What are we to make of the NY Times ignoring the ReThink911.org campaign's above pictured sign directly adjacent to their building, the accompanying open letter to the Times, and over 500 letters from campaign supporters? 9/11 truth "debunkers" might have you believe this is evidence that controlled demolition theories are a bunch of hooey. However, while recently reading the excellent book 9/11 The Simple Facts - Why the Official Story Can't Possibly be True, I came across this little tidbit that I think sheds some light on the situation.
The very fact that people think they would know about something as major as 9/11 being an inside job is one of the main things that helps keep that awareness out of their consciousness. Here's a nonpolitical example:
The Wright brothers first successful flight, in December 1903, was long called a hoax by both the New York Times and the Scientific American. People believed that because they figured if the Wright brothers actually had flown, they surely would have read about it...in the New York Times or the Scientific American. Even as late as 1906, the Paris edition of the Herald Tribune could headline an article on the Wright brothers: Flyers or Liars?
Mark Twain supposedly once said, If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you do read the newspaper, you're misinformed. The blow-dried airheads on TV don't help, as they chime in with, "Oh, that's just a conspiracy theory. Ignore it and watch this cute story about a cat that's learned how to knit."And it isn't necessarily just ignorance either. Former Deputy CIA Director Frank Wiser used to refer to the media as "The Mighty Wurlitzer"--for his ability to make it play whatever tunes he wanted."(I'm not implying that the CIA was involved in 9/11. I'm just giving you an idea of how thoroughly some parts of the government control the mainstream media...or at least think they do.)
This underestimation of the power of scientific discovery even extended to the venerable New York Times. (In 1903, the Times declared that flying machines were a waste of time, just a week before the Wright brothers successfully flew their airplane at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina. In 1920, the Times criticized rocket scientist Robert Goddard, declaring his work nonsense because rockets cannot move in a vacuum. Forty-nine years later, when Apollo 11 astronauts landed on the moon, the Times, to its credit, ran the retraction: "It is now definitely established that a rocket can function in a vacuum. The Times regrets the error.")
But that was a long time ago you say? Well just this year a Times story omitted and distorted facts regarding autism in a story headlined with what the Times dubbed a link to Autism and a "cancer gene." Emily Willingham at Forbes explained, among other things that, "the gene in question isn’t just a 'cancer gene.' It’s a gene that
regulates the cell cycle, and changes in these genes can and do have
effects that aren’t confined to cancer. Calling it a 'cancer' gene in
this context is inflammatory, at best." Concluding her article by stating, " Autistic people and their families deserve more care than this, and
readers of the New York Times deserve careful, accurate science writing
placed in an appropriate context."
This isn't to say the Times does bad science reporting in general, I don't know if that's the case or not, it's just to say that readers should not decide issues based on the paper's choice of coverage, or the coverage itself, before looking into the issue themselves. As ReThink911's billboard says, The Evidence Might Surprise You.
So is it a worthy effort on the part of the ReThink911 campaign to get Times coverage? Absolutely. If the coverage was the least bit fair it would surely awaken many who dismiss 9/11 truth issues because "they surely would have read about it...in the New York Times." That said, I think it's equally important, to let those people who stumble across the campaign and wonder why the Times ignored the sign and letters, know about the history demonstrating that the Times non-reaction doesn't necessarily reflect their being on the side of truth in matters. And of course this would also apply to any negative coverage, which both the Times and Scientific American have given the 9/11 truth movement in the past.
This isn't to say the Times does bad science reporting in general, I don't know if that's the case or not, it's just to say that readers should not decide issues based on the paper's choice of coverage, or the coverage itself, before looking into the issue themselves. As ReThink911's billboard says, The Evidence Might Surprise You.
So is it a worthy effort on the part of the ReThink911 campaign to get Times coverage? Absolutely. If the coverage was the least bit fair it would surely awaken many who dismiss 9/11 truth issues because "they surely would have read about it...in the New York Times." That said, I think it's equally important, to let those people who stumble across the campaign and wonder why the Times ignored the sign and letters, know about the history demonstrating that the Times non-reaction doesn't necessarily reflect their being on the side of truth in matters. And of course this would also apply to any negative coverage, which both the Times and Scientific American have given the 9/11 truth movement in the past.
