911 TRUTH Alive, Well, and Growing

[Kalun D]

The Media Response to the Growing Influence of the 9/11 Truth Movement, Part II
A Survey of Attitude Change in 2009-2010, by Elizabeth Woodworth

Abstract
In the past year, in response to emerging independent science on the 9/11 attacks, nine corporate, seven public, and two independent media outlets aired analytic programs investigating the official account.

Increasingly, the issue is treated as a scientific controversy worthy of debate, rather than as a "conspiracy theory" ignoring science and common sense.
This essay presents these media analyses in the form of 18 case studies.

Eight countries – Britain, Canada, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway and Russia – have allowed their publicly-owned broadcasting stations to air the full spectrum of evidence challenging the truth of the official account of 9/11.

This more open approach taken in the international media – I could also have included the Japanese media – might be a sign that worldwide public and corporate media organizations are positioning themselves, and preparing their audiences, for a possible revelation of the truth of the claim that forces within the US government were complicit in the attacks – a revelation that would call into question the publicly given rationale for the military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

The evidence now being explored in the international media may pave the way for the US media to take an in-depth look at the implications of what is now known about 9/11, and to re-examine the country's foreign and domestic policies in the light of this knowledge.

[greyl]

1. Formalized bullshit, sleight of word.

Anyone in 2010 purporting to be in favor of discovering truth about 9/11 who refers to shit like Loose Change, Richard Gage, and D.R. Griffin can't be taken seriously.

Have you ruled out the possibility that "Woodworth" is a blackops construct?

Is media coverage and attention more important than a coherent collection of evidence?

[Kalun D]

3. the usual suspects

damn, now I remember why I quit posting to the dungeon, it's fricking stale enough in here to choke a corpse

Opposition noise, didn't even read the article or wouldn't have given such an empty, vague, and uninformed response

[greyl]

5. Admit it.

It makes you feel better to demonize and scapegoat a small group rather than dealing with the truth, which is that the world at large remains unconvinced by the kind of speculations you post here.

[democraticinsurgent]

19. Thanks for posting this

It is appreciated. I agree with your frustration regarding the dungeon. It's really the only unpleasant thing about DU.

I used to post some here years ago, but stopped because of the professional OCTers.

Recently, though, I added most of them to my IGNORE list and that certainly does help. Hated to do it, resisted for years, because i enjoy debate. But it generally isn't debate here, it's ridicule.

And POOF. now the ridicule is gone, at least from my eyes. Thanks to Ignore. I recommend trying it.

[Kalun D]

4. CIA, Police Arm of the Corporate Aristocracy

You should read the article before you comment on it greyl, otherwise your opposition looks phony and transparent.

I thought this particular paragraph was pretty interesting, what do you think?

"About a month after I was elected governor, I was requested into the basement of the capitol to be interviewed by 23 members of the Central Intelligence Agency, the CIA…And I said to them, "look before I answer any of your questions, I want to know what you're doing here." Because in the CIA mission statement it says that they're not to be operational inside the United States of America. Well, they wouldn't really give me an answer on that. And then I said, "I want to go around the room, and I want each one of you to tell me your name and what you do." Half of them wouldn't. Now isn't that bizarre? I'm the governor, and these guys won't even answer questions from me."

[greyl]

6. I read it at the OpEdNews last month. Did you think this was new?

You aren't required to respond to the substance of my previous posts, but it doesn't help your credibility when you don't.

[Kalun D]

7. Small Group

Yeah, it is a small group that officially supports the OCT, wherever you go, forums, you tube, it's always a select few of the same people over and over. Like a super vocal minority making believe they are bigger by only being louder.

""Anyone in 2010 purporting to be in favor of discovering truth about 9/11 who refers to sh*t like Loose Change, Richard Gage, and D.R. Griffin can't be taken seriously.""

Anyone in 2010 purporting to be in favor of discovering truth about 9/11 who refers to sh*t like the bush boy sponsored Official Conspiracy Theory can't be taken seriously.

""Is media coverage and attention more important than a coherent collection of evidence?""

Media coverage and attention of the coherent collection of evidence that the bush boy's Official Conspiracy Theory commission ignored is important.

""It makes you feel better to demonize and scapegoat a small group rather than dealing with the truth, which is that the world at large remains unconvinced by the kind of speculations you post here.""

I don't post for the small group of one noters, I post for the dear reader that happens by.

Where's your link to statistics that say the world at large believes the OCT? After all it's really only in the good ole USA where the MIC deathskulls have a lock on the "news" that people still believe the phony fraud farce that is the OCT.

The article points out that the world wide media is coming around to what anyone that looks closely at the facts already knows, 911 OCT is a lie.

[BeFree]

8. It is full of lies, thanks, Kalun

And since Jeb Bush is going to run for office, everything we can do to point out that his brother headed up this pack of lies will show the world they don't want to give any member of the bush family another chance.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Neily]

9. Normal with Passage of Time

The cliche that "the truth always prevails" has proven itself to be true time and time again. Just look back in modern history to see what was once taboo to discuss is now common knowledge and widely accepted. I mean who still seriously believes that JFK was shot by one person from behind?

Over time, more and more will come out about 9/11. People will lie on their death beds ridden with guilt and make small or big confessions. The truth will come out and one day the real truth about 9/11 will be common knowledge.

[SDuderstadt]

10. JFK WAS shot by LHO from behind...

how much evidence of that do you need?

[Neily]

11. Lol - Dont even go there

As a trained professional in forensics, he may have been shot from behind, but he was also clearly hit from the front. We don't even have to go into all the other impossible feats of physics that would have to have occurred at that very moment for LHO to be the lone gunman from behind.

[SDuderstadt]

12. Oh, yes we do...

please point to any entrance wound JFK suffered in the front of his body...

[Neily]

13. You really want to go there? n/t

[SDuderstadt]

14. Answer the question,...

where's the entrance wound?

[Neily]

15. entrance wound 1

enters the upper back with an exit at the front of the throat.

I have seen the rear head photo which does not clearly show a bullet hole. However, the hand drawn replica released by the house select committee shows a clear entry wound from the rear. I have seen the two side by side and the "replica" is greatly exaggerated. Yet, it is the most common one you find online... ironic much?

So, no I cannot show you a "clear" photo of entrance wound #2. Can you?

[SDuderstadt]

16. Because it blew JFK's skull off....

I asked about a front entrance wound. Do you have one or not?

[Neily]

17. Tomorrow?

I have to sleep dude... you know I am trustworthy for a response.. I am hardly able to keep my eyes open now and your question requires some brain function which is not gonna happen right now...

[SDuderstadt]

18. Absolutely, Neily...

Your word is always good with me. And it's always a pleasure to "disagree" with you, even though you are totally wrong about nearly everything (sorry, I could not resist).

I wish a number of posters on the "other side" were more like you in your reasoning and the respectful way you go about disagreeing with someone who holds views nearly diametrically opposed to your own. It's a a rare gift.

[Neily]

20. Ok here it is...

Neily - “....So, no I cannot show you a "clear" photo of entrance wound #2. Can you?”

 

SDuderstadt - “Because it blew JFK's skull off.... I asked about a front entrance wound. Do you have one or not?”

First, if we cannot clearly establish a rear skull entrance wound and can only agree the clear evidence shows a rear “shoulder” entrance wound that exited from his throat, then why would I need to show you a front entrance wound to establish another shooter? Hear me out on this... If, even you agree, the 2nd bullet that hit him blew his skull off and you cannot show me a clear rear skull entrance wound, then aren’t there other possibilities for where the bullet struck causing the skull to be blown off?

Most people visualize the skull as representing a circle (wish I could draw this all for you right now :) ) and assume that if a bullet enters the circle it must have came from another side of the circle at approximately the same angle, which is true. However, in this case, the circle (i.e. head) was not a stationary object by any means. First his head was not stationary, he was also in a car that was moving, and his head was leaning forward clutching his throat as he was struck by the 2nd bullet to the head. This is makes the above circle analogy a bit too simple for this discussion. However, it still works.

Anyway, in this case, if there is not a clear entrance wound on the back or front of the skull, the other possibility is that the entrance and exit wound were so close that when his skull was blown off, the entrance and exit wound flew off with it... (i.e. the bullet deeply grazed his head) If that is the case, then the shooter could have been in front of him or behind him. Given the angle that would be required to result in such a wound, the shooter was either positioned high above him from behind or low below him from the front. Given the fact that his head went back so violently at the moment of impact (laws of physics here), the only forensically sound conclusion is that he was hit from the front.

So, unless you can show me a clear photo of the wound to the back of his head, and can account for the sudden violent thrust to the rear, I will stick to my education, training and experience and go with the only theory that answers all of the questions/circumstances.

By the way, if you get a chance, can you look at this thread and respond to the question I posed? I am sincerely interested in what you think about Gage's theories.
Thread

[SDuderstadt]

21. But, we can tell where the bullet struck JFK....

from the "beveling" in the skull and that entrance was in the rear of the head, not the front. If he was hit low below him from the front, perhaps you can show on a model of Dealey Plaza where the shooter could have possibly been without being immediately visible to nearly everyone and how the shot could have hit him from the front without striking the windshiedf first.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/medical.htm

As far as the claim he was hit low from the front, if you examine the Zapruder film frame by frame, it DOES show a forward snap of his head to the point where his chin is nearly buried in his chest, before his head snaps back and to the left, which I would largely attribute to the very stiff backbrace JFK was wearing. I don't have the illustration of this; I believed John Berryhill provided it. Perhaps we can get it from him.