It is impossible to keep the lid on a lie forever – especially a
major deception carried out in full view of witnesses and cameras.ae911truth.oBy Elizabeth Woodwo
It is impossible to keep the lid on a lie forever – especially a
major deception carried out in full view of witnesses and cameras.
The last article in the Media Response series was published in
February 2010, when public broadcasters in eight countries were
reporting doubts about the official 9/11 story, and nine corporate media
reviews had explored the issue during the previous year.
[1]
Since then, the mainstream media has forged ahead on the subject. In
the past six months alone, 20 stories in major papers have covered the
September-December 2013 ReThink911 campaign – including Time Magazine,
the NYT, the Ottawa Citizen, and BBC News Magazine.
As time passes our memories of 9/11 becomes less painful and more
open to public discussion. There is increasing skepticism in both the
social and corporate media about the credibility of 9/11 as the
foundation for the continuing global war on terror.
Last year, President Obama was prevented from waging – on grounds of state terrorism –war with Syria.
As of March 2014, seven congressmen, backed by impacted 9/11
families, are calling for the release of a secret 2002 congressional
study that implicates Saudi Arabia in financing the alleged hijackers.
Establishing the truth about 9/11 is a fundamental necessity for the achievement of peace between East and West.
The horrendous visual images of airliners careening into the tallest
buildings in America were seared into the collective world brain on
9/11.
This collective human experience has been so powerful and haunting
that no equally powerful and pervasive experience has emerged to show
that the Twin Towers were not brought down by Muslim hijackers run by
Osama bin Laden from Afghanistan.
Yet the weakness and falsity of the official story has been amply
demonstrated by more than a decade of peer-reviewed research and
scholarship, as shown by the 23-member 9/11 Consensus Panel’s
evidence-based Consensus Points and reading list.
[2]
And people suspect this. A 2011 poll shows that 42% of Canadians
believe US government information about 9/11 has been intentionally
hidden from the public.
[3]
The tale of 19 hijackers is viewed more and more as a construct – and the “reality” that it created, as a contrived perception.
If there is one force with the power to reverse this perception, it
is the dynamic ReThink911 campaign, which has taken hold strongly in the
US and Canada and has plans to expand into Britain and other countries.
The ReThink911 Campaign
The ReThink911 organization spearheads its campaign with the Achilles
heel of the 9/11 perception – the sudden collapse, later in the day, of
the 47-storey steel skyscraper World Trade Center 7, which stood
adjacent to the Twin Towers.
Massive in area, Seven’s base was the size of a football field. It was not hit by a plane.
It took the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
seven years to devise a computer simulation purporting to show how an
enormous steel skyscraper could collapse symmetrically with a level
roofline in six seconds – from “office fires” alone.
One dismayed professor of chemistry told how he watched its collapse
ten times on YouTube, his “jaw dropping lower and lower…I have not slept
since that day.”
[4]
But NIST concluded that on one floor, one over-heated beam expanded
and detached from one pillar, thereby causing the entire building to
drop like a stone –with all columns failing simultaneously.
[5]
So for the month of September 2013, ReThink911 purchased large blue
and orange billboards in major cities across Canada, the US, England,
and Australia.
These included an enormous 5-storey high sign
[6]
in New York City’s Times Square, posted throughout September and
October, and seen by millions of people. A similar sign was posted in
Dundas Square, Toronto.
[7]
Needless to say, the media could hardly ignore an “elephant in the
room” this size, towering beyond the windows of the New York Times.
How did the media deal with the situation?
First, it is important to consider that the survival of truth in a
democracy rests on the outcome of an information war that is based
largely on psychological operations and propaganda.
With regard to the truth about 911, the history of corporate media
reporting is reminiscent of Gandhi’s famous statement: ”First they
ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
In 2010, at the time of my last media survey, the mainstream media was waking up to research from the 911 truth community.
By the fall of 2013, the new ReThink911 campaign had gained
considerable attention in papers such as the New York Times, Time
Magazine, the BBC Magazine, and the Ottawa Citizen.
Most of the 20 or so stories were neutral in tone, with only a few ridiculing or opposing the campaign.
I. New York City:
On October 15, 2013, New York’spopular Village Voice ran a long story
about the ReThink911 billboards in Boston, Washington, D.C., Chicago,
Dallas, San Diego, San Francisco, Toronto, Ottawa, Vancouver, Sydney,
and London – with the enormous Times Square ad as the centerpiece –
adding that
“Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth has denounced
the NIST report as fraudulent and insist the truth has yet to be
revealed.”[8]
The Village Voice then gave a lengthy description of the ReThink911
media blitz, printing about a dozen of the 200 emails they had received,
and ending with “Thanks for your thoughts, everyone.” (The article
attracted 79 comments.)
Compare this to the rambling Libertarian Republic article
[9]
that set out to debunk what it called persistent “conspiracy theories.”
(The term “conspiracy theory” is a well known psychological
thought-stopper.)
It was full of superficial obsolete evidence (compared, for example,
to new evidence emerging through the 9/11 Consensus Panel’s research
[10]) and full of irrelevant speculation about what motivates 9/11 researchers.
Understandably, it received only one comment.
However, the piece was published in a mainstream conservative
journal, and because the author had worked long and hard to challenge
the ReThink911 campaign, and because the publisher gave it so much
space, it fits into Gandhi’s category #3, “then they fight you.” (which
is the last stage before truth wins)
Time Magazine, on the other hand, published an objective account (on
September 11, 2013 anniversary) about the ReThink911 campaign’s leading
spokesman, architect Richard Gage:
In 2006, Richard Gage, a San Francisco-based architect,
founded Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, which doubts Building 7
collapsed because of fire. Gage and other architects and engineers
argue that 7 World Trade Center came down in a free fall, which could
only have been caused by a deliberate demolition explosion. More than
2,000 architects and engineers have signed a petition calling for a new
investigation into the building’s collapse.[11]
However, Time marginalized public support for the controlled
demolition evidence by citing a 2011 BBC poll showing that only 15% of
Americans believe the government was involved.
[12]
Note that back in September 2006 Time had reported:
“A Scripps-Howard poll of 1,010 adults last month found
that 36% of Americans consider it ‘very likely’ or ‘somewhat likely’
that government officials either allowed the attacks to be carried out
or carried out the attacks themselves. Thirty-six percent adds up to a
lot of people. This is not a fringe phenomenon. It is a mainstream
political reality.”[13]
The New York Times, also on the September 11, 2013 anniversary,
reported in neutral terms that “a group known as Architects and
Engineers for 9/11 Truth, which wants a new investigation into the
events that day, is buying billboards in New York and other cities as
part of what it calls its Rethink911 campaign,” and linked to the
ReThink911.org website.
[14]
And in January 2014, the Village Voice ran a second article featuring actor Austin Farwell (“The Long Ride Home”), who wrote:
I hope and pray daily that we as a nation recognize that
forensic evidence exists proving that Building 7 was brought down in a
controlled demolition. We at rethink911.org and the entire crew at
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth have been tirelessly pursuing
recognition for our peer-reviewed critiques and experiments into how and
why Building 7 (the third tower to fall at freefall speed on 9/11) fell
the way it did. Our hope in another new year is that the American
people receive a true and impartial investigation into the events of
9/11.[15]
In summary: Twelve years after the event, the New York media has
become simply factual – rather than dismissive and scornful – in
reporting the work of a credible professional group calling for a
reinvestigation of 9/11.
This move beyond “ignoring” and “ridiculing” signals a sea change in
media receptivity to the idea that rogue elements within the US were
somehow complicit in 911.
II. “Then They Fight You”
However, three news accounts were either sensational or condescending in taking issue with the ReThink911 evidence.
The Dallas Observer, referring to Dallas as the “City of Hate,” wrote
at the top of its piece, “We Apologize in Advance for This Particular
Item.”
[16] It then lumped together doubts about Pearl Harbor, JFK, and 9/11 as (thought-stopping) conspiracy theories.
The Observer did do its homework, though – enough to cite an academic
paper arguing against a classic 9-author per-reviewed study
[17] that found nanothermite, an incendiary/explosive, in the WTC dust.
This willingness to argue the evidence in a mainstream newspaper is an encouraging sign that a public debate is no longer taboo.
And indeed the piece did generate a fight, as shown in its 269
comments. The most recent commenter wrote: “I’m not going to speculate
on motivations re. the slant of this article, but it amounts to a denial
of an objective, careful look at the evidence.”
[18]
The Huffington Post Canada’s editorial piece, “9/11 Conspiracy Ad On
Ottawa Buses And Toronto Billboard Sparks Outrage,” produced 377
comments.
Although the paper referred to “the well-known 9/11 ‘Truther’
organization Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth,” it focused
strongly on the “widespread outrage” – the “disrespectful” and
“disgusting” notion that the US government may have been complicit in
the attacks.
[19]
This is the sort of superficial outdated pap (insulting to an
infantilized but media-savvy public) that is leading the fight (against
the truth of the people) that Gandhi described.
When ReThink911 purchased 100 ads in the Bay Area Transit System, the San Francisco Weekly reported on the advertizing angle.
[20]
After devising a particularly sarcastic title and describing the ads
as “a valiant form of evangelism,” the paper did manage to briefly
discuss the controlled demolition debate between NIST and the architects
and engineers from AE911truth.org.
The four comments supported the ReThink911 campaign.
It seems that when the media disparages 9/11 skepticism these days, the fight is on.
III. The Canadian Media: 1.Ottawa
“The ads in Canada sparked more public discussion than anywhere,” reported campaign manager Ted Walter to the BBC News Magazine.
[21]
In Ottawa alone, six newspaper reports followed the controversy over
OC Transpo’s decision to allow prominent ReThink911 ads on 300 of its
city buses for the month of September 2013.
[22]
The first story, in the Ottawa Citizen, reported in a neutral, balanced way:
Did you know a third tower fell on 9/11?
The question appears on 300 OC Transpo buses this week in a global
advertising campaign challenging the official version of the Sept. 11,
2001, disaster in Manhattan.
New York-based Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is trying to
rally public pressure for a new official inquiry into whether the World
Trade Center towers and neighbouring WTC Building 7 were actually
toppled by shadowy U.S. forces using controlled demolitions.
Though the group is careful not to blame anyone in particular, the
implication is that elements allied with the former administration of
president George W. Bush needed to manufacture sufficient reason to
justify planned military assaults on Afghanistan and Iraq.[23]
Sun News also reported the group’s position on the WTC collapses, and
quoted Mayor Jim Watson’s comment, “I disagree with the sentiment of
the truther movement, obviously. I think it’s very disrespectful … but
we do in this country have free speech, and at the end of the day they
met council’s (advertising) standards and they’re allowed on the buses.”
[24]
An editorial by the Ottawa Citizen came down strongly in favour of
free speech, defending ReThink911′s right to advertize its views:
The ads in question are the work of people who question
official accounts of what happened at the World Trade Center. The group,
including the New York-based Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth,
ran the ads in cities across North America, including Ottawa, to make
their point. The 9/11 truthers believe there is compelling forensic
evidence to show the towers were not destroyed by fire, as official
accounts maintain. These people believe advanced military grade
explosives and clandestine demolition measures structurally weakened the
buildings before the planes crashed. They are entitled to their views,
and if they want to disseminate them, it is their right to do so.[25]
A poll run by 1310News asked “Should the ads from ‘ReThink9/11′ be
allowed on OC Transpo buses?” 91.5% voted “yes” and 8.5% said “no.”
[26]
In December 2013 the ads resumed, and the OC Transpo review issue hit the headlines again.
The Ottawa Citizen City Hall Blog suggested that pressure from city councillors was more than coincidental:
“One of the odder spectacles at Wednesday’s meeting of
the city’s transit commission was councillors insisting that the review
they’ve ordered up of OC Transpo’s policy on the ads it accepts has
nothing to do with the ad campaign bought by 9/11 truthers to coincide
with the anniversary of the terrorist attacks (or, let us allow for the
conceivable possibility, fake terrorist attacks) this year.
Keith Egli tried that line out: ‘It is not about a particular ad
campaign,’ he said. It’s about the transit commission doing due
diligence, as a new body, to make sure its policies and whatnot are in
shape, he said. Shad Qadri and Diane Deans gave versions of it, too,
though less stridently. They’re just being responsible overseers. The
9/11 truther thing? No connection.
Yet Deans was the one who called for a review of the advertising policy specifically in response to the 9/11 truther ads.”[27]
The City Hall Blog then tracked the public debate, showing clearly
that the issue boiled down to free speech versus demonstrable bias. A
city lawyer was cited. When “Rainer Bloess asked [the lawyer] whether
there’s any indication that the city’s in violation of any relevant law
or jurisprudence. No, she said.”
[28]
MetroNews Ottawa produced a balanced report as well, quoting 9/11 Truth spokesperson Isabelle Beenan:
“The goal of rethink 9/11 is to make this information
widely known by running advertisements in cities around the world,
encouraging the public to look at evidence and decide for themselves,”
she said.
“Should such an activity be blocked because some in our society are
uncomfortable about the implications about this building being brought
down by controlled demolitions? The Canadian charter of rights and
freedoms says, ‘no.’”[29]
This article received 185 comments (which are usually moderated in online papers), the most recent being:
Glad *someone* is educating the public about the collapse of Building
7… the mainstream media sure aren’t! Take a look please, and judge for
yourself; don’t buy what others tell you to think about it. It will
definitely surprise you how strong the evidence really is for controlled
demolition of this building, including its free-fall.
[30]
Summing up the controversy, the Ottawa Sun wrote: “And while it’s
hard, if not sometimes seemingly impossible to do so, it would be far
better if councillors’ personal points of view are left out of guiding
any policy on city advertising.”
[31]
The Ottawa media coverage of the ReThink911 campaign shows that
within Canadian public culture, the idea of US complicity in 9/11 has
shifted from the unthinkable to the debatable.
IV. The Canadian Media: 2. CBC, Toronto Star
On September 11, 2013, Canada’s national public broadcaster covered the ReThink911 Ottawa story via print and TV.
CBC TV News in Ottawa reported the organization’s belief that the
World Trade Centre was felled “not by planes but by controlled
explosives.”
[32]
The CBC article cited a letter from the ReThink911 website addressing
fears that questioning 9/11 might show “insensitivity” to the surviving
families:
“The ReThink911 coalition includes 9/11 victims’ family
members who want nothing more than an accurate and unbiased accounting
of the death of their loved ones.[33]
Indeed it was a group of 9/11 families who scheduled a Capitol Hill
press conference for March 12, 2014, along with seven US Congressman,
urging Congress to publicly release 28 strangely classified pages from a
2002 Congressional Report that have remained secret for 12 years.
[34]
Canada’s largest newspaper, The Toronto Star, covered the ReThink
story at street level in Toronto, quoting comments such as, “What
brought down these buildings? It was actually a controlled demolition.”
A young man said, “Once you see the evidence – people don’t want to
put the few hours in it takes to be convinced –” adding that even his
mom, after hearing a lecture in Hamilton, is convinced. “We’re not
conspiracy theorists. We don’t know who the conspirators are.”
As to the huge ReThink911 sign in Dundas Square, the Star quoted a
student’s answer to the question it posed, “Did you know a third tower
fell on 911? ”
“They’re not trying to sell you anything, it’s just a question, and they’re giving you the opportunity to answer.”
V. London, England, BBC News Magazine, December 16, 2013
The BBC coverage was subtly dishonest, announcing the ReThink
campaign but moving immediately away from the evidence itself to a
red-herring discussion of whether Canadians tend to be wary of US
officialdom.
[35]
And it emphasized perceptions rather than evidence. For example, it
related how Canadian nuclear physicist Frank Greening had been intrigued
by the collapses and did his own research, teaming up in 2008 with a
co-author to write a paper concluding that the allegations of controlled
demolition had no merit.
But then he heard about evidence of explosive residue in the dust and
invited his co-author to explore it. Greening was disappointed to be
told, “Frank, look, the intent of the paper was to silence the truthers.
I consider it mission accomplished.”
Now Dr. Greening is no longer sure. “My motive was not to silence
anybody, but to get to the truth,” he said. “If I ever make it to
heaven, my first question will be: ‘OK, tell me what really happened on
that day.’”
[36]
There’s a new development that might help Greening to decide. The
NIST Report simulations, showing that WTC7 came down by fire alone, left
out vital pieces of the building structure that would have made its
collapse impossible.
[37]
The devil, as they say, is in the details.
Mr. Richard Gage will be presenting these details on his cross-Canada speaking tour, March 13 to April 1
st.
[38]
If the media ever starts investigating the details rather than the
perceptions, there’s bound to be a reinvestigation and a big fight.
“And then you win.”
Notes
[4] Dr. Niels Harrit, Prof. Emeritus of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, after watching
[6]http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/9/prweb11104364.htm
[7]http://rethink911.org/photo-gallery/#pagecontent
[9] Austin
Petersen, “False rumors still persist about ’9/11 truth,’”The
Libertarian Republic, September 11, 2013
(http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/911-conspiracies-debunked/#axzz2vFrAmkCL).
[10] See http://www.consensus911.org/the-911-consensus-points/[
[12]
The poll was commissioned by Mike Rudin, producer of the BBC’s
“Conspiracy Files,” which has a long history of seeking to debunk
emerging evidence about 9/11. See BBC, “9/11 conspiracy theories,”
August 29, 2011 (http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-14572054).
[15]
Raillan Brooks, “If You Could Make One Change in NYC in 2014, What
Would You Do?” Village Voice, Jan 1, 2014
(http://www.villagevoice.com/2014-01-01/news/new-york-new-years-resolutions/3/).
[17]
Niels H. Harrit, et al., “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust
from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe.” The Open Chemical Physics
Journal, Vol. 2 (April 3, 2009), 7-31,
(http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.htm)
[19]
Huffington Post Canada, “9/11 Conspiracy Ad On Ottawa Buses And Toronto
Billboard Sparks Outrage,” September 12, 2013
(http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/09/12/911-conspiracy-ad-ottawa-bus-photo_n_3913937.html).
[22] This list of references starts with the earliest report, and includes Ottawa city newspapers:
Ian Macleod, “Ads questioning truth of 9/11 appear on OC Transpo buses,” Ottawa Citizen, September 12, 2013 (http://web.archive.org/web/20131107093607/http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/appear+Transpo+buses/8899246/story.html).
Jon Willling, “Free speech protects ‘disrespectful’ 9/11 conspiracy bus ads: Ottawa mayor,” Sun News, September 12, 2013 (http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2013/09/20130912-154907.html).
Ottawa Citizen, Editorial: “OC Transpo should err on the side of free speech,” September 14, 2013 (http://www2.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/archives/story.html?id=e2507136-01c6-4fd9-957c-c754f30484d0).
By David Reevely, “Fresh 9/11 ads
coming to OC Transpo buses amid review of advertising policy,” Ottawa
Citizen, November 20, 2013 (http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Fresh+coming+Transpo+buses+amid+review+advertising+policy/9190435/story.html).
Susan Sherring, “OC Transpo bus ads draw attention,” Ottawa Sun, November 20, 2013 (http://www.ottawasun.com/2013/11/20/oc-transpo-bus-ads-draw-attention).
Trevor Greenway, “More 9/11 ‘truther’ ads to hit Ottawa buses,” Metro News Ottawa, November 21, 2013 (http://metronews.ca/news/ottawa/860796/more-911-truther-ads-to-hit-ottawa-buses/)
”OC Transpo’s advertising-policy review is all about the 9/11 truthers,” Ottawa Citizen, City Hall Blog, November 21, 2013 (http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2013/11/21/oc-transpos-advertising-policy-review-is-all-about-the-911-truthers/)
[24]Jon
Willling, “Free speech protects ‘disrespectful’ 9/11 conspiracy bus
ads: Ottawa mayor,” Sun News, September 12, 2013
(http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2013/09/20130912-154907.html).
[26] 1310News, “Controversial 9/11 ads spark call for review of OC Transpo ad policies,” September 12, 2013
( http://www.1310news.com/2013/09/12/controversial-911-ads-spark-call-for-review-of-oc-transpo-ad-policies/)
[32] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aye5yAK0Yes&feature=youtu.be
[34]
Paul Sperry, “Victims’ families: Release secret ‘Saudi’ 9/11 report,”
New York Post, March 8, 2014
(http://nypost.com/2014/03/08/victim-families-release-secret-saudi-911-report/).
[37]
William Pepper, “The NIST Report On the Collapse of WTC Building 7
Challenged by 2,100 Architects and Engineers,” January, 2014 (http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2014JanLetterPepper.pdf).
Fraud is a possibility and the case is being investigated by attorney
William Pepper on behalf of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
Many people subconsciously make the mistake of only seeing the issues
In the fight to uncover the truth about 9/11 we must contend with individuals and groups that distort, omit and lie about important details in order to defend the official narrative - the 911 truth Debunkers.
