NY Times: We'll devote two reporters and hundreds of words to disprove survivor's tale, but not one word on lies of Bush, Cheney

Today the NY Times ran an extensive article debunking the story of Tania Head, who claims to be a survivor of the 78th floor of the South Tower.

The Times devoted two reporters and hundreds of words to this story.

They have not devoted a single word to the demonstrable lies of George W. Bush's survivor's tale.

They have not said a word about Dick Cheney's whereabouts on 9/11.

They seem unconcerned that NORAD generals perjured themselves before the 9/11 Commission.

These are incontrovertible facts. There is no controversy here. The implications of these facts are potentially profound. The absence of media inquiry is profoundly criminal. The publication of Tania Head's indiscretion instead is an indictment of corporate media priorities.

How to respond to a "classic hit piece"??

Caught this on Counterpunch this morning, and started reading, but then its core dishonesty became tiresome, so I thought I would offer it for dismantling and public response (his email address is at the bottom).

Britain's 9/11 "Truth Movement": Who's Responsible?


As the sixth anniversary of the September 11 attacks passes the 9/11 conspiracy industry shows no sign of decline. While most adherents to the various conspiracy theories reside in the United States and the Middle East, the conspiracy circus - or "the 9/11 truth movement" as it styles itself - is an increasingly visible presence in the UK. Initially an internet based affair, the UK conspiracy advocates have developed national and local campaigning groups who organize public meetings, teach-ins and film showings and they have become a visible and vocal presence at anti-war demonstrations. Their most high-profile supporter and organizer in the UK is David Shayler, the former MI5 operative and recent converts to the cause include the journalist Robert Fisk and gay rights and anti-war activist Peter Tatchell.

WTC Insurance Money Laundering

Wonder why the insurance executives are also smiling? The payoff to Larry Silverstein may have been with "dirty money" in need of laundering.

Former Texas Assistant Attorney General Eric Moebius uncovered a huge money laundering scheme by the insurance industry. Money to pay for insurance claims came from organized crime, not the premiums paid by insurance policy holders.

Eric Moebius, cited cases of money laundering and insurance claims settled in cases of obvious arson. The fact that insurance companies launder money is not widely known. I am aware that money probably was laundered in the WTC claims. That could also include the payouts of hush money to the personal claimants as well. There is a huge network involved in insurance claim money laundering. That network facilitated 9/11 and the following cover-up.

Slightly OT: My money issue 101- as money is the force behind the curtain

that makes the world look like it is.

This is my money issue 101.

As long as we have debt based interest loaded fiat currency all over the

world, we will have the same old problems.

My sources: Congressman Jerry Voorhill, "Out of debt, out of danger". 1943.

Nobel-price-award-winner: Frederick Soddy. 1926:

"Wealth, virtual wealth and debt. The solution of the economic paradox"

Gertrude Coogan: Money Creators. 1935. with a forword of Robert Latham Owen,

Sen. and chairman senate financial and currency committee 1913 at the time of the Fed act.

He himself wrote the book: "The federal reserve system". Back in 1919.

Later he changes his mind completely:

Stephen Zarlenga: Lost science of money.

Silvio Gesell: Natural economic order.

Bernard Lietaer:

Easily showing that Jim Fetzer is a fraud

I am posting this as a Blog entry so that it's more visible, since the original reply that I just posted to Jim Fetzer, is in the comments section of a topic that'll soon have disappeared from the main 911Blogger page. I want it to be more visible so that he sees it.

As someone of Fetzer's apparent intelligence, who pretends to be well researched, he couldn't honestly believe the non-evidence nonsense that he promotes, supports and propagates about the Pentagon, in an obvious, subversive effort to try to help destroy the work of real, honest, good intentioned people involved with 9/11 research and activism -- guilt by association being a primary motive. But not the only one.