hairytesties said...
ever noticed the news on every channel is the same... every story is the same almost in the same order and all from identical view points...? the net is a massive quagmire of disinformation and illusion, but no more so than the mainstream media, atleast with the net everybody gets a voice, the truth really is 'out' there...
The reason the news stories are for the most part all the same is because tv channels simply cannot afford to have a news crew in all places at all times.
Thus the news network is like a big co-operative. Most stories are available to other networks 'at a price' from organisations which pool the stories and sell them to anyone who wants them. Thus your local staion has access to news from all over the world for a much lower cost. Without this the content of your local tv channel news bulletin would be the weather report and little else.
Sometimes a condition of use is that the story must hold the watermark of the originator.
The similarity of form and content is not because it's a part of a plot for world domination by some secret organisation.
I do agree though that sometimes the news reports can be hugely in error. This is not due to some evil plot though, it is just that old news is worth very much less than the latest news.
It's a bit like cow fodder, it's worth a lot less after it's been through the cow.
So sometimes accuracy is sacrificed for speed.
I am amused that you say;
the net is a massive quagmire of disinformation and illusion,
and yet in your previous quotes you direct us to a number of sites which I would describe as fitting exactly this description, "a quagmire of disinformation and illusion."
To determine if any scenario presented is a realistic proposition, just ask yourself;
What would be required to make this scenario work?
How many people would be needed to carry it out?
How would you go about recruiting this many people keeping in mind that 99.9% of anyone approached would immediately dob you in.
How would you make sure noone changed their mind afterwards when they saw the result of what they had done and the worlds reaction to it?
What would be the consequences for those involved if found out?
If the answers to any or all of these questions are implausible then the whole scenario is implausible.
Also, when assessing the reliability of a website, if the critical information that you are being 'given' is really just a whole lot of misleading questions, red herrings, then you can take it that the site has no real information but they are asking you loaded questions in the hope that you will pass them on as given facts, when they are not.
You do the same thing yourself where you throw in a whole lot of completely irrelevant questions and quote them as if they are critical pieces of 'information'.
e.g. You ask
"the EVIDENCE... who leased the exact floors on both towers where the jets struck...? "
Geez! What difference does that make? If they were leased by the president of the USA can you believe that a couple of mug pilots coming in on a kamikazie raid at top speed could pick out the 80th floor in a 110 floor building
and actually hit it ??? If you do, then you seriously underestimate how difficult that would be.
That two mug pilots could both succeed in this is incredible beyond reasonable belief.
Other things that various sites mention might be curiosities to consider (if they are true at all, because a lot of it is just plain wrong!) but none of the alternative theories I have seen come anywhere near satisfying any of the questions which I listed above.
)
HMMMPPFFF