Is the Mass Media Aligned with Truth?

[Eric Roosevelt]

Sure, I basically agree mainstream media can be quite sensationalist, perhaps sometimes even more than than ones you've linked us to, like "crusade-media" and "pilotsfor911truth".

I don't personally read any of those but I'm sure they could potentially contribute with some useful information.

Intelligence bureaus like the CIA and FBI certainly should be more efficient than they are, but they're not. It's a sad fact of human existence that no matter how advanced your gadgetry is, your organization is only as efficient as the organizational structure and the humans beings in charge.

[Angela Leeds]

Originally Posted by Eric Roosevelt

When was the last time you checked?

Much more recently that 2001.

However, I think it's probably more credible than, say, the completely unfounded theory that the airlines and top U.S. government officials were part of a conspiracy to attack their own citizens.

Hmm. Have you heard of Operation Northwoods? That's worth a Google for a start. IAE, it's an approach that's been taken many times throughout history -- not as rare as one would like to think, though certainly reprehensible.

Even if we assume that the government was behind it, it's very likely they would use an organization exactly like Al Qaeda.

There really isn't a formal organization by that name... it's very fascinating to discover what it is and how it started, such as it is in actuality. Its origin is with the US government, which repeatedly creates & funds it villains before it turns on them as scapegoats.

I already begun, and I'm enjoying it. I like exploring things like this.

I've researched a lot of fascinating subjects in my life, but this one takes the cake. The thing is to go from fact to fact and stay away from theory for the most part -- let those involved tell the story through their own actions and words, even as represented through mainstream articles rarely paid attention to. That's how a credible picture emerges. One doesn't need to listen to the ramblings & rantings of a single paranoid loon at any time.

In my opinion it's good to give some sort of coherent theory when making very serious allegations, especially given the amount of confusion and speculation around the events on 9/11.

There is coherent theory out there, but it takes research and revelation before it makes sense. Would be interesting to see how & if your perspectives change after a couple years of authentically "scientific" study...

[liamona]

Originally Posted by Angela Leeds

Hmm. Have you heard of Operation Northwoods? That's worth a Google for a start. IAE, it's an approach that's been taken many times throughout history -- not as rare as one would like to think, though certainly reprehensible.

Oh yeah, that.

Boy, if we start to dive into the various false flag attacks, this will become a long thread!

How about the recently-discovered information about the sinking of the Lusitania? That the Germans were right all along, it WAS carrying munitions, and wasn't just a "passenger" vessel.

This event was used to whip up anti-German sentiment (sound familiar?) and helped launch WWl, and "Americans were even told, falsely, that German children were given a day off school to celebrate the sinking of the Lusitania."

"Winston Churchill, who was first Lord of the Admiralty and has long been suspected of knowing more about the circumstances of the attack than he let on in public, wrote in a confidential letter shortly before the sinking that some German submarine attacks were to be welcomed." (Sounds a lot like the longing for a second Pearl Harbor, doesn't it?)

Well, it's a good thing that after a hundred years of this, people are finally waking up to the machinations of the PTB.

The thing is to go from fact to fact and stay away from theory for the most part -- let those involved tell the story through their own actions and words, even as represented through mainstream articles rarely paid attention to. That's how a credible picture emerges. One doesn't need to listen to the ramblings & rantings of a single paranoid loon at any time.

You talkin' about ME?

[Angela Leeds]

Originally Posted by liamona

Oh yeah, that.

Boy, if we start to dive into the various false flag attacks, this will become a long thread!

Very true. It's one of those awarenesses that comes from waking up to how much deception is built into politics. I mean, we all make jokes about how politicians are liars, but it's a rude awakening to discover how deep that rabbit hole goes!

You talkin' about ME?

Personally, I'm so not into reactionary loons, on any side of the fence.

[Eric Roosevelt]

Originally Posted by Angela Leeds

There is coherent theory out there, but it takes research and revelation before it makes sense. Would be interesting to see how & if your perspectives change after a couple years of authentically "scientific" study...

Quite frankly I'm going to use that time to prove that Elvis is alive so I can hunt him down and force him to hold a concert.

[Eric Roosevelt]

I will also read some more on the topic we're discussing, and inform you as soon as I have a change of heart.

[Angela Leeds]

Originally Posted by Eric Roosevelt

Quite frankly I'm going to use that time to prove that Elvis is alive so I can hunt him down and force him to hold a concert.

LoL...Knock yourself out, loll

[Angela Leeds]

Originally Posted by Eric Roosevelt

I will also read some more on the topic we're discussing, and inform you as soon as I have a change of heart.

FWIW...It's possible to start out researching something with strong assumptions already in stone & the intent to disprove their contradiction, and then to experience a converting paradigm-shift along the way. But a strong agenda to overcome makes that very difficult.

The mind works more judiciously if you can start out by convincing yourself that what you know is actually tiddly-winks compared to the knowledge out there -- that's scientific thinking. "Huh...what's this? And what's this...? And this?" That's objectivity in action. Being dispassionate when it comes to gathering knowledge is very useful...

[Angela Leeds]

Originally Posted by Eric Roosevelt

According to CBC ... Khalid Sheikh Mohammed[/URL] admitted in 2007 (not very proudly though)

Would that be the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who was apparently waterboarded 183 times in one month?

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Waterboarded 183 Times in One Month.

I might confess to the same crime if I were waterboarded 183 times in one month...

[Eric Roosevelt]

Originally Posted by Angela Leeds

FWIW...It's possible to start out researching something with strong assumptions already in stone & the intent to disprove their contradiction, and then to experience a converting paradigm-shift along the way. But a strong agenda to overcome makes that very difficult.

The mind works more judiciously if you can start out by convincing yourself that what you know is actually tiddly-winks compared to the knowledge out there -- that's scientific thinking. "Huh...what's this? And what's this...? And this?" That's objectivity in action. Being dispassionate when it comes to gathering knowledge is very useful...

My last post, of course, contains a small amount of sarcasm, although certainly not total sarcasm, as I am not opposed to new information per se. I may not be easily swayed from my position on theories about Elvis, 9/11 conspiracy theories, or creationism - for reasons I can spell out to you if you want - but that doesn't mean I'm not open to listening to the serious ones.

Scientific thinking really isn't just data collection. It's also about data analysis, and not spending too much time on minor details and discrepancies - i.e. seeing the larger picture. A complex event like 9/11 also requires common sense and probably some game theory (of which basic probability theory would be a component).

To be more specific, this involves analyzing whether the U.S. government would risk it's relationship with a strategic ally, the collapse of the Republican party, the possibility of logistical failure, the human death toll etc, given the rewards - and the easier ways of attaining those rewards.

For example if you think 9/11 was set up in order to implement the Patriot act (which is what liamona was suggesting), you'd have to consider the vastly easier ways such a goal could be achieved.

If you subject 9/11 to the same criteria as a controlled experiment you also have to account for uncontrolled variables and come up with some sort of coherent hypothesis before data collection.

I could mention a lot more, but these are some of the components that have to be considered.

Would that be the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who was apparently waterboarded 183 times in one month?

Yes, KSM apparently confessed under torture.

[seeker5]

Originally Posted by Eric Roosevelt

People who think Elvis is alive also know more about Elvis than most people, but when you look closer at the arguments and the evidence (for example DNA samples and traces of Elvis), you'll find that they're actually jumping to quite unreasonable conclusions.

I'll take your word for that. I've never met someone who claimed Elvis is alive. On the other hand, I have met rational, and intelligent people who do claim 911 is a conspiracy by the government.

The 9/11 conspiracy is certainly more exciting if you define exciting as "fascinating" or "attention-grabbing". It's big and different, whereas the theory that Al Qaeda operatives attacked the U.S. is more conventional.

One man's exciting is another man's dread. .

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by Eric Roosevelt

Yes, KSM apparently confessed under torture.

I'd tell you anything you want to hear if you tortured me enough.

So would anyone else..

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by Channing

Is the Mass Media Aligned with Truth?

I would say often they are not, at least not in important issues.

What do you think?

A teacher of mine made an excellent point about this issue. Basically, humans have evolved to notice changes in their environment for one main reason -- any change can potential mean danger. Changes therefore trigger at least an observational response.

All the media does is just constantly points out changes to us. The news outlets with the highest ratings tend to make these changes seem dangerous as possible. This forces our biological imperative to want to pay attention to their message.

Frankly, we aren't evolved enough to handle knowing about all the dangers present from all over the world. It puts us in a constant state of low level flight or fight -- towards events against which we can do neither.

Since only changes in reality that are be perceived as dangerous make the front pages very few media stories are uplifting: If it bleeds it leads.

I've personally been on a media fast lately (my main source of media was Reddit for the last couple of years) and have been much happier for it. The sole change of giving up media made my life go from feeling like a 7 to feeling like a 10.

[Eric Roosevelt]

Originally Posted by seeker5

I've never met someone who claimed Elvis is alive.

Elvis conspiracies are quite interesting, and certainly very creative. I think they may be dying down a bit nowadays, but they raised important questions about ambiguities and missing pieces of information surrounding Elvis's death.

Is Elvis Dead or Alive?

There have been lots of what you call rational, intelligent people who believe they can prove that Elvis didn't die (should join their ranks? I can't decide), but is actually alive and singing, or better yet - doing undercover work for the FBI.

I'd tell you anything you want to hear if you tortured me enough.

So would anyone else..

Aye, I think that's a fair point. Should be pointed out though that KSM also decided to plead guilty in federal courts more than one year after the torture, along with several other suspects. At the same time Human Right groups are trying to ensure that the pleads are voluntary.

There is other evidence against KSM as well. Ramzi Binalshibh's testimony, some possible evidence found on a hard drive, and KSM's history of working with terrorists at least tell us that this is a very likely suspect.

News | Human Rights Watch

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm not sure whether this evidence against him is absolute. However, I think it's fair to point out that he's probably a more likely suspect than anyone the 9/11 truth movement has come up with. Apart from the testimonial evidence, it pretty much stands to reason that Islamic terror cells would like to attack America (consider U.S. involvement in Lebanon, Israel/Palestine and Saudi Arabia, for example).

[liamona]

Originally Posted by Eric Roosevelt

Quite frankly I'm going to use that time to prove that Elvis is alive so I can hunt him down and force him to hold a concert.

I am so there!

[liamona]

Originally Posted by Eric Roosevelt

To be more specific, this involves analyzing whether the U.S. government would risk it's relationship with a strategic ally, the collapse of the Republican party, the possibility of logistical failure, the human death toll etc, given the rewards - and the easier ways of attaining those rewards.

No, the whole government certainly wouldn't do that.

I want to point out that I know a lot of people who work for the military AND the government. They are honest, mostly idealistic, and try to do a good job (some of them are so straight and narrow, you see why they were drawn to bureaucracy). I have a feeling that 95 to 99% of government and military workers are just like them. But there may be a small number in powerful, sensitive positions who aren't. They probably got too greedy, and now "their" party is in shambles.

For example if you think 9/11 was set up in order to implement the Patriot act (which is what liamona was suggesting), you'd have to consider the vastly easier ways such a goal could be achieved.

I've never said it was set up. I think actual terrorists had actual plans, and some psychotics knew about it and didn't do anything to stop them. They may get training and weapons from "School of the Americas"-type organizations.

I'm glad you mention the Patriot Act—aren't you the least bit curious how a massive 300+ page document sprang fully written after 9/11? If you aren't, then I can see why you agree more with the official explanations of 9/11.

As for easier ways to accomplish goals, like you mentioned in a previous post, we're talking about imperfect humans who may be what writer Andrew M. Lobaczewski calls pathocrats.

In my mind, 9/11 had too many similarities to other false flag events for it to be totally accidental.

[Brutha]

If you make connections between deep ideas yourself that releases positive emotions in your brain (whether or not there's really causation).
I don't think that using a bit of behaviorism in trying to understand why people believe the things they do is wrong.
If you just look at data without feedback mechanisms you are very likely to mistake noise for patterns and feel good about founding those patterns.

I'm glad you mention the Patriot Act—aren't you the least bit curious how a massive 300+ page document sprang fully written after 9/11? If you aren't, then I can see why you agree more with the official explanations of 9/11.

The fact that there are people out there in various thinkthanks that do scenario planing for various far out scenarios.
They for example did have scenarios for terrorists forging alliances with international mafia.

Additionally when your solution to every problem looks the same way (demanding a cut of civil rights) it's easy to have solutions when the crisis arrives without having to spend a lot of time writing bills when the crisis actually arrives.

Aye, I think that's a fair point. Should be pointed out though that KSM also decided to plead guilty in federal courts more than one year after the torture, along with several other suspects. At the same time Human Right groups are trying to ensure that the pleads are voluntary.

What he did a year afterwards doesn't matter much. All his reasoning about the events is effected by the torture.
Memories do change under pressure.

There is coherent theory out there, but it takes research and revelation before it makes sense. Would be interesting to see how & if your perspectives change after a couple years of authentically "scientific" study...

If there is such a theory out there why doesn't some person of the conspiracy theorits write that theory up and post it on the internet?

By the way liamona and Angela Leeds do you understand the idealistic argument on which the PNAC is founded (as in saying, when you make a few assumption they make sense)?
What about Osamas Bin Laden's philosophy written down in works such as Sayyid Qutb's Milestones?

[Kasha]

Originally Posted by Andrew Brunelle

If you turn on a channel like Fox News, you'll get something like this, "War, disease, famine, AIDS, death, homeless, recession, depression." Then you look out your window and hear crickets.

I agree with you 100%, and the part about the crickets made me giggle

[jackpt]

*jumps in late*

I believe the mass media is definetly aligned, just not always with the truth!

I see one major problem with the news pictue today and that is to few independent newspapers and television networks.

They are all on few hands.

This opens up for shady deals and corruptions in my opinion.

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by David Cain

Is the Mass Media Aligned with Truth?

Of course not. Mass Media is a collective term for thousands of businesses,

Thousands of Businesses? Not sure about that.

[liamona]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Additionally when your solution to every problem looks the same way (demanding a cut of civil rights) it's easy to have solutions when the crisis arrives without having to spend a lot of time writing bills when the crisis actually arrives.

Yep–like when your only tool is a hammer, every problem tends to look like a nail.

By the way liamona and Angela Leeds do you understand the idealistic argument on which the PNAC is founded (as in saying, when you make a few assumption they make sense)?

Yes, I can see why it makes sense to the founders. But they have to face facts: the U.S. will probably no longer be the premier force in the world, whose bullying is backed up with troops so other countries better do what it says, or else. Isn't that a good thing, though?

What about Osamas Bin Laden's philosophy written down in works such as Sayyid Qutb's Milestones?

I've heard of it, but never explored it much. Isn't it mostly about religious fanaticism? I swear most of the world's problems stems from it (Muslim as well as Christian Fundamentalism).

[liamona]

Speaking of mainstream media and its reporting on terrorists, I came across this gem:

Terror plot cops find 'bomb part' | The Sun |News

"COPS searching the homes of 11 terror suspects have seized bags of sugar — a common ingredient in home-made bombs.

Sugar can be mixed with chemicals to create an explosive for use in bombs and grenades.

Scientists were last night analysing it to determine if it was a secret bomb ingredient.

Eleven men — aged between 22 and 41 — are still being quizzed by anti-terror officers.

They were rounded up in a series of raids across Manchester, Liverpool and Clitheroe, Lancs, last Wednesday.

Security sources believe they thwarted an “imminent” attack planned for the Easter holiday.

Ten of the 11 suspects are Pakistanis in Britain on student visas. The other is British.

The sugar was taken from a house in Cheetham Hill, Manchester."

"Verily I say unto thee, you couldn't make this **** up, even if you tried, really, really hard" sez one of my favorite bloggers, Stef Zucconi.

Meanwhile—be vewy, vewy scaaared of dark-colored men bearing bags of sugar! Although the logical reason is probably that they scored them at a sale, you never know (btw, the picture that comes with this story shows someone holding a plastic bag full of little sugar packets. Scared yet?).

[Brutha]

I've heard of it, but never explored it much. Isn't it mostly about religious fanaticism? I swear most of the world's problems stems from it (Muslim as well as Christian Fundamentalism).

If you just label people as fundamentalist it's difficult to understand them. If you don't understand people you will have a hard time understanding motives for their actions and in the end what those people want to archive.

[GHI]

Originally Posted by Channing

Is the Mass Media Aligned with Truth?

Is the Pope a purple polkadot iguana?

Sorry... I couldn't resist, given the obvious answer to the original question

[liamona]

Originally Posted by Brutha

If you just label people as fundamentalist it's difficult to understand them. If you don't understand people you will have a hard time understanding motives for their actions and in the end what those people want to archive.

I don't think I need to study fundamentalism to understand them. I think despite differing beliefs, I have more in common with fundamentalist Christians and Muslims than not.

We have to be careful about our beliefs and joining movements, because the PTB are very clever at using them to whip up our fear and anger against other groups. Nowadays, they get co-opted very quickly by organizations with other things in mind (witness the co-opting of the "Tea Party" movement).

You know what I find very interesting? Back in the 80s when I was in college, there were a lot of students from the Middle East, mainly Iran and Iraq. They dressed in Western clothes, and were really happy and grateful to be here (despite their governments being destabilized by things like Operation Ajax).

They wouldn't be caught dead wearing their traditional clothes, because they wanted to assimilate to being Americans. They could still see the U.S. as a good place to be, and Americans as people to be emulated. Nowadays? Not so much (and I don't think it's solely because of new radical religious beliefs).