911 and the Propaganda Model

[Hans]

MJ stated

"Nonetheless, it is, I believe, common currency in most Muslim countries, esp. those not affiliated with the US, that this was an inside job."

Nope, you are believing wrongly, the most commonly reported opinion is that brave matyrs killed themselves for the world's Muslims. The second most commonly held opinion is that evil Joos from Isreal did it. The third is evil joos caused the Americans to do it. The split is about 50/20/15/other.

WTC 7 is a non issue, kinda like discussing what JFK's driver was wearing.

 

[SpitfireIX]

You havent understood the point. The collapse of the building was reported initially- i.e. in the 1st few hours or so. This was unavoidable, and there was no reason not to report it. As soon as the evident suspicion about it appeared, it disappeared.

This should have been simple to understand.

From The New York Times:

October 2, 2001:

Scarred Steel Holds Clues, And Remedies

. . . One piece Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw was a charred horizontal I-beam from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed from fire eight hours after the attacks.

December 20, 2001:

A NATION CHALLENGED: THE TRADE CENTER; City Had Been Warned of Fuel Tank at 7 World Trade Center

Fire Department officials warned the city and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in 1998 and 1999 that a giant diesel fuel tank for the mayor's $13 million command bunker in 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story high-rise that burned and collapsed on Sept. 11, posed a hazard and was not consistent with city fire codes. . . .

Engineering experts have spent three months trying to determine why 7 World Trade Center, part of the downtown complex that included the 110-story towers, collapsed about seven hours after being damaged and set on fire by debris from the damaged landmark buildings.

Some of the experts, who said that no major skyscraper had ever collapsed simply because of fire damage, have recently been examining whether the diesel tanks -- there were others beneath ground level -- played an important role in the building's stunning demise. [emphasis added]

December 25, 2001:

A NATION CHALLENGED: THE TOWERS; Experts Urging Broader Inquiry In Towers' Fall

. . . Other experts take a still wider view, favoring a study that would look at the implications of the collapses -- a nearby, 47-story building, 7 World Trade Center, also fell on Sept. 11 after burning for most of the day -- for fire codes, building standards and engineering practices across the board. [emphasis added]

February 12, 2002:

Rescuing the Buildings Beyond Ground Zero

. . . Later that day, 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story skyscraper just to the east, came tumbling down, its ruins slumping like a slain giant against the Verizon Building's east facade.

March 10, 2002:

Commercial Property; More Attention to Security in Designing Buildings

. . . The building at 7 World Trade Center was not directly attacked, but burned and fell as a result of its location adjacent to the Twin Towers.

May 8, 2003:

TOWERS UNTESTED FOR MAJOR FIRE, INQUIRY SUGGESTS

. . . In particular, the team says it is lacking clear views of the south face of 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed later in the day on Sept. 11.

July 13, 2003:

Commercial Property/7 World Trade Center; Building Being Reborn Using Part of Old Foundation

WHILE discussions continue on how to redevelop the Twin Towers site of the former World Trade Center, construction already is under way to rebuild the adjacent 7 World Trade Center, a building that collapsed in fires touched off by the Sept. 11 attack. [emphasis added]

October 19, 2003

Commercial Property/TriBeCa; Neighbors Object to Tower's Emergency Equipment

. . . And since the attack of Sept. 11, when fuel tanks for backup generators were associated with the collapse of 7 World Trade Center, a lot of attention has been drawn to the tanks that supply the 45 generators owned by tenants in the building. [emphasis added]

April 14, 2004:

Prosecutors Say Rescuer Stole Cars Recovered At Ground Zero

He did not go into detail but said that Mr. Bennette had spent much of Sept. 11 helping rescue people at 7 World Trade Center before it collapsed at 5:30 p.m. [emphasis added]

And, last but certainly not least, November 8, 2004:

A Hidden Story Behind Sept. 11? One Man's Ad Campaign Says So

The grainy 30-second commercials are eerie and cryptic, and they suggest a government cover-up of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. One implies that no plane flew into the Pentagon. The other suggests that 7 World Trade Center, which collapsed late in the afternoon that day, was detonated from within. [emphasis added]

From CNN.com:

September 14, 2001:

Verizon repairs badly damaged network and morale

. . .With heavy hearts, Verizon is trying to move ahead toward fixing its severely damaged West Street central office switch location, which stood adjacent to the Twin Towers Building 7 that collapsed. [emphasis added]

September 19, 2001:

Recovery effort moves ahead

Grubb & Ellis, a commercial real estate services firm, said all seven World Trade Center buildings either collapsed or partially collapsed as a result of the terrorist attacks.

The destroyed buildings included the twin towers; the 22-story World Trade Center Marriott Hotel; 5 World Trade Center, which housed the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and various judicial offices; and 7 World Trade Center, which housed the U.S. General Accounting Office, the OEM, the Secret Service and the Securities and Exchange Commission. [emphasis added]

November 4, 2001:

CIA office near World Trade Center destroyed in attacks

A CIA office operating at 7 World Trade Center was destroyed when the building came down after planes crashed into the twin towers, a U.S. official has confirmed to CNN. . . .

The official said no CIA employees were killed in the collapse of the building. 7 World Trade Center was one of a number of smaller buildings in the area that were destroyed after the twin towers collapsed. [emphasis added]

October 21, 2004:

Skyscraper reaches milestone at WTC site

No. 7 WTC was the last of the complex's buildings to be built in the 1980s, and was the last to collapse on September 11 after burning for seven hours.

From ABCNews.com:

September 13, 2004:

Rescue, Recovery Teams On a Mission

. . . A vigorous fire flared up today on the grounds of 7 World Trade Center, a 47-floor building that collapsed on Tuesday after the towers fell, and 12 buildings are known to have sustained damage from the towers collapse, ABCNEWS' Bob Jamieson reports. [emphasis added]

September 24, 2001:

Children Saved in Terror Attack

. . . The official evacuation plan would have taken them northwest to 7 World Trade Center, toward the danger. That building collapsed later that day. [emphasis added]

January 14, 2002:

Groundbreaking Set for 7 World Trade Center

Groundbreaking for a building to replace 7 World Trade Center has been tentatively set for Sept. 11 of this year, according to a published report.

The 47-story building will be rebuilt to approximately the same dimensions as the original, Crain's New York Business reported in today's editions.

The building caught fire and collapsed at 5 p.m. on Sept. 11, 2001, after two hijacked planes smashed into the complex's famed twin towers. [emphasis added]

The above are only a sample from these and other news organizations. Now, mjd1982, please explain again how the mainstream media was prevented from talking about the collapse of 7 WTC after a few hours.

 

[Hokulele]

Yes. This is what happens, to a significant degree. How many times will you read reports from a country which parrit what has been reported by "Le Monde", "The Australian", or the "New York Times". This is what occurs, though not all the time, to a significant degree.

Nope.


(Sorry prewitt81, it was the best word I could think of for this link.)

 

[funk de fino]

What???
Have a hard on for him? Excuse me?!

They have a hard on for bashing Bush

The point about the PM is not that power will not be criticised, but that there will be limits to such criticism. These are the limits to public discourse. You will read in the BBC about how there were "blunders", but not about how the Bush admin had decided to go to war with Iraq before 911, as reported by many, including his biographer. Even when these matters slip in, they are not "news". They are not treated as the relevant facts.

BBC is not the only media in the UK but in fact has reported simliar accusations that you have made. I agree Bush wanted to go into Iraq regardless, so what? Most people in the UK will tell you this as well.

Again, there are strict limits on what can be discussed. Have you heard of the Downing Street memo? Ask yourself why this isnt brought up every time the war is discussed in teh MSM

I see reports all the time of dodgy dossiers, lack of WMD's, poor intel by the americans that Tony was shown and blindly followed into Iraq like a little sheep. All the time. Tony is gone now, why do you think that is?

Precisely. Those bastard Iraqi terrorists. But you wont read about Americans killing Iraqis- that is the point.

Also reports of Americans killing Iraqis, and also killing UK soldiers? What limits are there? I watch this everyday just like you, you are wrong

Remember the huge airstrike in the first gulf war that killed hundreds of civilians? The bunker one that the US said was some sort of caommand bunker? Where did we see that reported? In fact where do we see all the blue on blue reported? ITV? CH4? Sky News?

LOL, oh pleeeeease! The Gilligan thing I mentioned in the OP, there is no better example of the PM than that, go back and read. The Levy thing is irrelevant, who gives a toss if someone was maybe offered cash for a peerage? This does not matter.

Poor attempt at avoidance, this cash for questions could potentially have brought the govt down as could the Gilligan thing? The fact it did not is not connected to them not being reported. Where were the limts here?

It is possible worse than UK.

Of no interest to me, as I said

I am posting this now for the 7th time. If you would care to be the 1st viewer, you will automaticalyl be more informed about the world than the rest of the jref

I have also seen video of him discussing your litle merry band of 911 men, he is quite scathing about your herd

 

[funk de fino]

Edited by chillzero: 

Editing out quoted post and response, as several posts joining the rest in AAH. Stop this bickering.

had stated in their biennial policy white paper, in September 2000, that the US needed “a catastrophic and catalysing event, like a new Pearl Harbor”, to initiate a radicalisation in military behaviour

They did not STATE that they NEEDED the pearl harbour type event to INITIATE A RADICALISATION IN MILITARY BEHAVIOUR

You have claimed yourself that the Pearl Harbour type event was propitious not that it was needed for the transformation, in fact, you said it was to speed up the radicalisation that would have happened anyway

So what is it? Do you need to edit this piece because it clashed with what you have posted elsewhere on this site?

 

[Horace Wheeljack]

The largest terrorist attack in the US results in the senseless and tragic deaths of thousands of people. Two huge skyscrapers containg many people spectacularly collapses.

The significantly smaller WTC7 collpases several hours later and nobody dies - mjd1982 cant work out why this event has faded into the background! Is he for real?

 

[Sabrina]

The largest terrorist attack in the US results in the senseless and tragic deaths of thousands of people. Two huge skyscrapers containg many people spectacularly collapses.

The significantly smaller WTC7 collpases several hours later and nobody dies - mjd1982 cant work out why this event has faded into the background! Is he for real?

Unfortunately yes. See, in mjd's world, he's right, and all the rest of us are sheep, no matter what evidence you present to him to show otherwise.

It's an absolutely fascinating trip into a human's capacity for self-delusion. It really is.

 

[Dr Adequate]

You havent understood the point. The collapse of the building was reported initially- i.e. in the 1st few hours or so. This was unavoidable ...

It was perfectly avoidable. All the NWO had to do was not blow it up.

 

[mjd1982]

From The New York Times:

October 2, 2001:




December 20, 2001:




December 25, 2001:




February 12, 2002:




March 10, 2002:




May 8, 2003:




July 13, 2003:




October 19, 2003




April 14, 2004:




And, last but certainly not least, November 8, 2004:




From CNN.com:

September 14, 2001:




September 19, 2001:




November 4, 2001:




October 21, 2004:




From ABCNews.com:

September 13, 2004:




September 24, 2001:




January 14, 2002:




The above are only a sample from these and other news organizations. Now, mjd1982, please explain again how the mainstream media was prevented from talking about the collapse of 7 WTC after a few hours.

I didnt say they were prevented, the point is that reports on it have been overwhelmingly censored. Of course, some info will seep through, such as you have posted, or such as has appaeared very occassionally in papers over here. This will inevtiably happen in any propaganda system large enough; its unavoidable. But the point is that this will not be news. It will not be commonly known fact, widely understood by a proportionate amount of the populace. If you watch the documentary of the PM, [url="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5631882395226827730&q=manufacturing+consent&total=89&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0]Manufacturing Consent[/url], you will see that this is a similar pattern to wat happened in Timor/Cambodia in the mid 70's. One was a US sponsored massacre, which got ~40 inches in the NYT over 3 yrs, and the other was a non US sponsored, proportionately equal massacre taht elicited ~1200 inches. Stuff will get through, but it will be grossly censored.

I dont think you can argue seriously that 7 hasnt been censored as I describe- we can agree that the overwhelming majority of westerner dont know about it. It is a rudimentary detail. This ilustrates that it has been censored.

 

[Pardalis]

I dont think you can argue seriously that 7 hasnt been censored as I describe- we can agree that the overwhelming majority of westerner dont know about it. It is a rudimentary detail. This ilustrates that it has been censored.

It wasn't censored, has Spitfire showed you. It's just an unimportant event, considering what else happened that day.

 

[mjd1982]

They have a hard on for bashing Bush

Within a limited spectrum

BBC is not the only media in the UK but in fact has reported simliar accusations that you have made. I agree Bush wanted to go into Iraq regardless, so what? Most people in the UK will tell you this as well.

The fact that these items are not widely read, watched and understood elements of current affairs illustrates the point.

I see reports all the time of dodgy dossiers, lack of WMD's, poor intel by the americans that Tony was shown and blindly followed into Iraq like a little sheep. All the time. Tony is gone now, why do you think that is?

Poor intel, precisely. Not false intel, as the Downing St memo proves. This is the point.

Also reports of Americans killing Iraqis, and also killing UK soldiers? What limits are there? I watch this everyday just like you, you are wrong

I advise you to compare a site such as Democracy Now, or Informed Comment, and their coverage of the war, with that of BBC. There you will see a small fraction of what happens, vs what gets reported

Remember the huge airstrike in the first gulf war that killed hundreds of civilians? The bunker one that the US said was some sort of caommand bunker? Where did we see that reported? In fact where do we see all the blue on blue reported? ITV? CH4? Sky News?

I dont remember that.

If you watched the vid i sent you, you will not be talking about the Gulf War. Watch it

Poor attempt at avoidance, this cash for questions could potentially have brought the govt down as could the Gilligan thing? The fact it did not is not connected to them not being reported. Where were the limts here?

riiiight... so an instance of petty corruption could have brought down a government. The Gilligan thing was serious however, and that is why the BBC were kicked back into line in the most severe manner. This is the perfect example of the PM. If you get out of line, you will face the consequences. That happened, and people, all the way up to the boss, lost their jobs.

I have also seen video of him discussing your litle merry band of 911 men, he is quite scathing about your herd

As I said, I have discussed this with him, and his reasoning is utterly absurd- I believe he has admitted to putting little thought into thism since he doesnt feel it matters. Nonetheless, his comments are of little value here.

 

[mjd1982]

It wasn't censored, has Spitfire showed you. It's just an unimportant event, considering what else happened that day.

Please read the post. There is a very clear pattern. On the day, and shortly thereafter, it received proportionate coverage- front page NYT, for instance. Shortly after, it stopped. Coverage of the other elements, such as the TT's collapse continued- analysed, discussed, replayed again and again and again- but on 7, nothing. It stopped. This is why no one knows about it. The PM will lead us to conculde that such a pattern will be indicative of the shielding of powerful interests.

As for whether this is something that should gt reported or not, you can do a little experiment that I do when I campaign- go out and ask people how many skyscrapers fell on 911. When they dont know the answer, tell them, and see their reaction. They will say, wtf. How the hell do I not know that, how the hell has that not been covered in the news. This is a standard response, and if you cannot empathise with that, then that is indicative of your bubble, rather than the dynamic of the outside world, I;m afraid.

 

[mjd1982]

The largest terrorist attack in the US results in the senseless and tragic deaths of thousands of people. Two huge skyscrapers containg many people spectacularly collapses.

The significantly smaller WTC7 collpases several hours later and nobody dies - mjd1982 cant work out why this event has faded into the background! Is he for real?

Its not that it has "faded into the background". Its that in the public consciousness, it doesnt exist. This is a rudimentary detail, and the fact that no one knows about it astonishes people when you tell them. This is the best barometer for the significance of the detail, whether it has been covered up or not.

 

[HyJinX]

I knew it fell. So what if everyone doesn't? Why is this significant?

 

[Pardalis]

This is why no one knows about it. The PM will lead us to conculde that such a pattern will be indicative of the shielding of powerful interests.

It's not because you feel it's important and should be talked about more that it proves that there is deliberate censoring of this event. It is still unimportant to the rest of the world (except structural engineers, architects and fire safety professionals).

I saw it fall when I came back home from work that day, and I'm not in the US. So I knew about it.

When they dont know the answer,

Is it important for everyone to know how many buildings fell on 9/11? why should it be important?

tell them, and see their reaction. They will say, wtf. How the hell do I not know that, how the hell has that not been covered in the news. This is a standard response, and if you cannot empathise with that, then that is indicative of your bubble, rather than the dynamic of the outside world,

Sure, if you tell them in a way that supposes that this collapse is a smoking gun, sure, people will react to it in this way. But if you don't imply anything when you tell them about the collapse of WTC7, most people will say '"oh, gee, what do you know..." and then they will go on about their day.

 

[stanleywinthrop]

Please read the post. There is a very clear pattern. On the day, and shortly thereafter, it received proportionate coverage- front page NYT, for instance. Shortly after, it stopped. Coverage of the other elements, such as the TT's collapse continued- analysed, discussed, replayed again and again and again- but on 7, nothing. It stopped. This is why no one knows about it. The PM will lead us to conculde that such a pattern will be indicative of the shielding of powerful interests.

As for whether this is something that should gt reported or not, you can do a little experiment that I do when I campaign- go out and ask people how many skyscrapers fell on 911. When they dont know the answer, tell them, and see their reaction. They will say, wtf. How the hell do I not know that, how the hell has that not been covered in the news. This is a standard response, and if you cannot empathise with that, then that is indicative of your bubble, rather than the dynamic of the outside world, I;m afraid.

So you are telling us that the collapse of WTC 7 (where no one died) should recieve just as much if not more press coverage than WTC 1 & 2, the pentagon, and shanksville?

And how is this not insulting to the families of those who died that day?

 

[Unsecured Coins]

I knew it fell. So what if everyone doesn't? Why is this significant?

Because the evidence of the cover up, maaan! The Big G Unit is trying to supress the information of WTC7 falling because if the people start asking questions, man... it's all over for the NWO.

 

[Horace Wheeljack]

Mjd, i know what you mean that people are astonished when they first learn that wtc7 fell, i certainly was when my truther friends told me. But seriously, does it surprise you that an event (where nobody died) doesnt exist "in the public consciousness" on the same day that thousands of people died horrifically in an altogether more significant building collapse?

 

[brodski]

. These are the limits to public discourse. You will read in the BBC about how there were "blunders", but not about how the Bush admin had decided to go to war with Iraq before 911, as reported by many, including his biographer. Even when these matters slip in, they are not "news". They are not treated as the relevant facts.

You mean the BBC treats this as “not news” by making it the lead story on the BBCs flagship news programme? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm

The facts don’t agree with your theory. You have a choice, change your theory or ignore the facts.

 

[funk de fino]

Within a limited spectrum

They are supposed to be neutral but yet they still display leftish tendencies, correct or not? They really do not like Bush

The fact that these items are not widely read, watched and understood elements of current affairs illustrates the point.

only in your own mind, you do the people of the UK a disservice

Poor intel, precisely. Not false intel, as the Downing St memo proves. This is the point.

How many whistle blowing undercover exposes on our govt do you see? loads of them? Look at the sleaze run of the Tories when they were in power? was none of this reported? how did we find out about it? how do we find out about incorrect intel?

I advise you to compare a site such as Democracy Now, or Informed Comment, and their coverage of the war, with that of BBC. There you will see a small fraction of what happens, vs what gets reported

I know what happens I have been there, I see what is on TV and I read media from all places, the BBC are not censored or cowed into not reporting stuff the govt do not like. I could just as easily use Infowars or Prisonplanet but they are a joke and they lie, do you use them?

I dont remember that.

Why doesnt that surprise me?

If you watched the vid i sent you, you will not be talking about the Gulf War. Watch it

Why would I not?

riiiight... so an instance of petty corruption could have brought down a government. The Gilligan thing was serious however, and that is why the BBC were kicked back into line in the most severe manner. This is the perfect example of the PM. If you get out of line, you will face the consequences. That happened, and people, all the way up to the boss, lost their jobs.

Yes, if the investigation had revealed that Blair had broken the rules nothing would have happened?? Where is Tony now? You have failed to answer this? Why?

Gilligan made stuff up, if he had not then the govt would have suffered? They were not censored in what they reported at all, this is your issue in your OP and that is what I pulled you up for

As I said, I have discussed this with him, and his reasoning is utterly absurd- I believe he has admitted to putting little thought into thism since he doesnt feel it matters. Nonetheless, his comments are of little value here.

He feels you and your lot do not matter? Much the same as most then? So you cherry pick Norm? Only what suits you eh?

He feels you are doing Bush and co a favour does he not?

also this snippet from your blog i believe?

So let me start by saying 3 things: firstly, it is an idea that is now believed by 50 % of the 9/11 victim’s families

really, do 50% of the families believe 911 was an inside job?