Thoughts on How to Respond When asked "Why hasn't one media outlet covered the evidence?" (Excellent for MSM spots)

RE: Recent appearance on FOX News

When asked "Why hasn't one media outlet covered the evidence?"

Respond something like this...


The media is hiding the truth of 9/11 and I can prove it:


  1. This past May, a national Zogby poll revealed that half of the country wants a new investigation into 9/11. Why didn't the media report this? When half the country wants a new investigation into the biggest terrorist attack in its history, all the news channels should have had breaking-news flashing on the screen. Why didn't they? Is Michael Jackson and runaway brides more important?
  2. The family members of victims held a press conference on September 11, 2006 at the National Press Club in Washington DC demanding a new investigation into the attacks of September 11th. The mainstream media failed to report this. Why? Doesn't the media side with the victims' families?
  3. At Ground Zero on this past 9/11 anniversary were 3000 people wearing black t-shirts reading "investigate 9/11". Where was your coverage on that?



Other points to mention...


Using data in the Zogby poll above, mention that more than half of the American public are dissatisfied with the media's coverage of 9/11:

27. How would you rate the US media's performance regarding 9/11, including their coverage of victim families' unanswered questions, theories that challenged the official account, and how the attacks were investigated?

Positive 43%
Negative 55%

After giving the above information, ask the interviewer:

"Isn't it time you did your job already"?




This quote from an April 10, 2006 Washington Post article, titled "Military Plays Up Role of Zarqawi":

“The U.S. military is conducting a propaganda campaign to magnify the role of the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, according to internal military documents and officers familiar with the program.”

“The documents explicitly list the "U.S. Home Audience" as one of the targets of a broader propaganda campaign.”


This quote from a December 12, 2005 London Guardian article titled "Saudi prince changes Fox's Paris riots coverage":

Fox News was ordered to alter its coverage of the riots in France after a Saudi prince with shares in its parent company News Corporation complained to Rupert Murdoch.

Prince Alwaleed bin Talal bin Abdul aziz Al-Saud: "He investigated the matter and called Fox and within half an hour it was changed from 'Muslim riots' to 'civil riots'."



Also, when the idiot interviewer calls us crazy or something similar, respond by mentioning that many former high level government insiders are speaking up about 9/11. Rattle off a few names and then ask the interviewer: "are you calling them crazy too?"

Coping with the media . . .

These are excellent suggestions. Others I have received include observing that the consolidation of the media, including the newspapers, has led to shrinking staffs, especially the more expensive reporters, such as investigative journalists. This, I believe, is behind revent events at The Los Angeles Times. O'Reilly has a technique that I had not really fully appreciated before of making self-serving statements on one topic, then shifting to another before granting a chance for response, which virtually guarantees that much of what he has to say will go unrebutted. I somehow missed the bit about foreign coverage, I am embarrassed to say. As my wife pointed out to me when we watched the broadcast, which was taped in advance, the BBC was here two weeks ago and spent eight hours interviewing me for a documentary that will be broadcast in January! So if foreign interest is vindication, then we have it "in spades". I believe that the intense focus on Kevin and me is part and parcel of an effort to motivate the Republican base, which--with the National Intelligence Estimate, the increasingly desperate situation in Iraq, Woodward's revealing book, the Foley scandal (which has the potential to expose many key players in the GOP) and the new book about the cynical manipulation of the religious right by Rove and Bush--threatens to unravel their hold on power. Let us hope that comes to pass. It will largely depend on whether they are able to rig the vote (again) using paperless electronic machines and the "October suprise" Rove has promised is going to salvage a desperate situation, which may be an attack on Iran. Those are my current concerns.

Dealing with the media


Thanks for being willing to deal with the odious Mr. O'Reilly. I concur with your estimation that he was using you and Kevin to whip up the anger in his base. Considering O'Reilly's snarling attack dog approach, I think that you probably did about the best job imaginable under such duress. I really appreciated the fact that you calmly and clearly stated several times that people should seek further information at And I understand that the traffic on the website was enhanced from the typical daily traffic of about 9,000 hits to about 30,000 the day of the show. That's 20,000+ new pairs of eyeballs that are going to be at least somewhat skeptical. I'd call that a very good day indeed. :)

It's excellent to hear that you have been interviewed by BBC. Are you at liberty to tell us which program and channel you'll be appearing on?

Thanks for all you do!

Well Bill, you just made 7 false claims...

O'Reilly was doing that, stacking them up, to try and slip them through

I would like a chance to answer the 7 claims that you made.

First you said,

Call him on what he was doing.

Good topic and good technique

That is a good technique. I would say "The media is censoring the truth on 9/11 and I can prove it"

If the interviewer cuts the speaker off, people will wonder why he did not want to hear the proof and is censoring the viewers.

Drawing from NLP, i would stay away from NOT (because it confuses the brain) and throw in questions to open the listeners mind. At the next chance to speak i would say...

"The family members held a press conference on September 11, 2006 at the National Press Club in Washington DC demanding a new investigation into the attacks of September 11th. " (One sentence, 1 point). "The mainstream media censored it." (more truth gets out) "Why? "(Questions take control of the listeners brain)

Fact. Fact. Question. Repeat.

Thanks. Good point to raise.

"Drawing from NLP, i would stay away from NOT"

This is an excellent suggestion. I haven't thought about NLP in a long time, but it could definitely be an asset in "truthing."

Color me ignorant...


see here

see here


Okay, that covers NLP, what about NOT?

I think "Free Truth" was

I think "Free Truth" was referring to my use of the word "not" in my post  :)

So NOT is not an acronym?

So NOT is not an acronym? :)

Okay... I guess I had a different impression from the phrase "i would stay away from NOT".


The example goes like this. And it is part of what one learns too in the study of hypnosis. NLP and hypnosis have overlap.

If you say to a child, "Don't not turn out the light." The impluse might be to do it. My son when little, if I would use "Don't" or "Not " would sometimes do it and say, "You mean this?" with a little smile.

"Don't say Don't" :)

The theory is that if you say "Keep the light on" it's better than "Don't turn out the light." Some part of the mind might hear the fragment, "Turn out the light" just by neglecting the "Don't."

Or if you say, "If the Media were NOT repressing the the truth, X,Y,Z" it triggers some confusion. And you're better off saying: "Why did every news outlet ignore the story about the families requesting a new investigation?" Then the emphasis is on "ignore" rather than "not repressing," especially if the listener is just tuning into snippets.

With "NOT" you can sometimes sound, to the subconscious, or so the theory goes, as though you're saying the opposite of what you mean.

Famous example, Nixon: "I am Not a crook." Or course, what everyone heard was...he was one. Nixon's better off saying, "I'm an honest man."

Follow the money...

War is big business. Especially if you happen to be a major media company that also "happens" to be a major defense contractor like, um GE/NBC.

I would have told Bill O'Reilly to stop being so naive. Better yet, I would have given him a dose of his own medicine and hit him with... "Bill, either you are naive, ignorant or stupid... which is it?"

Most Americans know that the news is "filtered". Hell, even pResident Bushe admitted as much.

Good post. Thanks for the comments Jim. We are big supporters of you here. Please visit more often.

Don't Play the Game: Ask Them to Explain Molten Metal, etc.

The whole line of questioining is a diversion, forcing one to argue media conspiracy on top of government conspiracy. Since the Reich wing really believes the media is part of a LEFT wing conspiracy, this is a very difficult line of argument.

Instead, try the following:

I'm sure you consider yourself an independent thinker, regardless of whether the media pile on in one direction or another.

So, let me ask YOU what you THINK of (molten metal in WTC, puny little hole in Pentagon, war games on 9/11, etc.)


I agreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

I think this is one of the most important blogs ever. Talk about WTC 7 and Larry Silverstien admitting to "PULL IT". For me.....this has won over more people in a matter of minutes. Once you say this.....This is what I say to people that I come into contact with every day... here it is...

I have made my $$$$$$$$$$ in marketing and I know how to approach people, and get the desired response. I am not trying to impress you, I am just trying to impress upon you what works for me...

"Did you know that 85% of the US Public does not know about the third building that fell on 9/11"

As soon as you say this the response is always foreseen. they say.. "What 3rd building?" BOOM you have them at your mercy......!!!!

Just explain WTC 7 and THE GAME IS ON!!!!!!! 100%

Maybe we should agree to agree

Yes, I've had similar results re: WTC7. It's a curious visual and it's an established fact. Anyone who might deny that it happened just makes themselves look like a total idiot. I think it's possibly the best tool available to get others to open their minds and begin to question the official fairytail.

Of course that's why it's never shown on TV, like when Dr. Jones was on Bowtie Boy's program. He supplied them with the footage and requested that it be shown three times. No way. Might make people start asking questions.

My thanks also go out to Jim. You've got a really tough job, subjecting yourself to that toxic environment.

You have to play the game or they will claim victory

For example they will say, "you can not answer my question."

Yes, work in the strongest evidence that you can, and mix it up. Ask lots of questions to control what people are thinking about.

Fantastic! Progress rather than dogma.

Its refreshing to see someone use this forum as a resourse for development, rather than an opportunity to vent. I hope that you keep working on this list, and refining the language.

One thing to keep in mind. When people ask me this question, I usually tell them first that much of our research is based on mainstream sources. This really throws people off guard. If we hammer the MSM too hard, we look a bit silly when later having to admit that most of our primary evidence WAS printed in the mainstream media.

I then go on to tell them that the media seems to intentionally ignore the implications of the stories they print, and fail to do any follow up, or deductive analysis. Most people know that the media is owned by big corporations. I then tell them, if they seem interested, that every major media outlet gets daily talking points from the government, and that much of what we hear about international news has been highly filtered and skewed. Like the war in Iraq, for instance. "You simply aren't being told the whole story." 650,000!!! And finally, if they seem a bit savvy, I might end by mentioning that many of the big television stations and newspapers have been heavily infiltrated by U.S. intelligence agencies.

Everything I said above is accurate, and backed up by documentary evidence. No angry accusations pointed at the wrong people. No overly general statements that can be quickly refuted. And most importantly, I leave people with the sense that the truth is out there. If they want more information, I direct them to Cooperative Research, and tell them that the site relies entirely upon mainstream news stories, yet makes it entirely clear that we have not been told the truth.

Thanks for representing development. We don't see as much of it in here as we should. Although the site itself is setting a good example.

International Truth Movement

The mainstream media is a joke

The mainstream media lead the charge to the illegal war in Iraq by reporting false information. It was they that told us there were WMD’s in Iraq, that Saddam orchestrated 9/11 and every other lie on behalf of the government like pawns. Even the liberal NY Times laid down and died by refusing to ask questions. Why would anyone expect that the mainstream media would bother to get it right now? That goes without even mentioning that the Bush administration has been known to intimidate media outlets in to silence.

"Amanpour: CNN practiced self-censorship CNN's top war correspondent, Christiane Amanpour, says that the press muzzled itself during the Iraq war. And, she says CNN "was intimidated" by the Bush administration and Fox News, which "put a climate of fear and self-censorship." As criticism of the war and its aftermath intensifies, Amanpour joins a chorus of journalists and pundits who charge that the media largely toed the Bush administrationline in covering the war and, by doing so, failed to aggressively question the motives behind the invasion."

I might also help to point out that the United States now only ranks a shoddy 44th in freedom of press internationally. The US took its biggest fall in rank right after 9/11 of course. Even Africa has a higher rating than the US.

"European countries lead the world in providing freedoms to news media, while the United States lost ground in part because of the jailing earlier this year of a New York Times reporter, an international media advocacy group said in an annual report."

"The United States dropped more than 20 spots, to 44th place, mainly because of the imprisonment of New York Times reporter Judith Miller and judicial action that was "undermining the privacy of journalistic sources," the statement said."

I think it’s safe to say that the media is unreliable, inadequate and in some cases criminally negligent. To expect them to cover 9/11 truth fairly and diligently is to expect pigs to fly. The GOP made it abundantly clear that they fiercely support propaganda.

"House Republicans Wednesday soundly rejected an effort by Democrats to ban the Department of Education from spending money on "covert propaganda."

The House voted 224 to 197 against a measure, championed by Reps. Rosa DeLauro, D-3, and George Miller, D-Calif., aimed at blocking the department from creating sham news stories or hiring columnists to promote policies."

I think we can see that the mainstream media is by nature a complete farce and is useless to us seeking the truth and the hard answers.

The Irony of Life


Re: "The United States dropped more than 20 spots, to 44th place, mainly because of the imprisonment of New York Times reporter Judith Miller"

There is something deeply ironic and completely unsatisfying in this ranking. Judith Miller is one of the most miserable frauds to have ever walked the planet. Her daily ravings about Iraqi WMDs on the front page of the New York Times in 2002 was nothing but deliberate propaganda, and Judith damn well knew it. So did her editor, Bill Keller and her publisher Arthur Sulzberger. They are all scoundrels. If they had the most remote speck of humanity about them they'd be all over this 9/11 Truth story. Alas, they are but as mere worms, crawling through the dust of lower Manhattan. Mere mortals with a remarkable verisimilitude to a human shell but utterly lacking a soul.

Thanks Jules

If we hammer the MSM too hard, we look a bit silly when later having to admit that most of our primary evidence WAS printed in the mainstream media.

Killtown's site is an excellent resource for these articles imo. 


many of the big television stations and newspapers have been heavily infiltrated by U.S. intelligence agencies.

Also interesting.... the Washington Post editor who wrote that insulting article on Rep Conyer's Downing Street Memo hearings happens to be in Skull & Bones.



I always bring up OK City bombing

Did the MSM ever discuss the bombs found in that building? I think not. Why would their silence on 9/11 be surprising? It is to be expected.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force