911 and massive deception by the US Government

[dtugg]

Originally Posted by ULTIMA1

Why don't you try thinking for yourslef and doing your own research to find the truth?

I have.

The truth is that da twoof is BS.


I was just asking metemars because his apparent hero disagrees with him.

[ULTIMA1]

Originally Posted by dtugg

I have.

Well then it should be easy to show what research you have done.

I can show my research, FOIA request and e-mails.

[dtugg]

Originally Posted by ULTIMA1

Well then it should be easy to show what research you have done.

I can show my research, FOIA request and e-mails.

My research encompasses reading thousands of pages of documents and books. Listing them all is impossible.

You haven't shown any research. Filing an FOIA request about a document that you lie about having read isn't showing research.

[JihadJane]

Originally Posted by metamars

Also, can anybody suggest a forum where serious, knowledgeable individuals can discuss, debate, and investigate media bias, where the participants observe civility but cover a large swathe of opinions?

Do you know about Media Lens in the UK?

Here's an extract from their introduction:

"What is Media Lens?

Media Lens is a response based on our conviction that mainstream newspapers and broadcasters provide a profoundly distorted picture of our world. We are convinced that the increasingly centralised, corporate nature of the media means that it acts as a de facto propaganda system for corporate and other establishment interests. The costs incurred as a result of this propaganda, in terms of human suffering and environmental degradation, are incalculable.

In seeking to understand the basis and operation of this systematic distortion, we flatly reject all conspiracy theories and point instead to the inevitably corrupting effects of free market forces operating on and through media corporations seeking profit in a society dominated by corporate power. We reject the idea that journalists are generally guilty of self-censorship and conscious lying; we believe that the all-too-human tendency to self-deception accounts for their conviction that they are honest purveyors of uncompromised truth. We all have a tendency to believe what best suits our purpose - highly paid, highly privileged editors and journalists are no exception."

http://www.medialens.org/index.php

[JihadJane]

Originally Posted by twinstead

911. The housing bubble. Coincidence? I think not

"Just as the Bush regime’s wars have been used to pour billions of dollars into the pockets of its military-security donor base, the Paulson bailout looks like a Bush regime scheme to incur $700 billion in new public debt in order to transfer the money into the coffers of its financial donor base."

'Additional Thoughts on the Bailout'

Paul Craig Roberts

http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle21034.htm

[ULTIMA1]

Originally Posted by dtugg

My research encompasses reading thousands of pages of documents and books. Listing them all is impossible.

What about actual research, fileing FOIA requests and e-mails?

Quote:

You haven't shown any research. Filing an FOIA request about a document that you lie about having read isn't showing research.

I have and can show lots of research.

I have filed more then 1 FOIA request and i have e-mailed companies that were at ground zero.

Seems i have done a lot more actaul research then you have.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Originally Posted by ULTIMA1

What about actual research, fileing FOIA requests and e-mails?




I have and can show lots of research.

I have filed more then 1 FOIA request and i have e-mailed companies that were at ground zero.

Seems i have done a lot more actaul research then you have.

How were you able to land a job in the NSA with that "English".

[dtugg]

The only thing that you have done is lie about reading a document that you read about on the Internet and then file the request to try to cover up your lie.

I don't really have any desire to to file FOIA requests and the like because I already know what happened. It is not like the government would tell me about how it has been lying to the world if I did though.

[ULTIMA1]

Originally Posted by dtugg

The only thing that you have done is lie about reading a document that you read about on the Internet and then file the request to try to cover up your lie.

How did i lie about the request when i have showed it and the response from NSA?

Quote:

I don't really have any desire to to file FOIA requests and the like because I already know what happened. .

Now you are the liar, becuase you do not know what happened. You are the biggest liar in this forum if you think you know what happned.

[dtugg]

You didn't lie about the request. You lied about having read the documents you requested. You filed the request in an attempt to coverup your lie.

Yeah I do know what happened, at least so far as is possible. All the available evidence states that al-Qaeda terrorists at the leadership of OBL and KSM hijacked four planes, crashing them into three buildings and a field in Pennsylvania.

[ULTIMA1]

Originally Posted by dtugg

You didn't lie about the request. You lied about having read the documents you requested.

How did i file a FOIA request if i did not read and know what the document stated that i was requesting?

Quote:

Yeah I do know what happened, at least so far as is possible. All the available evidence states that al-Qaeda terrorists at the leadership of OBL and KSM hijacked four planes, crashing them into three buildings and a field in Pennsylvania.

All of what evidnece? The FBI and NTSB has not released most of the evidence.

Why are you lying?

[JihadJane]

Originally Posted by ULTIMA1

Now you are the liar, becuase you do not know what happened. You are the biggest liar in this forum if you think you know what happned.

The majority of posters on this sub-forum believe they know what happened. I wouldn't call them liars, though, because they believe they are telling the truth.


They mistake believing for knowing.

[ULTIMA1]

Originally Posted by JihadJane

The majority of posters on this sub-forum believe they know what happened. I wouldn't call them liars, though, because they believe they are telling the truth..

Actually they should know that most of the evidence has not been released, so they are lying when they state they know what happened.

[dtugg]

Originally Posted by ULTIMA1

How did i file a FOIA request if i did not read and know what the document stated that i was requesting?



All of what evidnece? The FBI and NTSB has not released most of the evidence.

Why are you lying?

Because you read about this supposed document and what is says here.. You started a thread about it at ATS before you claimed to have read it yourself.


The FBI usually doesn't release all evidence in criminal investigations. Especially ones that are on going like 9/11 is. What has been released clearly implicates al Qaeda. Then you have the OBL and KSM confessions.

[ULTIMA1]

Originally Posted by dtugg

You started a thread about it at before you claimed to have read it yourself.

I would not have requested a document without reading it first.

Quote:

The FBI usually doesn't release all evidence in criminal investigations.

So thanks for agreeing with me that all the evidence has not been released, hopefully others on here will read this.

Quote:

What has been released clearly implicates al Qaeda..

Please show me this evidence that implicates alqaeda.

[dtugg]

Originally Posted by ULTIMA1

I would not have requested a document without reading it first.

So you say.

Quote:

So thanks for agreeing with me that all the evidence has not been released, hopefully others on here will read this.

Nobody here has ever suggested otherwise.

Quote:

Please show me this evidence that implicates alqaeda.

I guess the 9/11 Commission Report and the Moussaoui trials exhibit don't count right? Neither do the OBL and KSM confessions, right? That is just a start.

[ULTIMA1]

Originally Posted by dtugg

Nobody here has ever suggested otherwise.

What about people who state they know what happned that day?

Quote:

I guess the 9/11 Commission Report Neither do the OBL and KSM confessions, right? That is just a start.

The people from the 9/11 commission have stated they did not have enouguh time or money to do a proper investigation.

As stated before terrorist groups like to claim and take responsablity for things they did not do.

Do you have any actual reports or physcial evidence?

[dtugg]

People here that know what happened acknowledge that not available evidence is released to the public for criminal investigations, especially ones that are ongoing.

There is no way you have even read the 9/11 Commission Report. They think they were successful.

You stated that terrorists like to take claim responsibility for things they didn't do. That doesn't make it true. You have to prove it.

I like how you ignored the part about the Moussaoui trial exhibits. Plenty of evidence there. He was found guilty after all and is serving a life sentence. It is available online if you didn't know.

[ULTIMA1]

Originally Posted by dtugg

People here that know what happened acknowledge that not available evidence is released to the public for criminal investigations, especially ones that are ongoing. .

Then there is no way they can know what happened if they do not have the evidence.

They are just stating opinions then, not fact backed up with evidence.

[dtugg]

Originally Posted by ULTIMA1

Then there is no way they can know what happened if they do not have the evidence.

They are just stating opinions then, not fact backed up with evidence.

You must be stupid. Just because all evidence isn't available doesn't mean there is no evidence. There is and it backs up what we say. But I guess Moussaoui is in prison for life for no reason. And KSM is in Gitmo and on trial for no reason.

[ULTIMA1]

Originally Posted by dtugg

There is and it backs up what we say. .

NO there is no evidence that backs up what you say.

Let me prove it.

1. You have no real photos or videos that show AA77 hitting the Pentagon.

2. You have no reports that match parts and debris found to the 9/11 planes.

Just for a start.

[dtugg]

Originally Posted by ULTIMA1

NO there is no evidence that backs up what you say.

Let me prove it.

1. You have no real photos or videos that show AA77 hitting the Pentagon.

2. You have no reports that match parts and debris found to the 9/11 planes.

Just for a start.

I thought you acknowledge there were hijackers? Where did the hijacked planes go if they didn't crash?

I guess DNA from people that were known to be on the flight isn't evidence flights crashed? I guess people that say they saw a AA 757 crash into the Pentagon really saw a 757 other than AA77. I guess the plane that I saw crash into the WTC was something other than UA175.

Just for a start.

[ULTIMA1]

Originally Posted by dtugg

I thought you acknowledge there were hijackers? Where did the hijacked planes go if they didn't crash?

Why do you aviod a simple question?

DO you have a real photo or video of AA77 hititng the Pentagon, YES or NO?

Quote:

I guess DNA from people that were known to be on the flight isn't evidence flights crashed?

You mean people identified before the new DNA testing from NIST was out.

And the fact that there are no official reports of bodies from the plane being in the building.

Quote:

I guess people that say they saw a AA 757 crash into the Pentagon really saw a 757 other than AA77.

You mean between all the people there they that could not decide what they saw?

You mean the witness that stated they did not know what hit the Pentagon, they were told later it was a 757?

Quote:

I guess the plane that I saw crash into the WTC was something other than UA175..

How do you know that plane was UA175, was the flight number on the side?

[Confuseling]

Metamars; If you acknowledge that there is no compelling evidence that would be obvious to, for example, the Iranian or Chinese intelligence services - otherwise it would necessarily have appeared in their respective medias - isn't this a tacit admission that you have no real evidence, beyond gut feeling, yourself?

[metamars]

Originally Posted by JihadJane

Do you know about Media Lens in the UK?

Here's an extract from their introduction:

"What is Media Lens?

Media Lens is a response based on our conviction that mainstream newspapers and broadcasters provide a profoundly distorted picture of our world. We are convinced that the increasingly centralised, corporate nature of the media means that it acts as a de facto propaganda system for corporate and other establishment interests. The costs incurred as a result of this propaganda, in terms of human suffering and environmental degradation, are incalculable.

In seeking to understand the basis and operation of this systematic distortion, we flatly reject all conspiracy theories and point instead to the inevitably corrupting effects of free market forces operating on and through media corporations seeking profit in a society dominated by corporate power. We reject the idea that journalists are generally guilty of self-censorship and conscious lying; we believe that the all-too-human tendency to self-deception accounts for their conviction that they are honest purveyors of uncompromised truth. We all have a tendency to believe what best suits our purpose - highly paid, highly privileged editors and journalists are no exception."

http://www.medialens.org/index.php

Thanks. I thought media lens had gone into abeyance, save for infrequent 'reports'. In any event, they have a forum. I will post a question about US influence on foreign media, there.

Also, their distinction between "self-censorship" and "self-deception" seems a little too neat, for my taste. The fact is that our knowledge of the world is imperfect, there is much ambiguity, therefore the tendency to rationalize the act of not pursuing a line of investigation could easily straddle the mental category of "self-censorship" and the mental category of "self-deception".

Even the word "rationalize", that I use above, should be considered ambiguous. Is it rationalizing if one ignores a line of inquiry when one guesstimates, a priori, that the odds of it leading to anything significant could well be 1 in 2? I'd say "no". (Hence, "self-censorship" probably applies.) But is it rationalizing if one ignores a line of inquiry when one guesstimates, a priori, that the odds of it leading to anything significant is 1 in 10? I'd say "yes" or "maybe". (Hence, "self-deception" applies.) How, then, to describe the situation wherein one guesstimates a line of inquiry to lead to something significant to have odds of 1 in 7? Somewhere along the continuum of guesstimate probabilities, you will be in a region of somewhat rationalizing. I argue that if you are somewhat rationalizing, you are straddling "self-deception" and "self-censorship".*

(I don't want to go into it, but some conceptualizations from fuzzy logic would help illuminate the discussion.)

In the real world, of course, where one has to respond to a corporate climate, and a boss who is ever-mindful of a budget and political realities, sociological factors probably outweigh any of the above. It's not me who says the situation isn't complicated. This is not just the case in the media. You might be the most honest waiter in the world, if you were actually independent, but if you honestly told your customers that you wouldn't feed the chicken soup to a dog, you'd probably be fired for your efforts. If you were interested in keeping your job and your integrity, you would deflect questions on the chicken soup to how wonderful the salad bar is.

BTW, I see they're inspired by Chomsky:

Quote:

We have to acknowledge the debt we owe to Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky, and in particular to their brilliant (and largely ignored) text, 'Manufacturing Consent - The Political Economy of the Mass Media'. (Pantheon, 1988) We recommend Herman and Chomsky's "propaganda model of media control" as a basis for understanding the manner in which truth is filtered from, rather than consciously obstructed by, the modern media system.

Good for them, but herein may lie part of their problem. Chomsky has been accused of being a conspiracy theorist, and consequently had to suffer dismissal of his ideas, from some quarters. I believe he has what I'll call a mental allergy to the notion of conspiracy theories, which derives from this treatment. He much prefers the word "planning", but planning which is kept secret from the public, because the public would view such plans as treason or blatantly illegal, for any significant amount of time, certainly is a good candidate for being called a "conspiracy", in my book.

Chomsky is a scholar, and rightly has an aversion to claims he can't document thoroughly. Note, though, that detectives aren't drawn from the ranks of scholars. Brilliant scholar though he may be, I submit that Chomsky would be a rather average detective, where acting on more incomplete and ambiguous knowledge is required.

Anybody who disagrees with this can petition the JREF to change the name of this forum to the 'Planning Forum'.


* I take "self-censorship" to mean not just withholding information that one knows of, definitely, but also withholding investigative effort that could lead to such knowledge. While this may not be a good definition, in general, in the current context - discussing investigative reporting and the lack thereof - I take this as very reasonable. If reporters were psychic and could know things without making an effort, then interpreting "self-censorship" this way would be without purpose or merit.

[dtugg]

Chomsky believes 9/11 conspiracy theories are nonsense. Did you know this?

[Gavron]

Originally Posted by ULTIMA1

How did i lie about the request when i have showed it and the response from NSA?

You have not shown the document that you requested. Why is that? Is it because it states that FLight 93 was not shot down by a missile, and you are too embarrassed to show that you were wrong again?

[CptColumbo]

I was reminded of this.

"[Y]ou think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape?"

"Apes don't read philosophy."

"Yes they do, Otto. They just don't understand it. Now let me correct you on a couple of things, OK? Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not 'Every man for himself.' And the London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked them up."

[twinstead]

Originally Posted by JihadJane

"Just as the Bush regime’s wars have been used to pour billions of dollars into the pockets of its military-security donor base, the Paulson bailout looks like a Bush regime scheme to incur $700 billion in new public debt in order to transfer the money into the coffers of its financial donor base."

'Additional Thoughts on the Bailout'

Paul Craig Roberts

http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle21034.htm

I see. A nice alternative viewpoint, but hardly earth-shattering fact. There are a myriad of other, sane reasons to agree or disagree with the bailout that don't suggest some kind of conspiracy.

[jhunter1163]

Originally Posted by JihadJane

"Just as the Bush regime’s wars have been used to pour billions of dollars into the pockets of its military-security donor base, the Paulson bailout looks like a Bush regime scheme to incur $700 billion in new public debt in order to transfer the money into the coffers of its financial donor base."

'Additional Thoughts on the Bailout'

Paul Craig Roberts

http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle21034.htm

Hmmm, McCain is down 10 points in the polls, it appears that the Democrats are going to add substantially to their majority in the House, and Obama has out-fundraised McCain very significantly.

How do you think that's working out for those donors?

[Corsair 115]

Originally Posted by metamars

If you have the experience which you say that I should have, what's stopping you from presenting facts or making an argument more nuanced than a variation of "everybody in on it is impossible"?

You've got it backwards. You're the one making the extraordinary claim. Thus the burden of proof is on you. I've asked for some sort of evidence of how the U.S. government/NWO/whatever is controlling Canadian media outlets (this is part of your claim). So far you have presented no evidence whatsoever to support your claim.

Originally Posted by metamars

Well, I'm not going to take the time to familiarize myself with Canadian politics. If I was going to take the time to familiarize myself with a foreign country's politics, in order to try and understand any influence of the US over their media, it would be of a country that's not a close US ally.

Yes, a close ally that did not participate in Iraq. It would seem the U.S. government's ability to control the world is not as vast and all-powerful as you've made it out to be.

You're also making the classic mistake of assuming Canada is not different from the United States. You couldn't be more wrong. On the surface, certainly, they appear similar. Dig a little deeper and the differences reveal themselves.

Originally Posted by metamars

Bottom line is: I don't know which foreign country would be optimal to study, but I seriously doubt Canada is it.)

Congratulations on a fine evasion.

Originally Posted by metamars

And, as I told you already, you're mis-characterizing my views. My guess is that you don't know anything about Chomsky's views, and somehow even the brief synopsis I wrote is going right past you. Even without knowing the details, doesn't the fact that he has written whole books on the subject suggest to you that such a simple argument cannot possibly be an answer to Chomsky?

I prefer facts and evidence to suppositions. Provide the evidence to back up your claim, or admit your claim is baseless.

Originally Posted by metamars

Media 'control', of a realistic sort, will have to do with the complexities of human behavior, their goal-seeking tendencies, psychology and sociology.

I prefer facts and evidence to suppositions. Provide the evidence to back up your claim, or admit your claim is baseless.

To date all you've offered is a lot of posturing. How about some actual evidence?

[metamars]

Originally Posted by metamars

Paulson may be an out and out crook. I.e., he may have deliberately helped engineer the crisis, with a view to helping out some cronies on Wall Street consolidate banking in their hands, using the method of deliberately engineered bank panics that Engdahl has traced back to 1835, in his fascinating article here.

Economist and historian Dr. Michael Hudson interviewed on Guns and Butter: http://kpfa.org/archives/index.php?arch=28908

The Europeans aren't buying the "bailout", to say the least. They're looking at Wall Street as out and out crooks.

Insofar as the bailout signals continuing dishonesty in the American financial world, it's going to make things worse. Hudson claims that the recent big declines on Wall Street were due to this "bailout"-reinforced lack of trust. However, I didn't hear him mention any proof of this idea.

At around :44 into this interview, Hudson says that the impending depression was engineered, and blames the Clinton Administration as much as he does Greenspan, Paulson, the Bush Administration. I.e., Hudson is an economic MIHOP'er.

[ULTIMA1]

Originally Posted by Gavron

You have not shown the document that you requested. Why is that? Is it because it states that FLight 93 was not shot down by a missile, and you are too embarrassed to show that you were wrong again?

But the letter from the NSA FOIA office verifies the document i was looking for was found and are seding it to me.

It was a very specific document and the only Critic filed by NSA on 9/11.

[Gavron]

apparently not. You "claim" to have seen it, but no evidence to back it up.

We're all waiting to back up your talk....

[ULTIMA1]

Originally Posted by Gavron

apparently not. You "claim" to have seen it, but no evidence to back it up...

I would have had to read it to know what i was requesting... DDAAHH

[dtugg]

Originally Posted by ULTIMA1

I would have had to read it to know what i was requesting... DDAAHH

To anybody not following he really means that he read this article about the supposed document. He posted about it on ATS. When people over there started doubting what the article said, he claimed to have read it himself. Then he filed the FOIA request in an attempt to coverup his lie. He will never post the document he receives because it will undoubtedly prove him a liar.

[ULTIMA1]

Originally Posted by dtugg

To anybody not following he really means that he read this article about the supposed document. He posted about it on ATS. When people over there started doubting what the article said, he claimed to have read it himself. Then he filed the FOIA request in an attempt to coverup his lie. He will never post the document he receives because it will undoubtedly prove him a liar.

Its going to be so funny to see you guys trying to lie your way out of these posts when i post that document.

Please tell me what other media fantasy are you going to believe in after this one has been shattered?

[dtugg]

We will see, liar.

[ULTIMA1]

Originally Posted by dtugg

We will see, liar.

Please tell me what other media fantasy are you going to believe in after this one has been shattered?

[jsfisher]

Originally Posted by dtugg

We will see, liar.

Originally Posted by ULTIMA1

Please tell me what other media fantasy are you going to believe in after this one has been shattered?

Sounds like the basis for a simple wager. Say, $100 to the others choice of charity?