911 and the Propaganda Model

[mjd1982]

Some handsome chappy has posted this over at 911 blogger. Though as with the wtc 7 testimonies and CR thread I am not expecting any considered or honest responses, well, it'll be worth a larf seeing the animal noises that wil presumably ensue.

The post should put an end to ideas of the media needing to be "in on it" that we here all to often from the herd, and can be extrapolated to all establishment institutions, more or less.

Finally, I should state that I have corresponded with both of the formulators of the PM, Chomsky and Herman, and while I am aware they are not Truthers, their observations exist independently of the need for any validation on their part regarding its interpretation.

Enjoy!

***


Even though you wrote it, you don't need to post the entire thing here as well. Post a paragraph or two and a link. The infraction has been reversed.

Link to removed material: http://911blogger.com/node/10887

[twinstead]

mjd we already understand your world view.

People every bit as intelligent and world aware as you totally disagree with you, deal with it. Your arrogance, refusal to ever admit you are wrong about anything, and your total willingness to believe anything that supports your position no questions asked basically means that to me your posts are akin to listening to Charlie Brown's parents.

wah. wah wah wah. wah. wha wha. wha wha wha wha.

Good luck with your whole conspiracy thing. I hope one day you aren't relegated to cut-and-paste posting and spewing your impotent bluster in an obscure internet forum, but for now that's pretty much all you have.

Enjoy.

[Jonnyclueless]

blogs..facts...same thing...

[A W Smith]

bla bla bla useless words <snip>.
does this propaganda model extend world wide? To include our (us) enemies? I thought not. case dismissed.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

mjd we already understand your world view.

People every bit as intelligent and world aware as you totally disagree with you, deal with it. Your arrogance, refusal to ever admit you are wrong about anything, and your total willingness to believe anything that supports your position no questions asked...

He'd make a great war president, wouldn't he?

[beachnut]

celebrities such as Charlie Sheen and Rosie O’Donnell were automatically lampooned as “kooks” and “whackos”,
Are all 9/11 truth movement people kooks and whackos? Or do they just have kooky ideas and whacko conclusions? This is a piece of junk.

[funk de fino]

Another example would be to look at the way the Iraq War has been covered. You will routinely see it described, especially by the BBC, as a blunder, a mistake, a quagmire, and so on- but how much focus do you get on the lies that were told to get us into this? Or the sometimes hundreds of Iraqis getting killed every day? You will do well to read a shred of this anywhere, and yet these are the essential facts

Complete and utter tripe, and you know it mjd

British media have a hard on for Bush and the reasons we went to Iraq

Tony Boy blew his legacy on this mainly due to the UK media latching onto the Iraq thing

I see reports everyday about car bombs killing Iraqis

The BBC and the Dr David Kelly thing shows you that the media are not in the backpocket of any politician in this country. Also the cash for questions affair.

As for US media I would not know because, in general, when I am in America I cannot bear to watch it, too many commercials breaks

[mjd1982]

Excuse me if there has been some misunderstanding, but this is my work, and so I can post it in its entirety, I believe, though I apologise if I'm wrong.

So here we go again. Cue animal noises once more!

****

Blog content removed. A link to the blog entry can be found in the OP.

See the modified mod box in the OP. Your infraction has been reversed, but a link to your blog is sufficient.

[leftysergeant]

The corporate media filters what the lazy and semi-literatre hear and read. WHADDA SUPRIZE! Those of us who read and listen to alternative radio like AAR and actually have lives which bring us into contact with real people in 3D know someone is gaming us.

And I can see that someone is trying to game the internet, by putting up garbage-laden blogs and invading every political or scientific discussion message board into which they can stick their slimy tentacles.

White nationalism would still be gasping for its last breath, had those useless wankers not found the web.

So now, they can spread disinfo to raise concerns among the exciteable rednecks that the gubmint has gone rougue and there is nothin ya can do about it but getcher gun and go overthrow the SOBs.

9/11 was such a unique event in history that few people can even get their minds around it. Butr an expert counsellor can help them. A counselor can show them how to process that information into an activist attitude.

White nationalists are good at very little in this world, but they do know how to bend people's minds around the idea that government is not to be trusted.

Actually, the white nationalists have it easier than the government. They don't really need to fix any problems.

[funk de fino]

had stated in their biennial policy white paper, in September 2000, that the US needed “a catastrophic and catalysing event, like a new Pearl Harbor”, to initiate a radicalisation in military behaviour

Not this again

It never

[chillzero]

If you are going to respond to an OP, then please do so civilly, on topic, and responding to the topic, not attacking the poster. I have moved several posts to AAH.

[DGM]

Another propaganda model was started in 2001 (or there abouts) by what is known today as the "truth movement". They use the internet to influence mostly young males by pleading to their sense of worthlessness. They use scare tactics such as telling them that their freedoms are being taken away by fictitious organizations that will put them in death camps. Their "truth" is all lies but any attempt to dissagree is met with cries of "disinfo" and government shills or sheep.
Here's another example for you MJ, The one that got you. Sheepie!

[Brainache]

The Propaganda Model, as it has been formulated and named by Chomsky and Edward Herman, has too many examples to broach any more than I already have. But there is no doubt, that there could not be a more astonishing and important example of it than 9/11. If we proceed on the easily demonstrable premise that mass media censorship of rudimentary and critical issues will occur when powerful interests are to be protected, then you will never find a better example of this than in the mass media’s treatment of the attacks. Possibly the most reported on news event of all time, still eliciting direct comment even today; and yet, the overwhelming majority of the population in the West is unaware, blissfully so, of the most rudimentary facts of that day. Go out and ask people how many skyscrapers fell on 9/11. Out of 100 people, will you get more than 5? I think you will be lucky. Due to the internet groundswell of awareness to the critical issue of WTC7, the 47 story building housing the CIA, Secret Service, Federal Office of Emergency Management, and other federal agencies, that fell in a manner described by Danny Jowenko, a leading implosion expert, thusly: “That is controlled demolition. Absolutely certain. This is a professional job done by a team of experts”, the media is now having to combat this censorship, bit by bit. This will happen with vague apologetics, such as “It was forgotten about in the confusion of the day”, and other evasions; however, nothing can get round the white elephant that is the fact that the collapse of this massive building, though receiving proportionate coverage on 9/11 (indeed being reported as collapsed by the BBC and CNN prior to its collapse), very soon after, disappeared down the Orwellian memory hole, oblivious to the public consciousness.


I'll just take this tiny snippet from your deliciously concise post.

So the most widely reported event in recent years has been censored because most people don't care about WTC7? A building that was damaged severely and burned for more than seven hours before finally collapsing.
Danny Jowenko can say what he likes after being shown a short video clip without audio, but without some kind of study his opinion is no better than anyone else's.

What censorship? I remember it being reported at the time here in Australia. People aren't focused on it because it wasn't attacked by terrorists and nobody died when it fell down.

A "white elephant" is an unwanted gift. I don't see how that makes sense in your post. And then the knowledge of its collapse is oblivious to its own disappearence? What?

Please try to make your points a bit more clearly in future. Maybe you could try using more words.

[leftysergeant]

Another propaganda model was started in 2001 (or there abouts) by what is known today as the "truth movement". They use the internet to influence mostly young males by pleading to their sense of worthlessness. They use scare tactics such as telling them that their freedoms are being taken away by fictitious organizations that will put them in death camps. Their "truth" is all lies but any attempt to dissagree is met with cries of "disinfo" and government shills or sheep.
Here's another example for you MJ, The one that got you. Sheepie!

Loose Change. From The People Who Brought You The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

And for the same bloody reason.

[Dr Adequate]

Go out and ask people how many skyscrapers fell on 9/11. Out of 100 people, will you get more than 5? I think you will be lucky. Due to the internet groundswell of awareness to the critical issue of WTC7, the 47 story building housing the CIA, Secret Service, Federal Office of Emergency Management, and other federal agencies, that fell in a manner described by Danny Jowenko, a leading implosion expert, thusly: “That is controlled demolition. Absolutely certain. This is a professional job done by a team of experts”, the media is now having to combat this censorship, bit by bit. This will happen with vague apologetics, such as “It was forgotten about in the confusion of the day”, and other evasions; however, nothing can get round the white elephant that is the fact that the collapse of this massive building, though receiving proportionate coverage on 9/11 (indeed being reported as collapsed by the BBC and CNN prior to its collapse), very soon after, disappeared down the Orwellian memory hole, oblivious to the public consciousness. So, the NWO went to the trouble of wiring WTC7 with explosives so that it would collapse on 9/11, and then went to the trouble of hushing it up so that no-one would know it had collapsed.

Why didn't they just not blow it up in the first place? Surely the best way of ensuring that people don't notice the disappearance of a 47-storey skyscraper is to make sure that it does not, in fact, disappear. Indeed, I really can't think of any other way.

[Pardalis]

And yet here is mjd 100% free to express himself and his beliefs...

I think it's been said before, the Truth movement is more a cult of personality, a bunch of pseudo intellectuals stroking their ego, showing off how bright they are to have found out the truth.

[jon]

Another propaganda model was started in 2001 (or there abouts) by what is known today as the "truth movement". They use the internet to influence mostly young males by pleading to their sense of worthlessness. They use scare tactics such as telling them that their freedoms are being taken away by fictitious organizations that will put them in death camps. Their "truth" is all lies but any attempt to dissagree is met with cries of "disinfo" and government shills or sheep.
Here's another example for you MJ, The one that got you. Sheepie!

The OP referred back to Chomsky's 'propaganda model', and I think Chomsky's view is closer to that quoted above than that in the OP. In his Distorted Reality, Chomsky considers truther propaganda:

"I've looked at some of it, just out of curiosity, and this seems to me that those who make such claims just do not understand the nature of evidence. After all, why do scientists do experiments? Why not just take videotapes of what's happening outside? The things that are going on in the phenomenal world are just too complicated to study. You're not going to get sharp results from studying them; you're going to get all kinds of confusion, strange things happening that you can't understand, and so on. So what you do controlled experiments." [With] real-world phenomena...you're going to find all sorts of odd things. With the kind of evidence that is being used, you could prove that the White House was bombed yesterday." (p12)
"Plus there is the style of the presentation of the evidence. People who know nothing about civil engineering, except what they picked up on the Internet somewhere, giving an early treaties or more must have happened: How could a building do this... These are not trivial matters. You can't just looked up on the Internet and say ‘I'm an accomplished civil engineer’. So those who make such claims just don't understand the nature of evidence." Truther claims about 911 are diversions: "Even if it were true that the Bush administration had planned and implemented the attacks, that would be a minor point compared with the crimes that they committing against the American people and the world." (p13)

So, MJD, how do you feel about being an unwitting participant in the truther propaganda model :D

[mjd1982]

The OP referred back to Chomsky's 'propaganda model', and I think Chomsky's view is closer to that quoted above than that in the OP. In his Distorted Reality, Chomsky considers truther propaganda:

"I've looked at some of it, just out of curiosity, and this seems to me that those who make such claims just do not understand the nature of evidence. After all, why do scientists do experiments? Why not just take videotapes of what's happening outside? The things that are going on in the phenomenal world are just too complicated to study. You're not going to get sharp results from studying them; you're going to get all kinds of confusion, strange things happening that you can't understand, and so on. So what you do controlled experiments." [With] real-world phenomena...you're going to find all sorts of odd things. With the kind of evidence that is being used, you could prove that the White House was bombed yesterday." (p12)
"Plus there is the style of the presentation of the evidence. People who know nothing about civil engineering, except what they picked up on the Internet somewhere, giving an early treaties or more must have happened: How could a building do this... These are not trivial matters. You can't just looked up on the Internet and say ‘I'm an accomplished civil engineer’. So those who make such claims just don't understand the nature of evidence." Truther claims about 911 are diversions: "Even if it were true that the Bush administration had planned and implemented the attacks, that would be a minor point compared with the crimes that they committing against the American people and the world." (p13)

So, MJD, how do you feel about being an unwitting participant in the truther propaganda model :D
As I have stated before, I have corresponded with Chomsky on this particular topic twice now, and though I am a big fan of his, his views on 911 are utterly absurd (such as that the TM gets soft treatment in the MSM). He is, as his comment above testifies, fixated on the "implosion" of the TT's as being the TM, rather than realising, or appraising the broader, and more accurate aims of the movement. I would surmise that this is maybe aided by the fact that he doesnt regard 9/11 as anything like serious, compared to the crimes the US commits elsewhere which he documents, so he is less inclined to look into it.

Nonetheless, as I have said, the formulation exists independently of its formulator; I will wait for any responses to the OP. They will not come.

[mjd1982]

I'll just take this tiny snippet from your deliciously concise post.

So the most widely reported event in recent years has been censored because most people don't care about WTC7? A building that was damaged severely and burned for more than seven hours before finally collapsing.
Danny Jowenko can say what he likes after being shown a short video clip without audio, but without some kind of study his opinion is no better than anyone else's.


You have instantly misunderstood the most elementary part of the post. 7 is not censored because "most people don't care about WTC7". It is censored because it is detrimental to powerful interests. Ditto the rest of my post.


What censorship? I remember it being reported at the time here in Australia. People aren't focused on it because it wasn't attacked by terrorists and nobody died when it fell down.


What censorship? The fact that no one knows about it, that censorship.

You may want to claim that no one cared about it, since it "wasn't attacked by terrorists", but that a 47 story building can collapse and elicit essentially zero MSM coverage is an ipso fact instance of gross censorship of rudimentary details, just as the PM would predict.


A "white elephant" is an unwanted gift. I don't see how that makes sense in your post. And then the knowledge of its collapse is oblivious to its own disappearence? What?


My bad on the white elephant. I meant that it was a big object sitting there and making people uncomfortable.

2nd point, my quote was "the collapse of the building...disappeared down the Orwellian memory hole, oblivious to the public consciousness." I dont think this is too hard to understand.


Please try to make your points a bit more clearly in future. Maybe you could try using more words.

Would smaller ones help?

[Pardalis]

What about the media in other countries?

[Alt+F4]

a 47 story building can collapse and elicit essentially zero MSM coverage

The collapse of WTC7 was on the front page on The New York Times on September 12, 2001.

[mjd1982]

What about the media in other countries?
There is a slight problem there in that most such news will be sourced/based on what gets reported in the US. Nonetheless, it is, I believe, common currency in most Muslim countries, esp. those not affiliated with the US, that this was an inside job.

[Pardalis]

There is a slight problem there in that most such news will be sourced/based on what gets reported in the US.

Nope. The world outside the US does just fine on its own. There are plenty of non US journalists going about in the US.

Nonetheless, it is, I believe, common currency in most Muslim countries, esp. those not affiliated with the US, that this was an inside job.And they wouldn't have a vested interest that it would be an inside job?

Please... :rolleyes:

[mjd1982]

The collapse of WTC7 was on the front page on The New York Times on September 12, 2001.
Right. It was also documented with much gravity on the BBC, as we all know.
This is a perfect illustration of the pont that it was big enough news to be reported, unlike some say. However, as soon as it is realised that this story is a threat to power, it gets censored, automatically. There could not be a more astonishing, and Orwellian example of propaganda than this.

[mjd1982]

Nope. The world outside the US does just fine on its own. There are plenty of non US journalists going about in the US.

And they wouldn't have a vested interest that it would be an inside job?

Please... :rolleyes:
1. Yes. This is what happens, to a significant degree. How many times will you read reports from a country which parrit what has been reported by "Le Monde", "The Australian", or the "New York Times". This is what occurs, though not all the time, to a significant degree.

2. Whether you think that is neither here nor there. It has been reported in these countries.

[Pardalis]

1. Yes. This is what happens, to a significant degree. How many times will you read reports from a country which parrit what has been reported by "Le Monde", "The Australian", or the "New York Times". This is what occurs, though not all the time, to a significant degree.

You're propaganda theory doesn't work outside of the US.

2. Whether you think that is neither here nor there. It has been reported in these countries.

Maybe it's their own propaganda?

[mjd1982]

Complete and utter tripe, and you know it mjd


What???


British media have a hard on for Bush and the reasons we went to Iraq


Have a hard on for him? Excuse me?!

The point about the PM is not that power will not be criticised, but that there will be limits to such criticism. These are the limits to public discourse. You will read in the BBC about how there were "blunders", but not about how the Bush admin had decided to go to war with Iraq before 911, as reported by many, including his biographer. Even when these matters slip in, they are not "news". They are not treated as the relevant facts.


Tony Boy blew his legacy on this mainly due to the UK media latching onto the Iraq thing


Again, there are strict limits on what can be discussed. Have you heard of the Downing Street memo? Ask yourself why this isnt brought up every time the war is discussed in teh MSM


I see reports everyday about car bombs killing Iraqis


Precisely. Those bastard Iraqi terrorists. But you wont read about Americans killing Iraqis- that is the point.


The BBC and the Dr David Kelly thing shows you that the media are not in the backpocket of any politician in this country. Also the cash for questions affair.


LOL, oh pleeeeease! The Gilligan thing I mentioned in the OP, there is no better example of the PM than that, go back and read. The Levy thing is irrelevant, who gives a toss if someone was maybe offered cash for a peerage? This does not matter.


As for US media I would not know because, in general, when I am in America I cannot bear to watch it, too many commercials breaks

It is possible worse than UK.

I am posting this now for the 7th time. If you would care to be the 1st viewer, you will automaticalyl be more informed about the world than the rest of the jref

http://youtube.com/watch?v=8jkJIya_0KE

[mjd1982]

You're propaganda theory doesn't work outside of the US.



Maybe it's their own propaganda?
1. The propaganda model entails the shielding of powerful interests due to those interests being being mass media. They will have the monopoly on mass distributed information in that country. The PM thus applies in whatever country you are looking at, just the controlling/protected interests will differ slightly, though this will depend on the country.

2. If this is so, which it may well be, then you have just illustrated how the PM would work in an Islamic country. Apply it to the US, and you are home and dry.

[johnny karate]

Right. It was also documented with much gravity on the BBC, as we all know.
This is a perfect illustration of the pont that it was big enough news to be reported, unlike some say. However, as soon as it is realised that this story is a threat to power, it gets censored, automatically. There could not be a more astonishing, and Orwellian example of propaganda than this.

I see. So it was both widely reported and censored. I'm not sure you know what "censored" means.

[Pardalis]

1. The propaganda model entails the shielding of powerful interests due to those interests being being mass media. They will have the monopoly on mass distributed information in that country. The PM thus applies in whatever country you are looking at, just the controlling/protected interests will differ slightly, though this will depend on the country.

But at some point, in some country somewhere, we should expect to see a media outlet to pick up on the story. So far... ZERO.

2. If this is so, which it may well be, then you have just illustrated how the PM would work in an Islamic country. Apply it to the US, and you are home and dry.

The US is not an islamic country, it's a democracy.

[16.5]

I noted that you rely very heavily on a You Tube Interview with Jack Kelley. Is that the same Jack Kelley that was a longtime USA Today reporter and nominee for the Pulitzer Prize? But perhaps he is best known for his professional downfall in March 2004, when it came out that he had long been fabricating stories, going so far as to write up scripts so associates could pretend to be sources during an investigation of his actions by others at the newspaper.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

2. If this is so, which it may well be, then you have just illustrated how the PM would work in an Islamic country. Apply it to the US, and you are home and dry.

Al-Queada has released videos wherein they demand Americans submit to the will of Allah. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azzam_the_american#Appearances_in_Al_Qaeda_videos)

US authorities responded by seeking the death penalty against the man who appears in the videos.

Islamic propaganda models don't appears to work on Americans at all.

[mjd1982]

I see. So it was both widely reported and censored. I'm not sure you know what "censored" means.
You havent understood the point. The collapse of the building was reported initially- i.e. in the 1st few hours or so. This was unavoidable, and there was no reason not to report it. As soon as the evident suspicion about it appeared, it disappeared.

This should have been simple to understand.

[mjd1982]

But at some point, in some country somewhere, we should expect to see a media outlet to pick up on the story. So far... ZERO.



The US is not an islamic country, it's a democracy.
1. How do you know that? (I know it's not true, but I am interested in why you woudl make such an assertion...)

2. Hence why I have illustrated how a democratic propaganda system would work. Please read the OP to find out more.

[mjd1982]

Al-Queada has released videos wherein they demand Americans submit to the will of Allah. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azzam_the_american#Appearances_in_Al_Qaeda_videos)

US authorities responded by seeking the death penalty against the man who appears in the videos.

Islamic propaganda models don't appears to work on Americans at all.
as above. There is a major difference betweem autocratic propaganda systems, and democratic ones. I have outlibed this at length in the OP

[mjd1982]

I noted that you rely very heavily on a You Tube Interview with Jack Kelley. Is that the same Jack Kelley that was a longtime USA Today reporter and nominee for the Pulitzer Prize? But perhaps he is best known for his professional downfall in March 2004, when it came out that he had long been fabricating stories, going so far as to write up scripts so associates could pretend to be sources during an investigation of his actions by others at the newspaper.
Who's Jack Kelley?

[Pardalis]

1. How do you know that? (I know it's not true, but I am interested in why you woudl make such an assertion...)

I haven't heard any report that indicated 9/11 was an inside job from any major news outlet in the Western world.

OK, let's take your beloved OP... (at least what's pertaining to 9/11, the rest I don't care for):

Due to the internet groundswell of awareness to the critical issue of WTC7,

First of all, wtc7 is not a critical issue, it is only a critical issue for Tuthers.

Most journalists around the world won't mention that collapse because, for one thing, nobody trully knows yet what happened to that building. The NIST hasn't released their findings yet. Journalists aren't there to speculate, their job is to communicate facts. They won't risk their professional integrity by reporting half-assed information and second grade testimonies. It's not censorship, it's plain and simple common sense.


this was indeed a dual attack- the plane hitting the building, and a bomb in the basement. You will not read a shred about this now, in any mainstream journal.Again, that's your conclusion, based on flimsy evidence. Journalists won't report such rubbish.

This is the first time in a democratic society, that there has been testimony, multiple, independent and corroborating, of a bomb in an important and populous location, that has just been forgotten.Every journalist knows that on the spot eye-witnesses accounts aren't 100% accurate. Only conspiracy theorists make them more important than they are and take them as gospel.

BTW, "explosions" does not necessarily mean "bomb". Again, that's your false conclusion.

[twinstead]

I would imagine that if there were ANYTHING to what would be earth-shattering evidence that you say you have, mjd, there would be journalists all over it.

This is Pulitzer Prize material. Journalists would, and in fact have, risked their very lives for a once-in-a-lifetime story. Are you suggesting that this censorship machine is SO strong as to squelch this in all the Western World?

[DGM]

You havent understood the point. The collapse of the building was reported initially- i.e. in the 1st few hours or so. This was unavoidable, and there was no reason not to report it. As soon as the evident suspicion about it appeared, it disappeared.

This should have been simple to understand.
Again with the "truther" propaganda. This is another one of your fantasies. The "testimonies" (noting your wording to gain credibility) are not backed up by the physical evidence. Why is that? Why do you not have a credible reason for this?

PEOPLE WERE THERE CLEANING UP! A DEMOLITION IS OBVIOUS! PEOPLE LOOKING AT VIDEOS ARE THE ONLY ONES DOUBTING THIS! WHY CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND THIS!

If I brought you to a demo site you could recognize it!(yes I'm in construction) And forget that some of the steel was removed quickly because the important pieces of a demolition are near the bottom of the pile (It's funny like that). So unless your ready to say everyone there was in on it, give it up.

You keep saying that we miss the real objectives of the "truth movement" but you continue to campaign these lies. Wake up! As long as the "truth movement" hangs on to CD it will go nowhere. No matter how many words you through at it you can't explain away the lack of physical evidence. Period end of story!

[16.5]

Who's Jack Kelley?

C'mon, you are just trolling now, right?

Your OP contains a you tube video that quotes him as the source for your claim that the FBI asserted that there was a bomb in the basement of the WTC on 911.

So, I guess Jack Kelley is the disgraced reporter you are citing as your source?

[Hans]

MJ stated

"Nonetheless, it is, I believe, common currency in most Muslim countries, esp. those not affiliated with the US, that this was an inside job."

Nope, you are believing wrongly, the most commonly reported opinion is that brave matyrs killed themselves for the world's Muslims. The second most commonly held opinion is that evil Joos from Isreal did it. The third is evil joos caused the Americans to do it. The split is about 50/20/15/other.

WTC 7 is a non issue, kinda like discussing what JFK's driver was wearing.

[SpitfireIX]

You havent understood the point. The collapse of the building was reported initially- i.e. in the 1st few hours or so. This was unavoidable, and there was no reason not to report it. As soon as the evident suspicion about it appeared, it disappeared.

This should have been simple to understand.


From The New York Times:

October 2, 2001 (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40F17FD39590C718CDDA90994D94044 82):

Scarred Steel Holds Clues, And Remedies

. . . One piece Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw was a charred horizontal I-beam from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed from fire eight hours after the attacks.


December 20, 2001 (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C02EEDD103EF933A15751C1A9679C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1):

A NATION CHALLENGED: THE TRADE CENTER; City Had Been Warned of Fuel Tank at 7 World Trade Center

Fire Department officials warned the city and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in 1998 and 1999 that a giant diesel fuel tank for the mayor's $13 million command bunker in 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story high-rise that burned and collapsed on Sept. 11, posed a hazard and was not consistent with city fire codes. . . .

Engineering experts have spent three months trying to determine why 7 World Trade Center, part of the downtown complex that included the 110-story towers, collapsed about seven hours after being damaged and set on fire by debris from the damaged landmark buildings.

Some of the experts, who said that no major skyscraper had ever collapsed simply because of fire damage, have recently been examining whether the diesel tanks -- there were others beneath ground level -- played an important role in the building's stunning demise. [emphasis added]


December 25, 2001 (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B00E0DA1531F936A15751C1A9679C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2):

A NATION CHALLENGED: THE TOWERS; Experts Urging Broader Inquiry In Towers' Fall

. . . Other experts take a still wider view, favoring a study that would look at the implications of the collapses -- a nearby, 47-story building, 7 World Trade Center, also fell on Sept. 11 after burning for most of the day -- for fire codes, building standards and engineering practices across the board. [emphasis added]


February 12, 2002 (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9501E3DF1E3CF931A25751C0A9649C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2):

Rescuing the Buildings Beyond Ground Zero

. . . Later that day, 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story skyscraper just to the east, came tumbling down, its ruins slumping like a slain giant against the Verizon Building's east facade.


March 10, 2002 (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE6DC1330F933A25750C0A9649C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2):

Commercial Property; More Attention to Security in Designing Buildings

. . . The building at 7 World Trade Center was not directly attacked, but burned and fell as a result of its location adjacent to the Twin Towers.


May 8, 2003 (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70915FA3D5B0C7B8CDDAC0894DB4044 82):

TOWERS UNTESTED FOR MAJOR FIRE, INQUIRY SUGGESTS

. . . In particular, the team says it is lacking clear views of the south face of 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed later in the day on Sept. 11.


July 13, 2003 (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C07EED6123DF930A25754C0A9659C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1):

Commercial Property/7 World Trade Center; Building Being Reborn Using Part of Old Foundation

WHILE discussions continue on how to redevelop the Twin Towers site of the former World Trade Center, construction already is under way to rebuild the adjacent 7 World Trade Center, a building that collapsed in fires touched off by the Sept. 11 attack. [emphasis added]


October 19, 2003 (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0CE5D7173EF93AA25753C1A9659C8B 63)

Commercial Property/TriBeCa; Neighbors Object to Tower's Emergency Equipment

. . . And since the attack of Sept. 11, when fuel tanks for backup generators were associated with the collapse of 7 World Trade Center, a lot of attention has been drawn to the tanks that supply the 45 generators owned by tenants in the building. [emphasis added]


April 14, 2004 (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9B07E1D6163BF937A25757C0A9629C8B63):

Prosecutors Say Rescuer Stole Cars Recovered At Ground Zero

He did not go into detail but said that Mr. Bennette had spent much of Sept. 11 helping rescue people at 7 World Trade Center before it collapsed at 5:30 p.m. [emphasis added]


And, last but certainly not least, November 8, 2004 (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/08/nyregion/08ads.html?ex=1257656400&en=730dbca6aa104f1a&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland):

A Hidden Story Behind Sept. 11? One Man's Ad Campaign Says So

The grainy 30-second commercials are eerie and cryptic, and they suggest a government cover-up of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. One implies that no plane flew into the Pentagon. The other suggests that 7 World Trade Center, which collapsed late in the afternoon that day, was detonated from within. [emphasis added]


From CNN.com:

September 14, 2001 (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/TECH/industry/09/14/verizon.damage.idg/index.html):

Verizon repairs badly damaged network and morale

. . .With heavy hearts, Verizon is trying to move ahead toward fixing its severely damaged West Street central office switch location, which stood adjacent to the Twin Towers Building 7 that collapsed. [emphasis added]


September 19, 2001 (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/18/rec.terror.newyork/index.html):

Recovery effort moves ahead

Grubb & Ellis, a commercial real estate services firm, said all seven World Trade Center buildings either collapsed or partially collapsed as a result of the terrorist attacks.

The destroyed buildings included the twin towers; the 22-story World Trade Center Marriott Hotel; 5 World Trade Center, which housed the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and various judicial offices; and 7 World Trade Center, which housed the U.S. General Accounting Office, the OEM, the Secret Service and the Securities and Exchange Commission. [emphasis added]


November 4, 2001 (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/11/04/inv.newyork.cia.office/index.html):

CIA office near World Trade Center destroyed in attacks

A CIA office operating at 7 World Trade Center was destroyed when the building came down after planes crashed into the twin towers, a U.S. official has confirmed to CNN. . . .

The official said no CIA employees were killed in the collapse of the building. 7 World Trade Center was one of a number of smaller buildings in the area that were destroyed after the twin towers collapsed. [emphasis added]


October 21, 2004 (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/10/21/wtc.milestone/index.html?iref=newssearch):

Skyscraper reaches milestone at WTC site

No. 7 WTC was the last of the complex's buildings to be built in the 1980s, and was the last to collapse on September 11 after burning for seven hours.


From ABCNews.com:

September 13, 2004 (http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92515&page=1):

Rescue, Recovery Teams On a Mission

. . . A vigorous fire flared up today on the grounds of 7 World Trade Center, a 47-floor building that collapsed on Tuesday after the towers fell, and 12 buildings are known to have sustained damage from the towers collapse, ABCNEWS' Bob Jamieson reports. [emphasis added]


September 24, 2001 (http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92441&page=1):

Children Saved in Terror Attack

. . . The official evacuation plan would have taken them northwest to 7 World Trade Center, toward the danger. That building collapsed later that day. [emphasis added]


January 14, 2002 (http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=91999&page=1):

Groundbreaking Set for 7 World Trade Center

Groundbreaking for a building to replace 7 World Trade Center has been tentatively set for Sept. 11 of this year, according to a published report.

The 47-story building will be rebuilt to approximately the same dimensions as the original, Crain's New York Business reported in today's editions.

The building caught fire and collapsed at 5 p.m. on Sept. 11, 2001, after two hijacked planes smashed into the complex's famed twin towers. [emphasis added]


The above are only a sample from these and other news organizations. Now, mjd1982, please explain again how the mainstream media was prevented from talking about the collapse of 7 WTC after a few hours.

[Hokulele]

Yes. This is what happens, to a significant degree. How many times will you read reports from a country which parrit what has been reported by "Le Monde", "The Australian", or the "New York Times". This is what occurs, though not all the time, to a significant degree.


Nope (http://www.nhk.or.jp/digitalmuseum/nhk50years_en/history/p24/index.html).


(Sorry prewitt81, it was the best word I could think of for this link.)

[funk de fino]

What???
Have a hard on for him? Excuse me?!

They have a hard on for bashing Bush

The point about the PM is not that power will not be criticised, but that there will be limits to such criticism. These are the limits to public discourse. You will read in the BBC about how there were "blunders", but not about how the Bush admin had decided to go to war with Iraq before 911, as reported by many, including his biographer. Even when these matters slip in, they are not "news". They are not treated as the relevant facts.

BBC is not the only media in the UK but in fact has reported simliar accusations that you have made. I agree Bush wanted to go into Iraq regardless, so what? Most people in the UK will tell you this as well.

Again, there are strict limits on what can be discussed. Have you heard of the Downing Street memo? Ask yourself why this isnt brought up every time the war is discussed in teh MSM

I see reports all the time of dodgy dossiers, lack of WMD's, poor intel by the americans that Tony was shown and blindly followed into Iraq like a little sheep. All the time. Tony is gone now, why do you think that is?


Precisely. Those bastard Iraqi terrorists. But you wont read about Americans killing Iraqis- that is the point.

Also reports of Americans killing Iraqis, and also killing UK soldiers? What limits are there? I watch this everyday just like you, you are wrong

Remember the huge airstrike in the first gulf war that killed hundreds of civilians? The bunker one that the US said was some sort of caommand bunker? Where did we see that reported? In fact where do we see all the blue on blue reported? ITV? CH4? Sky News?


LOL, oh pleeeeease! The Gilligan thing I mentioned in the OP, there is no better example of the PM than that, go back and read. The Levy thing is irrelevant, who gives a toss if someone was maybe offered cash for a peerage? This does not matter.

Poor attempt at avoidance, this cash for questions could potentially have brought the govt down as could the Gilligan thing? The fact it did not is not connected to them not being reported. Where were the limts here?


It is possible worse than UK.

Of no interest to me, as I said

I am posting this now for the 7th time. If you would care to be the 1st viewer, you will automaticalyl be more informed about the world than the rest of the jref

I have also seen video of him discussing your litle merry band of 911 men, he is quite scathing about your herd

[funk de fino]

Editing out quoted post and response, as several posts joining the rest in AAH. Stop this bickering.

had stated in their biennial policy white paper, in September 2000, that the US needed “a catastrophic and catalysing event, like a new Pearl Harbor”, to initiate a radicalisation in military behaviour


They did not STATE that they NEEDED the pearl harbour type event to INITIATE A RADICALISATION IN MILITARY BEHAVIOUR

You have claimed yourself that the Pearl Harbour type event was propitious not that it was needed for the transformation, in fact, you said it was to speed up the radicalisation that would have happened anyway

So what is it? Do you need to edit this piece because it clashed with what you have posted elsewhere on this site?

[Horace Wheeljack]

The largest terrorist attack in the US results in the senseless and tragic deaths of thousands of people. Two huge skyscrapers containg many people spectacularly collapses.

The significantly smaller WTC7 collpases several hours later and nobody dies - mjd1982 cant work out why this event has faded into the background! Is he for real?

[Sabrina]

The largest terrorist attack in the US results in the senseless and tragic deaths of thousands of people. Two huge skyscrapers containg many people spectacularly collapses.

The significantly smaller WTC7 collpases several hours later and nobody dies - mjd1982 cant work out why this event has faded into the background! Is he for real?

Unfortunately yes. See, in mjd's world, he's right, and all the rest of us are sheep, no matter what evidence you present to him to show otherwise.

It's an absolutely fascinating trip into a human's capacity for self-delusion. It really is.

[Dr Adequate]

You havent understood the point. The collapse of the building was reported initially- i.e. in the 1st few hours or so. This was unavoidable ... It was perfectly avoidable. All the NWO had to do was not blow it up.

[mjd1982]

From The New York Times:

October 2, 2001 (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40F17FD39590C718CDDA90994D94044 82):




December 20, 2001 (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C02EEDD103EF933A15751C1A9679C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1):




December 25, 2001 (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B00E0DA1531F936A15751C1A9679C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2):




February 12, 2002 (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9501E3DF1E3CF931A25751C0A9649C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2):




March 10, 2002 (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE6DC1330F933A25750C0A9649C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2):




May 8, 2003 (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70915FA3D5B0C7B8CDDAC0894DB4044 82):




July 13, 2003 (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C07EED6123DF930A25754C0A9659C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1):




October 19, 2003 (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0CE5D7173EF93AA25753C1A9659C8B 63)




April 14, 2004 (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9B07E1D6163BF937A25757C0A9629C8B63):




And, last but certainly not least, November 8, 2004 (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/08/nyregion/08ads.html?ex=1257656400&en=730dbca6aa104f1a&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland):




From CNN.com:

September 14, 2001 (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/TECH/industry/09/14/verizon.damage.idg/index.html):




September 19, 2001 (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/18/rec.terror.newyork/index.html):




November 4, 2001 (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/11/04/inv.newyork.cia.office/index.html):




October 21, 2004 (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/10/21/wtc.milestone/index.html?iref=newssearch):




From ABCNews.com:

September 13, 2004 (http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92515&page=1):




September 24, 2001 (http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92441&page=1):




January 14, 2002 (http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=91999&page=1):




The above are only a sample from these and other news organizations. Now, mjd1982, please explain again how the mainstream media was prevented from talking about the collapse of 7 WTC after a few hours.
I didnt say they were prevented, the point is that reports on it have been overwhelmingly censored. Of course, some info will seep through, such as you have posted, or such as has appaeared very occassionally in papers over here. This will inevtiably happen in any propaganda system large enough; its unavoidable. But the point is that this will not be news. It will not be commonly known fact, widely understood by a proportionate amount of the populace. If you watch the documentary of the PM, Manufacturing Consent ("http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5631882395226827730&q=manufacturing+consent&total=89&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0), you will see that this is a similar pattern to wat happened in Timor/Cambodia in the mid 70's. One was a US sponsored massacre, which got ~40 inches in the NYT over 3 yrs, and the other was a non US sponsored, proportionately equal massacre taht elicited ~1200 inches. Stuff will get through, but it will be grossly censored.

I dont think you can argue seriously that 7 hasnt been censored as I describe- we can agree that the overwhelming majority of westerner dont know about it. It is a rudimentary detail. This ilustrates that it has been censored.

[Pardalis]

I dont think you can argue seriously that 7 hasnt been censored as I describe- we can agree that the overwhelming majority of westerner dont know about it. It is a rudimentary detail. This ilustrates that it has been censored.

It wasn't censored, has Spitfire showed you. It's just an unimportant event, considering what else happened that day.

[mjd1982]

They have a hard on for bashing Bush


Within a limited spectrum


BBC is not the only media in the UK but in fact has reported simliar accusations that you have made. I agree Bush wanted to go into Iraq regardless, so what? Most people in the UK will tell you this as well.


The fact that these items are not widely read, watched and understood elements of current affairs illustrates the point.


I see reports all the time of dodgy dossiers, lack of WMD's, poor intel by the americans that Tony was shown and blindly followed into Iraq like a little sheep. All the time. Tony is gone now, why do you think that is?


Poor intel, precisely. Not false intel, as the Downing St memo proves. This is the point.


Also reports of Americans killing Iraqis, and also killing UK soldiers? What limits are there? I watch this everyday just like you, you are wrong


I advise you to compare a site such as Democracy Now, or Informed Comment, and their coverage of the war, with that of BBC. There you will see a small fraction of what happens, vs what gets reported


Remember the huge airstrike in the first gulf war that killed hundreds of civilians? The bunker one that the US said was some sort of caommand bunker? Where did we see that reported? In fact where do we see all the blue on blue reported? ITV? CH4? Sky News?


I dont remember that.

If you watched the vid i sent you, you will not be talking about the Gulf War. Watch it


Poor attempt at avoidance, this cash for questions could potentially have brought the govt down as could the Gilligan thing? The fact it did not is not connected to them not being reported. Where were the limts here?


riiiight... so an instance of petty corruption could have brought down a government. The Gilligan thing was serious however, and that is why the BBC were kicked back into line in the most severe manner. This is the perfect example of the PM. If you get out of line, you will face the consequences. That happened, and people, all the way up to the boss, lost their jobs.


I have also seen video of him discussing your litle merry band of 911 men, he is quite scathing about your herd

As I said, I have discussed this with him, and his reasoning is utterly absurd- I believe he has admitted to putting little thought into thism since he doesnt feel it matters. Nonetheless, his comments are of little value here.

[mjd1982]

It wasn't censored, has Spitfire showed you. It's just an unimportant event, considering what else happened that day.
Please read the post. There is a very clear pattern. On the day, and shortly thereafter, it received proportionate coverage- front page NYT, for instance. Shortly after, it stopped. Coverage of the other elements, such as the TT's collapse continued- analysed, discussed, replayed again and again and again- but on 7, nothing. It stopped. This is why no one knows about it. The PM will lead us to conculde that such a pattern will be indicative of the shielding of powerful interests.

As for whether this is something that should gt reported or not, you can do a little experiment that I do when I campaign- go out and ask people how many skyscrapers fell on 911. When they dont know the answer, tell them, and see their reaction. They will say, wtf. How the hell do I not know that, how the hell has that not been covered in the news. This is a standard response, and if you cannot empathise with that, then that is indicative of your bubble, rather than the dynamic of the outside world, I;m afraid.

[mjd1982]

The largest terrorist attack in the US results in the senseless and tragic deaths of thousands of people. Two huge skyscrapers containg many people spectacularly collapses.

The significantly smaller WTC7 collpases several hours later and nobody dies - mjd1982 cant work out why this event has faded into the background! Is he for real?
Its not that it has "faded into the background". Its that in the public consciousness, it doesnt exist. This is a rudimentary detail, and the fact that no one knows about it astonishes people when you tell them. This is the best barometer for the significance of the detail, whether it has been covered up or not.

[HyJinX]

I knew it fell. So what if everyone doesn't? Why is this significant?

[Pardalis]

This is why no one knows about it. The PM will lead us to conculde that such a pattern will be indicative of the shielding of powerful interests.

It's not because you feel it's important and should be talked about more that it proves that there is deliberate censoring of this event. It is still unimportant to the rest of the world (except structural engineers, architects and fire safety professionals).

I saw it fall when I came back home from work that day, and I'm not in the US. So I knew about it.

When they dont know the answer,Is it important for everyone to know how many buildings fell on 9/11? why should it be important?

tell them, and see their reaction. They will say, wtf. How the hell do I not know that, how the hell has that not been covered in the news. This is a standard response, and if you cannot empathise with that, then that is indicative of your bubble, rather than the dynamic of the outside world, Sure, if you tell them in a way that supposes that this collapse is a smoking gun, sure, people will react to it in this way. But if you don't imply anything when you tell them about the collapse of WTC7, most people will say '"oh, gee, what do you know..." and then they will go on about their day.

[stanleywinthrop]

Please read the post. There is a very clear pattern. On the day, and shortly thereafter, it received proportionate coverage- front page NYT, for instance. Shortly after, it stopped. Coverage of the other elements, such as the TT's collapse continued- analysed, discussed, replayed again and again and again- but on 7, nothing. It stopped. This is why no one knows about it. The PM will lead us to conculde that such a pattern will be indicative of the shielding of powerful interests.

As for whether this is something that should gt reported or not, you can do a little experiment that I do when I campaign- go out and ask people how many skyscrapers fell on 911. When they dont know the answer, tell them, and see their reaction. They will say, wtf. How the hell do I not know that, how the hell has that not been covered in the news. This is a standard response, and if you cannot empathise with that, then that is indicative of your bubble, rather than the dynamic of the outside world, I;m afraid.


So you are telling us that the collapse of WTC 7 (where no one died) should recieve just as much if not more press coverage than WTC 1 & 2, the pentagon, and shanksville?

And how is this not insulting to the families of those who died that day?

[Unsecured Coins]

I knew it fell. So what if everyone doesn't? Why is this significant?

Because the evidence of the cover up, maaan! The Big G Unit is trying to supress the information of WTC7 falling because if the people start asking questions, man... it's all over for the NWO.

[Horace Wheeljack]

Mjd, i know what you mean that people are astonished when they first learn that wtc7 fell, i certainly was when my truther friends told me. But seriously, does it surprise you that an event (where nobody died) doesnt exist "in the public consciousness" on the same day that thousands of people died horrifically in an altogether more significant building collapse?

[brodski]

. These are the limits to public discourse. You will read in the BBC about how there were "blunders", but not about how the Bush admin had decided to go to war with Iraq before 911, as reported by many, including his biographer. Even when these matters slip in, they are not "news". They are not treated as the relevant facts.


You mean the BBC treats this as “not news” by making it the lead story on the BBCs flagship news programme? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm

The facts don’t agree with your theory. You have a choice, change your theory or ignore the facts.

[funk de fino]

Within a limited spectrum

They are supposed to be neutral but yet they still display leftish tendencies, correct or not? They really do not like Bush


The fact that these items are not widely read, watched and understood elements of current affairs illustrates the point.

only in your own mind, you do the people of the UK a disservice

Poor intel, precisely. Not false intel, as the Downing St memo proves. This is the point.

How many whistle blowing undercover exposes on our govt do you see? loads of them? Look at the sleaze run of the Tories when they were in power? was none of this reported? how did we find out about it? how do we find out about incorrect intel?

I advise you to compare a site such as Democracy Now, or Informed Comment, and their coverage of the war, with that of BBC. There you will see a small fraction of what happens, vs what gets reported

I know what happens I have been there, I see what is on TV and I read media from all places, the BBC are not censored or cowed into not reporting stuff the govt do not like. I could just as easily use Infowars or Prisonplanet but they are a joke and they lie, do you use them?

I dont remember that.

Why doesnt that surprise me?

If you watched the vid i sent you, you will not be talking about the Gulf War. Watch it

Why would I not?


riiiight... so an instance of petty corruption could have brought down a government. The Gilligan thing was serious however, and that is why the BBC were kicked back into line in the most severe manner. This is the perfect example of the PM. If you get out of line, you will face the consequences. That happened, and people, all the way up to the boss, lost their jobs.

Yes, if the investigation had revealed that Blair had broken the rules nothing would have happened?? Where is Tony now? You have failed to answer this? Why?

Gilligan made stuff up, if he had not then the govt would have suffered? They were not censored in what they reported at all, this is your issue in your OP and that is what I pulled you up for


As I said, I have discussed this with him, and his reasoning is utterly absurd- I believe he has admitted to putting little thought into thism since he doesnt feel it matters. Nonetheless, his comments are of little value here.

He feels you and your lot do not matter? Much the same as most then? So you cherry pick Norm? Only what suits you eh?

He feels you are doing Bush and co a favour does he not?

also this snippet from your blog i believe?

So let me start by saying 3 things: firstly, it is an idea that is now believed by 50 % of the 9/11 victim’s families

really, do 50% of the families believe 911 was an inside job?

[HyJinX]

Because the evidence of the cover up, maaan! The Big G Unit is trying to supress the information of WTC7 falling because if the people start asking questions, man... it's all over for the NWO.

Ooooohhhh...that's right. THE COVER UP!!!!!! INSIDE JAWB!!!!!!!!

Seriously...this is the most ridiculous thread ever.

[twinstead]

Seriously...this is the most ridiculous thread ever.

Wow. Even though this thread is indeed ridiculous, that's a pretty bold statement for the conspiracy section of this forum ;)

[16.5]

I’m still waiting for your comments about your source, Jack Kelley.

By the way, a google search reveals 2,680,000 hits for “wtc 7.”

You have taken into account the massive growth of information available through the internet, haven’t you??

I mean, are not relying on a book published in 1988? “Mass media”? Is this 1990? And, what is this inches of newsprint in the 1970's NYT of which you speak? Is that similar to the telegraph?

How quaint. You know, they have the internet available on computers now.

[HyJinX]

I should have ended that sentence with "...within the past few hours". I forgot all about the Realistice thread.

My bad.

Sorry.

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

You havent understood the point. The collapse of the building was reported initially- i.e. in the 1st few hours or so. This was unavoidable, and there was no reason not to report it. As soon as the evident suspicion about it appeared, it disappeared.

This should have been simple to understand.


Yes it should be simple for you to understand that you qualified your remark about WTC7 by saying it received ZERO coverage. ZERO. You said it. You didn't say "LITTLE" or "MINIMAL" or "Only in the first hour" or "Only the next day" or "The BBC talked about it briefly". You said ZERO.

Now you go on to say that it received initial coverage. And now that it's completely ignored... WHICH IT ISN'T. You also say that it was only mentioned in the hours after it fell. Ignoring when someone called you out that it was mentioned the NEXT DAY as well.

Hell the DEUTCH BANK is still in the news.

Of course you tend to pick and choose what to read, and ignore anything that doesn't jibe with your view of things... Such as being blind to the fact that the truther movement are the real propagandists here.

[leftysergeant]

Of course you tend to pick and choose what to read, and ignore anything that doesn't jibe with your view of things... Such as being blind to the fact that the truther movement are the real propagandists here.

The internet is becoming more and more the target of an assortment of whackadoo movements who wish to propogandize their beliefs.

The traditional media are not readily accessible to the white nationalists and anarchists without tremendous capital outlays, and most of them do not have the capital to gain access to print or broadcast media.

But it cost very little to throw up a website and post all kinds of untrue blather.

Editors and talk show hosts can easily shut the nutjobs out of their venues. But trolls can invade nearly every website that exists. They come into all the liberal sites I have visited and scream that if you do not hate Bush enough to want to lynch him on evidence pulled out of some retard's butt, you are not a liberal, you are just another neo-con sheeple.\

That is what is happening here, too.

[Corsair 115]

This...
I didnt say they were prevented, the point is that reports on it have been overwhelmingly censored. Of course, some info will seep through, such as you have posted, or such as has appaeared very occassionally in papers over here....is contradicted by this (note bolded portion)...

The collapse of the building was reported initially- i.e. in the 1st few hours or so. This was unavoidable, and there was no reason not to report it. As soon as the evident suspicion about it appeared, it disappeared. So, which statement of yours should we take to be correct, your first one or your second one? Would you now admit the quote above was, at the very least, bordering on hyperbole?

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

But it cost very little to throw up a website and post all kinds of untrue blather.

It's craziness I tells ya! In all seriousness this is why the psychology of the truther movement intrigues me more than the obvious economical (USA big dog on the block), political-social (islamic fundies who think Republicans are too liberal), and physical reasons (600mph jetliners with 90% fuel + buildings = BAD THINGS) that they rail against.

It is amazing to see how they've grown, not in numbers, but in capacity from a few nutters who think the government is out to get everyone (including itself apparently) to a pure cult. They almost put Scientologists to shame. I wouldn't be surprised if they try to get tax exempt status from the IRS in 20 years - Church of the 9/11 TRUTH!

But they are showing cult-like tendencies. And not just a bunch of snake handlers... but a dangerous cult. It is just a matter of time...


Editors and talk show hosts can easily shut the nutjobs out of their venues. But trolls can invade nearly every website that exists. They come into all the liberal sites I have visited and scream that if you do not hate Bush enough to want to lynch him on evidence pulled out of some retard's butt, you are not a liberal, you are just another neo-con sheeple.
Being right of center (fiscally side, not the crazy christian fundie side) of the political spectrum I see them showing up in Right leaning websites and forums too... They claim you're not a true "Conservative" if you let the "neo-cons" take over control of the "Conservatives" and then of course they start pointing fingers at Jews who of course according to them... Can't be real Conservatives.

That's the thing about the right-left spectrum. When they go so far off the right, and off to the left. They meet up and suddenly have a lot in common.

Their patron saint on the "Right"? Ron Paul. Even though he said they're full of it. They assume he's just lying to get votes and then he'll "come out" as a truther. Funny how they always are for lying if it moves their cause along.

Again... The psychology is amazing! :boxedin:

[mjd1982]

It's not because you feel it's important and should be talked about more that it proves that there is deliberate censoring of this event. It is still unimportant to the rest of the world (except structural engineers, architects and fire safety professionals).

I saw it fall when I came back home from work that day, and I'm not in the US. So I knew about it.

Is it important for everyone to know how many buildings fell on 9/11? why should it be important?

Sure, if you tell them in a way that supposes that this collapse is a smoking gun, sure, people will react to it in this way. But if you don't imply anything when you tell them about the collapse of WTC7, most people will say '"oh, gee, what do you know..." and then they will go on about their day.
As Ive said before, this comes down to 1 matter- I believe that the collapse of a 47 story building in NY as a result of a terrorist attack is an event that should garner a level of report such that people know about it. You dont. This is fine.

But as I have told you, there is a very simple way to find out which iof us is right. Go and tell your friends, "did you know there was a 3rd skyscraper to fall on 911?", and see what they say. i do it all the time, and the response is always the same.

[mjd1982]

Mjd, i know what you mean that people are astonished when they first learn that wtc7 fell, i certainly was when my truther friends told me. But seriously, does it surprise you that an event (where nobody died) doesnt exist "in the public consciousness" on the same day that thousands of people died horrifically in an altogether more significant building collapse?
I am not saying that the collapse should have gotanything like the coverage of the TT collapse. Nonetheless, any event should be reported to the extent that the public will not be shocked by its ignorance of such an event. If this is not the case, then censorship has occurred. Very simple- this is predicated on the fact that papers print news that is relevant to their audience. When this doesnt happen, esp as egregiously as this, then something is amiss. This is what I mean by censorship.

Applying the PM, you come to a logical conclusion.

And thanks for being decent enough to admit you were shocked by the news of 7- you have more honesty than most on this thread.

[mjd1982]

You mean the BBC treats this as “not news” by making it the lead story on the BBCs flagship news programme? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm

The facts don’t agree with your theory. You have a choice, change your theory or ignore the facts.
Oh please.

1. I have stated that elements will seep through. hell, were it not for the Daily Mail, I may not have even known about this yet. The point is that such facts will not b deemed "news", i.e. facts tht are widely recognised and accepted. This will not happen. You may find snippets about oil here and there, but the fact that the media consensus is that the invasion happened on blundering intel is what matters.

2. This article does not even fit into that category. Read it:

"The Bush administration made plans for war and for Iraq's oil before the 9/11 attacks, sparking a policy battle between neo-cons and Big Oil, BBC's Newsnight has revealed."

"there were two conflicting plans, setting off a hidden policy war between neo-conservatives at the Pentagon, on one side, versus a combination of "Big Oil" executives and US State Department "pragmatists".

"Big Oil" appears to have won. The latest plan, obtained by Newsnight from the US State Department was, we learned, drafted with the help of American oil industry consultants. "

" "Many neo conservatives are people who have certain ideological beliefs about markets, about democracy, about this, that and the other. International oil companies, without exception, are very pragmatic commercial organizations. They don't have a theology."

A State Department spokesman told Newsnight they intended "to provide all possibilities to the Oil Ministry of Iraq and advocate none".

etc

[mjd1982]

I’m still waiting for your comments about your source, Jack Kelley.

By the way, a google search reveals 2,680,000 hits for “wtc 7.”

You have taken into account the massive growth of information available through the internet, haven’t you??

I mean, are not relying on a book published in 1988? “Mass media”? Is this 1990? And, what is this inches of newsprint in the 1970's NYT of which you speak? Is that similar to the telegraph?

How quaint. You know, they have the internet available on computers now.
1. The testimonies about the "car bomb" from the authorities are pretty widespread. This is just one.

2. I have addressed the issue of internet news in my OP, its one of the main points. Read it.

[mjd1982]

Yes it should be simple for you to understand that you qualified your remark about WTC7 by saying it received ZERO coverage. ZERO. You said it. You didn't say "LITTLE" or "MINIMAL" or "Only in the first hour" or "Only the next day" or "The BBC talked about it briefly". You said ZERO.

Now you go on to say that it received initial coverage. And now that it's completely ignored... WHICH IT ISN'T. You also say that it was only mentioned in the hours after it fell. Ignoring when someone called you out that it was mentioned the NEXT DAY as well.

Hell the DEUTCH BANK is still in the news.

Of course you tend to pick and choose what to read, and ignore anything that doesn't jibe with your view of things... Such as being blind to the fact that the truther movement are the real propagandists here.
You are quibbling on a triviality here- its of zero relevance to the tenor of the point.

[Pak43]

The fact that these items are not widely read, watched and understood elements of current affairs illustrates the point.

From today's BBC reader comment...

http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=1&threadID=7221&start=30&tstart=0&edition=1&ttl=20070828224416&#paginator

Plenty of healthy debate there I would say...

[mjd1982]

From today's BBC reader comment...

http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=1&threadID=7221&start=30&tstart=0&edition=1&ttl=20070828224416&#paginator

Plenty of healthy debate there I would say...
Lets have a look at the most recommended comments:


Any excuse to invade Iran, the next bogeyman on the list. If it's not the nuclear power programme it'll be arming insurgents. The WMD excuse has already been used.

We have: a saber-rattling president

Bush is a dangerous warmonger

Bush is looking for war

Does anyone still listen to this discredited warmonger?

The amazing thing is that propaganda like this is so effective in the United States.

He's a very dangerous man

Bush is rattling the sabre

.It would seem like Bush is the only Leader to stand up to this undemocratic terrorist state.

There is evidence, they have found shells etc that could only have come from Iran

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Iranian regime are hardly peace loving liberals

i cannot see how diplomacy will work with Iran.


I think an accurate quote would be something like,



Bush has committed what the Nuremburg tribunal deemed "The supreme international crime"-i.e. international agression. And he has done it twice. By those laws he would be hanged, and it is beyond dispute that he is a war criminal. American soldiers are murdering Iraqis on a regular basis in what was a pre-set war for petrodollars, based on utter lies, and we now have a 3rd country in sight. People are being fed propaganda from the MSM/Government battle drum, and it's time organisations like the BBC started reporting the facts about this, and the rest of Bush's wars.


Something like that would be a highly conservative rendition of the facts. It is nowhere near to public opinion, I am afraid.

[mjd1982]

Oh, and have a read of the story-


Nevada, Mr Bush renewed charges that Tehran has provided training and weapons for extremists in Iraq.


Sorry- who are the extremists here?

[DGM]

MJD:

What's your take on St. Nicks?

[mjd1982]

again, sorry this can obviously be done with pretty much any bbc article, but I cant resist pulling some more out-


The BBC's Justin Webb, in Washington, says this looks like a conscious effort by the White House to elevate the tension between Washington and Teheran to a new level.

Such an effort might be designed to avoid the need for armed conflict or might equally be an effort to bring that conflict about, our correspondent says.


and before, without a trace of critique


And he said Iran's leaders could not avoid some responsibility for attacks on coalition troops and Iraqi civilians.

"I have authorised our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran's murderous activities," he said.


I could pretty much do the entire article.

[A W Smith]

Building seven was never a target of the terrorist hijackers, It is a fact that no one, Not a single person was killed as a result of the fires and subsequent collapse of building seven. It was a mere property loss. One that was insured. But MJD you want building seven to matter badly. because it is the very last toe hold the troothers have. It is now the end all and be all. The last unanswered question. The last tiny wedge of doubt to enable you to promote your agenda driven conspiracy. But you know what? it is over. Few know about building seven because frankly nobody cares. It failed to generate headlines not because of any "'new propaganda model" censorship. it was simply a collateral damage property loss. Today a new building seven stands and is occupied. it is generating income. Its rebuilding was never a factor in any sacred ground or memorial conflict. No one but troothers care about it. To them it is simply a tool, a crow bar, a wedge, a conspiracy disinformation implement used by fantasist's. but it is over. Your fantasy is ended MJD.

[Stellafane]

Building seven was never a target of the terrorist hijackers, It is a fact that no one, Not a single person was killed as a result of the fires and subsequent collapse of building seven. It was a mere property loss. One that was insured. But MJD you want building seven to matter badly. because it is the very last toe hold the troothers have. It is now the end all and be all. The last unanswered question. The last tiny wedge of doubt to enable you to promote your agenda driven conspiracy. But you know what? it is over. Few know about building seven because frankly nobody cares. It failed to generate headlines not because of any "'new propaganda model" censorship. it was simply a collateral damage property loss. Today a new building seven stands and is occupied. it is generating income. Its rebuilding was never a factor in any sacred ground or memorial conflict. No one but troothers care about it. To them it is simply a tool, a crow bar, a wedge, a conspiracy disinformation implement used by fantasist's. but it is over. Your fantasy is ended MJD.


Building 7 is kind of the ultimate example of the TM taking things out of context. Mjd wonders why the destruction of a 47 story building by terrorists in downtown NYC isn't a bigger story. It certainly deserves to be -- if it happened, say, tomorrow afternoon. But in fact, it happened on a day so full of horror and tragedy that, just to put things into perspective, a hijacked airliner deliberately crashing into the Pentagon wasn't even the day's most significant event.

So for 9/11 CTists, building 7 represents the last ambiguity, the last terra incognita in which their imagined monsters could possibly dwell. It's their last bastion, their last Calais on the continent of relevancy. Trouble is, no one else really cares. Even worse, the clock is already ticking on their last fantasy. Once the final NIST report comes out, and removes the last shadows of the last doubts about what happened that damned day, the TM will lose its last toehold on reality and drift away on the waves of lunacy.

[Drudgewire]

Your fantasy is ended MJD.

the TM will lose its last toehold on reality and drift away on the waves of lunacy.

Man you guys are optimists. ;)

[dudalb]

It's craziness I tells ya! In all seriousness this is why the psychology of the truther movement intrigues me more than the obvious economical (USA big dog on the block), political-social (islamic fundies who think Republicans are too liberal), and physical reasons (600mph jetliners with 90% fuel + buildings = BAD THINGS) that they rail against.

It is amazing to see how they've grown, not in numbers, but in capacity from a few nutters who think the government is out to get everyone (including itself apparently) to a pure cult. They almost put Scientologists to shame. I wouldn't be surprised if they try to get tax exempt status from the IRS in 20 years - Church of the 9/11 TRUTH!

But they are showing cult-like tendencies. And not just a bunch of snake handlers... but a dangerous cult. It is just a matter of time...
I have found out in the years I have been following the CTs,that the hardcore is perfectly willing to switch political opinions to support whatever the hot new Conspiracy Theory is. The big thing is to believe in a Big Bad Evil Cabal that is secretly ruling the world.


Being right of center (fiscally side, not the crazy christian fundie side) of the political spectrum I see them showing up in Right leaning websites and forums too... They claim you're not a true "Conservative" if you let the "neo-cons" take over control of the "Conservatives" and then of course they start pointing fingers at Jews who of course according to them... Can't be real Conservatives.

That's the thing about the right-left spectrum. When they go so far off the right, and off to the left. They meet up and suddenly have a lot in common.

Their patron saint on the "Right"? Ron Paul. Even though he said they're full of it. They assume he's just lying to get votes and then he'll "come out" as a truther. Funny how they always are for lying if it moves their cause along.

Again... The psychology is amazing! :boxedin:


Mark my words,if the Democrats take over the White House in 2008, the Hard Core Troofers will be as anti Clinton/Obama/Whoever as they are anti Bush.They have the F--- All Authority mindset and will hate anybody in a position of authority.
Yeah,they will lose the people who are so blinded by hatred for Bush that they will beleive ANYTHING negative about Dubya,but there will still be a hardcore of Truthers to plague us all. And they might pick a few recruits from the militant right.

[SpitfireIX]

Building 7 is kind of the ultimate example of the TM taking things out of context. Mjd wonders why the destruction of a 47 story building by terrorists in downtown NYC isn't a bigger story. It certainly deserves to be -- if it happened, say, tomorrow afternoon. But in fact, it happened on a day so full of horror and tragedy that, just to put things into perspective, a hijacked airliner deliberately crashing into the Pentagon wasn't even the day's most significant event.


And a hijacked airliner crashing in a field in Pennsylvania and killing 44 people wasn't even the second-most significant event. I recall vividly, because it was right after I'd first switched on the TV (when my mother called to find out if I'd heard about the attacks), a comment made by one news personality (I believe it was Joan Lunden of Good Morning America). She said something to the effect that "We've also had a report that an airliner has crashed in rural Pennsylvania, which on any other day would be our lead story."

[mjd1982]

1. As for the idea that 7is the "last thing we have", this is a perfect example of the type of animal noise that I referenced at the start.

2. With regard to your other animal noise, it has been addressed time and time and time again. The best way to gauge whether it warranted report, is to see what people'e reactions are when you speak to them about it, since this is the barometer of newsworthiness or not. It couldnt be more simple. And, when you see their reactions, it could not be more unanimous.

Unless you can address these issues, then the point stands. End.

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

You are quibbling on a triviality here- its of zero relevance to the tenor of the point.

No. You were proved wrong by the post showing a YEARS worth of articles about WTC7.

That shows you to be a liar when you said ZERO mainstream media coverage, which then changed to only in the few hours afterwards.

That's some fancy backpedaling...

[Stellafane]

1. As for the idea that 7is the "last thing we have", this is a perfect example of the type of animal noise that I referenced at the start...

Hi mjd. Just so you know, simply stating something -- even stating it over and over -- doesn't make it true. Nor does finding a few like-minded people who agree with you. You actually have to back up what you say with (prepare yourself) f-a-c-t-s. I suggest you go out and find some. Make them your friends. They'll come in handy if you ever want to get on in this world.

[Horace Wheeljack]

1. As for the idea that 7is the "last thing we have", this is a perfect example of the type of animal noise that I referenced at the start.

2. With regard to your other animal noise, it has been addressed time and time and time again. The best way to gauge whether it warranted report, is to see what people'e reactions are when you speak to them about it, since this is the barometer of newsworthiness or not. It couldnt be more simple. And, when you see their reactions, it could not be more unanimous.

Unless you can address these issues, then the point stands. End.

Mjd, the fact that people are unaware that wtc7 fell on 911 does not indicate media propoganda. Firstly, as Spitfire demonstrated there has been plenty of media coverage, secondly, the fact that many people are unaware of wtc7 is the result of the insignificance of the collpase in comparison to earlier events. Nobody died in wtc7, the building fell as the result of the twin towers collapse, its merely an aside in comparison to the devestating and tragic events that were left etched in the public imagination.

It doesnt surprise me in the slightest that the public are generally unaware of wtc7, this has nothing to do with propoganda and a lot to do with relative newsworthiness.

I have read a lot of Chomsky including Manufacturing Consent and you have stretched his 'propoganda model' way past breaking point. Chomsky has spoken out against the methods and ideology of the Truth Movement. You're certainly not going to win him round by referencing his work in this way.

[Horace Wheeljack]

1. As for the idea that 7is the "last thing we have", this is a perfect example of the type of animal noise that I referenced at the start.

2. With regard to your other animal noise, it has been addressed time and time and time again. The best way to gauge whether it warranted report, is to see what people'e reactions are when you speak to them about it, since this is the barometer of newsworthiness or not. It couldnt be more simple. And, when you see their reactions, it could not be more unanimous.

Unless you can address these issues, then the point stands. End.

Mjd, the fact that people are unaware that wtc7 fell on 911 does not indicate media propoganda. Firstly, as Spitfire demonstrated there has been plenty of media coverage, secondly, the fact that many people are unaware of wtc7 is the result of the insignificance of the collpase in comparison to earlier events. Nobody died in wtc7, the building fell as the result of the twin towers collapse, its merely an aside in comparison to the devestating and tragic events that were left etched in the public imagination.

It doesnt surprise me in the slightest that the public are generally unaware of wtc7, this has nothing to do with propoganda and a lot to do with relative newsworthiness.

I have read a lot of Chomsky including Manufacturing Consent and you have stretched his 'propoganda model' way past breaking point. Chomsky has spoken out against the methods and ideology of the Truth Movement. You're certainly not going to win him round by referencing his work in this way.

[Darth Rotor]

Link to removed material: http://911blogger.com/node/10887

The need to deter democracy by alienating public opinion from public policy, is one that has been long understood.
This is precisely the tactic used by Islamists to influence confidence in public policy in a variety of countries in the Islamic world.

For once, you present something that I completely agree with. The method you describe above is also how a series of "Red" revolutions took place, up until the wall came down. The recent Zapatista movement in southern Mexico drew on all of the usual tropes, but were unable to build the momentum they needed for a successful overthrow of the Mexican bourgeoisie.

The 1954 operation in Guatemala was, viewed from the purely analytical viewpoint, a master stroke in the use of information rather than force as a political tool. As the details of that operation have become unclassified, the very method used is rendered potentially less effective, since people now know to be on guard against such a method. Part of its success, at the time, was in the element of surprise, or in the element of using an unconventional means to achieve an end. Likewise, the use of an unconventional means, a passenger plane as a bomb, achieved the element of surprise when the Al Qaeda operatives implemented that strategem.

If you were to direct you intellect and analytical efforts toward how the propaganda model was harnessed to influence support for the Iraq War, once 9-11 had taken place, rather than chasing moonbeams, you might add somewhat to the already considerable body of work on that dynamic on modern geopolitics. Granted, you are up against a strong standard, since Chomsky has preceded you by some years. Whether or not one agrees with all of his positions and biases, his analysis is generally worth reading, as points to ponder if for no other reason.

DR

[16.5]

"The best way to gauge whether it warranted report, is to see what people'e reactions are when you speak to them about it, since this is the barometer of newsworthiness or not. It couldnt be more simple. And, when you see their reactions, it could not be more unanimous."

I did that! I did it last night!! I was in a bar with four other people. And I asked them how many buildings came down on 9-11. Three knew of the WTC7, but also explained that all the building in the complex were destroyed, because they had been there for business in the past. Two had stayed at the hotel right there on the complex. The other said "All the buildings at the World Trade Center complex plus part of the Pentagon."

Now, it was not a fair sample, mind you, as all were reasonably well educated, and all had been in and out of New York on business countless times.

So, I'm a little confused as to how your out dated propaganda theory works with people who actually witnessed the destruction in New York first hand. Not just the people who lived there, and were there that day, but also the millions of later visitors to New York who visited the site.

[Cuddles]

the TM will lose its last toehold on reality and drift away on the waves of lunacy.

There is another theory which states that this has already happened.

Apologies to Douglas Adams.

[Brainache]

Here's an experiment for you mjd: Go to a public place and ask 100 people "What was the name of the third Astronaut on Apollo 11?"

How many do you think will confidently say Michael Collins? Does the fact that only a minority will know his name mean that he is a victim of this propaganda model, or just that Neil and Buzz got more coverage?

Or why not ask "Who broke into the Watergate Hotel on 17th June 1972?" I guess most people will say Richard Nixon or Republicans or something, not the names of the five guys who actually did the break in. Yeah propaganda, that's what it is...

[Pardalis]

Here's an experiment for you mjd: Go to a public place and ask 100 people "What was the name of the third Astronaut on Apollo 11?"

This reminds me of the Seinfeld episode about the three tenors: Domingo, Pavarotti and the other guy. :D

How many do you think will confidently say Michael Collins? Does the fact that only a minority will know his name mean that he is a victim of this propaganda model, or just that Neil and Buzz got more coverage?

Or why not ask "Who broke into the Watergate Hotel on 17th June 1972?" I guess most people will say Richard Nixon or Republicans or something, not the names of the five guys who actually did the break in. Yeah propaganda, that's what it is...Very good point. Not to mention that very few people know the intricate details of these historical events. Most people retain the basic overall information of history, and if they are particularly interested in one event, then they'll pursue their own personal interest in the story in more detail. That's why most people who have read about 9/11 in detail know about WTC7, about which the information is very easy to find.

[mjd1982]

No. You were proved wrong by the post showing a YEARS worth of articles about WTC7.

That shows you to be a liar when you said ZERO mainstream media coverage, which then changed to only in the few hours afterwards.

That's some fancy backpedaling...
The fact that artilcles have appeared doesnt do anyting to show that it hasnt been overwhelmingly censored. Public opinion shows this. And this is overwhelmingly one sided.

[mjd1982]

Mjd, the fact that people are unaware that wtc7 fell on 911 does not indicate media propoganda. Firstly, as Spitfire demonstrated there has been plenty of media coverage, secondly, the fact that many people are unaware of wtc7 is the result of the insignificance of the collpase in comparison to earlier events. Nobody died in wtc7, the building fell as the result of the twin towers collapse, its merely an aside in comparison to the devestating and tragic events that were left etched in the public imagination.

It doesnt surprise me in the slightest that the public are generally unaware of wtc7, this has nothing to do with propoganda and a lot to do with relative newsworthiness.

I have read a lot of Chomsky including Manufacturing Consent and you have stretched his 'propoganda model' way past breaking point. Chomsky has spoken out against the methods and ideology of the Truth Movement. You're certainly not going to win him round by referencing his work in this way.
Ok.

1. I am not looking to win him round. As I have said, I have corresponded with him about this several times, and he thinks that the TM have received soft treatment in the MSM. I dont think one can argue with someone whose beliefs are so entrenchedmn

2. You are right that something not appearing in the media doesnt mean it has been censored. It will not appear in the papers that I had curry for lunch today. But what does indicate censorship, is when something that is drastically within in the sphere of public interest does not get reported to the public. As I have said, there is one very simple way to find out if that is the case. Ask people. The result, as everyone is aware, will be overwhelming.

Following the PM, one comes to an unavoidable conclusion.

[mjd1982]

This is precisely the tactic used by Islamists to influence confidence in public policy in a variety of countries in the Islamic world.

For once, you present something that I completely agree with. The method you describe above is also how a series of "Red" revolutions took place, up until the wall came down. The recent Zapatista movement in southern Mexico drew on all of the usual tropes, but were unable to build the momentum they needed for a successful overthrow of the Mexican bourgeoisie.

The 1954 operation in Guatemala was, viewed from the purely analytical viewpoint, a master stroke in the use of information rather than force as a political tool. As the details of that operation have become unclassified, the very method used is rendered potentially less effective, since people now know to be on guard against such a method. Part of its success, at the time, was in the element of surprise, or in the element of using an unconventional means to achieve an end. Likewise, the use of an unconventional means, a passenger plane as a bomb, achieved the element of surprise when the Al Qaeda operatives implemented that strategem.

If you were to direct you intellect and analytical efforts toward how the propaganda model was harnessed to influence support for the Iraq War, once 9-11 had taken place, rather than chasing moonbeams, you might add somewhat to the already considerable body of work on that dynamic on modern geopolitics. Granted, you are up against a strong standard, since Chomsky has preceded you by some years. Whether or not one agrees with all of his positions and biases, his analysis is generally worth reading, as points to ponder if for no other reason.

DR
Them damn towelheads... I say, stick em on train, send em off to a camp, and say bye bye!

[mjd1982]

"The best way to gauge whether it warranted report, is to see what people'e reactions are when you speak to them about it, since this is the barometer of newsworthiness or not. It couldnt be more simple. And, when you see their reactions, it could not be more unanimous."

I did that! I did it last night!! I was in a bar with four other people. And I asked them how many buildings came down on 9-11. Three knew of the WTC7, but also explained that all the building in the complex were destroyed, because they had been there for business in the past. Two had stayed at the hotel right there on the complex. The other said "All the buildings at the World Trade Center complex plus part of the Pentagon."

Now, it was not a fair sample, mind you, as all were reasonably well educated, and all had been in and out of New York on business countless times.

So, I'm a little confused as to how your out dated propaganda theory works with people who actually witnessed the destruction in New York first hand. Not just the people who lived there, and were there that day, but also the millions of later visitors to New York who visited the site.
You are confused. The point is to tell people who dont know about it, about it, and see their reaction. The number of people who know about it is well known, its about 50%. This illustrates nothing favourable to msm incidentally, as it doesnt show how people found this out.

[mjd1982]

This reminds me of the Seinfeld episode about the three tenors: Domingo, Pavarotti and the other guy. :D

Very good point. Not to mention that very few people know the intricate details of these historical events. Most people retain the basic overall information of history, and if they are particularly interested in one event, then they'll pursue their own personal interest in the story in more detail. That's why most people who have read about 9/11 in detail know about WTC7, about which the information is very easy to find.
I'm sorry, but no no no!!! This is an horrendous, steaming, stinking fly infested pile of rhinoceros poop of a point!

The name of the 3rd man on the moon doesnt matter. No one cares. The names of the 5 "plumbers" doesnt matter either. I dont know most of their names. It is irrelevant. As I have said before, there is a very simple way to gauge this- ask people. We all know what the result is when you do this, since we have all done it. We have all been in this position. And we have all WTF when we have been told. It couldnt be more clear.

And this isnt even dealing with the other elements I have stated, e.g. Rodriguez, PNAC, Mohabbat etc. Following the PM accurately, you can only get to one conclusion.

[DGM]

I'm sorry, but no no no!!! This is an horrendous, steaming, stinking fly infested pile of rhinoceros poop of a point!

The name of the 3rd man on the moon doesnt matter. No one cares. The names of the 5 "plumbers" doesnt matter either. I dont know most of their names. It is irrelevant. As I have said before, there is a very simple way to gauge this- ask people. We all know what the result is when you do this, since we have all done it. We have all been in this position. And we have all WTF when we have been told. It couldnt be more clear.

And this isnt even dealing with the other elements I have stated, e.g. Rodriguez, PNAC, Mohabbat etc. Following the PM accurately, you can only get to one conclusion.
And why does WTC 7 matter? No one was killed, it's only a building. Why no outrage about St. Nicks?

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

The fact that artilcles have appeared doesnt do anyting to show that it hasnt been overwhelmingly censored. Public opinion shows this. And this is overwhelmingly one sided.

There were 4 other significant happenings that day that overshadow people's memories of that day. IS THAT A CONSPIRACY? I mean really. WHY would they CD 7? Why? And why would they go through the trouble of wrecking 1,2,3 that day and 4, 5, 6 later, hit the Pentagon, and Flight 93 just to get rid of 7?

It is amazing how Occam's razor just seems to not sit well with truthers. :boggled:

[DGM]

Another thing to consider is most of the people MJD refers (his age group) to were young (under 18) in 2001. How much news does that age group (as a whole) watch? For us older folks (:boxedin: ) we saw plenty of coverage for all the events for weeks on end. Most people I know can tell you about WTC 7.
So I don't think its that unusual if you asked someone in their early 20's now that they don't know that many trivial details.

[johnny karate]

The fact that artilcles have appeared doesnt do anyting to show that it hasnt been overwhelmingly censored.

So, the fact that it was widely reported doesn't dispove that is wasn't wildly reported? Are you joking? Do you even know what "censored" means?

Public opinion shows this. And this is overwhelmingly one sided.Please explain how the public's ignorance of a subject means that subject has been censored. Most people probably couldn't tell you who the 27th president of the United staes was. Has that information been censored too?

[Sparky]

The name of the 3rd man on the moon doesnt matter. No one cares.

The 3rd man to step foot on the surface of the moon was Pete Conrad. In the long run, I think that fact may be more remembered than the destruction of WTC 7 by collateral damage from WTC 1 & 2.

BTW, can you find the USA on a map of the world? Many can't you know.

[16.5]

You are confused. The point is to tell people who dont know about it, about it, and see their reaction. The number of people who know about it is well known, its about 50%. This illustrates nothing favourable to msm incidentally, as it doesnt show how people found this out.

I admit it! I am confused. I have been posting in a thread where you claim that WTC7 has been censored. Now you admit that 50% of the people know about it?

I am gobsmacked! Why in the world did I waste my time on this nonsense?

[Drudgewire]

BTW, can you find the USA on a map of the world? Many can't you know.
Well, lots of Americans don't have maps. :D

[Brainache]

I'm sorry, but no no no!!! This is an horrendous, steaming, stinking fly infested pile of rhinoceros poop of a point!

The name of the 3rd man on the moon doesnt matter. No one cares. The names of the 5 "plumbers" doesnt matter either. I dont know most of their names. It is irrelevant. As I have said before, there is a very simple way to gauge this- ask people. We all know what the result is when you do this, since we have all done it. We have all been in this position. And we have all WTF when we have been told. It couldnt be more clear.

Face it mjd, WTC7 is the Michael Collins of 9/11. It was just along for the ride.(no disrespect for Michael Collins) You think it is so important because it had super sekret spy bunkers inside it. Do you really think that the super sekret spy community would choose demolition as a way to remove paperwork and wipe hard drives?


And this isnt even dealing with the other elements I have stated, e.g. Rodriguez, PNAC, Mohabbat etc. Following the PM accurately, you can only get to one conclusion.

That these other elements in no way support an inside job?

[Pardalis]

I'm sorry, but no no no!!! This is an horrendous, steaming, stinking fly infested pile of rhinoceros poop of a point!

Thanks, you must have put alot of energy into that one. :)

The name of the 3rd man on the moon doesnt matter. No one cares.And nobody cares about WTC7

As I have said before, there is a very simple way to gauge this- ask people. We all know what the result is when you do this, since we have all done it. We have all been in this position. And we have all WTF when we have been told. It couldnt be more clear. I've talked about WTC7 to members of my family and friends, they didn't seem to care. Of course, I didn't imply any foul play about the collapse of WTC7. I guess it's in how you present the news about WTC7. If you imply that something went wrong and that it smells fishy, of course you'll get a different reaction from when you don't imply anything, and just say this building fell a couple of hours later and they're still studying the reasons.

And this isnt even dealing with the other elements I have stated, e.g. Rodriguez, PNAC, Mohabbat etc. Following the PM accurately, you can only get to one conclusion.False dilemma fallacy.

[boloboffin]

There is another theory which states that this has already happened.

Apologies to Douglas Adams.

No apologies needed for that one. :D

[DGM]

And this isnt even dealing with the other elements I have stated, e.g. Rodriguez, PNAC, Mohabbat etc. Following the PM accurately, you can only get to one conclusion.

The only problem is the PM your following is the "truth" movements. Real freedom comes when you can think for yourself and examine ALL the evidence.

[Drudgewire]

Well, lots of Americans don't have maps. :D
And yes, I'm a South Carolinian.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww

:o

[mjd1982]

I admit it! I am confused. I have been posting in a thread where you claim that WTC7 has been censored. Now you admit that 50% of the people know about it?

I am gobsmacked! Why in the world did I waste my time on this nonsense?
YOu are confused because you have chosen not to read the entirety of my post. 50% of people do know this- but you do not know how many of them have found out thru the MSM, and how many thru other sources. So the poll, as an indicator of msm censorship, is worthless.

[mjd1982]

I will repeat the point, to address all the others, which is very simple, and which none of you choose to address- the indicator of censorship is not whether you, or i think it should have been reported, rather what the public thinks. Go out, and tell people that there was a 3rd bulding to fall on 911, a 47 story skyscraper, or better yet, show them the video. Then you will see the newswothiness of this or not. I am going out to do this today; you chaps can do the same.

[CJOKUSAP]

The corporate media filters what the lazy and semi-literatre hear and read. WHADDA SUPRIZE! Those of us who read and listen to alternative radio like AAR and actually have lives which bring us into contact with real people in 3D know someone is gaming us.

And I can see that someone is trying to game the internet, by putting up garbage-laden blogs and invading every political or scientific discussion message board into which they can stick their slimy tentacles.

White nationalism would still be gasping for its last breath, had those useless wankers not found the web.

So now, they can spread disinfo to raise concerns among the exciteable rednecks that the gubmint has gone rougue and there is nothin ya can do about it but getcher gun and go overthrow the SOBs.

9/11 was such a unique event in history that few people can even get their minds around it. Butr an expert counsellor can help them. A counselor can show them how to process that information into an activist attitude.

White nationalists are good at very little in this world, but they do know how to bend people's minds around the idea that government is not to be trusted.

Actually, the white nationalists have it easier than the government. They don't really need to fix any problems.

This shows your entire problem in a nutshell; you can't even see beyond your own back-yard for your "enemies"!

[Pardalis]

the indicator of censorship is not whether you, or i think it should have been reported, rather what the public thinks.


Nope.

[16.5]

It is amazing to read these two posts back to back:

"YOu are confused because you have chosen not to read the entirety of my post. 50% of people do know this- but you do not know how many of them have found out thru the MSM, and how many thru other sources. So the poll, as an indicator of msm censorship, is worthless."

and then:

"I will repeat the point, to address all the others, which is very simple, and which none of you choose to address- the indicator of censorship is not whether you, or i think it should have been reported, rather what the public thinks. Go out, and tell people that there was a 3rd bulding to fall on 911, a 47 story skyscraper, or better yet, show them the video. Then you will see the newswothiness of this or not. I am going out to do this today; you chaps can do the same."

Yeah, just don't ask the 50% who have heard of WTC7! Because it is censorship!

What a waste of electrons.

[mjd1982]

It is amazing to read these two posts back to back:

"YOu are confused because you have chosen not to read the entirety of my post. 50% of people do know this- but you do not know how many of them have found out thru the MSM, and how many thru other sources. So the poll, as an indicator of msm censorship, is worthless."

and then:

"I will repeat the point, to address all the others, which is very simple, and which none of you choose to address- the indicator of censorship is not whether you, or i think it should have been reported, rather what the public thinks. Go out, and tell people that there was a 3rd bulding to fall on 911, a 47 story skyscraper, or better yet, show them the video. Then you will see the newswothiness of this or not. I am going out to do this today; you chaps can do the same."

Yeah, just don't ask the 50% who have heard of WTC7! Because it is censorship!

What a waste of electrons.
Ok, well here you have read my post, well done, but you have not understood it. I wil go thru it very slowly for you now.

50% of people know about wtc7. However, we do not know how many of them know this thru MSM sources. So, as an indicator of whether this has been censored from the MSM, you can ask people who know about it. It will be very easy. Where did they find out about wtc7? You will get a very clear answer- it will be thru internet sites and documentaries. Now, if you want to find out whether this is an item that should have been covered by the msm, i.e is it newsworthy enough, all you need to do again, is ask people, who dont know about it, and gauge their reaction to the fact that this item has hardly appeared anywhere in the MSM. Very easy. i did it today at Speakers Corner in London, and the reaction was as unanimous as it always is. Very very simple, though it does require a) intellect, and b) intellectua honesty, Your movement is lacking for certain in one, and most probably in the other. Sad though it is to say.

[16.5]

"Very very simple, though it does require a) intellect, and b) intellectua honesty, Your movement is lacking for certain in one, and most probably in the other. Sad though it is to say."

Oh please, your whole theory is pathetic. 50% of the people have heard of WTC7, by your own admission, and yet you claim that the 50% that have not heard of it are the result solely of Main Stream Media not reporting it?

Your experiment is grossly misleading, and you are deluding yourself.

By the way, I noticed that you talk about "my movement." I also note that your avatar includes Zola's famous attack on the anti-semetic leaders in france. How does it feel to be sharing common cause with neo-Nazis and the virulently anti-semetic segement of the "Truth" movement?

[pomeroo]

You have instantly misunderstood the most elementary part of the post. 7 is not censored because "most people don't care about WTC7". It is censored because it is detrimental to powerful interests. Ditto the rest of my post.



What censorship? The fact that no one knows about it, that censorship.

You may want to claim that no one cared about it, since it "wasn't attacked by terrorists", but that a 47 story building can collapse and elicit essentially zero MSM coverage is an ipso fact instance of gross censorship of rudimentary details, just as the PM would predict.



My bad on the white elephant. I meant that it was a big object sitting there and making people uncomfortable.

2nd point, my quote was "the collapse of the building...disappeared down the Orwellian memory hole, oblivious to the public consciousness." I dont think this is too hard to understand.



Would smaller ones help?


To date, no fantasist has come close to fitting the collapse of WTC 7 into any sort of coherent theory. Your imaginary, mathematically-impossible conspiracy brought down a 47-story building seven hours after the attacks...to do what? Stop babbling and try to make sense of this event.

[mjd1982]

To date, no fantasist has come close to fitting the collapse of WTC 7 into any sort of coherent theory. Your imaginary, mathematically-impossible conspiracy brought down a 47-story building seven hours after the attacks...to do what? Stop babbling and try to make sense of this event.
1. You have missed the point of the thread, which is to assess the TM in the light of the propaganda model, through whicn lens we come to a very simple and unequivocal conclusion.

2. Had you paid closer attention to this post, as well as its subsequent ramifications regarding cultural and sociological propaganda, you would stop ranting about a "mathematically impossible conspiracy". Think about it- if you cannot figure it out, let me know and I will help you.

3. The reasons why it would have been imploded are irrelevant. We have the known suspicion, rgarding the tenants/contents, but logically, this matters not at all. Understand 911 through the lens of the PM, and these confusions will become a lot clearer to you, and your herd of, well, fantasists.

[mjd1982]

"Very very simple, though it does require a) intellect, and b) intellectua honesty, Your movement is lacking for certain in one, and most probably in the other. Sad though it is to say."

Oh please, your whole theory is pathetic. 50% of the people have heard of WTC7, by your own admission, and yet you claim that the 50% that have not heard of it are the result solely of Main Stream Media not reporting it?

Your experiment is grossly misleading, and you are deluding yourself.

By the way, I noticed that you talk about "my movement." I also note that your avatar includes Zola's famous attack on the anti-semetic leaders in france. How does it feel to be sharing common cause with neo-Nazis and the virulently anti-semetic segement of the "Truth" movement?
Ok, well ur 1st 2 points are unsubstantiated opinion, so I dont know what you expect me to say about that.

Good spot on Zola. It is unfortunate that there are anti semites and neo nazis in my movement. I am certain that there are also such in yours. This is completely irrelevant to any sort of argument here. You, and the rest if your movement, need to learn focus.

[sleahead]

3. The reasons why it would have been imploded are irrelevant. We have the known suspicion, rgarding the tenants/contents, but logically, this matters not at all.


Well, it does matter if you ever present your "evidence" to anybody. You will be aske about motive and you will say:


"We have the known suspicion, rgarding the tenants/contents"

And then your problem will be waiting for the laughter to die down.

[A W Smith]

i did it today at Speakers Corner in London, and the reaction was as unanimous as it always is. Very very simple, though it does require a) intellect, and b) intellectua honesty, Your movement is lacking for certain in one, and most probably in the other. Sad though it is to say.

OK I will go through it very slowly for you now,
........ Why would citizens of London....., Remember a property loss...... that happened in another country...... six years ago?

[SpitfireIX]

I will repeat the point, to address all the others, which is very simple, and which none of you choose to address- the indicator of censorship is not whether you, or i think it should have been reported, rather what the public thinks. Go out, and tell people that there was a 3rd bulding to fall on 911, a 47 story skyscraper, or better yet, show them the video. Then you will see the newswothiness of this or not. I am going out to do this today; you chaps can do the same.


Frankly, mjd, your contention that everyone should remember all the details of a highly newsworthy event years after it occurred is laughable, and simply serves to demonstrate your desperation to proclaim the likelihood of a US government conspiracy. Here are two examples that thoroughly disprove your contention:

From time to time, over the last 12 years, polls have been taken asking a sample of Americans to name as many justices of the United States Supreme Court as they can. The results have been fairly dismal; in the first poll taken, more people were able to name the original Three Stooges than were able to name three or more (out of nine) Supreme Court justices.

Two results are particularly on point here. First is the case of Justice Clarence Thomas. In 1991, George Bush the Elder nominated Clarence Thomas to fill the seat of retiring justice Thurgood Marshall. Thomas's nomination was controversial to begin with; many considered him unqualified, and felt that Bush had merely selected Thomas because he is black and conservative (Marshall was black and liberal). Toward the end of Thomas's confirmation hearings, however, a former subordinate, Anita Hill, came forward with sensational charges that Thomas had sexually harassed her. Thomas categorically denied the allegations, and both of them (along with supporting witnesses) testifed before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Hill's testimony was extremely graphic, including much crude language which she attributed to Thomas. The hearings were broadcast live on national television, and network news programs repeated the highlights. The controversy was a huge news story; everyone was talking about it. Eventually Thomas was narrowly confirmed by the United States Senate, as Hill and her supporters had failed to make a sufficiently convincing case.

Now, four years after Thomas was confirmed, the "Supreme Court/Three Stooges" poll was taken. What percentage of Americans do you suppose could name Clarence Thomas as a justice of the United States Supreme Court? Only 30% could. Bear in mind that the "mainstream media" regularly reports on Supreme Court decisions, often including discussions of which justices voted to uphold or to overturn lower-court rulings. Was Thomas a victim of the "propaganda model," or do people simply tend to forget "yesterday's news" over time?

In a similar vein, the current Chief Justice of the United States, John Roberts, was confirmed in September 2005. What is particularly noteworthy is that Roberts was originally nominated by Bush the Younger to fill the seat of retiring Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, but after the sudden death of then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Bush withdrew Roberts' nomination and renominated him to become the next Chief Justice.

This was a major news story at the time, but just three months later, only 16% of Americans could name Roberts as a Supreme Court justice.

Source of poll numbers (http://www.elsblog.org/the_empirical_legal_studi/2006/02/supreme_court_a.html).

[16.5]

Good spot on Zola. It is unfortunate that there are anti semites and neo nazis in my movement. I am certain that there are also such in yours. This is completely irrelevant to any sort of argument here. You, and the rest if your movement, need to learn focus.

I could read the headline. However, I am sure you find that not one in 1000 people could recognize the photograph. History is like that. Even as recent as 6 years ago.

As far as being certain about neo nazis and anti-semites in "my movement," I am astonished by that comment. Again, you are truly deluding yourself.

[mjd1982]

Frankly, mjd, your contention that everyone should remember all the details of a highly newsworthy event years after it occurred is laughable, and simply serves to demonstrate your desperation to proclaim the likelihood of a US government conspiracy. Here are two examples that thoroughly disprove your contention:

From time to time, over the last 12 years, polls have been taken asking a sample of Americans to name as many justices of the United States Supreme Court as they can. The results have been fairly dismal; in the first poll taken, more people were able to name the original Three Stooges than were able to name three or more (out of nine) Supreme Court justices.

Two results are particularly on point here. First is the case of Justice Clarence Thomas. In 1991, George Bush the Elder nominated Clarence Thomas to fill the seat of retiring justice Thurgood Marshall. Thomas's nomination was controversial to begin with; many considered him unqualified, and felt that Bush had merely selected Thomas because he is black and conservative (Marshall was black and liberal). Toward the end of Thomas's confirmation hearings, however, a former subordinate, Anita Hill, came forward with sensational charges that Thomas had sexually harassed her. Thomas categorically denied the allegations, and both of them (along with supporting witnesses) testifed before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Hill's testimony was extremely graphic, including much crude language which she attributed to Thomas. The hearings were broadcast live on national television, and network news programs repeated the highlights. The controversy was a huge news story; everyone was talking about it. Eventually Thomas was narrowly confirmed by the United States Senate, as Hill and her supporters had failed to make a sufficiently convincing case.

Now, four years after Thomas was confirmed, the "Supreme Court/Three Stooges" poll was taken. What percentage of Americans do you suppose could name Clarence Thomas as a justice of the United States Supreme Court? Only 30% could. Bear in mind that the "mainstream media" regularly reports on Supreme Court decisions, often including discussions of which justices voted to uphold or to overturn lower-court rulings. Was Thomas a victim of the "propaganda model," or do people simply tend to forget "yesterday's news" over time?

In a similar vein, the current Chief Justice of the United States, John Roberts, was confirmed in September 2005. What is particularly noteworthy is that Roberts was originally nominated by Bush the Younger to fill the seat of retiring Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, but after the sudden death of then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Bush withdrew Roberts' nomination and renominated him to become the next Chief Justice.

This was a major news story at the time, but just three months later, only 16% of Americans could name Roberts as a Supreme Court justice.

Source of poll numbers (http://www.elsblog.org/the_empirical_legal_studi/2006/02/supreme_court_a.html).
Is there some pathological problem tht you d'uh's have that prevents you from swallowing anyting that's remotely unpalatable to you? Is there a critical mass of repetitions that you need to be bombarded with before you are able to understand? You must have been pretty terrible at school, my days...

The point about the newsworthiness of a fact can be gauge very simply. Tell people of the existence of a fact, and see if they are surprised that they are nto aware of it. In the case of Supreme Court Justices, no one will be surprised that they dont know the names. In the case of wtc7, everyone will be. I know I was when I found out, and I'm sure you were too. We all were. This is indicative of censorship. End of story.

Another reminder that you should attack the argument, NOT THE ARGUER!

[Pardalis]

Nope.

[twinstead]

I know I was when I found out, and I'm sure you were too. We all were. This is indicative of censorship. End of story.

So you get to pick which news items should be remembered and which should not, which news items are suspicious when they are remembered and which news items aren't, and declare censorship when it suits you and ignore it when it doesn't.

Roger.

[mjd1982]

So you get to pick which news items should be remembered and which should not, which news items are suspicious when they are remembered and which news items aren't, and declare censorship when it suits you and ignore it when it doesn't.

Roger.
Oh for (rule 8) sake!!!

I will start off by saying that this is too important a issue to be idiotic. Think! Reflect! Use your brain!

I have nowhere said that I decide these things, I have explicitly said it is the people who decide on the newsworthiness of this or not. If they regard it as suspicious/surprising, then that is a good barometer of such. Nothing else.

Think!

[16.5]

Oh for (rule 8) sake!!!

I will start off by saying that this is too important a issue to be idiotic. Think! Reflect! Use your brain!

I have nowhere said that I decide these things, I have explicitly said it is the people who decide on the newsworthiness of this or not. If they regard it as suspicious/surprising, then that is a good barometer of such. Nothing else.

Think!



I am sorry, but finding someone who is so uninformed of WTC7 and then having that person blame "mass media" for his ignorance is not a good barometer of censorship, champ. The information is freely available, widely available (and is being grossly distorted by your anti-semetic friends in the CT movement, among others, but that is a thread for another time).

By the way, your "THINK" nonsense is as annoying as it is immature.

[twinstead]

Oh for (rule 8) sake!!!

I will start off by saying that this is too important a issue to be idiotic. Think! Reflect! Use your brain!

I have nowhere said that I decide these things, I have explicitly said it is the people who decide on the newsworthiness of this or not. If they regard it as suspicious/surprising, then that is a good barometer of such. Nothing else.

Think!

Just because ANYBODY regards ANYTHING as suspicious doesn't mean it is really suspicious. That includes YOU, or this 'they' you talk about.

What you don't seem to get is you are arguing from your own bias while accusing us of the same, and then being arrogant about it. Every subject you have ever posted about all came down to the way you personally interpreted something.

That's all well and good until you come across somebody just as smart as you who interprets the same thing, having every bit the same or even more information about it as you, totally different. In this forum there are dozens of them.

Oh, then God help him because now you get all arrogant and condescending, calling him names, shill, sheep, herd, calling him stupid. "How DARE ANYBODY HOLD A CONTRARY OPINION TO ME!?", you scream.

LOL

It's childish. And frankly idiotic. And this issue is too important to be childish OR idiotic, right?

[Myriad]

One aspect of your propaganda/censorship theory that hasn't been discussed here yet is evidence that extensive censorship can be carried out in secret.

I'm assuming that this censorship is carried out in secret, as otherwise you would be able to present evidence of it, such as documents describing the program, printed guidelines on what is to be censored, memos giving instructions to censors for particular cases, court cases challenging the censorship, and so forth. If you cannot present such evidence, then either you're not willing to support your own theory (in which case it's of no further interest), or the evidence is not available because the program is secret.

Historically, large-scale censorship is common enough, but are there any examples where the existence of the censorship program was itself secret? Censorship requires the cooperation of large numbers of people, starting with the people whose communications are being censored. Unless there is a general shutdown of all communication (which has clearly not happened in the U.S.), a few censors can control the communications of large numbers of people only if most of them are cooperating.

The cooperation does not have to be willing. If appeals to patriotism aren't effective, threats will also do. But to be effective such appeals and threats must reach the entire literate population. This means it's not possible to keep the appeals and threats themselves secret. For them to be effective they must be proclaimed loudly and repeatedly.

But let's suppose someone wanted to set up an unprecedented secret censorship program in the U.S., in which some number of secret participants must enforce limits on what everyone else publishes, without that interference being detected.

Not being in on the secret, a reporter for a normal city newspaper in the U.S. decides to do a story on WTC7. He researches, does some interviews, writes the story, sends out a photographer for present-day photos of the site, and then... what happens? At what point in the process does the secret censorship intervene?

Does the reporter's editor stop the story? That scenario would require every national news editor at every city newspaper and local TV news staff be in on the censorship program. Thousands of people who have chosen to make disseminating news their life's work have to be secretly enlisted, convinced, communicated with, and corrected when they err, without creating any paper trail in the process. That itself would take hundreds of people, who themselves must remain loyal, and so forth. This is impossible.

But perhaps, instead, only certain people "at the top" are in the know. After all, a small number of coroporate moguls own a large fraction of the mass media outlets. So, it's not the reporter's editor who kills the story, it's some top Viacom executive (who is mysteriously omniscient about everything his tens of thousands of employees are doing) who intervenes instead. But how? If he passes the word down the chain of command, then everyone in the chain of command will wonder what's going on, and we're back to the previous case. If he acts more directly, then the reporter goes to his colleagues and his boss and says, "Hey, a top Viacom executive killed my story about WTC7; what gives?"

So, the colleagues and editor start investigating what now appears to be an even bigger story. Until the exec contacts them and tells them to stop or they'll be fired, oh and by the way, don't tell anyone else either.

So the reporters and editor tell their freelance buddies, "Off the record, the Viacom execs killed our WTC7 story and told us we'e be fired if we tell anyone about it. There has to be a bigger story here. Why don't you look into it? Remember, you didn't hear it from me."

And the freelance writers start working on their stories, only to find that no U.S. magazine will buy them (due to more interference from top execs). So they go to their friends in the foreign press and say, "every media outlet in the U.S. is censoring stories about WTC7. There must be a really really big story here. Why don't you look into it? Here's all the material we've collected so far, plus a timeline of how each story was killed before publication." The big story isn't even the WTC7 anymore, it's the censorship program itself, which isn't going to remain secret very long.

It just doesn't work. No matter where in the chain of command the knowing censorship participants are located, at some point they must step on the toes of those who are not in on the secret in order to carry out their agenda. And in today's media environment, there is no way to stop those whose toes are stepped on from hollering about it.

Secret censorship of information that a large percentage of the population is already aware of is not plausible.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[mjd1982]

I am sorry, but finding someone who is so uninformed of WTC7 and then having that person blame "mass media" for his ignorance is not a good barometer of censorship, champ. The information is freely available, widely available (and is being grossly distorted by your anti-semetic friends in the CT movement, among others, but that is a thread for another time).

By the way, your "THINK" nonsense is as annoying as it is immature.
It is freely and widely available, but not in the MSM, which is the point.

[mjd1982]

One aspect of your propaganda/censorship theory that hasn't been discussed here yet is evidence that extensive censorship can be carried out in secret.

I'm assuming that this censorship is carried out in secret, as otherwise you would be able to present evidence of it, such as documents describing the program, printed guidelines on what is to be censored, memos giving instructions to censors for particular cases, court cases challenging the censorship, and so forth. If you cannot present such evidence, then either you're not willing to support your own theory (in which case it's of no further interest), or the evidence is not available because the program is secret.

Historically, large-scale censorship is common enough, but are there any examples where the existence of the censorship program was itself secret? Censorship requires the cooperation of large numbers of people, starting with the people whose communications are being censored. Unless there is a general shutdown of all communication (which has clearly not happened in the U.S.), a few censors can control the communications of large numbers of people only if most of them are cooperating.

The cooperation does not have to be willing. If appeals to patriotism aren't effective, threats will also do. But to be effective such appeals and threats must reach the entire literate population. This means it's not possible to keep the appeals and threats themselves secret. For them to be effective they must be proclaimed loudly and repeatedly.

But let's suppose someone wanted to set up an unprecedented secret censorship program in the U.S., in which some number of secret participants must enforce limits on what everyone else publishes, without that interference being detected.

Not being in on the secret, a reporter for a normal city newspaper in the U.S. decides to do a story on WTC7. He researches, does some interviews, writes the story, sends out a photographer for present-day photos of the site, and then... what happens? At what point in the process does the secret censorship intervene?

Does the reporter's editor stop the story? That scenario would require every national news editor at every city newspaper and local TV news staff be in on the censorship program. Thousands of people who have chosen to make disseminating news their life's work have to be secretly enlisted, convinced, communicated with, and corrected when they err, without creating any paper trail in the process. That itself would take hundreds of people, who themselves must remain loyal, and so forth. This is impossible.

But perhaps, instead, only certain people "at the top" are in the know. After all, a small number of coroporate moguls own a large fraction of the mass media outlets. So, it's not the reporter's editor who kills the story, it's some top Viacom executive (who is mysteriously omniscient about everything his tens of thousands of employees are doing) who intervenes instead. But how? If he passes the word down the chain of command, then everyone in the chain of command will wonder what's going on, and we're back to the previous case. If he acts more directly, then the reporter goes to his colleagues and his boss and says, "Hey, a top Viacom executive killed my story about WTC7; what gives?"

So, the colleagues and editor start investigating what now appears to be an even bigger story. Until the exec contacts them and tells them to stop or they'll be fired, oh and by the way, don't tell anyone else either.

So the reporters and editor tell their freelance buddies, "Off the record, the Viacom execs killed our WTC7 story and told us we'e be fired if we tell anyone about it. There has to be a bigger story here. Why don't you look into it? Remember, you didn't hear it from me."

And the freelance writers start working on their stories, only to find that no U.S. magazine will buy them (due to more interference from top execs). So they go to their friends in the foreign press and say, "every media outlet in the U.S. is censoring stories about WTC7. There must be a really really big story here. Why don't you look into it? Here's all the material we've collected so far, plus a timeline of how each story was killed before publication." The big story isn't even the WTC7 anymore, it's the censorship program itself, which isn't going to remain secret very long.

It just doesn't work. No matter where in the chain of command the knowing censorship participants are located, at some point they must step on the toes of those who are not in on the secret in order to carry out their agenda. And in today's media environment, there is no way to stop those whose toes are stepped on from hollering about it.

Secret censorship of information that a large percentage of the population is already aware of is not plausible.

Respectfully,
Myriad
Sorry, I do appreciate the length of the post, but the first line misses the entire point of democratic propaganda systems. It functions through a filtering system, one of the essential features of which, is that the sort of people who will get to high level positions in corporate media are precisely those people who are disinclined to attack, in any serious way, powerul interests. You should see the Chomsky-Marr interview which I have referenced many times for more on this- he is utterly unaware of basic facts which are detrimental to his paymasters- the UK gov. This is why he is where he is.

So in the instance of 7, you will have a twofold phenomenon- the source of the information being smothered (no cameras on the scene, no press reports, no mention of it from official sources etc), followed by the disinclination of the tools of the system (MSM journalists) to report it. This will not be perfect, but it will function pretty astonishingly, with the result being the utter ignorance of the most rudmentary fact of the most reported on event of all time.

Of course, this is a pattern that can be shown to function in countless different instances- the collapse of 7/911 in general is just a very good one

[Jonnyclueless]

If that was true it would have been a good point.

[Elizabeth I]

The point is that such facts will not be deemed "news", i.e. facts tht are widely recognised and accepted.

What? By definition, "news" is something that is NOT widely known and accepted.

Do you remember the old cliché defining "news"? "Dog bites man" is not news; "Man bites dog" is.

Why would anyone, mainstream media, internet wackos, or otherwise, waste their time reporting something that everybody already recognizes and accepts?

"And in today's news, the sun rose in the east. A lot of rain has made everyone's grass grow higher. Oh, and this just in...the Pope is Catholic. For more on that story, we go to our correspondent in Vatican City."

[Myriad]

Sorry, I do appreciate the length of the post, but the first line misses the entire point of democratic propaganda systems. It functions through a filtering system, one of the essential features of which, is that the sort of people who will get to high level positions in corporate media are precisely those people who are disinclined to attack, in any serious way, powerul interests. You should see the Chomsky-Marr interview which I have referenced many times for more on this- he is utterly unaware of basic facts which are detrimental to his paymasters- the UK gov. This is why he is where he is.

Tell you what: I'll accept this proposition at face value, for the sake of argument. I'm not convinced it's true, but I have no experience with the high levels of the corporate media world that would provide me any evidence to the contrary either. So, let's proceed on that basis.

So in the instance of 7, you will have a twofold phenomenon- the source of the information being smothered (no cameras on the scene, no press reports, no mention of it from official sources etc),...

No, this is not a convincing point to me. There were plenty of press reports, consistent with the relative unimportance of an event that caused no injury or death compared with previous events that day that had killed thousands. The lack of photographers in close proximity is adequately explained by the firefighters' understandable desire to search for their brothers who they believed might still be alive under the rubble, as unimpeded as possible.

...followed by the disinclination of the tools of the system (MSM journalists) to report it.

Here, you've lost me. Earlier you were talking about "high level positions in corporate media." Now you're talking about MSM news journalists. These are not "high level positions" by any stretch of the imagination, especially the ones who work on updates and retrospectives of minor aspects of old stories, which is what any MSM story about WTC7 in the past five years is.

So, I was willing to grant for the sake of argument that people in "high level positions" have the qualities you ascribe to them. But that doesn't extend to the journalists. Them, I do have personal experience with, and I've seen no evidence that they've been "filtered" for anything other than willingness to work hard for low starting wages, ability to work to professional standards under time pressure, and ability to consume vast amounts of coffee while hardly ever needing to pee.

So, what I said before still applies: if the "top level" people are trying to suppress stories, that must bring them into conflict with the journalists at some level, and that conflict would itself become a news story.

This will not be perfect, but it will function pretty astonishingly, with the result being the utter ignorance of the most rudmentary fact of the most reported on event of all time.

There's certainly a lot of ignorance out there, but the causes are simpler than any organized conspiracy or filtering process.

State and local government spend billions every year to teach U.S. high school students logarithms. Every high school graduate has studied logarithms and was required to pass tests on them.

So, go ask some average Americans who have high school diplomas what the base 10 log of 1000 is. How many correct answers do you think you would receive? Do you know the answer, without looking anything up? (You can ignore the last question if you're not a high school graduate.)

Is this evident ignorance the result of a democratic propaganda system?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Pardalis]

I have nowhere said that I decide these things, I have explicitly said it is the people who decide on the newsworthiness of this or not.

Nope.

If they regard it as suspicious/surprising, then that is a good barometer of such. Nothing else.

Nope.


This will not be perfect, but it will function pretty astonishingly, with the result being the utter ignorance of the most rudmentary fact of the most reported on event of all time.

Do you know what Buzz Aldrin said when he set foot on the moon for the first time?

Of course, this is a pattern that can be shown to function in countless different instances- the collapse of 7/911 in general is just a very good one

Nope. It's only important for CTists.

[stilicho]

You havent understood the point. The collapse of the building was reported initially- i.e. in the 1st few hours or so. This was unavoidable, and there was no reason not to report it. As soon as the evident suspicion about it appeared, it disappeared.

This should have been simple to understand.
Initial reports on various events continually include some details that are omitted later. Consider the story about the Minnesota bridge collapse. Like this one:

Well, a reporter just said a witness saw something puffing out and up before the collapse, then a local anchor used the word "explosions".
How Conspiracies are born...

Eyewitness: "I was driving on the bridge, when clouds of dust began to rise, and the the bridge collapsed"

Talking Head, (Shepard Smith) on FOX: "Well, the quesion is, what caused the EXPLOSIONS?"

Explained here: http://minx.cc/?post=235608

And another quote from the same place:

I heard some initial reports indicating a number of concrete delivery trucks on the bridge - don't remember the number quoted, but it sounds like they would have been on one side of the bridge from the resurfacing lane closure, with two lanes closed and two open to traffic. Can anyone comment on the potential effect of an asymmetric load near maximum capacity?

Why were these initial impressions "censored" in later reports? The death toll, too, was steadily revised downward from the neighbourhood of 40 or 50 to about a dozen. Why the "censorship"? What really happened to the other 30 or 40 "missing" people?

I don't think the OP actually understands what censorship or propaganda really is. I would recommend a visit to any good library to find political science essays on freedom of the press in communist Russia. There have been scores of them written and the contrast between that and simple editorial revision is noteworthy.

[stilicho]

Sorry, I do appreciate the length of the post, but the first line misses the entire point of democratic propaganda systems. It functions through a filtering system, one of the essential features of which, is that the sort of people who will get to high level positions in corporate media are precisely those people who are disinclined to attack, in any serious way, powerul interests. You should see the Chomsky-Marr interview which I have referenced many times for more on this- he is utterly unaware of basic facts which are detrimental to his paymasters- the UK gov. This is why he is where he is.
A filtering system? Do you mean simple editorial discretion or do you mean deliberate hiding of information in the public's interest?

You are wrong on so many counts about this. Probably the best example is Exhibit "A", the case of Conrad Black. He is a paid-up "Bilderberger" and a newsman at that. His erudition in the case of FDR is widely recognised as the most professional historical biography ever written by an amateur in the field.

But now he is fighting for his economic life and his physical freedom. His story is well documented in the MSM and, if anything, conspicuously ignored by conspiracists. Why? Because his downfall and widely-acknowledged corruption (and outright stealing) confounds every piece of "evidence" that conspiracists have about how the world works.

Of course, this is a pattern that can be shown to function in countless different instances- the collapse of 7/911 in general is just a very good one
By "very good" example, of course, you mean a "very bad" example. The story about the collapse of WTC 7 was carried in the MSM. If it hadn't been, you wouldn't even know about it. It wasn't brought to you by Gerard Holmgren, Dylan Avery, or Michael C Ruppert. It was brought to you by the major media outlets.

And how do you think the conspiracists "discovered" that the SEC had offices in WTC7?

(By the way, the whole conspiracists point about the "demolition" of WTC7 hinges upon the destruction of vital documents held there that were deliberately destroyed to stop the investigations into Enron and Global Crossing, largely. But the investigations were not stopped. Do the conspiracists accept this and provide another reason? No! Why are they censoring the truth?)

[mjd1982]

What? By definition, "news" is something that is NOT widely known and accepted.

Do you remember the old cliché defining "news"? "Dog bites man" is not news; "Man bites dog" is.

Why would anyone, mainstream media, internet wackos, or otherwise, waste their time reporting something that everybody already recognizes and accepts?

"And in today's news, the sun rose in the east. A lot of rain has made everyone's grass grow higher. Oh, and this just in...the Pope is Catholic. For more on that story, we go to our correspondent in Vatican City."
Excuse me. The point was facts that get widely accepted, i.e. propagated (whence propaganda)

[mjd1982]

Tell you what: I'll accept this proposition at face value, for the sake of argument. I'm not convinced it's true, but I have no experience with the high levels of the corporate media world that would provide me any evidence to the contrary either. So, let's proceed on that basis.

No, this is not a convincing point to me. There were plenty of press reports, consistent with the relative unimportance of an event that caused no injury or death compared with previous events that day that had killed thousands. The lack of photographers in close proximity is adequately explained by the firefighters' understandable desire to search for their brothers who they believed might still be alive under the rubble, as unimpeded as possible.


As I have argued again and again here, you may think it is insignificant. I think otherwise, The simple way of settling whether it is an important issue for the public domain, is to go out and asses the publuc domain. I will be doing this in London tomororw. I assure you, when I tell people there was a 3rd skyscrpaer, the reaction is "Holy crap, how the hell do I not know that?!". This is the barometer of significance of a story to public interest- namely the interest of the public.


Here, you've lost me. Earlier you were talking about "high level positions in corporate media." Now you're talking about MSM news journalists. These are not "high level positions" by any stretch of the imagination, especially the ones who work on updates and retrospectives of minor aspects of old stories, which is what any MSM story about WTC7 in the past five years is.


I define high levels as people who have a significant influence on output. This would include, to a large degree, the important news journalists.


So, I was willing to grant for the sake of argument that people in "high level positions" have the qualities you ascribe to them. But that doesn't extend to the journalists. Them, I do have personal experience with, and I've seen no evidence that they've been "filtered" for anything other than willingness to work hard for low starting wages, ability to work to professional standards under time pressure, and ability to consume vast amounts of coffee while hardly ever needing to pee.


This is not correct. Let's take an example. I'm pretty well qualified, but I would never conceivably get employed by the BBC, I would state, since I would not be the kind of person who would label the Iraq war as a quagmire. And if I did happen to slip through the net, it would be systematic that my reports would never make it as "news", no matter how significant they were. A good example is the Downing Street Memo.


So, what I said before still applies: if the "top level" people are trying to suppress stories, that must bring them into conflict with the journalists at some level, and that conflict would itself become a news story.


This does exist. Watch Outfoxed, and see reports on this. Look at the firing of Phil Donahue, or maybe Dan Rather, to see how powerful interests get shielded when journalists dont tow the party line. This is a news story.


There's certainly a lot of ignorance out there, but the causes are simpler than any organized conspiracy or filtering process.


Oh no, very wrong. I would be surprised if there was one Brit on the forum who knew the history of Diego Garcia, for instance. But we all know about the Falklands. Its a very, very refined system of propaganda, and the filtering mechanisms are multiple- filtering of intake and promotion is the main one, but then there are more overt systems such as I have mentioned. These all result in a picture of the world, projected by the MSM, that shields power. And this has been understood by formulators of public opinion for decades. You should read Lippmann or Bernays if you want to find out more on that particular point.


State and local government spend billions every year to teach U.S. high school students logarithms. Every high school graduate has studied logarithms and was required to pass tests on them.

So, go ask some average Americans who have high school diplomas what the base 10 log of 1000 is. How many correct answers do you think you would receive? Do you know the answer, without looking anything up? (You can ignore the last question if you're not a high school graduate.)

Is this evident ignorance the result of a democratic propaganda system?

Respectfully,
Myriad

No, but this has nothing to do with media, rather inefficiency of teaching/learning. The factors involved there are entirely different from those involved in the apprehension of the most rudimentary fact about the most reported on event of our lives.

[mjd1982]

Initial reports on various events continually include some details that are omitted later. Consider the story about the Minnesota bridge collapse. Like this one:

[I]

Explained here: http://minx.cc/?post=235608

And another quote from the same place:



Why were these initial impressions "censored" in later reports? The death toll, too, was steadily revised downward from the neighbourhood of 40 or 50 to about a dozen. Why the "censorship"? What really happened to the other 30 or 40 "missing" people?

I don't think the OP actually understands what censorship or propaganda really is. I would recommend a visit to any good library to find political science essays on freedom of the press in communist Russia. There have been scores of them written and the contrast between that and simple editorial revision is noteworthy.
Oh boy.

#1 You are correct- these are revisions. Explain to me how anythign has been revised re msm coverage of 7.

#2 You can find a story (true), quite well known from the late 80's, when a group of russian officials were touring the US. At the end of the tour, they turned to their US counterparts, and commented on how extraordinary it was that the people thought exactly how the government wanted them to. "In our coutnry, we have to send them to the gulags to get that to happen!" (You can see this mentioned in Richard Reeves bio of Reagan, and in Pilger's talk here:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=AJcxj_Kvu7A

The propaganda system in capitalist societies is different from that in autocratic ones, correct, though it shoud be mentioned that the formulator of our system, Eddie Bernays, had his ideas put into use significantly by Goebbels. But it is far more insidious and effective for the distinction. Let me give you an example.

Rupert Murdoch wishes to project his view of the world onto people. Sol in 1997 he sets up a newschannel, Fox News. He needs someone to run it who mirrors his ideology, and so he picks Roger Ailes, the former media advisor to all GOP presidents from Nixon-Bush snr. He will then, effectively, project the owner (Murdoch's) pov onto Fox's audience. Ailes, will then pick people below him (like JOhn Moody) who mirrir his ideology, who will do the same, who will do the same. And you end up with ideologues like Bill O Reilly and Sean Hannitt, who dont need to be censored, because they think what their paymaster wants them to think. This is the filtering system, and this is how media ownership get their pov's over to the populace. It is how propaganda functions in a capitlist system.

When you then concentrat media ownership, you reduce the gamut of public discourse to a very narrow spectrum. This is what we have in the US today. The point is not that the reporters etc so much get told what to do/say/think, a la Commie Russia, but that they believe every word they say. The point is that if they believed anyting different, they woudlnt be where they are.

[mjd1982]

A filtering system? Do you mean simple editorial discretion or do you mean deliberate hiding of information in the public's interest?

You are wrong on so many counts about this. Probably the best example is Exhibit "A", the case of Conrad Black. He is a paid-up "Bilderberger" and a newsman at that. His erudition in the case of FDR is widely recognised as the most professional historical biography ever written by an amateur in the field.

But now he is fighting for his economic life and his physical freedom. His story is well documented in the MSM and, if anything, conspicuously ignored by conspiracists. Why? Because his downfall and widely-acknowledged corruption (and outright stealing) confounds every piece of "evidence" that conspiracists have about how the world works.


By "very good" example, of course, you mean a "very bad" example. The story about the collapse of WTC 7 was carried in the MSM. If it hadn't been, you wouldn't even know about it. It wasn't brought to you by Gerard Holmgren, Dylan Avery, or Michael C Ruppert. It was brought to you by the major media outlets.

And how do you think the conspiracists "discovered" that the SEC had offices in WTC7?

(By the way, the whole conspiracists point about the "demolition" of WTC7 hinges upon the destruction of vital documents held there that were deliberately destroyed to stop the investigations into Enron and Global Crossing, largely. But the investigations were not stopped. Do the conspiracists accept this and provide another reason? No! Why are they censoring the truth?)
1. I just read his book on FDR. But who is he? What is his relevance? He is one person who, like Nixon, stepped out of line. Power is not threatened by people knowing that he is a crook, no more than it was for Nixon. Powerful interests dont want people stealng money from others. Report on something like Diego Garcia, or the Downing Street memo, or give a true picture of Israel Palestine, or an accurate translation of "wipe Israel of the map", or proportionate reports of US killing of Iraqi civilians.... the list just goes on and on and on. Black going to jail is insignificant in the broader picture of power.

#2 You are wrong. It was from Avery et al that the majority of people have found out about 7. You too, probably. Yes it has been reported. This doesnt mean there hasnt been overwhelming censorhip of it, which is the point.

[Pardalis]

I learned about WTC 7 on 9/11/01. I saw it fall live on TV when I got back from work. I guess the conspirators forgot to not show it on TV.

[Z]

mjd, if you DIDN'T learn about WTC7 from the MSM, then it's because you just never watched or paid attention to the MSM at the time. WTC7 was all over the media along with the rest for weeks.

But because it wasn't the direct target of a terrorist attack, and the loss of life in 7 was minimal, it soon became a footnote in the pages of history.

Nevertheless, not even an hour ago, I saw a commercial for a 9/11 memorial program that showed footage of WTC7 collapsing. So where's that censorship again? All in your head.

[mjd1982]

mjd, if you DIDN'T learn about WTC7 from the MSM, then it's because you just never watched or paid attention to the MSM at the time. WTC7 was all over the media along with the rest for weeks.

But because it wasn't the direct target of a terrorist attack, and the loss of life in 7 was minimal, it soon became a footnote in the pages of history.

Nevertheless, not even an hour ago, I saw a commercial for a 9/11 memorial program that showed footage of WTC7 collapsing. So where's that censorship again? All in your head.
Pleeeeeeease.... Why must I say this again and again??? I say it has been overwhelmingly censored, you say it hasnt. Theres a verysimple way to find out which one of us is right. Go out and ask members of the public, and see teh reaction. We all know what it is. Holy crap, how the hell do I not know about that. That is the standard reaction and this is the point.

[Pardalis]

Go out and ask members of the public, and see teh reaction. We all know what it is.

Nope.

[stilicho]

#2 You are wrong. It was from Avery et al that the majority of people have found out about 7. You too, probably. Yes it has been reported. This doesnt mean there hasnt been overwhelming censorhip of it, which is the point.
No, it was from daytraders.org on SEP 11. This has been removed from their site since but I was watching that, the TV, and my investments that day. You are welcome to authenticate it with daytraders.org if you wish. Remember, these are excerpts. I kept the whole thing:

[07:46:13] <smakagator> no bad news this morning?
[07:46:15] <smakagator> morning all
[07:46:18] *** kk (kaptainkk@207.88.116.201) has joined #daytraders
[07:46:21] *** Jones (asdf@84.hartford-11-12rs.ct.dial-access.att.net) Quit
[07:46:31] *** talon (toddspot@hsa088.pool012.at001.earthlink.net) has joined #daytraders
[07:46:32] *** lele (~Gateway@adsl-208-189-188-201.dsl.hstntx.swbell.net) has joined #daytraders
[07:46:33] *** wnr (rick@dsl-65-185-84-125.telocity.com) has joined #daytraders
[07:46:58] <BigWave> the bad news is futures are not locked up so we fall harder
[07:47:24] *** TheMan (Gateway@adsl-20-219-8.mia.bellsouth.net) has joined #daytraders
[07:47:28] <smakagator> bad futures ;0
[07:47:58] <BigWave> the paint is here but not strong for good gaps
[07:48:17] <Red_Span> G&T scenario??
[07:48:30] <dieMSFTdie> I believe so Red
[07:48:38] *** dalroi (bafortstef@D5E0EC95.kabel.telenet.be) has joined #daytraders
[07:48:45] *** oze (Gateway@cc1082596-a.ftpk1.fl.home.com) has joined #daytraders
[07:48:47] *** think_away is now known as think
[07:48:57] <DoubleDown> futures
[07:49:00] *** Panther (~panther@sc-66-27-195-148.socal.rr.com) has joined #daytraders
[07:49:01] *** bk6911 (brian@206.29.28.133) has joined #daytraders
[07:49:05] <dieMSFTdie> I'm just sorry i covered at a loss, should have waited
[07:49:24] <BobbyM> any palladium experts here?
[07:49:33] <BigWave> snp red
[07:49:36] <skunk> what gap?
[07:49:38] *** snookerP (pak1@241643hfc107.tampabay.rr.com) has joined #daytraders
[07:49:41] <twende> tank
[07:49:44] <Str8> woah
[07:49:44] <think> any news...futs dumping
[07:49:45] <Slocum3a> bad news?
[07:49:46] *** temur (~bill372@HSE-Ottawa-ppp157269.sympatico.ca) has joined #daytraders
[07:49:46] <twende> wow
[07:49:47] <BigWave> naz red
[07:49:48] <locust> ouch
[07:49:50] <dieMSFTdie> wow, world trade tower in flames
[07:49:51] <twende> world trade center
[07:49:51] <Ingo> whats up with futs?
[07:49:52] <DoubleDown> oh my god
[07:49:52] <BigWave> oh man
[07:49:53] <Slocum3a> plane hit world trade
[07:49:54] <lele> oh man
[07:49:55] <locust> plane hit world trade center ?
[07:49:56] <twende> hit by plane?
[07:49:56] <SharpEye> WOW
[07:49:58] <neato> someone crashed into world trade center
[07:50:02] <Str8> wow
[07:50:03] <lele> that's horrible
[07:50:09] <manta8> omg
[07:50:12] <alw> check it out, o m g
[07:50:14] <gene-fla> plane crashed into world trade center
[07:50:19] *** chg12 (~cghall@dsl-64-131-162-214.telocity.com) has joined #daytraders
[07:50:38] *** mctomate (mctomate@pD9053BF4.dip.t-dialin.net) has joined #daytraders
[07:50:39] *** scarface (~Gateway@net-text.KQ2-lsb.PT.KPNQwest.net) has joined #daytraders
[07:50:49] *** chuckness (chuckness@user-33qtok6.dialup.mindspring.com) has joined #daytraders
[07:50:50] <alw> thats a no fly zone, how do u hit the wtt's
[07:50:54] <DoubleDown> fire engines goin crazy around my apt.
[07:50:58] <dieMSFTdie> lol alw
[07:51:00] <locust> kamikaze
[07:51:01] *** BruceLee (~bruce@pb-dsl2-049.pacificnet.net) has joined #daytraders
[07:51:02] *** DT sets mode: +v BruceLee
[07:51:18] *** extreme_away (marker1@653227hfc57.tampabay.rr.com) has joined #daytraders
[07:51:20] *** RedHeat (~john@node-402416de.powerinter.net) has joined #daytraders
[07:51:21] *** pzoo (harp@cc790428-a.ewndsr1.nj.home.com) has joined #daytraders
[07:51:33] <dieMSFTdie> fire helped out the nq, it seems

Now, later in the day, about WTC7:

[15:10:48] <NDXTRDR> FOX reporting 4th plane was indeed heading to Camp David.
[15:10:56] <KTM250SX> we need to attack them now
[15:10:59] *** ab (~ta@cs6669121-178.satx.rr.com) has joined #daytraders
[15:11:11] <yajyaj> any ml people dead?
[15:11:16] <smakagator> building 7 at wtc on fire, may collapse
[15:11:19] <retzzz> +++the international community is left with but two choices: either to come to terms with one country of two conflicting regimes, albeit, dominated by the Taliban, or to help return Afghanistan to the relatively unified "golden age" of the pre-Communist era.
[15:11:25] *** cheezz (~formagg@66-65-56-199.nyc.rr.com) has joined #daytraders
[15:11:26] <neato> sam is smart to stay away for now imo
[15:11:30] <g-man> Building 7 at WTC on firer, may collapse...CNN
[15:11:34] <doublej2> this crazy I am out
[15:11:42] *** doublej2 (Allstocksc@dialup-209.246.69.236.Dial1.NewYork1.Level3.net) Quit (Leaving)
[15:11:46] <yajyaj> many merryl linch people died??
[15:12:06] <neato> yaj dunno
[15:12:07] -hex- 8,5<*> DTBot {06-27-01} Cmd <*> OFTN ( dmg @ 16:12:02. -- Public notice via DT. Off Topic News.)
[15:12:08] <DT> @ DT-Note: Significant international events (world news) can and do impact the markets. Factual or reasonable analytical observations are welcome, provided that they are not repetitious or argumentative. Ethnic, religious, or nationalistic stereotyping serve no useful purpose and are off-topic. Please take off-topic discussion to #DTOT. Thank you.
[15:12:09] <Vertical> how do Fox know where they were going--did bomber call them?
[15:12:16] <cheezz> my friend works at ML
[15:12:18] <gene-fla> 09/11/01 16:07 PR World Trade Center Attacks Will Be the Most Costly Man-Made Disaster In U.S. History, Says the Insurance Information Institute
[15:12:20] <cheezz> i still did not hear from him
[15:12:21] <cheezz> Akamai Founder, CTO Killed in Jet Crash
[15:12:23] <cheezz> LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Internet content distribution company Akamai Technologies Inc. (Nasdaq:AKAM - news) said on Tuesday that one of its co-founders was killed when the jet he had boarded crashed into New York's World Trade Center.

And I believe this is about the BBC report you all use to "prove" controlled demolition:

15:59:55] <Sopwith> <lewing> bbc is reporting the solomon brothers building has collapsed
[16:00:06] *** Garfield (Jenny@pD9040089.dip.t-dialin.net) Quit (Leaving)
[16:00:09] <Sopwith> silly US news services are never efficient
[16:00:16] *** Guty (info@cable-213-132-137-160.upc.chello.be) Quit
[16:00:17] <space> <hb < ? whats the #### in your link ?
[16:00:20] *** dozu (Gateway@dialup-63.214.197.227.Dial1.Philadelphia1.Level3.net) has joined #daytraders
[16:00:21] <NDXTRDR> If it's one of our own thetruth, that would be even scarier to think about imo.
[16:00:23] <GreenIz> i just noticed the bid on one of my stocks is super low now..
[16:00:24] <GreenIz> hmm

And here is the actual collapse and the reaction:

[16:21:35] <smakagator> building #7
[16:21:36] <NDXTRDR> Another tower just collapsed CNN
[16:21:37] <g-man> Building 7 collapsed
[16:21:38] <seamold> Some take this Clancy off the ai another Liberal
[16:21:40] *** stockhound (Gateway@dnvrapanas90poolb115.dnvr.uswest.net) has joined #daytraders
[16:21:41] <smakagator> has collapsed
[16:21:51] <IceDuck> 5:01pm 09/11/01 Morgan Stanley makes statement (MWD) By Tomi Kilgore
[16:21:51] <IceDuck>
[16:21:54] *** SCTrader (~sctrader@adsl-63-200-48-42.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net) Quit (Leaving)
[16:22:02] <smakagator> 5 or 7 they saying now
[16:22:07] <locust> scammers on wallstreet will be out in force to steal everyone's shares
[16:22:42] <gene-fla> locust relax
[16:22:46] <locust> shorting should be prohibited after this ecvent until situation settles down
[16:22:53] *** yerki (~trillian@sud-nd-atre-3.vianet.ca) has left #daytraders
[16:22:58] <Blues> BLDG 7 Collapses
[16:23:24] *** Milburne (morganetho@34.sherman-oaks-06-07rs16rt.ca.dial-access.att.net) Quit (Ping timeout for Milburne[34.sherman-oaks-06-07rs16rt.ca.dial-access.att.net])
[16:23:26] <g-man> what if you're already short?
[16:23:37] *** RDMise (bob@cx967907-b.santab1.ca.home.com) Quit
[16:23:40] <locust> already short fine no new shorts
[16:23:43] <seamold> CNN getting homped by Clancy -
[16:23:54] <piester> omg sheesh
[16:23:59] *** Meow-Away is now known as Meowdell
[16:24:00] <locust> the buzzards are circling - only more money to be made to them
[16:24:17] <hure> lets the shorts short, they will get pinched when it settles down
[16:24:31] <Vertical> clancy needs to shut up
[16:24:42] *** BigWave (jon@hh1111234.direcpc.com) Quit (CATCH DA WAVE)
[16:25:07] <lurk1234> klasse rat, hure
[16:25:07] *** wanker (wanker@AC954A70.ipt.aol.com) Quit (Read error to wanker[AC954A70.ipt.aol.com]: Connection reset by peer)
[16:25:29] *** doubbler (doubbler@217.136.132.132) Quit
[16:25:59] *** Joe_Away (~binettec@modemcable092.191-200-24.mtl.mc.videotron.ca) Quit (Read error to Joe_Away[modemcable092.191-200-24.mtl.mc.videotron.ca]: Connection reset by peer)
[16:26:06] *** turboneger (turboneger@pD9031B26.dip.t-dialin.net) Quit
[16:26:08] *** guru (~guru@208.171.112.61) has joined #daytraders
[16:26:35] *** scarface (Gateway@213.13.2.59) Quit (Ping timeout for scarface[213.13.2.59])
[16:26:37] <gene-fla> people on those planes probably thought it was a simple hijack or the tuff guys would of fought
[16:26:55] <captj> all the refineries here shut down, no fuel deliveries till at least tomorrow
[16:26:56] *** Stephora (private123@AC851E49.ipt.aol.com) has joined #daytraders
[16:27:03] <shoot1st> call 800-GIVE-LIFE to find out where you can donate blood near you

I have the whole file saved and it held the kernels of every single conspiracy theory I've ever seen. It is also chilling to go back to it and be reminded of what really happened and what the fakers like Dylan Avery and you want to make us think really happened.

[mjd1982]

No, it was from daytraders.org on SEP 11. This has been removed from their site since but I was watching that, the TV, and my investments that day. You are welcome to authenticate it with daytraders.org if you wish. Remember, these are excerpts. I kept the whole thing:



Now, later in the day, about WTC7:



And I believe this is about the BBC report you all use to "prove" controlled demolition:



And here is the actual collapse and the reaction:



I have the whole file saved and it held the kernels of every single conspiracy theory I've ever seen. It is also chilling to go back to it and be reminded of what really happened and what the fakers like Dylan Avery and you want to make us think really happened.
sorry, i have no idea what this is. I dont think that the majority of people who found out about 7 did so via daytraders.com, or whoever

[DGM]

Pleeeeeeease.... Why must I say this again and again??? I say it has been overwhelmingly censored, you say it hasnt. Theres a verysimple way to find out which one of us is right. Go out and ask members of the public, and see teh reaction. We all know what it is. Holy crap, how the hell do I not know about that. That is the standard reaction and this is the point.
The general public does know about WTC7. They just haven't heard about your distorted version. If you actually paid attention to MSM you'd know this and would not be ignorant to this fact. Everyone I know or speak with is aware of WTC7

[mjd1982]

The general public does know about WTC7. They just haven't heard about your distorted version. If you actually paid attention to MSM you'd know this and would not be ignorant to this fact. Everyone I know or speak with is aware of WTC7
Then you have odd friends

http://www.911truth.org/page.php?page=zogby_2006

Further, the question, to repeat for teh 1000th time, is how did these people find out about it. It would nt have been thru the MSM, fr most

[Pardalis]

Further, the question, to repeat for teh 1000th time,

The problem is that we keep giving you answers but you keep clinging to your original concept.

This is utterly pointless. You will never accept anyone else's opinion.

[stilicho]

1. I just read his book on FDR.
Pretty good, wasn't it?
But who is he?
A wealthy MSM icon. A member of your coveted "Bilderberg" group of insiders who control what you think. Remember? It's in your original post.

Here's more about him: http://www.torontolife.com/blog/conrad-black-trial/2007/may/10/black-watch-todays-top-stories32/

What is his relevance?
Umm--see above. He's a media baron who controls what you think and is immune from criticism or prosecution.

He is one person who, like Nixon, stepped out of line.
No. You are quite wrong. He is nothing like Nixon. He was a thief (a rich thief at that) who got caught. So did Bernie Ebbers. Although, I am not sure why I bring out a litany of rich thieves that have been caught since you don't know who they are anyhow. Why don't you try going to a library some day? They've got books and things that can educate you.

Conrad Black..."Who?" asks the lightly-minded mjd1982: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051120/black_peerage_051120?s_name=&no_ads=

The much-maligned former media baron was once the proprietor of the world's third-largest newspaper company, with hundreds of newspapers in Canada, the U.S., Australia, Israel and the U.K.

Power is not threatened by people knowing that he is a crook, no more than it was for Nixon. Powerful interests dont want people stealng money from others. Report on something like Diego Garcia, or the Downing Street memo, or give a true picture of Israel Palestine, or an accurate translation of "wipe Israel of the map", or proportionate reports of US killing of Iraqi civilians.... the list just goes on and on and on. Black going to jail is insignificant in the broader picture of power.
This is called trying to get your point across in spite of reality. If a rich thief or liar (Black, Nixon) gets caught then it doesn't matter. What matters is that there are other, darker forces at work.

You are also muddying the waters. My criticism of your work was that you claimed that the MSM is in league with some shadowy and unnamed clique to "protect their own". They haven't in the cases of Ebbers, Black, Nixon and others. (How many examples do I need to provide before you admit you're wrong?)

Is your only pathetic plea that these (rather common) exceptions somehow irked "them"? Their actual thefts and lies are of no consequence?

I certainly hope you don't have kids with your moral compass so thoroughly screwed.

[DGM]

Then you have odd friends

http://www.911truth.org/page.php?page=zogby_2006

Further, the question, to repeat for teh 1000th time, is how did these people find out about it. It would nt have been thru the MSM, fr most
No, I have friends that were not children in 2001. That's why everyone you ask is uninformed. Children don't pay attention to news. Simple.

[mjd1982]

No, I have friends that were not children in 2001. That's why everyone you ask is uninformed. Children don't pay attention to news. Simple.
???

[stilicho]

sorry, i have no idea what this is. I dont think that the majority of people who found out about 7 did so via daytraders.com, or whoever
This is telling.

You have no idea what daytraders.org is. You don't know who Conrad Black is. You make sweeping statements about what people know and how they acquire that information. You claim that every exception to your conspiracy theory is due to some unknown and unnamed transgression. Against unknown and unnamed people.

I would hate to have one of my valuable contributions to JREF consigned to AAH, but I would have to say that you are the most unknowing individual I have ever encountered on the internet. The thing that puzzles me is this: When you have acknowledged, many times on this thread alone, that you don't know what's going on or who the people, places or events are, or how the news was generally acquired, why don't you just admit you were mistaken?

[mjd1982]

Pretty good, wasn't it?

A wealthy MSM icon. A member of your coveted "Bilderberg" group of insiders who control what you think. Remember? It's in your original post.

Here's more about him: http://www.torontolife.com/blog/conrad-black-trial/2007/may/10/black-watch-todays-top-stories32/


Umm--see above. He's a media baron who controls what you think and is immune from criticism or prosecution.


No. You are quite wrong. He is nothing like Nixon. He was a thief (a rich thief at that) who got caught. So did Bernie Ebbers. Although, I am not sure why I bring out a litany of rich thieves that have been caught since you don't know who they are anyhow. Why don't you try going to a library some day? They've got books and things that can educate you.

Conrad Black..."Who?" asks the lightly-minded mjd1982: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051120/black_peerage_051120?s_name=&no_ads=




This is called trying to get your point across in spite of reality. If a rich thief or liar (Black, Nixon) gets caught then it doesn't matter. What matters is that there are other, darker forces at work.

You are also muddying the waters. My criticism of your work was that you claimed that the MSM is in league with some shadowy and unnamed clique to "protect their own". They haven't in the cases of Ebbers, Black, Nixon and others. (How many examples do I need to provide before you admit you're wrong?)

Is your only pathetic plea that these (rather common) exceptions somehow irked "them"? Their actual thefts and lies are of no consequence?

I certainly hope you don't have kids with your moral compass so thoroughly screwed.
D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D'UH BUNKER!!!

I know who Black is jabroni- I read his book, and I do follow the news. The point was that in the grand scheme of things, he is a nobody. Powerful interests are not going to be damaged in any significant way by Black, a crook and a thief, going to jail. The examples Ihave given are instances of real issues of power. Powerful people dont want people stealing from them.

Keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks or insults to argue your point.

[mjd1982]

This is telling.

You have no idea what daytraders.org is. You don't know who Conrad Black is. You make sweeping statements about what people know and how they acquire that information. You claim that every exception to your conspiracy theory is due to some unknown and unnamed transgression. Against unknown and unnamed people.

I would hate to have one of my valuable contributions to JREF consigned to AAH, but I would have to say that you are the most unknowing individual I have ever encountered on the internet. The thing that puzzles me is this: When you have acknowledged, many times on this thread alone, that you don't know what's going on or who the people, places or events are, or how the news was generally acquired, why don't you just admit you were mistaken?
this looks a little bit silly now, doesnt it?

LMAO... How unknowing of you!

[Jonnyclueless]

Which powerful people would those be?

[Myriad]

As I have argued again and again here, you may think it is insignificant. I think otherwise, The simple way of settling whether it is an important issue for the public domain, is to go out and asses the publuc domain. I will be doing this in London tomororw. I assure you, when I tell people there was a 3rd skyscrpaer, the reaction is "Holy crap, how the hell do I not know that?!". This is the barometer of significance of a story to public interest- namely the interest of the public.


I apologize for not taking your word for it, but I doubt that you are actually getting that reaction very often, from telling people only that there was a third skyscraper that collapsed on 9/11. If that's all you're telling them, then the reaction is more likely "Huh, I didn't know that." Which is the same polite reaction you'd get if you told them what the base 10 logarithm of 1000 is.

But more likely, you're actually telling them more than that. You're probably telling them that there was a third skyscraper that was destroyed by controlled demolition on 9/11. Getting the reaction you describe is not surprising in that case. It's easy to get a "Holy crap, why didn't anyone tell me that?!" reaction by telling people stuff you've just made up. Try the one about how Coca Cola can dissolve an inch-thick steak in half an hour. That gets the "Holy crap!" reaction almost every time.

I define high levels as people who have a significant influence on output. This would include, to a large degree, the important news journalists.


This comment had me mystified, until I saw this in your following post:

And you end up with ideologues like Bill O Reilly and Sean Hannitt...


Holy handgrenades, is that what you mean by "important news journalists?" Dude, those guys are television performers. Journalists are people who research events and then write stories about them for publication in print or audiovisual media. The guys who talk on camera are no more journalists than the guys who pour ink into the printing presses at the newspaper.

That sheds a whole new light on your propaganda theory. The phenomenon you're complaining about does indeed exist! But it's not a malevolent system you're up against here, it's human nature. You're right that there's a filtering process, and it's exactly this: the people who get to be top entertainers, such as important television "news journalists," are the ones who succeed in entertaining people. People find some things more entertaining than others, sometimes contrary to those things' relative importance (just as they find some food more appealing than others, sometimes contrary to those foods' relative nutritional value). The ones who best entertain the most people in the ways that they most want to be entertained are the ones who become "important."

If you don't like this state of affairs, perhaps you might suggest a solution besides (1) forcing the audience to listen to more thorough and balanced news coverage even though that's not what they prefer, (2) forcing media producers to provide more thorough and balanced news coverage even though it's not what its audience prefers, or (3) changing human nature to cause people to prefer more wholesome fare. As doing any of these things would require tyrannical measures far more objectionable than the situation they'd be intended to cure, I'd suggest learning to live with the status quo. (The best shot at accomplishing #3 to a limited degree, without tyrannical measures, is to improve education in certain ways. Perhaps that has something to do with us being here at the forums of an educational foundation.)

Is the whole "it's a big conspiracy" a way to pretend that there's another solution to this unfortunate situation? After all, if the problem were not human nature but instead the work of a big conspiracy, then we could solve it by exposing and eliminating the conspiracy! Alas, the problem is not that easily solved. It's clear that the consipracy does not exist because the media that's supposedly protecting the interests of the powerful, is constantly turning against those same powerful figures. (The counterargument that the ones the media turn against are thereby revealed to be not the true powerful interests is, unfortunately, circular. "The democratic propaganda system protects the truly powerful. The truly powerful are the ones that the democratic propaganda system successfully protects.") This phenomenon cannot be logically explained by the propaganda theory, but it can be easily explained by the entertainment theory. It's been known since ancient times that the public finds seeing the reputations of powerful people smeared even more entertaining than building them up.

This is not correct. Let's take an example. I'm pretty well qualified, but I would never conceivably get employed by the BBC, I would state, since I would not be the kind of person who would label the Iraq war as a quagmire. And if I did happen to slip through the net, it would be systematic that my reports would never make it as "news", no matter how significant they were.


When you talk of being qualified, do you mean for journalism or for being a TV entertainer? I can't assess your promise for the latter, but I believe you have some of the needed qualities for the former, while lacking others. Your insistence on defending word usages and turns of phrase that 99% of readers would find confusing or misleading (such as "it would be systematic that my reports...") because they are (in some cases) technically gramatically correct, would be a major handicap, as it indicates contempt for the audience.

This does exist. Watch Outfoxed, and see reports on this. Look at the firing of Phil Donahue, or maybe Dan Rather, to see how powerful interests get shielded when journalists dont tow the party line. This is a news story.


Are you referring to Phil Donahue's firing from MSNBC in 2002? IIRC, there were two reasons for the firing: that he was getting low ratings, and that he wasn't sympathetic with public opinion on the Iraq war. In other words, he was failing to entertain the audience and tell it what it wanted to hear. The firing wasn't to protect the powerful, it was to protect the public from not being pandered to. Entertainers who fail to entertain the audience get fired.

As for Dan Rather, he was by your definition in a high level position, and held that position for decades. Did the conspirators kick out one of their own? That's an awfully slow filtering process going on. I'll also point out that one of his stated goals when he left/was kicked out of CBS was to become more involved in actual journalism. In any case, if Rather himself was "high level" then his firing is not a valid example of the friction that would be inevitable between the "high level" people and the journalists working for them.

So, yeah, the MSM sucks. That suckage is directly traceable to human nature acting through free-market economic forces.

And of course, any shortcomings of the MSM at reporting certain details of some 9/11 events, whether due to democratic propaganda systems or pandering to the audience or circumstances that overshadowed those details and prevented cameras from being nearby, does not prevent buildings from collapsing due to airplane impacts, debris damage, and uncontrolled fire.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[stilicho]

D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D'UH BUNKER!!!

I know who Black is jabroni- I read his book, and I do follow the news. The point was that in the grand scheme of things, he is a nobody. Powerful interests are not going to be damaged in any significant way by Black, a crook and a thief, going to jail. The examples Ihave given are instances of real issues of power. Powerful people dont want people stealing from them.
You do? Why did you say that you didn't?

Anyhow, Black wasn't stealing from powerful people. He was a powerful person (owner of the world's third-largest media empire--remember?) stealing from ordinary people. From folks like me and you. And he was caught by a two-person investment firm. Small potatoes people. Ordinary, regular people like you, me and Dylan Avery.

Now--now--now--you will admit you're wrong. Am I right?

[mjd1982]

I apologize for not taking your word for it, but I doubt that you are actually getting that reaction very often, from telling people only that there was a third skyscraper that collapsed on 9/11. If that's all you're telling them, then the reaction is more likely "Huh, I didn't know that." Which is the same polite reaction you'd get if you told them what the base 10 logarithm of 1000 is.


Absolutely 100% not true. But since you wont take my word for it, go and find out yourself.


But more likely, you're actually telling them more than that. You're probably telling them that there was a third skyscraper that was destroyed by controlled demolition on 9/11. Getting the reaction you describe is not surprising in that case. It's easy to get a "Holy crap, why didn't anyone tell me that?!" reaction by telling people stuff you've just made up. Try the one about how Coca Cola can dissolve an inch-thick steak in half an hour. That gets the "Holy crap!" reaction almost every time.


Nope, I say "How many skyscrapers collapsed in NY on 9/11?" That is all.


This comment had me mystified, until I saw this in your following post:

Holy handgrenades, is that what you mean by "important news journalists?" Dude, those guys are television performers. Journalists are people who research events and then write stories about them for publication in print or audiovisual media. The guys who talk on camera are no more journalists than the guys who pour ink into the printing presses at the newspaper.


He is one example. I have illustrated the mechanism, repeat for Brokaw, Rather, Marr, Kavanagh etc.


That sheds a whole new light on your propaganda theory. The phenomenon you're complaining about does indeed exist! But it's not a malevolent system you're up against here, it's human nature. You're right that there's a filtering process, and it's exactly this: the people who get to be top entertainers, such as important television "news journalists," are the ones who succeed in entertaining people. People find some things more entertaining than others, sometimes contrary to those things' relative importance (just as they find some food more appealing than others, sometimes contrary to those foods' relative nutritional value). The ones who best entertain the most people in the ways that they most want to be entertained are the ones who become "important."


You have touched upon 1 improtant element there. News is part of the capitalist system, and as such, new corps are there to make profit. This has led to a dilution of news- but nt just in terms of "celebritising" news, rather elements the need to make news popular/populist. Appel to base elements in people- project a view of the world that they want to read. This will lead to censorship. It is one of the main elements of capitalist propaganda systems.


If you don't like this state of affairs, perhaps you might suggest a solution besides (1) forcing the audience to listen to more thorough and balanced news coverage even though that's not what they prefer, (2) forcing media producers to provide more thorough and balanced news coverage even though it's not what its audience prefers, or (3) changing human nature to cause people to prefer more wholesome fare. As doing any of these things would require tyrannical measures far more objectionable than the situation they'd be intended to cure, I'd suggest learning to live with the status quo. (The best shot at accomplishing #3 to a limited degree, without tyrannical measures, is to improve education in certain ways. Perhaps that has something to do with us being here at the forums of an educational foundation.)


The info is out there. The point is that in a media system predicated on free market capitalism, you will only end up with one result- a system that serves interests of power.


Is the whole "it's a big conspiracy" a way to pretend that there's another solution to this unfortunate situation? After all, if the problem were not human nature but instead the work of a big conspiracy, then we could solve it by exposing and eliminating the conspiracy! Alas, the problem is not that easily solved. It's clear that the consipracy does not exist because the media that's supposedly protecting the interests of the powerful, is constantly turning against those same powerful figures. (The counterargument that the ones the media turn against are thereby revealed to be not the true powerful interests is, unfortunately, circular. "The democratic propaganda system protects the truly powerful. The truly powerful are the ones that the democratic propaganda system successfully protects.") This phenomenon cannot be logically explained by the propaganda theory, but it can be easily explained by the entertainment theory. It's been known since ancient times that the public finds seeing the reputations of powerful people smeared even more entertaining than building them up.


There is no conspiracy. It is the simple and inevitable result of a media system predicated on free market capitalism.



When you talk of being qualified, do you mean for journalism or for being a TV entertainer? I can't assess your promise for the latter, but I believe you have some of the needed qualities for the former, while lacking others. Your insistence on defending word usages and turns of phrase that 99% of readers would find confusing or misleading (such as "it would be systematic that my reports...") because they are (in some cases) technically gramatically correct, would be a major handicap, as it indicates contempt for the audience.


This is neither here nor there



Are you referring to Phil Donahue's firing from MSNBC in 2002? IIRC, there were two reasons for the firing: that he was getting low ratings, and that he wasn't sympathetic with public opinion on the Iraq war. In other words, he was failing to entertain the audience and tell it what it wanted to hear. The firing wasn't to protect the powerful, it was to protect the public from not being pandered to. Entertainers who fail to entertain the audience get fired.


The memo regarding his firing, can be read in excerpts, here:

http://www.allyourtv.com/0203season/news/02252003donahue.html


The study went on to claim that Donahue presented a "difficult public face for NBC in a time of war......He seems to delight in presenting guests who are anti-war, anti-Bush and skeptical of the administration's motives." The report went on to outline a possible nightmare scenario where the show becomes "a home for the liberal antiwar agenda at the same time that our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity."



As for Dan Rather, he was by your definition in a high level position, and held that position for decades. Did the conspirators kick out one of their own? That's an awfully slow filtering process going on. I'll also point out that one of his stated goals when he left/was kicked out of CBS was to become more involved in actual journalism. In any case, if Rather himself was "high level" then his firing is not a valid example of the friction that would be inevitable between the "high level" people and the journalists working for them.


They did kick out one of their own, yes, because he got out of line, a la Gilligan and Dyke at the BBC


So, yeah, the MSM sucks. That suckage is directly traceable to human nature acting through free-market economic forces.


Yes! You have understood, in part.


And of course, any shortcomings of the MSM at reporting certain details of some 9/11 events, whether due to democratic propaganda systems or pandering to the audience or circumstances that overshadowed those details and prevented cameras from being nearby, does not prevent buildings from collapsing due to airplane impacts, debris damage, and uncontrolled fire.

Respectfully,
Myriad

The point is that media is systematically servile to power, and will censor to protct powerful intersts. On the basis of this, powerful interests are being protected re: 911

[mjd1982]

You do? Why did you say that you didn't?

Anyhow, Black wasn't stealing from powerful people. He was a powerful person (owner of the world's third-largest media empire--remember?) stealing from ordinary people. From folks like me and you. And he was caught by a two-person investment firm. Small potatoes people. Ordinary, regular people like you, me and Dylan Avery.

Now--now--now--you will admit you're wrong. Am I right?
You are so unknowing, it is unbelievable. Actually, it is more ununderstanding, uncomprehending!

Black is a rich media magnate. He stepped out of line. He got punished for it. Tell me how this has threatened the corporate-political power establishment.

And when you cant repent for your unknowingness!

ETA- oh, btw its called sarcasm. D-D-D-D-D-D-D'UH BUNKER!

[stilicho]

You are so unknowing, it is unbelievable. Actually, it is more ununderstanding, uncomprehending!

Black is a rich media magnate. He stepped out of line. He got punished for it. Tell me how this has threatened the corporate-political power establishment.

And when you cant repent for your unknowingness!

ETA- oh, btw its called sarcasm. D-D-D-D-D-D-D'UH BUNKER!
OK.

In spite of the judicial system working the way it's supposed to (cf Black, Nixon, Ebbers, et al), you want it to actually start prosecuting and convicting people who are not thieves and liars.

Where would you start, mjd1982? How about beginning with summary convictions of everyone with a net worth of $50 million USD or more? Would that suffice to soothe your envy?

Just be honest. If that's not your proposal then tell us all what it is.

[stilicho]

Black is a rich media magnate. He stepped out of line.
He didn't "step out of line" either. I don't know how often I have to repeat this to you before you get it. He stole from his shareholders. A small potatoes investment firm--a bunch of nobodies--caught him.

That was a "Bilderberger". Maybe you can, at the very least, admit that being a "Bilderberger" is no big deal.

That would set you yards above your garden variety conspiracist. I am holding my breath. You show promise.

[DGM]

I ask people very simply how many buildings besides the towers were destroyed or damaged.
Almost all say at least one collapsed (some don't remember the name but that's not important) and a majority say at least 5 were damaged.

MJD how many buildings were destroyed or damaged?

[mjd1982]

OK.

In spite of the judicial system working the way it's supposed to (cf Black, Nixon, Ebbers, et al), you want it to actually start prosecuting and convicting people who are not thieves and liars.

Where would you start, mjd1982? How about beginning with summary convictions of everyone with a net worth of $50 million USD or more? Would that suffice to soothe your envy?

Just be honest. If that's not your proposal then tell us all what it is.
You have not understood anything so far, have you? Absolutely nothing.

The system is designed to protect power structures. Ebbers, Lay, Black et al going to jail does not affect the power structure. They are a few people who got out of line. Affecting the power structure would be reporting the Downing St memo to preface every report on the Iraq War, etc etc etc. See previous examples.

[mjd1982]

He didn't "step out of line" either. I don't know how often I have to repeat this to you before you get it. He stole from his shareholders. A small potatoes investment firm--a bunch of nobodies--caught him.

That was a "Bilderberger". Maybe you can, at the very least, admit that being a "Bilderberger" is no big deal.

That would set you yards above your garden variety conspiracist. I am holding my breath. You show promise.
I dont care about Bilderberg. It is irrelevant to this discussion.

He stepped out of line. Petty theft is not somethign that threatens power interests. It is, in fact, something they dont want.

Tell me how this does threaten powerful interests. If you can do this, you will rise far above the barnyard variety of d'uh bunker.

[SDC]

You have not understood anything so far, have you? Absolutely nothing.

The system is designed to protect power structures. Ebbers, Lay, Black et al going to jail does not affect the power structure...

This touches on one of my totally favorite cases: Enron; ooooooooohhhhhhhhhhh, it sends chills down my spine, to L3-L4, ouch, herniated disk territory.

In fact, Ken Lay, after conviction, dropped dead, and never made it to jail. (On the 4th of July, I think, though I haven't checked to be sure -- gosh, that is so totally patriotic!) There has been an entire "Ken Lay isn't really dead" movement, but the smart money is betting that he really did join the majority. Sometimes bad things really do happen to bad people.

I miss them so -- the Enron guys, I mean. Reading the reports in the Houston Chronicle used to brighten my day.

Oh, by the way. Why do you find it necessary to lower the general tone with your insults? Can't you just say to your opponents, "you are wrong"? Have you no shame, sir? Can't you move beyond "daddy/ mommy, they hit me first" and rise above the fray?

[Z]

Pleeeeeeease.... Why must I say this again and again??? I say it has been overwhelmingly censored, you say it hasnt. Theres a verysimple way to find out which one of us is right. Go out and ask members of the public, and see teh reaction. We all know what it is. Holy crap, how the hell do I not know about that. That is the standard reaction and this is the point.

Go out and ask members of the public where Lichtenstein (sp??) is. The reaction would be the same. Ask them where Afghanistan is. Ask them where Wyoming is. Ask them who the fourth president of the U.S. was. Ask them the name of the child left stranded in her mom's car for eight hours and died was. Ask them how many NASA personnel have died in the space shuttle program.

The reactions will often be the same.

People are ignorant, and they forget less important details. Seven was neither the direct result of a terrorist attack, nor the site of a massive loss of life. As a result, it's forgotten quickly by those with only passing interest in 9/11.

Do you know, without resorting to other resources, the other buildings that were damaged and/or destroyed at Ground Zero? All of them?

Holy hell, how did you not know that?

[Oxigen]

Most people in Europe could answer those questions fairly easily. We follow current events.

[Z]

Most people in Europe could answer those questions fairly easily. We follow current events.

Excuse my skepticism here, but that's hard to take at face value from someone who misspelled 'oxygen'. :D

[SDC]

Most people in Europe could answer those questions fairly easily. We follow current events.

Oh, come on. These are the questions:

"Go out and ask members of the public where Lichtenstein (sp??) is. The reaction would be the same. Ask them where Afghanistan is. Ask them where Wyoming is. Ask them who the fourth president of the U.S. was. Ask them the name of the child left stranded in her mom's car for eight hours and died was. Ask them how many NASA personnel have died in the space shuttle program."

I sincerely doubt your statement about the knowledge base of the European public. I had my personal moment of revelation when an English friend, with an Oxford doctorate in the humanities, told me not only had she no idea where "Cleveland" was (in England, not the city in Ohio), but she'd never heard of it. I doubt any US educated Ph.d. would be unaware of Wyoming to that degree. (She had worked at the British Library for 30 years.)

The trope of "savvy, well-informed Europeans vs stupid, ill-informed Yanks" is an old one, which has never been true.

[Elizabeth I]

Excuse me. The point was facts that get widely accepted, i.e. propagated (whence propaganda)

I say again: what?

[Oxigen]

Z:
I miss spelt oxygen to be arty and apparently you're not intelligent enough to get past a single letter. By the way, when I joined the jref forum , I looked out at my garbage disposal system and it was called oxigen, and it seemed to fit completely with the rubbish I was reading.

[Pardalis]

Z:
I miss spelt oxygen to be arty and apparently you're not intelligent enough to get past a single letter. By the way, when I joined the jref forum , I looked out at my garbage disposal system and it was called oxigen, and it seemed to fit completely with the rubbish I was reading.

If you want, you can ask the mod team to change your username here:
http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=16

[Myriad]

Absolutely 100% not true. But since you wont take my word for it, go and find out yourself.

Nope, I say "How many skyscrapers collapsed in NY on 9/11?" That is all.


See, this is why credibility is important. So many times I tell people, "If you don't acknowledge such and such point, or admit such and such mistake, you'll lose credibility here." (I'm not necessarily talking about you personally, mjd.) And they always say, "so what? Why should I care whether you think I'm credible?"

And this is why. It's a real nuisance on both sides. I wish that I could believe what you say without having to doubt and check every point. Most likely you wish I could just believe you when you tell the truth. But no. When credibility is damaged, communication becomes so much more difficult.

However, if you're telling the truth, I have a possible explanation why our experiences are so different. By any chance are you talking mostly to young people? Young people are less likely to be well-informed about 9/11 details because they pay less attention to current events. I and everyone I knew certainly did, when we were in our teens and twenties. But you can't blame the MSM for not reaching people who aren't listening.

You have touched upon 1 improtant element there. News is part of the capitalist system, and as such, new corps are there to make profit. This has led to a dilution of news- but nt just in terms of "celebritising" news, rather elements the need to make news popular/populist. Appel to base elements in people- project a view of the world that they want to read. This will lead to censorship. It is one of the main elements of capitalist propaganda systems.


Part of the problem you're having making this case is that calling this phenomenon "censorship" is very misleading. Censorship is the forceful prevention of someone publishing or communicating something. Market pressures don't qualify as force. If I refuse to publish your novel or news story (for any reason including that I might think it will anger some powerful person) I'm not censoring you. If I prevent you by force from printing the novel or news story yourself, then I'm censoring you.

There are so many things that you could say about populist news media owned by corporate interests that would not come across as mere hyperbole at best. You could say it leads to bias, you could say it leads to minority views being marginalized, you could say it leads to some important information not reaching as wide an audience as it should. Calling it censorship overstates it to the point of falsehood, which makes your argument easy to refute. I'm assuming that's not what you want.


The info is out there. The point is that in a media system predicated on free market capitalism, you will only end up with one result- a system that serves interests of power.

There is no conspiracy. It is the simple and inevitable result of a media system predicated on free market capitalism.


Now we're getting somewhere.

Here's the part I don't agree with: that the result of media pandering to popular interest inevitably serves interests of power. We might make a case that it serves the interests of power more often than not, or more than it should. But I don't see the direct connection, the cause and effect, between free market forces and serving interests of power that makes it a hard and fast rule. For instance, the public likes to see secrets and scandals exposed, and the MSM play to that, which makes it rather difficult for the powerful to suppress secrets and scandals when clearly it would be in their interest to do so.

This is neither here nor there


Agreed.

The memo regarding his firing, can be read in excerpts, here:

http://www.allyourtv.com/0203season/news/02252003donahue.html

They did kick out one of their own, yes, because he got out of line, a la Gilligan and Dyke at the BBC


Okay, here's the logical problem with that. The system protects the powerful, but not when they get out of line, such as by being caught breaking the law as Black was. Okay... but if it doesn't protect the powerful when they get out of line, what's the point? When else do they need protecting, and from what?

It looks like I could point to one fallen, disgraced, or fired previously-powerful figure after another, from McCarthy to Gonzales, and you can say, "yep, that's another one that got out of line." And all the ones that so far have not been caught in scandal or crime or incompetence or unpopular decisions and brought down: "those are the ones being protected."

If you can only tell who's really "powerful" in hindsight based on who got in trouble and who didn't, it's meaningless. It's circular logic. In the end it provides no evidence that anyone is being protected at all.

Yes! You have understood, in part.

The point is that media is systematically servile to power, and will censor to protct powerful intersts. On the basis of this, powerful interests are being protected re: 911


Since the state of the U.S. mainstream media provides no evidence that powerful interests are being protected, it provides no evidence that they're being protected re 9/11.

At this point, I also have to ask: if there is no conspiracy (and we seem to all agree on that), but rather social, political, and economic forces at work, should we move this thread to Politics?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Oxigen]

Don't plan on changing it! I like oxigen!!

[stilicho]

You have not understood anything so far, have you? Absolutely nothing.

The system is designed to protect power structures. Ebbers, Lay, Black et al going to jail does not affect the power structure. They are a few people who got out of line. Affecting the power structure would be reporting the Downing St memo to preface every report on the Iraq War, etc etc etc. See previous examples.
I understand you quite well.

You are stating unequivocally that the individuals comprising the "power structure" are of no consequence. You are stating bold-facedly that it is this "power structure" itself that is the nuisance.

You would censor news broadcasts by prefacing each one with a statement that you, alone, consider to be important. I dare say, you are behaving in a most arbitrary manner.

It does not matter to you that people learned about WTC 7 collapsing by means other than those you consider acceptable. It does not matter to you that the judicial system works in cases where the defendant has been shown to be a thief or a liar. It does not matter to you that the "Downing Street Memo" has nothing to do with WTC 7 collapsing. (I suppose you brought up WTC 7 just to amuse us rather than that its collapse actually implied any wrongdoing).

You also ignore vital details in your sweeping statements against the "power structure" (which has this vague Ickean fog surrounding what it actually is or does): Kenneth Lay did not go to jail; Jeffrey Skilling did. Lay died before his sentencing. Black also hasn't (yet) gone to jail. Richard Nixon, of course, didn't serve any prison time.

You are twisting yourself unconscious in the wind here, mjd1982.

[Z]

Z:
I miss spelt oxygen to be arty and apparently you're not intelligent enough to get past a single letter. By the way, when I joined the jref forum , I looked out at my garbage disposal system and it was called oxigen, and it seemed to fit completely with the rubbish I was reading.

Whatever. Don't take it so personal. That's what the smilies are there to indicate. But before you go berating Americans for their ignorance while claiming superiority, maybe you should consider your own apparent lack of ability in grammar, usage, and mechanics. Given the number and type of errors in your posts, you would be best served in making your points if you brought on the evidence concordantly. People can and do judge the quality of your posts on the basis of their mechanical content as well as their evidentiary content; so if someone comes on with 'We all is smarter than youses', they had better forthwith provide evidence or be considered an ignorant braggart.

So were you just being 'arty' when you misspelled 'misspelled', substituted 'arty' for 'artistic', made a run-on sentence, and failed to use proper capitalization on 'JREF' and 'Oxigen'? Of course, if you're Irish (as indicated by the 'Oxigen' product name), a lot of your grammar, spelling, etc. can be forgiven. We've had some experience with the Irish - and even worse, with the Scots - and it seems proper use of language just isn't a point over there (although, I'll gladly take 'Oxigen' over 'Kash N Karry' any day... stupid Americans).

:D

[mjd1982]

See, this is why credibility is important. So many times I tell people, "If you don't acknowledge such and such point, or admit such and such mistake, you'll lose credibility here." (I'm not necessarily talking about you personally, mjd.) And they always say, "so what? Why should I care whether you think I'm credible?"

And this is why. It's a real nuisance on both sides. I wish that I could believe what you say without having to doubt and check every point. Most likely you wish I could just believe you when you tell the truth. But no. When credibility is damaged, communication becomes so much more difficult.

However, if you're telling the truth, I have a possible explanation why our experiences are so different. By any chance are you talking mostly to young people? Young people are less likely to be well-informed about 9/11 details because they pay less attention to current events. I and everyone I knew certainly did, when we were in our teens and twenties. But you can't blame the MSM for not reaching people who aren't listening.


I'm not just talking to young people. Speakers Corner, e.g. is populated mainly by middle aged people.


Part of the problem you're having making this case is that calling this phenomenon "censorship" is very misleading. Censorship is the forceful prevention of someone publishing or communicating something. Market pressures don't qualify as force. If I refuse to publish your novel or news story (for any reason including that I might think it will anger some powerful person) I'm not censoring you. If I prevent you by force from printing the novel or news story yourself, then I'm censoring you.

There are so many things that you could say about populist news media owned by corporate interests that would not come across as mere hyperbole at best. You could say it leads to bias, you could say it leads to minority views being marginalized, you could say it leads to some important information not reaching as wide an audience as it should. Calling it censorship overstates it to the point of falsehood, which makes your argument easy to refute. I'm assuming that's not what you want.


Your referring to overt censorship, whereas I am including self censorship. This is the problem.


Now we're getting somewhere.

Here's the part I don't agree with: that the result of media pandering to popular interest inevitably serves interests of power. We might make a case that it serves the interests of power more often than not, or more than it should. But I don't see the direct connection, the cause and effect, between free market forces and serving interests of power that makes it a hard and fast rule. For instance, the public likes to see secrets and scandals exposed, and the MSM play to that, which makes it rather difficult for the powerful to suppress secrets and scandals when clearly it would be in their interest to do so.


You should ask yourself what view of the world an advertiser wants his messages to be surrounded by. It is not that the US is a state run by war criminals who would have been executed under the Nuremberg laws, or that the US is the prime exporter of terror in the world. This is not the image that readers want, far less that that is favourable to powerful interests. Check out the history of the Daily Herald in the UK for more info.


Agreed.

Okay, here's the logical problem with that. The system protects the powerful, but not when they get out of line, such as by being caught breaking the law as Black was. Okay... but if it doesn't protect the powerful when they get out of line, what's the point? When else do they need protecting, and from what?

It looks like I could point to one fallen, disgraced, or fired previously-powerful figure after another, from McCarthy to Gonzales, and you can say, "yep, that's another one that got out of line." And all the ones that so far have not been caught in scandal or crime or incompetence or unpopular decisions and brought down: "those are the ones being protected."

If you can only tell who's really "powerful" in hindsight based on who got in trouble and who didn't, it's meaningless. It's circular logic. In the end it provides no evidence that anyone is being protected at all.


No. It protects powerful interests, power structures. Individuals are neither here nor there when they get out ofline. Mccarthy's a perfect example. The red scare was a fraud. But this wasnt the story. This persisted until long after he was out of the picture. He was vilified because he went after other elements of the power structure. Acccording to the Model, power defends itself. But when it abuses its power, for its own good (bigging up the red scare, the terror scare etc), it will get filtered out.


Since the state of the U.S. mainstream media provides no evidence that powerful interests are being protected, it provides no evidence that they're being protected re 9/11.


As above. And given the gross censorship of 911, this leads to the conclusion that powerful interests are being shielded.


At this point, I also have to ask: if there is no conspiracy (and we seem to all agree on that), but rather social, political, and economic forces at work, should we move this thread to Politics?

Respectfully,
Myriad

It relates to the 911 conspiracy, as I mentioned in my OP.

[8den]

This is not correct. Let's take an example. I'm pretty well qualified, but I would never conceivably get employed by the BBC, I would state, since I would not be the kind of person who would label the Iraq war as a quagmire. And if I did happen to slip through the net, it would be systematic that my reports would never make it as "news", no matter how significant they were. A good example is the Downing Street Memo.




Just a point here, I have worked in the BBC newsroom, and in Al Jazeera's, CNN, Sky and Bloomberg. I Freelance and move from one to the other on a pretty easy and regular basis. This point is completely 100% wrong, and show's you utterly no idea how a newsroom operates and what a journalist does.

Secondly your propaganda model doesn't work, enormous amounts of sensitive information is shared and sourced freely in a newsroom, and it's protected simply by the professionalism of the staff. That senior management were repressing a story would not be a secret for long. I'm not privy to every decision that is made, I do work in an edit suite. When something is serious and concerns are issues, it's where senior management, and the legal team come and discuss the story, right then and there, I've been in the room when stories have been spiked for a variety of reasons, and fine your logic twisted. You are arguing from increduality and doing a poor job of it.

[SDC]

[quote=mjd1982;2946125] You should ask yourself what view of the world an advertiser wants his messages to be surrounded by. It is not that the US is a state run by war criminals who would have been executed under the Nuremberg laws, or that the US is the prime exporter of terror in the world.

No. It protects powerful interests, power structures. Individuals are neither here nor there when they get out ofline. Mccarthy's a perfect example. The red scare was a fraud. But this wasnt the story. This persisted until long after he was out of the picture. He was vilified because he went after other elements of the power structure. Acccording to the Model, power defends itself. But when it abuses its power, for its own good (bigging up the red scare, the terror scare etc), it will get filtered out. [end edited quote]

I promise, no grammar or dictionary comments this time. I will grit my teeth.

Your first paragraph... You say, correctly enough, that advertising/ marketing is a critically important element in the news media. Your next sentence has an implied linkage to the first: so am I correct when I gather that you are saying that, indeed, "the US is a state run by war criminals who would have been executed under the Nuremberg laws, or that the US is the prime exporter of terror in the world"?

I'm not trying to attack you by this question. It just appears to be a fairly clear statement of what may be your ideology, and I'd ask you to confirm or correct that.

When you refer to the "Nuremberg laws..." I'm sorry, but that is the common term applied to the anti-Jewish racial laws in Germany instituted in the 1930s, I believe. I think you meant to say "Nuremberg trials." Very few people believe that Bush is a Jew. (Though I recall hearing about a Polish communist official in the 1970s, at the height of Poland's officially sanctioned anti-semitic campaigns, complaining that Sen. Pat Moynihan had to be a Jew because he had "oy" in his surname. No joke.)

And Tail Gunner Joe (McCarthy) ... in fact, he was on to something. There was a significant amount of Soviet spying in the US during WW2. It's become increasingly accepted that Alger Hiss was up to no good. (Darn those allies!! Whoever heard of allies spying on one another?) This last paragraph is just a digression; I wanted to type, "Tail Gunner Joe." Please do not attack me on its account.

[stilicho]

You should ask yourself what view of the world an advertiser wants his messages to be surrounded by. It is not that the US is a state run by war criminals who would have been executed under the Nuremberg laws, or that the US is the prime exporter of terror in the world. This is not the image that readers want, far less that that is favourable to powerful interests.
So, for those who do think that the US Administration is filled (or, rather, was filled) with war criminals, and who believe that the US is the primary exporter of terror, how do you explain their beliefs? Where do you suppose they got these ideas? In Galbraith's memoirs, he relates a conversation with Robert McNamara where he, himself, believed that if the Allies had lost WWII it would be themselves and not the Nazis on trial at Nurmberg.

I even recall, in high school history, discussing this same possibility (or probability).

No. It protects powerful interests, power structures. Individuals are neither here nor there when they get out ofline. Mccarthy's a perfect example. The red scare was a fraud. But this wasnt the story. This persisted until long after he was out of the picture. He was vilified because he went after other elements of the power structure. Acccording to the Model, power defends itself. But when it abuses its power, for its own good (bigging up the red scare, the terror scare etc), it will get filtered out.
Let's assume that individuals count for nothing and that only this mystical "power structure" is what matters. If this were true, then all "power structures" would essentially be the same and would be permanent institutions. (It "defends" itself).

Under such a theoretical model, the Aztec "power structure" would still be there and Cortes--the individual--would count for nothing. The Abbasid Caliphate would still be there and Hulagu--the individual--would count for nothing. The Roman Catholic Church would remain as powerful as it ever was and Zwingli, Luther, Huss and Calvin would count for nothing. The Russian Empire would be intact and neither Kerensky nor Lenin would count for anything.

Moreover, individuals within these fated "power structures", eg Nicholas II, Alexander VIII, Moctezuma, and so on, would count for nothing either. Do you yet detect anything wrong with your gross simplification of political systems?

[Myriad]

Your referring to overt censorship, whereas I am including self censorship. This is the problem.


There are many many good reasons to apply self-censorship: propriety, civility, respect for audeince interests, artistic style, appropriateness for the venue, restraining emotion to give reason a chance, among others. Without self-censorship this forum couldn't exist. Without self-censorship we'd all, as individuals and as factions in a complex society, be perpetually screaming at each other at the top of our lungs about whatever crosses our minds.

It's a good thing we... wait a minute. It occurs to me after seeing last night's video of Alex Jones's bullhorn ranting collide with Geraldo Rivera's effort to model Hooters waitresses in the guise of a news story, that as factions in a complex society we are perpatually screaming at each other at the top of our lungs about whatever crosses our minds. We need more self-censorship!

When an individual suffers from diminished capacity for verbal self-censorship in social situations, it's called Tourette's Syndrome. What's it called when society as a whole suffers from this same embarrassing ailment?

You should ask yourself what view of the world an advertiser wants his messages to be surrounded by.


Advertisers differ in the view of the world they want their messages to be surrounded by. Insurance companies, home security companies, cleaning products manufacturers, and challengers for political office try to depict a world filled with imminent danger. Soft drink sellers depict a world of healthy youthful exuberance. Rap music producers depict a world of violence and imminent revolution.

Again, you seem to perceive a malevolent force in this, where I see an interacting network of dynamic influences and conflicting interests too complex to trace in detail. (That complexity is why laws intended to fix various imbalances usually, throough unintended consequences, make things worse.)

It is not that the US is a state run by war criminals who would have been executed under the Nuremberg laws, or that the US is the prime exporter of terror in the world.


And it's not that the US is a vast bowling pin factory inside a giant purple hippopotamus orbiting Saturn either. How does the fact that it's not presented on TV lend any validity to that view?

No. It protects powerful interests, power structures. Individuals are neither here nor there when they get out ofline. Mccarthy's a perfect example. The red scare was a fraud. But this wasnt the story. This persisted until long after he was out of the picture. He was vilified because he went after other elements of the power structure. Acccording to the Model, power defends itself. But when it abuses its power, for its own good (bigging up the red scare, the terror scare etc), it will get filtered out.


So the Capitalist Propaganda System isn't controlled by, and doesn't benefit, specific individuals, nor a conspiracy among individuals. "Powerful interests and power structures?" Power itself acts with volition to protect itself? This is getting strange, I thought we were making progress focusing on who is actually misbehaving here which could lead to suggestions for how to make it better. But vague semi-sentient "power structures" arising emergently from a network of social, political, and economic interactions driven ultimately by human nature would appear impossible to assail without changing human nature or ripping apart the network. Trying to fight it through political means would be as much a category error as declaring a war on "terror."

Perhaps we can skip right over the part about how you fight it -- I strongly suspect that what you have in mind falls squarely into the "ripping apart the network" category which I find quite horrifying in its casual acceptance of the gigadeath that would result (see: Cultural Revolution) -- and jump to the key question: If you could replace market-driven capitalist media, what would you replace it with? To my knowledge the only other model that's ever existed in the real world is media controlled entirely by government and/or by other elites such as guilds, churches, and aristocracies, which is much worse (and protects power even more effectively and ruthlessly). But perhaps I'm overlooking something. Please point to either a real-world model you would emulate, or the details (perhaps a draft constitution) of the unprecedented improved alternative system you'd advocate.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[SDC]

I've just figured it out; that is, why Mjd's postings have seemed awfully familiar for some time. Not as quotations or paraphrases, but in the sense and the tone. He's coming at this from a Marxist-Leninist perspective. The tone and sensibility of his statements are like nothing so much as reading ... not Marx, who was truly a genius; but the most successful, practical, practicioners of Marxist-Leninist ideology: Lenin, Stalin, and the rest of the Bolsheviks. There are the firm programmatic statements, the harsh attacks on all opponents (including all other socialists, though that doesn't apply here), the hints of eventual retribution, the refusal ever to recognize others' points of view, and the claims that they speak for "the people"/ "das Volk"/ "narod" thereby justifying every statement and every act.

You may ask why I feel qualified to speak on this matter. I can only point to my Ph.D. in modern Russian and East European history from the Univ of Michigan. (What in god's name has happened to their football team?) I cut my academic teeth on this stuff when communism was still in power in many countries; and yes, I've spent a good amount of time in real police states, when I was a student. I've seen it up close and personal, albeit always with the protection of my American student status.

I respectfully suggest that all threads which he has started be moved to the politics area. He's not arguing 9/11; he is arguing Marxist-Leninist politics, using 9/11 as the hook. For another standard method of Marxism-Leninism is to latch onto a particular cause and try to make it theirs, and use that as a springboard to, at least, greater political influence, if not outright power.

No wonder Chomsky doesn't follow him.

[SDC]

ps OK, Mjd, you may attack me now. I've figured it out. I can put your statements into the familiar contexts of Lenin's or Stalin's (and others') writings which, in the days of John Sobieski [digression threatens!], I read. In the original Russian. Sometimes just for the linguistic exercise. Oh god. "Chto delat'?" "Dizzy with success." All the rest of it.

pps I seem to have become a student, after being new blood. Is this a normal progression?

[Pardalis]

That explains why he keeps saying that the opinion of a person on the street is more valid than structural engineers and firefighter testimonies.


pps I seem to have become a student, after being new blood. Is this a normal progression?Yes, I think "Muse" is next. You can ask for it to be changed and have your own personal title here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2928688#post2928688

[stilicho]

I've just figured it out; that is, why Mjd's postings have seemed awfully familiar for some time. Not as quotations or paraphrases, but in the sense and the tone. He's coming at this from a Marxist-Leninist perspective. The tone and sensibility of his statements are like nothing so much as reading ... not Marx, who was truly a genius; but the most successful, practical, practicioners of Marxist-Leninist ideology: Lenin, Stalin, and the rest of the Bolsheviks.

Frankly, I can't see what any of mjd1982's stuff has to do with 9/11 either.

But this is worse than mere M-L political philosophy. He's identifying, with fruitless vagueness, "power structures" that are self-perpetuating until, well, until they aren't I guess.

The difficulty I have with his model is why, then, I have read Greg Palast and Naomi Klein in a mass publication that also advertises Jaguar and BMW automobiles. Under his "propaganda model", such a thing would never happen. (The mass publication is, of course, Harper's; you don't have to stop there--Atlantic Monthly, Utne Reader, The New Republic, all contain both advertising and articles that are not flattering of the "power structure".)

If mjd1982 truly wants to see modern-day "power structures" under transition, he need look no further than the heavy industry/banking structures in Japan, the role and constitution of the Communist Party in China, and the roles of religious and secular institutions in the Muslim world. While I don't have the energy to research and list all the individuals involved in these transitions (on both sides), I assure mjd1982 that they do exist.

And, of course, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (named after a pair of congressionial individuals) has had a huge impact on the "power structures" of corporations both within and doing business with the USA. In fact, the "power structure" has done a very poor job of defending itself against this costly assault on its sanctuaries. It hardly matters to mjd1982. I would have to assume that he thinks Eliot Spitzer is somehow a part of the "conspiracy" even though his erratic assaults on businesses and the corporate world in general are brought to us by--ahem--the "power structure's" own media.

[mjd1982]

Just a point here, I have worked in the BBC newsroom, and in Al Jazeera's, CNN, Sky and Bloomberg. I Freelance and move from one to the other on a pretty easy and regular basis. This point is completely 100% wrong, and show's you utterly no idea how a newsroom operates and what a journalist does.

Secondly your propaganda model doesn't work, enormous amounts of sensitive information is shared and sourced freely in a newsroom, and it's protected simply by the professionalism of the staff. That senior management were repressing a story would not be a secret for long. I'm not privy to every decision that is made, I do work in an edit suite. When something is serious and concerns are issues, it's where senior management, and the legal team come and discuss the story, right then and there, I've been in the room when stories have been spiked for a variety of reasons, and fine your logic twisted. You are arguing from increduality and doing a poor job of it.
1. Your 1st para is your opinion, and has no validity in an argument, I'm afriad.

2. Your 2nd para misses the point that has been made over and over and over again. Please read my posts- it will save you time. The sort of people who will work in these systems (like you, probably) are hired because they are not the sort of people to believe/find out about/report these things. Check out this instance of Andrew Marr being exposed for one example.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=FSuaGIKTaEA

[mjd1982]

[quote=mjd1982;2946125] You should ask yourself what view of the world an advertiser wants his messages to be surrounded by. It is not that the US is a state run by war criminals who would have been executed under the Nuremberg laws, or that the US is the prime exporter of terror in the world.

No. It protects powerful interests, power structures. Individuals are neither here nor there when they get out ofline. Mccarthy's a perfect example. The red scare was a fraud. But this wasnt the story. This persisted until long after he was out of the picture. He was vilified because he went after other elements of the power structure. Acccording to the Model, power defends itself. But when it abuses its power, for its own good (bigging up the red scare, the terror scare etc), it will get filtered out. [end edited quote]

I promise, no grammar or dictionary comments this time. I will grit my teeth.

Your first paragraph... You say, correctly enough, that advertising/ marketing is a critically important element in the news media. Your next sentence has an implied linkage to the first: so am I correct when I gather that you are saying that, indeed, "the US is a state run by war criminals who would have been executed under the Nuremberg laws, or that the US is the prime exporter of terror in the world"?

I'm not trying to attack you by this question. It just appears to be a fairly clear statement of what may be your ideology, and I'd ask you to confirm or correct that.

When you refer to the "Nuremberg laws..." I'm sorry, but that is the common term applied to the anti-Jewish racial laws in Germany instituted in the 1930s, I believe. I think you meant to say "Nuremberg trials." Very few people believe that Bush is a Jew. (Though I recall hearing about a Polish communist official in the 1970s, at the height of Poland's officially sanctioned anti-semitic campaigns, complaining that Sen. Pat Moynihan had to be a Jew because he had "oy" in his surname. No joke.)

And Tail Gunner Joe (McCarthy) ... in fact, he was on to something. There was a significant amount of Soviet spying in the US during WW2. It's become increasingly accepted that Alger Hiss was up to no good. (Darn those allies!! Whoever heard of allies spying on one another?) This last paragraph is just a digression; I wanted to type, "Tail Gunner Joe." Please do not attack me on its account.
Sorry, what is the relevance of any of this?

Before you answer, note that pedantry is the sign of desperation.

[Pardalis]

Before you answer, note that pedantry is the sign of desperation.

Ooh boy, you must be one desperate individual... :rolleyes:

[mjd1982]

So, for those who do think that the US Administration is filled (or, rather, was filled) with war criminals, and who believe that the US is the primary exporter of terror, how do you explain their beliefs? Where do you suppose they got these ideas? In Galbraith's memoirs, he relates a conversation with Robert McNamara where he, himself, believed that if the Allies had lost WWII it would be themselves and not the Nazis on trial at Nurmberg.

I even recall, in high school history, discussing this same possibility (or probability).


Let's assume that individuals count for nothing and that only this mystical "power structure" is what matters. If this were true, then all "power structures" would essentially be the same and would be permanent institutions. (It "defends" itself).

Under such a theoretical model, the Aztec "power structure" would still be there and Cortes--the individual--would count for nothing. The Abbasid Caliphate would still be there and Hulagu--the individual--would count for nothing. The Roman Catholic Church would remain as powerful as it ever was and Zwingli, Luther, Huss and Calvin would count for nothing. The Russian Empire would be intact and neither Kerensky nor Lenin would count for anything.

Moreover, individuals within these fated "power structures", eg Nicholas II, Alexander VIII, Moctezuma, and so on, would count for nothing either. Do you yet detect anything wrong with your gross simplification of political systems?
1. He states it in the Fog of War too. But is this the tenor of public discourse? Is this reflected on the BBC, CNN, MSNBC? No, nowhere near, not in a million years.

2. Read the posts for christ's sake. I get pretty fed up having to repeat myself for you d'uhs. We are talking about the modern capitalist propaganda system- how does this relate to the Aztecs???

[mjd1982]

There are many many good reasons to apply self-censorship: propriety, civility, respect for audeince interests, artistic style, appropriateness for the venue, restraining emotion to give reason a chance, among others. Without self-censorship this forum couldn't exist. Without self-censorship we'd all, as individuals and as factions in a complex society, be perpetually screaming at each other at the top of our lungs about whatever crosses our minds.

It's a good thing we... wait a minute. It occurs to me after seeing last night's video of Alex Jones's bullhorn ranting collide with Geraldo Rivera's effort to model Hooters waitresses in the guise of a news story, that as factions in a complex society we are perpatually screaming at each other at the top of our lungs about whatever crosses our minds. We need more self-censorship!

When an individual suffers from diminished capacity for verbal self-censorship in social situations, it's called Tourette's Syndrome. What's it called when society as a whole suffers from this same embarrassing ailment?


We are not talking about the negative nature of that sort of self censorship. We are talking about self censorship regarding details that are detrimental to power.


Advertisers differ in the view of the world they want their messages to be surrounded by. Insurance companies, home security companies, cleaning products manufacturers, and challengers for political office try to depict a world filled with imminent danger. Soft drink sellers depict a world of healthy youthful exuberance. Rap music producers depict a world of violence and imminent revolution.

Again, you seem to perceive a malevolent force in this, where I see an interacting network of dynamic influences and conflicting interests too complex to trace in detail. (That complexity is why laws intended to fix various imbalances usually, throough unintended consequences, make things worse.)


No, I perceive a malevolent result, I have said this may times- the situation is the logical consequence of a media industry predicated on free makt capitalism. This means that important details will get filterd out through selection of personnel, 1st and foremost, self censorship, and censorship as well. Thus., powerful interests will get protected.


And it's not that the US is a vast bowling pin factory inside a giant purple hippopotamus orbiting Saturn either. How does the fact that it's not presented on TV lend any validity to that view?


Because it(my original comment) is what is supported by the facts and what an honest media would report.


So the Capitalist Propaganda System isn't controlled by, and doesn't benefit, specific individuals, nor a conspiracy among individuals. "Powerful interests and power structures?" Power itself acts with volition to protect itself? This is getting strange, I thought we were making progress focusing on who is actually misbehaving here which could lead to suggestions for how to make it better. But vague semi-sentient "power structures" arising emergently from a network of social, political, and economic interactions driven ultimately by human nature would appear impossible to assail without changing human nature or ripping apart the network. Trying to fight it through political means would be as much a category error as declaring a war on "terror."


There is nothing vague about power structures. High level corporate-political power interests. This is very simple and concrete. I have not even broached the topic of overthrowing it. The point is that when predicated on MSM censorship of important, newsworthy facts, 9/11 has a very simple conclusion.


Perhaps we can skip right over the part about how you fight it -- I strongly suspect that what you have in mind falls squarely into the "ripping apart the network" category which I find quite horrifying in its casual acceptance of the gigadeath that would result (see: Cultural Revolution) -- and jump to the key question: If you could replace market-driven capitalist media, what would you replace it with? To my knowledge the only other model that's ever existed in the real world is media controlled entirely by government and/or by other elites such as guilds, churches, and aristocracies, which is much worse (and protects power even more effectively and ruthlessly). But perhaps I'm overlooking something. Please point to either a real-world model you would emulate, or the details (perhaps a draft constitution) of the unprecedented improved alternative system you'd advocate.


As I have saidm this is not the point of the argument. It is that given that gross censorship of rudimnetary facts is reflective of power interests being protected, then 9/11 is an inside job, since gross censorship of rudimnetary facts is occurring on a mass scale.

[mjd1982]

Frankly, I can't see what any of mjd1982's stuff has to do with 9/11 either.

But this is worse than mere M-L political philosophy. He's identifying, with fruitless vagueness, "power structures" that are self-perpetuating until, well, until they aren't I guess.

The difficulty I have with his model is why, then, I have read Greg Palast and Naomi Klein in a mass publication that also advertises Jaguar and BMW automobiles. Under his "propaganda model", such a thing would never happen. (The mass publication is, of course, Harper's; you don't have to stop there--Atlantic Monthly, Utne Reader, The New Republic, all contain both advertising and articles that are not flattering of the "power structure".)

If mjd1982 truly wants to see modern-day "power structures" under transition, he need look no further than the heavy industry/banking structures in Japan, the role and constitution of the Communist Party in China, and the roles of religious and secular institutions in the Muslim world. While I don't have the energy to research and list all the individuals involved in these transitions (on both sides), I assure mjd1982 that they do exist.

And, of course, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (named after a pair of congressionial individuals) has had a huge impact on the "power structures" of corporations both within and doing business with the USA. In fact, the "power structure" has done a very poor job of defending itself against this costly assault on its sanctuaries. It hardly matters to mjd1982. I would have to assume that he thinks Eliot Spitzer is somehow a part of the "conspiracy" even though his erratic assaults on businesses and the corporate world in general are brought to us by--ahem--the "power structure's" own media.
Just a point on Sarbox, though it is not at all relevant- do you know the percentage of reports that are taken through to a successful prosecution? Was in the FT the other day, it's miniscule.

But this isnt what we're interested in. Interests of important power structures are things like geo political strategy, suppression of working classes, government sponsored genocide etc. Petty theft means nothing (the 3rd time ive told you know?)

[Pardalis]

As I have saidm this is not the point of the argument. It is that given that gross censorship of rudimnetary facts is reflective of power interests being protected, then 9/11 is an inside job, since gross censorship of rudimnetary facts is occurring on a mass scale.
It has been explained to you that WTC7 is not an important event.

It has been explained to you that WTC7 has been reported in the media.

[mjd1982]

I've just figured it out; that is, why Mjd's postings have seemed awfully familiar for some time. Not as quotations or paraphrases, but in the sense and the tone. He's coming at this from a Marxist-Leninist perspective. The tone and sensibility of his statements are like nothing so much as reading ... not Marx, who was truly a genius; but the most successful, practical, practicioners of Marxist-Leninist ideology: Lenin, Stalin, and the rest of the Bolsheviks. There are the firm programmatic statements, the harsh attacks on all opponents (including all other socialists, though that doesn't apply here), the hints of eventual retribution, the refusal ever to recognize others' points of view, and the claims that they speak for "the people"/ "das Volk"/ "narod" thereby justifying every statement and every act.

You may ask why I feel qualified to speak on this matter. I can only point to my Ph.D. in modern Russian and East European history from the Univ of Michigan. (What in god's name has happened to their football team?) I cut my academic teeth on this stuff when communism was still in power in many countries; and yes, I've spent a good amount of time in real police states, when I was a student. I've seen it up close and personal, albeit always with the protection of my American student status.

I respectfully suggest that all threads which he has started be moved to the politics area. He's not arguing 9/11; he is arguing Marxist-Leninist politics, using 9/11 as the hook. For another standard method of Marxism-Leninism is to latch onto a particular cause and try to make it theirs, and use that as a springboard to, at least, greater political influence, if not outright power.

No wonder Chomsky doesn't follow him.
Errr....

One of the most absurd things anyone has ever said to me.

[mjd1982]

It has been explained to you that WTC7 is not an important event.

It has been explained to you that WTC7 has been reported in the media.
Someone's angling for a banana...

I was out again today at Speakers Corner. I did it again. A crowd of ~50. 6 people knew about it; no one could believe they didnt know. I could do this all day every day.

Incidentally, I was also supported by a chap from this site- http://www.ricenpeas.com/ - used to work for the BBC and C4- he quit because he said their practices of reporting were "unethical", i.e. propagandistic

[Pardalis]

Someone's angling for a banana...

Reported.

I was out again today at Speakers Corner. I did it again. A crowd of ~50. 6 people knew about it; no one could believe they didnt know. I could do this all day every day.

Argumentum ad populum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum)

Incidentally, I was also supported by a chap from this site- http://www.ricenpeas.com/ - used to work for the BBC and C4- he quit because he said their practices of reporting were "unethical", i.e. propagandistic

I don't care.

[Myriad]

Well, mjd, if all you want to do is complain about the problem without offering or even discussing solutions, let's return to the topic of 9/11.

We are not talking about the negative nature of that sort of self censorship. We are talking about self censorship regarding details that are detrimental to power.


For which you offer WTC7 as an example. But the details of the collapse of WTC7 are only detrimental to power if WTC7 was indeed demolished as an "inside job." In the context of the 9/11 consipracy argument, this is begging the question.


Because it(my original comment) is what is supported by the facts and what an honest media would report.


Your original comment was based on your interpretation of a comparison of very different wars in different centuries. It is, at best, an opinion. Honest and balanced media would report it as such, along with contrary opinions.

Which, I agree, they have largely failed to do. This is a deplorable situation. It's a shame you have no solutions to offer.

There is nothing vague about power structures. High level corporate-political power interests. This is very simple and concrete. I have not even broached the topic of overthrowing it. The point is that when predicated on MSM censorship of important, newsworthy facts, 9/11 has a very simple conclusion.


No, even accepting your premise of MSM censorship of news does not lead to any conclusion about 9/11. Affirming the consequent fallacy:

- If 9/11 was an inside job, news of it would be censored.
- News of 9/11 was censored.
- Therefore, 9/11 was an inside job. [invalid]


As I have saidm this is not the point of the argument. It is that given that gross censorship of rudimnetary facts is reflective of power interests being protected, then 9/11 is an inside job, since gross censorship of rudimnetary facts is occurring on a mass scale.


- News of 9/11 was censored.
- The censoring of news of 9/11 indicates power interests being protected.
- Therefore, 9/11 was an inside job. [?]

That one's just a non sequitur. Even accepting the stated premises, your ideas about which power interests were being protected, and what they were being protected from, are still pure speculation.

Aren't big insurance companies a power interest? They were stuck with the bill. Why weren't their interests protected?

When presented a web of fanciful "what-ifs" and political theories and urged to reach a conclusion from them, I look instead to facts based on physical laws that can be relied upon. Such as, that demolition charges, in order to perform their function of breaking steel beams with intense pulses of gas pressure, must make a lot of a certain kind of noise. All the political theory in the world can't disconnect that dot.

But, it's been interesting discussing our different perspectives on these matters. I appreciate the dialog.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[mjd1982]

Well, mjd, if all you want to do is complain about the problem without offering or even discussing solutions, let's return to the topic of 9/11.


Where have I complained? I dont think your reading comp is up to much i'm afraid... I have illustrated a propensity in media which points to a conclusion, and applied this to 911.


For which you offer WTC7 as an example. But the details of the collapse of WTC7 are only detrimental to power if WTC7 was indeed demolished as an "inside job." In the context of the 9/11 consipracy argument, this is begging the question.


That's the wrong way round. WTC7 is a rudimentary detail in the most reported event of all time, that was censored. Under the PM, this leads us to a likely conclusion.


Your original comment was based on your interpretation of a comparison of very different wars in different centuries. It is, at best, an opinion. Honest and balanced media would report it as such, along with contrary opinions.


I dont know what wars you are referring to here.


Which, I agree, they have largely failed to do. This is a deplorable situation. It's a shame you have no solutions to offer.


This thread is not about solutions, its about the applicatin to 911.


No, even accepting your premise of MSM censorship of news does not lead to any conclusion about 9/11. Affirming the consequent fallacy:

- If 9/11 was an inside job, news of it would be censored.
- News of 9/11 was censored.
- Therefore, 9/11 was an inside job. [invalid]


That is not my formulation


- News of 9/11 was censored.
- The censoring of news of 9/11 indicates power interests being protected.
- Therefore, 9/11 was an inside job. [?]


That is my formulation.


That one's just a non sequitur. Even accepting the stated premises, your ideas about which power interests were being protected, and what they were being protected from, are still pure speculation.

Aren't big insurance companies a power interest? They were stuck with the bill. Why weren't their interests protected?


#1 You state that it is a non sequitur, and then you back it up with statements that have nothing to do with a notion of non sequiturs. That is a non sequitur. I have told you many times who the powerful interests are. These are the ones who have benefitted from 9/11.

#2 Insurance companies werent stuck with the bill. Re insurance, and re re insurance were. Their interests are insignificant compared to the major corporate political interests.


When presented a web of fanciful "what-ifs" and political theories and urged to reach a conclusion from them, I look instead to facts based on physical laws that can be relied upon. Such as, that demolition charges, in order to perform their function of breaking steel beams with intense pulses of gas pressure, must make a lot of a certain kind of noise. All the political theory in the world can't disconnect that dot.


This isnt the point for the moment. The point is the nature of media behaviour around 911, and the conclusions we can draw from this based on what we know about media behaviour. This is very clear.

Reharding the charges, I would state briefly that Jowenko, Bachmann, Schneider and Fontana are all experts who had no qualms with the level of sound at the collapse; further, there are eyewitnesses who menioned "a clap of thunder", and "a shockwave ripping through the building", followed by its collapse.

But this is not the issue of the thread; it will be discussed on the CF thread shortly.

[DGM]

Reharding the charges, I would state briefly that Jowenko, Bachmann, Schneider and Fontana are all experts who had no qualms with the level of sound at the collapse; further, there are eyewitnesses who menioned "a clap of thunder", and "a shockwave ripping through the building", followed by its collapse.

This perfectly describes the collapse.
The building started collapsing 10+ seconds before it could be seen from the ground (as seen in the video). The east penthouse disappeared into the building silently? Do you really think this could happen? I know you are ignorant to the engineering aspects of a collapse but this is ridicules.

[SDC]

Errr....

One of the most absurd things anyone has ever said to me.

Then you have had an extraordinarily easy life. (In terms of things being said to you.)

When I say, "Errrrr........", my daughter says "what do we say?" and I reply, "Excuse me."

Come on, young sprat, admit your adherence to Marxism-Leninism. Lenin wasn't embarrassed by his politics; why should you be?

[SDC]

[quote=SDC;2946461]
Sorry, what is the relevance of any of this?

Before you answer, note that pedantry is the sign of desperation.

So you believe that correct understanding of the "Nuremberg laws" that is, "die Nurnberger Gesetze," have no significance?

"Nuremberg laws" = "Nuremberg trials"?? Correct information is irrelevant?

[mjd1982]

Then you have had an extraordinarily easy life. (In terms of things being said to you.)

When I say, "Errrrr........", my daughter says "what do we say?" and I reply, "Excuse me."

Come on, young sprat, admit your adherence to Marxism-Leninism. Lenin wasn't embarrassed by his politics; why should you be?
sorry, how do I get that laughing dog emoticon thing?

[mjd1982]

[quote=mjd1982;2946750]

So you believe that correct understanding of the "Nuremberg laws" that is, "die Nurnberger Gesetze," have no significance?

"Nuremberg laws" = "Nuremberg trials"?? Correct information is irrelevant?
Well its actually the Nuremberg Principles, but never mind.

[SDC]

Errr.... One of the most absurd things anyone has ever said to me.

Come on, you saucy young rascal, please... Do you agree that your 9/11 statements based on programmatic Marxism-Leninism or not? You can insult me, attack me, I don't care... I am simply curious.

God knows, I miss it so... The Marxist-Leninists, with their banners, their certainty that they, and only they, have the True Word... Please tell me that you have that. It will return me to my youth. To my salad days. When I was green in judgement.

[mjd1982]

This perfectly describes the collapse.
The building started collapsing 10+ seconds before it could be seen from the ground (as seen in the video). The east penthouse disappeared into the building silently? Do you really think this could happen? I know you are ignorant to the engineering aspects of a collapse but this is ridicules.
I dont think the collapse of the penthouse would have sounded like "a clap of thunder", no. Nor do I think it would have caused a shockwave. What I didnt mention is that the witness then says "the bottom of the building gave out", and then it collapsed. Is this also the penthouse's fault?

[SDC]

[quote=SDC;2947004]
Well its actually the Nuremberg Principles, but never mind.

GESETZE? DIE NURNBERGER GESETZE??? They are merely "principles"???

Those were the basic anti-semitic laws passed in 1933. Gesetze = laws, not principles. Gesetz = Law, commandment, decree, precept, strophe. (Cassell's dictionary).

You say those are "principles"?? By these "laws," people were killed, tortured, imprisoned. Goodness gracious golly, the cat is out of the bag, the frost is on the pumpkin, and the jig is up. You have revealed yourself.

And it should be written as "it's," because it is a contraction, not "its," which is the possessive.

[DGM]

I dont think the collapse of the penthouse would have sounded like "a clap of thunder", no. Nor do I think it would have caused a shockwave. What I didnt mention is that the witness then says "the bottom of the building gave out", and then it collapsed. Is this also the penthouse's fault?
Duh! The initial collapse is believed to have started between floors 7 and 13. Do you think the penthouse just melted into the building or do you suppose there may have been collapsing inside the building. Research is your friend you should try it sometime.

[mjd1982]

[quote=mjd1982;2947023]

GESETZE? DIE NURNBERGER GESETZE??? They are merely "principles"???

Those were the basic anti-semitic laws passed in 1933. Gesetze = laws, not principles. Gesetz = Law, commandment, decree, precept, strophe. (Cassell's dictionary).

You say those are "principles"?? By these "laws," people were killed, tortured, imprisoned. Goodness gracious golly, the cat is out of the bag, the frost is on the pumpkin, and the jig is up. You have revealed yourself.

And it should be written as "it's," because it is a contraction, not "its," which is the possessive.
Listen- go take some basic english reading classes, and then come back.

The Nuremberg Principles were those established to try the Nazis. This is what was being mentioned.

You have difficulties with German too - Nuernberger.

Go home, learn english, and then come back to me when you have done so. Not before.

ETA- Oh, and well done on the below!

[mjd1982]

Duh! The initial collapse is believed to have started between floors 7 and 13. Do you think the penthouse just melted into the building or do you suppose there may have been collapsing inside the building. Research is your friend you should try it sometime.
The point, loathe though I am to repeat it to the obtuse, is that this collapse would not sound like a clap of thunder.

[8den]

1. Your 1st para is your opinion, and has no validity in an argument, I'm afriad.

Says the man who argues that the PNAC is a blueprint for 911, based on his interpretation of the language of the document.

I work in news rooms, please explain, in detail, whom you think in news organisations is the one suppressing 911 information, and how?


2. Your 2nd para misses the point that has been made over and over and over again. Please read my posts- it will save you time. The sort of people who will work in these systems (like you, probably) are hired because they are not the sort of people to believe/find out about/report these things. Check out this instance of Andrew Marr being exposed for one example.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=FSuaGIKTaEA

Condescending and patronizing lecturing me on a world you have no experience in, and I do, won't get you far MJD. Who's doing this hiring? Are you suggesting that every journalist/editor/librarian/producer/newsreader in the MSM are hired because they are gullible fools who are believe what they are spoon fed? Have you any idea of the hiring process I went through. Would you care to imagine, or guess?

Tell me MJD what system is used to establish whether one is suitable for these "systems"? What questions are asked? What criteria is drawn up? Can you answer that?

Finally I find it hilarious that you consistently link to someone who rejects your theories, in your attempts to suggest they support you.

[DGM]

The point, loathe though I am to repeat it to the obtuse, is that this collapse would not sound like a clap of thunder.
And you know this from your vast knowledge of what? What does a structural collapse sound like exactly. I've heard one (live) how about you? I've been to a couple of CD no "clap of thunder" there.

[A W Smith]

Someone's angling for a banana...

I was out again today at Speakers Corner. I did it again. A crowd of ~50. 6 people knew about it; no one could believe they didnt know. I could do this all day every day.

Incidentally, I was also supported by a chap from this site- http://www.ricenpeas.com/ - used to work for the BBC and C4- he quit because he said their practices of reporting were "unethical", i.e. propagandistic


WTF did I tell you just yesterday?!! the crowd you are going to get at a speakers corner is already going to be agenda driven. Sorry your attempt to support your affirming the consequent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent)fallacy FAILS. The desperation of truthers like you amuses me. Grasping for that last thin straw and failing so badly. Its over for your movement. 7 was a property loss six years ago so get over yourself. look at the lack of coverage you all are getting this weekend on the media.
:dl: i got your dog laugh right here.

[SDC]

[quote=SDC;2947034]
Listen- go take some basic english reading classes, and then come back.

The Nuremberg Principles were those established to try the Nazis. This is what was being mentioned.

You have difficulties with German too - Nuernberger.

Go home, learn english, and then come back to me when you have done so. Not before.

ETA- Oh, and well done on the below!

With regard to your new signature, thanks, I'm pleased to be so recognized. I blush and simper. May I have a badge? Heaven only knows what happened to my "baby Lenin" badges; I bought my first outside Leningrad. Too many moves. Tender little foolish memories.

You referred to "Nuremberg laws." Which translates as "die Nurnberger Gesetze..." Which were the Nazi laws against the Jews. Nothing else. Are you never in error? Will you ever admit it?

With regard to German letters.. No, it isn't "Nuernberger." At least not in proper German. The "u" is actually "u [umlaut]," and some folks, struggling with their keyboards, make into "ue." That is not required, however. Either way is accepted, with us Anglophones and our limited keyboards. I forgive you.

Give my love to Lenin, would you? God knows I miss his statues. I note that you have not directly addressed my evil, vile accusations that you start from Marxist-Leninist principles. Would you kindly say something about that?

In Odes... niet fargess...

[SDC]

[quote=mjd1982;2947049]

In Odes... niet fargess...

Oh, all right, I apologize. That last phrase is from a popular (?) Yiddish song of about 100 years ago; "In Odessa... don't forget..." Sheesh.

[SpitfireIX]

The point, loathe though I am to repeat it to the obtuse, is that this collapse would not sound like a clap of thunder.


I point this out only because of the mind-boggling level of arrogance and condescension you continually display in your insistence that other posters should learn how to read or otherwise use proper English. The word you are after here is loath, with no e on the end, which means "very reluctant or hesitant." The word loathe is a verb, as in "I loathe conspiracism and conspiracists." See here (http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/loath.html).

Your arrogance is all the more absurd considering that upthread you confused the terms "Nuremberg Principles" "and "Nuremberg Laws," which, as noted, are two completely opposite concepts.

[chillzero]

Please keep this thread on topic, and civil, or it will be moved to moderated status.

[stilicho]

Just a point on Sarbox, though it is not at all relevant- do you know the percentage of reports that are taken through to a successful prosecution? Was in the FT the other day, it's miniscule.

But this isnt what we're interested in. Interests of important power structures are things like geo political strategy, suppression of working classes, government sponsored genocide etc. Petty theft means nothing (the 3rd time ive told you know?)
Although you say that SARBOX is irrelevant, you try to explain that it isn't effective because of the lack of prosecution. SARBOX has very little to do with prosecuting "capitalists". It has to do with governance, "guaranteeing" the "rights" of investors, security of the accounting cycle, and information systems security. Not quite what you think it is.

Then you explain (at last) what you actually mean by "power structures". You don't mean advertising or the media or any such things. You mean, specifically geo-political strategy, suppression of "working" classes, and government sponsored genocide. These are very different things that what you started out discussing.

Let's see:

By "geo-political strategy", I take it you mean the increasing and troubling interference by the governments of India and China (through trade networks and preferential treatment) in the weaker and less advanced economies of Central Asia and Africa. Yes, let's see more "capitalistic propaganda" media reports about this. I agree with you.

By suppression of the "working" classes, I take it you mean the critical reports by Amnesty International of the governments of Saudi Arabia and Cuba. These corrupt "power structures" should be better exposed in the MSM. I agree with you.

I am not sure where you are going with "government sponsored genocide", but you might be talking about the repression of the religious rights of the Uighurs in China or the Islamist-sponsored terror against the people of Somalia and the Sudan. The MSM has been admittedly light on the Chinese for what they're doing to the Uighurs but the north-east portion of Africa is reported almost daily. So, I kind of agree with you.

None of these "power structures" are being threatened by your favourite whipping-boy, the "modern capitalist propaganda" machine. But none of them are otherwise beneficiaries of the same machine.

[stilicho]

Originally Posted by Myriad http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2946921#post2946921)
- News of 9/11 was censored.
- The censoring of news of 9/11 indicates power interests being protected.
- Therefore, 9/11 was an inside job. [?]

( mjd982 replies: ) That is my formulation.


I hope you're joking about this. Because:

- News of explosions prior to the Minnesota bridge collapse was censored.
- The censoring of news of explosions prior to the Minnesota bridge collapse indicates power interests being protected.
- Therefore, explosions prior to the Minnesota bridge collapse [were] an inside job.

Change "censored" to "omitted from later reports" and you arrive at the same banal "formulation".

[Myriad]

Where have I complained? I dont think your reading comp is up to much i'm afraid... I have illustrated a propensity in media which points to a conclusion, and applied this to 911.

Back to the wisecracks about reading comprehension, eh? I'm disappointed to see that. I guess I was expecting too much.

My comprehension of what you've been talking about is that pointing out what you believe is a misdeed or an injustice implies a desire to remedy it or the conditions that led to it, and therefore is a form of complaint. If not, then it's difficult to see a point to the conversation at all. You weren't illustrating your conclusion about 9/11 being an inside job because you're happy about it and want us all to share your happiness, were you?

I dont know what wars you are referring to here.


The wars that are referred to when one speaks of war criminals "running the US" and Nuremberg laws (I understand you meant trials) in the same sentence.

That is my formulation.

#1 You state that it is a non sequitur, and then you back it up with statements that have nothing to do with a notion of non sequiturs. That is a non sequitur.


Actually, the question about insurance companies was a separate paragraph bringing up a new question. I'm sorry I didn't make that clearer.

It was not intended to back up the point that your formulation was a non sequitur. No such backing up is needed. Your formulation is a non sequitur on its face.

I have told you many times who the powerful interests are. These are the ones who have benefitted from 9/11.


Doesn't help.

- Censoring of news of 9/11 indicates power interests being protected.

- Power interests are those interests that benefitted from 9/11.

(Combining the previous statements)

- Censoring of news of 9/11 indicates those interests that benefitted from 9/11 are being protected.

- News of 9/11 was censored.

- Therefore, interests that benefitted from 9/11 are being protected.

- Therefore, 9/11 was an inside job. [nope]

And that's unquestionably accepting several layers of your premises that are in fact highly questionable. Not only that news of 9/11 actually was censored (which you have not proven, because you have not shown that censorship in the US is the only plausible reason the people in the UK that you point to might be ignorant of it, nor provided any direct evidence of such censorship as applied to 9/11), but also that the reason for any such censorship can only be protecting powerful interests.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[mjd1982]

Says the man who argues that the PNAC is a blueprint for 911, based on his interpretation of the language of the document.

I work in news rooms, please explain, in detail, whom you think in news organisations is the one suppressing 911 information, and how?



Condescending and patronizing lecturing me on a world you have no experience in, and I do, won't get you far MJD. Who's doing this hiring? Are you suggesting that every journalist/editor/librarian/producer/newsreader in the MSM are hired because they are gullible fools who are believe what they are spoon fed? Have you any idea of the hiring process I went through. Would you care to imagine, or guess?

Tell me MJD what system is used to establish whether one is suitable for these "systems"? What questions are asked? What criteria is drawn up? Can you answer that?

Finally I find it hilarious that you consistently link to someone who rejects your theories, in your attempts to suggest they support you.
sorry, just a quickie- 8den, as a former esteemed employee of the MSM news service, will u please tell everyone here everything you know about Diego Garcia.

NO PEEKING!!!

[mjd1982]

Back to the wisecracks about reading comprehension, eh? I'm disappointed to see that. I guess I was expecting too much.

My comprehension of what you've been talking about is that pointing out what you believe is a misdeed or an injustice implies a desire to remedy it or the conditions that led to it, and therefore is a form of complaint. If not, then it's difficult to see a point to the conversation at all. You weren't illustrating your conclusion about 9/11 being an inside job because you're happy about it and want us all to share your happiness, were you?




The wars that are referred to when one speaks of war criminals "running the US" and Nuremberg laws (I understand you meant trials) in the same sentence.




Actually, the question about insurance companies was a separate paragraph bringing up a new question. I'm sorry I didn't make that clearer.

It was not intended to back up the point that your formulation was a non sequitur. No such backing up is needed. Your formulation is a non sequitur on its face.




Doesn't help.

- Censoring of news of 9/11 indicates power interests being protected.

- Power interests are those interests that benefitted from 9/11.

(Combining the previous statements)

- Censoring of news of 9/11 indicates those interests that benefitted from 9/11 are being protected.

- News of 9/11 was censored.

- Therefore, interests that benefitted from 9/11 are being protected.

- Therefore, 9/11 was an inside job. [nope]

And that's unquestionably accepting several layers of your premises that are in fact highly questionable. Not only that news of 9/11 actually was censored (which you have not proven, because you have not shown that censorship in the US is the only plausible reason the people in the UK that you point to might be ignorant of it, nor provided any direct evidence of such censorship as applied to 9/11), but also that the reason for any such censorship can only be protecting powerful interests.

Respectfully,
Myriad
Lets be more accurate with the deductive reasoning.

1. Censorship of rudimentary details in MSM coverage correlates to the protection of powerful interests
2. Rudimentary details were censored in 911 MSM coverage
3. Therefore the censorship of rudimentary details in the 911 MSM coverage indicates the protection of powerful interests regarding these details.

We'll leave it there as I must go to bed, but this is how the deductive sequence should look.

[Pardalis]

How is WTC7's collapse a rudimentary detail of 9/11?

[SDC]

I will repeat: Mjd's stated views on propaganda (in Russian, a perfectly respectable term, by the way -- simply indicating political education), and his methods, are quite in the style of Marxism-Leninism. You young'uns out there may not understand the point and why I am making a fuss. But fundamentally, this means that it is based on deceit, verbal aggression, censorship (!), and the like. Anything goes -- the end not only justifies the means, it mandates them.

Caveat lector.

(Oh, gosh darn it. No, I don't mean Hannibal! I mean "let the reader beware.")

Where is Noam Chomsky when he is needed? Or even Nim Chimpsky -- his avatar.

[DGM]

How is WTC7's collapse a rudimentary detail of 9/11?
It is if you first believe the "truth" movements propaganda. Other than that it's a tiny piece of a huge event that is of no consequence.

The phrase "pull it" is a perfect example. Up until the "truthers" made it one it had no explosive demolition meaning. Now it's the only meaning it has to their followers.

[Corsair 115]

He stole from his shareholders. A small potatoes investment firm--a bunch of nobodies--caught him.That's correct. The CBC had a piece on those who began the initial investigation into Black's spending. I can't recall which program it was; I think it was on the program the fifth estate but it might have been a regular CBC news report.

[stilicho]

That's correct. The CBC had a piece on those who began the initial investigation into Black's spending. I can't recall which program it was; I think it was on the program the fifth estate but it might have been a regular CBC news report.
Thanks for the supporting remarks, Corsair. I think I caught it first in the Globe and Mail's Report on Business but it could have been in any number of "corporate propaganda machine" sources.

Mind you, Corsair, mjd1982 has already announced that it's irrelevant because it didn't result in the end of capitalism. :boggled:

[mjd1982]

It is if you first believe the "truth" movements propaganda. Other than that it's a tiny piece of a huge event that is of no consequence.

The phrase "pull it" is a perfect example. Up until the "truthers" made it one it had no explosive demolition meaning. Now it's the only meaning it has to their followers.
You fellas.... too precious, too damn precious.

Listen- I know you guys feel that the collapse of 7 wasnt worth much coverage, since th MSM hasnt given it such (look up the term "manufacturing consent", please oh please look this up!"

But as has been said again and again and again and again and again and again!!! on this thread, what you think matters not one jot. Not a jot! Nothing. Cos the average person disagrees with you in their droves! I know this because i talk to crowds about this. I have done such today in Parliamant Square. You havent. This is why you are a disconnected fringe movement, indirectly complicit in the murderous, never ending War on Terror.

The ignorance of your ilk has been a constant in societies over the years; it's just a shame that it is one area where Man has not been able to progress.

[mjd1982]

Thanks for the supporting remarks, Corsair. I think I caught it first in the Globe and Mail's Report on Business but it could have been in any number of "corporate propaganda machine" sources.

Mind you, Corsair, mjd1982 has already announced that it's irrelevant because it didn't result in the end of capitalism. :boggled:
Sorry, what was that about ignorance? Spoke too soon..,

[SDC]

You fellas.... too precious, too damn precious.

Listen- I know you guys feel that the collapse of 7 wasnt worth much coverage, since th MSM hasnt given it such (look up the term "manufacturing consent", please oh please look this up!"

But as has been said again and again and again and again and again and again!!! on this thread, what you think matters not one jot. Not a jot! Nothing. Cos the average person disagrees with you in their droves! I know this because i talk to crowds about this. I have done such today in Parliamant Square. You havent. This is why you are a disconnected fringe movement, indirectly complicit in the murderous, never ending War on Terror.

The ignorance of your ilk has been a constant in societies over the years; it's just a shame that it is one area where Man has not been able to progress.

And we are supposed to take your word for this? Why, exactly?

I love the image of droves of average people wandering to and fro, agreeing with you. Like a flock of sheep, seeking out whom they may devour.

Did Woman progress? Answer yes or no. (Just kidding. No need to answer.)

Glad to join the ilk of the precious. Yes, precious.

[stateofgrace]

You fellas.... too precious, too damn precious.

Listen- I know you guys feel that the collapse of 7 wasnt worth much coverage, since th MSM hasnt given it such (look up the term "manufacturing consent", please oh please look this up!"

But as has been said again and again and again and again and again and again!!! on this thread, what you think matters not one jot. Not a jot! Nothing. Cos the average person disagrees with you in their droves! I know this because i talk to crowds about this. I have done such today in Parliamant Square. You havent. This is why you are a disconnected fringe movement, indirectly complicit in the murderous, never ending War on Terror.

The ignorance of your ilk has been a constant in societies over the years; it's just a shame that it is one area where Man has not been able to progress.

Really?

The last anti war demo I went on I didn't see any of your ilk there, where were they sunbeam? Maybe they were too busy listening to you ranting and raving at speakers corner. Strange that sunbeam isn't it you can go and execise your democratic right to accuse people of mass murder on the streets of London and nothing happens.

Wow how opressed you are, how censored , poor little victim, all repressed by the nasty Gov and the mass media. Em no, ignored more like .

By the way if you are so censored and so repressed how come 120 million Americans support you?

[DGM]

And we are supposed to take your word for this? Why, exactly?

I love the image of droves of average people wandering to and fro, agreeing with you. Like a flock of sheep, seeking out whom they may devour.

Did Woman progress? Answer yes or no. (Just kidding. No need to answer.)

Glad to join the ilk of the precious. Yes, precious.
All I can picture is people trying to get away from him. [dad mode] don't look kids just keep walking[end].

[mjd1982]

Just to show you that I care, here's a reading/watching list for you:

1. "Manufacturing Consent". Documentary on Chomsky's formulation on the capitalist propaganda system.

http://www.freedocumentaries.org/film.php?id=138

2. "Public Opinion". 1921 tome by legendary political columnist Walter Lippmann stating the necessity of "the manufacture of consent" for plying the public to the rulers will, and how this functions through the MSM.

http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext04/pbpnn10.txt

3. "Propaganda", by Eddie Bernays, the formulator of the political (and business) PR industry (and coiner of the term). Again, written in 1928, illustrating the need for leaders to "serve by leading, not lead by serving"- the need to alienate public opinion from public policy through a captalistic propaganda system.

http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/bernprop.html

4. Chomsky v Andrew Marr. The then BBC political editor attempts to grill Chomsky on the Propaganda Model, but fails in a very bad way.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=FSuaGIKTaEA

5. "Century of Self" a documentary tying this all in nicely.

http://www.freedocumentaries.org/film.php?id=140

6. Oh, and let's not forget to bring this round to 911.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/10887

This will impart a lot of info to people who need it a lot. Read, watch, and wake up!

[DGM]

Just to show you that I care, here's a reading/watching list for you:

1. "Manufacturing Consent". Documentary on Chomsky's formulation on the capitalist propaganda system.

http://www.freedocumentaries.org/film.php?id=138

2. "Public Opinion". 1921 tome by legendary political columnist Walter Lippmann stating the necessity of "the manufacture of consent" for plying the public to the rulers will, and how this functions through the MSM.

http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext04/pbpnn10.txt

3. "Propaganda", by Eddie Bernays, the formulator of the political (and business) PR industry (and coiner of the term). Again, written in 1928, illustrating the need for leaders to "serve by leading, not lead by serving"- the need to alienate public opinion from public policy through a captalistic propaganda system.

http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/bernprop.html

4. Chomsky v Andrew Marr. The then BBC political editor attempts to grill Chomsky on the Propaganda Model, but fails in a very bad way.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=FSuaGIKTaEA

5. "Century of Self" a documentary tying this all in nicely.

http://www.freedocumentaries.org/film.php?id=140

6. Oh, and let's not forget to bring this round to 911.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/10887

This will impart a lot of info to people who need it a lot. Read, watch, and wake up!
And the "truthers" use this propaganda on you and the rest of their flock. Sad they/you can't see through it.

[A W Smith]

But as has been said again and again and again and again and again and again!!! on this thread, what you think matters not one jot. Not a jot! Nothing. Cos the average person disagrees with you in their droves! I know this because i talk to crowds about this.

You fail.
You fail because there is only a handful protesting in Manhattan as we speak. You fail because there are 6, thats right SIX protesting in Seattle as we speak. You fail because they cannot even fill a movie house in Norway with 200 people for a preview of one of the most recognized and foremost 911 conspiracy videos. You fail because you constantly poll from protest speaking groups hanging out in town squares. You fail because only a fringe handful of architects or engineers that number less than five on this entire blue planet support a conspiracy. You fail because you lack a single peer reviewed document. You fail because the only exposure fantasist's get in any broadcast media is for ridicule. You fail because you make bold sweeping assertions based only on your fantasist delusions not in fact. You fail because you are a naive 20 something year old who lacks the life experience to make critical judgments. You simply don't know, And you don't know that you don't know.

[Myriad]

Lets be more accurate with the deductive reasoning.

1. Censorship of rudimentary details in MSM coverage correlates to the protection of powerful interests
2. Rudimentary details were censored in 911 MSM coverage
3. Therefore the censorship of rudimentary details in the 911 MSM coverage indicates the protection of powerful interests regarding these details.

We'll leave it there as I must go to bed, but this is how the deductive sequence should look.


By using the term "correlates" you appear to have greatly weakened your first premise. Correlation does not imply causality in either direction, so you are now no longer saying that the censorship results in the protection of powerful interests, nor that protection of powerful interests causes the censorship. Only that they correlate; where one is observed, the other tends to be more frequently observed. That could be accounted for by, for instance, both phenomena increasing in frequency under more authoritarian governments. Perhaps that's not what you mean to say.

(If if is what you want to say, then statement 3 as stated does not follow. A more accurate statement 3 would be: "Therefore it is statistically more likely that the protection of powerful interests is also occurring." Nothing in your premises as stated supports the conclusion that the details being censored are what the powerful interests are being protected from.)

But while you think about whether that was what you meant to say, I'm more interested in the answer you gave when I asked you to define the "powerful interests" in question. You answered that the powerful interests were the ones who benefitted from the events of 9/11.

Is this association between being a powerful interest, and benefitting from the events, a conclusion based on evidence of the events of 9/11, or is it an a priori assumption? I ask because I've mentioned at least one interest, the insurance industry, that clearly resembles a powerful interest in all outward aspects. It's a large industry, dominated by large companies that control vast fortunes, it appears influential in setting policy, it has close ties with law enforcement, and so forth. You dismiss that claim, calling the insurance companies insignificant. If your evidence for calling them insignificant is that they did not benefit from 9/11, then it would appear that we're dealing with an a priori assumption that "benefitted (and only benefitted) implies powerful."

The problem is, such an a prior assumption will always lead to conspiracy-minded thinking, whether a conspiracy exists or not in any particular case.

Here's the Royal Road to conspiracist thinking:

1. Something significant happens.
2. Some people benefit.
3. Those who benefit are powerful interests.
4. The powerful interests caused the event.
5. The powerful interests act to prevent anyone finding out that they caused the event.

Since #2 is always true, it's important to be skeptical about #3. Otherwise you will constantly be leaping to #4 and you will start seeing conspiracies everywhere, causing hurricanes and school shootings and everything else that happens. Some powerful interests do benefit from some events. But cases when this happens have to be evaluated in the proper perspective.

As listed above, #3 is poorly stated in a way that invites misinterpretation and equivocation. It can be taken to imply that all who benefit are powerful interests, but that is never true. It can be taken to imply that all powerful interests benefit, but that is never true.

It is much clearer and more accurate to say:

3. Some powerful interests are among those who benefit.

I will point out:

- There are lots of powerful interests. Therefore, some powerful interests are likely to benefit from any given significant event.

- Likewise, some powerful interests are likely to suffer from any given significant event. You cannot ignore these, or assume a priori that if they suffered they must not be significant.

- Some interests that are not powerful are likely to benefit from any given significant event.

You cannot assume a priori that anyone who benefits must be powerful. That is one of the most catastrophic forms of careless thinking in human history, and it's driven by envy. (Some people benefitted from the Black Plague. Some of the people around during the Plague were Jews, so naturally enough, some of those who benefitted were Jews. Because of this, mobs concluded that Jews must be powerful interests [and thus, because they had no visible power, must be engaged in conspiracy, witchcraft, etc.] and had caused the Plague. From this sloppy thinking, tragedy resulted.)

9/11 did great harm to many interersts that I would call powerful. Whole industry sectors declined. Vast fortunes were lost when markets fell. Some of the world's largest corporations and banks had their operations disrupted when their buildings throughout the financial center were rendered unusable for months or longer. Meanwhile, six years later, the so-called benefits are looking dubious as the "Neocons" continue losing political influence and the Bush cabinet is all but gone.

The powerful interests that suffered instead of benefitting belie the notion of "the powerful interests are the ones who benefitted." You can claim that those who suffered weren't really powerful, or didn't really suffer, but that just makes all distinctions between "powerful" and otherwise, and/or between "benefit" and otherwise, meaninglessly circular. The truth is that powerful interests oppose one another. Otherwise the Military-Industrial Complex would have long ago made the Agro-Industrial Complex stop pushing fattening foods on Americans, so that trillions of what's now going to Medicare could help fund wars instead.

You can claim that the powerful interests who benefitted acted successfully against the powerful interests who suffered, but why would the powerful interests who suffered do so in silence? Even if they were initially fooled into thinking terrorists did it, would not the evidence amassed by the Truth movement have opened their eyes? Or does some kind of secret chivalric code forbid any powerful interest from publically tattling on any other, so that they conduct a secret war against each other?

Or maybe, sometimes people (and powerful interests) just happen to benefit from events that they did not cause?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[mjd1982]

By using the term "correlates" you appear to have greatly weakened your first premise. Correlation does not imply causality in either direction, so you are now no longer saying that the censorship results in the protection of powerful interests, nor that protection of powerful interests causes the censorship. Only that they correlate; where one is observed, the other tends to be more frequently observed. That could be accounted for by, for instance, both phenomena increasing in frequency under more authoritarian governments. Perhaps that's not what you mean to say.

(If if is what you want to say, then statement 3 as stated does not follow. A more accurate statement 3 would be: "Therefore it is statistically more likely that the protection of powerful interests is also occurring." Nothing in your premises as stated supports the conclusion that the details being censored are what the powerful interests are being protected from.)

But while you think about whether that was what you meant to say, I'm more interested in the answer you gave when I asked you to define the "powerful interests" in question. You answered that the powerful interests were the ones who benefitted from the events of 9/11.

Is this association between being a powerful interest, and benefitting from the events, a conclusion based on evidence of the events of 9/11, or is it an a priori assumption? I ask because I've mentioned at least one interest, the insurance industry, that clearly resembles a powerful interest in all outward aspects. It's a large industry, dominated by large companies that control vast fortunes, it appears influential in setting policy, it has close ties with law enforcement, and so forth. You dismiss that claim, calling the insurance companies insignificant. If your evidence for calling them insignificant is that they did not benefit from 9/11, then it would appear that we're dealing with an a priori assumption that "benefitted (and only benefitted) implies powerful."

The problem is, such an a prior assumption will always lead to conspiracy-minded thinking, whether a conspiracy exists or not in any particular case.

Here's the Royal Road to conspiracist thinking:

1. Something significant happens.
2. Some people benefit.
3. Those who benefit are powerful interests.
4. The powerful interests caused the event.
5. The powerful interests act to prevent anyone finding out that they caused the event.

Since #2 is always true, it's important to be skeptical about #3. Otherwise you will constantly be leaping to #4 and you will start seeing conspiracies everywhere, causing hurricanes and school shootings and everything else that happens. Some powerful interests do benefit from some events. But cases when this happens have to be evaluated in the proper perspective.

As listed above, #3 is poorly stated in a way that invites misinterpretation and equivocation. It can be taken to imply that all who benefit are powerful interests, but that is never true. It can be taken to imply that all powerful interests benefit, but that is never true.

It is much clearer and more accurate to say:

3. Some powerful interests are among those who benefit.

I will point out:

- There are lots of powerful interests. Therefore, some powerful interests are likely to benefit from any given significant event.

- Likewise, some powerful interests are likely to suffer from any given significant event. You cannot ignore these, or assume a priori that if they suffered they must not be significant.

- Some interests that are not powerful are likely to benefit from any given significant event.

You cannot assume a priori that anyone who benefits must be powerful. That is one of the most catastrophic forms of careless thinking in human history, and it's driven by envy. (Some people benefitted from the Black Plague. Some of the people around during the Plague were Jews, so naturally enough, some of those who benefitted were Jews. Because of this, mobs concluded that Jews must be powerful interests [and thus, because they had no visible power, must be engaged in conspiracy, witchcraft, etc.] and had caused the Plague. From this sloppy thinking, tragedy resulted.)

9/11 did great harm to many interersts that I would call powerful. Whole industry sectors declined. Vast fortunes were lost when markets fell. Some of the world's largest corporations and banks had their operations disrupted when their buildings throughout the financial center were rendered unusable for months or longer. Meanwhile, six years later, the so-called benefits are looking dubious as the "Neocons" continue losing political influence and the Bush cabinet is all but gone.

The powerful interests that suffered instead of benefitting belie the notion of "the powerful interests are the ones who benefitted." You can claim that those who suffered weren't really powerful, or didn't really suffer, but that just makes all distinctions between "powerful" and otherwise, and/or between "benefit" and otherwise, meaninglessly circular. The truth is that powerful interests oppose one another. Otherwise the Military-Industrial Complex would have long ago made the Agro-Industrial Complex stop pushing fattening foods on Americans, so that trillions of what's now going to Medicare could help fund wars instead.

You can claim that the powerful interests who benefitted acted successfully against the powerful interests who suffered, but why would the powerful interests who suffered do so in silence? Even if they were initially fooled into thinking terrorists did it, would not the evidence amassed by the Truth movement have opened their eyes? Or does some kind of secret chivalric code forbid any powerful interest from publically tattling on any other, so that they conduct a secret war against each other?

Or maybe, sometimes people (and powerful interests) just happen to benefit from events that they did not cause?

Respectfully,
Myriad
2 problems here:

1. A strong correlation between 2 things, by definition, suggest causality. There is, of course, the caveat of datamining, and coincidences, but when the correlation is supported by evident facts, some of whih are listed in my OP, then this makes this possibility unlikely.

2. Firstly, it wasnt the insurance companies taht paid out, as I said before. It was the re, and re re insurance companies. These are not the ruling power strctures. The corporate elites, the massive corporations, have benefitted from 9/11, as have the political elites. That some re re insurance companies, not even all of which are American, have had to pay out, is insignificant.

The main power structures have benefitted, as have the US government. Mass censorship of rudimnentary detail suggests that they are being protected by such censorships.

[mjd1982]

You fail.
You fail because there is only a handful protesting in Manhattan as we speak. You fail because there are 6, thats right SIX protesting in Seattle as we speak. You fail because they cannot even fill a movie house in Norway with 200 people for a preview of one of the most recognized and foremost 911 conspiracy videos. You fail because you constantly poll from protest speaking groups hanging out in town squares. You fail because only a fringe handful of architects or engineers that number less than five on this entire blue planet support a conspiracy. You fail because you lack a single peer reviewed document. You fail because the only exposure fantasist's get in any broadcast media is for ridicule. You fail because you make bold sweeping assertions based only on your fantasist delusions not in fact. You fail because you are a naive 20 something year old who lacks the life experience to make critical judgments. You simply don't know, And you don't know that you don't know.
I am supported by the polls. You are not. People on the street in Seattle means nothing, compared to the polls. They support me, they dont you.

[DGM]

AW Smith:
Get with the program! Real people are not polls and do not count.:confused:

[Civilized Worm]

I am supported by the polls. You are not. People on the street in Seattle means nothing, compared to the polls. They support me, they dont you.


They support you but not enough to actually go out and protest? 4.6%

[Mr. Skinny]

I am supported by the polls. You are not. People on the street in Seattle means nothing, compared to the polls. They support me, they dont you.

Would you be saying that if, let's say, 7,000 people had shown up?

Unless you are saying that the polls reflect "everywhere but Seattle" or something, I'd be inclined to say it does mean "something".

BTW, I didn't hear of anyone demonstrating here in Dayton. Maybe I missed the notices...

[A W Smith]

I am supported by the polls. You are not. People on the street in Seattle means nothing, compared to the polls. They support me, they dont you.
You fail because you make bold sweeping assertions based only on your fantasist delusions not in fact.

[DGM]

Would you be saying that if, let's say, 7,000 people had shown up?

Unless you are saying that the polls reflect "everywhere but Seattle" or something, I'd be inclined to say it does mean "something".

BTW, I didn't hear of anyone demonstrating here in Dayton. Maybe I missed the notices...
Boston was equally as quite. I didn't get over to Cambridge (the peoples' republic) but I didn't hear anything about there either.

[johnny karate]

I am supported by the polls. You are not. People on the street in Seattle means nothing, compared to the polls. They support me, they dont you.What about the people in New York? Or Norway? Or anywhere? You can trot out all the conflated poll numbers you want to to, but when it come down to real, live people coming out to support your beliefs, well... clearly no one cares.

[Mr. Skinny]

Boston was equally as quite. I didn't get over to Cambridge (the peoples' republic) but I didn't hear anything about there either.
The local "hotbed of communism" (as I like to call it :) ) in the Dayton area is Antioch University in Yellow Springs. I didn't hear of anything going on their either.

[LashL]

Firstly, it wasnt the insurance companies taht paid out, as I said before. It was the re, and re re insurance companies.

I disagree with this statement. Who do you think issues re-insurance if not insurance companies? There were some pretty heavy hitters among the insurers.

[LashL]

I am supported by the polls. You are not. People on the street in Seattle means nothing, compared to the polls. They support me, they dont you.

If people on the street in Seattle mean nothing, why do you put so much stock in the alleged conversations you have with people on the street in your community?

[stateofgrace]

I am supported by the polls. You are not. People on the street in Seattle means nothing, compared to the polls. They support me, they dont you.

Really?


Total number of current signatories: 15115 (8 pending review)


http://www.justicefor911.org/

That’s approx 0.005% of America. Where are the other 119,984,885 people that support you? Maybe they couldn't be bothered to sign an online petition in support of you.