whatreallyhappened.com - fearless journalism or Internet loonies?

POSTED BY: SimonWho
UPDATED: Sunday, July 12, 2026 14:27
VIEWED: 6725
PAGE 4 of 5

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE

RUXTON

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 7:31 PM

Further, in the case of the bombing misinformation, it's the official story that keeps changing, not the media coverage. A coalition of European terror experts found C4 traces at all four bombing sites. This finding was widely reported, and taken as accurate at the time. Then, when it didn't fit the desired spin, the explosive was changed to another chemical that turned out to be too unstable for use, so now there is yet another official story as to what was used.

The simple fact that Blair does not want an inquiry into the matter ought to send an immediate red flag up.

http://wagnews.blogspot.com/2005/07/french-terror-cop-leaked-bomb-plot
.html

CITIZEN

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 10:05 PM

Personally I think there are some serious questions about this bombing that need answering. I lived through most of the years of the IRA's operation, and i remember those incidents being delt with very differently.
Do I think its most likely that this is the work of an extremist group in the name of islam? Yes.
Do I think my goverment would use the situation for their own pollitical advantage?
hmmm...

I have a slight problem with your source ruxton, although it does give two side to the story it intersperses them with personal opinions, and dismisses out of hand seemingly reasonable explinations. Not argues against them with reasoned arguments, just dismisses them.

The point is these sources as well as main stream ones have a biased view.
Lets remember that main stream sources still expose goverments and their actions from time to time.
Do these internet sites ever post a story that supports the goverment view or action? Or do we believe that our goverments are all permanently trying to pull the wool over our eyes about everything?

I'm not trying to attack these sites unilaterally, i'm just saying that it is foolish to say whatreallyhappend (for instance) is full of the truth the whole truth and nothing but, while mainstream sources just swallow the goverment line and help keep us sheep under control.

"No this must be what going mad feels like!"

RUXTON

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 11:23 PM

Citizen:
I agree with you it's foolish to claim any website contains the whole truth and nothing but. In fact, the operator of WRH (Michael Rivero) and I have had plenty of arguments in various emails. He is not one to easily admit he's wrong, even though I pointed out clearly and unequivocally he WAS wrong, or failed to consider some things he didn't understand as well as I did. However, he does give the Devil his due on occasion. For example, WRH questioned (letters section) the rain on the ground in one of the "bomber" photos. A source in London said the weather was dry. But then, other London sources have indicated it was raining. Rivero has published all the letters, so you can see everyone's line of reasoning.

Also, Rivero maintains the official U.S. government position on a plane hitting the Pentagon (and provides evidence to support his conviction), though plenty of websites claim a missile (or something else) hit it. Along that line, why has the U.S. government siezed the tapes that show what hit the Pentagon? Why has the U.S. government failed to produce the black boxes from the WTC disaster? (Several witnesses claim to have seen them, and the witnesses, as so often is the case, have NOTHING to gain by making those claims.) Why has the MSM not covered the Downing Street minutes, discussed worldwide outside the U.S.? Why has the MSM not dealt with the fact that the Secret Service failed to remove Bush instantly from the goat-reading session? How did they KNOW he was not in danger, with planes dealing out destruction and with the whole world knowing exactly where Bush was at that time?

In my experience, the mainstream media is worthless. I occasionally turn on TV news for a few minutes, until I see something presented as being "the truth" that I know is a lie. The MSM continually presents firearms in a bad light, for instance, and that's enough for me to see an agenda that makes no sense.

Thanks for your insight.

RUXTON

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 11:56 PM

Here's why I place no credibility on many websites that are not as thorough as WRH. Note the claim made in the second sentence of this article:
"The dust hadn’t even settled after the terrorist atrocities in London and already the conspiracy-theories and self-recrimination had begun. Unwilling to blame the actual perpetrators....[emphasis added] !!!

This dork implies he knows who did it. That makes his credibility ZERO.

Some time, when you all have nothing better to do, look up cognitive dissonance (I think that's the right term) and what commonly causes it. That's what many of us are facing here, particularly in the younger set who have their beliefs tatooed to their brains, which is the antithesis of learning.

CITIZEN

Wednesday, July 20, 2005 12:08 AM

Quote:
In my experience, the mainstream media is worthless. I occasionally turn on TV news for a few minutes, until I see something presented as being "the truth" that I know is a lie.

I can see why you say that. Many news source on TV and the tabloid press are more interested in sensationism (pretty sure that ain't a word but gets the point across) and rating than anything approaching true journalism.
Having said that the are are some good sources out there. The BBC, although goverment funded has its independence protected by law. As far as i know it is the only truely independent mainstream news source.
The BBC seems to me on the whole to be impartial and prepared to push for the truth.

Quote:
The MSM continually presents firearms in a bad light, for instance, and that's enough for me to see an agenda that makes no sense.

I havent heard a good argument FOR firearms, save for one that i make myself. Since they have been made illegal in my country (the UK) gun crime has risen.

Quote:
Why has the MSM not covered the Downing Street minutes, discussed worldwide outside the U.S.? Why has the MSM not dealt with the fact that the Secret Service failed to remove Bush instantly from the goat-reading session? How did they KNOW he was not in danger, with planes dealing out destruction and with the whole world knowing exactly where Bush was at that time?

I agree, though i have heard these points raised in the British press. I find a lot of the current terroist climate alarming, and this is in no small way due to this quote:

Quote:

Why of course the people don't want war... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.

- Hermann Goering, Nazi leader at the Nuremberg Trials after World War II, In Politics/Nazism

But now i must bid you goodnight, I have to be up for work in 6 hours... :(

"No this must be what going mad feels like!"

CITIZEN

Wednesday, July 20, 2005 12:21 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

I look foward to speaking with you tomorrow.

EDIT :- cant do HTML links?
EDIT :- Ahh, it does it automatically! Clever, i really need sleep...

"No this must be what going mad feels like!"

RUXTON

Wednesday, July 20, 2005 3:03 AM

Citizen,
What I've seen/read from the BBC agrees with your estimate of it. Would that we had anything that good this side of the pond. I neglected to clarify that by MSM I meant the U.S. version. One forgets the whole world has access to fireflyfans.net.

Cognitive dissonance [C-D]:
When one is presented with an idea, such as, "Muslim terrorists had nothing to do with London bombs," and it is contrary to one's internal beliefs which, say, follow the "official" story as given by "authority" figures, which, for instance, may state that "Muslim terrorists did the bombing," one gets an internal conflict: dissonance in what he knows/believes to be true. The natural outcome of such a presentation is to deny the first idea (above). But it doesn't always end there. Commonly, other conditions or "escapes" are added, such as "Oh, he's a conspiracy theorist, so what he said must not be true." And that resolves the dissonance. But as noted at your link, that's the easier way out, not necessarily the better.

Per your link, Citizen, we have:
"Festinger proposed that cognitive dissonance is a "negative-drive state", a similar psychological tension to hunger and thirst ... people will seek to resolve this tension.

"Reduction of cognitive dissonance, Festinger believed, is good because one feels better, and because one can come closer to consonance by eliminating contradictions."

He cited an example of what most do, add a condition that makes things acceptable (as in my above example), but he implied that was the easy way around the problem. The harder way took more effort. I suspect most who want to believe U.S. TV news are in this easy-route category. The harder way would be to question everything, and go looking for those answers that made the most sense over the long haul.

Thanks again for your time, and a good link.

There's a discussion of C-D by a Russian at the link below, but it's long-winded and touches on a great many related things, including scary numbers on Ritalin use in the U.S. and its possible aftermath.

http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index782.htm

RUXTON

Wednesday, July 20, 2005 3:06 AM

From the above link, quoting Sorcha Faal:

"...I had an occasion to question various departments within our Russian Health Ministry only to find that this drugging of American children [with Ritalin] has nothing at all to do with their health, but is instead just one part of a vast United States Intelligence operation designed to evoke in the entire American population a psychological phenomenon known as “Cognitive Dissonance”

JAYNEZTOWN

Wednesday, January 3, 2018 6:57 PM

I would say Mike reasonably accurate with some conspiracy

Jeff Rense is more the tinfoil head woo lizard UFO type, David Icke more crazy?...but then again maybe some 'truth' and Jeff Rense seems to be going full ethno nationalist apologist, rightwing alt right, also his website looks like sometime from the early days of AOL and Geocities

radio host Jeff Rense & Catherine Austin

sometimes truth is stranger than fiction?
Feds break up organ harvest operation in Chicago?

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=33887
maybe Piratenews once in a while did tell some truth and was not so loony after all

6IXSTRINGJACK

Wednesday, January 3, 2018 7:31 PM

Wow... I think the last post on this thread pre-dates my first time ever being here. I don't think I'd even seen the show yet by July of 2005.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE