911 and the Propaganda Model

[Drudgewire]

Your fantasy is ended MJD.

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

Man you guys are optimists.

 

[dudalb]

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

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

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


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

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

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

Again... The psychology is amazing!

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

 

[SpitfireIX]

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

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

 

[mjd1982]

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

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

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

 

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

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

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

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

That's some fancy backpedaling...

 

[Stellafane]

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

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

 

[Horace Wheeljack]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Horace Wheeljack]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Darth Rotor]

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

The need to deter democracy by alienating public opinion from public policy, is one that has been long understood.

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

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

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

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

DR

 

[The Big Dog]

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

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

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

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

 

[Cuddles]

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

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

Apologies to Douglas Adams.

 

[Brainache]

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

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

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

 

[Pardalis]

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

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

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

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

Very good point. Not to mention that very few people know the intricate details of these historical events. Most people retain the basic overall information of history, and if they are particularly interested in one event, then they'll pursue their own personal interest in the story in more detail. That's why most people who have read about 9/11 in detail know about WTC7, about which the information is very easy to find.

 

[mjd1982]

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

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

That's some fancy backpedaling...

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

 

[mjd1982]

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

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

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

Ok.

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

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

Following the PM, one comes to an unavoidable conclusion.

 

[mjd1982]

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

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

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

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

DR

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

 

[mjd1982]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[mjd1982]

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

Very good point. Not to mention that very few people know the intricate details of these historical events. Most people retain the basic overall information of history, and if they are particularly interested in one event, then they'll pursue their own personal interest in the story in more detail. That's why most people who have read about 9/11 in detail know about WTC7, about which the information is very easy to find.

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

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

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

 

[DGM]

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

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

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

And why does WTC 7 matter? No one was killed, it's only a building. Why no outrage about St. Nicks?

 

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

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

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

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