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

Hokulele said:
You may want to spend less time responding to things you haven't read. Twice now that has come back to bite you in this one thread alone.
Click to expand...

Rather than scoring insignificant points, you might consider the question of whether or not this professor's description of normalizing media attidudes is valid.

I suspect you think not, which is not surprising because his final assertion that this discussion move from the realm of conspiracy theory to legitimate scientific debate is what's most terrifying to debunkers.
 
RedIbis said:
Rather than scoring insignificant points, you might consider the question of whether or not this professor's description of normalizing media attidudes is valid.
Click to expand...


Scoring insignificant points, like telling 16.5 he should scroll down and read?

I suspect you think not, which is not surprising because his final assertion that this discussion move from the realm of conspiracy theory to legitimate scientific debate is what's most terrifying to debunkers.
Click to expand...


And we have seen what happens when CTists try to move things towards a scientific discussion. If you haven't personally, I suggest taking a look at the reception the nano-thermite paper received in the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology sub-forum of this site. Very few posters there would consider themselves "debunkers" so much as "scientists".

It wasn't very pretty.
 
Hokulele,

I lost sight of that thread after it was moved. Could you please remind me of the title? Can't see it in the first few pages.

Thanks! :)
 
Hokulele said:
Scoring insignificant points, like telling 16.5 he should scroll down and read?




And we have seen what happens when CTists try to move things towards a scientific discussion. If you haven't personally, I suggest taking a look at the reception the nano-thermite paper received in the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology sub-forum of this site. Very few posters there would consider themselves "debunkers" so much as "scientists".

It wasn't very pretty.
Click to expand...

That thread was hardly different than the numerous threads about that paper in this subforum, except the proofreading was much better, no laughing dogs or twoofy twoofer namecalling. Otherwise, they achieved nothing except attacking Bentham until it was pointed out that there are many open source journals in the scientific community.

I thought Metamars held his own against the masses in there.
 
RedIbis said:
Rather than scoring insignificant points, you might consider the question of whether or not this professor's description of normalizing media attidudes is valid.

I suspect you think not, which is not surprising because his final assertion that this discussion move from the realm of conspiracy theory to legitimate scientific debate is what's most terrifying to debunkers.
Click to expand...

Wrong. I have said from day #1 I would love nothing more then to have these ridiculous insane theories get enough attention as to draw into the argument LEGITIMATE scientists...It would be the end of the truth movement (outside of the crazies).

The TM and their silliness prefers the darkness of the shadows.

BRING IT ON I SAY!!!

TAM:)
 
Wait, so Red posted a link to a student newspaper which in turn was about an article in an "alternative" paper which in turn was about an article in a truther web site about how Media attitudes about the truth movement were changing?

That ain't just meta man, that is mutual masturbation!

Red, had I tried to make fun of the truth movement there is no way in hell that I could have created the web of Fail that you have accomplished in this thread.

And what have we accomplished? Any proof of an inside jobby job?

Great thread RED!
 
RedIbis said:
That thread was hardly different than the numerous threads about that paper in this subforum, except the proofreading was much better, no laughing dogs or twoofy twoofer namecalling. Otherwise, they achieved nothing except attacking Bentham until it was pointed out that there are many open source journals in the scientific community.

I thought Metamars held his own against the masses in there.
Click to expand...


Heck, post #11 in that thread demonstrated several severe flaws in the premises, methodology, and assumptions. There is quite a bit of discussion about the contents of the paper, so to claim that "they achieved nothing except attacking Bentham" is a completely false assertion on your part.
 
RedIbis said:
A journalism professor in the US is supporting the paper's findings in the University paper and it got picked up by the local paper, which further supports the idea that media coverage is turning neutral toward 9/11 questioning.
Click to expand...

Professor Kevin Howley said:
If the Tea Party movement is the spoiled stepchild of the American news media, then the 9/11 Truth movement is the mad woman in the attic of U.S. journalistic culture.
Click to expand...

Don't you find it demeaning to have to pretend that this sort of statement constitutes support?

Dave
 
Hokulele said:
Heck, post #11 in that thread demonstrated several severe flaws in the premises, methodology, and assumptions. There is quite a bit of discussion about the contents of the paper, so to claim that "they achieved nothing except attacking Bentham" is a completely false assertion on your part.
Click to expand...

I have to say I went and checked it out and I agree. That post specifically does everything Metamars(I think?) asked and he completely ignored it. Basically, he gets frustrated because this new audience won't validate the paper.

Red, any thoughts as to why Meta would have ignored that post?
 
This is why elements of the 'Truth Movement' are dangerous and should not be given any credence in the media. Those 'Truthers' who believe there were no hijackers and that 'cave-dwelling arabs' could never have orchestrated the events of Sep 11 2001 are fostering exactly the kind of ignorance, arrogance and complacency that allows terrorists to operate successfully.

Take the attempted Christmas Day bombing:

The incident unfolded just before noon. “There was a pop that sounded like a firecracker,” said Syed Jafry, a passenger who said he had been sitting three rows ahead of the suspect. A few seconds later, he said, there was smoke and “some glow” from the suspect’s seat and on the left side of the plane.

“There was a panic,” said Mr. Jafry, 57, of Holland, Ohio. “Next thing you know everybody was on him.” He said the passengers and the crew subdued the man.
Click to expand...

Let me ask some of our resident 'Truthers' who don't believe in the existence of Al Qaeda or 'Arab Hijackers'; if you had been on that plane, near the suspect as he tried to activate his device, would you just leave him alone? Would you be comfortable in your knowledge that these people are just a myth created by the US Government?
 
So after a bit of digging (I won't call it research) I have noticed something rather interesting.

ALL of these new articles are written by self proclaimed truthers, or those who repeat truther claims.

I mean, if you are going to make the claim that the news/media coverage of these events is shifiting to a mainstream neutral stance (as per red), one would think there would be some sort of "proof."

So we already have a set of bias from the point of the "researchers."

What I find extremely interesting is noticing how all of this has happened in a 2 month span. It almost reads like a concerted effort by 9/11 truthers to try to push up their issue. It almost seems like a group of 9/11 truthers (maybe 9/11 scholars, or AE911truth) took the issue with their lack of publications, and asked their pet academics to write a series of papers which support each other and get them published all at the same time.

Nah... it must be coincidence
 
It seems consistent with the truther mindset. I think they honestly believe that a falsehood can be transformed into a truth by manufacturing enough spurious evidence; therefore, if enough truthers write articles claiming that the mainstream media is showing a more positive attitude to them, then this will retroactively become true even if no actual positive attitude exists. It's yet another manifestation of broken thought processes.

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

But wait a second here. What happened to all this nonsense spewed about how the media was supposedly so completely controlled and scripted by the NWO that it is under their total control and "in on it". What happened to all that?
 
Dave Rogers said:
It seems consistent with the truther mindset. I think they honestly believe that a falsehood can be transformed into a truth by manufacturing enough spurious evidence; therefore, if enough truthers write articles claiming that the mainstream media is showing a more positive attitude to them, then this will retroactively become true even if no actual positive attitude exists. It's yet another manifestation of broken thought processes.

Dave
Click to expand...

Unlike most truthers, who lack the wit to recognize all the contradictions in their train wreck they call a belief system, more intelligent truthers like Red Ibis seem to go through a torturous ritual of rationalization to resolve their cognitive dissonance. The thought process seems to go like this:

"9/11 was an inside job!! It's blatantly obvious!

.....

OK, maybe it's not blatantly obvious, but there's tons of evidence!

.....

OK, maybe there's not tons of evidence, but scientific experiments show that there was something suspicious in the dust!

.....

OK, so the experiments were bogus, but the media is taking 9/11 truth more seriously now!

.....

OK....um...

.....

EAT SEMANTICS, DUH-BUNKERS!!!"

(Runs away)

And the retreat continues....
 
aggle-rithm said:
Unlike most truthers, who lack the wit to recognize all the contradictions in their train wreck they call a belief system, more intelligent truthers like Red Ibis seem to go through a torturous ritual of rationalization to resolve their cognitive dissonance. The thought process seems to go like this:

"9/11 was an inside job!! It's blatantly obvious!

.....

OK, maybe it's not blatantly obvious, but there's tons of evidence!

.....

OK, maybe there's not tons of evidence, but scientific experiments show that there was something suspicious in the dust!

.....

OK, so the experiments were bogus, but the media is taking 9/11 truth more seriously now!

.....

OK....um...

.....

EAT SEMANTICS, DUH-BUNKERS!!!"

(Runs away)

And the retreat continues....
Click to expand...

What a fascinating analysis. Now go and find some of my quotes that relate to any of this whatsoever.
 
RedIbis said:
What a fascinating analysis. Now go and find some of my quotes that relate to any of this whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Red; as much as I respect your courteous attitude and apparent willingness to engage in debate (up to a point), that post pretty much described your modus operandi.

You're well known for backpedalling/dodging, goalpost shifting, and - as a diversionary tactic - bogging an argument down in semantics.
 
SatansMaleVoiceChoir said:
Red; as much as I respect your courteous attitude and apparent willingness to engage in debate (up to a point), that post pretty much described your modus operandi.

You're well known for backpedalling/dodging, goalpost shifting, and - as a diversionary tactic - bogging an argument down in semantics.
Click to expand...

And what do you make of Aggle's hardly humorous description? Do you think that's furthering a productive discussion?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom