have you even looked at the timeline?
Yes, I've read the entire thing, and followed many of the links provided to news articles (when they worked, that is).
it cover articles from mainstream media regarding 911, why ignore 50 mainstream articles talking about operation diamondback but believe 1 book by so called "unbiased" whitewashing politicians called the 911 commission?
I've got much of my information from the mainstream media, rather than the 9/11 Commission Report.
I have a number of issues with the 9/11 Timeline. The main one is that clearly the author has an agenda, not to determine truth, but to foster confusion and uncertainty.
No effort is made to cross-reference or fact check articles, and all media articles are given equal credibility.
The end result is literally thousands of articles which can pretty much present whatever picture you want them to present.
And herein likes my second biggest concern.
The author chooses which part of the article to highlight. Most people who read it do not go and read every single linked article (indeed, many of the links don't work). Further, the author then adds significant amounts of speculative exposition about the articles, designed to manipulate a reader's interpretation of the information. Reading the articles reveals that some contain information (which the author fails to mention) that directly refutes the speculation offered by the author.
A very simple example revolved around the alleged NORAD wargames.
Numerous articles cite "Operation Northern Vigilance" as a wargame undertaken that day, involving NORAD aircraft and pretend attackers in the form of inputs.
A brief effort at investigating this would reveal that Operation Northern Vigilance was not an exercise in any form, but a real-world operational deployment (indeed this fact is evident in the name itself).
As such, Northern Vigilance has no bearing on the NORAD CONUS Region Air Defense mission and does not involve "inputs" of any kind.
Rather than determine this simple information, Thompson blindly presents incorrect media articles and then speculates based on them.
or ignore 50 articles talking about cia / isi / taliban connections with drugs, naroctics illegal trading and complacent actions? WHY IGNORE ALL THIS????
Another problem with the mainstream media is sourcing. Often a topic will be covered in multiple media outlets, and this looks good. However closer inspection often reveals that all of these outlets got the story from the same source, thus in actual fact the story is not collaborated at all. This is more common than you might think.
you are a fool if you ignore this in trade for fox news or some big media outlet who is owned by multinational corporations trying to make a buck off the idiots who love tragedy and murder and violence in the world??
All media outlets love tragedy murder and violence. Indeed fringe outlets such as Alex Jones' "Prison Planet"
only deal in tragedy murder and violence.
For the record I don't watch Fox News. It is available in New Zealand via the Sky Network (channel 92) however it's not part of the default package and I don't believe we have it where I live.
I don't actually watch television, and don't own one. I get virtually all of my news from the internet. for local news (and to keep up with the domestic angle on international events) I primarily use TVNZ (the national government-owned network) and The New Zealand Herald (New Zealand's largest newspaper, owned by APN). For international news I primarily tune into the BBC and CNN, however I tend to delve into additional sources for specific events of interest. Every now and then I pop into MEMRI to see what Middle-east media are saying (usually when an event relating to the Middle East occurs that I am interested in).
For any subject which is of particular interest of me (such as 9/11) my sources of information expand exponentially (for example my 19-page paper on NORAD's response to the attacks uses no less than 21 resources).
Ideally the best source for information is experts in the specific field, or people that experienced events first hand. This is one of the reasons I enjoy this forum so much - there is a wealth of expertise here in many many fields, and a wealth of life experiences. All of this is information I can draw on.
Why cover the virginia shooting for a week? why not cover the 50 iraqi's killed a day for more time and interview their family? you know why? b/c the media knows what people want to see, and what they need to feed them inorder for them to continue to want to watch...an evil mindset for scaming people and making them slaves for the NWO power brokers and global bankers! Please respond on this!
The media do this because they know what sells papers and boosts television and radio ratings. They're corporations in a capitalist economy. All they care about is making money. In this regard they're no different to any other company in a capitalist economy - from the corner store owned by a family to a trans-global conglomerate.
-Gumboot
why don't you talk about anything here and bring new informative things to this forum if you hold so many truths?? maby you just need to shut your mouth and listen to something i am saying instead of telliing people how much they are wrong, and giving nothing!
