9/11 Truth Goes Primetime By Sheila Casey / RCFP / March 22


9/11 Truth Goes Primetime
By Sheila Casey / RCFP

In recent weeks, 9/11 truth has burst into the mainstream media in a way not seen in the nine years since the attacks. Although much of the coverage has been in the form of dismissive hit pieces, the fact that the controversy about 9/11 is being covered at all has the effect of legitimizing challenges to the official story.

In our media-saturated culture, pundits and publishers define the boundaries of many people’s worlds. If it wasn’t covered by their favorite news outlet, many people assume, it must not have happened – or if it did happen, it’s simply not important. Then, when the average news consumers talk to their co-workers or neighbors, who also get their news from the same sources, each has their limited view of the world reinforced. They exist in an echo chamber, where certain ideas are repeated endlessly and others die a quiet death from neglect.

Few people are aware of how concentrated the ownership of mainstream US media is. With just five mega-corporations controlling virtually the entire media world, it is likely that many Americans can go an entire week and not encounter a book, magazine, newspaper, song, movie, greeting card, video game, radio program or TV show that did not issue from one of those five corporations. It is possible for people to believe they have been exposed to a broad range of ideas, since they read, watch and listen to what seems to be a wide variety of sources. They may never notice the ideas that are missing — the topics which will never appear in a movie at the multiplex, or in a major daily newspaper. There is the appearance of diversity masking actual uniformity.

Without the cooperation of the mainstream media, the myth of 9/11 would never have been possible. It’s not just that legitimate questions about the official story have been ignored and ridiculed. The myth itself — the one about 19-college age Muslims overcoming all the defenses of the entire US military-intelligence complex — has been reinforced in thousands of ways. Despite the absurdity of the myth, it is still believed by most Americans, partly due to sheer repetition, partly due to a child-like faith in the integrity of their leaders.

A reason frequently given by those who still believe the myth is: “If there were anything to it (i.e., the claims of the 9/11 Truth movement) I would’ve seen it on CNN. Or Fox News. Or Democracy Now. Journalists would jump at the chance to be the first with that story. That they haven’t done that tells me that there must be nothing to these wild conspiracy theories about 9/11.”

Within this environment, the recent spate of coverage given to the 9/11 Truth movement in mainstream outlets represents a significant chink in the seemingly impenetrable armor of the official 9/11 myth.

On February 15, 2010, Elizabeth Woodward published a 9,000 word article on globalresearch.ca titled “The Media Response to the Growing Influence of the 9/11 Truth Movement,” in which she analyzed the shift in tone about 9/11 since the publication in April 2009 of a peer-reviewed article in the Open Chemical Physics Journal stating that military grade explosives were found in the dust from the World Trade Center. But even in the month since her article was published, the coverage of 9/11 Truth by the mainstream media has accelerated.

Recent flurry of stories about 9/11 in the mainstream media:

February 22: The right-wing Washington Times published a 344-word article about Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth reaching the milestone of over 1100 architects and engineers signing a petition calling for a new investigation into 9/11, due to overwhelming evidence of controlled demolition at the three WTC buildings. Although absurdly phrased as a “lingering technical question,” the article was respectful.

March 4: John Patrick Bedell allegedly opens fire at the Pentagon, wounding three police officers. Although Bedell was completely unknown to the 9/11 Truth community, much is made in the mainstream media of his alleged belief that 9/11 was an inside job. The New York Times unabashedly demonizes Bedell, describing him as “unmarried, a regular marijuana smoker and living with his parents, [who] seemed to slide into a deep paranoia in the past couple of years.” If Bedell had any positive qualities, they were ignored by the hundreds of news articles eviscerating him.

March 6: Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad states that 9/11 was a “big lie” and his words are covered by The New York Times, Yahoo News, CNN, BBC and the Globe & Mail in Canada. The article on CNN collects 4,500 comments, while the home page of the New York Times website carried a link to the article from a title containing the phrase “9/11 was a big fabrication,” exposing millions to a tiny nugget of truth.

March 8: The Washington Post carries an editorial criticizing Japanese politician Yukihisa Fujita for his challenges to the official 9/11 story. Despite the harsh and belittling tone — Fujita’s ideas are described as “too bizarre, half-baked and intellectually bogus to merit serious discussion,” the editorial does serve the purpose of informing the Post’s readers that a highly placed politician has serious reservations about the official 9/11 story.

March 8: ABC’s “Nightline” does a segment about truth seekers at the “Treason in America” conference in Valley Forge, PA. The reporters ask leading questions and try to trap interviewees into making claims which ABC clearly expects their audience to find ridiculous. ABC avoids interviewing anyone who would be clearly sympathetic, such as Bob McIlvaine, who lost his son, or Manny Badillo, who lost his uncle on 9/11. The news hook for the ABC story is the Pentagon gunman, and the idea that he is “not alone” in his suspicions about the government.

Despite all this, ABC does include the statement that the 9/11 Truth movement disavows the use of violence. And, at the very least, viewers can’t help but notice that 9/11 Truth has become a substantial social movement, which may prompt them to do their own research.

March 8: Jesse Ventura’s new book American Conspiracies, is published and quickly rises to the 18th most popular book in any category on Amazon. Jesse makes the rounds of a number of major outlets to promote his book, including the daytime women’s chatfest “The View”.

It is a maxim of the public relations industry that, if you are an unknown, there is no such thing as bad publicity. (Obviously for McDonald’s or Coke there could be.) So, despite the harsh tone of many of these news pieces, they do more good than harm to the Truth movement, as they put the issue into minds that may have simply never considered that the story they were told about 9/11 was a lie.

Sheila Casey is a DC based journalist and staff writer for the RCFP. Her work has appeared in The Denver Post, Reuters, Chicago Sun-Times, Dissident Voice and Common Dreams.

This is well written, a good synopsis of recent media.

Great paragraph...
...Few people are aware of how concentrated the ownership of mainstream US media is. With just five mega-corporations controlling virtually the entire media world, it is likely that many Americans can go an entire week and not encounter a book, magazine, newspaper, song, movie, greeting card, video game, radio program or TV show that did not issue from one of those five corporations. It is possible for people to believe they have been exposed to a broad range of ideas, since they read, watch and listen to what seems to be a wide variety of sources. They may never notice the ideas that are missing — the topics which will never appear in a movie at the multiplex, or in a major daily newspaper. There is the appearance of diversity masking actual uniformity....

This is Very Important, but ...

... I do not believe that the entry of this Story into the MSM is because of some new development in the 9/11 Movement.

There has always been more than enough facts to provide the basis for a sound Story. This was aptly confirmed by Project Censored for years.

No --- it's not the Nano-thermite paper nor 1,000+ AE members. The Nano-thermite paper should have been immediate news in the U.S. - it was not. There is nothing magical about 1,000 AE members vs. 500, in addition to all the other high level skeptics of the Official Story.

Moreover, none of this stopped the NYT, The Washington Post, ABC and National Geographic from still treating the movement as a bunch of nut-jobs. In fact, it seems pretty clear to me that the NYT story and Wash. Post story were in reaction to the Washington Times breaking ranks and treating the issue with respect. Pat Buchanan has also treated the issue with respect on his website.

What this all represents is some sort of fissure within the Power Structure. Somebody is not happy with something and as a result there has been a subtle break in ranks. The Washington Times story seems to be some sort of shot across the bow, and the NYT and Wash. Post, quickly shot back. Now in discussing this theory - someone pointed out to me that there could just be the appearance of a few white knights willing to do the right thing. I don't think it really matters why - the opportunity should simply be exploited as well as possible. But unless someone owns a MSM media outlet .... there is no guarantee.

"a few white knights willing to do the right thing"

I just saw "The Most Dangerous Man in America" last night at the theater, the documentary about Daniel Ellsberg, the famous whistleblower and leaker of the "Pentagon Papers." Though extremely rare, those white knights do exist.

White Knights v. Power Fissure

It would sure be nice if a modern day Daniel Ellsberg showed up to blow the doors open on 9/11 - another White Knight.

When you look at the Washington Times/Pat Buchanan vs. NYT and Washington Post .... What struggle or motivation comes to mind?

What jumps out to me is a battle of Internationalists v. Nationalists.

Buchanan certainly is a Nationalist - and it would not surprise me if the Washington Times may have a similar bent. Whereas I see the NYT and Washington Post as willing partners in the trend towards internationalism, which the Obama Administration likely represents as well.

If the United States - its independence and its economy are to be sacrificed and taken down - and no doubt the architects of such plan would be at a high enough level to have knowledge of the 9/11 charade and ..... there are some high level hold out nationalists who are against this course and see their ship sinking, then perhaps a desperate gambit would be to threaten to expose 9/11 in a game of high-stakes poker.

Just an idle theory. A white knight usually is not so subtle. As with Ellsberg, you just leak some irrefutable evidence.

The odd dance between the Washington Times and NYT/Washington Post seems strange. It struck me as some high level jousting. A tease. A threat. A poker chip to played for bargaining leverage as to other interests. Why else would they all of a sudden find this story that's been there forever and why would there be such immediate and vicious retaliation, including the convenient Pentagon attacker.

Factions comprise the NWO--some want 9/11 truth to break

This is a very good observation. There are always the Stalins versus the Trotskys, and the Hitlers versus the Roehms.

There are those in the NWO who continue to depend on the 9/11 myth. However, there are others who see benefit to having the story break. (I've only heard Dylan Avery mention this latter possibility, in his 2009 interview with Jack Blood. He observed that there are others in the Truth Movement who take this view, and while he didn't endorse it he didn't discount it either.)

For this latter group, the 9/11 myth has served its purpose. But I think they see the real story breaking as creating additional opportunities. And unfortunately, they may have a point. We don't talk about this much, but eventually we'll have to.

The former group of course--who cling to the 9/11 myth--would include Neoconservatives.

Who benefits from the WHOLE truth?

'There are those in the NWO who continue to depend on the 9/11 myth. However, there are others who see benefit to having the story break.'

I've heard this argument before, but am still not convinced that ANY faction among the elites would truly benefit from 9/11 truth really breaking out.

If the internationalist globalists of the Obama administration are really so different in their attitudes toward 9/11 than their Neocon predecessors, then can someone tell my why Van Jones wasn't able to keep his job (and, what is more, has since recanted totally his previous support for an independent 9/11 investigation)?

If it were truly to the benefit of one elite faction against the other, I honestly think it would have broken in the corporate news media by now. Instead, the most we see are these occasional hesitant 'shots across the bow.' Exposure of the 9/11 big lie would have the effect of arousing skepticism worldwide towards all governing and media institutions, since--in the West, at least--they've all invested in and promoted it for several years now. For one elite faction to break the story--and thereby break with the elite consensus--hoping to gain advantage against the other, it would be like cutting off their noses to spite their faces. Public opinion would become much more difficult for all of the elites to manage, pretty much everywhere. Even moreso than it already has become, with the growth of the internet.

I recall when Graeme MacQueen spoke in NYC for the anniversary last September (at We Demand Transparency) he discussed how the 9/11 truth movement is essentially a global civil society movement in opposition to the claims of governments, which, almost everywhere, have accepted and promoted the OCT.

Not only am I not persuaded by the above argument; I sometimes wonder if some of those promoting this view (certainly not all of them, and I certainly don't mean JTL here) may in fact be hoping to foster distrust and division within the truth movement (among all the other attempts toward this end). After all, it could only dampen enthusiasm for the cause if activists come to think that the movement is destined to become merely a pawn in elite power struggles. I think that in the end, our best defense against any attempts to coopt the movement are to contine pressing for the WHOLE truth. All of it. No partial disclosures to be spun as establishment figures see fit. That, I think, is what makes this movement such a thorn in the side to to all factions of the ruling elite--who, at most, would want only very partial disclosures, a tell-tale sign that they're not really with us.

Good points.

I appreciate rm's thoughtful response.

As far as Obama's administration and their current attitudes, this is not an easy thing to read. Obama backed away from some very forthright promises he had made about scaling back and winding down the 9/11 wars. Once in office, he escalated them. I don't know what dynamics are at work here.

However, Obama's administration did break with the past on a couple of key points. First, the fact that they let Sibel Edmonds testify. Another would be the fact that they at least attempted to have KSM and a few other alleged terrorists tried in a civilian courts. Both of these could be seen as planting seeds that could lead to the eventual unraveling of the OCT.

I certainly do not intend to cause division or discouragement by suggesting that certain elites have plans ultimately to exploit the day of the 9/11 Truth breakthrough. On the contrary, I mention it only to encourage forethought well in advance of that day--the idea being that we anticipate any such possibilities so that we would already have a plan to respond accordingly (or preemptively.)

Could the inevitable 9/11 Truth breakthrough be exploited for nefarious ends? I should think so. This would, after all, be the most demoralizing thing that has happened to the people of the United States since the Civil War. We've survived things like Iran Contra or Teapot Dome, but nothing ever quite like this. It could conceivably alter the whole societal/political paradigm we've known all our lives--I don't think it would be quite like the end of The Shell Game. The question is who would be in the best position to pick up the pieces, and what could they be in a position to do?

But again, I think we have to consider all possibilities in view of the inevitable victory of 9/11 Truth. They always think a few steps ahead; so should we.

Media for 9/11 Truth

Perhaps this group is having an impact.



The TM continues to make progress to inform the truth of 9/11 to the masses.

Here is a good example of MSM raising the bar on truth seeking. The AP filed a legal motion to find out what type of skin cream Michael Jackson was using. The authorities immdiately unsealed the info.

Wooo...impressive flex of media muscle.

Paul Craig Roberts

is a respected conservative economist. It would be nice if he got more involved in the movement.

Craig Roberts

"[R]espected conservative economist. It would be nice if he got more involved in the movement."

The fact he is who he is and supports the cause should be enough. The fact that people like this speak out on the issue favorably should be newsworthy in and of itself. The MSM ignoring a person like this should be part of the indictment of the MSM, and it can be used against the MSM - like the NYT, Wash. Post, ABC etc... if and when they are ever forced to engage on 9/11 and answer for their inexcusable treatment of this matter.

I think that people like Roberts do well to maintain their independent status and do not need to join a group or identify themselves with a movement and instead just treat the subject the way they would treat any important, noteworthy subject. In that way, they cannot easily be written off as a sad story of a person of substance who has since gone off deep end.

The timing is right for Roberts to

get more involved with AE911 & push towards justice,

PCR Very Supportive of AE911Truth-on Russia Today

Beyond MSM - next steps

The media has released some information since the volume of actions by people like Richard Gage and many others have had an impact. This backs up anyone in the media covering such issues. Would ABC cover 9/11 this year unless Betsy Metz provided the venue? We have made some progress, but denial and cover-up has a way of taking actions back on their own. We need to take our next steps to continue building a momentum so the mass public can go from one third to two thirds knowing the truth of the government's criminal actions regarding 9/11 and cover-up.

I believe the best way to help this come about at this time is by going on record, one citizen at a time, by filing the evidence into a court of law, writing letters to editors as to why you have gone on the record in providing irrefutable evidence of an ongoing crime. We got to keep building up the pressure.

9/11 Crime - Misprision - Citizens Action

Great article Sheila.

You pretty much sum up most of how I see things. My own curiosity was tweaked in late 2004 when watching a brief hit piece on Fox News. Until that point I accepted on faith that the government was incompetent on the day and that they then exploited the attacks, but that a foreign entity executed the attacks.


The maxim to which Sheila is referring is: "All News is Good News." As long as we strive to keep our message simple and solid and keep the "whack jobs" in check, this is a safe position to take. We always want people talking about 9/11. There is also the maxim, "Less is More," another one we need to learn and exploit. Too much info makes us vulnerable and provides fodder for those in MSM who want to destroy us. So instead of saying more, we should say less, and say it louder.