I think were living 'the truman show' (media controlled reality)

[jammin83]

do you think that most of what we know is largely based on institutionalization and the media? these people (for some reason) are considered our sources of information that have proven themselves to be heavily biased AT BEST. by what merit would you consider the MSM to be reliable? do you think its possible that its all bullshit and we have been put into groups that wage war on each other? do you consider the place we are at now to be 'organic'? since 9/11 onwards do you think we have been sold a narrative that makes much sense? is there anything congruent with reality?

i think its all fake personally. the world is a stage.

whats your take?

 

[cduggles]

1. No. What you know depends on who you are, where you are (Switzerland versus North Korea) and how much you care.

In the US (which is the sole country I'm considering below), I don't think most people are aware of current events, if you're talking about the news (a bit confusing if you mean television programs or the internet or "the news". I'm going with the news.)

Most people don't vote, know where Afghanistan is, who the Secretary of State or the Vice President are, or really care beyond their own interests and perception of the economy. So I don't think they're heavily influenced by the news media beyond the local weather.

I also think this is true for people (to a varying extent) who are aware of current events. Losing your job or health benefits takes precedence over understanding Comey's testimony.

- Statement response: Which of "these people" are heavily biased at best? There are excellent journalists and a few commentators who are not biased or very moderate. No not Rush Limbaugh, not Rachel Maddow.

Also looking at multiple sources, including international publications, is important to get a wide lens perspective. Finally, consider the subject; I wouldn't look for a report on a terrorist attack in a scientific journal, and I wouldn't look for analysis by some political pundit on Fox News.

2. Obviously some sources are more reliable than others and it's important to understand the biases of a source. It's all media, sure, but are we talking Wikipedia, The Economist, Foreign Policy or USA Today?

3. No. If we're being organized for anything, the media isn't doing it. The availability of many sources for news can broaden a person or they can align solely with sources that reinforce their opinions.

However, the "Mainstream Media" are businesses looking for market share and profits. Therefore, they are creating a product to maximize growth and monetization. Or in the case of books and newspapers, to survive.

Also, many major wars were waged before the mainstream media existed. Unfortunately it seems inherent in our nature. Some people have figured out how to make money off of some of them, but I don't think all conflict is planned in a smoky room. I would look at the Rwandan genocide, for example, and say that while the British laid the foundation for it to happen, the Hutu and Tutsis slaughtered each other (one a lot more than the other, but still).

4. Not very clear again. Strictly speaking, I don't believe organic produce is necessarily what a consumer thinks it is (e.g., apples) due to groundwater and adjacent land being treated with chemicals and the definition of "organic" issued by regulatory agencies.

And we don't still live in caves and hunt for our food and we can (usually) control heat for warmth and cooking. We also separate feces from drinking water, which is actually the singular greatest contributor to increased lifespan in the human species (seriously). And I'm not worried about being eaten by a wild animal as much as being in a car accident.

We can talk about food processing, but I am pro-pasteurization of milk and honey (killed people!) and anything else that needs it and anti-parasite. Also, I like pizza a lot.

5. I was in mid-town Manhattan on 9/11 so I'm starting by saying your question pisses me off A LOT from the jump.
Has the event been politicized? Yes. Was it exploited to further political and economic activities? Yes. And those things make me angry. But I have no idea what you mean about being "sold a narrative that makes sense"?
As a witness to the second plane hitting a tower of the World Trade Center and being able to smell it, and seeing people in complete shock covered in what looked like white powder- some bleeding from shrapnel and all of them walking miles to get home, I can say that the attack in New York City actually happened.

So if this is some grassy knoll conspiracy theory about the actual events that day and who perpetrated them, I'm going to come back and make a few more comments.

6. I believe there are things congruent with a reality that is tangible and consistent.
There are many limitations we face as humans. I also believe that as animals we are limited in our perception from natural night vision to detecting frequencies below the threshold of human hearing, like a dog whistle.

There is the question of whether other life exists in the universe and the level of atomic and possibly molecular organization as well as the intelligence it possesses if it exists, and what the nature of the entropic border of what we call the universe and what is beyond it is a mystery. Even understanding the generation of the force of gravity, on Earth and between celestial bodies is nonexistent aside from knowing it exists.

If the world is a stage, who is the audience?
Have you seen the Truman show? Humans were watching it. Who are they?

 

[-=SS=-]

Screen based technology, whether that be TV or internet, is such a potent instrument in manipulating states of mind and thought patterns in the population of entire nations. When you're immersed in its glow from a ridiculously early age and for extended periods of time, which seems to be the norm now, is it any wonder that people seem to lack any real critical thinking skills and imaginative/lateral thinking ability now. At its worst it's a direct tool for propaganda and social engineering, but even without that it acts as a cultural feedback loop which does nothing except lower us down to the lowest common denominator or degeneracy. Not that the radio is immune, there's an Ebay advert at the moment that uses the word threesome in it.. that's how far we've sunk.

9/11 shattered my ability to trust anything that comes from an illuminated screen and there has never been, or probably will be, anything on par with that event. To this day the majority of people have no issues with those events shown on the screen on 9/11. Two of the strongest buildings ever built crumbling into dust, and a third that just collapsed in on itself. It is my personal litmus test for individual intelligence - if you believe the official narrative matches what you saw on the screen then you're a fucking gullible retard.

 

[psy997]

Yes, consensus reality is a farce and completely manipulated. We are lied to and shaped, formed, and manipulated from the time we're born until we realize and shake it off. Even our parents contribute unknowingly.

Have you seen the Truman show? Humans were watching it. Who are they?

I'm not going to argue my point nor contribute more, so in a way I really shouldn't comment and start a shitstorm, but.... archons.

We are not the most advanced beings on this planet or in this solar system. That is fact if you are willing to put in the time to explore the inner world, from which you may then explore the outer metaphysical world. Shamanism was ubiquitous and concurrently practiced throughout the entire world as the proto-religion for a reason. You are ignorant or lying to yourself to say there is nothing outside of what we normally perceive in everyday existence.

 

[cduggles]

I saw the second plane hit and the towers of the World Trade Center fall in person. Just like the footage shows.

Or maybe everyone in New York City, D.C. and Pennsylvania simultaneously had a mass delusion about planes crashing. Chemtrails?

I believe that the architects (the actual designers and independent ones), demolition and explosives experts as well as the structural engineers who analyzed the event weren't all "in on it". Regarding the WTC towers, they concluded, in laymen's terms, that when a huge plane almost full of jet fuel hits a building, it's both a huge projectile and eventually as the jet fuel is ignited, a bomb. A really big bomb. And the heat generated by the explosion of that amount of jet fuel is sufficient to do the damage observed to a building with that construction from those materials.

I might be a "fucking gullible retard" according to your dumbass litmus test, but that explanation makes sense to me and somehow I'll carry on without your faith in my intelligence.

Why don't you link to the YouTube video you saw and the webpages in some weird font that provide the "real" story!!

If you think that isn't what happened you're a conspiracy theory nutjob or have serious mental issues. Put on your tinfoil hat and go forth.

There was a lot of film analyzed by a lot of experts yet somehow only the whack jobs can connect the dots. Thank goodness we have the benefit of your insight from bomb shelter #6 in whatever compound you live on. Keep that cyanide capsule handy and make sure you drink the Kool-Aid. Drink deep.

What happened afterwards was not an appropriate response by the US in my opinion, but what happened onscreen happened. Period. The alternative facts or far-fetched stories concocted by the lunatic fringe about the event or its perpetrators are just fiction to feed the whackjob mind.

 

[psy997]

I don't think anyone of the belief that 9/11 was an inside job or simply allowed are of the mindset that 9/11 was a mass delusion that didn't happen. Instead that the narrative presented and sold to the public as to the hows and whys were and are fabricated and meant to delude for the agenda of those who we may not even have knowledge of.

You sound extremely passionate regarding the issue, cduggles.

 

[cduggles]

You are ignorant or lying to yourself to say there is nothing outside of what we normally perceive in everyday existence.

Not so much with the reading, I guess. Try #6, it's right above the text you quoted. The whole thing addresses things we don't perceive in everyday existence that actually do exist and even specifically the possibility of intelligent life.

Let me know if you need any further help reading about my "ignorance or lying" about the things outside of what we normally perceive in everyday existence. Or you can explain it to me.

You sound extremely passionate regarding the issue, cduggles.

Call me sentimental, call me a fool, but watching a terrorist attack in which 2,000 people die horribly from less than a mile away tends to make one invested.

So when people disagree that it happened "as seen on TV" or that it was for the viewing pleasure of some audience like in a comedy movie they saw, yes it is something I'm passionate about. I'm strange that way.

The first poster discusses 09/11 and then follows up with a comparison to a lighthearted comedy in which a guy is in a reality show he doesn't know he's on at first.

I addressed the how the attack was politicized and the exploitation of it to further agendas (and here I mean by humans) in government and private sector interests.

I left some room for interpretation because OP wasn't very clear on what aspect of the event was hinky, but when the starting point is 09/11, it's usually a conspiracy theory thing, as it wasn't the first terrorist attack ever on Americans or US soil or the deadliest event ever (like dropping an atomic bomb).

9/11 shattered my ability to trust anything that comes from an illuminated screen and there has never been, or probably will be, anything on par with that event. To this day the majority of people have no issues with those events shown on the screen on 9/11. Two of the strongest buildings ever built crumbling into dust, and a third that just collapsed in on itself. It is my personal litmus test for individual intelligence - if you believe the official narrative matches what you saw on the screen then you're a fucking gullible retard.

I shortened and bolded for you. This poster believes there are issues with the illuminated screen upon which most people watched "[t]wo of the strongest buildings ever built crumbling into dust". Actually they didn't turn into dust, they left significant wreckage and a hellish smell, but let's stay on point.

I actually watched it live, not on "screen based technology" so yeah it's a point of contention when someone says I'm a "fucking gullible retard" for believing that the attack occurred as described in any aspect of its portrayal.

It was a bit of an "ohhhh, okay" moment when SS wrote that "there has never been, or probably will be, anything on par with that event."

I guess the Civil War with over 400,000 casualties, WWI aka the Great War in which 1.7 million deaths occurred, WWII with the Holocaust and aforementioned atomic bombs that resulted in 7.3 million deaths, the Korean war that created North and South Korea, the Vietnamese war that America lost, the Rwandan genocide in which 800,000 people were killed largely with small arms and blunt or heavy handheld objects in 100 days, the siege on Sarajevo (where events that started WWI began) during an ethnic conflict that resulted in the breakup of Yugoslavia, apartheid in South Africa, the Ebola outbreaks (yes, plural), and the introduction of HIV/AIDS into the human population either pale in significance to 09/11 or weren't taught in very very recent American history or SS wasn't paying attention in class or to "screen technology" or publications like newspapers or periodicals or the radio. I'm passionate about these things too.

So if the archons are watching all this for their amusement, I'd love to deliver a message. Let me guess, psychedelics right?

 

[Scrofula]

I remember the first time I flew across the US (in a real 737). Couldn't help but think, I really just accept that the East Coast exists. But movies and such, they can film those anywhere. How do I really know the map I've seen is True?

(This is before drugs) I watched out the window and how false the fly-over states looked and could not shake the idea that this was the same as that submarine ride at Disneyland: on tracks, while they wheel scenery past. Why did we have to wait so long? Well, the sets need to be rebuilt. SO really, the "farther" you go, the more dramatic the set changes, and the longer the flight. The bigger the view (ie, walking) the slower the pace, accordingly.

Even when getting to Atlanta, the humidity difference caused a fog in the cabin.

It would be fun to think you're special enough to justify the huge expense and enormous man-power required. But not if you're just cheap food tended to by sophisticated machines. Money might really be fake after all.



(I do know ain't nobody got a clue what's going on though. I would PREFER that the Koch bros were more than just two guys with a whole lot of money from cow-type businesses who will die soon, and that this was all part of some sekrit plan. I heard they kept that plan in WTC 7 but it burned up accidentally.)

 

[-=SS=-]

I saw the second plane hit and the towers of the World Trade Center fall in person. Just like the footage shows.

Or maybe everyone in New York City, D.C. and Pennsylvania simultaneously had a mass delusion about planes crashing. Chemtrails?

I believe that the architects (the actual designers and independent ones), demolition and explosives experts as well as the structural engineers who analyzed the event weren't all "in on it". Regarding the WTC towers, they concluded, in laymen's terms, that when a huge plane almost full of jet fuel hits a building, it's both a huge projectile and eventually as the jet fuel is ignited, a bomb. A really big bomb. And the heat generated by the explosion of that amount of jet fuel is sufficient to do the damage observed to a building with that construction from those materials.

I might be a "fucking gullible retard" according to your dumbass litmus test, but that explanation makes sense to me and somehow I'll carry on without your faith in my intelligence.

Why don't you link to the YouTube video you saw and the webpages in some weird font that provide the "real" story!!

If you think that isn't what happened you're a conspiracy theory nutjob or have serious mental issues. Put on your tinfoil hat and go forth.

There was a lot of film analyzed by a lot of experts yet somehow only the whack jobs can connect the dots. Thank goodness we have the benefit of your insight from bomb shelter #6 in whatever compound you live on. Keep that cyanide capsule handy and make sure you drink the Kool-Aid. Drink deep.

What happened afterwards was not an appropriate response by the US in my opinion, but what happened onscreen happened. Period. The alternative facts or far-fetched stories concocted by the lunatic fringe about the event or its perpetrators are just fiction to feed the whackjob mind.

Calm down mate, you're overreacting and overlooking what I actually wrote - I specifically made reference to the buildings (1,2,7), nothing about the planes, and that the issue is with the narrative/official explanation as to what we saw on the television regarding those building collapses. It happened, that's not the point. The issue is how exactly those buildings came down.

The architects and whomever put their names to the official narrative weren't in on anything, they just toed the line on the official story that's all. In fact they probably believe it just as the ordinary man in the street does. Whether you want to trust their word is your choice, personally I don't because what I saw on the television conflicts with the explanation they provided. I could talk all day about the two towers, but just to keep it short there is no way in hell no. 7 came down in the manner that it did due to pockets of fire.. it is just laughable. The explanation for 1 and 2 is plausible enough, but for no. 7 it's way beyond ludicrous. A building does not simply fall in that fashion, at that speed, from minor fire damage, period. And this was a government building no less.

Foil me up baby. I knew the first time I saw the footage it was highly suspicious, and this was when I was 14 on the day it happened. No prior conspiracy knowledge. Just an ordinary schoolboy.

 

[alasdairm]

Calm down mate, you're overreacting...

maybe find a way to not call people with a different opinion 'fucking gullible retards'?

alasdair

 

[psy997]

Not so much with the reading, I guess. Try #6, it's right above the text you quoted. The whole thing addresses things we don't perceive in everyday existence that actually do exist and even specifically the possibility of intelligent life.

Let me know if you need any further help reading about my "ignorance or lying" about the things outside of what we normally perceive in everyday existence. Or you can explain it to me.

Sorry duggs, I actually missed your exploration of phenomena outside our everyday perceptions! I wasn't specifically calling you ignorant or a liar, simply making a statement that to argue blindly against anything with which we can't see simply because we can't, is ignorant. Which, now seeing #6, you were doing the opposite of. It was a general statement criticizing the blind belief of human understanding, an idea and mode of thinking and belief, and not personally aimed at you.

I personally don't see the issue with comparing the events on 9/11 to the Truman Show. While on the surface a lighthearted comedy - maybe - there are strong and serious undertones throughout, the message in totale one of significance just as great as 9/11. Now, you may take issue with the specifics in which he's making parallels, but I think there are many valid parallels to be made between the movie and modern post 9/11 society.


In addition, no-one here is saying the events that you saw with your very own eyes didn't happen as you saw them. The only message being broadcast is that the circumstances and mechanisms behind the events may have been different than told to the world. I understand your passion and trauma in having personally experienced the towers collapsing, but allowing that significance and breadth of emotion to forgo all questioning of what may have happened behind the scenes to incite the falling is not necessarily the most logical path.

So if the archons are watching all this for their amusement, I'd love to deliver a message. Let me guess, psychedelics right?

It's not like that. It's more of a we've all taken on a social complex virus that compels us to act in ways that benefit others than our true selves. This isn't really an avenue to go down on an internet forum unless both participants are willing to devote exceptional time explaining their own points of view, how they arrived there, and how they may overlap with the other's. I don't desire to make that commitment and I doubt you do either. If anything, please don't allow my mentioning of the concept to taint your view of the 9/11 subject. The two as we speak are unrelated.

Interesting stuff in regards to the social complex virus though to look up if interested, check out the concept of Wetiko: http://www.kosmosjournal.org/articl...uses-and-antidotes-for-a-world-in-transition/

 

[-=SS=-]

maybe find a way to not call people with a different opinion 'fucking gullible retards'?

Well it is what it is. A building does not collapse in on itself with no visible resistance from the ground level, at near free fall speed, from minor fires. The official narrative says fire caused that to occur. If you believe that then you are gullible, end of story.

 

[Xorkoth]

Let's stop with the name-calling. "Retard", etc. I'm not going to issue any warnings but remember, please, to keep things civil. We can disagree without insulting each other.

Made some slight edits.

 

[cduggles]

Sorry duggs, I actually missed your exploration of phenomena outside our everyday perceptions! I wasn't specifically calling you ignorant or a liar, simply making a statement that to argue blindly against anything with which we can't see simply because we can't, is ignorant. Which, now seeing #6, you were doing the opposite of. It was a general statement criticizing the blind belief of human understanding, an idea and mode of thinking and belief, and not personally aimed at you.

Thanks and we're cool on my side. I assumed because you were quoting me above you were continuing "at me", my mistake. I'm actually very open-minded to how much we don't perceive or know and that extends into what are considered esoteric interests and I appreciate you recognizing that a great deal.

I personally don't understand why 09/11 is the fulcrum for change. Obviously it is important to me in a personal way, but the government building in Oklahoma that Timothy McVeigh blew up was also a very significant event.

However I do recognize that it's difficult for me to objectively put in a larger perspective because it wasn't something I observed from the footage. I openly admit this although it's perhaps paradoxical on the surface.
But unclear about which part of the 09/11 events are being discussed as a false or misleading narrative? Radicalized Islamist terrorists being behind it?
At this point, I've said my piece (and perhaps more!), but I don't understand the premise and it might vary between posters. All rhetorical questions.

The only message being broadcast is that the circumstances and mechanisms behind the events may have been different than told to the world. I understand your passion and trauma in having personally experienced the towers collapsing, but allowing that significance and breadth of emotion to forgo all questioning of what may have happened behind the scenes to incite the falling is not necessarily the most logical path.

I was definitely affected by what happened, but as a researcher, I don't just accept what is stated or base my entire opinion on one article I read. My opinion is a combo of my personal experience (seeing it), and as a result poring perhaps obsessively over the how and why.
I do think the geography of the military response was not congruent with events. In other words, it's a mystery to me why we attacked Iraq and to a lesser degree Afghanistan, although that made more sense.

It's not like that. It's more of a we've all taken on a social complex virus that compels us to act in ways that benefit others than our true selves. This isn't really an avenue to go down on an internet forum unless both participants are willing to devote exceptional time explaining their own points of view, how they arrived there, and how they may overlap with the other's. I don't desire to make that commitment and I doubt you do either. If anything, please don't allow my mentioning of the concept to taint your view of the 9/11 subject. The two as we speak are unrelated.

Interesting stuff in regards to the social complex virus though to look up if interested, check out the concept of Wetiko: http://www.kosmosjournal.org/articl...uses-and-antidotes-for-a-world-in-transition/

I will check out the link and perhaps at a future juncture we will both have the willingness and energy. Just don't count me out as a potential listener or learner.

And again, I was wrong to assume you were insulting me. After SS, it was a hopefully understandable mistake.

Best, CD

 

[alasdairm]

...from minor fires.

when you have to start characterising things like this, it just makes your case look even weaker.

this is not a minor fire (or minor fires):

it's entirely reasonable to believe that, as the joists/floors on one or two of the most heavily burned levels gave way, and the outer walls began to bow, the floors above would fall. the floor below could not then support the cumulative weight of the numerous floors above falling, precipitating the domino-effect collapse in a matter of 10 or 12 seconds.

alasdair

 

[Scrofula]

There isn't already a 9/11 Truther megathread? I'm usually afraid to even make jokes about jet fuel and steel beams. I mean, I could get in to this, but BL doesn't have the right Geocities feel, or font size small enough.

But epistemology, or even "fake news"--no wait, make that media in general . . . everyone knows Napoleon was short and had a complex about it.

 

[-=SS=-]

when you have to start characterising things like this, it just makes your case look even weaker.

this is not a minor fire (or minor fires):

it's entirely reasonable to believe that, as the joists/floors on one or two of the most heavily burned levels gave way, and the outer walls began to bow, the floors above would fall. the floor below could not then support the cumulative weight of the numerous floors above falling, precipitating the domino-effect collapse in a matter of 10 or 12 seconds.

In my last post I was clearly referring to WTC 7, not the twin towers, when I said "A building does not collapse in on itself with no visible resistance from the ground level".. I know you think I'm a fool, but come on.

The towers explanation is more plausible in comparison to 7, I'll give you that. But no. 7.. the official narrative of fire causing a near free fall collapse into its own footprint is total lunacy. The ramshackle brutalist archtecture of Grenfell Tower here in London burned comprehensively for hours, over the majority of its structure, and it still stands. Other buildings have burned in a similar fashion. But a few piddly fires in a superior architectural structure, on one or two floors, causes the entire structure to implode straight down.. no toppling or chaotic collapse as you would expect from uneven structural damage.. come on, really? You honestly believe that? The architects should have been sued into oblivion for such a poorly designed structure if that is the case!

It's beyond ridiculous. But hey, it's what the television said happened.. so it must be true.

 

[spacejunk]

I agree with cduggles; as far as i am concerned, there is not a whole lot of what is presented in mass media as 'reality' that cannot be understood with a bit of well-applied critical thinking.

Unless i'm missing something in what is being discussed here (i havent owned a television in ~15 years, so perhaps i'm not getting the point?) - i think it is the people who believe highly speculative conspiracy theories that are the ones being cynically manipulated.

Powerful people like the US president have latched onto all this conspiracy stuff and used it to make certain people think that the press is somehow the enemy of the people.
It's actually very disturbing in the way people unquestioningly believe that, and start talking about how journalists are somehow against them.

While i think it goes without saying that corporate press and governments use mass media to elicit particular responses from the public - that there is manipulation, dishonesty, corruption and fabrication in the news media, I absolutely disagree with the idea that the whole world (as presented by "the powers that be") is some elaborate lie constructed to fleece us.

For anyone that has had connection to, experience with or knowledge of the media and journalism should know that most media outlets generallh aren't masters of manipulation with the skills to accomplish what some people seem to be accusing them of; the sort of all-encompassing "truman show" creation of an entirely constructed - and bogus - "reality" that bares no resemblance to what is really happening in the world.

In my opinion, it vastly overestimates the competence of the media - and the bureaucratic nature of government - to pull such trickery off successfully.

The whole worldview that people get tangled up in when they go down the "conspiracy" rabbit hole - and the beliefs espoused by the so-called "truth community" (lol) generally is one of escalating suppositions about the world that is simply not based on evidence (or referenced, credible sources) but merely supposition.

I've watched a lot of conspiracy theorist stuff on youtube, and read a fair few books over the years - and as a student of history, sociology, politics and other related disciplines, i'm of the opinion that most of it is codswallop.
I'm yet to see a conspiracy theorist use credible references or display any of the sort of sound arguments that would be have any respectability in academic (or any sort of professional) writing.

The typical sort of argument you tend to see in conspiracy books (or videos, podcasts, etc) usually makes a range of (generally unreferenced, unvarifiable) claims - followed by a supposition that all these "inconsistencies", or "coincidences" must therefore mean [proof of conspiracy or elaborate disinformation project].

Rather than having the effect of informing people, it has the exact opposite effect; all this stuff is a major distraction from the real issues that - if anything - consolidates and reinforces the powerful positions held by the corporate and political elite.

The real conspiracies in our world - like the continued inaction on - and denial of - climate change, for instance, is utterly outrageous - and involves both corporate and political powers feeding us disinformation for their own nefarious purposes - but rather than focus on this, and hold people to account (politically, economically and socially) - we instead have these massive (and thoroughly ludicrous) conspiracy theories like "pizzagate".

Some of this stuff is fairly innocent, and betrays peoples' naivity and confirmation bias when it comes to processing and evaluating information, other theories seem like a deliberate ploy to distract people.

More than either of those, however, is the drive of conspiracy theorists to make a quick buck selling books or advertising space on their websites or youtube channels.
Conspiracy books seem to sell quite well in a time when publishers and authors are struggling to be profitable.
Elaborate conspiracy theories seem to have been consistently popular - especially in the USA - for decades.

While i think a lot of it can be fun to read and think about, i'm of the opinion that the vast majority of "truther" literature and opinion is false. Completely fabricated.
Which is more than a little ironic.

Now, i'm certainly not denying that the media constructs fictitious and elaborate narratives to support certain understandings of 'reality' - nor am i claiming that governments don't deal in secrets, cover-ups and outright fabrications (of course they do!) - but the problem with a lot of the conspiracy theorist mindset is this belief that everything has some dark, elaborate, underhanded explanation behind it, that everything is some detailed psy-ops project.

Obviously psychological intelligence operations do exist, but i think they are a great deal less prevalent than 'conspiracy' writers would have us believe.
Government, bureaucracy and mass media institutions just aren't that competent, nor do i think they have the means - or motive - to twist every bit of information presented to the public to fit these elaborate deceptions.

I personally think it is fanciful - and intellectually lazy - to attribute "reality" (as it is understood via the medium of news media) as some mass government manipulation project.
While i commend people for questioning what is presented to us, i think the critical thinking a lot of people put into assessing these things is radically misplaced, and that it often skims over - and misses completely - some of the obvious corruption that happens in the western world, and in doing so, distracts a lot of the public (or at least certain demographics or interest groups) with erroneous - and unprovable suppositions that serve only to divert people's attention away from the real and pressing issues that are ever-present.

The whole concept of "fake news" and the prevalence and popularity of conspiracy theories are actually quite disturbing to me.

The people who take Alex Jones - and Donald Trump for that matter - seriously are caught up in a world of mass deception and delusion that is more akin to the frauds those two nutters allege to be real - than any large scale conspiracy to mislead people.

Let's be clear here - Alex Jones makes a lot of money playing the character (so his legal representative claimed in court!) that he does on his show.

Trump also, is a professional celebrity who plays a role.
How much is real and how much is simply right-wing provocation and reactionary raving?
Where does the 'show' start and the unhinged bullshit finish?
It's hard to know, because they're both completely full of shit. It's hard to know what is a genuine lie, and what is an absurd exaggeration.
That's the nature of this sort of stuff - it's entertainment, and not serious discussion or dissection of issues.
It's not intellectual analysis, it's - for the most part - cashing in on people's desire for easy answers and frothing partisanship.

The sad thing is that more people don't seem to recognise this.

The other vital thing that a lot of people don't seem to get is that there is simply no such thing as "reality" or "truth" beyond what we personally - and subjectively - experience.

Two or more people can witness the same incident and have highly conflicting interpretations and understandings of what happened - even if they are all being completely honest.
This plays out all the time in history and in legal settings.
Perception, memory and interpretation of events are all subject to people's inherent biases and fallibility.

There is no one single truth for any event or social/cultural/historic/political perception of the world.
There are many truths, and many subjective perceptions of 'reality' that can then be easily moulded and manipulated by powerful forces.

There is propaganda - and deliberate disinformation - in the media, in political discourse and the public realm - that can be altered and manipulated to persuade or trick us into behaving or thinking in certain ways.

But i think it gives the ability of those forces - political, corporate and social - far too much credit to think that everything we are presented with in the media is some elaborate brainwashing cult.

 

[LiquidMethod]

We're witnessing a division. I see people who are very entrenched in the narratives promoted by the establishment and the mainstream media. It reminds me of the Matrix as they do fight to protect it, while often experiencing extreme cognitive dissonance. They will then project and claim that people who have conflicting opinions are experiencing what they are experiencing instead. It is kinda fascinating to watch as it is often very intelligent people that fall into this trap. I believe it's a combination of tribalism (fear of going against the status quo) and ego-protection. It is not comfortable to admit we were completely wrong about something or to dramatically alter our beliefs about reality. But people who like to be proven wrong are the ones that learn the most. With that said, everyone has their own lessons to learn so I don't judge or condemn someone from believing a certain narrative, but they better to be able to defend their position rationally when faced with conflicting evidence and rational counter-arguments. Officially disseminated narratives should not override logic but I'm seeing a lot of that lately.

Then there are the people that are starting to question the official stories of government/globalist mouthpieces. IMO anyone who still trusts the mainstream media after their election "coverage" needs their head examined. Alex Jones literally gave more realistic election coverage than the mainstream media. Alternative media is growing in popularity and a large segment of the population are starting to listen to other sources of news - the MSM will generally label these sources as Russian propaganda, fake news, alt-right etc. That's not to say that there isn't blatantly fake news or propaganda. It is just very ironic at times looking at the sources leveling these sorts of accusations.

As for "conspiracy theories", the term was created by the CIA in 1967, they wrote a dispatch that coined the term and recommended methods for discrediting such theories. The dispatch was marked “psych” – short for “psychological operations” or disinformation – and “CS” for the CIA’s “Clandestine Services” unit. It seems this was a direct result of people beginning to question the official story of the JFK assassination (The dispatch was produced in responses to a Freedom of Information Act request by the New York Times in 1976).

So that right there says a lot. The term is meant to stifle scrutiny of any official recounts and to discredit alternative theories (these days often simply by ridicule and dismissal). Many "conspiracy theories" turned out to be true (Gulf of Tonkin, Iran-Contra scandal, MK-Ultra, CIA black operations) so there is no sane objective argument saying that all conspiracy theories are false.

Where I agree with spacejunk is that most conspiracies are bullshit. This is for a reason. You can easily throw people off by disseminating misinformation, half-truths, misrepresenting claims etc. Many conspiracy theorists fall into the trap of jumping on every conspiracy without thorough investigation and they do a great disservice to legitimate truth-seekers and their cause. It allows people to easily discredit you: "If you genuinely question the official story you are one of the crazy ones"

9/11 is an interesting one. If you believe the official story 100% then you are one of the seriously entrenched minds in the system. Polls show most Americans are suspicious of the official story and with good reason. There are multiple reports from eye-witnesses on the ground that there were explosions in the lobbies of the buildings. Firefighters, police and even early mainstream media video reports stated this. That would explain the buildings easily collapsing. This is the most obvious with WTC 7, watching that building fall is surreal. One theory is that the 4th plane that crashed in the field was actually headed for Building 7. No plane hit but they had to "pull it" (in the words of Larry Silverstein).

Also here is something to test your knowledge of 9/11: did you know that a van full of explosives driven by Israelis was stopped by police that morning close to the George Washington Bridge? https://youtu.be/Ya7n6ItkUF8 Records were kept by the NYPD & FBI, as the occupants of the vans were questioned for a few weeks and then quietly released. The van also contained a sockful of cash and each occupant had a plane ticket leaving later that day to different locations. (Also worth noting in that video how Osama Bin Laden's name is already being flashed to viewers.. "We were completely caught off-guard but we know exactly who did it straight away")

Another van (also Israelis) was stopped after a witness saw them setting up in a car park across the river before the first plane hit and then celebrating after the plane hit the first tower, high-fiving, posing in pictures and flicking lighters. Those 3 men were also quietly released and later appeared on an Israeli talk show, stating their purpose "was to document the event".

Those are the facts minus the theory about the fourth plane. What is annoying is when people come up with all sorts of convoluted theories and start adding ridiculous nonsense into the mix. It causes people to switch off and then refuse to investigate the story. It takes a lot of research and thinking to separate truth from fantasy. It is not easy to accept that maybe a state we perceive as an ally, or even a small faction within our government could have been complicit in these attacks. It would take some really brazen psychopaths to pull something like that off.

Last thing worth nothing is that the think tank Project for a New American Century (PNAC), that was comprised of the architects of the Iraq War came out with a report called ‘Rebuilding America’s Defenses – Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century’

in which the group discusses the need for the U.S. to assert its military authority around the globe to secure its strategic objectives: “Preserving the desirable strategic situation in which the United States now finds itself requires a globally preeminent military capability both today and in the future (p.8 ).”

The report then continues to advocate an increase in military spending to enable this “military capability” as well as asserting one year before 9/11 that all this would be unlikely to manifest unless there was a “new Pearl Harbour” event (p.63). In addition, the document lists a number of regimes that the group viewed as “deeply hostile to America”. “North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Libya and Syria” (p.63 & p.64) are all pinpointed as enemies of the U.S. well before the illegal war in Iraq in 2003, as well as the illegal 2011 war in Libya and the ongoing proxy war in Syria.

Further evidence was revealed in 2007 that supports the thesis that wars are premeditated by the Anglo-American elite for years prior to them being launched. This was when retired four star general and former NATO commander, Wesley Clark, disclosed a plan circulating around the Pentagon in 2001 to attack 7 countries in 5 years. The countries named mirror the ones targeted by the PNAC group, as Iraq, Syria, Iran and Libya were all listed in addition to Lebanon, Somalia and Sudan.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

 

[Scrofula]

I think I have a theory about the whole thing. It's pretty long and complex, but I think it covers just about every aspect we know (of 9/11, since no one wants to talk about the nature of knowing, including me):

Ok, here we go: 19 guys got on four domestic planes and then flew three into buildings and a fourth into the ground. Thousands of people died. The buildings were destroyed.



Well, if you see any holes in that, let me know.