Here is some information that may be helpful in figuring out just why the popular alternative media sites have censored 9/11 truth information. I have no proof, no evidence, but I think this should be considered as a possible reason for the blockout of the important and scholarly research that many in the 9/11 truth movement have presented.
ALTERNATIVE MEDIA CENSORSHIP:
SPONSORED BY CIA's FORD FOUNDATION?
by bob feldman
The mass-circulation weekly TEMPO accused Ford of having once played, at the urging of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, a covert role in Indonesian political affairs by consciously supporting the work of individuals who were deemed to be sympathetic to the anti-communist aims of American foreign policy.
— Chronicle of Philanthropy, 12/13/01
Monday Nov 16, 2009, WCPN-FM Cleveland, OH, NPR station, 9-10am show "The Sound of Ideas" censored my (poor public speaking ability) call challenging their discussion of 'fair trial for 911 defendants.' Call begins at 19:36. MP3: http://audio2.ideastream.org/wcpn/2009/11/1116soi.mp3
On June 18, 2009, Fresh Air's Terry Gross interviewed Chip Berlet about his new book: "Toxic to Democracy: Conspiracy Theories, Demonization, and Scapegoating". She was really softball with him, not challenging anything. Here's what I wrote to Terry/NPR:
Today's (June 18, 2009) Chip Berlet interview left much to be desired. Terry, I expected better from you, great interviewer that you are.
Mr. Berlet smears--rather than answers--the 9/11 truth movement with the claim that identifying the perpetrators of the September 11 disaster will, according to the truthers, solve all the problems of American society.
You should have called on him to clearly state who said or made that claim. Clearly Mr. Berlet doesn't want to answer some of the serious questions being raised by serious scientists, academics and politicians. So he resorts to straw man tactics to dismiss them. Again, you should have called him on it.
Better yet, why don't you invite Dr. David Ray Griffin, professor emeritus, to discuss his new book "Osama Bin Laden: Dead or Alive?", or one of his other books such as "Debunking 9/11 Debunking".
Program from Al-Jazeera entitled "Al-Qaeda at 20" sees Christopher Hitchens, Justin Raimondo from anti-war.com and Nazar Janabi from the Washington Institute debate the nature and development of "Al-Qaeda".
Raimondo argues "blowback" and mentions early CIA funding but is hamstrung by his refusal to explore present-day intelligence concerning "Al-Qaeda" and 911. This allows Hitchens to move in for the kill.
Crimes of the State Blog
"Conspiracism is raising its Medusa’s head again, her lethal visage wreathed with hissing absurdities, immobilizing judgement, melting intellect to pumice." --Alexander Cockburn (ignoring all evidence that is contrary to his irrational biases)
Blather at new heights of cognitive dissonance over at CounterPunch this weekend. Cockburn uses the term "conspiracism", as if that were a real thing, to mock any and all comers, even in a piece about the minutiae of some Wall Street fraud (Bernie Madoff).
But how can he get away with this childish mocking about the JFK assassination, without having to address even one piece of evidence at all?
Here is the entirety of what Cockburn says about "conspiracism" and the JFK assassination in that piece:
I was just notified by change.org that my idea was in eighth place in its category. This is the same site that has censored ideas mentioning 9-11, yet this idea has survived for weeks. If it hits the top three in the category, it gets forwarded to Obama, and perhaps more importantly, the more votes it gets the more visibility it earns on the site.
Why not look it over and see whether it's worth a collective effort to bump it into third place. Here's how it reads:
End Censorship of War on Terror
Ever since the "War on Terror" began, there's been massive censorship about the facts surrounding it both within the corporate media, the progressive media, and internet news sites and blogs. The Obama administration should announce a policy of increased transparency surrounding the War on Terror, and the media should take that as a cue to stop censoring their content.
And here's the text of the email I received:
We wanted to let you know that there are only 2 weeks left in the first round of the "Ideas for Change in America" competition, and your idea is in 8th place in the Civic Engagement category.
Facts to the contrary, there just are no conspiracies
David Lindorff has finally stuck his foot in his mouth, over at Commondreams.org, a notorious anti-truth gatekeeping site. I suppose we should all just abandon even the hope for justice, truth and reconciliation and take orders from the establishment Democrats?
Lindorff mixes irrational hyperbole with some revisionist whitewashing, all in an effort to put those pesky "conspiracy theories" behind us -- in the service of "the left." This tactic was employed previously by Alexander Cockburn among others, and is quite simply shameful.
Arianna Huffington admitted in an interview with Politico:
“There are certain obvious things we have, certain specific things,” says Huffington. “Conspiracy theories — we don’t allow conspiracy theories. If you thought Sept. 11 was caused by the Bush administration, your comment is not going to appear unless it is a mistake.”
Can you spell g-a-t-e-k-e-e-p-e-r?
The Corbett Report has just released a two-part documentary as a rebuttal to Chomsky's infamous 9/11 comments. These videos seek to expose the nonsensical and contradictory arguments Chomsky makes in trying to discredit 9/11 Truth. The documentary is intended to be an activist tool for spreading 9/11 Truth to academics, leftists and Chomskyites. If you think it is well-presented, please help get the word out by sending the link to people you think it might wake up.
Crimes of the State
I hear a lot of nonsense on the Internet -- much disinformation,  plain old vanilla misinformation, and grotesque ignorance up the wazoo.
Ignorance of specific facts and incidents is excusable, but an entirely fraudulent view of modern history?
You can't quite be sure if your fellow travellers have any inkling of their own nation's history, of their own government's substantiated, well-documented, and even admitted-to series of wrongdoings -- crimes, conspiracies.
Thus, you inevitably run into the cult of wild-eyed hyper-emotional flag-wavers who bring along their own lexicon of rude, arrogant and sometimes vulgar slurs. I'm referring to the "conspiradroid," "whack job," "nutcase," "moonbat," variety.
Why do these people seek solace in ignorance? I can understand that the alternative is scary, even terrifying. But hiding your head under the pillow does not make reality just disappear. Sorry, children.
Defending the Indefensible: Noam Chomsky's 9/11 Spin
Noam Chomsky's 2006 "analysis" of US government 9/11 complicity is being promoted by Alternet.org as if it was news. That's because Chomsky basically sides with the editors there and their dismissive attitudes toward looking at the evidence.
In this battle of ideas, it warms my heart that Alternet's boards are swamped with controversy the minute they try to push this garbage onto the unsuspecting.
I remain a bit dazed though that hard core "leftists" accept Chomsky's thin dismissal, and ignore the most important admission Chomsky has made:
"I mean even if it [US GOVERNMENT COMPLICITY IN THE 9/11 ATTACKS] were true, which is extremely unlikely, who cares? I mean it doesn't have any significance." -Noam Chomsky
Crimes of the State Blog
It's not civil disobedience, but corporate disobedience -- upsetting the corporate control paradigm -- that just plain flips out the media oligarchs and their loyal proxies.
"It's not a debate. It's a debate between us. You're in the audience. Audience comes from the Latin, 'to listen'."
--Bill Maher, (confronted by WeAreChange LA regarding his 9/11 censorship
The most powerful weapon the corporate state has is editorial control. The information clampdown is total, on certain topics. No "debate" is allowed, and opposition voices are not permitted to appear despite the validity of their case, or the amount and quality of evidence they can provide. Opposition is routinely written out of history, and it is demonized when it refuses to remain silent.
Comment Letter On BBC Director Generals Blog - Demanding The BBC Investigate 9/11 As Part Of Its Drive For Truth
I wrote this to Mark Thompson, Director General of the BBC after he claimed that all the trust issues of the BBC have been resolved. You can see his letter and my response (no 17) at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/09/trust_and_values.html.
Please 9/11 Bloggers - dont write comments to me, add your voice to this blog, using the link above and demand the BBC Investigates 9/11. With continued pressure, the growing weight of evidence, and the new film Loose Change Final Cut, which I promise you will prove the official story of 9/11 is false, we will win this battle for democracy.
Mark Thompson knows sooner or later he will have to investigate 9/11. He is under tremendous pressure to resist us, but we have to show we are as strong and as wily as those that would seek to silence us.
I am confident that behind the scenes the Berlin wall that is seperating those who peddle falsehoods and those that know the truth will soon come crashing down....with your help.....that wall will crumble. Thank you.
Loose Change Final Cut
Skeptic Magazine has come out with a half-assed response to the 9/11 Truth Movement. They cite Popular Mechanics' theories about the attacks, and not much else in their 9/11 Conspiracy Theories, the 9/11 Truth Movement in Perspective.
Someone should have told them that Professor David Ray Griffin has demolished the Popular Mechanics diatribe in his Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory.
Let's forego all of that -- pretend it never happened -- and get to the accusations of the article.
Al Gore Doesn't Accept the 9/11 Cover Up, So Why Do You?
Recent remarks by elected president Albert Gore reveal a serious distrust of the official 9/11 story. I wouldn't go so far as to call Gore a "truther," as he is a politician after all, but I will say that Gore is still looking for the truth.
See these comments:
"Most Americans have tended to give the Bush-Cheney administration the benefit of the doubt when it comes to its failure to take action in advance of 9/11 to guard against an attack. Hindsight casts a harsh light on mistakes that should have been visible at the time they were made. But now, years later, with the benefit of investigations that have been made public, it is no longer clear that the administration deserves this act of political grace from the American people."
What is he saying?
Do you believe the government lied about the events of 9/11? Do you think a new investigation by congress would expose the lies? If such an investigation took place, would we learn the truth? Many concerned activist seem to view “a new investigation” as the brass ring of ‘the truth movement’. One little problem. The media. For five long years they have remained strangely unable to relay any significant information regarding the truth of events of 9/11 to the public. Do you think they are not aware of the information? Do you think they have not been inundated with emails, faxes and letters presenting extensive evidence of an inside job? If you know the media has intentionally, willfully and quite effectively suppressed the information for the last five years, what would lead you to believe anything would change were “a new investigation” to be launched?
Please don’t mistake my intentions. I have a strong desire to see the truth regarding the events of 9/11 be known to all and support any investigation able to assemble the facts and disseminate the truth to all. A congressional investigation, at this time, however attractive it may seem, is not the answer.
While such investigation could well be used to ‘bring down’ Bush and thereby prepare the way for the kindler, gentler dictator, Hillary, the “facts” would be carefully controlled. A bit of limited hangout concerning prior knowledge, perhaps a “revelation” that Flight 93 was shot down by the military and no more. Videos will miraculously appear showing Flight 77 hitting the pentagon. The parts from Flight 175 and Flight 11 will miraculously appear (now that they finally retired the actual jets, the parts are “available”). The hijacker fairytale will be polished up and retold to firmly implant it in the collective conscious of the American people. Little, if any, damaging evidence will be presented and any that might slip in will never be reported. Any congressional investigation will only be used to retell the Big Lie. Gotcha.
And one sneaks past the gatekeepers, follow the link for the whole article. Thanks to Tim for sending this in:
Aaron Gootee, of New Albany was not one of those people. Gootee said it’s time people realize the government cover-up of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
“I have been doing a lot of research on 9-11,” he said. “I think it was an inside job. I was shocked when I got into the research. When it happened I was like everyone else and stood behind our government. We all got duped.”
Thanks to Chris for sending this in:
Oct 6, 2006, 01:17
With US mid-term elections one month away, it is not surprising to find
Washington’s elite criminal factions (neocon and neoliberal) engaged in
a new game of political chicken over 9/11 red herrings. The appearance of
bickering hides the fact that operatives of both factions are lying. Both
sides are cynically continuing the massive bipartisan cover-up of 9/11 and
the “war on terrorism."
Undeniable fact: all of Washington “knew” about 9/11
It is an amply documented fact -- no news whatsoever -- that the Bush
administration had absolute foreknowledge of 9/11, and deliberately
ignored warnings received within the US and from officials and
intelligence agencies outside the US.
As written by Michel Chossudovsky, “the foreknowledge issue itself is a
red herring, a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order
to divert attention from the original issue . . . Of course the Bush
Alot has been written about the left gatekeepers. But I'm constantly amazed at the blind spot - about false flag terror - among so-called progressives who are not conscious gatekeepers. These are people who can see other issues just fine, but just can't see what's in their blind spot: the frequent use of false flag terror by the U.S. and our allies.
Today's article from Common Dreams, a leading liberal news site, is a perfect example. Called "Anthrax, Iran & bin Laden: Waiting for the October Surprise", it argues that progressives should not sit passively by and wait for Karl Rove's "October Surprise" because it might be a scary one.
The essay accurately recounts how Bin Laden was blamed for the 2001 anthrax attacks, before it was discovered that the source was domestic. It also touches on how the attacks helped ram the Patriot Act through without real scrutiny, and drummed up support for the Iraq war.
The article also covers the White House Cipro story:
"The big story behind the 2001 anthrax attacks, however, was never properly covered: White House staff had started taking Cipro, an anthrax-treatment drug, a full week before the first attack even occurred. You've got to wonder what prior information the Bush administration had - and why it was not communicated to the US public."
The Great 9/11 Truth Debate - Calling all Progressives and Anti-war activists to partake in a debate with members of the 9/11 Truth Movement over the importance of learning the truth about 9/11.
Spread the word. Think 9/11 Truth is not as important as your cause? State your case here, but everyone, please keep it civil: