Social Question

kevbo's avatar

What do you think about the easing up of the mainstream media regarding 9/11 truth?

Asked by kevbo (24465 points ) March 10th, 2010

(... assuming you agree that’s actually what is happening). It seems like the media is giving credence at least to the assertion that the government’s and 9/11 Commission’s investigation were faulty and incomplete. Some recent articles:

Washington Times editorial on 1,000 Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

ABC News Nightline Story on the 9/11 Truth Movement in light of the recent shooting at the Pentagon Metro stop.

A leading Japanese politician and foreign policy maker is a conspiracy nut job according to the Washington Post. (He takes it a step too far, but it’s interesting to see how he’s skewered.)

List of senior U.S. intelligence officers, U.S. Congressmen, 9/11 Commissioners, and other U.S. officials including a former FBI director and the former director of the Star Wars defense program who are on record questioning the official conclusions of the 9/11 investigations.

Part 1 of an article examining worldwide media treatment of 9/11 truthiness.

Part II of the same article.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

47 Answers

davidbetterman's avatar

The mainstream media is owned and operated by the government and big money interests. As such, what the media has to say about pretty much everything is suspect, slanted and skewed.
It is fairly obvious to anyone who was watching that those towers came down in a manner quite similar to a building brought down on purpose via demolition.
And what brought down that other building, #7…the one in which no jets crashed into, yet it came tumbling down too?

Captain_Fantasy's avatar

Let’s assume I’m too lazy to read each of these links. What are the most pertinent talking points in these articles? Research papers suggest using links and references as footnotes.

dalepetrie's avatar

Let’s look at the range of possibilities:

On one end of the spectrum…The Bush Administration for WHATEVER reason, be it that it was an inside job sanctioned by the White House or that it was pulled off by Saudis and the Bush Administration hid the truth to avoid embarrassment and loss of lucrative relationships with oil barons…whatever reason there was, let’s assume Bush and co were hiding something, and the media was afraid to say anything bad about the President because of fear. Now, Bush is over a year gone and they’re no longer afraid to dig up some dirt.

On the other end of the spectrum, let’s point out that it’s been 8½ years (exactly at the time of this writing in fact) and this being the most painful event in the American psyche for most of the people alive today, maybe we’re reaching the point where invoking 9/11 doesn’t automatically provoke a knee jerk faux patriotism which makes some very short sighted and unwilling to even consider the possibility that whatever they think they know could even possibly be wrong.

I guess I think the later is more reasonable, because regardless of whether there was something that didn’t add up or not, this was an event that for people to even wrap their minds around, they had to build a story in their minds, complete with perpetrators, and had the media started to challenge the official story which most people just accepted because it was the easiest way to understand it, whether it’s true or not, it would not have been well met. This event had to recede far enough into memory to be “history” instead of a source of visceral pain before the masses would tolerate any real digging.

In other words, I think it makes sense that we’re seeing this now more than ever and I expect the trend to continue, but I don’t think it has anything to do with whether or not we’ve been lied to in the first place, I consider that a separate issue.

dpworkin's avatar

A crock of shit is a crock of shit no matter who serves it up. The people who are convinced that somehow a conspiracy this large could have been kept secret by the government are also the people who claim that the government can’t do anything right and would ruin health care. It’s called cognitive dissonance.

FireMadeFlesh's avatar

Why, 65 years on, do people still believe that Hitler gassed Jews? Because it is a well established fact! Why do people still believe that a group of frenzied, immoral Muslims were responsible for September 11? Same as above, it is the only plausible explanation, has no credible opposing evidence, and frankly is as solid a fact as you’re likely to get in international affairs. Sometimes there really isn’t more than what meets the eye.

dpworkin's avatar

I’m also fairly certain that human beings landed on the moon.

kevbo's avatar

@dpworkin, they’ve done plenty right for defense contractors, the financial industry, the US auto industry, and the healthcare lobby. I fail to see the dissonance except in cases where peoples’ naïveté give them the idea that congress is attempting to work on their behalf in the first place.

It’s called incompetence theory as far as I’m concerned.

I am equally as certain that we landed on the moon, if you are insinuating that I disbelieve that fact.

Snarp's avatar

@dpworkin Well said. I think I’ll let you handle this one, since I’m not in the mood to be pissed off at the flaming pile of burning stupid that’s bound to show up here.

Dr_Dredd's avatar

@dpworkin Exactly. That’s always made me laugh.

marinelife's avatar

The 9/11 “truth” is known. We know who the attackers were and we know who they were associated with. So there is no truth about to come out.

kevbo's avatar

@marinelife, what do you make of the media coverage, especially the Washington Times and ABC News?

Snarp's avatar

I don’t have time in my life to read this tripe, but I’ll tell you what I make of the Washington TImes in general: It’s a joke. A newspaper owned by a cult leader that has no journalistic independence or ethics. If you read it in the Washington Times, assume it is false until you have verified it with some credible source that is not run by the Moonies in order to curry favor with conservative politicians.

kevbo's avatar

@Snarp, I don’t know much about the Wash Times, but I see your point about it being a muckracking rag—a quick Google talks about how it is conservative but seems to have it in for the RNC which is “rife with dissension.” So selling controversy is a fair explanation.

marinelife's avatar

@kevbo I don’t make anything of the Washington Times, which now has no credible staffers in the wake of the Moonies firing everyone. (Source)

As for the ABC story, all it does is say there are people who beleive there was a conspiracy regarding 9/11.

May I point out that Bedell was mentally ill?

Snarp's avatar

@kevbo All you need to know about the Washington Times, from Wikipedia:

“The Washington Times was founded in 1982 by Unification Church leader Sun Myung Moon, who has said that he is the Messiah and the Second Coming of Christ and is fulfilling Jesus’ unfinished mission.”

“In 1996 Moon discussed his reasons for founding the Times in an address to a Unification Church leadership conference, saying “That is why Father has been combining and organizing scholars from all over the world, and also newspaper organizations, in order to make propaganda.” In 2002 Moon said: “The Washington Times is responsible to let the American people know about God” and “The Washington Times will become the instrument in spreading the truth about God to the world.””

majorrich's avatar

I believe the media is lightening up their coverage and message so that if/when another attack is made on American soil they will have another huge sensational story. But this time they can imply or say outright that we (American Devils) provoked the poor innocent heathens living in the desert licking the salt off each other into desperate action. And it was all George Bush’s fault.

kevbo's avatar

@marinelife, I’m not sure what your intention is in highlighting Bedell’s mental illness. To me, it’s used as a hook to tell the rest of the story, and maybe is intended to create “violent mental illness by association,” although that doesn’t seem to develop in the rest of the story and the people interviewed seem to disavow the course of action taken by Bedell. Am I missing your point?

@Snarp, I was ignorant of those facts, so thanks for pointing that out. I have to add at the same time that the article is factual in that there is a group of architects and engineers who are raising these questions. So far as I can tell, there is nothing inaccurate or false in the article.

davidbetterman's avatar

The people who are convinced that somehow a conspiracy this large could have been kept secret by the government…

Indeed. And the truly intelligent non-conspiracy buffs must surely realize that there could only have been one shooter, Oswald, who assassinated Kennedy. And he used a magic bullet, which blew Kennedy’s head apart and then magically waited in the air 3 full seconds before shattering the wrist of the Texas Governor who was in the front seat. Those stupid conspiracy nuts actually believe there was more than one shooter involved and more than one bullet fired at the man.
Why, taht would mean the Earl Warren, the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court at the time was a liar. And the report, 26 volumes, was a lie. And hey, Gerald Ford was on that commission, so he would have been a liar too.
Yeah, Conspiracy Nuts just haven’t got a clue. Conspiracies this large just couldn’t be kept secret….

Snarp's avatar

@davidbetterman You know, it’s entirely possible that we don’t know what really happened in the Kennedy assassination without it being a giant conspiracy. It’s quite easy for a mere handful of people to have been involved with that event, to have covered their tracks, and never to have told anyone. I don’t have any idea if that’s the case, but it’s entirely different from the kind of widespread conspiracy that would be necessary to fake 9/11, or the moon landings, or Barack Obama’s birth certificate. The sheer number of people who would have to have been involved make the likelihood of keeping it a secret pretty much 0. This is not necessarily the case with the Kennedy assassination (though it may be the case in the popular theories about the Kennedy assassination). The more people who know about something, the harder it is to keep it a secret. As a general rule, if more than 5 people know, you can forget about keeping it a secret.

davidbetterman's avatar

And just why would there need to be sheer numbers of people in re 911, but, ”It’s quite easy for a mere handful of people to have been involved with that event, to have covered their tracks, and never to have told anyone.

Sometimes those denouncing conspiracies of this magnitude are just parroting the lies told them by the conspirators…

Snarp's avatar

@davidbetterman Well, it might have something to do with the two giant airplanes that actually hit the buildings. But since we’re getting into the “parroting the lies” phase of the discussion, it’s time for me to bow out before things get nasty.

davidbetterman's avatar

@Snarp “Well, it might have something to do with the two giant airplanes that actually hit the buildings.”
And yet very few people on board those planes who actually caused them to hit the buildings.

Snarp's avatar

@davidbetterman Well, that’s true, but I thought that was the conventional wisdom truth about 9/11. Is there a conspiracy fantasy that argues that a handful of terrorists crashed two airplanes into the twin towers, causing their ultimate collapse and the death of thousands? Cause it would be really weird if there were a conspiracy fantasy that was identical to the true and generally accepted account.

davidbetterman's avatar

@Snarp
Isn’t that how a lie is best told? Keep it as close to the truth as possible.

marinelife's avatar

@kevbo My point was that the thinking of Bedell, who is a true believer, has to be considered suspect.

kevbo's avatar

Should we consider suspect the thinking of current and former congressional members Bob Graham, Patrick Leahy, Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Jason Chafetz, Mike Gravel, Lincoln Chaffee, Dan Hamburg, and Curt Weldon who all have publicly stated they have doubts about the merits of official investigation and its conclusions? Or Wesley Clark, Robert Bowman, Louis Freeh, John Loftus, and five or six of the 9/11 Commissioners who have all made similar statements?

I’m not saying they said there was a conspiracy. I’m saying they basically have stated they believe the official account is erroneous to the point of failing to reconcile (or whitewashing) certain facts and being indicative of a cover up. This is also the assertion of the architect and engineers group.

I guess the thesis of my question is that it seems the media is now allowing for public questioning of the “incompetence” and/or cover up of the 9/11 response and subsequent investigation. In other words, it seems to be more okay now than it used to be to say that “we don’t know the truth about 9/11 because the government screwed up or covered up the investigation.” I think it’s an interesting de facto concession between the points of view of truthers and sheeple (if we are going to resort to perjoratives for the sake of expediency) in mainstream discourse.

marinelife's avatar

I think it is that parroting the same garbage over and over again wears down the ears of the listeners.

davidbetterman's avatar

Those who refuse to hear the truth, though they claim their ears are worn down, will be forced to live with the lies

marinelife's avatar

@davidbetterman My argument against conspiracy theories in a nutshell.

davidbetterman's avatar

@marinelife Funny how it works both ways!

kevbo's avatar

I was going to say, that’s pretty much true with anything. Thanks human nature!

dpworkin's avatar

@davidbetterman You have long ago forfeited your credibility on Plurk. I cannot fathom why people address anything you post anywhere you post it. It is an enduring mystery.

davidbetterman's avatar

Probably because I make sense, whereas you just attack people like the old fogy that you are. Come out of the dark ages and attempt to enlighten your dismal gloomy self.
Besides, losing credibility with you is like winning a blue ribbon.

davidbetterman's avatar

@dpworkin
How can I lose credibility on Plurk when I have never been a member of said site?

dpworkin's avatar

If you had been on Plurk they’d have been sick of you by now, too.

davidbetterman's avatar

Seems more people here are sick of you than they are of me. Have a nice day, Grima Wormtongue.

dpworkin's avatar

Do you have a census? That would be fun to see. Too bad it would be a “poll” question. In the meantime it’s just like the rest of your declarative statements: no basis in fact.

davidbetterman's avatar

LOL…Just like you to beg for citations!

dpworkin's avatar

I confess. Sometimes you are amusing. Most of the time, though, tedious.

FireMadeFlesh's avatar

@kevbo “Should we consider suspect the thinking of current and former congressional members Bob Graham, Patrick Leahy, Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Jason Chafetz, Mike Gravel, Lincoln Chaffee, Dan Hamburg, and Curt Weldon who all have publicly stated they have doubts about the merits of official investigation and its conclusions?”

I am not aware of the individual statements made by these men, but the nature of bureaucracy means that not everyone is going to be happy with an investigation. I’d bet that none of these people believe the conspiracy theories, but are just uncomfortable about the handling of some minor details. We have the basic story right, but maybe one or two Al Qaeda members weren’t placed correctly on the chain of command. Unless they have said that the investigation was way off base, they are only arguing over minor details that the average person wouldn’t even know of.

Ron_C's avatar

We don’t know by whom or why Kennedy was killed. What makes you think you’ll find out the whole truth about 9–11 in your lifetime or even long after the principles are dead? The one thing our government does is hide the truth.

dpworkin's avatar

And Kucinich can’t fart and chew gum at the same time, although he does have a very lovely wife who has a tongue piercing.

davidbetterman's avatar

@Ron_C “We don’t know by whom or why Kennedy was killed.”

Are you saying it wasn’t Oswald?

kevbo's avatar

Russia Today’s coverage of the conference covered in the ABC News story above (in English). It’s interesting to hear that the Pentagon shooting and the designation of We Are Change (a 9/11 truth org) as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center immediately preceded the conference.

Ron_C's avatar

@davidbetterman I don’t know if Oswald was involved or just a dupe. Why would a minor, not very patriotic, criminal like Jack Ruby decide to kill him? The whole thing is very strange. I know that Arlen Specter was complicit in the cover-up and there is a good chance that Johnson co-operated with organized crime to knock off the president and attorney general.

davidbetterman's avatar

@Ron_C I agree. Ruby was an interesting character thrown into the whole mess. As was the Zapruder film, which shows Kennedy getting hit several times, including from the front, when he grabs at his neck, and from the side, when his head is blown apart and Jackie climbs half out of the limo to try to grab his skull piece(s).
Then, there are reports of gunshots and smoke from the grassy knoll and the railroad overpass. There is a bullet lodged in the curb. Several men are caught jumping a freight train heading out of town, and they all possess Secret Service badges, so the police let them go. The FBI claims to find the bullet that killed Kennedy in a stretcher in which he was transported to the hospital from the ambulance. The bullet is pristine and had never even been fired from a gun.
The list of anomalies goes on.

Ron_C's avatar

@davidbetterman “The list of anomalies goes on.” and I doubt that we will ever hear the real answer.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther