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

Eh, typical.

We already have a stickied thread about the "media response." It has been both strong and almost unanimously negative.

I would agree, however, that the media attitude is changing -- from hostility to complete apathy. Nobody cares about the Truth Movement anymore, and that goes double for Truthers themselves.
 
I picked a paragraph at random. Let's try to name all the fallacies.

This hour-long documentary was the first truly fair opportunity in North America for advocates of the "unofficial story" of 9/11 to present some of their case on mainstream television.1 Representatives of the "official story" were also given time to speak, but their case was patently weaker.2 This imbalance was allowed by the producers, and indeed by the Canadian government, to stand. Aired several times across Canada, this program drew unusually high viewer commentary.3
Click to expand...

1No True Scotsman
2Bare Assertion Fallacy
3Citation needed
 
Last edited:
9/11 CTists are so desperate for affirmation they will latch onto anything which helps them feel comfortable with their delusions.
 
defaultdotxbe said:
i prefer the inflation-adjusted list myself:

1: Gone with the Wind
2: Star Wars
3: The Sound of Music
Click to expand...

Clark Gable on 9/11 CTs: "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn!"

Darth Vader on the CTs: "Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed."

Julie Andrews on the CTs: "The hills are alive, with the sound of music!"

:D
 
R.Mackey said:
Eh, typical.

We already have a stickied thread about the "media response." It has been both strong and almost unanimously negative.

I would agree, however, that the media attitude is changing -- from hostility to complete apathy. Nobody cares about the Truth Movement anymore, and that goes double for Truthers themselves.
Click to expand...

Proving that you didn't even bother to scan the examples they cite.
 
RedIbis said:
Proving that you didn't even bother to scan the examples they cite.
Click to expand...

I can't speak for others, but I have read through the whole thread. What are you talking about? Is the implication the thread contains some kind of iconoclastic literature that demonstrates changing media attitudes toward 911? That's not true. As a compendium of current media positions on 911, the thread is unambiguously negative.

By the way, who is Elizabeth Woodworth? I couldn't find anything else written by her, unless she's the Canadian fiction writer.
 
RedIbis said:
Proving that you didn't even bother to scan the examples they cite.
Click to expand...

Proving that (yet again) you have to scrape the bottom of the barrel and use any BS thing you can to try to feel like you have a valid POV.

Again and again red, why won't you even bother to DEFEND the crap you spew?

Oh wait, I forgot. That isn't your style.

ETA: Lets go back to this essay (it isn't a paper, and I have real difficulty calling it an article). Now compare that with the example of a REAL study of the media attention that was already posted.
http://www.aejmc.org/_scholarship/research_use/jmcq/07sum/stempel_text.pdf

Just from the abstract in this REAL paper, I can already see a vast difference. It is called science, scholarship and research. This is the thread o' fail.
 
Last edited:
scott.in.taiwan said:
I can't speak for others, but I have read through the whole thread. What are you talking about? Is the implication the thread contains some kind of iconoclastic literature that demonstrates changing media attitudes toward 911? That's not true. As a compendium of current media positions on 911, the thread is unambiguously negative.

By the way, who is Elizabeth Woodworth? I couldn't find anything else written by her, unless she's the Canadian fiction writer.
Click to expand...

The article makes a persuasive argument that 9/11 "Truth" (as they call it) is being reported in international media outlets more objectively than in recent years.

What is particularly irksome for the resident debunkers is when this discussion moves from the realm of kooky conspiracy theories to genuine skepticism.
 
9-11 Truth is dead.

All we have now, is 9-11 Truth, Part Deux. a shadow of its former self.

and nobody really cares.
 
RedIbis said:
The article makes a persuasive argument that 9/11 "Truth" (as they call it) is being reported in international media outlets more objectively than in recent years.
Click to expand...

********. More **** and now red you have earned your PhD (piled higher and deeper).

This "essay" is psuedo scientific claptrap that uses the absolute EASIEST and lowest validity/reliability methods of using case studies.

It doesn't define how the case studies were chosen. It doesnt' provide any decent organization and is all over the place. This isn't a scientific paper by any stretch of the imagination.

Why can't you every get past peer review ANYWHERE? It has been 8 years... even the most pathetic truther could have gone through university and learnd how to do real research.

What is particularly irksome for the resident debunkers is when this discussion moves from the realm of kooky conspiracy theories to genuine skepticism.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, this "essay" (which would fail my research methods class for how bad it is) doesn't do anything except show how shoddy truthers are when it comes to scholarly works.

Now run away again widdle birdy.
 
RedIbis said:
What is particularly irksome for the resident debunkers is when this discussion moves from the realm of kooky conspiracy theories to genuine skepticism.
Click to expand...

9-11 Truth, Part Deux, follows NONE of the rules of scientific skepticism, and follows ALL of the rules of pseudo-skepticism.

Truthers argue that 9-11 was an inside job, and the collapses of the WTC were controlled demolitions, and yet they have FAILED to provide the evidence and scientific basis required for such an outlandish hypothesis.

the burden is on YOU guys, to prove your theory, and you have failed...miserably.
 
scott.in.taiwan said:
By the way, who is Elizabeth Woodworth? I couldn't find anything else written by her, unless she's the Canadian fiction writer.
Click to expand...


I anxiously await her next dissertation on the shift in media attitudes regarding the great "Is Miley Cyrus really Hannah Montana" cover-up. :tinfoil
 
RedIbis said:
Proving that you didn't even bother to scan the examples they cite.
Click to expand...

Proving that you've never bothered to read an academic article and get duped by trash online media.

If you were familiar with academic papers, you wouldn't waste your time reading this nonsense. An academic paper in APA format has the following:

ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
METHODS
subjects
materials
procedure
RESULTS
DISCUSSION

Subsections are in lowercase

The paper you cited has none of the above. And no, it doesn't have any of them. Just because you label something an abstract, doesn't mean that it is. Not only would this fail an 200 level university methodology course, it would fail a high school psychology class.
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
What is particularly irksome for the resident debunkers is when this discussion moves from the realm of kooky conspiracy theories to genuine skepticism.
Click to expand...
What is irksome for me are people who think they really know what happened on 9/11 and instead of actually doing something about it post on Internet forums. Then get "irked" when they are laughed at, ignored and ridiculed.

Edit - Actually, it's not "irksome" for me as I'm not so much "irked" as filled with sadness for them.
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
The article makes a persuasive argument that 9/11 "Truth" (as they call it) is being reported in international media outlets more objectively than in recent years.

What is particularly irksome for the resident debunkers is when this discussion moves from the realm of kooky conspiracy theories to genuine skepticism.
Click to expand...

Yet after 9 years nobody that makes Twoofer claims will speak in public where there is a Q&A microphone they don't control and accept questions from people with relevant expertise.
 
Ironically, if Truthers paid more attention to librarians, as in actually asked them for help while doing real research, there probably wouldn't be any Truthers. :p
 
RedIbis said:
The 18 cases they study are all from 2009 and all are from international media outlets.
Click to expand...


Umm... if they're all from a single year, how can the article possibly claim there's a change? ETA: Ahh, yeah... so they're only looking at how the attitude has changed over the course of a single year... eight years after 9/11? Yeesh...

Also, the last 3 case studies are actually from 2010. Great eyes there, RedIbis. Can't even get the details of an article that supports your position correct. You truly are the poster child for 9/11 Truth.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom