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

In 1996 Moon discussed his reasons for founding the Times in an address to a Unification Church leadership conference, saying "That is why Father has been combining and organizing scholars from all over the world, and also newspaper organizations, in order to make propaganda." In 2002 Moon said: "The Washington Times is responsible to let the American people know about God" and "The Washington Times will become the instrument in spreading the truth about God to the world."
Click to expand...


Always a sign of commitment to good journalism.

moonandwife.jpeg
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
Fair enough, I really didn't know that. I knew the WT was a right wing paper, but I had no idea they were associated with the Moonies.
Click to expand...

Are you going to apologize for your link? Or perform some other act of contrition in recognition of the error of your ways?
 
scott.in.taiwan said:
Are you going to apologize for your link? Or perform some other act of contrition in recognition of the error of your ways?
Click to expand...

No, I'd rather people watch you gloat like a schoolboy over a rather innocuous oversite.

One link doesn't change the focus of the thread or the OP, as much as you'd like your ad hominem attack to invalidate all of the other examples.
 
RedIbis said:
No, I'd rather people watch you gloat like a schoolboy over a rather innocuous oversite.

One link doesn't change the focus of the thread or the OP, as much as you'd like your ad hominem attack to invalidate all of the other examples.
Click to expand...

But sure it does, Red. For you, printing something positive about 911 makes it a quality paper. Even after several of us has posted that the Washington Times was owned by the Moonies, you still just ignored us. In fact, you stated repeatedly that you're well informed about the media and know the difference between the Post and the Times. I personally had never heard of the Washington Times before your link. But I presume anyone writing positively about 911 Truth must be nuts. I was right.

Go read your posts again. In hindsight, you come across like a nut. Doesn't this tell you something about where you in relation to rest of the world?
 
I am still waiting for you to support your OP with any peer reviewed article which supports your claim.

Any idiot can find examples which support the claim and then try to use the "case study" method to try to inflate the value of those ideas.

Please, red. Pretty plesae. PRovide any REAL scientific study which supports your OP or admit you are full of crap (and wrong again).

But I don't expect to see that... I expect to see you run away again.

P.S. Please respond and let us know how this "article" is
1. valid in any way
2. has any reliability
3. is an accurate assessment of current media attitudes.

I eagerly await your reply.
 
RedIbis said:
What this is is a classic piece of debunker "logic." You are evaluating worldwide interest in researching alternative theories on 9/11 by the amount of people who are able to attend an event in Manhattan.
Click to expand...

Which seems a reasonable metric, given that said event is closely related to the subject of the movement. A decline in overall interest would reasonably be accompanied by a fall-off of attendence, therefore a fall-off in attendence can be taken as at least suggestive of a decline in interest.

Rather than simply sneering, would you like to make at least a token effort at refutation? As usual, you've claimed the existence of a counter-argument without actually articulating one.

Dave
 
RedIbis said:
For one thing there were 7 bldgs destroyed at the WTC. Secondly, your murderous fantasies have nothing to do with this thread.
Click to expand...

ROFLMFAO... A twoofer trying to differentiate the madness of another. Classic.

The more media attention you get RedIbis the better IMO. Give it to them for free. Encourage it. Grasp it. You could then have a less anonymous arena for self ridicule and we could all put a face to the name. The outcome would be the same. Just that more of the planet would now what dilluded people do in their spare time. It would certainly beat the drivel we get in the press about duff pop stars shagging footballers and footballers shagging duff wanna be popstars.

Tried contacting any of the press with your story lately? Thought not. Just talk as usual. Too scared to commit but talking about doing something is always theraputic i suppose.
 
Bumpie for Red Ibis (who I must say at least is trying to help out a fellow twoof and inform him that is is incorrect and off topic.) You go RED. Now if you would just answer the simple questions I posted for you.

TruthersLie said:
I am still waiting for you to support your OP with any peer reviewed article which supports your claim.

Any idiot can find examples which support the claim and then try to use the "case study" method to try to inflate the value of those ideas.

Please, red. Pretty plesae. PRovide any REAL scientific study which supports your OP or admit you are full of crap (and wrong again).

But I don't expect to see that... I expect to see you run away again.

P.S. Please respond and let us know how this "article" is
1. valid in any way
2. has any reliability
3. is an accurate assessment of current media attitudes.

I eagerly await your reply.
Click to expand...
 
RedIbis said:
What in the hell are you talking about? You're suggesting that THe Washington Times is a Moonie paper?
Click to expand...

Ignorance is bliss. Arrogance is to come!

The OP is based on ignorance and the belief that the worlds media is changing its attitudes. It will only do this after very careful examination of any evidence put in front of it. The 911 truth movement have none.

If the worlds media does ever jump on the 911 conspiracy theorist bandwagon then it will be to ridicule its members. The 911 truth movement know this, so do little or nothing to actually gain the exposure they so loudly (on the internet) proclaim. Silent freedom fighters if ya like. Like silent explosives.

I would simply mention Piers Morgan. The UK editor who foolishly ran with a huge story about British servicemen torturing people. He printed it with photographs as 'proof'. It ran for weeks. Whilst the anti war brigade went wild, servicemen in my unit and manyservicemen in UK military units around the world knew full well that it was all spoof. We knew because we where in a position to know. We had the experience to know. We had the knowledge to know. How? Why? Because we recognised the military vehicles in those photos. We recognised the uniforms in those photos. Neither was ever deployed to the theatre of operation where this supposed torture took place. Piers Morgan was a gullible fool who jumped on the bandwagon and went with it. An educated editor who supposedly did his due dilligence.

He was sacked for doing so and is now a TV media whore with his tail between his legs. Despised by the average British sqauddie.

David Icke also springs to mind.

The media will rip you and your friends apart RedIbis. Let it come i say. You know it. I know it. The world just needs to read about it and then put your sad disorganisation to rest. Please feel free to contact the editors or producers of any media outlet around the world with your name, address and story. 9 years and still waiting.
 
A few posts sent to AAH for rule 11. While we allow a good deal of latitude in how you discuss a topic, we do not allow members to insert their pet topic into every unrelated thread they participate in.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky
 
Since red Ibis is handwaving in another thread... I think I need to bump this for him.

TruthersLie said:
I am still waiting for you to support your OP with any peer reviewed article which supports your claim.

Any idiot can find examples which support the claim and then try to use the "case study" method to try to inflate the value of those ideas.

Please, red. Pretty plesae. PRovide any REAL scientific study which supports your OP or admit you are full of crap (and wrong again).

But I don't expect to see that... I expect to see you run away again.

P.S. Please respond and let us know how this "article" is
1. valid in any way
2. has any reliability
3. is an accurate assessment of current media attitudes.

I eagerly await your reply.
Click to expand...

Red if you don't respond, I'll take that as an admission that your "analysis" is crap and you know it is.
 
Hokulele said:
I wasn't suggesting you have issues with learning new things, just wondering if he was on ignore or something, as this was brought up immediately.
Click to expand...

I don't put people on ignore, but I also don't read every post in every thread since they tend to turn into pile-ons.
 
Dog Town said:
See here, Redibis, this is exactly why twoofers are a sad lot.
Not having a clue about sources, touted as gospel, is innocuous. Sad really.
Click to expand...

Well, what makes you a sad lot is that I never suggested the source was gospel. But more importantly, the story was making no claims itself, but simply reporting on Gage's organization.

Hopefully, the impervious "skeptics" realize that this is nothing more than simple ad hominem. The origins of this one source has no bearing on its rather neutral reporting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom