Time article on 9/11 conspiracy

[yesferatu]

<!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1531304-2,00.html">time.com</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br>I guess I should be glad this is being mentioned in Time....but....things like this <<There's something empowering about just exploring such questions. Loose Change appeals to the viewer's common sense: it tells you to forget the official explanations and the expert testimony, and trust your eyes and your brain instead. It implies that the world can be grasped by laymen without any help or interference from the talking heads. Watching Loose Change, you feel as if you are participating in the great American tradition of self-reliance and nonconformist, antiauthoritarian dissent. You're fighting the power. You're thinking different. (Conspiracists call people who follow the government line "sheeple.")>> is so fucking annoying. <br>I understand what it is. What is being tried. The fact that it will not ultimately work for them does not make my gag reflex any less sensitive when I force-feed shit to myself like I did with this Time piece.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[darkbeforedawn]

I agree. They're buying time, but their days are numbered. Once the "sheeple" see through 9-11, they will see through corporate media. <p></p><i></i>

[orz]

Unfortunately various things will prevent this ever happening, including the use of the word "Sheeple" <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :rolleyes --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eyes.gif ALT=":rolleyes"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :rolleyes --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eyes.gif ALT=":rolleyes"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :rolleyes --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eyes.gif ALT=":rolleyes"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :rolleyes --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eyes.gif ALT=":rolleyes"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p></p><i></i>

[pugzleyca3]

I thought the article was pretty good until I got to the last part of it.<br><br>Apparently people make up frightening scenarios which are more frightening than the "official stories" just because we are frightened. <p></p><i></i>

[Attack Ships on Fire]

Y'know, the jury's still out for me on whether 9/11 went down the way mainstream media present that it did, but that Time piece is absolute holier than thou garbage. It doesn't pick apart "Loose Change" or examine the claims made by the program against the recorded data from the day, it attacks the propegators of conspiracy theories. And really, I am sick of hearing the excuse that conspiracies cannot happen because people will talk...if that were really the case, then why wasn't the terrorist plot behind 9/11 stopped before it happened? According to Time magazine, the few dozen terrorists responsible for 9/11 should never have been able to keep it a secret. So why aren't the Twin Towers still standing?<br><br>Nice work, Time. Let's see some more of that crack journalism at work, like declaring Elmo from Sesame Street the Man of the Year.<br> <p></p><i></i>

[HMKGrey]

Of course, you guys realize that if and when the perpetrators of 9/11 are fully exposed and we collectively look around us ready to say "I told you so!" the editors of TIME will simply shrug and say, "Yeah, we covered it in September 06. We were all over that story." <br><br>In the age of limited and limitless hang outs we shouldn't underestimate the media establishments ability to put its own parachutes in place ahead of the inevitable. <p></p><i></i>