So, you believe in conspiracy theories, do you?

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: So, you believe in conspiracy theories, do you?

Postby Seamus OBlimey » Tue Jul 15, 2008 1:50 pm

Charlie Brooker wrote:
WTC 7 (oft referred to as "the third tower")
User avatar
Seamus OBlimey
 
Posts: 3154
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 4:14 pm
Location: Gods own country
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby MacCruiskeen » Tue Jul 15, 2008 1:56 pm

That "oft" is just typical. Brooker should be indicted for crimes against the English language.
"Ich kann gar nicht so viel fressen, wie ich kotzen möchte." - Max Liebermann,, Berlin, 1933

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feynman, NYC, 1966

TESTDEMIC ➝ "CASE"DEMIC
User avatar
MacCruiskeen
 
Posts: 10558
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby MacCruiskeen » Tue Jul 15, 2008 2:09 pm

Why isn't the truth out there?

The willingness of journalists to accept the establishment's view of the events of, and after, 9/11 is truly staggering, says Paul Donovan

Paul Donovan guardian.co.uk, Sunday October 5, 2003

One of the major weaknesses of journalism today is how easily some are seduced by power. The premier role of the journalist should be as a check on power; however, many seem to turn this dictum on its head and get greater job satisfaction as parrots of the official truth.

Nowhere is this tendency more prevalent than amongst Parliamentary lobby correspondents in Westminster. It has been the supine nature of many of these individuals that has allowed the likes of Alastair Campbell and co to become so powerful in spinning their version of events to the wider world.

There is much rubbish talked about spin when what it really amounts to is putting an emphasis on a story that is favourable to a valued contact and acceptable to the owner of the media organisation concerned. The easiest spinning comes of course when the interests of the source and the owner coincide.

The ease with which journalists are seduced by the powerful was nicely illustrated recently by Simon Hoggart in the Guardian. Writing the diary, Hoggart went into some detail as to why Dr David Kelly could not have been murdered. Justifying the depth of his analysis Hoggart stated "I mention this only because the internet mill, favoured by Michael Meacher in his researches into 9/11, will no doubt grind out more conspiracy theories." Hoggart continued, confirming his touching relationship with power, describing Lord Hutton's "soft, educated almost beguiling Ulster accent." In these few words Hoggart proved himself to be completely taken in by the establishment figure whilst dismissing anyone, like Meacher, who might suggest the whole train of events that led to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had more than a touch of coincidence to them.

For those who inhabit a world outside of the Parliamentary lobby, the views expressed by Meacher as to the way the whole 9/11 scenario and what followed so easily fitted with the Bush administration's agenda is anything but conspiratorial. In his piece Meacher quoted from sources across the media including the Times, the Daily Telegraph, Newsweek, the BBC and Time magazine. His crime for establishment journalists is in putting together the various pieces of information to come up with a credible rationale for what has happened over the past two years. The fact that the account seems so incredible is reflective of how poorly others in the have done their jobs in terms of informing the public.

Meacher is not the first to raise questions regarding the sequence of events post-9/11. John Pilger and Noam Chomsky have consistently exposed the truth and put the sequence of events of the past two years in context. Another is American writer, and former confidante of President John F Kennedy, Gore Vidal who in the Observer last year suggested that George W Bush will be impeached for his handling of 9/11 and events thereafter. In his excellent book, Dreaming War, Vidal continues to ask crucial questions that until recently have been swept under the carpet. He quotes at some length from retired US army veteran Stan Goff, who taught military science and doctrine at West Point.

Goff is astonished that people are not asking questions about the actions of Bush and company on the day of the attacks. As some will remember Bush went to a school on that day to talk to the children. In the US there is a standard order of procedure that once a plane has deviated from its flight plan - fighter planes are sent up to find out why. "The planes are all hijacked between 7.45 and 8.10am eastern daylight time. Who is notified? This is an event already that is unprecedented. But the president is not notified and going to a Florida elementary school to hear children read," says Goff. "By around 8.15am it should be very apparent that something is terribly wrong. The President is glad-handing teachers. By 8.45 when American Airlines Flight 11 crashes into the World Trade Centre, Bush is settling in with children for his photo ops at Booker Elementary. Four planes have obviously been hijacked simultaneously, an event never before seen in history, and one has just dived into the world's best-known twin towers, and still no-one notifies the nominal Commander in Chief."

At 9.03 the second plane crashes into the World Trade Center, Bush is told but continues with his school visit. Some 25 minutes later Bush tells the public what they know already; namely, that there has been an attack by hijack planes on the World Trade Center. At this time there is an airliner heading for Washington but still no fighter planes have been scrambled.

At 9.35 one of the hijacked planes does a 360 degree turn over the Pentagon, all the while being tracked by radar. "The Pentagon is not evacuated, and there are still no fast movers from the Air Force in the sky over Alexandria and DC," says Goff.

This is the staggering story of the events of 9/11. No reasons have been given for the Bush administration's conduct on that day, no one has been brought to account. Yet from the tragedy that was 9/11 Bush has been able to deliver for his backers in the arms and oil industries. The President has also been able to portray himself as a wartime leader. This is the real story that journalists should be probing at and uncovering, not decrying the likes of Meacher who has at least had the guts to stand up and say what many have suspected for some time.

Other untold stories from around the time of 9/11 concern the failure of Bush to sanitise the area around the twin towers and the fate of the heroic firefighters. After a recent visit to New York journalist Mike Marqusee told of how when the World Trade Centre was hit, the shoddy materials used to build the structure back in the 1970s were spread far and wide. These materials included asbestos and other lethal substances. Rather than close down the area, where much of US business dwells, the Bush administration preferred instead to keep quiet and risk public health. The result of this piece of negligence will become apparent in future years.

As for the heroic firefighters who risked and in many cases lost their lives trying to save people from the twin towers building. Well due to budgetary cuts many are now being laid off. Some reward for heroes.

Hoggart and other comfortable journalists have some soul searching to do and repositioning regarding their relationships to the powerful. It is sad that people had to wait for Meacher to put together the strands of 9/11 and where were those expensively paid New York based correspondents on the public health and firefighter stories. The job of the journalist demands more than simply parroting official truths; the public deserve and should get better.

- Paul Donovan is a freelance journalist.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003 ... eptember11
"Ich kann gar nicht so viel fressen, wie ich kotzen möchte." - Max Liebermann,, Berlin, 1933

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feynman, NYC, 1966

TESTDEMIC ➝ "CASE"DEMIC
User avatar
MacCruiskeen
 
Posts: 10558
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby 8bitagent » Tue Jul 15, 2008 9:16 pm

pepsified thinker wrote:But a few rebuttal thoughts: if the 9-11 NYFD folks, whose lives are not what I would think of as boring, raising questions, does that make their questions more credible? Or if the overall 'boring' quotient of 9-11 Truth folks is exceeded by those accepting the official story, does that show something?


...it's kinda interesting how Dallas and a grassy knoll are such central, enduring, potent turning point for so many.


1. For people to "question" 9/11, it has to be packaged into a sexy circus like comic book...complete with Cheney and Bush remote controlling robotic planes, guiding missiles, and holographic Osamas. This turns off even the most hateful anti Bush liberal.

When sensible, legitimate lines of questioning of 9/11 and following the money trail occurs(ISI involvement, Saudi Arabia, the movie Press for Truth, Peter Scott, Paul Thompson, Nafeez Ahmed, Hopsicker, etc)
it's banal..."boring". And sadly doesn't persuade the average "truther" nor the pro conspiracy swallower.

2. JFK truth has been reduced to "grass knoll" just as 9/11 questioning has been reduced to "controlled demolition". Keeping real conspiracies down to
cartoonish pop culture meme is quite an obvious tactical move to make sure justice and facts never see the light of day.
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12243
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby AhabsOtherLeg » Wed Jul 16, 2008 3:03 am

It doesn't seem fair to mock Brooker's writing, really, considering how rubbish it is. It's like kicking dust. There is a far more urgent need to disabuse him of the belief that he is an acceptable TV presenter.

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=8TTtPMy-7RY

Sad fact is that, in the UK at least, he's one of the best we've got. Not a patch on Sherriff John Burnell, though.

He's a real Sheriff too, like how Elvis was a real DEA Agent.
Last edited by AhabsOtherLeg on Wed Jul 16, 2008 6:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
AhabsOtherLeg
 
Posts: 3285
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 8:43 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby AhabsOtherLeg » Wed Jul 16, 2008 3:41 am

THE C.I.A.

"Employing hundreds of people
to turn a blind eye
to the murder of thousands...

since 1942."



Allen Dulles says: "We only need to employ a few hundred - the rest will
do it for free."

I had every intention of making a YouTube vid of this, with the Langley images, but it's getting late now. Or early, rather.
User avatar
AhabsOtherLeg
 
Posts: 3285
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 8:43 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Stephen Morgan » Wed Jul 16, 2008 11:58 am

MacCruiskeen wrote:One of the major weaknesses of journalism today is how easily some are seduced by power. The premier role of the journalist should be as a check on power; however, many seem to turn this dictum on its head and get greater job satisfaction as parrots of the official truth.


That reminds me, this is from Brooker's TV programme, although it's actually by Adam Curtis. It's very good.
Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that all was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes, and make it possible. -- Lawrence of Arabia
User avatar
Stephen Morgan
 
Posts: 3736
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 6:37 am
Location: England
Blog: View Blog (9)

Postby tom the mad » Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:36 pm

The Saga continues.....Dan Hind....

Who knows what happened on 9/11?Wide-ranging conspiracies do take place, whether you or I, or Charlie Brooker, are inclined to believe it or not

Earlier this week Charlie Brooker generated the largest number of online responses to an article in the history of Comment is free. His theme was conspiracy theory in general and the 9/11 conspiracy theories in particular – and it collected more than 1,700 comments. Brooker thinks conspiracy theories console those who find reality too dull and complicated without the garnish of a hidden agenda: "Embrace a conspiracy theory and suddenly you're part of a gang sharing privileged information; your sense of power and dignity rises a smidgeon and this troublesome world makes more sense, for a time."

Brooker's line belongs to a mini-genre of attempts to explain the public's willingness to entertain conspiracy theories in psychological terms. Indeed he is very close to that stern rationalist Melanie Phillips, who has decided that, in the absence of religion, conspiracy theories satisfy "our desperate need to make order out of chaos".

The conspiratorial world view does have its consolations. But so does Brooker's. There's a certain pleasure and drama in declaring that the world is driven by incompetence and error, and that things are more or less as they seem. You can preen yourself on how well-adjusted you are, how you haven't fallen for that stuff about lizards, or Illuminati. You have learned to live without magic. You're saying "I don't believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories", but you are signalling that you are sceptical and rational and that you don't have personal hygiene issues. There's a psychological pay-off for both the cock-up and the conspiracy theory of history.

Our willingness to entertain conspiracy theories is doubtless influenced by our life experiences. A man in his 20s with time on his hands is more likely to be drawn to the wilderness of mirrors that surrounds that death of John Kennedy than a successful columnist in his 30s.

But this is beside the point. Wide-ranging conspiracies do take place, whether we are inclined to believe that they do or not. It might well be consoling to believe that the CIA plots the overthrow of unhelpful foreign regimes. But it is also true. To insist that, say, the CIA had nothing to do with the fall of Guatemalan leader Jacobo Árbenz in 1954, or the overthrow of Chile's Salvador Allende in 1973 might feel terrifically sensible and sane – we can't always be seeing the hidden hand of the CIA, there's no call for reductionism. It is also, you know, wrong.

What happened on 9/11 is, in the end, a matter of fact – whatever our worldview might incline us to consider plausible or possible. The true authorship of the attacks is as difficult to establish as anything else about the world of international terrorism and espionage.

For myself, I have no idea what happened, because I have no more idea of how the business-intelligence-political nexus works than I have about what chess grandmasters are up to when they are staring at the board, looking all thoughtful.

The attacks on the US on September 11 2001 were part of a web of events that interconnect with oil, drugs, money, organised crime, imperialism, existing institutions and us. And religion, and a lot more money.

It might feel wise and sensible to declare that any explanation that differs from the official account requires hundreds of impossibly tight-lipped bureaucratic killers. But that presupposes that we know how the world works, and we don't.

Maybe the 9/11 attacks were all about a small team of terrorists who managed to hold it together in a world otherwise characterised by crossed wires and blundering incompetence. But I don't know, and nor does Charlie Brooker.

The most important conspiracy theory about 9/11 rarely gets mentioned by writers like Brooker and Phillips. In the run-up to the invasion of Iraq the White House made every effort to link Saddam Hussein to al-Qaida. Far from being a production of what commentators like to call the tinfoil hat brigade, this particular paranoid fantasy emerged from the work of a highly focused and skilled group of people.

They worked in secret to manipulate the American and the global public and we can trace the impact of the efforts over time. So here is a (true) conspiracy to promote a (false) conspiracy theory. The White House's psy-war operatives were doubtless a professional and measured lot. I am sure that they knew how to behave in socially appropriate ways and enjoyed their work. They also helped pave the way for an illegal war in which more than half a million people have died. There's a 9/11 conspiracy theory hard at work, right there. It doesn't matter what sort of person you are, whether you are coolly rational or groping around for meaning in an indifferent world, America's spooks conspired to stampede the public into war on a false prospectus.

Some of the same people are now working hard to convince us that Iran poses an unacceptable threat to the peace-loving nations of the world. If they can they will use conspiracy theories of various kinds to do it, all the while acting conspiratorially. So it is hardly surprising that people – intelligent, level-headed people – are willing to believe that sophisticated conspiracies exist and that they are sometimes extremely important drivers of events. Given that they demonstrably do exist.

And while elements in the American state angle for another war in the Middle East, Melanie Phillips and Charlie Brooker will doubtless continue to heap scorn on an irrational public. Which seems a little, well, paranoid, under the circumstances.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... eptember11

Comments.......234
tom the mad
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 3:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby orz » Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:42 pm

GOOD COP BAD COP
orz
 
Posts: 4107
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 9:25 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Previous

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Elihu and 45 guests