History Channel special on 9/11 coming

[graflok]

A show called "9/11 Conspiracies," likely a hit piece on the 9/11 Truth
Movement, is set to air on The History Channel Aug. 20

link (http://www.history.com/shows.do?action=detail&episodeId=240087)

[tinmenace]

Hey SuperGraf,

You know, the History Channel has some good shows. The first time I ever heard of David was from the History Channel. It was a show called "Secret Societies". Everything resonated for me, including the tone of David's voice. The rest, of course, is history.

Then, this year, during the finals or semi-finals of American Idol, I was watching the History Channel, and it had a program about the CIA and their terrorist activities. My husband kept saying "I can't believe they're showing this". I had to remind him that American Idol was on and that most people weren't even going to see it. Timing is everything!

Their 2 hour program about Freemasons was good too, I thought. The first hour addressed many questions that most of us would like answered. The second hour was more from the Freemasonic point of view which was peppered with comments (from the 33° spokesperson) like, "Well, we don't know why Albert Pike said that...some things are just a mystery".

They skipped around some issues with simple denial and no explanation to adequately explain their denial. I mean, on simple questions like - If you're not a religion, why have a temple and an altar? His answer was something like "Well, it's not, and that's all there is to it."

Ho hum...

I guess they still think that just because they say so, it is so. Uh, not anymore fellas. Your time is up!

I'll be looking forward to this show. Thanks for the heads up. ;)

[earthseed]

The sheeple will be so happy this stuff is like feed to them.

[graflok]

Hey SuperGraf,

You know, the History Channel has some good shows...



Yes, I agree, tinny, that THC has some good shows. It's one of the few
channels I still watch occasionally. They used to have lots of paranormal
and UFO-related shows (but not so many these days.)

But, be aware that THC is co-owned by Disney, GE, and Hearst corporations. ;)
reference (http://www.freepress.net/content/top20cable)

[tinmenace]

Watching it right now!

[freedomnonfighter]

Oh man this is horrible.

"Conspiracy Theory: __"

"Expert Response: __"

"Anybody can make a conspiracy website from their basement!"

I love how it showed a bunch of DVDs, ranging from 9/11 Press For Truth
to Terrorstorm to 9/11 Mysteries to Loose Change, and then just
blatantly said in a sweeping statement the likes of "Such documentaries
made on laptops.."

Such a desperate attempt.
Hopefully the truth will resonate more with people unaware,
and won't fall for such corporate nonsense.

[tinmenace]

...and the skeptics only talk about the things that "bolster" their version.

I just have to laugh at things like "...that just isn't true..."

I guess just because they say it's not true they think we're going to believe them. :rolleyes:

Why not ask questions like, "How did a novice pilot manage to bring a 757 in, flying at 500+mph, at ground level into the Pentagon without once tipping the wings or touching the ground with those massive engines?

http://www.globalfailure.com/images/planesizepentagon.jpg
Photo Source (http://www.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html)

[archangel]

I will watch the one that comes on at 1 am..and report back.

[graflok]

http://aycu37.webshots.com/image/25436/2004475272342112409_rs.jpg

[tinmenace]

If only their claptrap were Infinitely Cute like this guy!

[cruise4]

The History Channel... I seem to have a different opinion than some of you guys. To me its very much a propoganda channel. I suspect much of the material on there. I have also seen History Channel programs criticised a number of times throughout my overall investigation into NWO events. Have I got an innaccurate picture?

[ryans53]

The first thing to note when viewing this film is the title -- 9/11 Conspiracies: Fact or Fiction. This title tells you the angle the entire film is going to take when addressing the 9/11 issue. Specifically, the positions of those dissenting from the official story are going to be treated as complete, stand-alone "theories" that attempt to explain what in fact did happen on 9/11. This is both a straw man and a red herring: Straw man because the point of the 9/11 Truth Movement is to primarily show that the government's account is impossible (both physically and logically), not to state specifically what transpired and how; Red Herring because the aura of the film will lead uninformed 9/11 viewers to believe that the only legitimate 9/11 arguments are those that provide such a complete account.

Since 9/11 cannot be understood piecemeal, those that try to undermine the Truth Movement's arguments must quarantine each point from other supportive points. The move is to alter the perception of the Truth Movement's position by converting its cumulative nature to one that is disjointed. In essence, each point is handled individually so as not to give the viewer a coherent sense of how the points reinforce each other. To put it in typical sound-byte form, they must treat each point as a "smoking gun" in itself. For example, the film treats the point about building 7 housing offices of significant federal agencies (with something to hide) as one that attempts to, by itself, prove that building 7 was purposely imploded. As those of us familiar with building 7's full story know, the case for building 7's controlled demolition is near irrefutable because of the corroborating evidence around it -- namely, its symmetry, its free-fall, its lack of visible damage and fire, prior knowledge amongst fire-fighters and television reporters, the "pull-it" comment by Silverstein, squibs, "kinks", and the absence of an official explanation nearly 6 years later. The film will mention some of these points at other times, but not in a way that establishes harmony between them.

In cumulative arguments, one must address all, or at least a sufficient number, of relevant points simultaneously to fully undermine it, or even significantly weaken it. This film, the BBC's Conspiracy Files, and especially Popular Mechanics, go to great lengths to segment the 9/11 research into "mini-theories" that each claim to provide a full account of 9/11, and then try to "debunk" them "one-by-one". This is the sting.

A proper title for a proper documentary would be "The Official 9/11 Conspiracy: Fact or Fiction?". This title shifts the burden of proof to its rightful owners -- those who claim to represent us, take our money and give us impossible tales about what's happening to us.

[freedomnonfighter]

The History Channel... I seem to have a different opinion than some of you guys. To me its very much a propoganda channel. I suspect much of the material on there. I have also seen History Channel programs criticised a number of times throughout my overall investigation into NWO events. Have I got an innaccurate picture?

A&E Television Networks is a media company that owns several TV networks on cable and satellite.
The company is jointly owned by The Walt Disney Company (37.5%), The Hearst Corporation (37.5%), and NBC Universal (25%).
AETN's networks include:

* A&E Network
* The History Channel
* The Biography Channel
* History International
* The History Channel en Español
* Military History Channel
* Crime & Investigation Network

[graflok]

The History Channel... I seem to have a different opinion than some of you guys. To me its very much a propoganda channel. I suspect much of the material on there. I have also seen History Channel programs criticised a number of times throughout my overall investigation into NWO events. Have I got an innaccurate picture?

As for their coverage of general history, I think THC has pretty much stuck to
the history-book, propaganda line.

In the area of UFOs and other paranormal subjects I think THC used to be a
pretty good channel in that they often aired shows without the "debunking"
spin. Or, at least with a healthy suggestion that there may be validity to these
subjects. But, unfortunately, more recently I've been seeing them push the
debunk viewpoint more and more on these shows.

[graflok]

No network is going to get away with broadcasting anything remotely truthful
about 9/11 (or about many other subjects for that matter).

That's just the way the loomie-controlled planet works and the reason we're all
here in the first place (well, most of us). ;)

[zedd]

The ending was the best. After they get through talking about how conspiracy theorists use emotionalism and things like that they end the show by saying that conspiracies pretty much crap all over the victims and patriots.

I also enjoyed the two people who lost someone on 9/11 saying that the theories were like a knife stabbing them. I wonder if they feel that way when they think about the fact that innocent people are being murdered and an entire war campaign has been instituted on the memory of the ones they lost. Or did they forget that 9/11 is pretty much the justification for everything and that we need to do everything we have done "for the victims".

[lucifershammer]

I only got to watch about 30 mins of this during lunch at work. from the end of the collapse of hte towers segment, to the crash of flight 93.

The way they portrayed it was that each of the "conspiracy theories" that they mentioned was exactly what every single 911 truther believes.

Personally, i had never seen nor heard of that photograph that that woman took of the plume of smoke from the flight 93 crash. yet they were talking like "EVERY SINGLE CONSPIRACY THEORIST BELIEVES THIS IS A FAKE"



this show seemed more to me as a way to get the public to stereotype the 911 truthers as crackpots than an equal arguement for and agaist each "theory"

[tinmenace]

Yeah, I don't think there is any TV station that is not going to spin the truth.

I have a different perspective on it all though because it was from a History Channel program that I first heard (and saw) David. The information resonated for me and pointed me in the right direction (toward the bookstore). Sometimes, it just takes one magic sentence to trigger an awakening process.

So, I suppose it depends on the viewer's discernment.

[erviewer]

The guys from Popular Mechanics were the craziest of them all. "The plane was moving at the speed of sound when it hit the ground" "The plane was moving so fast before it hit the pentagon that it was almost a liquid" If that doesn't make him look stupid. Also, after he made this claim, an animated video of what they think the plane looked like as it hit showed the plane rolling over and hitting at a low angle. If the plane was going at the speed of sound like the guy from PM, how could it have made this turn.

Also, for anyone who questions 911, the video's that were shown prove far better for the 911 questioners.

[archangel]

I thought it was horrible.

The show was not nuetral at all

They let the popular mechanics guys talk 2-3x as much as the 9/11 truthers.

So much information was not even discussed

It sicked mean when they did ""Conspiracy theory""" and then ""Expert Response"""

on a scale of 1 to 10. I give it a 2

[irie_dave]

The first thing to note when viewing this film is the title -- 9/11 Conspiracies: Fact or Fiction. This title tells you the angle the entire film is going to take when addressing the 9/11 issue. Specifically, the positions of those dissenting from the official story are going to be treated as complete, stand-alone "theories" that attempt to explain what in fact did happen on 9/11. This is both a straw man and a red herring: Straw man because the point of the 9/11 Truth Movement is to primarily show that the government's account is impossible (both physically and logically), not to state specifically what transpired and how; Red Herring because the aura of the film will lead uninformed 9/11 viewers to believe that the only legitimate 9/11 arguments are those that provide such a complete account.

Since 9/11 cannot be understood piecemeal, those that try to undermine the Truth Movement's arguments must quarantine each point from other supportive points. The move is to alter the perception of the Truth Movement's position by converting its cumulative nature to one that is disjointed. In essence, each point is handled individually so as not to give the viewer a coherent sense of how the points reinforce each other. To put it in typical sound-byte form, they must treat each point as a "smoking gun" in itself. For example, the film treats the point about building 7 housing offices of significant federal agencies (with something to hide) as one that attempts to, by itself, prove that building 7 was purposely imploded. As those of us familiar with building 7's full story know, the case for building 7's controlled demolition is near irrefutable because of the corroborating evidence around it -- namely, its symmetry, its free-fall, its lack of visible damage and fire, prior knowledge amongst fire-fighters and television reporters, the "pull-it" comment by Silverstein, squibs, "kinks", and the absence of an official explanation nearly 6 years later. The film will mention some of these points at other times, but not in a way that establishes harmony between them.

In cumulative arguments, one must address all, or at least a sufficient number, of relevant points simultaneously to fully undermine it, or even significantly weaken it. This film, the BBC's Conspiracy Files, and especially Popular Mechanics, go to great lengths to segment the 9/11 research into "mini-theories" that each claim to provide a full account of 9/11, and then try to "debunk" them "one-by-one". This is the sting.

A proper title for a proper documentary would be "The Official 9/11 Conspiracy: Fact or Fiction?". This title shifts the burden of proof to its rightful owners -- those who claim to represent us, take our money and give us impossible tales about what's happening to us.

Dead on!

[irie_dave]

The ending was the best. After they get through talking about how conspiracy theorists use emotionalism and things like that they end the show by saying that conspiracies pretty much crap all over the victims and patriots.

I also enjoyed the two people who lost someone on 9/11 saying that the theories were like a knife stabbing them. I wonder if they feel that way when they think about the fact that innocent people are being murdered and an entire war campaign has been instituted on the memory of the ones they lost. Or did they forget that 9/11 is pretty much the justification for everything and that we need to do everything we have done "for the victims".

Just like the poster I quoted above stated how they like to seperate the disputes of the official story as seperate conspiracy theories I notice they also try to seperate 9/11 in these 'debunking' pieces with the fact that all foreign & domestic policy has been built upon on it & carried out for 6 years now & that over a million people have been killed in the Iraq/Afghanistan genocide in the name of the "War on Terror" which 9/11 is given as the justification for. Also many victims don't believe the official story & are supportive of the 9/11 Truth Movement, & are equally hurt by hit pieces on it like this because they know the truth.

[ryans53]

To supplement zedd and irie dave's points about the broader impact 9/11 has had on the world, I'd like to add a comment about the media in general. To make this point, I'd like to introduce the term "sitcomism" (sitcom-ism). Sitcomism is the adherence to a uniform, persistent and unchanging set of fundamental rules that define the perceived universe. I label this after a sitcom because it is the basic formula for a sitcom. No matter what happens in a particular episode, the events of that episode have no impact on other episodes. The core characters and relationships in a sitcom remain consistent at the start of each show. The Simpsons is perhaps the best example. Homer has been an astronaut, a mascot, a carney, a beer baron, a boxer and has had dozens of other experiences throughout the shows 15+ years, but always winds up back at the power plant at the start of each show with nothing but hidden references to those other shows. Likewise, all events that transpire in the media's eyes operate within independent vacuums. This is essentially how the media works today, and nothing else demonstrates this quite as powerfully as 9/11.

I turned the TV off years ago because many of its ill-effects became apparent to me back then, and now its absurd portrayal of reality is all the more transparent to me when I do expose myself to it. It was interesting to notice, not only the division between the related 9/11 concepts within the film, but also to notice the shift amongst entire universes when the channel transitioned from the film to commercials. Now, this goes on all the time in TV news so this show is nothing unique, but I think it is worth noting the paradigm this pattern represents -- it conditions the mind to accept fragmented realities as ultimate reality. In other words, the very pattern of show-commercial-show proliferates the acceptance of sitcomism amongst the TV watching population. In this case, the History Channel oscillated from the universe of possible state-sponsored terrorism (a paradigm shattering possibility if ever there was one) to a universe only concerned with pills that put you to sleep and pills that give you a woody. Amusing and depressing at the same time, but each of these universes are meant to be completely separate and foreign to each other. The point is, the viewer is not meant to mix them together. The viewer is meant to co-exist within all these separate universes one at a time. The damning effect this has on the mind is that it conditions it to accept contradictions and absurdities without question because distinct realities don't overlap.

Since sitcomism is so pervasive within the mass media in general it is inevitable that the reporting on 9/11 and its related genocides will follow suit. The families of 9/11 victims must exist in a wholly separate universe from the ones that the victims of US genocide exist in. The former universe always holds, no matter what events may transpire, that Americans are wholesome, innocent and virtuous. The latter universe, as far as the media is concerned, is always full of sub-human, non-American barbarians that are barely worthy of mention. This, I believe, is where the gross misrepresentations of human suffering take form.

This notion of sitcomism also extends into the division irie dave points out about the 9/11 victims' families and their support or opposition to 9/11 Truth. In the History Channel's universe, 9/11 skepticism is insulting to 9/11 families and could be no other way. As far as the family members in favor of 9/11 Truth goes, the History Channel simply omits them because they see no reason to mix universes together -- that would be like mixing The Simpson's universe in with Seinfeld's universe.

The final comment I have here is that there seems to be very little one can do to reason with a mind locked into sitcomism until the spell of sitcomism is broken. This is because much of our reality depends on our perception of reality as coherent and consistent. In the absence of such coherence and consistency, contradictions can run rampant. And, where contradictions run rampant, reason holds no power.

[graflok]

Yeah, I don't think there is any TV station that is not going to spin the truth.

I have a different perspective on it all though because it was from a History Channel program that I first heard (and saw) David. The information resonated for me and pointed me in the right direction (toward the bookstore). Sometimes, it just takes one magic sentence to trigger an awakening process.

So, I suppose it depends on the viewer's discernment.







I didn't know that. Do you recall the context or the show that David
was on?

[tinmenace]

I didn't know that. Do you recall the context or the show that David
was on?

Yep, it was called "Secret Societies". Here it is on YouTube (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1270081493781521177&q=secret+societies&total=1728&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0)

[graflok]

Thanks, tin.

Here's AJ's take on the THC 9/11 program:
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/august2007/210807_dirty_tricks.htm

[corivss]

This program was completely horrible. You have all mentioned the things wrong with it so I won't repeat. The only thing that I can hope for from this shit fest is that some people will become more interested in the subject and continue their own research on the net.

[gonzo power]

To supplement zedd and irie dave's points about the broader impact 9/11 has had on the world, I'd like to add a comment about the media in general. To make this point, I'd like to introduce the term "sitcomism" (sitcom-ism). Sitcomism is the adherence to a uniform, persistent and unchanging set of fundamental rules that define the perceived universe. I label this after a sitcom because it is the basic formula for a sitcom. No matter what happens in a particular episode, the events of that episode have no impact on other episodes. The core characters and relationships in a sitcom remain consistent at the start of each show. The Simpsons is perhaps the best example. Homer has been an astronaut, a mascot, a carney, a beer baron, a boxer and has had dozens of other experiences throughout the shows 15+ years, but always winds up back at the power plant at the start of each show with nothing but hidden references to those other shows. Likewise, all events that transpire in the media's eyes operate within independent vacuums. This is essentially how the media works today, and nothing else demonstrates this quite as powerfully as 9/11.

I turned the TV off years ago because many of its ill-effects became apparent to me back then, and now its absurd portrayal of reality is all the more transparent to me when I do expose myself to it. It was interesting to notice, not only the division between the related 9/11 concepts within the film, but also to notice the shift amongst entire universes when the channel transitioned from the film to commercials. Now, this goes on all the time in TV news so this show is nothing unique, but I think it is worth noting the paradigm this pattern represents -- it conditions the mind to accept fragmented realities as ultimate reality. In other words, the very pattern of show-commercial-show proliferates the acceptance of sitcomism amongst the TV watching population. In this case, the History Channel oscillated from the universe of possible state-sponsored terrorism (a paradigm shattering possibility if ever there was one) to a universe only concerned with pills that put you to sleep and pills that give you a woody. Amusing and depressing at the same time, but each of these universes are meant to be completely separate and foreign to each other. The point is, the viewer is not meant to mix them together. The viewer is meant to co-exist within all these separate universes one at a time. The damning effect this has on the mind is that it conditions it to accept contradictions and absurdities without question because distinct realities don't overlap.

Since sitcomism is so pervasive within the mass media in general it is inevitable that the reporting on 9/11 and its related genocides will follow suit. The families of 9/11 victims must exist in a wholly separate universe from the ones that the victims of US genocide exist in. The former universe always holds, no matter what events may transpire, that Americans are wholesome, innocent and virtuous. The latter universe, as far as the media is concerned, is always full of sub-human, non-American barbarians that are barely worthy of mention. This, I believe, is where the gross misrepresentations of human suffering take form.

This notion of sitcomism also extends into the division irie dave points out about the 9/11 victims' families and their support or opposition to 9/11 Truth. In the History Channel's universe, 9/11 skepticism is insulting to 9/11 families and could be no other way. As far as the family members in favor of 9/11 Truth goes, the History Channel simply omits them because they see no reason to mix universes together -- that would be like mixing The Simpson's universe in with Seinfeld's universe.

The final comment I have here is that there seems to be very little one can do to reason with a mind locked into sitcomism until the spell of sitcomism is broken. This is because much of our reality depends on our perception of reality as coherent and consistent. In the absence of such coherence and consistency, contradictions can run rampant. And, where contradictions run rampant, reason holds no power.
Great post. What you're saying makes total sense to me and helps me better understand why seemingly intelligent people that I have been trying to expose facts to continue to ignore said facts. Thanks.

[graflok]

The only thing that I can hope for from this shit fest is
that some people will become more interested in the subject and continue their
own research on the net.

Good point. I agree.

The more you stir shit, the worse it smells. ;)

[moonoodoo]

Just watched the film after waiting ages to download it. I was quite prepared to see a one sided program, however I was amazed at how unbalanced it was. It was like having a mouse and an elephant trying to play see-saw.

Up until recently I have tried to sit on the fence and keep an open mind about events surrounding that dreadful day. I have listened to both sides of the arguments and the so-called experts on both sides. I have supported the truth movement, not so much out of belief in what has happened but in their desire for a full independent inquiry free from any political influence, unlike a comment in the film wanting one with political opposition.

I have a growing respect for Dr Steven Jones, who has so far given very compelling evidence for the use of explosives. From all the de-bunking reports I have seen there have been very few people that have gone head to head with this man. Other than some loud mouthed "sit-comm" presenter just attacking his character. This History piece is no exception, in fact they only featured him for 10 seconds saying ..

"Theres no reason why you can't have explosives proceed radio controlled explosives occurring near where the planes went in"

This was not even in the part where they discussed the collapse, its in the 'look at these wacko's section' near the beginning of the film. As the expert response was:

"I dont know the motivation for individuals who do this sort of thing, I do know they dont have an engineering basis for their conclusions and they nearly always ignore the facts, physical evidence and calculations that try to determine what happened"

I highlight this as I was looking forward to seeing Steve speak about his evidence and conclusions. Alex Jones and the Loose Change crew are unfortunately easy prey for the debunkers based on their outspoken views or their age ( not that either should matter), but Steve is a very credible source.

So I guess it was the only way they could feature him in the show and take away anything he had to say was by not showing it all.

In Essence the film was very much a directors cut of the BBC piece featuring many of the same cast members.

I give it 8 out of 10 for being a prime example of propaganda and sweet **** all for balanced journalism.

[howie]

http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/4913/000251co8.jpg

They put a timestamp over the flashes & squibs.

911 North Tower Flashes & Squibs - YouTube

but they missed this one at 1hr 8mins

http://www.911archive.info/gallery/albums/userpics/10001/normal_wtc7.gif

[ryans53]

...seemingly intelligent people that I have been trying to expose facts to continue to ignore said facts.

Gonzo raises a very interesting point here: Why do some otherwise intelligent people demonstrate so much resistance to 9/11 research? One would expect that the legitimacy of 9/11 research would be better acknowledged by those who are of above-average intelligence; however, we often find that they are the most opposed. Why?

I think the concept of sitcomism that I introduced earlier gives us a good start in attempting to answer this question. Within sitcomism there are two broad categories one can use to classify events and ideas. I'll call these two categories internal and external. The internal category houses all the events and ideas that are consistent with the central, unchanging assumptions of that person's world view. The sitcom analogy to the internal category would be the basic plot of the show (i.e. Homer works at the power plant, Lisa gets good grades and Bart is in 4th grade). The external category houses all the events and ideas that are inconsistent with the central assumptions of that person's world view. The sitcom analogy here would be any event or idea that contradicts or otherwise alters the basic plot of the show (i.e. Homer quitting the power plant, Lisa getting bad grades and Bart moving on to 5th grade).

So how does intelligence fit in to the sitcom style mentality? I think intelligence would materialize in the sitcom mentality as the ability to utilize the contents of the internal category without any need of the external. Intelligence is the capacity to go forward with the initial "givens" of a situation. Whatever resources (no matter the quantity or quality) the mind has at its disposal, the intelligent mind will make those resources work without introducing new resources from the outside. In a sitcom, this translates into the ability of the writers to keep episodes interesting without "copping out" and dramatically altering the core plot. The more a sitcom's basic plot changes, the more it begins to resemble a soap opera. For example, Elaine and Jerry didn't have to get together to keep that show interesting--by this standard, Seinfeld's writers were more intelligent than Friends' writers, if Friends was indeed trying to be a sitcom. Likewise, in real-life sitcomism, it is considered more intelligent to adhere to the unchanging contents of the internal category.

The crucial side-effect of this kind of intelligence is that it is often inclined toward specialization. Specialization, in this view, is the narrowing of the internal sphere. This is important for the intelligent mind because it allows the mind to become more proficient and precise. In other words, the more narrow one's field of expertise, the more intelligent one becomes within that field. Now, we know that this specialization is highly revered by our society because there is an expanding demand for "experts" and "professionals" in almost every conceivable field. With respect to 9/11, for example, David Griffin is most often criticized for lacking engineering expertise. So, this reverence for specialization in general creates an impetus for intelligent people to specialize. Unfortunately, this specialization comes at a price: the systematic exclusion of most events and ideas outside the internal sphere...especially events and ideas that threaten the integrity of one's internal sphere. In other words, specialized intelligence has a vested interest in defending its personal belief system.

Finally, because specialized intelligence is intelligent, it is very good at rationalizing away threatening events and ideas by using its cunning abilities. These rationalizations are then readily believed because the mind, already embracing its own intelligence, infers that this rationalization must then also be intelligent. In other words, it can use its own brilliance to deceive itself. Further, the more the intelligent mind rejects the external category, the more it reaffirms its own intelligence--because intelligence is the ability to rely on the internal to the exclusion of the external. This is often why 9/11 research will not even be given a cursory glance by these kinds of people--it is considered external and damning to their world-view; and, as a rule, it is more intelligent to dismiss such things as irrelevant, unnecessary and of low credibility in order to prove to self that the internal sphere is perfectly sufficient to account for one's reality.

Of course, there are intelligent people who do not subscribe to sitcomism--for those people their intelligence works for them and, in my opinion, to the benefit of society. It is only intelligence that initially took a wrong turn that is in danger of sitcomism. Again, to deal with them I think you have to encourage them to challenge their initial assumptions, the "plot" of their world view, so to speak.

[graflok]

Apart from the tragedy of it, what a horrendous blunder 9/11 was for the
illuminati!

It must set the record for the greatest amount of incriminating evidence,
clues, witnesses and smoking guns left at the scene of any crime in
history by a wide margin.

The heads of those responsible will roll for years on that one, I'm sure.

http://aycu02.webshots.com/image/26401/2000600929119658285_rs.jpg

[graflok]

Great post. What you're saying makes total sense to me and helps me better understand why seemingly intelligent people that I have been trying to expose facts to continue to ignore said facts. Thanks.

Intelligence can be defined in different ways. The way it is often regarded
by educators is as a measure of how well-versed a person is in the propaganda
and distortions that are taught in our education systems.

In other words, an intelligent person is one who can spout the "facts" and
trivia contained in text books. This kind of "intelligent" person may do well on
TV game shows and in the business world but they can't necessarily evaluate
what is right in front of them in the real world.

Intelligence tests are often skewed toward measuring this type of
"intelligence" so it's not often easy to tell how truly intelligent a person
may be. In fact, a truly intelligent person may well be one that would
be labeled insane by the establishment.

Like us. :D