Newsday Shields Long Island Readers From 9/11 Skeptics

A little controversy here, what does everyone think? There is a call to action at the bottom of this article at for those who are interested:

Our previous story on the Intikab Habib case was premature.

We reported early Saturday morning that New York Newsday published an article about people who reject the US government's account of the September 11 events.

The story by Newsday Staff Writer Patricia Hurtado had already appeared on the website. But we later discovered that the editors kept it out of the newspaper itself. (That applies to the Long Island Saturday and "Early Sunday" editions, which are nearly identical in news content; the story did run in the lower-circulation New York City editions.)

Review: The Habib Case

Newsday's front pages on Friday, Saturday and "Early Sunday" featured Imam Intikab Habib of Corona, Queens - who expressed doubts that the alleged 9/11 hijackers were solely responsible for the attacks on New York and Washington and the fall of the World Trade Center towers.

An incoming chaplain to the New York Fire Deparment, Habib was forced to resign just before taking his oath of office Friday morning. The news was accompanied by approving comments from Mayor Michael Bloomberg, FDNY Chief Nicholas Scopetta, and firefighters who were described as angered or offended by Habib's views on 9/11.

Habib's views became known to the Fire Department only after the first Newsday piece about him, printed just hours before his ouster. That article, by Carol Eisenberg, noted that in explaining his skepticism, "Habib talked about video and news reports widely disseminated in the Muslim community."

Hurtado's Saturday follow-up posed an important corrective by underlining that beliefs like Habib's are also widespread far beyond the Muslim community. As published, her piece was short, and it saddled 9/11 skeptics with the usual "conspiracy theory" label. But it was Newsday's first look at the 9/11 truth movement, mentioning among others. Hurtado also reviewed the 2004 Zogby poll finding that one-half of New York City residents believe US leaders "consciously failed" to prevent the September 11th events. (Newsday, "Sept. 11 conspiracy theories abound," Oct. 1)

Hurtado and her colleague Eisenberg both told this author Friday they agreed it would be false if the Habib stories created the impression that 9/11 skepticism is somehow restricted to Muslims. (, "Incoming FDNY Chaplain Forced to Resign", Oct. 1)

Newsday's follow-up coverage in the Saturday/"Early Sunday" Long Island editions featured almost two full pages on Habib's ouster. A box with more than enough space for the Hurtado article was devoted instead to a potpourri of unrelated anecdotes about "controversial remarks by prominent figures," some dating back as far as 1976. (Newsday, "Some who put their foot in it," Oct. 1)


What's Able Danger Got to Do With It?

To make matters worse, Newsday relegated the weekend's biggest 9/11-related story - the Pentagon's investigation of Col Anthony Shaffer on charges that include the alleged theft of pens - to a 170-word briefing on Page 21 of the same paper. The charges against Shaffer were made public just days after the Pentagon barred him and four other men from testifying to Congress on details of an elite military program, Able Danger, which they say tagged Mohamed Atta as an al-Qaeda terrorist operating in the United States at least one year before September 11. (See "A Pentagon Whitewash")

Shaffer and the four other whistleblowers with knowledge of the program have told the press that in September 2000, as-yet unidentified military brass ordered the Able Danger crew to destroy all information on Atta and three other men later also alleged to have been ringleaders and hijackers in the 9/11 attacks. Able Danger was suspended altogether on the accession of the Bush administration in February 2001.

The Pentagon has not disputed the credibility of Shaffer or the four other individuals who remember that Atta was identified by Able Danger. But it has revoked Shaffer's security clearance. Now he faces charges that he once flashed a military identification while drunk, obtained $68 in personal cell phone charges, and committed other, similarly earthshaking violations. (See USA Today, Sept. 30)

The Able Danger revelations lend credence to earlier reports in overseas media (never covered by major US news outlets) that the alleged hijackers were under near-constant observation by US and allied foreign authorities for years. Some reports suggest that the men who would be blamed for September 11th eluded early arrest only because they enjoyed high-level protection within the US government. (See our earlier analysis of Able Danger and the recent update. For the latest developments, check the 911 Citizens' Watch NEWSWIRE on the front page.)

IMHO, the only thing "The

IMHO, the only thing "The Able Danger revelations lend credence to" is the government's BS false-flag legend of what happened on 9/11.

Reinforcing the ludicrous notions that airplanes brought down the towers, and that 9/11 can be blamed on hijackers, is "the last stand" for those who are peddling the ludicrous, baseless, ridiculous, nonsense fiction we've had rammed our throats by the governmentmedia for 4+ years.

More people need to recognize just how perilously close to wearing clear through The Big Lie of 9/11 has become, instead of eagerly and blindly following "red herrings" such as "Able Danger" (another name clearly intended for mass public consumption/diversion)...

I agree Blimp, they put the

I agree Blimp, they put the right story on the front page in my opinion.

No surprise from "Blimp

No surprise from "Blimp Pilot" but I'd like to convince SomeBigGuy otherwise.

Able Danger does not "reinforce the hijacker myth." It begins to unravel it.

Certain people were presented as the perpetrators of 9/11.

The official story says they were unknown to US authorities beforehand.

Able Danger shows they were known. It fits in with the blanket surveillance of these guys before 9/11 we already know about (CIA, Mossad, German agencies).

This doesn't necessitate they were the real pilots or in involved in 9/11. It proves the government knew its patsies beforehand.

Pentagon then attacks Able Danger whistleblowers.

Is it a "limited hangout"? Certainly. Does it show a loose end that might unravel the whole myth?

I think so - a lot more reliably than some pixels you think show the planes had pods, missiles, or holograms.

And come on, don't you realize why Habib was singled out for this treatment?

McKinney's not on the front page as questioning 9/11 and she's in Congress.

Morgan Reynolds is not on the front page.

Griffin et al. are not on the front page.

Why does Habib make the front page?

Because it's an opportunity to single him out as a Muslim.

It's a good thing that 9/11 doubts were made public in this way.

But it's a distorted view.

Hey Nick! First time I've

Hey Nick! First time I've seen you post some where...

Hey Nick, I see your point

Hey Nick, I see your point regarding the Muslim connection, and maybe you're right, I guess I'm optimistic that people will see through all of that.

The first thing I saw when I read that headline was a member of the FDNY was doubting the official story, I didn't really consider his race until others started making comments similar to you did. In fact, I noticed he was a Theologian like DRG immediately, but not his race.

Most people are somewhat intelligent and not too racist I hope and will read the context of the article and consider it without prejudice. The problem with the Bush Knew angle is everyone knows that already and nobody seems to care, however, someone on the front page saying the official story is bogus is much more likely to hit someone one the head and wake them up.

If you check out a flyer I made:

You'll see I use the whole Bush Knew angle to get people to initially read something that they've already read about elsewhere and already know and much more likely to believe and before you know it, I'm talking about bombs and demolitions.

I do understand your point though and maybe people will just dismiss the headline since he's Muslim. However, It is nice to see a headline that cuts through the crap and says it like it is.