The 4th Anniversary of 9/11 - Media Roundup

While I am pretty disappointed that the media was largely quiet and complicit again this year in covering up the questions and lies surrounding 9/11, there were a few articles written which at least strayed from that standard line.

It seems that this year there were many more articles written that question the failures of the Bush administration to prevent 9/11 as well as his policies after 9/11. It almost seems like a gradual awakening of some press that realize that at the very least the Bush administration didn't do everything it could prior to 9/11 and that since 9/11 it has been used to enact numerous failed policies.

I was glad to see a few articles which did cover the 'alternative' theory of 9/11, and I do believe that the press is gradually waking up, but that really isn't good enough is it? I encourage everyone to write the media and point out questions and inconsistencies that need to be discussed, and I will keep my fingers crossed that perhaps the media will finally listen.

Here is a roundup of 9/11 related articles. They range from actual discussion of the 'alternative' theories regarding 9/11 to the typical 'the official story is true, it is just all a bunch of mistakes before and after'. Feel free to comment here on these articles as well as to the authors themselves.

9/11: Cold Case - A former Bush-appointed official is calling for a new, independent, scientific investigation into 9/11 - Boulder Weekly

Morgan Reynolds, Bush's chief economist for the Department of Labor from 2001-02, is an outspoken leader in a movement calling for a full-scale, unbiased, independent scientific study into the events of Sept. 11, 2001. He claims the story the government wants Americans to believe is riddled with inconsistencies and untruths, and he recently penned a comprehensive paper detailing those oversights. He thinks the collapse of the World Trade Center, the crash of Flight 93 in Shanksville, Penn., and the attack on the Pentagon were all weaved together as an elaborate inside job, a claim that only forensics can prove.
"I knew that all of this was a lie," he says. "And it's all been confirmed. This is beyond a reasonable doubt that the Bush/Cheney administration lied us into Iraq, and now it's not going well and more and more people are unhappy."
"I said, 'What else would they lie about?' Well the obvious thing is 9/11. This gave them the wherewithal to do their big global domination preeminence project," he says.
"They knew they were in no danger, because it was an inside job," he says. "They broke every SOP, just like if you believe the 9/11 Commission report history, then everybody from the FAA to NORAD broke standard operating rules."

Gutless Politicians Still Won't Answer 9/11 Questions; Truth Rally Calls For Treason And Murder Indictments Against Bush And Cheney - Arctic Beacon

Gutless politicians still continue to avoid the truth about 9/11, as this week in New York former 9/11 commissioner and Congressman, Timothy Roemer, avoided answering questions, running away like a scared rabbit when confronted by William Rodriguez, the WTC janitor who heard explosions in the North Tower basement and wanted to know why his testimony was omitted in the final report..
Protestors picked the New York Times building for a starting point, passing by the FOX, CNN and NBC buildings, to emphasize their feelings that media suppression has been primarily responsible for keeping the America from the truth about 9/11 and largely responsible for allowing government officials to get away with the murder of 3,000 fellow citizens at Ground Zero.

At the Sunday rally, William Rodriguez, the WTC janitor and last survivor of the North Tower, told the crowd his story about hearing and feeling explosions emanating from the sub level basement of the tower, prior to the plane striking the upper floors, has been systematically suppressed by the government, mainstream media and 9/11 Commission,

"They have done everything in their power to ignore my statements which directly contradict the government story," said Rodriguez as the crowd chanted "let the truth be told."

Although he still hasn't broken the television network barriers, his story aired on a one hour pre-recorded special for ABC radio and its nationwide affiliates. The story aired on the east coast Sunday evening at 7pm along with comments made by author David Ray Griffin who has written a scathing report about at least 101 lies presented in the final 9/11 Commission report.

George W. Bush's 9/11 Reichstag fire -

As Hitler was rising to power in 1930s, someone did him the favor of burning the Reichstag, the German Parliament. A lot of analysts said that the Nazis burnt it down themselves.

But Hitler's followers turned that fire into a horrific wave of "terror", suspending civil rights and civil liberties. They fattened their war machine and rode the fascist tide into a full-blown dictatorship.

Numerous political analysts drew parallelism between the White House's repetitive 9/11 rhetoric, recrimination and retaliation and Reichstag fire. Actually, a lot of Americans support the theory that Bush's admin brought down the World Trade Center itself.
Like Hitler, Bush came to power with a minority of votes. He used the September 11 tragedy in much the way the Nazis jumped on the Reichstag fire, ignoring the damaged caused to his country and nation.

Four years have passed since September 11 attacks but the American President has failed to capture or try the perpetrators, instead, he preferred to use the tragedy to move forward with an extreme rightist agenda, crushing civil liberties, shutting up all opposition, fattening a war machine, and attacking sovereign countries without good reason or evidence of involvement in 9/11 attacks, killing thousands of civilians, and creating a staunch animosity against his nation.


There were no major protests at the site, but some people held signs that read, "Bush engineered 9/11," and "Attacking Iraq for 9/11 is the equivalent of attacking Mexico for Pearl Harbor."

To All My Fellow Americans Who Voted for George W. Bush - Michael Moore

How does it feel to know that the man you elected to lead us after we were attacked went ahead and put a guy in charge of FEMA whose main qualification was that he ran horse shows?

That's right. Horse shows.
Are we safer now than before 9/11? When you learn that behind the horse show runner, the #2 and #3 men in charge of emergency preparedness have zero experience in emergency preparedness, do you think we are safer?
When men who never served in the military and have never seen young men die in battle send our young people off to war, do you think they know how to conduct a war? Do they know what it means to have your legs blown off for a threat that was never there?
And on this sacred day of remembrance, do you think we honor or shame those who died on 9/11/01? If we learned nothing and find ourselves today every bit as vulnerable and unprepared as we were on that bright sunny morning, then did the 3,000 die in vain?

9/11 and Manipulation of the USA - Truthout

Traveling from New York City in late September 2001, on a pre-scheduled book tour, author Joan Didion spoke with audiences in several cities on the West Coast. In the wake of 9/11, she later wrote, "these people to whom I was listening - in San Francisco and Los Angeles and Portland and Seattle - were making connections I had not yet in my numbed condition thought to make: connections between [the American] political process and what had happened on September 11, connections between our political life and the shape our reaction would take and was in fact already taking. These people recognized that even then, within days after the planes hit, there was a good deal of opportunistic ground being seized under cover of the clearly urgent need for increased security. These people recognized even then, with flames still visible in lower Manhattan, that the words 'bipartisanship' and 'national unity' had come to mean acquiescence to the administration's preexisting agenda..."
To observe the political manipulation of 9/11 after the towers collapsed was to witness a multidimensional power grab exercised largely via mass media. By the end of 2002, Didion concisely and incisively described what occurred: "We had seen, most importantly, the insistent use of September 11 to justify the reconception of America's correct role in the world as one of initiating and waging virtually perpetual war." Instead of, even in theory, being a war to end all wars, the new war for America would be a war to end peace.
Variations on a simple dualism - we're good and people who don't like us are bad - had never been far from mainstream American politics. But 9/11 concentrated such proclivities with great intensity and narrowed the range of publicly acceptable questioning. "Inquiry into the nature of the enemy we faced, in other words, was to be interpreted as sympathy for that enemy," Didion wrote. "The final allowable word on those who attacked us was to be that they were 'evildoers,' or 'wrongdoers,' peculiar constructions which served to suggest that those who used them were transmitting messages from some ultimate authority." On the say-so of those in charge of the government, we were encouraged to believe that their worldviews defined the appropriate limits of discourse.

Four years after 9/11, those limits are less narrow than they were. But mass media and politicians still facilitate the destructive policies of the Bush administration. From Baghdad to New Orleans to cities and towns that will never make headlines in the national press, the dominant corporate priorities have made a killing. Those priorities hold sway not only for the Iraq war but also for the entire "war on terrorism."

September 11 Revisited - Truthout

And then, the smell of whiskey. Suddenly, mystically, the Bush administration could do no wrong, they walked on water, they were the exemplar of all that was good and strong and righteous. The flags came out. The double-barreled blast of "How dare you criticize the president at a time like this!" and "No one could have expected such a thing to happen!" drowned out anything but bullhorn blather, and we were off to the races. The bodies started to drop, the press lined up in stalwart support behind the administration and its policies, and a shroud of fearful stupidity descended over our public discourse. Anyone with a question, a concern or a critique was wrapped in plastic sheeting and duct tape, smothered by everyone's knee-jerk need to cling to an image of strength so as to cleanse their eyes and minds of what they had seen on that sun-blessed Tuesday morning.

Katrina was the single most anticipated natural disaster in the history of the country. Report after report, study after study, everything and everyone for years and years said that a hurricane making a direct hit upon New Orleans would flood the city out of existence and kill a lot of people. The National Weather Service dipped into dire poetics to try to warn all of officialdom that the ram was coming. Yet despite all this, the catastrophe happened anyway.

Where is the parallel to September 11? Let's see.

In 1993, a $150,000 study was undertaken by the Pentagon to investigate the possibility of airplanes being used as bombs. A draft document of this was circulated throughout the Pentagon, the Justice Department, and to the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

In 1994, a disgruntled Federal Express employee invaded the cockpit of a DC10 with the intention of crashing it into a company building.

Again in 1994, a pilot crashed a small airplane into a tree on the White House grounds, narrowly missing the building itself.

Also in 1994, an Air France flight was hijacked by members of a terrorist organization called the Armed Islamic Group, who intended to crash the plane into the Eiffel Tower.
"No one could have anticipated an attack like this," right? Nonsense. Just as with the hurricane, the warnings were there but the disaster happened anyway. The attacks became enveloped in this asinine mysticism, as if they were magic, as if they were some kind of unstoppable bolt from Heaven itself. This was politically expedient, and was also the product of a stunned populace that didn't want to even begin to consider the possibility that their leadership could screw up so catastrophically. In fact, the attacks had been anticipated, feared, described before they ever happened, and warned against. The attacks should have been stopped, should never have happened in the first place. Such is the only available conclusion to be reached once the mystical nonsense is ripped away.
Perspective is a hell of a thing. Perhaps now that we have Iraq under our belt, perhaps now that we have Katrina under our belt, perhaps now that we have had a few unspeakably costly lessons on just how wretched, stupid, useless, blind, willfully ignorant, dangerous, petulant, frightening, narrow-minded, foolish and ultimately deranged this administration is, perhaps now we can look at September 11 for what it really was: just another Bush administration failure that came with another massive body count.

Anti-Terror Strategy in Doubt on 9/11 Anniversary - Inter Press Service News Agency

The Bush administration's policy of "going on the offensive" against perceived foes since 9/11, according to Walt, whose own new book, "Taming American Power: The Global Response to U.S. Primacy" has won strong reviews in mainstream publications, has "made us look trigger-happy (and)... made (Osama) bin Laden's accusations that we wanted to dominate the world look correct".

Day 1,461 And Counting - The American Prospect

In truth, the anniversary should be the occasion for a thoroughgoing discussion of how America has combated terrorism in the last four years. And on that front, even the disaster Bush has created in Iraq takes a back seat to one overwhelming fact: By the time night falls on September 11, Osama bin Laden will have been at large for 1,461 days.

To be sure, the difference is partly a Democratic failure -- they're afraid of the right-wing noise machine, pure and simple. That's a failure of nerve, and it's an appalling one.

But the moral failure belongs to Bush and his subordinates and their amen chorus of slatternly propagandists and so-called intellectuals, who made great political advantage of 9-11 but spit on the grieving families by pretending that there is no imperative in seeing justice done for their losses. They may be able to control the dialogue, but they can't control the facts -- and the facts condemn them all.

"I was glad to see a few

"I was glad to see a few articles which did cover the 'alternative' theory of 9/11, and I do believe that the press is gradually waking up, but that really isn't good enough is it? I encourage everyone to write the media and point out questions and inconsistencies that need to be discussed, and I will keep my fingers crossed that perhaps the media will finally listen."

Honestly, I don't think that thinking this way is very effective. As Gary Null often has said, "it's been 40 years since the Kennedy assassination, and the New York Times still hasn't figured out that Oswald was not the lone assassin." (If he was an assassin at all - most probably he wasn't.) In 40 years, I kind of doubt the NY Times will be telling the truth about 911, either.

I think it's much more realistic to replace the NY Times than to change the NY Times. That is actually happening, slowly, with people moving to the internet (and your blog) for their news.

The main problem is that 1) finding the news you want on the internet is a scattered process - people are used to a central news source 2) a lot of people don't believe it unless they see it on TV, and to replace TV you have to come up with audio-visual productions with similarly good production values. 3) many of us simply can't do without fluff about celebrities, sports, etc. mixed in with more important news.

NONE of these problems are unsolvable. They need to be solved, and then activists have to join forces to ask fellow citizens to dump MSM and turn them on to alternatives.

We should be thinking in terms of putting the NY Times out of business, not making it fit our needs. The coverup of the Kennedy assassination is not just unfortunate - it's treasonable. Ditto 911.

Why waste time and energy with a traitor of 40 years whose quite set in its ways and that's not the least bit sorry for its treason?

Here's an example of a superior medium to Fox News:

I'm sure it's penetrated with intelligence assets and other gatekeepers, but let's see what they actually produce before we pass judgement. E.g., Amy Goodman and Greg Palast are excellent investigative journalists, in general, but both are 911 gatekeepers. They are both involved in, and I don't expect them to change their stripes.

Meanwhile, let's look for other like-minded efforts in case this turn out to be yet another gatekeeper-controlled medium. See for eye-opening looks at "alternative" media.

Tell us, dz, are you pursuing anything along these lines?

I think the downing street

I think the downing street memo was a pretty good example of alternative media bringing a story to light, even if it was an extremely dim one. I suggest that people write the media to thank them when they do well, and to criticize when they dont. I do have large doubts that the NYTimes specifically will ever change, and you are definately right about that point. But I do think that some of the smaller news agencies that have aspirations of taking the place of the mainstream media are receptive to what it would take to do so, so writing them may have some impact.

I am a big fan of alternative news media obviously, I am not suggesting that the NY Times will change their ways of their own, but I do think that alternative news, blogs, etc. have the ability to make a story so big that at some point the mainstream media has to budge, even if it is just a little. And this in turn makes people look to other news sources which are willing to talk about those issues.

I dont think I fall at all into a 'gatekeeper' type classification, I hope you don't either. If you have anything I am not covering, or have suggestions I am always willing to listen. If i mis-understood your question please let me know.

sl, i think the point you


i think the point you were getting at was how a rally at the NYTimes would accomplish anything.. so let me answer that if that point..

i dont think the march did anything to affect the NYTimes, or any of the other places that the march stopped along, period.

what i do think it accomplished was showing the public that there are alot of people wanting them to cover 9/11. while the march did nothing to affect the mainstream media, it did affect the public which saw the march. thousands of leaflets of all different types were handed out, and the thousands of people driving by in buses, taxis, or just on the street stopped and watched, were handed information, and in some cases joined the march..

so no, it didnt affect the MSM, but it definately made a sight to be seen and heard by the public, and i think that was probably the biggest accomplishment by the march.

whether or not you think ny911truth is a gatekeeper is one question, but whether or not the march had an effect is another.. and i do think it had an effect.. and i didnt see any 'gatekeeping' there either.. just alot of individuals handing out whatever they wanted, and saying whatever they wanted, that was organized by ny911truth.

While marching I handed out

While marching I handed out various flyers from others that had taken the liberty to create. I handed these flyers out and read them at the same time. I do not agree with everything on every flyer I had. But I agree with the importance of letting the public see that there are a variety of ideas all of which share the common thread of not beleiving the official story.
I was shocked by many- mostly mid-class white "proud Americans" that actually laughed. How the hell can they laugh at something so serious. Theses people outright refused to take a single piece of literature. One white family of three with a teenage daughter kept the their daughter from taking the information which she was grabbing for. I am hopeful that as obviously ignorant her parents were she will later look for the information that she was unable to get her hands on at the time. I used a the following line on people that didn't want to take any of the info. First I asked if I could ask them a question. Sure. Do you know that 6 of the hijackers are still alive? That one line worked best and they then took the leaflet.

dz, you misunderstood me.

dz, you misunderstood me. When I said, "Meanwhile, let's look for other like-minded efforts in case this turn out to be yet another gatekeeper-controlled medium. See for eye-opening looks at "alternative" media."
I was referring to (not, which boasts gatekeepers Palast and Goodman.

It looks like I overstated the case for not overly bothering with the MSM. So, I stand corrected, and will more carefully state: While honest 911 Truth activist efforts are to be commended (and allow me to personally thank any and all who participated), including petitioning MSM via marches, letters to the editor, etc., I believe that the "center of gravity" of these corporate owned entities will always tend towards supporting the existing power structure. I therefore believe that the ultimate solution is to make them irrelevant, and that efforts along these lines will ultimately yield much more "bang for the buck".
The DSM memo does indeed illustrate that pressure from below does work, at times. It also illustrates, once again, just how corrupt MSM is. (It took something like 1 month for the news to hit MSM in the US after it hit MSM in Britain. Furthermore, the story seems to have died a quick death.)

sl, i completely agree with

sl, i completely agree with you.. the MSM is losing all of their credibility right now.. some weird part of me thinks that as their subscriptions and credibility drop that they will realize they have to do something to make money.. perhaps even tackling controversial issues.. nah! :)