http://machinist.salon.com/feature/2008/03/17/true...
How photos support your own "reality" By Farhad Manjoo
Why do 9/11 deniers see an alternative story in pictures of the attacks? Because we all interpret images according to our biases.
TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum
Salon: Why do 9/11 deniers see an alternative story in pictures of the attacks? (22 posts)
-
Posted 16 years ago #
-
In case you missed Manjoo's previous hit piece.
http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2006/06/27/911_co...
The 9/11 deniers
The success of the documentary "Loose Change" spotlights the thousands of online sleuths who believe the U.S. government was behind the terror attacks -- to get gold, justify war, or serve Satan.
Posted 16 years ago # -
Yawn. Recommend: Don't feed it. Don't make me click on this shit unless it's at least the Podunk Register okay? I mean, what Manjoo-Magoo writes on a Salon blog about Phil Fucking Jayhan in 2008 is probably getting even less hits than what "Brainster" does at Screw Loose Change. And this stuff is such a dumb synecdoche/strawman approach, I mean just so unbelievably stupid, it fools even less people than "the pod" in the first place (and out of the same set).
Just my 3 cents (lot of inflation lately).
Posted 16 years ago # -
Heh, this reminds me of a riff I did on "confirmation bias" with regard to a very important element in the official story: Yosri Fouda's contradictory accounts of his alleged meetings with the alleged KSM.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboa...
I think you'll find the research in that thread quite edifying, but here are the funny paragraphs:
Before we go on with the "KSM" story, this seems like the right point to ask: Why would anyone serious believe uncritically in Fouda's story of the "KSM" interview, given the dubious details, the distorted audio tape as the only record, and Fouda himself copping to having lied about the date? At the very least, a researcher properly versed in skepticism would have to take an agnostic stance on the interview's authenticity, and avoid using it as anything other than an unconfirmed assertion of "KSM's" importance in the 9/11 plot, useless on its own. And yet many serious writers cite the interview as though it were self-evidently authentic.
The answer may lie in a phenomenon of the mind that psychologists call "confirmation bias." We humans have a powerful tendency to favor evidence, no matter how outlandish, that confirms our pre-existing ideas, so that we "see what we want to see."
The existence of dubious 9/11 whistleblowers who come forward with claims supporting an "inside job" provides us with a kind of controlled experimental illustration of this process. When a Sgt. Laurio Chavez claims to have witnessed elements of an air-defense "standdown" from CENTCOM on September 11th, those who support the official story of the day's events rightly scrutinize the claims and declare them unconfirmable, as they also do with the testimony of a self-described "New Jersey EMT" who has so far appeared only in the form of an e-mail claiming that he was at Ground Zero on the afternoon of 9/11 and that he witnessed evidence that explosives were used to demolish WTC 7. Yet the same self-proclaimed skeptics who dismiss Chavez and "New Jersey EMT" do not seem to take pause when confronted with the all-too convenient claims of a Yosri Fouda, apparently because these serve to confirm their idea that committed Islamist extremists must have masterminded the 9/11 operation. Perhaps scientists will one day learn more about the biochemistry of confirmation bias, and find ways to counteract its legend-generating effects.
Posted 16 years ago # -
(Dry humor, I know.)
Posted 16 years ago # -
I mean, what Manjoo-Magoo writes on a Salon blog about Phil Fucking Jayhan in 2008 is probably getting even less hits than what "Brainster" does at Screw Loose Change.
Hilarious.
But sad. He didn't used to use the phrase "deniers", and now that he is, this article just exposes what his "job" was all along. Anyone digging up that crap now is exposed for what they are.
Wild guess, but perhaps he gets 2 paychecks.
Of course, with most rightwingers and certain Democrat nazis, sometimes they just have so many issues with authority that they can be mistaken for someone getting a paycheck from their posts ranting on in defense of incompetence, while it's clear they know almost nothing themselves.
Posted 16 years ago # -
Dig around in Salon's archives and you will find Manjoo articles defending the integrity of electronic voting machines and emphatically dismissing allegations of fraud and and vote rigging. I honestly don't understand why they let him do stories on any subjects more important than reviews of "The Clapper" the latest refinements in electric can openers.
Posted 16 years ago # -
Wow! Its been a while 'who'. You are one of our oldest posters.
I'm always amazed at how few people think there was fraud in the last two elections. I saw an article the other day about why Obama might not win the general election. It supposed that Gore and Kerry didn't win because they were popular with the same demographic groups that will vote for Obama. Of course we know that this comparison really suggests that Obama will win.
How many more mainstream news outlets need to come out indicating voter fraud in those elections before it enters the mainstream awareness?
Posted 16 years ago # -
I'm always amazed at how few people think there was fraud in the last two elections
Which doesn't bode well for 2008. The elections now just seem like commercials -- things that break-up the program you're watching and feed junk at you for someone to make money.
Posted 16 years ago # -
The damage from impact in the towers was massive and the fire that insued was hot enough to further weaken the structure. The colapse originates at the point of impact and desends rapidly down through the structure which is not indicitive of controlled demolition. Building 7 did not simply catch fire then colapse from the the heat of the fire, it to had significant impact damge in conjunction with fire enough to further weaken steel support structures. Unlike the towers the structural damage starts at street level in a major gash on the south side extending to major cantelevered corner damge higher up. If the planes had hit the towers at then it stands to reason that in that event thier collape would have been more consistent with 7's collapse which more accuratly resembled controlled demolition in that the fundimental failure appears to have occured do to heat and impact at ground level as opposed to the towers in which the failure occurred mid way up the structure, everything above the impact damage and fire comes down consitent with controlled demolation but everything below impact it such that the remining structure becomes a basement into which the overburden crushes through all the way
Posted 16 years ago # -
The damage from impact in the towers was massive and the fire that ensued was hot enough to further weaken the structure. The collapse originates at the point of impact and descends rapidly down through the structure which is not indicative of controlled demolition. Building 7 did not simply catch fire then collapse from the the heat of the fire, it to had significant impact damage in conjunction with fire enough to further weaken steel support structures. Unlike the towers the structural damage starts at street level in a major gash on the south side extending to major cantilevered corner damage higher up. In addition 7 was visibly leaning several degrees of perpendicular toward the structural damage well in advance of collapse. If the planes had hit the towers at near street level it stands to reason that in that event their collapse would have been more consistent with 7's collapse which more accurately resembled controlled demolition in that the fundamental failure appears to have occurred do to heat and impact at ground level as opposed to the towers in which the failure occurred mid way up the structure, everything above the impact damage and fire is consistent with controlled demolition but everything below impact is such that the remaining structure is more sen ominous to a basement into which the overburden crushes through all the way down to bed rock. The real lie or conspiracy, or whatever, isn't the physical spectacle of 911 it is rather the factual evidence that the administration was well aware that there was going to be an attack attempted and they cannot show any measures they took what so ever to protect the public from that attack or prevent that attack other than issuing an executive advisory to select high level individuals to avoid travel on public air carriers. Why? IMO, Like Nero , they fiddled while Rome burned so they would have an excuse to persecute a perceived enemy. IN Nero's case it was the Christians that were his nemesis and Nero set his own fires, in the Neo Cons case it was Iraq and they allowed Al Kaeda to serve as their fire brands but it wasn't Afghanistan or Al Kaeda that was the true military objective that motivated their complacency , it was rather Iraq from the get go and they confounded reality to accomplish that goal to the point of criminality regardless of Sudam Husain's track record of tyranny and got the US is in a world of s#$t in doing so and in that way. JMHO
Posted 16 years ago # -
As an British man who grew up under the shadow of a long terrorist war waged against the IRA, I know that terrorists always admit to their deeds, otherwise what is the point. Terrorists commit such acts for a political or ideological causes, so why then would they not want to let us know about it? Have Al Qaeda ever admitted or even gloated about 911? If I had just murdered several thousand people and crippled the western hemisphere with fear not to mention committing all of this against what is perceived to be the most powerful nation on earth, in the name of my chosen cause, I would think I might like to gloat about it. Also could Al Qaeda get NORAD to stand down? If it's that easy how come the Warsaw Pact never figured it out?
Posted 15 years ago # -
OK, now I'm annoyed. You dug up this year old thread to make an off topic comment? That feels like spamming to me.
Posted 15 years ago # -
Ok, fair enough, like I said, I'm new to this (site). However, I would like to politely add that frankly from reading a lot of comments on this forum I find that there appears to be a good deal of in fighting. Wouldn't it be more productive to embrace everybodies ideas and to work together to get the truth. And, whilst I don't wish to offend anyone, I find that the way some contributors to this forum are dismissed a little condescending and some of the alternaltive theories presented in the face of their claims are no more worthy of pursuing and in some cases ignorant of the evidence. That said, I realise that I am very much in the periphery not being in the US and there may well be pieces of evidence I am not aware of or haven't seen. Oh, and by the way, that might be a year old thread to you but I have just read it, so just who decides the topics we are going to discuss? Actually, bollocks to it I think I might just find another organisation, not very impressed with this one. However, your cause is a noble one and in the end you want what we all want, the truth. Good luck!!!
Posted 15 years ago # -
Whatever. :?
Posted 15 years ago # -
Another thing that has struck me is that whilst I hace read a great deal of intersting, inquisitive and apparently well founded theories here, there are without doubt a minority, including the administrator that don't seem to be able (or willing) to present an objective, well reasoned argument; truthmover's last reply to me would demonstrate this. I think I'll join 9/11 scholars for truth!!!
Posted 15 years ago # -
I'm not a moderator here - but i have read your posts and find them to cross the boundary of what i would consider appropriate responses. You are making accusations - while failing to add anything of substance to the topics of the threads you are appearing on. It appears to me that you are here to pick a fight. I am unsure why you are choosing the topics you are choosing to BUMP to the top of the forum - but, you do appear to fail to make a convincing case of any kind - while reserving the right to insult the moderators here who, by their good will and patience, you are allowed to post.
you seem to forget you are a guest here
Unlike other message boards you will find that there are standards here that are very strictly adhered to.
You are correct that this may not be the right 'fit' for you, and it is my opinion you would in fact be happier posting elsewhere. You are correct that 9/11 Scholars would be a good place for your particular style of activism.
Posted 15 years ago # -
Again, whatever. :?
Thanks for helping out John.
Madashell,
Please go join the disinfo fest over at 9/11 scholars for truth. With your attitude, you'd fit in perfectly.
Posted 15 years ago # -
I was reading the comment by mad about whether or not Al-Qaeda admitted to the 9/11 attacks. I recall a video by OSB clearly stating he was responsible for the attacks. With regard to this subject, that would seem like an admission to me.
Posted 15 years ago # -
Actaully, initial reports suggest that he did the opposite.
"Bin Laden says he wasn't behind attacks"
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen...
Later we saw the infamous "confession video" which people in this movement have done a great deal to poke holes through. I for one would like to see the whole unedited video while sitting with an honest translator. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out that his "confession" was taken out of context or mistranslated.
At least that would make more sense that him denying it initially and then deciding later to take the blame.
Another subject that this movement has done a great deal of work to clarify is whether or not Al Qaeda is an organization that exists or operates independently of the influence of western intelligence organizaitons.
Nafeez Ahmed is someone who has very academically clarified the nature of Al Qaeda.
If interested in this subject, you might read his book, "The War on Truth."
http://www.amazon.com/War-Truth-Disinformation-Ana...
Keep in mind that Osama Bin Laden has never been charged with any crime related to 9/11, nor is he on the most wanted list for that reason. And also keep in mind the startling fact that the US government has never tried at all to offer any evidence that Al Qaeda is behind the attack. None.
Posted 15 years ago # -
Jesus, is this a government controlled forum by any chance? For the record I am who I say I am. Truthmover,JohnA, you are sad deluded, self opinionated people and you have my pity. Cant help but admire your style, though, confronted with an opinion that doesn't fit with yours or when asked to contribute something worthwhile you demonstrably have no answers or willingness to look for one. Hang on there's a thought, why dont you guys start your own 911 commission, i'm sure the Obama administration would love that!!! Adieu.
Posted 15 years ago # -
Moderator Comment
The post above very obviously violates the forum guidelines. The moderators reserve the right to delete crap like that, but in this case I feel that it provides an example of the kind of thing we don't want to see.
The TruthMove forum has a zero tolerance for anything resembling disruption or vindictive behavior. Regular posters can be assured that we will continue to prevent our forum from becoming a place where those incapable of being civil or those intending to disrupt are allowed to undermine the quality of conversation happening here.
Posted 15 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.