911 and the Propaganda Model

[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

 

[The Big Dog]

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!

 

[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]

we dont care about your imaginary "propaganda model'

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.