola.

Lets get into the meat and potatoes of it though.

[Childlike Empress]

But lets start our analysis of this "paper."


WHO SAID THAT??? WHO DO YOU CLAIM TO QUOTE, PROVIDE A SOURCE! GO AHEAD!!!!!1 UNSCIENTIFIC!!!

:rolleyes:

[TruthersLie]

You are right... I was giving it much more credence than it was worth by labeling it a "paper."

Even the author notices that it is just an essay. Not an analysis, not a paper, nor a journal, but an "essay." It is barely even that.

Though red seems to think that makes it an "article."

My bad. It wasn't a "paper." Thank you for pointing that out.

ETA: and the retired health librarian did have it right... it wasn't an "analysis" rather a survey. Which is why they use the weaker case study methodology... Now if only red would admit that it is crapola, then we can have done with this OP.

[Dave Rogers]

The article makes a strong case that instead of 9/11 "Truth" disappearing or evaporating, it is receiving more neutral if not, favorable coverage.

As a sad commentary on the press corps, not one news agency in the world so far has done any coverage on the Feb. 19 event that was simultaneously broadcast at press conferences being hosted concurrently in cities throughout the US including San Francisco, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Seattle, Portland, Chicago, Austin, Dallas, Madison, Dover, NH, Tulsa, Tucson, Boston, Alexandria, VA (DC), Tampa, Temple Terrace, FL, Denver, Newark; and internationally in Ontario, Vancouver, Brussels, Denmark, Sydney, and Wellington, NZ.

I would agree that no coverage at all is probably more favourable than most of the coverage the truth movement has attracted so far; however, the anti-Gandhi process appears to be well under way. First they fight you, then they ridicule you, then they ignore you, then you lose. I'd say we're well into stage three.

Dave

[dafydd]

The media and their masters think we are mushrooms. They keep us in the dark and feed us poop.

That's why you're full of crap!

[beachnut]

I don't know how you do it Red. You stay so polite. You own them time and time again and they come at you with everything they got and you show time and time again that what they got ain't much.

Have you ever even been suspended? I mean they have tried everything to shut you up. It must kill them that you are still here. I wish I had the patience.
The topic is about the crazies, the 911 truthers and how the media is exposing them. But you are not on topic again. Are you going to report yourself?

[bill smith]

is this the final confirmation that the OCT is finished ? Debunkers pay attention and get your passports up to date.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUmGvyUIU_E&feature=player_embedded#

Did you notice that the presentor of the clip said. '[9/11] is not a question of who or why anymore. It's only a question of how.

[Dandyone]

is this the final confirmation that the OCT is finished ? Debunkers pay attention and get your passports up to date.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUmGvyUIU_E&feature=player_embedded#

Did you notice that the presentor of the clip said. '[9/11] is not a question of who or why anymore. It's only a question of how.

I noticed that on RT Wikki Page, it says that RT is available on Direct TV. I can't seem to find it. What an excellent network. I remember when the Russians kicked the Georgians out of South Ossetia a year or so ago, RT did a great job of getting the other side of the story out before the US cable networks could go into full propaganda mode regarding that incident. I hope that soon this station will be widely available and widely watched here in the US, and around the world. For a new network they seem to be doing extremely well according to Wikki.

I wonder if they would set aside a couple hours for a fair debate between leading truthers and some of the super debunkers here ant JREF and where ever else they reside. I'm going to contact the producers at RT and see what they are wiling to arrange. The 911 piece you linked to was excellent. Thanks

[carlitos]

Credulous truther is credulous.

[16.5]

I noticed that on RT Wikki Page, it says that RT is available on Direct TV. I can't seem to find it. What an excellent network. I remember when the Russians kicked the Georgians out of South Ossetia a year or so ago, RT did a great job of getting the other side of the story out before the US cable networks could go into full propaganda mode regarding that incident. I hope that soon this station will be widely available and widely watched here in the US, and around the world. For a new network they seem to be doing extremely well according to Wikki.

I wonder if they would set aside a couple hours for a fair debate between leading truthers and some of the super debunkers here ant JREF and where ever else they reside. I'm going to contact the producers at RT and see what they are wiling to arrange. The 911 piece you linked to was excellent. Thanks

There is absolutely no doubt that Russian Times upholds the high, high standards of Pravda. I mean look at the excellent work they have done on the 911 piece, there was nearly a full two words before the first exaggeration, and then almost five full seconds before the first lie.

Bill, Dandyone, thanks for drawing this arm of the Russian Government to our attention.

[bill smith]

Credulous truther is credulous.

You are sounding gobsmacked Carlitios. lol

[Dandyone]

There is a absolutley no doubt that Russian Times upholds the high, high standards of Pravda. I mean look at the excellent work they have done on the 911 piece, there was nearly a full two words before the first exageration, and then almost five full seconds before the first lie.

Dandyone, thanks for drawing this arm of the Russian Government to our attention.

In case you hadn't noticed, FOX, CNN, NBC, ABC ad the rest have kinda slanted their coverage in favor of the "War On Terror" fraud. (from which millions of deaths have resulted) Before that, they were a de facto wing of the American government for the "Cold War" in all their coverage regarding that conflict.

Naturally RT will have a Russian slant. What I was commenting on was the fact that they give equal time to both sides of the 911 issue. I know as far as you and your cohorts are concerned there is no issue, but here and around the world there are millions who would like this issue and many others to be discussed in more open and fair way. On every US network the bulk of coverage regarding this has been pretty ridiculous, consisting of mocking and ignoring those who ask questions.

In my opinion the more diverse sources we have or information, the better. Free enterprise in the media will be good for all.

[aggle-rithm]

. What I was commenting on was the fact that they give equal time to both sides of the 911 issue.

There are only two sides?

[DGM]

In case you hadn't noticed, FOX, CNN, NBC, ABC ad the rest have kinda slanted their coverage in favor of the "War On Terror" fraud. (from which millions of deaths have resulted) Before that, they were a de facto wing of the American government for the "Cold War" in all their coverage regarding that conflict.

Naturally RT will have a Russian slant. What I was commenting on was the fact that they give equal time to both sides of the 911 issue. I know as far as you and your cohorts are concerned there is no issue, but here and around the world there are millions who would like this issue and many others to be discussed in more open and fair way. On every US network the bulk of coverage regarding this has been pretty ridiculous, consisting of mocking and ignoring those who ask questions.

In my opinion the more diverse sources we have or information, the better. Free enterprise in the media will be good for all.
Just out of curiosity:
Do you think the networks should devote more time to scientology, homeopathy and extraterrestrials?

[beachnut]

In case you hadn't noticed, FOX, CNN, NBC, ABC ad the rest have kinda slanted their coverage in favor of the "War On Terror" fraud. (from which millions of deaths have resulted) Before that, they were a de facto wing of the American government for the "Cold War" in all their coverage regarding that conflict.

Naturally RT will have a Russian slant. What I was commenting on was the fact that they give equal time to both sides of the 911 issue. I know as far as you and your cohorts are concerned there is no issue, but here and around the world there are millions who would like this issue and many others to be discussed in more open and fair way. On every US network the bulk of coverage regarding this has been pretty ridiculous, consisting of mocking and ignoring those who ask questions.

In my opinion the more diverse sources we have or information, the better. Free enterprise in the media will be good for all.
UBL must be laughing at the crazies known as 911 truth. '
UBL has not changed his attitude, and will kill Americans as he promised in the 90s, he is patient and while 911 truth spews lies, UBL is waiting to kill Americans again. Unlike 911 truth, UBL takes action, 911 truth lies.

Media attitude is moving to put 911 truth in the crazy conspiracy theorist category. Nothing they do is relevant, nothing they do is based on evidence. As UBL does not care if he gets around to killing Americans next week or the next decade, his attitude is the same 911 truth is failure.


RT will have a Russian slant. What I was commenting on was the fact that they give equal time to both sides of the 911 issue. 911 truth have not issues backed with evidence, they are telling lies and it is easy to see when the media takes the time to see everything 911 truth has is a pathetic, moronic lie based on hearsay and delusions. If 911 truth was bigger, the coverage would expose them as idiots and liars; but 911 truth is a very small fringe of people who can't think for themselves and some insane people like Dr. Jones who thinks the US caused the crisis in Haiti, as he is very insane, and he made up thermite with zero evidence. Now he is backing in evidence my making up more lies.

The media usually ignores crazies, they are not a big story.