Difference between revisions of "9-11/Media response"
Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
===2016 UK Daily Express === | ===2016 UK Daily Express === | ||
− | [[image:2016de911. | + | [[image:2016de911.png|300px|right]] |
The first indications of a change in direction were visible in coverage by the UK ''[[Daily Express]]''. On June 22, 2016 it headlined a story "Were 9/11 towers blown up by bombs? University probes if planes REALLY were responsible", which centered on the [[University of Alaska]]'s sponsoring "a full investigation into claims that World Trade Center Building 7 was brought down by a controlled demolition during the 9/11 attacks".<ref>http://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/682256/Were-9-11-towers-blown-up-by-bombs-University-probes-if-planes-REALLY-were-responsible</ref> On September 10th, 2016, [[John Austin]] published a second article entitled "Was 9/11 an inside job? Call for TRUTH over Building 7 collapse on eve of 15th anniversary" which conceded that "growing numbers of people STILL claim the Twin Towers atrocities could have been an inside job."<ref>http://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/709000/Was-9-11-an-inside-job-Call-for-TRUTH-over-Building-7-collapse-on-eve-of-15th-anniversary</ref> | The first indications of a change in direction were visible in coverage by the UK ''[[Daily Express]]''. On June 22, 2016 it headlined a story "Were 9/11 towers blown up by bombs? University probes if planes REALLY were responsible", which centered on the [[University of Alaska]]'s sponsoring "a full investigation into claims that World Trade Center Building 7 was brought down by a controlled demolition during the 9/11 attacks".<ref>http://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/682256/Were-9-11-towers-blown-up-by-bombs-University-probes-if-planes-REALLY-were-responsible</ref> On September 10th, 2016, [[John Austin]] published a second article entitled "Was 9/11 an inside job? Call for TRUTH over Building 7 collapse on eve of 15th anniversary" which conceded that "growing numbers of people STILL claim the Twin Towers atrocities could have been an inside job."<ref>http://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/709000/Was-9-11-an-inside-job-Call-for-TRUTH-over-Building-7-collapse-on-eve-of-15th-anniversary</ref> | ||
==Independent Media== | ==Independent Media== | ||
The rise of citizen [[journalism]], especially using the [[internet]] has proved a boon to 9-11 researchers, and several significant efforts exist online which highlight weaknesses of the 9/11 {{on}}. | The rise of citizen [[journalism]], especially using the [[internet]] has proved a boon to 9-11 researchers, and several significant efforts exist online which highlight weaknesses of the 9/11 {{on}}. |
Revision as of 13:13, 13 December 2017
The response of commercially-controlled media to the events of 9/11 is revealing. They almost uniformly refuse to give airtime to anyone presenting credible challenges to the official "19 hijackers" story - whether individual whistleblowers or investigative journalists. Although contradictions of the US government's official narrative were occasionally reported, these were presented as minor details of a basically correct larger explanation. A clique of professional "terror experts" uncritically echoed the US government line as accepted truth, while ridiculing the 9/11 truth movement and refusing to report the evidence it has uncovered. 9-11 related deaths are occasionally given perfunctory treatment (e.g. Hiroshi Hasegawa) but generally completely ignored (Barry Jennings).
Contents
Corporate media
On the day itself, there was a relatively wide variety of material produced. For example, dozens of reports of bombs going off in the WTC were televised, and live, on the spot reporting evinced skepticism and even incredulity about the official narrative. Media reports from the day itself are particularly recommended to those researching the truth of 9/11. By the next day, several of these primary reports had vanished never to be rebroadcast as the careful decisions of senior editors saw the corporate media fall in lock step with the US government's official narrative about "19 men with box cutters". In particular, were no repeat broadcasts of reporting on World Trade Center 7 for some years after the attacks.[How many?]
The 19 Hijackers
- Full article: “9-11/The 19 Hijackers”
- Full article: “9-11/The 19 Hijackers”
The BBC reported on 23 September, 2001 that 4 of the hijackers were alive and well.[2] However, this story was not followed up on and in 2006 it concluded by quoting the official position from the FBI (in bold): "The FBI is confident that it has positively identified the nineteen hijackers responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks."[3]
Burying of existing news
Pre-9-11 news stories, such as the Pentagon's trillions of unaccounted funds or the new evidence in the Lockerbie case were effectively buried, under a long (2-4 week?)[citation needed] "no real news, but we're showing it to you again" extended spectacle which uncritically echoed the US government's story of Al Qaeda. The Internet Archive has assembled and published a collection of over 3,000 hours of 9/11 TV News.[4]
World Trade Center 1 & 2
In marked contrast to their absolute silence about WTC7, the corporate media played countless repeats of the planes hitting the twin towers, often with an inset of Ossama Bin Laden in the corner, as if to establish a link between the two.
World Trade Center 7 foreknowledge
- Full article: 9-11/WTC7/Collapse/Censorship
- Full article: 9-11/WTC7/Collapse/Censorship
Perhaps the most dramatic demonstration of how big media just follows orders is how it provided by the unprecedented collapse of World Trade Center 7. BBC[5] and Fox News[6] both announced before the collapse of this building that it "had collapsed" while MSNBC reported having "heard several reports from several different officers now that [WTC7] is the building that is going to go down next"[7] and CBS also passed on such reports.[8]. The source of these reports has been obfuscated and commercially-controlled media basically didn't go near the topic of WTC7 until the above videos of their reporting it started to circulate widely on the internet.
Hit pieces
Popular Mechanics has been the most prominent in its efforts to 'debunk' any theories challenging the 9-11#Official narrative.[9] Many hit pieces have been written over the years to try to ridicule and undermine the 9/11 Truth Movement.[10]
A 2007 episode of the BBC's Conspiracy Files raised the difficult issue of WTC7, after it had become publicised on WWW.
Critical journalism
A small number of media outlets have publicly questioned the US government's official narrative.
2016 UK Daily Express
The first indications of a change in direction were visible in coverage by the UK Daily Express. On June 22, 2016 it headlined a story "Were 9/11 towers blown up by bombs? University probes if planes REALLY were responsible", which centered on the University of Alaska's sponsoring "a full investigation into claims that World Trade Center Building 7 was brought down by a controlled demolition during the 9/11 attacks".[11] On September 10th, 2016, John Austin published a second article entitled "Was 9/11 an inside job? Call for TRUTH over Building 7 collapse on eve of 15th anniversary" which conceded that "growing numbers of people STILL claim the Twin Towers atrocities could have been an inside job."[12]
Independent Media
The rise of citizen journalism, especially using the internet has proved a boon to 9-11 researchers, and several significant efforts exist online which highlight weaknesses of the 9/11 official narrative.
- ↑ http://www.bollyn.com/home/#article_15849
- ↑ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm
- ↑ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/911_conspiracy_theory_1.html
- ↑ https://archive.org/details/911
- ↑ BBC report of the collapse of WTC 7 with the building clearly visible in the background
- ↑ Fox reports WTC 7 collapse before it happens
- ↑ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STOJz9qCQ1A
- ↑ WTC7 Expected To Collapse CBS2 News
- ↑ http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/
- ↑ http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-14665953
- ↑ http://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/682256/Were-9-11-towers-blown-up-by-bombs-University-probes-if-planes-REALLY-were-responsible
- ↑ http://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/709000/Was-9-11-an-inside-job-Call-for-TRUTH-over-Building-7-collapse-on-eve-of-15th-anniversary