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

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...

If this is the case then it is happening only in Europe.
 
RedIbis said:
Only a place where debunkers get together and slap each other on the backs in agreement that what appeared to happen on 9/11 is actually what happened in an environment very hostile to anyone who happens to disagree with the prevailing view. Congrats on maintaining the forum's mission.
Click to expand...

Yeah, well welcome to the internet, RedIbis.

Do you think I'd get a warm greeting and respectful treatment over at PrisonPlanetForums? They'd ban me on sight of my user name.

Do you know how many debunkers were thrown off of PFT and LC?

Can you imagine what would happen if I took my atheist views over to a fundie biblethumper site?

How about my fondness for a good binge over at a teatotalers site?


You come to a bastion of skeptics, known in the CT micro-industry for tearing apart conspiracy theories as a hobby (if not a way of life for some), and are surprised that we trash your foolish views?

You join a web-based forum based on interests. If your interest is in proving the ridiculous points of the 911 Truth Conspiradroid Movement, then maybe you want to check out some more friendly environs.
 
RedIbis said:
Only a place where debunkers get together and slap each other on the backs in agreement that what appeared to happen on 9/11 is actually what happened in an environment very hostile to anyone who happens to disagree with the prevailing view. Congrats on maintaining the forum's mission.
Click to expand...

So remind me, how long ago did you get banned from this forum for dissenting?

Dave
 
RedIbis said:
And another neutral story. 9 years after the fact and rather than present (from a very right wing newspaper, no less) Gage & co. as kooky conspiracy theorists, this is presented as simple questioning.

This is the debunker's worst nightmare, when this discussion is presented as genuine skepticism.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/22/inside-the-beltway-70128635/
Click to expand...

Ya, I know I got beat to this, but here it is from the source of all truth

The Washington Times is a daily broadsheet newspaper published in Washington, D.C., the capital of the United States. It was founded in 1982 by Unification Church founder Sun Myung Moon, and has been subsidized by the Unification Church community. The Times is known for its conservative stance on social and political issues...The Washington Times has lost money every year that it has been in business. By 2002, the Unification Church had spent about $1.7 billion subsidizing its operation of the Times...In his 2003 book, Lies (And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them): A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right, comedian, author, and later senator Al Franken devoted a chapter to criticizing the Times after executive editor Wesley Pruden re-wrote a reporter's story—without the reporter's knowledge—about Franken's performance at a White House party. According to Franken, the rewrite was made to appear as if Franken had received a negative reception, which he says was not the case.
Click to expand...

You didn't know it was the Washington TIMES did you Red? You thought it was the very famous and well-respected.Washington Post, didn't ya. Bet ya' did. Bet ya' did. And that's giving you credit. I don't really think you made this mistake because you can't read properly or you really thought the Washington TIMES is respectable.
 
Just to reinforce a point RedIbis would very much like to obscure, this forum is divided up by subject matter. The notorious 'skeptic's subforum' that can be found on some truther discussion boards is split off according to the opinions that may be expressed. There is no segregation of this forum on the basis of the poster's opinion, therefore there is no convenient way to exclude any body of opinion from the mainstream discussion. Strangely, it's only those who RedIbis feels don't fear open discussion who nevertheless restrict it.

Dave
 
scott.in.taiwan said:
Ya, I know I got beat to this, but here it is from the source of all truth



You didn't know it was the Washington TIMES did you Red? You thought it was the very famous and well-respected.Washington Post, didn't ya. Bet ya' did. Bet ya' did. And that's giving you credit. I don't really think you made this mistake because you can't read properly or you really thought the Washington TIMES is respectable.
Click to expand...

I'll take that bet. I'm very familiar with a wide range of media sources, including the arch-conservative Times.

What's interesting about this example is that it comes from such a conservative source when any such suggestion of Bush admin involvement is usually met with the greatest vehemance. It illustrates the point of the OP, that media attitudes are changing towards such questioning.
 
RedIbis said:
I'll take that bet. I'm very familiar with a wide range of media sources, including the arch-conservative Times.

What's interesting about this example is that it comes from such a conservative source when any such suggestion of Bush admin involvement is usually met with the greatest vehemance. It illustrates the point of the OP, that media attitudes are changing towards such questioning.
Click to expand...

Nice dodge, Red.

But it's not its conservative-ness that we're pointing out about the Times but the fact that almost not sane person would cite the Washington Times as a major news organ and therefore proof of the acceptance of reporting on 911 conspiracies in by major news organizations/services.

We're pointing out that it's like quoting articles in The Pennysaver as credible proof of.... well, of anything.
 
Foolmewunz said:
But it's not its conservative-ness that we're pointing out about the Times but the fact that almost not sane person would cite the Washington Times as a major news organ and therefore proof of the acceptance of reporting on 911 conspiracies in by major news organizations/services.
Click to expand...


I think this is a classic example of CTists willing to partner up with those, er, less rational in order to promote their agenda. It doesn't matter to them just how nutbar a group is as long as they are open to the CTist's message. This is why they wake up on a Sunday morning in bed with a neo-Nazi wondering why everyone who was at the bar Saturday night accuses them of anti-semitism and general loonieness.
 
RedIbis said:
What subforum are we in now?
Click to expand...

I believe it is the subforum of a red bird running away every time he is shown to be wrong.

Yet again, why won't you address the substance of the critical examination of your "article?"

Is there a reason for this cowardice?
 
RedIbis said:
I'll take that bet. I'm very familiar with a wide range of media sources, including the arch-conservative Times.

What's interesting about this example is that it comes from such a conservative source when any such suggestion of Bush admin involvement is usually met with the greatest vehemance. It illustrates the point of the OP, that media attitudes are changing towards such questioning.
Click to expand...
(emphasis mine, just incase red plays dumb)

Great. Then you should have at least one peer reviewed journal article in any psychology, sociology, or linguistics journal which supports this claim.

Oh wait... you are trying the normal truther tactic of pointing to something on the net, and claiming it is a valid piece of research.

We have already covered how much BS this essay is. We have covered that JUST FROM THE ABSTRACT it was crap. We have covered that it doesn't include citations for claims. We have covered that the case study is by far the weakest and least reliable method of research. We have covered that this "study" could have been done much better, faster and more indepth with an meta analysis of ALL of the media presenting the "truth" movement (wait... I thought you said that doesn't exist?). And yet you come in and spew crapola.

Please. pretty please. PRETTY PLEASE WITH ICE CREAM ON TOP can you just give us one piece of REAL science. You know. Real studies, with real conclusions.

I understand that you do not understand basic science. I got that. I understand that you fall for this crap. I got that too. I"m just asking for one peer reviewed journal article. Just one that supports your nuttiness. Is that so much to ask for?
 
TruthersLie said:
I believe it is the subforum of a red bird running away every time he is shown to be wrong.

Yet again, why won't you address the substance of the critical examination of your "article?"

Is there a reason for this cowardice?
Click to expand...

Please stop whining.
 
TruthersLie said:
Great. Then you should have at least one peer reviewed journal article in any psychology, sociology, or linguistics journal which supports this claim.
Click to expand...

Do you really not understand the difference between media outlets and scholarly journals?
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
Do you really not understand the difference between media outlets and scholarly journals?
Click to expand...

Poor red.

You point us to an "article" in which massive claims are made. This "article" is crap. Pure and simple.

Yet you still want to try to use it as a source.

I demolished this "article" after reading JUST THE ABSTRACT and the introduction.

Can you please... pretty please provide ANY type of scientific support to this weak (and I mean extremely weak) "article?" Yes or no?

it is really very simple. You make the claim, now try to back it up.
 
RedIbis said:
I'll take that bet. I'm very familiar with a wide range of media sources, including the arch-conservative Times.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry. It was was hard to tell from your post that you have such familiarity.

RedIbis said:
What's interesting about this example is that it comes from such a conservative source when any such suggestion of Bush admin involvement is usually met with the greatest vehemance. It illustrates the point of the OP, that media attitudes are changing towards such questioning.
Click to expand...

Why? It's a bad newspaper that has huge financial problems. They clearly have no sense of what proper journalism is. They are the media wing of a bizarre Christian cult. Who knows why they print what they print? And what's more, who cares?

Just some words of advice here. You seem a little confused about what you call 'debunkers', but what I would call mainstream society. Citing something from the Washington Times has no significance at all about media attitides toward 911 Truth. None. You might as well be citing Watchtower or the Plain Truth. That you would puncuate your 'evidence' with a statement like
This is the debunker's worst nightmare
Click to expand...
makes you just seem uninformed about what you need to make an impact on us or on almost anyone else. I hope I don't breach any rules of protocol here when I say, it makes you appear uneducated.
 
Last edited:
Conspiracy in general is just getting bigger. This happened primarily in my opinion from the inadequate investigations surrounding the JFK assassination.. There is just distrust on a large scale. That's marketable. Especially since so many people now distrust the investigation into 9/11. JFK was huge and still is. 9/11 conspiracy is huge and just keeps getting bigger. Especially with younger people. I wasn't born yet when JFK was killed and I still have my doubts and I'm still very interested in it. The media isn't going to pass up on that kind of interest surrounding 9/11. They've tried. They just can't. Give the people what they want.

Especially since the debunking movement still can't put it all to rest. It's been 9 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom