whatreallyhappened.com - fearless journalism or Internet loonies?

POSTED BY: SimonWho
UPDATED: Sunday, July 12, 2026 14:27
VIEWED: 6725
PAGE 2 of 5

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE

SIMONWHO

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 9:10 AM

Well, they link to articles and either they speak for themselves (which are links to other conspiracy sites or blogs where people put forward their own conspiracies) or they put a sarcastic comment underneath like "Suuuuuure" or "Translation: "We better grab those images before they get posted to the internet and really blow this thing open!" "

This page has most of their self-produced articles. If you want the gist, everything (and I mean everything) bad that has happened in America since WWII has been the work of the Government, sinister authority figures or Israel (not Jews per se, they're not anti-semetic, but, you know, Israel).

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/quickindex/

Basically Al-Qaeda doesn't exist and all its attacks were manufactured by the US, the twin towers were blown up by bombs (yeah, I don't know why either), Osama's been dead for four years.

The real issue I have with these sorts of things is that it makes it so much easier for our governments to disregard any attempts to bring them to account for their real crimes. If you argue that we were deliberately misled into the Iraq war (as it seems quite probable), they'll immediately spin you as being part of the same loony mob as these guys.

I think the irony that they provide a very usual escape route for government accountability is lost on them.

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 1:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Well, WE went to see Hostess Twinkies and other delectables being made!

Poor Twinkies. They suffocate 'em in plastic near the end.
Life sucks.

Chrisisall

RUE

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 6:55 PM

Quote:
Poor Twinkies. They suffocate 'em in plastic near the end.
Life sucks.

Oh, so that's how they kill them. Better than being eaten alive I guess. But still, the silent slaughter of the Twinkies is an issue that needs to be addressed.

RUE

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 7:06 PM

Hey SimonWho,

Thanks for the link to the quick index. It does seem to be the distilled version of the website's own writings. So, though I have no problem in general with their news links, the quick index makes them look pretty whacked-out at first glance. It's one of those things where I'd probably read a topic in depth to see how salient they were and try to get a believability gauge on them.

CONNORFLYNN

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 7:42 PM

Interesting post! It's nice to see a civil discussion as well!

I'd have to say that in my experience there is almost always some piece of truth in these articles. Unfortunately many get tainted and spun by political leanings which tend to water down any real details.

I for one am not so quick to dismiss off hand anything in regards to the government anymore.

Rue- That Twinkie comment was hilarious!!! ROFLMAO

-----------------------------------------------
One evening an old Cherokee told his grandson about a battle that goes on inside people.
He said, "My son, the battle is between two wolves inside us all.
One is Evil. It is anger, envy, jealousy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego.
The other is Good. It is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion and faith."

The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather, "Which wolf wins?"

The old Cherokee simply replied, "The one you feed."

CONNORFLYNN

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 7:51 PM

ICCLEDAMES-

Since you are studying to become a journalist, I'd be interested to know what they teach in regards to Journalistic ethics and standards. It seems nowadays there is an extreme lack in those areas in regards to how news is presented and articles are written.

Right now I have a hard time trusting any Journalists. Particularly photojournalism, where Photoshop and other computer related software can be used to manipulate truth.

Also, what are your feelings in regards to unnamed sources? Do you feel they are abused and overused? What qualifiers do they recommend you use when determining whether a source is reliable or not?

RUXTON

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 8:53 PM

For a prime and timely example of the workings of "Whatreallyhappened.com," you all might find this of particular interest. Note the very limited personal opinions and the multiple links:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/londonarchive.html

CITIZEN

Friday, July 15, 2005 10:21 PM

Seems to me that theres a lot of conjecture on this site COMPLETELY unsupported by any real evidence.
To be honest i happen to agree with *SOME* of the sites conclusions, but i am suspitious of any source that makes grandious claims/accusations and fails to back them up with even a shred of evidence.
Its all down to interpretation, you believe what you want to believe, and the authors of this site want to blindly believe that everyone is out to get them, which is just as bad as blindly believing that the powers that be have your best interests firmly at heart.
We are living in a time of too much information, so our views of the world are coloured by our pyches even more than before.

I also noticed that some possibly obvious motivations for the terror attacks in london were completely missed, the G8 for instance.

I was in central london at the time of the attacks, not far from aldgate tube station, on the day and watched the news reports on BBC News 24 and Sky News. I don't remember hearing the possibillity of Islamic terrorists being involved until late in the day, and then only as a possibillity. In fact the fact that it was a terroist attack at all wasnt clear until the explosion on the number 30 bus.

RUXTON

Saturday, July 16, 2005 5:22 AM

CITIZEN:

"...but i am suspitious of any source that makes grandious claims/accusations and fails to back them up with even a shred of evidence."

Everything I've seen on "whatreallyhappened" has links to back up what is implied, usually more than enough to let you follow the reasoning.

-------------------------------------
"Its all down to interpretation, you believe what you want to believe...."

I'd argue that. I don't want to believe many of the things I have been led to believe by my thousands of hours of research, but I no longer have a choice.
--------------------------------
"...and the authors of this site want to blindly believe that everyone is out to get them...."

There is but one "author" of the site, Michael Rivero. and he is anything but blind.
==================================
Here is a link to an outstanding presentation of analytical thought that pokes holes in the "official" story of the lone "witness" to the bombing of one bus (Mr. Richard Jones):
http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_members&Numbe
r=293785242

And another that discusses so-called suicide bombings, a relatively recent anomaly:
http://www.libertyforum.org/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=news_members&ma
in=293783132&type=thread
------------------------------

In neither case have I made any personal judgements. However, both links show the sorts of questioning and well-reasoned arguments that, to me, invite serious thought.

RUXTON

Saturday, July 16, 2005 5:25 AM

CITIZEN,
Many of the links on the website are hard to see. They're highlighted in green, and you might easily miss some of them.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE