Yes, yes, the politicking speech etc. The first plane was thought to be an accident remember? The second confirmed an attack.

Too many questions without any thinking.

Bush said he saw the first plane hit the tower "on television? BEFORE he went into the classroom.

You can see him say that here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCtb9nlV_20

Watch him say it himself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCtb9nlV_20

He said he saw the first plane hit the tower... why on earth would he say that?

Is he nuts? A liar? Psychic?


Or just as I suspect... an idiot.

Yes, I've seen it before. How does his inaccuracy imply a conspiracy?

What does this inconsequential titbit mean to you?

yep,Youtube!
You really think Youtube is a reliable Medium?

Why Conspiracy Theorists Love YouTube.



This writer says much.

""If you argue with conspiracy theorists on the Internet for even a short period of time, you’ll notice one thing very quickly: they love YouTube. It’s extremely rare to carry on any sort of “debate” with a conspiracy theorist of any stripe—9/11 Truther, moon hoaxer, global warming denier, what-have-you—and not see the CT post at least one, and usually more, links to videos on YouTube supposedly validating their position. In fact, in terms of sheer volume of the “evidence” posted by conspiracy theorists, YouTube appears to be their primary source of information. Furthermore, most of them simply can’t understand why not everybody is immediately persuaded by something on YouTube, and if you push back against their arguments, you’ll invariably get still more YouTube links. In the paranoid world of conspiracy theories, YouTube is evidently the ultimate oracle of all knowledge.""

""So, why do conspiracy theorists love YouTube?

1. In most cases, it’s honestly the best they can do.

Conspiracy theories are, by definition, fringe beliefs. The most common shopworn theories these days—9/11 was an inside job, global warming is a hoax, the Illuminati is out to impose a “New World Order” on us, etc., etc.—are completely unsupported by empirical evidence. No reputable scientists or engineers believe that 9/11 was a “controlled demolition.” (Steven Jones and Judy Wood are not a reputable scientists, and Richard Gage is not a reputable engineer). The only studies “showing” that climate change is not happening or is not caused by humans are tainted by association with energy lobbies or other political agendas, and the supposed scientific bases for these viewpoints are not accepted in mainstream science. Therefore, by definition, you will not have pieces of peer-reviewed scholarship to point to that support conspiracy theories. The only support you can find is from some source where content is user-contributed, and thereby not vetted by any type of editorial process whatsoever—meaning, an open and unregulated community of ideas, which is the definition of what YouTube is.

Example: you can’t find a legitimately peer-reviewed scientific paper claiming that the World Trade Center towers were blown up. Papers of that nature simply don’t exist. But type in “9/11 controlled demolition” into YouTube and you’ll bring up thousands of hits. Anybody can put up a YouTube video about anything. Unless it flagrantly violates the terms of service enough to be taken off the net, it will remain there for as long as the contributor wants it there, with no factual vetting of any kind. This is great if you think your cat playing the piano is really funny; chances are others will find that funny too. It’s not great when you’re trying to prove a scientific or factual point. Conspiracy theorists don’t have much “evidence” to choose from, and the richest bed of that sort of material is going to be an open source, user-contributed interface. Ergo, YouTube is custom-made for them.""

""2. Most conspiracy theorists are unaware of, or do not appreciate the importance of, non-Web-based, factually vetted sources of information (put another way, the difference between primary sources, secondary sources and tertiary sources).

It sounds like a cliché, but it is largely true that most conspiracy theorists, at least those active on the Internet, are white males between the ages of 18 and 30 who either don’t have or are not yet finished getting college degrees. Let’s face it, the term peer-reviewed journal doesn’t come up much in this demographic, and far be it from most of these people to set foot into a respected university library. For these people, the Internet with its ease of information retrieval is the paradigm source of knowledge. Need to find something? Google it. Need to learn something about a particular subject? Type it into Wikipedia. ""

continued ....


""Note, however, that even Wikipedia has a gatekeeping function. There are editors and moderators who constantly view and vet the articles that are posted there. So even a tertiary source like Wikipedia has some editorial control.

Here’s the point: open-sourced Web services like YouTube don’t even rise to the level of tertiary sources! YouTube lacks even the minimal gatekeeping functions that Wikipedia has. I can post a video claiming that Ringo Starr was the first President of the United States. As long as it doesn’t violate the terms of service, which have nothing to do with factual accuracy, no one will take it down.

Conspiracy theorists, however, typically don’t understand the hierarchy of various source materials. The difference between YouTube and the National Archives is completely lost on most of them. Consequently, YouTube is a “source” as equally credible as the National Archives—in fact, possibly even more credible because the gatekeeping function of source materials is often mistaken, in conspiracy theorists’ eyes, with conspiratorial meddling or other chicanery.

3. Conspiracy theorists cannot distinguish between credible and non-credible sources.

This point is closely related to the above one. Because there’s no difference in a conspiracy theorist’s eyes between any two sources based upon the nature of those sources, they have no way of telling whether a source is true or false. David McCullough, a respected academic historian with decades of credentials, is no more reliable a source than David Icke, an ex-football player who believes that the world is controlled by reptilian shape-shifting aliens. John Maynard Keynes, one of the most influential economists in recent history, is no more credible than bloviating radio talkshow host Alex Jones on matters of economics. This is why conspiracy theorists generally interpret any questioning of the credibility of their sources as an “ad hominem” attack, because to them credibility is irrelevant. Taken to an extreme, this idea results in the bizarre belief that a YouTube video can be just as true and credible as a peer-reviewed scientific paper published in a nationally-respected journal.

However, because the world (and especially the Internet) is filled with tidal waves of contradictory information, as human beings we must necessarily have a mechanism that separates truth from ********. No one believes absolutely everything they hear, even people who are extremely gullible; it’s just that the truth-versus-******** mechanism of gullible people is out of whack compared to that of the non-gullible. In evaluating the credibility of a particular piece of information, conspiracy theorists do not ask the questions that most of us would ask—“Where did this information come from? Who did it start with? What supports it? Is the source credible?”—because their shallow understanding of epistemology does not result in that sort of analysis. Too often, conspiracy theorists’ thought processes center around the content or outcome of a particular piece of information—“Does it support the ‘official story’ or does it support my theory?”—or a set of associations, usually negative, with the disseminator of the information itself—“Is it a government spokesperson saying this?”""

continued ....


""4. Presenting an argument in video format is much more emotionally satisfying than presenting an argument in any other way.

Motion pictures have been used for propaganda purposes since the technology was invented. The phenomenal success of movies to make a political, social or racial statement was demonstrated first with D.W. Griffith’s 1915 film The Birth of a Nation, and the extraordinary power of movies to persuade people continues today.

Packaging an argument in a video format, especially if it has interesting visuals and a good soundtrack, will carry your argument further and faster than it would travel by any other means. Conspiracy theorists are always recruiting, and using video is one of their most powerful tools. Consequently, it makes sense that their weapon of choice would be YouTube.

To a large extent, conspiracy theorists probably don’t even realize the immense power of the medium that they seem to choose (unconsciously, perhaps) as their preferred means of communication.

5. Conspiracy theorists often exhibit an anti-intellectual bias, and because of their positions are forced to attack, ignore or explain away the legitimacy of expertise. YouTube plays into these biases perfectly.

Here is the real meat of this blog: conspiracy theorists are usually anti-intellectual. They have no patience for the opinions of experts—usually because those experts do not support conspiracy theories—and they’re often contemptuous of credentialed experts in the first place. Consequently, conspiracy theorists invest a tremendous amount of thought and effort into denigrating or explaining away the views of those who know more about the subjects they’re talking about than they do.


Conspiracy theorists hate experts and intellectuals mainly because they are forced to. Few if any real experts in anything—engineering, economics, metallurgy, political science, or history—agree with conspiracy theories, and conspiracy theorists know that this is a major obstacle in their attempts to gain mainstream acceptance. Honestly, if one structural engineer with questionable credentials says that the World Trade Center towers were dynamited and 99 real structural engineers say that theory is ********, which side are most people going to believe? Consequently, conspiracy theorists have to tear down experts. They do this mainly by denigrating the real value or relevance of expert opinion, which usually means casting aspersions on expert status in the first place. This has two effects: first, they think it blunts the attacks of experts on their theories, and second, it elevates non-expert opinion into the same realm as expert knowledge.""

""Conclusion

Conspiracy theorists suffer from a number of profound misconceptions regarding how the world works, how knowledge is gathered and verified, and what constitutes proof and evidence. If they did not suffer from these misconceptions, they would not be conspiracy theorists, because the fantastic and unsupportable nature of their theories would be self-evident upon careful review of the real evidence. YouTube, being open-sourced user-generated content with no editorial or “gatekeeping” function, has become conspiracy theorists’ prime source of information preciselybecause it’s open-sourced with none of the gatekeeping functions, such as peer review or editorial processes, that make other sources of information reliable. This coupled with an inability to tell good sources from bad ones plays directly into conspiracy theorists’ conceits that they have “special” knowledge, that expert opinion is overrated or irrelevant, and that they can “change the world” simply by spreading a couple of YouTube links and “opening people’s eyes.”

But conspiracy theorists’ reliance on YouTube is yet another illustration of why their worldview is intellectually bankrupt and incapable of attracting serious mainstream attention. When your “evidence” regarding something is a YouTube video from Prison Planet or Infowars, you’re telegraphing to the world that you’ve got nothing better to support your position. Don’t be surprised when people don’t take you seriously.""


http://muertos.blog.com/2010/05/28/why-conspiracy-theorists-love-youtube/

I always thought it was because they couldn't read but this explains a lot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Na600UB-bG0

Why take an hour to watch what could be read in five minutes? When they give me a long video without a start time for the relevant information, I don't bother. Experience has taught me it is rarely worth the effort.

Conrad, the youtube video is real. It was not faked. It is public record what Bush said about seeing the first plane hit the tower before he entered the classroom.

It was even on a government website for a long time.

Youtube is not "the medium. It is the vehicle.

Do you think a television is a reliable medium?

Do you believe everything you see on television news?

Get serious and stop being so condescending.

Television is not the medium, it is the vehicle.

what do you believe? if everything you see is a lie, what is the truth to you?

read my post again!

It's Garbage!
From Television you at least can get a Transcript,Youtube is just meaningless out of Context Pixels!

and it is absotively and posilutely amazing what flimsy Hook you Guys are hanging your so-called "Evidence" on!

Okay I will make a correction.

Youtube, Wikepedia, television, and newspapers are all simply platforms or mediums or vehicles for information. The viewer has to judge the information for them self.

That is what I meant to say.

They are mediums or platforms for the sources of the information.

You cannot accurately judge the information as "reliable or unreliable" based on the way you got it.

Just because you don't trust youtube, Wikipedia, the Internet, a newspaper or the television does not mean that the information they present is reliable or unreliable. That is simple common sense.

Therefore any garbage posted like the previous post titled: "Why Conspiracy Theorists Love YouTube" is just a bunch of generalizations and lies demeaning someone else. The same thing can be said about any platform for information.

Its condescending, its old, (been posted many times before, Yawn) and its off topic.

You claim that youtube is just "meaningless out of Context Pixels!" That sounds like someone who holds some kind of prejudice against computers and the Internet in general and prefers the nightly news and only the nightly news. If that is your world and your opinion, more power to you, but I think you need to come into the new age of technology.

ps

""absotively and posilutely"" are spelled wrong. You might do better if you use a browser that has spell check.

I did not ever say that his "inaccuracy" (if that is what you prefer to call it) implied a conspiracy.

This "inconsequential tidbit" is one of thousands of "tidbits" that don't make sense.

Any investigator who ignores these "inconsequential tidbits" without getting an explanation is a very poor investigator. Shrugging off countless of these tidbits is just sloppy investigation.

Every "tidbit" means SOMETHING. What does this tidbit mean to me?
Its hard for me to say because I have no answers to the questions in my mind about why he said this.... and why he told this same story TWICE.

Does he just make stuff up? If so, what kind of idiot was he? Did he really see the first plane hit the tower on some television screen before he went into the class room? I doubt it. That would be impossible right?

Or maybe he did. That is fodder for conspiracy theorists.

(And people wonder where conspiracy theorists get their ideas.)



I'll tell you. They get their ideas out of the mouths of people like Bush.

You didn't have to, its very inclusion speaks volumes.



That is probably owing to your lack of information more than anything else.



That is glaringly obvious, but one has to determine the significance of these pieces of information and put them in their context.



Because he's a politician...think about it for a while, it may come to you.



Of course, he's playing the part of a politician. You're assumption that this inconsequential titbit is significant, has its basis in his recollection being accurate years later.



Well, that is why they are stupid. If this was a 'grand conspiracy' do you really think he'd let it slip twice? That is just laughable in itself.



I think they pull it out of their collective ***** before engaging their brains.

Truthers grasping at Straws!
An out-of-Context Quote here,a wrong recollection there,weave it all into a giant Conspiracy on YouTube!
Moreover since none of their physical Evidence at WTC,Shanksville nor the Pentagon add up!
A Kuddlemuddle of Garbage!

You are calling conspiracy theorists "stupid" when it is obvious that it is the Politicians who are STUPID.

There was nothing about what Bush said that could be attributed to have been said because he is "playing the part of a "politician" unless by "politician" you actually mean STUPID.

He is the President of the United States for crap sake.

Is he just "playing the part" of President? Is that what you are saying?

(You are probably right, he is just playing the part, he is not the real President.) That's something I have felt for a long time.

But he is a very bad actor. He is not playing his part well at all.



I have no personal theory myself but there are only a couple of possibilities.

1. Bush did see a video of the first plane hit the tower on a screen before he entered the school room, or he imagined or hallucinated that he did.

OR

2. Bush just makes stuff up and lies all the time, that it comes natural to him, (and probably all "politicians") and if that is the case, then how on earth can we ever believe anything any of them ever say?

Both of these choices paint a dim picture of politics and both of these choices open the door very very wide for countless conspiracy theories.

Therefore, who is really to blame for conspiracy theories? Conspiracy theorist aren't stupid. If this kind of politics is what the American people see coming from their elected leaders, and no conspiracies ever manifested out of this, that is when you can call the American public STUPID.

It is STUPID to believe politicians if this kind of stupid crap comes out of their mouths. Worse yet, if you trust and believe what comes out of their mouths, then you have to believe that Bush did see the first plane hit the tower on some television screen, which is going to need some explaining for sure.

So if it is stupid to believe politicians, they why on earth should anyone believe the official 9-11 account?

And if we can't believe politicians or the official account of 9-11, then what naturally follows? --- Alternate theories.

What exactly do you mean by "out of context quote."

Bush told the story twice about how he saw the first plane hit the tower on a television screen before he entered the classroom... then he continued to tell the story of how he was informed about the second plane while in the class room.

There is nothing "out of context" there at all.

But there has to be a reason he told that stupid story. I think he is just stupid and making stuff up as usual.

And that totally undermines any confidence at all I might have had in this country and in most politicians because if that is what they do, then screw them. I have no reason to believe one thing they say.

Since I didn't have much confidence in politicians anyway for telling the truth, Bush's story just confirms my opinion of how they are all full of bull chit.

Truthers would have even less of a Case without it!
Connecting Soundbytes to make a totally different meaning!

Truthers never made their Case involving the Physics!
Actually they made a Grand Botch of it!
So now they are making a Soundbyte-Quilt which is even less convincing!

You need to stop lumping all alternative theories or citizens who are asking questions into one group you call "truthers."

The statement by Bush is such a small tiny "tidbit" compared to so much other crap that is just not right, it is mostly ignored.

"Truthers" are people of all walks of life. They are not crazy or stupid. They are people who see inconsistencies and ask simple questions ... that is all.

They are people who would like to have some answers that make sense to them. They are not getting them.

If you trust the politicians, and if you trust the official 9-11 report, I would just like to know how you do that when these people are constantly caught is scandals and lies. If you don't trust them, and are not the least bit curious about the truth then I have to say that you just don't care. But using generalizations about people who just want the truth and who have alternate theories of their own or are interested in looking at alternate theories is just being stupid and being a bully.

It is basically called prejudice. Its like hating all men, or gays, or Jews, or Liberals, or Catholics, or democrats. Is just stupid.