SMH: Fire, not a government plot, felled third tower
Sydney Morning Herald weighs in on 9/11 conspiracy theory - by RICK FENELEY
"Building 7 has preoccupied conspiracy theorists ever since. Many believe it was brought down by controlled explosions. And if it was, so were the Twin Towers. And if they're willing to believe that, it is not such a big leap to conclude that the whole atrocity was a US Government plot. They have not been silenced by an official report that concludes their theories are bunkum."
Amazing, Ozzy MSM finally mentions 9/11...
Not so amazing, it has to be a biased, ill-informed piece of infotainment... nothing more than propaganda, really.
I'm so sick of the lying, twisted proponents of the official dogma.
The Sydney Mornig Herald claims to be commited to presenting information fairly and accurately.
They claim to welcome comments, suggestions and information about errors that call for corrections.
ReaderLink, ( email@example.com ) the Herald's reader services department, answers inquiries, investigates possible inaccuracies and acts on complaints.
So I sent them the following complaint ...
I am writing to complain about unfair and inaccurate reporting contained in an article entitled "Fire, not a government plot, felled third tower", by RICK FENELEY, published in the Sydney Morning Herald, November 25.
1) The title of the article asserts, as fact or truth, the claim made by government officials, which, in itself, represents only one side of the debate or controversy. In other words, the title clearly supports, affirms, lends weight to one side of the debate (the government's postion) over the other. This obvious bias in the title does not seem to conform with the Herald's commitment to report and interpret honestly, striving for accuracy, fairness and independence.
2) In the second paragraph, the author states "It took 5.4 seconds for its 47 storeys to complete their fiery descent". Wrong, it did not take 5.4 seconds. Trivial error, check your facts.
3) In the third paragraph, the author states "Building 7 has preoccupied conspiracy theorists ever since." We all know the term "conspiracy theorist" has pejorative connotations. The use of the term "conspiracy theorist" in this manner is clearly intended to cast aspersions against any who dare question the government's official conspiracy theory. This journalistic practice does not conform with the Herald's commitment to report and interpret honestly, striving for accuracy, fairness and independence.
4) In the sixth paragraph, the author quotes a NIST reference to the hypothetical sound level of a blast event. The author then states "No witness reported it", as a statement of fact, without quotation or attribution. This is incorrect. There are witness reports as well as video and audio recordings of just such blast events occuring in the vicinity and at the same time that WTC7 collapsed. These reports and recordings are readily available in the public domain. There is no truth to the claim that "No witness reported it", this statement is wrong, it's an error.
5) In the seventh paragraph, the author writes "The 9/11 Truth Movement points to the discovery of thermite, a potential explosive." Wrong. Thermite is not a "potential explosive". There are no "9/11 Truth Movement" researchers claiming that "thermite" is an explosive. Thermite is an incendiary. The "explosive" material discovered in WTC dust by 9/11 researchers is not thermite, it is a nano-engineered form of thermite, commonly known as nanothermite, or super-thermite. There is an important distinction between regular thermite and nanothermite. Failing to make clear this distinction, is not a trivial error. It shows the author has conducted little research into the issues and has a poor knowledge of the subject. Please check your facts.
In conclusion, I consider this article to be little more than a formulaic promotional for the government's official 9/11 conspiracy theory. In terms of the Herald's commitment to report and interpret honestly, striving for accuracy, fairness and independence, this article is entirely without merit.