Military Plane Flying Low over the Hudson River?

[Percival]

Welcome back Hugh!
I saw that also and thought to myself, I wonder if Hugh saw this, it is plainly obvious the attempt was to visually keyword hijack our minds leaving us thinking building 7 was still standing. Now when people think of 9-11 they will think of that photo op flight and that big building still standing with the 7s on it. These guys are good hehe.

[MacCruiskeen]

Seventy-seven is not the same number as seven. (Not that it would matter in the slightest, in this context, if it were.) Let's not waste our time wasting time.

I have seven nephews and nieces. This struck me yesterday, and not because I had been keyword-hijacked. An unamazing thing about the world is that it is very large indeed, and that single-digit numbers such as 7 tend to turn up unastonishingly often in it, and even in written descriptions of it.

Remarkably, the article cited by Hugh never once mentions the numbers 9, 11, or 2001, or 2 (the number of the planes in New York) or 3 (the number of the buildings that fell). There must be a perfectly reasonable scientific explanation for this.

Did that heroic journalist pre-emptively hijack an even worse keyword-hijacking than the one he actually perpetrated? Or is the CIA perhaps even craftier than we suspect? It would be a good use of our endless time to discuss this endlessly.

UPDATE: The BBC used the word "nine" just a minute ago! They can't fool me.

[KeenInsight]

77, doesn't remind me of WTC7.

Flight 77 however... would be more obvious with the low flying plane and background of towers.

[MacCruiskeen]

77, doesn't remind me of WTC7.

Flight 77 however... would be more obvious with the low flying plane and background of towers.

By god you're right.

This has just made me forget everything I ever read about 9/11 and believe the Bush Gang's account without reservation.

Amazing how that works.

[8bitagent]

I think people in conspiracy/deep politic/truther circles forget that outside of this little arena; noone knows or gives a crap about "WTC7".

[KeenInsight]

77, doesn't remind me of WTC7.

Flight 77 however... would be more obvious with the low flying plane and background of towers.

By god you're right.

This has just made me forget everything I ever read about 9/11 and believe the Bush Gang's account without reservation.

Amazing how that works.

By god sarcasm is like my second language.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

.....
By god you're right.

This has just made me forget everything I ever read about 9/11 and believe the Bush Gang's account without reservation.

Amazing how that works.

sigh. Stop using yourself as the measure of information management.

Most people know and recall very little detail about events and barely scan papers or 'news.' One photo can bolster mis-/disinformation for many.

Look up "source amnesia."
Easy to exploit by exposing people to things that muddle them up later on when they are in "heuristic" mode.

In appreciation of poetic injustice, here is a CIA-NYTimes article on precisely this phenomenon.
Although their motive was to blame your brain for the lies told by newspapers.
Anyway-
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/opini ... .html?_r=1

This flyover event accomplished many things.

One of them is separating Obama from complicity in the event through all his reported outrage and his call for accountability. This is an obvious psychological strategy to demarcate a Difference between the Obama and Cheney administrations on 9/11.

Psyops like this has to be done for the career mil-intel people who are the moving parts of the US government, not just the sit-com watching civilians.

This also gives Obama distance in case another plane incident like 9/11 is pulled off by the same insider perps who did the original job to write themselves some history.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

I think people in conspiracy/deep politic/truther circles forget that outside of this little arena; noone knows or gives a crap about "WTC7".

What an oblivious comment.

Psyops is done pre-emptively. WTC7 is the easiest-to-see-and-understand controlled demolition, a dangerous path to OMG!

They are still actively covering up Pearl Harbor and JFK but you could say "nobody gives a crap" etc.

What a comment. Un-frikkin'-believable.

[Fixx]

It takes some planning to pull off a photo op like that and make it page 1 of the CIA-NYTimes.

A large aircraft accompanied by two military aircraft flying low around NY, especially around 'Ground Zero', businesses and people panicking, and you think it would take some planning to get that on page one of the New York Times?

You're a fucking wacko Hugh.

[Ben D]

It takes some planning to pull off a photo op like that and make it page 1 of the CIA-NYTimes.

A large aircraft accompanied by two military aircraft flying low around NY, especially around 'Ground Zero', businesses and people panicking, and you think it would take some planning to get that on page one of the New York Times?

You're a fucking wacko Hugh.

The point is Fixx, I'm sure you would not disagree that it really does take some planning at the highest levels of 'Government' to get "A large aircraft accompanied by two military aircraft flying low around NY, especially around 'Ground Zero'"?

Furthermore it seems reasonable to me, that it may involve prior knowledge of intimate details of that plan for some 'lucky' photographer to be in a position to get that 'photo op' HMW addresses, and which photograph immediately is on the front page of NYT. But in any event, regardless of the photo, the main point is that it was a planned event from a high level!

[whipstitch]

Seventy-seven is not the same number as seven. (Not that it would matter in the slightest, in this context, if it were.) Let's not waste our time wasting time.

I have seven nephews and nieces. This struck me yesterday, and not because I had been keyword-hijacked. An unamazing thing about the world is that it is very large indeed, and that single-digit numbers such as 7 tend to turn up unastonishingly often in it, and even in written descriptions of it.

Remarkably, the article cited by Hugh never once mentions the numbers 9, 11, or 2001, or 2 (the number of the planes in New York) or 3 (the number of the buildings that fell). There must be a perfectly reasonable scientific explanation for this.

Did that heroic journalist pre-emptively hijack an even worse keyword-hijacking than the one he actually perpetrated? Or is the CIA perhaps even craftier than we suspect? It would be a good use of our endless time to discuss this endlessly.

UPDATE: The BBC used the word "nine" just a minute ago! They can't fool me.

Confirmation bias

In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias is a tendency to search for or interpret new information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions and to avoid information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs. It is a type of cognitive bias and represents an error of inductive inference, or as a form of selection bias toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study or disconfirmation of an alternative hypothesis.

Confirmation bias is of interest in the teaching of critical thinking, as the skill is misused if rigorous critical scrutiny is applied only to evidence challenging a preconceived idea but not to evidence supporting it.

Post-hoc analysis

Post-hoc analysis design and analysis of experiments, refers to looking at the data—after the experiment has concluded—for patterns that were not specified a priori. It is also known as data dredging to evoke the sense that the more one looks the more likely something will be found. More subtly, each time a pattern in the data is considered, a statistical test is effectively performed.

[orz]

Un-frikkin'-believable.

[psynapz]

With the plethora of amazing shots taken between the military photographers working the event (from the ground, not the F-16's for fucks sake) including the Queen Semiramis Flyby money-shot captured from Dancing Israeli Memorial Park, and all the journalist photos from the street, you've got to admit it's pretty assy of the NYT to choose a WTC pre-impact look-alike shot for their lead cover photo.

Then, to just so happen to have, as the only other discernable symbol of any kind in the image besides the obvious, in letters larger than the plane, the numbers representing both one of the ill-fated flights at the other non-NYC symbolic target in DC, and the ritual date of the identically-structured London tube bombing (by intel patsies during identical training drills and everything), simply strains the credulity of coincidence theory.

The events are connected in pattern and outcome, in means, motive and opportunity, and they intersected in your face on the cover of the rag put out by the regional fireld office of Operation goddamn Mockingbird, and people here still feel the need to argue intentionality vs. confirmation bias?

How about this: confirmation bias, when applied conscientiously, enables greater patterns (of complicity in this case) to be discerned through careful, biased observation (and corroboration). Bias is a cognitive and even metaphysical tool. It can and must contradict itself over time, or else we never form new distinctions, which we call learning.

[Fixx]

It takes some planning to pull off a photo op like that and make it page 1 of the CIA-NYTimes.

A large aircraft accompanied by two military aircraft flying low around NY, especially around 'Ground Zero', businesses and people panicking, and you think it would take some planning to get that on page one of the New York Times?

You're a fucking wacko Hugh.

The point is Fixx, I'm sure you would not disagree that it really does take some planning at the highest levels of 'Government' to get "A large aircraft accompanied by two military aircraft flying low around NY, especially around 'Ground Zero'"?

Furthermore it seems reasonable to me, that it may involve prior knowledge of intimate details of that plan for some 'lucky' photographer to be in a position to get that 'photo op' HMW addresses, and which photograph immediately is on the front page of NYT. But in any event, regardless of the photo, the main point is that it was a planned event from a high level!

I'm not disputing the fact that the flight may have been organised at a high level, my point is that Hugh thinks it's remarkable that the picture made it onto the front cover of the NYTimes. Something I think it would do without any prior arrangement, especially considering the furore the flight caused on the ground...and as for it being remarkable that a NYTimes Journalist was on the ground somewhere in NY in order to take the pictures, give me a break.

[StarmanSkye]

Fixx -- I think you're missing the crucial point -- In order to get the plane on page one, you have to BEGIN by secretly arranging to get the plane in the air, with all the required permissions and logistic details arranged, without spoiling the Ah-HA! Surprise-factor, complete with half-ass plausable-rationale, in the sky above New York 'next-to' high rise buildings. This is NOT just picture-taking.

And good pont Hugh about the intended audience of this stunt including the cadres of insider officials. After all, what does this suggest? That Obama's people don't have complete situational awareness, their control of the public ideasphere is severely compromised. (Among 'other' messages including those you suggested.)

Re: Power of images -- The notorious photo of Serbian-run 'concentration camp' victims sure comes immediately to mind as a major piece of contrived propaganda during the US/NATOs opportunistic war in Yugoslavia. The 'camp' was just an artifact of carefully-staged photographic manipulation, as a German documentary team fully discovered some months later, after the image had played in the western media, fleshing out the lies about Serbian 'genocide'. This recalls Randolph Hearst's famous dictum to his reporter in Cuba, precipitating the Spanish-American war of 1898:
"in the 1890s, Remington's boss, William Randolph Hearst, sent a cable in reply: "Please remain. You furnish the pictures, I'll furnish the war. ..."
www.smplanet.com/imperialism/remember.html