The CT school of judging Sources

[Panoply_Prefect]

How to judge a source CT stylee, short version:


The BBC example.

Trustworthy.

A BBC documentary says that Al Quaida is a creation of the US.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/3755686.stm
http://infowars.net/articles/february2007/140207Qaeda.htm


There's no such thing as al Qaeda, or al Qaida, or however you want to spell it. It's a fraud perpetrated on the American people by our own (...more) government to scare us into submission. This is a clip from the excellent three-part BBC documentary "The Power of Nightmares".


Untrustworthy.

A BBC documentary says Truthers are wrong.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/6160775.stm
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/190207tissueoflies.htm


The BBC's Conspiracy Files documentary about 9/11 was a tissue of lies, bias and emotional manipulation from beginning to end.


Trustworthy

BBC reports the fall of WTC7 in advance.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/280207timestamp.htm


If there was any remaining doubt that the BBC reported the collapse of Building 7 over 20 minutes before it fell then it has now evaporated with the discovery of footage from the BBC's News 24 channel that shows the time stamp at 21:54 (4:54PM EST) when news of the Salomon Brothers Building is first broadcast, a full 26 minutes in advance of its collapse.


Untrustworthy

BBC denies being part of The Conspiracy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html


We're not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening.


Just remember, selectiveness is the key to good source judgement.

/S

[uk_dave]

I dunno, I must have watched a completely different documentary called 'the power of nightmares' since I seem to recall the first two episodes spent a great deal of time explaining how Al Quaeda came into being, and I don't remember any claim that it was created by the US.

The third episode, the weakest in my oh so humble opinion, seemed intent on suggesting that the existence of AQ was hyped by the US neocons.

It's amusing that prior to the screening Avery seemed very quiet on the subject of the BBC Conspiracy files documentary which (just like his run in with gravy on the hardfire debate) presented him exactly as he is: a rather naive muddled young man out of his depth.

[Panoply_Prefect]

I dunno, I must have watched a completely different documentary called 'the power of nightmares' since I seem to recall the first two episodes spent a great deal of time explaining how Al Quaeda came into being, and I don't remember any claim that it was created by the US.

The third episode, the weakest in my oh so humble opinion, seemed intent on suggesting that the existence of AQ was hyped by the US neocons.

It's amusing that prior to the screening Avery seemed very quiet on the subject of the BBC Conspiracy files documentary which (just like his run in with gravy on the hardfire debate) presented him exactly as he is: a rather naive muddled young man out of his depth.

The first Infowar link above shows a clip from one of the parts to give the impression that there was no such thing as Al Quaida before 911.

Another example of how The Truther movement judge sources selectively is:

Military employees

Untrustworthy

Military personnel is suspect since they are government employees

http://killtown.911review.org/flight77/passengers.html


Is it a just coincidence the most of the passengers on Flight 77 with military backgrounds were Navy and that the crash at the Pentagon happened in the Navy's command center which took the heaviest casualties?
Trustworthy

Pentagon witnesses who seem to corroborate the North of Citgo-path.

http://www.thepentacon.com/index.htm


Four, the high level of credibility of the witnesses themselves
Two of the four are Pentagon Police Officers
Cheers,
SLOB

[jhunter1163]

Don't forget demolition experts. Trustworthy: Jowenko. Untrustworthy: All others.

[Panoply_Prefect]

Don't forget demolition experts. Trustworthy: Jowenko. Untrustworthy: All others.

A well, CTs AFAIK havent accused the "Demolition experts" as a group to be "in on it", so Im not sure if that qualifies as being selective. Im more aiming at selectiveness against one source.

On one hand they believe the BBC is trustworthy when something they say seems to be in CT favour. On the other hand BBC is "in on it" when not.

On one hand "The Military" are obviously untrustworthy, on the other hand Pentagon Police Officers are extra trustworthy.

And the only common treat on why the judgement goes this particular way is trustworthy - anything that agrees with me, untrustworthy - anything that goes against me.

/S

[jhunter1163]

A well, CTs AFAIK havent accused the "Demolition experts" as a group to be "in on it", so Im not sure if that qualifies as being selective. Im more aiming at selectiveness against one source.

On one hand they believe the BBC is trustworthy when something they say seems to be in CT favour. On the other hand BBC is "in on it" when not.

On one hand "The Military" are obviously untrustworthy, on the other hand Pentagon Police Officers are extra trustworthy.

And the only common treat on why the judgement goes this particular way is Trustworthy - anything that agrees with me, untrustworthy - anything that goes against me.

/S

Well, you could substitute CNN or any major mainstream media outlet and get essentially the same result. The entire MSM is assumed to be under the thumb of the NWO/Zionist cabal, except for a few erroneous reports which are seized on as gospel (hijackers alive, UA93 landed in Cleveland, etc.)

[Panoply_Prefect]

Well, you could substitute CNN or any major mainstream media outlet and get essentially the same result. The entire MSM is assumed to be under the thumb of the NWO/Zionist cabal, except for a few erroneous reports which are seized on as gospel (hijackers alive, UA93 landed in Cleveland, etc.)



Oh, yes, dang I forgot the BBC "Hijackers are alive (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm)" article... Yes, then the CTs believe the BBC are trustworthy. And you are correct, CTs are prone to claim that the "Mainstream media" are "in on it", that would be a good example of obvious selectiveness.


/S