Merged Interesting Analysis of Changing Media Attitudes toward 9/11 Alternative Theories

[funk de fino]

The 18 cases they study are all from 2009 and all are from international media outlets. This has nothing to do with your obsession with Loose Change.

Its a load of claptrap and you know it. Scraping the bottom of the barrel now eh?

 

[MRC_Hans]

The media coverage and neutrality is also periodically rising and falling on ghosts, faith healing, various religions, etc.

How is this the sign of anything?

ETA: A very large percentage of daily outlets and periodicals feature regular horoscopes. However, astrology remains crap.

Hans

 

[The Big Dog]

This article gives a good overview of international media coverage of alternative views on 9/11 in 2009. The article makes a strong case that instead of 9/11 "Truth" disappearing or evaporating, it is receiving more neutral if not, favorable coverage.

[...]

What an utterly bizarre article.

It talks about the "nano-thermite article" as representing some sort of sea change in the truth movement. We all know, of course, that article is a complete joke, and one of the top ten most embarrassing moments for the Truthers.

Great article! Except I saw it on the Loose Change Forum. Talk about great evidence that the Truth movement is growing, it was the only post on the board that day. SNERK!

The 18 cases they study are all from 2009 and all are from international media outlets. This has nothing to do with your obsession with Loose Change.

1. Dodge on the fact that the Super Thermite article is freaking garbage: NOTED.

2. Dodge on the fact that the Loose Change forums are a ghost town, therefore rebutting your contention that The Truth is Growing: NOTED.

3. Made up claim that I have an Obsession with Loose Change: NOTED. Citation needed, Red.

Again, great article. Say the Tribune Today has a major article today about a major media outlet's new series about "GHOSTBUSTERS." Thought you'd be interested, that has GOT to be proof of ghosts!

 

[Par]

3. Made up claim that I have an Obsession with Loose Change: NOTED.

Even if it were true, it would be an argumentum ad hominem circumstantial; so you can note that as well, should you care to!

 

[RedIbis]

2. Dodge on the fact that the Loose Change forums are a ghost town, therefore rebutting your contention that The Truth is Growing: NOTED.

3. Made up claim that I have an Obsession with Loose Change: NOTED. Citation needed, Red.

Since the article never mentions Loose Change and its forums, the irony here is NOTED.

 

[Loss Leader]

Full article here.

Ha ha! Just because something pretends to be intellectual, doesn't mean it isn't written by a frootloop on a batpoop crazy website that also questions whether the humanitarian effort in Haiti is really an invasion.

No reason to believe the author of the original article, thus no reason to debate the topic.

 

[The Big Dog]

Since the article never mentions Loose Change and its forums, the irony here is NOTED.

The fact that you don't understand "irony" is, of course noted, as is you dodge of the super thermite garbage, and your failure to cite my alleged obsession with Loose Change.

NOTED!

Red, perhaps you missed the fact that while most of your OP's are simply spam from other truther web sites, my point was that I had already seen your spam from other web sites on another web site.

One that is as moribund as the rest of the Truth movement.

If you wish to respond, please respond to that part of my post pointing out that the super thermite article is a class one joke.

kthxbye

 

[BigAl]

Full article here.

This article gives a good overview of international media coverage of alternative views on 9/11 in 2009. The article makes a strong case that instead of 9/11 "Truth" disappearing or evaporating, it is receiving more neutral if not, favorable coverage.

[...]

I don't see anything in the way of "independent science" cited in that article that one of my engineering professors would give me a passing grade for.

Michel Chossudovsky is the boss at Global Research. a google for "Michel Chossudovsky 9/11" finds he's an old hand at writing kook 9/11 stuff.

He seems to have some anti-Semitic tendancies.

http://www.redicecreations.com/specialreports/2005/08aug/mchossudovsky.html​

Assuming this "Global Research" is the same one Red found, here is the rundown on who and what it is. I find it interesting that under "Articles", only one one is listed and that is an article about themselves.

Global Research is the website published by the Canadian non-profit group, the Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG).[1]

The editor of the website is Michel Chossudovsky, who is also a Director of CRG.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Research

Personnell

* Michel Chossudovsky, Director, Editor of GlobalResearch.ca
* Micheline Ladouceur, Associate Director, Editor of CRG's French language website, Mondialisation.ca, and editor of the Portuguese and Spanish pages.
* Eric Waddell, Quebec City, Qc, Associate Director.
* Maja Romano, Administration and Research Coordinator

CRG Research Associates

* Jules Dufour, Chicoutimi, Qc, Research Associate
* F. William Engdahl, Frankfurt, Germany, Research Associate
* Steven Lendman, Chicago, Illinois, Research Associate
* Andrew G. Marshall, Vancouver, BC, Research Associate
* Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Ottawa, Ont, Research Associate

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Centre_for_Research_on_Globalisation
​

Michel Chossudovsky "is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa. He has taught as Visiting Professor at academic institutions in Western Europe, Latin America and Southeast Asia, has acted as economic adviser to governments of developing countries and has worked as a consultant for several international organizations including the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the African Development Bank, the United Nations African Institute for Economic Development and Planning (AIEDEP), the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the International Labour Organization (ILO), the World Health Organisation (WHO), the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).

"Dr. Chossudovsky is past President of the Canadian Association of Latin American and Caribbean Studies. He is member of a number of research organisations including the Committee on Monetary and Economic Reform (COMER), the Geopolitical Drug Watch (OGD) (Paris)and the International People's Health Council (IPHC).

"His recent book entitled The Globalisation of Poverty: Impacts of IMF and World Bank Reforms, Third World Network, Penang, Zed Books, London, 1997 has been translated into several languages. Dr. Chossudovsky is a frequent contributor to Le Monde diplomatique, Thirld World Resurgence and Covert Action Quarterly.

"His publications have been translated into more than twenty languages. Chossudovsky is an active member of the anti-War movement in Canada and has written extensively on the War in Yugoslavia. He is the author of a forthcoming book entitled War and Globalisation, the Balkans and Beyond.

"His most recent book is "The Globalization of Poverty. Impact of IMF and World Bank Reforms" (Zed Books 1997) which is based on his studies of and visits to more than 90 countries. You'll find several of his most recent articles on TFF's website.

"Professor Chossudovsky joined TFF as adviser in 1999." [1]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Michel_Chossudovsky​

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Since the article never mentions Loose Change and its forums, the irony here is NOTED.

Since Loose Change isn't the highest grossest film of all time:

1: Avatar
2: Titanic
3: Ben Hur

Irony, definantly NOTED!

 

[T.A.M.]

running my mouse cursor over the link in the OP was all I had to do.

oiiih!

TAM

 

[Edx]

Full article here.

This article gives a good overview of international media coverage of alternative views on 9/11 in 2009. The article makes a strong case that instead of 9/11 "Truth" disappearing or evaporating, it is receiving more neutral if not, favorable coverage.

[...]

The new "science" about 911 which is obviously referring to the Jones/Harrit paper is just like new Intelligent Design claims that come out. They are just rehashes of old arguments made to try and seem current and new and different.

 

[RedIbis]

running my mouse cursor over the link in the OP was all I had to do.

oiiih!

TAM

By referencing the 18 case studies, the article is suggesting that 9/11 alternative theories are not only receiving international attention, but that attitudes toward such questioning has moved from the realm of name-calling mariginalization to more neutral reporting of such claims.

Since you wouldn't have gotten that from running your cursor over the thread title, I figured I'd clue you in.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

By referencing the 18 case studies, the article is suggesting that 9/11 alternative theories are not only receiving international attention, but that attitudes toward such questioning has moved from the realm of name-calling mariginalization to more neutral reporting of such claims.

Since you wouldn't have gotten that from running your cursor over the thread title, I figured I'd clue you in.

Here's a question for you Red: "Why doesn't the Media have the evidence from the Truth Movement?"

A: The TM has no evidence.
B: The TM is using the Media for political gain.
C: The TM is in it for money.
D: All of the above.

I'd pick D, because it's a reliable answer!

 

[TruthersLie]

By referencing the 18 case studies, the article is suggesting that 9/11 alternative theories are not only receiving international attention, but that attitudes toward such questioning has moved from the realm of name-calling mariginalization to more neutral reporting of such claims.

Since you wouldn't have gotten that from running your cursor over the thread title, I figured I'd clue you in.

By actually knowing how to run a case study research paper, I can easily tell you that this "article" is absolutely crap JUST FROM THE ABSTRACT.

Red, why can't truthers EVER get past peer review into a REAL journal?

Why must you try to take a ******** "article" (which wouldn't pass my research methods course btw) and try to spin it?

Case studies are the WEAKEST of the research methods as they cannot be replicated and are not very valid outside of the group.

Why didn't this great "researcher" do a simple meta analysis of ALL the news/media coverage of 9/11 truth? It would have been a MUCH better paper (and in fact could get published in about a dozen different journals)... Oh.. I got it, because a meta analysis wouldn't allow a truther to try to LIE by using cherry picked data.

Got it.

Is that all you got?

ETA: A meta analysis would have taken about the same time as finding these "case studies" (which they are not, there is no defintion of the methodology for how and why these articles were chosen... .what is it with truthers and having **** methodology in their "papers/articles?"

 

[beachnut]

Failed Truther Analysis of Changing Media Attitudes toward 9/11 Alternative Theories

Full article here.

This article gives a good overview of international media coverage of alternative views on 9/11 in 2009. The article makes a strong case that instead of 9/11 "Truth" disappearing or evaporating, it is receiving more neutral if not, favorable coverage.

[...]

For dolts who like conspiracy theories 911 truth is in the news receiving what a Bigfoot cult gets, coverage to fill in on slow days. An article is by a nut case conspiracy theorists who lies to make up her lie. Good find, another nut case in 911 truth showing that some idiots in making up some news don't know math, physics or the meaning of evidence. Good job.

911 has moved from an event to being like Bigfoot siting, a dirt dumb delusions but still news. You have pointed out the failure of 911 truth to earn a Pulitzer Prize due to dirt dumb delusion not becoming evidence after 8 years of stupid ideas by 911 truth repeated until they find the next gullible knowledge free person who wants to join the delusional ideas on 911 club titles like a 1984 organization, "911 truth", where no lie is too stupid to be repeated.

Woodworth is a full blown no evidence 911 conspiracy theorists nut case who tried to hide behind her failed work; proof she is a anti-intellectual conspiracy theories on the fringe; look where her work is published. She is the personification of failed 911 truth.

She believes the dirt dumb hearsay inspired delusions of DRG. That makes her biased opinion more worthless as she lines up on the side of idiotic delusions. Trying to support 911 truth after 8 years of stupid statrements by fringe consparyc theroiest like Dr. David Ray Griffin.



You still have a thing for Gravy; how cute

www.globalresearch.ca Your source, a great source for woo, where people can spew hearsay and support the evidence-free liars of 911 truth

 

[aggle-rithm]

By referencing the 18 case studies, the article is suggesting that 9/11 alternative theories are not only receiving international attention, but that attitudes toward such questioning has moved from the realm of name-calling mariginalization to more neutral reporting of such claims.

Maybe they've gone numb, like the rest of us.

 

[WildCat]

globalresearch lol!

I won't believe it until it's verified by the Weekly World News.

 

[Baylor]

"The Media Response to the Growing Influence of the 9/11 Truth Movement."

 

[Baylor]

Full article here.

This article gives a good overview of international media coverage of alternative views on 9/11 in 2009. The article makes a strong case that instead of 9/11 "Truth" disappearing or evaporating, it is receiving more neutral if not, favorable coverage.

[...]

If you're looking for media that target CT believers, here's a real academic article. (Note the actual science they used.)

http://www.aejmc.org/_scholarship/research_use/jmcq/07sum/stempel_text.pdf

 

[T.A.M.]

I have briefly surfed through the article. It is basically a shallow attempt to analyze trends and or changes in attitude in media coverage of the 9/11 truth movement. This is done through one persons opinion and the changes she sees via a number of documentaries and "papers" that were produced on the subject or related subjects in the calendar year 2009-2010.

I won't even begin wrt the problems with this paper, as it makes the Jones paper look like Nobel material.

Red, why waste our time with such tripe?

TAM