The New York Times led the propaganda behind 9/11 and the 9/11 Wars. It did so by ignoring many of the most relevant facts, by promoting false official accounts, and by belittling those who questioned the 9/11 events. The Times eventually offered a weak public apology for its uncritical support of the Bush Administration’s obviously bogus Iraq War justifications. However, it has yet to apologize for its role in selling the official account of 9/11, a story built on just as many falsehoods. Instead, the newspaper continues to propagandize about the attacks while putting down Americans who seek the truth about what happened.
The New York “newspaper of record” has published many articles that promote official explanations for the events of 9/11. These have included support for the Pancake Theory, the diesel fuel theory for WTC 7, claims based on the torture testimony of an alleged top al Qaeda leader, and accounts of NORAD notification and response to the hijackings. Since then, U.S. authorities have said that none of those explanations were true. However, the Times never expressed regret for reporting the misleading information.
Instead, the Times continued to sell every different official explanation. When a new government theory for destruction of the WTC was put forth, it was immediately promoted. The newspaper never reported any critical analysis of the official accounts, despite the fact that all of them, including the final reports for the Twin Towers and WTC 7, have been proven to be wrong.
Video exploring how atheists like Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Matt Dillahunty, Bill Maher and others use faith when it comes to defending the 911 Offical story. While they claim to value evidence over faith, the atheist community has hidden from evidence that would change their worldview on 9/11. Why do they hide from 9/11 truth in favor of faith?
Enjoy. Many thanks to the different artists.
Virtual Reality simulator where players live out the horrific final moments of 9/11 terror attack victims is condemned as 'sick
Virtual Reality simulator where players live out the horrific final moments of 9/11 terror attack victims is condemned as 'sick'
9/11 simulator designed to allow players to live out final moments in tower
The trailer shows the moment workers inside feel the plane hit the towers
Some people have criticised the 'game' as 'sick' and inappropriate
By Tom Wyke for MailOnline
Published: 08:41 EST, 30 October 2015 | Updated: 18:08 EST, 30 October 2015
A highly controversial virtual reality simulator is due to be released which allows gamers to live out the horrific final moments of the devastating 9/11 terror attacks which left nearly 3,000 people dead.
Titled '8:46' after the exact time the first hijacked plane was flown into the North Tower, the shocking 'game' has been slammed by social media users as deeply inappropriate and 'sick'.
WASHINGTON -- Two of House Speaker Paul Ryan's (R-Wis.) newly empowered committee chairmen took immediate advantage Thursday of the freshly elected leader's pledge to give power back to committees -- and may have handed him a 9/11-related publicity disaster.
Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), the head of the Energy and Commerce Committee, both announced measures to temporarily extend the expiring 9/11 health and compensation programs.
By Kristen Breitweiser - 9/11 widow and activist
I'm going to keep this really simple.
In response to your comment that you could personally "plead guilty" to not having imagined terrorists would use passenger aircraft as weapons→please stop lying.
As proof, I provide the "Iron Man" documents from the Asymmetrical Threats Division of Joint Forces Intelligence Command (JFIC), also known as DO5, whose task it was to track UBL from mid 1998-mid 2001.
I would first note that you were National Security Advisor to the President of the United States -- that means that you had pretty much access to anything and everything available regarding terrorist threats from groups like Al Qaeda.
Fourteen years later, everyone now knows about the summer of 2001 and the more than one dozen intelligence reports blinking red about an impending Al Qaeda terrorist attack. There was the August 6 PDB, FAA reports, CIA reports, DoD reports, and FBI reports -- all indicating and discussing terrorist cells inside the US planning attacks inside the US.
What most people don't know about is the smoking gun report from JFIC, DO5.
People sometimes wonder why is it important to investigate the alleged hijackers and others officially accused of committing the 9/11 crimes. After all, the accused 19 hijackers could not have accomplished most of what happened. The answer is that the official accounts are important because they are part of the crimes. Identifying and examining the people who created the official 9/11 myth helps to reveal the ones who were responsible overall.
The people who actually committed the crimes of September 11th didn’t intend to just hijack planes and take down the buildings—they intended to blame others. To accomplish that plan the real criminals needed to create a false account of what happened and undoubtedly that need was considered well in advance. In this light, the official reports can be seen to provide a link between the “blaming others” part of the crimes and the physical parts.
Pushing the concept of “Islamic Terrorism” was the beginning of the effort to blame others, although the exact 9/11 plan might not have been worked out at the time. This concept was largely a conversion of the existing Soviet threat, which by 1989 was rapidly losing its ability to frighten the public, into something that would serve more current policy needs. Paul Bremer and Brian Jenkins were at the forefront of this conversion of the Soviet threat into the threat of Islamic terrorism. Both Bremer and Jenkins were also intimately connected to the events at the World Trade Center.
New 9/11 Timeline Entries: Pre-9/11 Warnings about Al-Qaeda, Cheney's Military Aide on 9/11, and More
From the History Commons Groups blog:
New entries have been added to the Complete 9/11 Timeline at History Commons, which cover various events relating to the 9/11 attacks. Many of them describe warnings about the danger posed by al-Qaeda that were given in the 12 months leading up to 9/11 and some describe events from the day of September 11, 2001, itself.
Donald Rumsfeld Was Concerned about a Possible 'Modern-Day Version' of Pearl Harbor
A couple of new timeline entries deal with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's preoccupation, in the months before 9/11, with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, in December 1941 that led America to enter World War II. In March 2001, Rumsfeld sent members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff a copy of the foreword to a book, which discussed the US government failures that led to the attack on Pearl Harbor. And in July that year, he wrote a note to himself in which he expressed his fear of the United States experiencing a "modern-day version" of the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Other senior officials talked, in the months before 9/11, about the possibility of a Pearl Harbor-like event happening in the future. In June 2001, Army General Tommy Franks, commander in chief of the US Central Command, gave a speech in which he said the US needed to prepare for an "asymmetric" attack resembling the attack on Pearl Harbor. And on the day before 9/11, Charles Nemfakos, deputy under secretary of the Navy, said during a briefing that the US would have to suffer an attack comparable to the attack on Pearl Harbor before it would address the problems with its defense policy.
Officials Warned about the Danger Posed by Al-Qaeda
Trump: Bush Had “Advanced Notice” of 9/11
Posted on October 20, 2015 by WashingtonsBlog
Donald Trump says that George W. Bush knew 9/11 was coming and had “advanced knowledge” of the attack, but he failed to stop it:
He’s right …
Overwhelming evidence shows that 9/11 was foreseeable. Indeed, Al Qaeda crashing planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon was itself foreseeable. Even the chair of the 9/11 Commission said that the attack was preventable.
A top NSA whistleblower says that the NSA had all of the information it needed prior to 9/11 to stop the attacks. The only reason NSA didn’t share that information with other agencies is because of corruption … in an effort to consolidate power.
In reality, widespread spying by the U.S. government on Americans began before 9/11 (confirmed here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here). And the government tapped the 9/11 hijackers’ phones, and heard the 9/11 hijackers’ plans from their own mouths.
Why didn’t this stop the terror attacks?
In the Vanity Fair article, "There’s Just One Problem with Those Bin Laden Conspiracy Theories "
Mark Bowden, author of "Black Hawk Down" and "The Finish", takes aim at Sy Hersh and other "conspiracy theorists" who challenge the OBL death narrative.
"Seymour Hersh arrived late to the game, bringing with him an unmatched reputation for investigative coups—from My Lai to Abu Ghraib—and a scrappy anti-establishment attitude. His two sources told him a different tale. But for his to be true, every one of my sources was lying. And not just my sources, but those for Bergen, Schmidle, and others, too. Also the two SEALs who have told their own versions of the raid. All of them had to be in on the lie".
An account of some of the explosions that were heard on 9/11 following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 but before the collapse of WTC 7
warning: trailer contains some profanity and uncensored scenes of war
Post-9/11, the War on Terror had outlived its usefulness.
The minds behind the think tanks that drive America’s interventionist foreign policy decided that the U.S. needed a new enemy,
so they chose an old one -- Russia.
Part 1: A Catalyzing Event 1hr 25mins
Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld were ubiquitous in the news media as they took every available opportunity to market to America an aggressive preemptive war policy. But from where did their ideas originate? The answer is a tightly knit and eminently well placed group of neoconservative thought leaders, chief among them Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan. Part 1 begins in the panicked weeks after 9/11, as Kagan et al. seized upon the hysteria surrounding the anthrax letter attacks to further shape America’s perception of reality, planting the seeds for endless future military engagements. George W. Bush may have been understandably perceived as an idiot, but watching these wonks and academics drive the ideological engine for his administration belies a much more sophisticated strategy at play.
Why Do Good People Become Silent—or Worse—About 9/11? Part 19: Government Manipulation and the Big Lie by Frances T. Shure
Why Do Good People Become Silent—or Worse—About 9/11?
If enough of the world’s population does not awaken to the reality of false flags and other deceits propagated by the powerful, and in turn confront these perpetrators, we are, in essence, inviting more of the same.
Part 19: Government Manipulation and the Big Lie
© by Frances T. Shure, 2015
Editor's Note: Frances Shure, M.A., L.P.C., has performed an in-depth analysis addressing a key issue of our time: "Why Do Good People Become Silent — or Worse — About 9/11?" The resulting essay, being presented here as a series, is a synthesis of both academic research and clinical observations.