Do you trust the mainstream media?

1. 72

   ArtzGirlposted 12 years ago

   Do you trust the mainstream media?
   
   (9/11 Question)  What is your take on the fact that four (yes 4) separate major news networks announced the fall of building #7 BEFORE the building fell?

   replyreport
2. 61

   Moderndayslaveposted 12 years ago

   NO, Not one bit. If you really look at it ,it looks more like opinion shaping than news.
   http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/arch … r-and-read

   replyreport
3. 59

   Brandi Cooperposted 12 years ago

   I think all news sources should be examined and you should always seek a second opinion. For example - I would never take my information from FOX News alone, as it's incredibly biased, just like I would never take my info solely from MSNBC for that very same reason. Look for straight facts and then build your own opinion.
   
   As for the Building 7 issue, I wouldn't be quick to call conspiracy or anything like that on it. Just like with the Sandy Hook Shooting, there was a lot of assumptions that were made prior to the facts being found out, so some reporters reported on those assumptions - some turned out to be false while others turned out to be true. The fact that we live in an age where information is available instantaneously makes it all the more possible for misinformation or assumptions to be made available instantly as well. For example - there had been warnings that Building 7 was unstable and may collapse and so people were told to keep away from it. Reporters could hear that or get partial information to that effect and react on it - resulting in some reporting the building had fallen when, in reality, there was only the threat of it falling (so that, when the building fell, it seems as it they knew what was coming, when it was really just predictive reporting).

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Moderndayslaveposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      That seems to be the excuse they are peddling or back peddling.

      replyreport
   2. 74

      lone77starposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      The really awkward fact is that lots of people knew in advance, including policemen, Larry Silverstein and firemen. Plus, it had been prepared with explosives and thermate cutter charges in the months before 9/11. Free fall collapse tells it all

      replyreport
4. 87

   sparksterposted 12 years ago

   Why should we believe them, they changed laws decades ago so that no mainstream media outlet has to report the truth.  In addition, we should also consider the fact that when operations such as "seeking out Bin Laden" are really happening they wouldn't want to leak any intelligence data and put the operation at risk.
   
   You should check out the patents that were registered leading up to 9/11, they are certainly very interesting.  Also consider the fact that Bin Laden had been reported dead nine times before it was announced he had been killed by US forces.

   replyreport
   1. 74

      lone77starposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      And poor Bin Laden said he didn't have anything to do with 9/11. I'd have thought a master terrorist would love to claim responsibility after all the other things he admitted doing. But he was CIA and friend of Bush family.

      replyreport
5. 0

   savvydatingposted 12 years ago

   My answer is not a diatribe, but to answer your question, not exclusively. I get my news from various news sources. My favorites networks, however, are The Jim Lehrer Newshour on PBS, which generally presents both sides of an argument, and Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer, a highly experienced television journalist, who is also a decent and caring individual.
   
   There are others...but with enough news sources, one gets a pretty good picture of what's going on and what may be likely to happen in world events given patterns which occur in various regions with various leaders and prominent groups. For example, during the Arab Spring, I had my suspicions that the Muslim Brotherhood would take over the show, and not in a good way. And sure enough...

   replyreport
   1. 74

      lone77starposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      But are there only "two sides?" What if the "two sides" presented are only the ones the Corporate Party want you to know about? The best way to trap someone is to let them think they have a choice, but you own both choices.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      savvydatingposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      There are various sides... and many sources from which to garner information. But as I mentioned, I look at patterns of leaders, groups, etc., to make determinations.

      replyreport
6. 74

   lone77starposted 12 years ago

   I used to believe the mainstream media. Heck, I even believed the Bush "conspiracy theory" about 9/11, until a little over a year ago.
   
   But then I learned little facts like,
   * Mayor Giuliani committed a felony by destroying crime scene evidence (cleaning up 9/11 before an investigation could be done). That makes him complicit in a cover-up.
   
   * All of the military officers responsible for the security failures on 9/11 were all given promotions instead of courts martial.
   
   * Asymmetric (lopsided) damage never leads to symmetrical collapse, but this is what the U.S. government is trying to sell us about the 3 WTC buildings. Try forcing a tree to fall straight down through all that undamaged wood into a pile of sawdust, by chopping it on the side. Never happens!
   
   * Free fall collapse never occurs on steel beam skyscrapers unless all supports on each floor are simultaneously cut in sequence from floor-to-floor. And yet, the government (especially the NIST report) is trying to sell us on free fall collapse from asymmetric damage from office fires.
   
   * Jet fuel and office fires never melt steel or iron, and yet there are tons of iron microspheres (previously molten and atomized) in the 9/11 dust, plus numerous steel beams that show signs of high temperature melting and chemical corrosion.
   
   * And one Muslim physics graduate created 3 YouTube videos which use high school physics to show that the Minimum collapse time for each tower was 44 seconds if zero safety margin was built into the towers. Because architects naturally build greater than zero safety margin, then the Minimum collapse time should be far longer (hopefully infinite!). And yet, each tower collapsed in 10-15 seconds! Something was helping those towers to collapse.
   
   * Most of the PE (Potential Energy) in the 3 buildings was used to achieve free fall or near free fall acceleration. Very little or none was available for doing all the extra work performed on that day -- work like pulverizing all the concrete into a fine, powdery dust, bending or breaking all of the previously undamaged steel beams below and above the airplane collision sites, and heating up and blowing that concrete dust all over Lower Manhattan. All of that extra energy came from somewhere other than the original PE.
   
   9/11 was an inside job -- proven! If you think otherwise, then you're helping those who betrayed us get away with murder and worse -- the destruction of the American Constitution.
   
   Check out www.AE911Truth.org.

   replyreport
7. 53

   MissxCheekzposted 12 years ago

   No. They know everybody in this country watches t.v. Do you really think that they would put anything on t.v that's true when it comes to hush hush affairs like that? Think again. They put out what they want you to know. Why do they always play the most food commercials at dinner time? Every action is a thought out process, and were the goverment's test rats, and they only way their still able to do it, is because noone questions it. Everyone is oblivious and thinks, "their the goverment they wouldnt do that." They use that to their advantage.

   replyreport