Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I really shouldn't, but: Time Magazine's policy for decades was to name as Man of the Year the most influential character on the world scene for that year. They assumed that people would be able to tell the difference between a magazine pointing somebody out as important and espousing his views. Obviously, they were wrong.
Oh yes you really should. Keep demonstrating the absence of common sense, and the ability to explain in detail why up REALLY IS down.
Yes, we should all applaud Time Magazine's journalistic neutrality by recognizing that just because they might name someone Man of the Year, and place his image on the cover of one of the most influential and highly circulated magazines of the day ... it's really not an act of endorsement of the person, and we all should be smart enough to recognize that? Yes indeed, I'm sure that makes perfect sense to you and others who also coexist in your Orwellian Twilight Zone of opposites, where war=peace, and chaos=order, ignorance=strength, and where the worst pilots are the one's most likely to successfully execute incredible feats of aeronautical acrobatics with precision.
Yes, yes indeed .... so tell me ... has Time Magazine just been asleep at the wheel for the past 9 years? Because, following your logic, Osama Bin Laden should have been on the cover at least a couple of times by now, given his influence on modern events here and around the world.
Yes, yes indeed .... so tell me ... has Time Magazine just been asleep at the wheel for the past 9 years? Because, following your logic, Osama Bin Laden should have been on the cover at least a couple of times by now, given his influence on modern events here and around the world.
They put forward Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979, was met with shrieking outrage from those easily offended and have since gone the safe route, correctly estimating that the distinction between important and commendable is too subtle for a large part of the public.
Yes, yes indeed .... so tell me ... has Time Magazine just been asleep at the wheel for the past 9 years? Because, following your logic, Osama Bin Laden should have been on the cover at least a couple of times by now, given his influence on modern events here and around the world.
time person of the year
1974: King Faisal
Saudi led OPEC price hikes that roiled world markets
1979: Ayatullah Khomeini
Rarely has so improbable a leader shaken the world
1965: Gen. William Westmoreland
Oversaw struggling U.S. grunts in Vietnam
Try. What, in your opinion, is the significance of that BBC blunder? I have seen a lot of people point it out as proof of - something - but I've never heard a coherent hypothesis, except that it's definitely sinister.
Is it your stance that BBC had been provided with knowledge of the planned events for the day? Please, please try to outline a scenario where it would be to the plotters' advantage to give the BBC information ahead of time.
Re the emphasis on the BBC announcing the collapse before the collapse--I've noticed that some of the CT's try to infer that the WTC-7 fell down suddenly, or unexpectedly; hence, there would be significance if the collapse was a surprise but one news outlet knew it beforehand.
But it was known that 7 was in danger of collapsing hours before it did. They were saying so on live TV at the time and had the cameras trained on it. I remember it clearly because that was the first thing I saw on TV that day--the camera on 7 with the voice saying it was expected to collapse, and about half an hour later, it did.
Re the emphasis on the BBC announcing the collapse before the collapse--I've noticed that some of the CT's try to infer that the WTC-7 fell down suddenly, or unexpectedly; hence, there would be significance if the collapse was a surprise but one news outlet knew it beforehand.
But it was known that 7 was in danger of collapsing hours before it did. They were saying so on live TV at the time and had the cameras trained on it. I remember it clearly because that was the first thing I saw on TV that day--the camera on 7 with the voice saying it was expected to collapse, and about half an hour later, it did.
You'll notice on the last video, the guy from Popular Mechanics makes an association between those who don't believe the official 911 conspiracy and holocaust deniers and creationists. How typical of fraudsters who would engage in such diversions and false connections ...
Of course, the vast majority look at Popular Mechanics as an age old publication with utmost credibility. Why ... well, because they have never had a reason not to, so they do, by default. Is this wise? Hardly.
Time Magazine has enjoyed an even more prestigious life for decades ... in spite of naming Adolf Hitler time magazine's man of the year in 1938, at the height of Hitler's reshaping and creating the Nazi state under his dictatorial power. In 1939 they bestowed that honor to Joseph Stalin, a man responsible for perhaps more mass murder than any dictator in history ... or certainly up there with the top murderers. Stalin received the honor a second time in 1942. Then we have Nikita Krushchev receiving the honor in 1957 .. the same guy who brought the world to the brink of nuclear war with his Cuban missile crisis. Boy ... Time Magazine deserves blind trust, aye?
The bottom line is, people in general are ignorant of all sorts of issues, information and reality.
Most would say Popular Mechanics has no reason to lie to protect the official story. Pure ignorance. They just don't know or are too stupid to connect the dots to the fact that PM's senior researcher, Benjamin Chertoff, the author of the propaganda cover story entitled "Debunking 9/11 Lies" was the cousin of Michael Chertoff, then head of the Department of Homeland Security. Why is that important? If you have to ask the question, you'll not understand the answer.
The term "yellow journalism" dates back to W.R. Hearst, and is a time honored means of manipulating public opinion for over one hundred years in this country. But as this propaganda machine has advanced over the decades, it seems the raw intellect of the populace has declined.
The American public by and large aren't very bright .. aren't very articulate, and seem to possess declining degrees of common sense, generation to generation. The fact that most don't immediately recognize the huge ponzi scheme fraud that passes itself off as our financial system is prime evidence supporting that declaration, and explains why so many are incapable of connecting dots throughout the 911 conspiracy itself, as it is far more subtle and hidden from view.
There is nothing more dangerous than a large group of idiots who believe they are geniuses.
Such a long post to say... pretty much nothing.
So, according to you, the alleged (you didn't exactly provide any proof) familial connection between someone at PM and someone at DHS should be enough "proof" to completely discredit anything that PM has to say (unless it supported your theory, in which case I'm sure you'd be taking a different tack).
Forget the science. Forget the fact that all the people involved in the PM research would have to agree to be silent. Forget all of that - these guys are cousins!!!
I watched the reversal in real time .. at the time ... on TV and not on the Loose Change documentary that was made way, way later.
The initial report was live on CNN ... I WATCHED IT ON 911. I then watched his total reversal later ... after he'd been instructed what to say.
Amid all the confusion, all the speculation and all the information pouring in from about five hundred different directions that morning, you remember that interview well enough to say that "Loose Change" has it right, and the official transcript has it wrong.
I read GuyNTexas' last post, and I don't see anyone coming up with answers after all the information he put up for debate here. Regardless if he is a conspiracy theorist or if he "thinks" he's smarter than certain people, I haven't seen any solid proof to debunk the points he's made. Basically your response is focused on the kind of guy he is instead of the answers to the subject at hand.
Then you're not reading very carefully. I dubunked one of his main points, and it took all of ten seconds to do.
As for the rest, nothing he's saying is exactly "new," and it's all been debunked before. Look around the 'net if you want to see it. I'm not going to do your research for you...
These threads are for entertainment purposes only. I'll stop participating in them long before it becomes "work." That work's already been done, many times over, and I have no desire to reinvent the wheel.
Oh yes you really should. Keep demonstrating the absence of common sense, and the ability to explain in detail why up REALLY IS down.
And you can keep demonstrating the absence of research capability.
It's pretty common knowledge that TIME chooses people that were newsworthy and influential, not praiseworthy, for their "... of the year" cover.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
Yes, yes indeed .... so tell me ... has Time Magazine just been asleep at the wheel for the past 9 years? Because, following your logic, Osama Bin Laden should have been on the cover at least a couple of times by now, given his influence on modern events here and around the world.
I recall that they were going to put him on the cover after 9/11 - and by their own criteria, he should have been - but it caused SUCH an uproar, they opted not to.
Again, ten seconds on google could have found you that.
You're really not very good at this stuff...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
