New Hampshire Paper 'The Wire' Runs Front Page 9/11 Article
System Breakdown - The Wire
It’s been three years since the start of U.S. military operations in Iraq, and while supporters and detractors of the war continue to debate the causes of and solutions to that conflict, one fact is almost indisputable: the long, bloody journey in Iraq began on Sept. 11, 2001.
..
With more and more books and Web sites coming out devoted to the alternative 9/11, it seems like there’s more momentum behind the movement than ever before. Earlier this month, actor Charlie Sheen expressed his doubts about the official 9/11 story during an interview on the Alex Jones radio show (the interview is online at www.infowars.com). Coverage of the movement is also gaining traction in bigger media outlets. In the last two months, The Village Voice and New York Magazine have both run extensive stories on 9/11 truth.
This is a rather lengthy article. Check it out, post some comments, and send in some feedback to the paper which was nice enough to cover the subject of 9/11.
Thanks Matthew for the heads up!
- Login to post comments
was this new SFGATE article
was this new SFGATE article mentioned yet?
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/gate/archive/2006/03/29/notes03...
just posted it too ;)
just posted it too ;)
This article from The Wire
This article from The Wire is very comprehensive and includes interviews with David Ray Griffin and Michael Ruppert. I thought the author did a mixed job -- most of the article was positive, but I have two examples of where the author isn't being fair:
(1)
But the explanation offered by the 9/11 truth movement is just as slippery and hard to believe as the “official conspiracy” story offered by the U.S. government. Much of the evidence is comprised of scattered news reports, dribs and drabs of government memos, and inter-personal connections between President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Osama bin Laden and all the other major players, connections that are open to lots of interpretation. [emphasis mine]
Oh really? See, this is what I find so typical of much media coverage -- that somehow the burden of proof is on the 9/11 truth movement. He's equating the alternative theories to the government story. Not fair. The government covered up the investigation for god's sake.
(2)
That reliance on second-hand sources only hampers the research and opens up the arena to all sorts of armchair “experts.” A good example is the “Hunt the Boeing” Web site (http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm), which uses a series of photographs from the attack on the Pentagon to show that Flight 77 could not have caused the damage at the building. But the site fails to address what happened to the airplane if it didn’t strike the building.
Again, the burden of proof is on the 9/11 truth movement. How in the world could anyone in their right mind expect the 9/11 truth movement to explain what happened to the airplane? Why did the site "fail" just because there wasn't an explanation? This just shows that the author clearly has a bias and is using an uneven yardstick to measure the 9/11 truth movement's arguments against the government's.
I'll stick with Mark Morford's excellent piece in the SF Gate. It's cogent and unbiased.
Anybody know what the circulation of the SF Gate is, or the circulation of The Wire? I would think the latter wouldn't reach many -- but, I haven't looked into it.
You are absolutely right
You are absolutely right CitizenKit! Why the hell are WE supposed to prove anything? The wrong people are being questioned.
Exactly, CK. The points you
Exactly, CK. The points you bolded above are subtle, effective hit-piece tactics that too many 9/11 authors slip into their articles. Many novice truthers read cleverly-slanted stuff like this and loose interest in doing any further research.
Thanks Jimmy and Anonymous.
Thanks Jimmy and Anonymous.
Check out what Andreas von Bulow says in the 9/11 Special (Dutch Television) available here:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11222.htm
Andreas von Bulow: "I can't explain it. It's not my duty. I can only say: The official story is so inadequate and far-fetched that there must be a different one."
If you've never seen that documentary, check it out -- it's my favorite -- and only 20 minutes long. Other favorites are Loose Change Second Edition, Barry Zwicker's The Great Conspiracy, and the David Ray Griffin video where he spoke in Santa Rosa, CA. But, I digress!
"http://
"http:// www.informationclearingho...rticle11222.htm"
That was EXCELLENT. I hadn't seen that one! Thanks.
The new loose change 2nd
The new loose change 2nd edition is much better than the first. They improved the music alot too.
I really like Martial Law: Rise of the Police State.
You are absolutely right. It
You are absolutely right. It is not our job to prove anything other than the fact that their theory/answers do not stand up to even the most elementary evaluation of the evidence.
Actually as a theory its not even internally consistant.
Yet based on the official theory we have now invaded two countries, killed tens if not hundreds of thousand people, destroyed our civil rights, the constitution, and system of checks and balances, justify torture, illegal spying, ect.
Its as if a judge said to a defense attorney, ' although you have shown through solid physical and cicumstantial evidence that the prosecutions case against your client is riddled with errors and the evidence presented points to the guilt of a completely different party with intricate ties to the prosecutor and even this judge. I am going to support a guilty verdict with all of the prosecutors insane requests for punishment on your client and any anyone else the prosecution would like to submit.
Until you can prove the guilt of this other party and every detail of how they accomplished it..............
The ruling stands.
And I further rule ...that you must prove their guilt without the benefit of any official investigation, any trial , and any of the powers and resources of this court and the laws upon which this court claims its legitimacy. "
:
The judge also added at the
The judge also added at the end:
I would also like to make it very clear that we have already severely tortured the accused and some of his family and aquantences before my ruling today. To even suggest his innocence or to suggest he had only a minor and unintential role in this crime would be not only a great embarressemnet to the court but would imply our own culpabiity in further crimes beyond, yet intricately related to the crime which is being judged before this court. In addition the reaction of the jury, upon learning that they have not heard almost any of the defences testimony or contrary evidence before reaching their guilty verdict, may turn their anger and thirst for justice, which we have carefully cultivated, on this very court, its members and its proceedings. The jury may even question their own culpabiity in these crimes. That is an event which has ramifications that may be worse than the crime upon which this court sits in judgement.
Thus, the guilty verdict stands.
This is an small independent
This is an small independent paper who have been working hard just to stay a float for the last several years. They have made themselves a stapple of this town where defense contractors are no strangers. The article does a great job intoducing this subject to your lay reader. Remeber folks, most people have the incident of 9/11 locked up in their head as how it happened. If you don't looking for the information which we all know, this sounds like a crazy concept. Especially for people who would rather just get on. Sure the tone could of been more appealing to us who have already been down the rabbit hole, but I think this article does a great job showing people that there is a rabbit hole.