Nicholas wrote:jimd3100 wrote:This indicates to you an agenda does it? Maybe you should be putting the blame where it belongs. On a fruitcake 9-11 truth movement that promotes BS.
The blame belongs with a media establishment and culture that locks up a selection of "9/11 truth" figures into a zoo for entertainment viewing, but never actually examines the events and history of September 11th itself. They don't even read the official reports! Some of them condemn US torture, and then turn around and endorse a 9/11 Commission Report based largely on testimony derived from that torture. Such have no standing to deride others as naive.
Paul Thompson, Sibel Edmonds, the Jersey Girls, 911 Press for Truth, Nafeez Ahmed, P.D. Scott, Mike Ruppert, Anthony Shaeffer, Kevin Fenton, and (in a very conditional way) Richard Clarke: these are scholars and sources who are giving pieces of the real history and well-considered insights. They are all in their own way very well-known names, and real journalists would have no trouble finding them. It no more matters that Alex Jones or Charlie Sheen or DR Griffin might be more famous (today!) as "9/11 truth leaders" than it would matter that Oprah is a better known spokesperson on a given medical issue than an actual doctor.
Back when the biggest names in 9/11 skepticism were more credible than Griffin and the Joneses, the way people like Ruppert were treated by the media was no different than what is dished out today: The same boilerplate broad-stroke mockery, the same refusal to look at the events and history.
Real journalists would look beyond "American Idol" and seek out the cutting-edge music, in this case meaning: They would seek out the actual scholarship, they would cover the 9/11 Timeline and the Family Steering Committee, they would know what's actually in the 9/11 Commission Report and JICI and the IG reports. They would know about Blee and Alec Station and Midhar/Hazmi and Abudussattar Shaikh and Bayoumi and UBLU and CIA surveillance of the Hamburg Cell in the 1990s and the AWOL chain of command on the day and the "don't follow the money" dictum of the CR and the missing 28 pages of the JICI and the wargames of the day. They would know the evidence of foreknowledge, foreplanning and foreign warnings, the air-defense timeline contradictions between the various agencies and the bizarre 3-minute shifting of the Flight 93 crash by the CR and the CR conflicts of interest and very much else besides.
They would also have a clue about the history of covert operations and provide no preemptive excuses, like the false dichotomy between incompetence and criminality, as though the two don't usually go together. They would hardly regard the thesis of criminality in the US government as an "extraordinary" claim, or demand evidence from the Loose Change boys. They would track down the stories and look for answers from those who are accountable: not from celebrities, or from fabulists of hypotheses on the radio, but from people who actually were present and in charge on the day and in the weeks and months prior, and the ones who were charged with investigating the events afterward.
.
