9/11 Conspiracy Conspiracy
QUO VADIS? 9/11 +5
September 2, 2006
U.S. Reports Seek to Counter Conspiracy Theories About 9/11
By JIM DWYER (article in NYTIMES)
The fact that this article appears at all
The way it is written
The feckless content …
….Argue that: 1. the official story is false; 2. Jim Dwyer feels it to be false; 3. he is fronting for the work of pathological liars and psychotic killers; .
Justification: (3) whoever was responsible for the deaths qualifies as ‘psychotic killer’, of the sort Osama Bin Laden is shown as ‘supposed to be’ – explaining why he is shown as he is; as Saddam Hussein, as well. If this is a lie, it qualifies as “pathological”, in the sense used for sociopathy. I argue from textual analysis of the way Dwyer’s piece is written that he distorts the signs used to communicate the facts in a news article; thus prejudicing judgment in the case; in the direction of the official story about 9/11; the (conscious or unconscious) motive of which is to block objective criticism -- to prevent what it would bring to light. There is no reason to block it if the facts stand up. Anymore than there is reason to imprison holocaust deniers if their claims can be falsified. .
The mentality dominates the issue, if the official story is false, because doublethink-to-thruth (Is it? Or isn’t it?) becomes the chief feature of the entire ambient ambiguous process. Is OBL a “good guy”? or “bad guy”? Depends on the way you turn it. Turned one way – benign. Flip the coin (or card) -- malign (-ant). How 9/11 is turned resolves the ambiguity. How it looks vs what you think. This total ambiguity that keeps minds flipping from the conscious side – what you are supposed to think --to the unconscious side – what the double-take brings up – extends over all the ‘news’. Warren Jeffs – prophet or pederast? ‘Bucky’ Phillips – certainly bad; but locals won’t turn him in. J. M. Karr? -- looks normal; is monstrous. The splitting, reversing, aligning, of doublethink permeates all. The CIA; the Jews; the Republicans. Nothing is as it seems; everything is its opposite (cf. Jung’s enantiodromia in Mysterium Conjunctionis). When people can’t trust their own perceptions, they must turn to Authority (John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Sam Alito) .. and how it is shown on TV. No such thing as simple truth, instinctively grasped, anymore. Except the truth that it is not supposed to be like this and the reason it is this way is due to the fool Ronald Wilson Reagan and the pathological liars and psychotic killer who used him.
Principle of argument: Whereever words and pictures (incl. metaphors: pictures in words) go out of their way in serving a textual purpose, such as reporting a news event, to
slant, skew, spin, twist, reverse elements of the communicated content in the same consonant manner, or ‘drift’, a reading of the template unfolded in this drift reveals the psychic background, or ‘agenda’, of the communication.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/02/nyregion/02conspiracy.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted
Par 1
“Faced with an angry minority of people (1) who believe the Sept. 11 attacks were part of a shadowy and sprawling plot (2) run by Americans (3), separate reports were published this week by the State Department and a federal science agency (4) insisting that the catastrophes (5) were caused by hijackers who used commercial airliners as weapons.”
Comments. 1. Since the majority of people would believe the official story (OFFS), labeling those who challenge it a “minority” is otiose. Since OFFS concerns 3,000 deaths, repeatedly used to justify more, so is “angry”. “Faced with” is a kow-tow to OFFS’ defenders, smugly positioning them, the sane, sage, rational majority over against trouble-making, rabble-rousing, extremist protestors, demonstrators, crackpot “conspiracy theorists”.
(appeal to majority (polled Americans) to skew appreciation of facts)
2. “…shadowy and sprawling plot”: tendentious labeling an implication before presenting the facts , preventing them from being objectively considered.
3. “…by Americans”: again, who did it is not among the facts deciding between OFFS and the rational explanation (controlled demolition). But putting “Americans” in there fills out the position of frothing Bush-haters or whatever attacking the country, almost like the airplane hijackers. Jews do that, accusing you of wanting to kill 6,000,000 of them and exterminate the race by questioning their Holocaust OFFS.
All in all, this piece is, in fact, looking pretty Jewish to those, such as myself, who have devoted a great deal of attention to the way they use signs in acts of communication. A real piece of work, iz this. Halfway through the first sentence, he’s got that co0l, mainstream, non-extremist middle-of-the-road majority in East Manhattan and Brooklyn facing down potential suicide bomb supporters.
(4) The release of these studies is the news, here, but you can forget about approaching it objectively after the pre-cognitive set up. The wtc. NIST.com site they give doesn’t come up, for me. The State Dept. counterdisinformation site
http://usinfo.state.gov/media/misinformation.html.
Presents itself as a refutation of 9/11 Revealed, by British authors, Ian Henshall and Rowland Morgan which “gives credence to a hodgepodge of sinister, unfounded allegations.”. However, it responds by citing the 9/11 commission’s doowappadoowappadoo. That, plus predicating on their own pre-emptive predications to promulgate “token tautologies”, one can call them – begging questions by bootstrapping what you call things – makes this State Dept. document as useless as Rice thrown at Ms. Arafats’ wedding. (Psyche under strain here.) For example, commenting on Hensall and Morgan’s “bizarre position” that “the September 11 attacks were not real terrorist attacks”, the OFFS doc says “Apparently, the largest terrorist event in history was not large enough to convince the books’ (sic) authors it was real.” The author of this (could be Feith himself!) sure knows how to counter disinformation.
(5) …tiredly, condescendingly, restating the OFFS one more time – what did you expect under that title?
“ US SEEKS TO COUNTER CONSPIRACY THEORIES ABOUT 9/11” This is the Man at work. It’s un-American to question the OFFS, military people are told. STFU
http://www.lonestaricon.com/absolutenm/anmviewer.asp?a=426&z=54
Under Fire! U.S. Army Intelligence Analyst Targeted For Suggesting New Independent 9/11 Investigation
Monday, August 21, 2006 - By Stephen Webster, Investigative Reporter
Army: Doubting Official 9/11 Story Is ‘Disloyal To The United States’
FT. SAM HOUSTON, Texas — Forty-one-year-old Sergeant First Class Donald Buswell is a hero. Having served over 19 years in the United States Army, Buswell has seen a lot of terrain. On April 15, 2004, he was injured in a rocket attack while serving a tour in Iraq. For this, SFC Buswell was given a Purple Heart. And until recently, Buswell was an Intelligence Analyst stationed at Ft. Sam Houston, Texas
Downloaded from link in OD thread http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24262&page=2
Par 2 (continuing from Jim Dwyer’s NYTimes article:
“….As a motive (1), they suggest that the Bush administration (2) wanted to use the attacks to justify military action in the Middle East (3).
(1) The story Dwyer wants to tell is not any sort of objective consideration of the facts, but the mentality of whoever would challenge them. Nevermind that in a case of this momentous historical magnitude ANY wisp or shred of non-corroborating evidence requires explaining, in detail, if the OFFS is going to be used to justify invasions of other countries and re-arranging the map of an entire region of the globe. Great haste was shown in corrupting the scene of the crime. But those assembling the full anti-OFFS picture are not put at too much disadvantage, there are still plenty of anomalies and counter-evidence which he systematically ignores – in favor of getting at that meaty, insane idea that
(2) “…the Bush administration” did it, or was behind it. That is THEIR “motive”, Dwyer insinuates (“they suggest”) – hatred of Bush. Hoo Boy --- everybody’s favorite dead horse to flail, let the conspiracy nuts wail. But, clever, clever, wheel and lever, THE MOTIVE THE conspirators SAY, he says, is
(3) …. To save Israel: subtext of “justifying military action in the Middle East.”
On these suppositions, reading par. 2 in its entirety:
‘The official narrative of the attacks has been attacked as little more than a cover story by an assortment of radio hosts, academics, amateur filmmakers and others who have spread their arguments on the internet and cable television in America and abroad. As a motive, they suggest that the Bush administration wanted to use the attacks to justify military action to save Israel.”
Now, one can see that is my reading. But I argue from the way it is written that it is Dwyer’s and the New York Times’ as well. I think they as a news organization have been compelled, against their will, to confront this issue.
And the programmed psychosemiotic panegyrics is their way of tiptoeing through the mine field of an angry minority that might well swell into raging majority if the facts were given S*-oxygen (=allowed objective consideration in an uncontrolled, non-PC grammar).
September 2, 2006
U.S. Reports Seek to Counter Conspiracy Theories About 9/11
By JIM DWYER (article in NYTIMES)
The fact that this article appears at all
The way it is written
The feckless content …
….Argue that: 1. the official story is false; 2. Jim Dwyer feels it to be false; 3. he is fronting for the work of pathological liars and psychotic killers; .
Justification: (3) whoever was responsible for the deaths qualifies as ‘psychotic killer’, of the sort Osama Bin Laden is shown as ‘supposed to be’ – explaining why he is shown as he is; as Saddam Hussein, as well. If this is a lie, it qualifies as “pathological”, in the sense used for sociopathy. I argue from textual analysis of the way Dwyer’s piece is written that he distorts the signs used to communicate the facts in a news article; thus prejudicing judgment in the case; in the direction of the official story about 9/11; the (conscious or unconscious) motive of which is to block objective criticism -- to prevent what it would bring to light. There is no reason to block it if the facts stand up. Anymore than there is reason to imprison holocaust deniers if their claims can be falsified. .
The mentality dominates the issue, if the official story is false, because doublethink-to-thruth (Is it? Or isn’t it?) becomes the chief feature of the entire ambient ambiguous process. Is OBL a “good guy”? or “bad guy”? Depends on the way you turn it. Turned one way – benign. Flip the coin (or card) -- malign (-ant). How 9/11 is turned resolves the ambiguity. How it looks vs what you think. This total ambiguity that keeps minds flipping from the conscious side – what you are supposed to think --to the unconscious side – what the double-take brings up – extends over all the ‘news’. Warren Jeffs – prophet or pederast? ‘Bucky’ Phillips – certainly bad; but locals won’t turn him in. J. M. Karr? -- looks normal; is monstrous. The splitting, reversing, aligning, of doublethink permeates all. The CIA; the Jews; the Republicans. Nothing is as it seems; everything is its opposite (cf. Jung’s enantiodromia in Mysterium Conjunctionis). When people can’t trust their own perceptions, they must turn to Authority (John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Sam Alito) .. and how it is shown on TV. No such thing as simple truth, instinctively grasped, anymore. Except the truth that it is not supposed to be like this and the reason it is this way is due to the fool Ronald Wilson Reagan and the pathological liars and psychotic killer who used him.
Principle of argument: Whereever words and pictures (incl. metaphors: pictures in words) go out of their way in serving a textual purpose, such as reporting a news event, to
slant, skew, spin, twist, reverse elements of the communicated content in the same consonant manner, or ‘drift’, a reading of the template unfolded in this drift reveals the psychic background, or ‘agenda’, of the communication.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/02/nyregion/02conspiracy.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted
Par 1
“Faced with an angry minority of people (1) who believe the Sept. 11 attacks were part of a shadowy and sprawling plot (2) run by Americans (3), separate reports were published this week by the State Department and a federal science agency (4) insisting that the catastrophes (5) were caused by hijackers who used commercial airliners as weapons.”
Comments. 1. Since the majority of people would believe the official story (OFFS), labeling those who challenge it a “minority” is otiose. Since OFFS concerns 3,000 deaths, repeatedly used to justify more, so is “angry”. “Faced with” is a kow-tow to OFFS’ defenders, smugly positioning them, the sane, sage, rational majority over against trouble-making, rabble-rousing, extremist protestors, demonstrators, crackpot “conspiracy theorists”.
(appeal to majority (polled Americans) to skew appreciation of facts)
2. “…shadowy and sprawling plot”: tendentious labeling an implication before presenting the facts , preventing them from being objectively considered.
3. “…by Americans”: again, who did it is not among the facts deciding between OFFS and the rational explanation (controlled demolition). But putting “Americans” in there fills out the position of frothing Bush-haters or whatever attacking the country, almost like the airplane hijackers. Jews do that, accusing you of wanting to kill 6,000,000 of them and exterminate the race by questioning their Holocaust OFFS.
All in all, this piece is, in fact, looking pretty Jewish to those, such as myself, who have devoted a great deal of attention to the way they use signs in acts of communication. A real piece of work, iz this. Halfway through the first sentence, he’s got that co0l, mainstream, non-extremist middle-of-the-road majority in East Manhattan and Brooklyn facing down potential suicide bomb supporters.
(4) The release of these studies is the news, here, but you can forget about approaching it objectively after the pre-cognitive set up. The wtc. NIST.com site they give doesn’t come up, for me. The State Dept. counterdisinformation site
http://usinfo.state.gov/media/misinformation.html.
Presents itself as a refutation of 9/11 Revealed, by British authors, Ian Henshall and Rowland Morgan which “gives credence to a hodgepodge of sinister, unfounded allegations.”. However, it responds by citing the 9/11 commission’s doowappadoowappadoo. That, plus predicating on their own pre-emptive predications to promulgate “token tautologies”, one can call them – begging questions by bootstrapping what you call things – makes this State Dept. document as useless as Rice thrown at Ms. Arafats’ wedding. (Psyche under strain here.) For example, commenting on Hensall and Morgan’s “bizarre position” that “the September 11 attacks were not real terrorist attacks”, the OFFS doc says “Apparently, the largest terrorist event in history was not large enough to convince the books’ (sic) authors it was real.” The author of this (could be Feith himself!) sure knows how to counter disinformation.
(5) …tiredly, condescendingly, restating the OFFS one more time – what did you expect under that title?
“ US SEEKS TO COUNTER CONSPIRACY THEORIES ABOUT 9/11” This is the Man at work. It’s un-American to question the OFFS, military people are told. STFU
http://www.lonestaricon.com/absolutenm/anmviewer.asp?a=426&z=54
Under Fire! U.S. Army Intelligence Analyst Targeted For Suggesting New Independent 9/11 Investigation
Monday, August 21, 2006 - By Stephen Webster, Investigative Reporter
Army: Doubting Official 9/11 Story Is ‘Disloyal To The United States’
FT. SAM HOUSTON, Texas — Forty-one-year-old Sergeant First Class Donald Buswell is a hero. Having served over 19 years in the United States Army, Buswell has seen a lot of terrain. On April 15, 2004, he was injured in a rocket attack while serving a tour in Iraq. For this, SFC Buswell was given a Purple Heart. And until recently, Buswell was an Intelligence Analyst stationed at Ft. Sam Houston, Texas
Downloaded from link in OD thread http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24262&page=2
Par 2 (continuing from Jim Dwyer’s NYTimes article:
“….As a motive (1), they suggest that the Bush administration (2) wanted to use the attacks to justify military action in the Middle East (3).
(1) The story Dwyer wants to tell is not any sort of objective consideration of the facts, but the mentality of whoever would challenge them. Nevermind that in a case of this momentous historical magnitude ANY wisp or shred of non-corroborating evidence requires explaining, in detail, if the OFFS is going to be used to justify invasions of other countries and re-arranging the map of an entire region of the globe. Great haste was shown in corrupting the scene of the crime. But those assembling the full anti-OFFS picture are not put at too much disadvantage, there are still plenty of anomalies and counter-evidence which he systematically ignores – in favor of getting at that meaty, insane idea that
(2) “…the Bush administration” did it, or was behind it. That is THEIR “motive”, Dwyer insinuates (“they suggest”) – hatred of Bush. Hoo Boy --- everybody’s favorite dead horse to flail, let the conspiracy nuts wail. But, clever, clever, wheel and lever, THE MOTIVE THE conspirators SAY, he says, is
(3) …. To save Israel: subtext of “justifying military action in the Middle East.”
On these suppositions, reading par. 2 in its entirety:
‘The official narrative of the attacks has been attacked as little more than a cover story by an assortment of radio hosts, academics, amateur filmmakers and others who have spread their arguments on the internet and cable television in America and abroad. As a motive, they suggest that the Bush administration wanted to use the attacks to justify military action to save Israel.”
Now, one can see that is my reading. But I argue from the way it is written that it is Dwyer’s and the New York Times’ as well. I think they as a news organization have been compelled, against their will, to confront this issue.
And the programmed psychosemiotic panegyrics is their way of tiptoeing through the mine field of an angry minority that might well swell into raging majority if the facts were given S*-oxygen (=allowed objective consideration in an uncontrolled, non-PC grammar).
posted by Sid Thomas | 12:18 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home