Forum

profile |  register |  members |  groups |  faq |  search  login

Media: A Decade of Whataboutery
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Media Lens Forum Index -> off-topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

WL suggests early propaganda focus on Bin Laden
http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=64803


Last edited by marc on Wed Jun 01, 2011 10:47 am; edited 4 times in total
Tue Dec 07, 2010 7:47 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Wikileaks and 911 research Reply with quote

Someone made the point: "Do you think if what Gage/Griffin et al say is true, they'd be allowed to say it? The fact government ignores them is proof there's nothing in it."

Well, they have been alllowed to run websites, disseminate videos and publish books. But they have not been given the time of day by mainstream media. Rather than investigate their claims, mainstream journalists have either utterly ignored or actively smeared their work.

The BBC strategy was to kettle the 911 discussion into the ''Conspiracy Files" Corner under the stewardship of journalist Mike Rudin. All pretence at reporting on the matter died in early 2009 - shortly after the release of the David Chandler NIST-busting video and the publication of the Harrit-Farrer-Jones Open Chemical Physics Journal paper.

As long as researchers like Griffin, MacQueen, Harrit, Gage can be successfully categorised as nutty conspiracy theorists and ignored by the msm, they are no threat. If the state showed its hand by reacting too blatantly against a bunch of nutters, this might indicate they are a real threat. That wouldn't do.


Last edited by marc on Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:46 pm; edited 3 times in total
Wed Dec 08, 2010 11:01 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Pentagon Papers Whistleblowers Ellsberg and Senator Gravel on 911
http://911truthnews.com/pentagon-papers-whistleblowers-call-for-new-911-investigation/

Also, quote from former Pentagon official and Air Force Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski – who blew the whistle on the Bush administration’s efforts to concoct false intelligence about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction:
Quote:
"I have been told by reporters that they will not report their own insights or contrary evaluations of the official 9/11 story, because to question the government story about 9/11 is to question the very foundations of our entire modern belief system regarding our government, our country, and our way of life.
"To be charged with questioning these foundations is far more serious than being labeled a disgruntled conspiracy nut or anti-government traitor, or even being sidelined or marginalized within an academic, government service, or literary career.
"To question the official 9/11 story is simply and fundamentally revolutionary. In this way, of course, questioning the official story is also simply and fundamentally American."


Last edited by marc on Wed Jul 25, 2012 9:01 pm; edited 2 times in total
Fri Dec 10, 2010 7:42 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Peter Cleall



Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Posts: 103

Post Post subject: Pentagon Papers Whistleblowers Call for a New 9/11 Investiga Reply with quote

Thursday, December 9, 2010
Pentagon Papers Whistleblowers Call for a New 9/11 Investigation

The main players in releasing the Pentagon Papers were Daniel Ellsberg and Senator Mike Gravel.

Ellsberg is, of course, the former military analyst and famed whistleblower who smuggled the Pentagon Papers out of the Rand Corporation.

Senator Gravel is the person who read the Pentagon Papers into the Congressional Record. This act made the papers public record, so that they could not be censored by the government.

Ellsberg and Gravel are receiving a lot of media attention right now for their support of Wikileaks.

But little attention has been paid to Ellsberg and Gravel's support for a new 9/11 investigation.


Ellsberg says that the case of a certain 9/11 whistleblower is "far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers". (Here's some of what that whistleblower says.)


He also said that the government is ordering the media to cover up her allegations about 9/11.


And he said that some of the claims concerning government involvement in 9/11 are credible, that "very serious questions have been raised about what they [U.S. government officials] knew beforehand and how much involvement there might have been", that engineering 9/11 would not be humanly or psychologically beyond the scope of those in office, and that there's enough evidence to justify a new, "hard-hitting" investigation into 9/11 with subpoenas and testimony taken under oath (see this and this).

Senator Gravel has long supported a new 9/11 investigation. Gravel told the Daily Caller this week:


Individuals in and out of government may certainly have participated with the obviously known perpetrators of this dastardly act. Suspicions abound over the analysis presented by government. Obviously an act that has triggered three wars, Afghan, Iraqi and the continuing War on Terror, should be extensively investigated which was not done and which the government avoids addressing.

Other high-level whistleblowers have alleged a cover-up as well.

For example, Air Force Colonel and key Pentagon official Karen Kwiatkowski - who blew the whistle on the Bush administration's efforts to concoct false intelligence about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction - wrote (page 26):

I have been told by reporters that they will not report their own insights or contrary evaluations of the official 9/11 story, because to question the government story about 9/11 is to question the very foundations of our entire modern belief system regarding our government, our country, and our way of life. To be charged with questioning these foundations is far more serious than being labeled a disgruntled conspiracy nut or anti-government traitor, or even being sidelined or marginalized within an academic, government service, or literary career. To question the official 9/11 story is simply and fundamentally revolutionary. In this way, of course, questioning the official story is also simply and fundamentally American.
Indeed, Ellsberg and Gravel join a long list of high-level former officials in the government and intelligence services - including many well-known whistleblowers - who have publicly demanded a new investigation.


http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22360
Sat Dec 11, 2010 10:23 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry" - Thomas Paine.

Let There Be Light
http://www.opednews.com/Diary/Let-There-Be-Light-by-Saman-Mohammadi-110104-82.html


Last edited by marc on Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:47 pm; edited 2 times in total
Mon Jan 10, 2011 11:30 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: 89% of Germans question 911 Reply with quote

Poll: apparently 89.5% of Germans don't buy it.

They do not believe the US has told the full truth about the the event that kicked off two major wars.

Truthiness has its limitations. Half truths amount to whole lies. Omitted truths are lies as well. Orwell regarded 'the lie of omission' the most dangerous of all.

http://911truthnews.com/german-poll-89-question-911/
Tue Jan 25, 2011 11:01 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Richard Falk quote Reply with quote

'The eerie silence of the mainstream media'
Comment by Richard Falk, Professor International Law, Princeton:

Quote:
'What may be more distressing than the apparent cover up is the eerie silence of the mainstream media, unwilling to acknowledge the well-evidenced doubts about the official version of the events: an al Qaeda operation with no foreknowledge by government officials.

'Is this silence a manifestation of fear or cooption, or part of an equally disturbing filter of self-censorship?

'Whatever it is, the result is the withering away of a participatory citizenry and the erosion of legitimate constitutional government. The forms persist, but the content is missing.

'If we want to be responsible in our assessments, we must restrain our political predispositions, and get the evidence.

'Let us remember that what seems most disturbing about the 9/11 controversy is the widespread aversion by government and media to the evidence that suggests, at the very least, the need for an independent investigation that proceeds with no holds barred.

'Such an investigation would contrast with the official ‘9/11 Commission’ that proceeded with most holds barred.'

911 and faith-based knowledge - R Falk
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article27338.htm
Thu Jan 27, 2011 6:38 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Psychological blocks Reply with quote

'Nothing moves through the path of most resistance, and certainly not the human mind'

On Cointelpro-type disruption and 'cognitive infiltration'

A top journalist resorts to crude name-calling and fact-fudging. Why?
- Kevin Ryan, Scholars for Truth and Justice

http://stj911.org/blog/
http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=42954#42954

Kevin Ryan deftly unpacks a journalist's thinking and contextualizes it in the larger frame. A must-read if you want to know what researchers are currently up against.

The article deals with denial, double-think and spread of false information - with reference to Cass Sunstein's (and Demos's) calls for 'cognitive infiltration'.

The tenth anniversary of 9/11 is fast approaching and we can expect much of the same kind of games and disruption that we saw around the fifth anniversary, especially considering the calls for such disruption from within the Obama Administration.

Emotionally-charged, evidence-allergic “journalism” from people like Robert Parry [discussed here below] does not help to uncover facts and evidence.

The best way to keep the populace uninformed about 9/11, of course, is for journalists to remain uninformed and terrified of being labelled 'conspiracy theorists'.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Nothing moves through the path of most resistance, and certainly not the human mind. A recent article written by journalist Robert Parry has provided another good example of this long-standing fact.

In that article, Parry exhibits an astonishing lack of knowledge about the truth movement and the questions posed by honest 9/11 skeptics as he attempts to publicly denigrate those questions and people.

The well-respected journalist Parry provides excellent examples, throughout his article, of how normally reasoned and well-researched professionals can suddenly turn into buffoons who cannot deal with facts or evidence...

Robert Parry is a good investigative journalist ...

As an investigative journalist, Robert Parry has spent his life dealing with facts and evidence.

His book, Secrecy and Privilege, is one of the great contributions that he has offered. That book covers several important events in the last thirty-five years of US history that have been downplayed and covered-up by the mainstream media. Parry’s work shows that he is clearly one of the most careful writers in terms of not extending evidence beyond what it says directly. He takes that approach so seriously that oftentimes he cannot say anything directly himself, and appears to be perpetually waiting for a confession before taking a stand.

This latest article takes that position to an extreme, suggesting that the evidence of what happened on 9/11 should not be examined at all until we have confessions from the perpetrators.

Parry taught us, in Secrecy and Privilege, that an open disdain for evidence is the hallmark of propaganda.

Two such propaganda programs described in his book involve some of the same people who started the 9/11 Wars. The first of these is the program funded by Nixon’s former Treasury Secretary, William Simon, who was also a partner at the investment firm of Salomon Brothers. At the time of the Watergate scandal, Simon initiated a “counter-intelligentsia” program to fund and train propaganda “think tanks, media organizations and pressure groups” like The Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute.

The propaganda that created and supported the neocons was funded through this effective program, which utilized numerous new foundations and media outlets to publish “over-the-top anti-liberal screeds.”

The second program that Parry clued us into was President Reagan’s office of disinformation, better known as the National Security Council’s Special Planning Group for “Public Diplomacy.” This was run by long time CIA propaganda veteran, Walter Raymond.

What began as an attempt to gain the public’s support for funding the militant groups in Central America grew into a powerful force for lying to the American public that appears to live on to this day.

...so why does he disdain facts and evidence when it comes to this subject?

In his own recent, over-the-top anti-truth screed, “The 9/11 ‘Truth’ Parlour Game”, Parry exhibits the same disdain for facts and evidence that he attributes to these right-wing propagandists.

Parry uses the derogatory term “truthers,” which he continues to put in quotation marks throughout the article, when referring to the people he is criticizing. This indicates that he knows he does not have the facts and evidence on his side and instead must resort to name-calling.

Many 9/11 truth advocates, like myself, find this term to be offensive yet the corporate media and Robert Parry often use it in order to belittle us without addressing the evidence.

In his article, Parry rambles for several paragraphs about the “preposterous notions” and “anti-empiricism” of 9/11 truth advocates who, he writes, use “every imaginable example of false logic.”

This is strong, emotional language and again shows that Parry must resort to exaggerations when dealing with this issue.

He then finally does what every other propagandist has done, he sets up a straw man “truther” to attack, saying — “here is some of what they believe: Operatives working for President Bush wired 100-plus floors of the WTC towers with explosives; Truthers insist that no plane hit the Pentagon; that Bush’s team attacked it with a missile.”

Parry's emotional language, straw men and counter-factual writing

Both of these claims are false and can easily be discounted with minimal investigation into the facts.

In the seven years I have been seeking the truth about 9/11, I have never heard anyone claim that “President Bush” directed the wiring of 100-plus floors of the WTC towers with explosives, and the evidence does not suggest that at all. The evidence suggests that, just as with any other demolition, explosive charges were placed on only a small percentage of the floors in the towers.

Additionally, if Parry is going to claim that explosives cannot be used without wiring, he should first explain to the families of thousands of victims in Iraq how their loved ones could not possibly have been killed by improvised explosive devices ignited with cell phones.

The second major example that Parry provides, as proof that truth advocates have used “every imaginable example of false logic,” is that “truthers insist” no plane hit the Pentagon. However, even the smallest effort by an honest journalist would reveal that truth advocates do not insist upon that claim. Not even Wikipedia would make such an obviously false claim about the truth movement.

In fact, there has been a well-publicized disagreement within the truth movement about what hit the Pentagon (pdf) which originated with the claims and actions of Donald Rumsfeld and the seizure of videos by the FBI. Serious 9/11 researchers have pointed out, from the beginning of this debate, that the evidence surrounding Flight 77 and the Pentagon is far from conclusive.

Why would a competent journalist like Robert Parry resort to such badly-researched exaggerations, which indicate that he has not looked into the evidence at all, even the evidence presented by his own friends and colleagues?

Average people know more than journalists. Are journalists finding themselves painted into a corner?

The reason appears to be that Parry, like so many other professionals who have turned a blind eye toward 9/11 evidence, would die if he admitted that we are still largely unaware of what happened on September 11. That is, his ego would die if he had to admit that average Americans who have never been trained in journalism, or had any investigative training at all, are well ahead of him in terms of awareness about what is arguably the most important historical event of our lifetime.

We have seen this kind of denial before, of course, and we know that there are psychological reasons for it. People who can draw such a hard line in their minds, between closely related concepts like blowback and managed blowback, are simply fooling themselves as they maintain their self-image. In that sense, we can see that it is actually Robert Parry who is playing a game — an ego game within the parlor of his own mind.

Truth advocates have used another technique that plays into the ego game. This technique is the appeal to authority, in which we suggest that people should be impressed by how many PhDs we have on our side, or how many scientists, or how many engineers and architects.

This is the same non-evidentiary approach that the official-line supporters took before they saw that the numbers were clearly in favor of truth advocates.

Doublethink and the importance of truth

Another example of how truth advocates often fall prey to psychological weaknesses, drawing us farther from the truth, is when they engage in doublethink about the importance of 9/11 truth.

Some of the most respected 9/11 researchers are known to tell us that we have been lied to about what happened on 9/11, and that this fact is a means by which the war machine can be derailed, while at the same time these researchers deny that any response on the part of the war machine has been made.

Some truth advocates still fail to recognize that we cannot have it both ways. Either what we’re doing is important and therefore a response will be necessary, or what we’re doing is not important.

What kind of response would the war machine make? It seems entirely possible that propaganda efforts would be employed, much as they were employed by William Simon and Reagan’s office of disinformation described by Robert Parry.

It is also very probable that the military and intelligence budgets that have been dramatically increased since 9/11 would allow for COINTELPRO-type infiltration of grassroots efforts like the truth movement. In fact, we know that such actions have been taken and have been recently exposed. We also know that at least one of President Obama’s appointees has openly called for the “cognitive infiltration” of 9/11 truth groups.

The James H Fetzer disruption of 2006

Coincidentally, only one response to Parry’s badly-researched hit piece has been forthcoming. This response was recently posted by James H. Fetzer, who previously caused considerable disruption within the truth movement...

Fetzer suddenly appeared on the 9/11 truth scene in late 2005, immediately after the publication of a paper by physicist Steven Jones. At that time, Fetzer wrote to many prominent truth advocates, saying – “Steve Jones and I would like to invite you to join us as members of a new society.” Having been known for some dubious contributions to the JK assassination research community, Fetzer used this new association with Jones to thrust himself into a position of superficial leadership in the truth movement.

Less than one year later, just before the 5th anniversary of the attacks when mainstream media attention was at its peak, Fetzer began speaking publicly about space beams destroying the WTC and other such nonsense. He continued with grandiose claims about theories which had no evidentiary support, as this excerpt from one of his radio shows (mp3) indicates.

Jim Fetzer: “I must say I think we’re finding out Judy, what happened on 9/11. I’m just blown away by your work. This is the most fascinating development in the history of the study of 9/11 … I’m going to make a wild guess Judy; I’m going to presume that these [directed energy] beams had to be located in Building 7?”
Judy Wood: “Nope. I don’t think so.”
Fetzer: “Planes?”
Judy Wood: “No … I think it’s very likely it’s in orbit.”
Fetzer: “Oh Really?? Oh ho ho ho ho! Oh Judy. Oh my oh my oh my oh my. This is huge … this is huge Judy.”


What would cause a PhD to say that an unsubstantiated claim of space beams destroying the WTC was “the most fascinating development in the history of the study of 9/11” and that it was “huge?”

Was it because there was overwhelming evidence to support the space beams claim, and the use of space beams at the WTC would make a huge impact in achieving justice for the victims? No, none of that was true. There was no evidence for space beams at the WTC. Moreover, we soon found out that Fetzer’s colleagues could not even explain the physical principles by which this might work. False information like these claims did, however, turn many serious people away from 9/11 truth.

The evidence we have suggests that Fetzer and his colleagues took the opportunity of the heightened mainstream media coverage around the 5th anniversary of 9/11 to engage in an evil parlor game of disruption, similar to the COINTELPRO operations of the past and the kind of “cognitive infiltration” supported by members of the Obama Administration. There is other evidence for this possibility, in that Fetzer is known to be an expert on the use and value of false information.

Fetzer's paper: 'Information: Does It Have To Be True?"

One month before the attacks of 9/11, Fetzer presented a paper called “Information: Does it have to be true?” to a conference at Carnegie Mellon University. In this paper, Fetzer argues that false information (including disinformation) is just as meaningful as true information, implying that false information has just as much value as true information. The paper challenged the work of a professor at Oxford University by the name of Floridi, who like most honest people, contends that, since information is data that changes what we do, only true information that helps us respond to our world accurately and effectively has value.

When contacted by 9/11 researchers who suspected Fetzer of being a proponent and purveyor of false information, Floridi confirmed that Fetzer was effectively arguing for the use of false information. Floridi responded that the arguments of Fetzer and his colleagues suggest that — “spreading and using false information (more precisely, misinformation, if the source is unaware of its falsity, or disinformation, if the source is aware and uses/spreads it on purpose, precisely because it is false) is perfectly fine and acceptable.”

Facts and evidence indicate that the use of false information to derail the 9/11 truth movement is a reality, despite the inability of leading 9/11 researchers to admit such a possibility.

Fetzer takes advantage of Americans' scientific illiteracy

With unsubstantiated claims of space beams, video fakery and holograms, Fetzer and his colleagues have taken advantage of the fact that many Americans are scientifically illiterate. These evil parlor games give influential professionals like Robert Parry, who are already psychologically challenged and fearful of the topic, additional reason to ignore all the evidence and spout off about the issues with little or no understanding.

Apart from Parry’s total disregard for evidence and his attacks against “truther” straw men, his hit piece against 9/11 truth is filled with blatant falsehoods. Examples include his new, personal theory of “atrium failure” at WTC7, his claim that no one took airliner impact into account in the design of the towers (which the towers’ design engineer, John Skilling, did), and his claim that “much residue found after a major fire can be consistent with thermite.” Unfortunately, for Parry, it’s not really important what is true because it’s all become just a game.

10th anniversary of the launch of the 911 wars is seven months away

The tenth anniversary of 9/11 is fast approaching and we can expect much of the same kind of games and disruption that we saw around the fifth anniversary, especially considering the calls for such disruption from within the Obama Administration.

The combination of emotionally-charged, evidence-allergic “journalism” from people like Robert Parry, and the continued support of known purveyors of false information like Jim Fetzer, gives the national discussion about 9/11 truth the potential to become an absurd theater of the damned. Let’s hope that the audience sees through such theatrics and, in spite of the parlour game players, takes the time to consider facts and evidence.
Mon Jan 31, 2011 8:23 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

From Shawn Hamilton, KPFA radio journalist
http://theswillbucket.com

Journalist finds that reporting on critique of official narrative is censored

" If an idea is ridiculous, it will shrivel and die on its own lack of merit. There should be no off-limits topics in a free society, and journalists especially should be free to explore subjects without fear of being branded..."

http://ae911truth.org/en/news/41-articles/444-censored.html

IT'S BEEN A YEAR since AE911Truth held its San Francisco Press Conference announcing it had secured the signatures of 1,000 licensed/degreed architects and engineers who supported the group’s effort to obtain a new, independent investigation of 9/11. [Signatories now number 1,470.]

I didn’t know what a “truther” was when I went to San Francisco to cover this story, but I would find out very quickly.

Soon after a print version of the radio story I had produced for KPFA appeared on Examiner.com, I was accused of being one.

The accusers weren’t light-hearted about it either. Some of the meanest comments came from people who identified themselves with the James Randi Educational Forum** — an organization of professed rational thinkers. [see note about James Randi and the BBC below].

Somehow my having reported this story—a report that simply relayed what had happened at an interesting press conference—made me a “truther,” a term that 9/11 truth activists originally applied to themselves, but which has been adopted by their opponents as an insult.

This hadn’t happened before. I had covered press events relating to same-sex marriage and no one said I, therefore, was gay.

I had covered medical marijuana-related press conferences and wasn’t labeled a “head.”

But as I would learn throughout 2010, the principles that apply to typical news coverage don’t apply to 9/11.

9/11 Truth Makes People Crazy. It’s this aspect of the story that really intrigues me. Why are otherwise rational people so willing to suspend their reason and refuse to even discuss 9/11-related issues?

When I was younger, I thought people would always want to know important truths if they could. With age came the gradual understanding that many people not only don’t want to know the truth about certain subjects, they very much resent your bringing it to their attention.

After months of my being assaulted with all manner of insult and abuse, two events transpired that took things to a new level.

First was the good news that Project Censored had picked up this story for its yearly list and book, and later, Examiner began doing strange things to my story, “Over 1000 architects and engineers have signed petition to reinvestigate 9/11 destruction,” if it wasn’t being censored outright, was certainly being “messed with.”

Examiner writers use a computerized publishing tool that lists all their stories and provides a means of editing them. This particular story simply vanished from my publishing tool—without apology and without explanation when I inquired.

It was the only time a story had just disappeared from the system like that, and it just happened to be the very one picked up by Project Censored. I would also learn that Project Censored was itself censored for mentioning, among other 9/11 topics, this particular story.

Like me, [Project Censored] wants to enjoy our Constitutional freedom to discuss 9/11-related issues as part of what Jefferson called the “marketplace of ideas.”

If an idea is ridiculous, it will shrivel and die on its own lack of merit.

** Self-declared members/supporters of the American James Randi Educational Forum populated the comments section of Mike Rudin's BBC Conspiracy Files: 911 Blog during 2008/9 - using abuse and often fallacious argument to defend the official story.



Last edited by marc on Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:48 pm; edited 3 times in total
Thu Mar 31, 2011 8:59 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

George Monbiot devoted three articles (in the Guardian) to ridiculing those who choose to interrogate the official 911 narrative, calling them a 'cowards cult' of 'morons' who 'believe in magic'.
He wrote: "The 9/11 truthers remind me of nothing so much as the climate-change deniers, cherry-picking their evidence, seizing any excuse for ignoring the arguments of their opponents."
While Monbiot has expended time and energy ridiculing 911 critique (and was given ample space to do so by The Guardian),
at no stage has he addressed or rebutted evidence.

Information Clearing House carried this reply:

Morons and Magic: A Reply to George Monbiot

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17256.htm

-


Last edited by marc on Wed Jul 25, 2012 9:00 pm; edited 2 times in total
Mon Apr 11, 2011 9:02 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

[deleted]

Last edited by marc on Wed Sep 14, 2011 7:42 am; edited 2 times in total
Mon Apr 18, 2011 11:20 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: ALPHABET SOUP Reply with quote

Guardian skirts The Elephant In the Room

So the Guardian's investigative journalists finally take a closer look at Guantanamo.
The Guantanamo Files
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/25/guantanamo-files-interrogation-muslim-travel

Prize for picking out the Elephant In the Room...
the most significant Guantanamo prisoner of all is given the most cursory mention. Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) - the 911 'Mastermind'- who confessed to 'doing 911' 'from A to Z' after 183 waterboardings.

Too toxic to touch?

K.S.M: "I did 911 - from A to Zee" (sic)

A is for Anthrax .... Americans distributed this American-made chemical weapon from an American military lab, killing other Americans and blaming it on Arabs. So - nothing to do with KSM.

R is for Rookie pilots ... pulling off honed aerobatic turns and militarily-precise targetting of iconic buildings.

[W for Wargames ... how did KSM arrange for his rookie pilots to simultaneously hijack four airliners during the exact 90-minute window afforded by top-secret Pentagon war games? No-one has ever been subpoenaed to provide info on this extraordinary real-time co-ordination.

etcetera


Last edited by marc on Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:58 pm; edited 1 time in total
Mon Apr 25, 2011 8:47 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Researchers reject Jesse Ventura's referring to unsubstantiated claims about the 911 event. A while back, media highlighted the work of one Judy Woods, whose "space beams" theories (directed energy weapons) - which have no scientific basis - helped portray 911 research as 'crazy'. Now that Ventura is mentioning Woods' work on TV, researchers distance themselves from this.

The building destruction was odd. Woods' work presumed to explain the rapid fall speeds and pulverisation using a self-invented space beam/dustification theory, which is patently unscientific - but which was used (smear by association) to muddy the work of other science research.
http://stj911.org/blog/?p=1048

The Overwhelming Implausibility of Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish the WTC
by Dr Gregory Jenkins (pdf)
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200702/Implausibility-Directed-Energy-Beam-Demolish-WTC-by-Gregory-Jenkins.pdf

Perception and Propaganda: Misinformation
http://stj911.org/perception/misinformation.html
Thu May 12, 2011 8:05 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

A Brief Look at Christopher Hitchens: "Chomsky's Follies"
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/05/11/christopher-hitchens-chomskys-follies/


Last edited by marc on Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:51 pm; edited 6 times in total
Sat May 14, 2011 11:04 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

The International Business Times : "OBL Never Charged for 911: Inside Job Likely"
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/140099/20110502/osama-bin-laden-never-charged-for-911-inside-job-likely-wtc7.htm

"The International Business Times is an online business newspaper, published in 13 editions in 12 countries across eight languages"- Wikipedia
Fri May 20, 2011 4:06 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Alexander Cockburn: Nano-thermite hasn’t been discovered in the Osama compound but it probably soon will

"Nasty-toned polemic" .... as Prof Micheal Keefer of Guelph University describes Cockburn's style.

Cockburn's 'nano thermite' is not central to this discussion and is not needed to signal scientific anomaly or malfeasance. The photographic video evidence, coupled with time measurement, provides enough empirical data on its own. Primary source video footage of three buildings descending on Sept 11 '01 can be cross-checked with a timer-watch: this exercise will reveal that the structures moved down through the path of greatest resistance too fast. This is the core issue concentrated on by the 1, 500 strong group of engineers and architects at www.ae911truth.org.

A group of scientists hypothesised that the hand of man had to have helped these too-fast-too-vertical-demolitions. Residue of nano-structured aluminothermics was what they identified through powerful microscopes. No one has yet rebutted them with a published paper. They say their finding better explains the available data than the government's 'gravity-led' explanation.

America viewers love their CSI: Forensic Investigation TV series. Have they noticed their own government failed to apply CSI Forensics to the biggest act of terrorism on US soil? That their president dragged his heels for over a year before reluctantly conceding to put together an investigation - initially choosing Henry Kissinger to head it? Do Americans notice that their leading journalists deride those named scientists who conduct forensics out of their own pockets, motivated by a desire for scientific truth andl transparency?


Last edited by marc on Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:53 pm; edited 3 times in total
Sun May 22, 2011 2:33 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

edit

Last edited by marc on Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:54 pm; edited 1 time in total
Fri Jul 29, 2011 8:32 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

News Corp's National Geographic brand used to rubber-stamp the official account of a war-triggering event

National Geographic TV is part of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp stable.
Nat Geo
has served up significant support for the Bush narrative over the last decade. News Corp owns 71% of the Nat Geo USA and 75% of Nat Geo International.
National Geographic will be running its usual 911 special this September.
Previous NatGeo offerings were analysed by Jim Hoffman and Kevin Ryan (scientists both).

Finally, An Apology From National Geographic, by Kevin Ryan
http://www.911review.com/articles/ryan/NationalGeographicApology.html

Extract: "Six days after September 11th, National Geographic Today (NGT) published one of the very first descriptions of the official myth for what happened to the World Trade Center (WTC) towers.[1] This article exaggerated the little known facts about the fires in the towers, equated gas temperatures with steel temperatures, and detailed the long-surviving but incorrect Pancake Theory of "collapse." Since that time, millions of people have been killed or injured in the 9/11 Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that originated from the official myth about 9/11."

and

National Geographic Does 911
Another Icon Debased in Service of the Big Lie , by Jim Hoffman



Extract:
"By now it's quite predictable: every year as the anniversary of the attack approaches, some of the most established mainstream media brands are pressed into service to sell the official story of 9/11.

"The 2009 iteration of this spectacle is notable for the contrast between the designated brand and the obligatory message. That brand, best known for its high-brow photojournalistic National Geographic Magazine, has existed since 1889, complete with a non-profit Society dedicated to education in geography, archaeology, history, world cultures, and natural science. One can't help but wonder how National Geographic's many benefactors would feel if they understood how the brand was being used to prop up the "War on Terror" with its Popular-Mechanics-style attack piece to be aired on August 31, 2009.

"A web feature on the website of the National Geographic Channel provides a preview of the show and a window into the methods and goals of the show's producers. Those methods are so heavy-handed that the critical reader can't help but see that those goals are something very different from educating. As an exercise, the reader might want to read the one-page feature first, and then compare notes with my analysis of it below.

"The 2009 documentary isn't the first time the National Geographic brand has been used to rubber-stamp the official account of the attack. On September 17, 2001 an article in National Geographic News attempted to explain the "collapses" with such memetic devices mouthed by "experts" as "the raging inferno" (likened to a fraction of the Hiroshima A-bomb) turning the steel to "Play-doh" and precipitating a "domino collapse" in which "the buildings' majesty was their own undoing".

"As unscientific as these purported explanations are, with their transparent appeals to authority and metaphor, one might excuse them as the attempt of a journalist to make sense of the horrific events at a time when rational analysis was eclipsed by shock.

"Clearly, something very different is at work in the 2009 effort, a fact that is apparent even in its lurid graphical production reminiscent of the BBC's Conspiracy Files....."
by Jim Hoffman - Version 0.9; August 27, 2009 -
continued at link

http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/NationalGeographic/

The very latest offering:
The National Geographic Channel will broadcast the hour-long interview on August 28 as part of a week of programs on the cable network called "Remembering 9/11" that mark the 10th anniversary of the attacks
http://news.yahoo.com/bush-explains-slow-reaction-september-11-attacks-171135280.html

Extract: [National Geographic] Executive producer and director Peter Schnall on offering a feel-good platform for Bush: "What you hear is the personal story of a man who also happened to be our president. Listening to him describe how he grappled with a sense of anger and frustration coupled with his personal mandate to lead our country through this devastating attack was incredibly powerful."
Would NatGeo ever consider running a documentary on "the sense of anger and frustration" felt by those innocent Iraqis and Afghanis whose countries were bombed and invaded while the West's stenographer-journalists hastened the implosion of the famous Fourth Estate?
Sun Jul 31, 2011 7:50 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

The Guardian mods get twitchy when they run an article on the subject of 911 and people start breaking away from the official narrative in the comments sections. Out come the blue pens and pre-moderation placements. [This has been going on for the last couple of years - nothing new of course].



So many comments have been deleted, someone writes: "This thread now has more holes than the official narrative". Comments disparaging 'troofers' are allowed to stand; the other side of the story is generally censored, with the occasional exception.

I witnessed (yesterday) an entire section of deleted comments literally 'disappear' from the Guardian thread - without the benefit of
Quote:
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted

so that there were no markers to even indicate the presence of the original posts.

Editors seem happy for journalists to pen moving and/or patriotic mood pieces about "911", but fail to investigate and analyse. Digging deeper is "conspiracy nonsense" and doesn't deserve journalistic attention.
Official narrative critique has been very successfully bundled under a pejorative label and side-lined from discourse. Journalists have been given a free pass to ignore/disparage this critique.


Ed Vulliamy Remembers the Twin Towers
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/21/9-11-ed-vulliamy-remembers-twin-towers?commentpage=last&msg=a#end-of-comments

Pointed remark from one CiF reader, whose comments are deleted:
"The press has something of a problem on it's hands over 9/11. Every time it publishes an article upon the subject it will have the doubters asking questions which they would rather not address, this thread is the classic example and trying to separate weepy memories of NY from the reality of the ensuing Middle East carnage is going to be impossible and indeed would be immoral to attempt."


Last edited by marc on Fri Aug 26, 2011 12:06 pm; edited 1 time in total
Mon Aug 22, 2011 1:43 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html
Strawman argument from the BBC: 'Everyone' is 'accusing' the BBC of 'being part of' a 'conspiracy'.

From the Comments section: the question that has never been answered by the BBC:
At 06:25 PM on 27 Feb 2007, Eric wrote:
"I don't think anyone is accusing the bbc as part of this. It's whoever gave the report to the bbc. What wire service sent this out?"


Last edited by marc on Fri Aug 26, 2011 9:10 am; edited 1 time in total
Wed Aug 24, 2011 9:44 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Two Hour Show on 911 Scepticism:

The Sceptic Gets 5 minutes;
the Official Story Defenders Get One Hour, 55 Minutes


How has corporate media influenced this level of censorship?

Whistleblower scientist Kevin Ryan was invited onto a two-hour NPR show on "911 scepticism" on August 25.

First, they reduced his air time from a proposed one hour down to 10-minutes. When it aired, they gave him only five minutes.

He was the only sceptic invited on to this 2-hour show.

Two long-term official narrative defenders took up the rest of the show: journalists Jim Meigs and Jonathan Kay.

Jonathan Kay is Visiting Fellow at the neo-con Foundation for the Defence of Democracies and author of "Among The Truthers". His '911 research' was funded by the Foundation (FDD). Its declared mission is to “fight terrorism” through public education. The directors and advisors include Sen. Joseph Lieberman, William Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Richard Perle, Gary Bauer and Jean Kirkpatrick.
Canadian Charger: Jonathan Kay is at it again - but why?
http://www.thecanadiancharger.com/page.php?id=5&a=951

James Meigs is editor of Popular Mechanics , the Pentagon-and war-friendly magazine which has gone out of its way for years to defend the official story, to the extent of also publishing a book on the subject. James Meigs' columns praise military technology (such as the UAVs used in Fallujah). See Hoffman's analysis:
Popular Mechanics Assault on 911 Truth
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/index.html



As usual, many in the comments sections don't buy it:

http://onpoint.wbur.org/2011/08/25/conspiracy-theories-and-the-sept-11-terrorist-attacks

Quote:
"Oliver": So the show only showcased the 'official' side?

And was clear to stay away from addressing the issues Kevin Ryan [raised], preferring to focus on psychologically profiling 'conspiracy theorists'?

Definitely a show slanted toward the 'official conspiracy theory' and not investigative at all.

"Khulet": This show is another whitewash...

"How about the large stock trades on AA, UA, Boeing, defense stocks in the days prior to 9/11? These indicate prior knowledge.

"[Standard] NFPA fire protocols for investigating suspicious fires were NOT followed.

"Ever see pictures of real pancake collapses? The buildings do not turn to dust, instead you see stacked floors.

"There was NO challenging of false statements.... [Meigs and Kay] allowed to say anything they want, unchallenged. Total propaganda".


http://911blogger.com/news/2011-08-24/kevin-ryan-npr-thursday-10-am-et-vs-popular-mechanics-johnathan-kay
Fri Aug 26, 2011 8:53 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

The Guardian invites readers to share their recollections of the moment they started to realise the extent of corporate media stenography during the last decade's wars.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/26/9-11-anniversary-september-11

Actually, they don't. Rather, " [We] invite readers to share their recollections of the moment they found out America had been attacked, to create a unique record of one of the defining events of our time. [An interactive project]."

So The Guardian joins in the current 'tenth anniversary' events taking place in America, culminating in the opening of the billion-dollar NY Memorial Museum at 'Ground Zero', where propaganda will be set in aspic. The Museum houses a special map showing where pieces of WTC steel have been ritually buried in Afghanistan soil at nine locations by US troops (although Afghans had zero to do with 911).

** "Last week, the 9/11 Memorial Museum received an extraordinarily special donation to its collection: a map of Afghanistan showing where the Green Berets have buried pieces of World Trade Center steel throughout the country since 9/11 , presented by Colonel Mark E. Mitchell" - Joe Daniels, Museum Director, weekly newsletter.

http://www.fortcampbellcourier.com/news/article_1db8403a-3ac0-11e0-abee-001cc4c03286.html

By Spc. Kerry Otjen, 5th Special Forces Group: "Within hours of the attack on the World Trade Center, Soldiers of the 5th Special Forces Group began preparing for a rapid deployment.
[...]
"While their fellow citizens were still in shock after seeing the Twin Towers destroyed, Green Berets here found themselves packing their gear and loading aircraft. [...]
After operations began in Afghanistan to topple the Taliban, the City of New York gave the 5th SFG commander, then-Col. John F. Mulholland Jr., pieces from the World Trade Center. Mulholland... gave those pieces to Special Forces Operational Detachments to bury in different locations all over Afghanistan. “Placing the pieces of the World Trade Center around Afghanistan was a reminder to why we were there,” said Spence.
Mon Aug 29, 2011 1:35 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Tonight - http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0148yz5
BBC radio featured a segment this morning about 9-11 "conspiracy theories." ... The thrust was that young people are b6th more gullible and more likely to question government accounts than older, more sensible people... [...] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14665953
Mon Aug 29, 2011 6:07 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

http://911blogger.com/news/2011-09-02/french-italian-german-media-leave-us-and-uk-dust

Last edited by marc on Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:56 pm; edited 1 time in total
Sat Sep 03, 2011 7:47 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

New York Times: The Wikipedia '911 Edit Wars'

http://911blogger.com/news/2011-09-12/wikipedias-911-edit-wars


Last edited by marc on Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:56 pm; edited 1 time in total
Tue Sep 13, 2011 1:58 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Media Lens Forum Index -> off-topic All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2005 phpBB Group
    printer friendly
eXTReMe Tracker