Boston Marathon Explosion(S)

[MilitantDogOwner]

 

 

To be fair the Sandy Hook massacre official story does have more holes in it than swiss cheese so you're going to find all kinds of people jumping to all kinds of conclusions if the manufactured story in the media doesn't ring true. In my opinion the likes of Alex Jones do spin things wayyyy out of all context and credibility but again, that may be his role. He's so over the top and full of bs that it detracts from any genuine questions being asked which may cast light on any inaccuracies that may be present. Gaps in official stories don't automatically signal a conspiracy but they might highlight areas intelligence services and government agencies may wish to keep out of the spotlight.

The problem with looking for "gaps" is that you fall victim to "confirmation bias" where you only evaluate evidence that agrees with your desired outcome, and discard all other evidence because it doesn't meet your bias.

 

The WTC7 focus of some chemtrail-lizardman-truthers is one example - they become obsessed with this one aspect of the picture because it meets their desired outcome, and the involvement of plane-hijacking jihadists becomes an irrelevance because of confirmation bias.

 

Not strictly true. A very valid point in the WTC7 argument is that fact that the BBC News anchor woman was reporting it had fallen whilst it was still visibly standing behind her in camera shot. Now she was obviously reading from a pre-scripted piece which contained false pieces of information/propaganda and not personal observation. What that does is it causes people to extrapolate that to the wider picture regarding the whole event and question what other pieces of media (dis)information we were subjected to. From there you obviously get the nutters who take it to the extreme and say there were no planes hit the towers and it was just a super-imposed illusion, which is preposterous, but that shouldn't stop the totally justified investigation into what other facts or fiction surrounded the whole event.

 

True, but then its not like news reporters have been fed duff lines from an over excited or incorrect source before...and given the heat of the moment during the incident its not totally inconcievable that mistakes could be made live on air.

 

I mean Fox News screwed up the other day, by posting a picture of one of the Sandy Hook vicitims, saying that the person was involved in the Boston bombing. What actually happened was a mix up with stock pictures, but the conspiracy nutjubs jumped on it like it was gold dust, and immediatley there was more fuel added to the "Sandy Hook Haux" threads.

[Lxxx]

 

 

 

To be fair the Sandy Hook massacre official story does have more holes in it than swiss cheese so you're going to find all kinds of people jumping to all kinds of conclusions if the manufactured story in the media doesn't ring true. In my opinion the likes of Alex Jones do spin things wayyyy out of all context and credibility but again, that may be his role. He's so over the top and full of bs that it detracts from any genuine questions being asked which may cast light on any inaccuracies that may be present. Gaps in official stories don't automatically signal a conspiracy but they might highlight areas intelligence services and government agencies may wish to keep out of the spotlight.

The problem with looking for "gaps" is that you fall victim to "confirmation bias" where you only evaluate evidence that agrees with your desired outcome, and discard all other evidence because it doesn't meet your bias.

 

The WTC7 focus of some chemtrail-lizardman-truthers is one example - they become obsessed with this one aspect of the picture because it meets their desired outcome, and the involvement of plane-hijacking jihadists becomes an irrelevance because of confirmation bias.

 

Not strictly true. A very valid point in the WTC7 argument is that fact that the BBC News anchor woman was reporting it had fallen whilst it was still visibly standing behind her in camera shot. Now she was obviously reading from a pre-scripted piece which contained false pieces of information/propaganda and not personal observation. What that does is it causes people to extrapolate that to the wider picture regarding the whole event and question what other pieces of media (dis)information we were subjected to. From there you obviously get the nutters who take it to the extreme and say there were no planes hit the towers and it was just a super-imposed illusion, which is preposterous, but that shouldn't stop the totally justified investigation into what other facts or fiction surrounded the whole event.

 

True, but then its not like news reporters have been fed duff lines from an over excited or incorrect source before...and given the heat of the moment during the incident its not totally inconcievable that mistakes could be made live on air.

 

I mean Fox News screwed up the other day, by posting a picture of one of the Sandy Hook vicitims, saying that the person was involved in the Boston bombing. What actually happened was a mix up with stock pictures, but the conspiracy nutjubs jumped on it like it was gold dust, and immediatley there was more fuel added to the "Sandy Hook Haux" threads.

 

Which backs up my point that the media and the information it disseminates should never be taken at face value.

[The Bastard]

 

 

To be fair the Sandy Hook massacre official story does have more holes in it than swiss cheese so you're going to find all kinds of people jumping to all kinds of conclusions if the manufactured story in the media doesn't ring true. In my opinion the likes of Alex Jones do spin things wayyyy out of all context and credibility but again, that may be his role. He's so over the top and full of bs that it detracts from any genuine questions being asked which may cast light on any inaccuracies that may be present. Gaps in official stories don't automatically signal a conspiracy but they might highlight areas intelligence services and government agencies may wish to keep out of the spotlight.

The problem with looking for "gaps" is that you fall victim to "confirmation bias" where you only evaluate evidence that agrees with your desired outcome, and discard all other evidence because it doesn't meet your bias.

 

The WTC7 focus of some chemtrail-lizardman-truthers is one example - they become obsessed with this one aspect of the picture because it meets their desired outcome, and the involvement of plane-hijacking jihadists becomes an irrelevance because of confirmation bias.

 

Not strictly true. A very valid point in the WTC7 argument is that fact that the BBC News anchor woman was reporting it had fallen whilst it was still visibly standing behind her in camera shot. Now she was obviously reading from a pre-scripted piece which contained false pieces of information/propaganda and not personal observation. What that does is it causes people to extrapolate that to the wider picture regarding the whole event and question what other pieces of media (dis)information we were subjected to. From there you obviously get the nutters who take it to the extreme and say there were no planes hit the towers and it was just a super-imposed illusion, which is preposterous, but that shouldn't stop the totally justified investigation into what other facts or fiction surrounded the whole event.

 

Interesting perspective, but for me it just illustrates confirmation bias further.

 

You haven't linked your sources so it's difficult to comment on what you're talking about, but I suspect it's the bit of BBC footage that starts with the comment "details are very, very sketchy" - at the time, a number of news sources were reporting that WTC7 was either collapsed or on the verge of collapsing, so it would have to be a massive simultaneous orchestrated conspiracy involving a number of commercial news organisations with ordinary paid employees, which has been kept completely under wraps without a single leak of "pre-scripted pieces" by any of the thousands of people involved, but which failed to change the pictures in the background. More likely it's just because 9/11 was a huge, chaotic, confused event that was difficult to report on, with thousands of news sources of varying quality being hastily assembled into news coverage, some items of which were completely wrong when you look at it with the benefit of hindsight.

 

With confirmation bias, it's easy to focus in on WTC7 tinfoil-lizardman-chemtrailery, and to overlook the fact that much of the so-called "evidence" was off-the-cuff reportage which was just plain wrong at the time. There was some reportage at the beginning that a light plane had hit WTC, but nobody uses that footage to argue that jet airliners didn't hit the towers, unless we're all being chemtrailed into believing the subliminal advertising put in place by our freemason lizardman overlords.

[The Old Git]

 

Not strictly true. A very valid point in the WTC7 argument is that fact that the BBC News anchor woman was reporting it had fallen whilst it was still visibly standing behind her in camera shot. Now she was obviously reading from a pre-scripted piece which contained false pieces of information/propaganda and not personal observation

 

You haven't linked your sources so it's difficult to comment on what you're talking about, but I suspect it's the bit of BBC footage that starts with the comment "details are very, very sketchy" - at the time, a number of news sources were reporting that WTC7 was either collapsed or on the verge of collapsing,

 

Would the BBC news woman have even know what WTC7 looked like?

 

I've been to New York a few times and apart for the twin towers I couldn't tell you what other buildings made up the WTC. I'd assumed it was just the two towers.

 

I'm not surprised news was sketchy and mistakes were made in the reporting on that day.

[The Bastard]

.

[Lxxx]

 

 

 

To be fair the Sandy Hook massacre official story does have more holes in it than swiss cheese so you're going to find all kinds of people jumping to all kinds of conclusions if the manufactured story in the media doesn't ring true. In my opinion the likes of Alex Jones do spin things wayyyy out of all context and credibility but again, that may be his role. He's so over the top and full of bs that it detracts from any genuine questions being asked which may cast light on any inaccuracies that may be present. Gaps in official stories don't automatically signal a conspiracy but they might highlight areas intelligence services and government agencies may wish to keep out of the spotlight.

The problem with looking for "gaps" is that you fall victim to "confirmation bias" where you only evaluate evidence that agrees with your desired outcome, and discard all other evidence because it doesn't meet your bias.

 

The WTC7 focus of some chemtrail-lizardman-truthers is one example - they become obsessed with this one aspect of the picture because it meets their desired outcome, and the involvement of plane-hijacking jihadists becomes an irrelevance because of confirmation bias.

 

Not strictly true. A very valid point in the WTC7 argument is that fact that the BBC News anchor woman was reporting it had fallen whilst it was still visibly standing behind her in camera shot. Now she was obviously reading from a pre-scripted piece which contained false pieces of information/propaganda and not personal observation. What that does is it causes people to extrapolate that to the wider picture regarding the whole event and question what other pieces of media (dis)information we were subjected to. From there you obviously get the nutters who take it to the extreme and say there were no planes hit the towers and it was just a super-imposed illusion, which is preposterous, but that shouldn't stop the totally justified investigation into what other facts or fiction surrounded the whole event.

 

Interesting perspective, but for me it just illustrates confirmation bias further.

 

You haven't linked your sources so it's difficult to comment on what you're talking about, but I suspect it's the bit of BBC footage that starts with the comment "details are very, very sketchy" - at the time, a number of news sources were reporting that WTC7 was either collapsed or on the verge of collapsing, so it would have to be a massive simultaneous orchestrated conspiracy involving a number of commercial news organisations with ordinary paid employees, which has been kept completely under wraps without a single leak of "pre-scripted pieces" by any of the thousands of people involved, but which failed to change the pictures in the background. More likely it's just because 9/11 was a huge, chaotic, confused event that was difficult to report on, with thousands of news sources of varying quality being hastily assembled into news coverage, some items of which were completely wrong when you look at it with the benefit of hindsight.

 

With confirmation bias, it's easy to focus in on WTC7 tinfoil-lizardman-chemtrailery, and to overlook the fact that much of the so-called "evidence" was off-the-cuff reportage which was just plain wrong at the time. There was some reportage at the beginning that a light plane had hit WTC, but nobody uses that footage to argue that jet airliners didn't hit the towers, unless we're all being chemtrailed into believing the subliminal advertising put in place by our freemason lizardman overlords.

 

Why do you keep banging on about this 'confirmation bias.'? To be sceptical about government propaganda and media reporting doesn't mean you have to believe nutters like Alex Jones or David Icke's crackpot theory's about lizards or evil chemtrails poisoning us. To question official orthodoxy you don't have to be looking for confirmation of anything. Scepticism of all kinds of authority is healthy.

[The Bastard]

Skepticism is healthy, as long as it's not selective. The reason I'm banging on about "confirmation bias" is that it's a vital tool in understanding the rationale behind lots of the arguments advanced by tinfoil-chemtrailers (and probably also by the official sources to some degree).

 

It seems that the "truthers" are becoming a religious cult, where it's accepted that the "government version" can be questioned to the nth degree, but their own version of "the truth" can not. Any arguments to the contrary can be countered with "aha ! but that's what the government WANTS you to believe" - any website suggesting evidence to the contrary can be sat on as "government websites", a bit like the old religious arguments that all ended with "because god did it" - "because the government did it" ?

 

I'm not a fan of religion in any sense, whether it's christianity or 9/11-chemtrail-lizardman. I agree totally that skepticism of authority is healthy, but that needs to include any kind of authority.

[Lxxx]

Skepticism is healthy, as long as it's not selective. The reason I'm banging on about "confirmation bias" is that it's a vital tool in understanding the rationale behind lots of the arguments advanced by tinfoil-chemtrailers (and probably also by the official sources to some degree).

 

It seems that the "truthers" are becoming a religious cult, where it's accepted that the "government version" can be questioned to the nth degree, but their own version of "the truth" can not. Any arguments to the contrary can be countered with "aha ! but that's what the government WANTS you to believe" - any website suggesting evidence to the contrary can be sat on as "government websites", a bit like the old religious arguments that all ended with "because god did it" - "because the government did it" ?

 

I'm not a fan of religion in any sense, whether it's christianity or 9/11-chemtrail-lizardman. I agree totally that skepticism of authority is healthy, but that needs to include any kind of authority.

 

I'm interested as to why you continue to use the term 'tinfoil-chemtrailers-lizardman'? As if anyone who deviates from the official party line is somehow a fringe lunatic. It's making your argument fall down with the continual reference to oddballs to back up your theory.

 

ETA: George Carlin sums it up rather well. You don't need to be one of these loony 'truthers' you keep banging on about, whoever they are, to cut through the bullshit.

 

[Max Power]

I like George Carlin, good entertainment with a certain amount of truth thrown in for good measure.

What he doesn't address is how would anything work if we didn't have bosses?

[Lxxx]

I like George Carlin, good entertainment with a certain amount of truth thrown in for good measure.

What he doesn't address is how would anything work if we didn't have bosses?

 

Bosses as in people who alternate between business and government, like in the Isle of Man with the Sefton Group.

 

But yes, George Carlin is good value.

[Blade Runner]

 

Jones does play his role very well, as the drum beater for the right wing conspiracy theorists. He delivers exactly what they want to hear in the tone they like it delivered in. The guy is a tosser and discredits some of the admittedly good information he sometimes imparts simply because it comes out of his mouth or via his show. Which in my view is his job.

 

Say what you want about Alex Jones, but he's 10 times better than any of the rubbish in the mainstream media.

 

I have not seen much of his stuff but I just have one question to help me understand the man.

 

Would Alex Jones be any better than Michael Moore was in a farting contest with Peter Griffin?

 

Moore started well but in the end Griffin blew him away.

 

Jones looks like he does not visit the salad bar very often so could he win?

[Thomas Jefferson]

I'm not so sure. I think some of his reporting on the massacre of children at Sandy Hook Elementary is disgusting, accusing bereaved parents of being hoaxers in some grand tinfoil-hat-truthers-chemtrail-lizardman scheme.

 

As a result, an elderly man that sheltered some of the kids who escaped the massacre scene reports that he's being harassed by chemtrail-lizardman loonies.

 

Can't say that that's really better than "rubbish" from the mainstream media.

 

 

Are you suggesting the mainstream media hasn't done disgusting reporting, made accusations, implied people were guilty before a fair trial, or demonised certain communities who have then been targeted -- often with violence -- by loonies? The mainstream media has plenty of loonies in their audience.

 

I found the mainstream media's reporting of the Sandy Hook shooting to be disgusting too. The way they politicised it and manipulated the victims' families to advance a political agenda was really sick.

[Thomas Jefferson]

Alex Jones is a moron. If you can take him seriously after his "Promethius is Illuminati subliminal message" bollocks, you're an even bigger moron than he his.

 

Most Hollywood films contain subliminal messaging. If you don't believe that, you might want to read up on Edward Bernays (Sigmund Freud's nephew), "crowd psychology"and the origins of the Public Relations industry.

[Thomas Jefferson]

A very valid point in the WTC7 argument is that fact that the BBC News anchor woman was reporting it had fallen whilst it was still visibly standing behind her in camera shot. Now she was obviously reading from a pre-scripted piece which contained false pieces of information/propaganda and not personal observation.

 

Do you really think they'd be stupid enough to send out their plan to collapse Building 7 to the international media BEFORE actually doing it? This has to be one of the most ridiculous claims made by 9/11 truthers.

 

That being said, I suspect, though not unreservedly, that the US intelligence services deliberately "stepped back" and allowed 9/11 to happen. That's not to say that everyone in the intelligence services was complicit. It is my understanding --- I could be in error --- that the people lower down the chain of command thought it was part of a drill; which, coincidentally, involved hijacked planes flying into a skyscraper in Manhattan.

[mojomonkey]

What ever happened to PaulD and his tinfoil hat postings on 9/11?