Tag Archives: propaganda

Media ‘watchdogs’ attack tiny 9/11 opening from Rivera, Napolitano

December 3, 2010

By Craig McKee

It’s the damndest thing. Two media watchdogs from opposite sides of the fence are attacking Fox News, my most hated news organization, and I’m on Fox’s side.
To a point.
The liberal “media watchdog” Media Matters for America has attacked Fox News host Geraldo Rivera and Judge Andrew Napolitano for considering the possibility that we haven’t been told the whole story about how World Trade Center Building 7 collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001 (http://mediamatters.org/blog/201011290030). A similar attack has come from Newsbusters, a conservative “media watchdog.”
The idea that the government has lied to the world about 9/11 has always been ridiculed at Fox – and Rivera was one of those doing the ridiculing. But the campaign called Building What? (which ran TV ads in November questioning the official explanation about Building 7) has made an impression. Besides being seen by millions of New Yorkers, the campaign has persuaded Rivera to rethink his long-held belief that Truthers were a Continue reading →

Explosions BEFORE plane impact: the 9/11 account of William Rodriguez

When Bush shook hands with Rodriguez, he had no idea how damaging this WTC employee’s account of 9/11 would be.

November 30, 2010

By Craig McKee

It’s something you won’t hear about in the mainstream media. A loud, devastating explosion in the sub-basement of the World Trade Center’s North Tower BEFORE the impact of an airplane that hit between the 93^rd and 99^th floors.
That was the account of William Rodriguez, who was a 20-year employee of the World Trade Center when the towers were destroyed on Sept. 11, 2001. He was later hailed as a national hero for pulling people out of the buildings, saving a number of lives that morning. He was believed to be the last person to escape the North Tower before it fell. He was even photographed with President George W. Bush. Now, the government doesn’t want to hear anything he has to say.
No matter how well known he is within the 9/11 Truth movement (in fact he’s one of its best known figures), very few others have heard the things he has to say – things that make the purveyors of the official story very nervous.
That’s because if what he reports is true, then the official story can’t be. That official version contends that airplane impacts and the resulting fires were solely responsible for the collapse of the twin towers. But if his account of Continue reading →

The tilting south tower gives it away

Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance – Albert Einstein
November 26, 2010

By Craig McKee

People who believe in the official government theory of what happened on Sept. 11, 2001 must find the laws of physics to be a real pain in the neck. They must hate it when these silly laws keep showing how their neat story of Islamic terrorism simply isn’t possible.
There are so many examples: the too-small hole in the Pentagon and lack of wreckage outside; the scattering of debris from Flight 93 over an area of several miles and virtually no wreckage at the crash scene; molten steel under the three World Trade Center towers that came down; the fact that fire was simply not hot enough to have brought down both of the twin towers; and that they couldn’t have been destroyed so quickly without explosives. And those are just the big ones.
There’s another aspect to the destruction of the twin towers that doesn’t get as much attention but that is huge when it comes to proving the fiction of the official theory.
When the destruction of the South Tower started at 9:59 a.m., just 56 minutes after it was hit, the top of the building began to tip over (as you can clearly see in the photo above). And, according to Sir Isaac Continue reading →

Critical, open-minded thinking is in short supply in 9/11 debate

The goal of education is to replace an empty mind with an open mind – Malcolm Forbes
People are very open-minded about new things – as long as they’re exactly like the old ones – Charles Kettering
November 24, 2010

By Craig McKee

It’s all about assumptions – that immovable foundation of ideas we won’t compromise under any conditions even when those ideas are proven wrong. These are the dogmatic beliefs that block us from considering new possibilities.
We all have biases. We all operate with a set of core beliefs about how the world works. We all see things through the filter of our upbringing and our experiences. But truly wise people are those who realize the limiting effects of their biases, and who will consider new information even when it contradicts their existing beliefs.
The 9/11 Truth Movement was born as a result of people who were willing to look beyond the obvious. They didn’t take what they were told as unchallengeable truth; they used their brains to evaluate what they were told and what they saw. They tested the information critically.
Most people think they are completely open to new ideas and concepts; but they aren’t. They don’t apply the same criticism to the “official conspiracy theory” of 9/11 that they do to others they don’t like. Continue reading →

‘Building What?’ campaign is brilliant strategy for 9/11 Truth movement

November 22, 2010

By Craig McKee

It’s an inspired move. Take a single event from 9/11 and ask for a local investigation to determine how it happened. In this case, the goal is to have officials in New York City launch an investigation into why World Trade Center Building 7 collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001.
The smaller scope makes it more likely to succeed, and the fact that New Yorkers are asking their city to investigate leaves the federal government out of it – for now, anyway. And it’s clear that other so-called investigations into this event have shed no light on how this 47-storey building came straight down at near free fall speed (6.5 seconds) when it wasn’t even hit by a plane.
The campaign, called Building What?, was organized by families of people who died in the Sept. 11 attacks. It is co-sponsored by NYC Coalition for Accountability Now and Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, an organization that includes more than 1,200 members. AE911Truth is devoted to the dissemination of scientific evidence about what happened on 9/11. Their stated goal is a truly Continue reading →

Official 9/11 story depends on a 'perfect storm' of blunders

Somehow no fighters were able to intercept any of the four hijacked planes.

November 20, 2010

By Craig McKee

It’s a very tempting notion for a lot of people. Incompetence. Confusion. Bad luck.
For people who can’t bring themselves to believe that their own government would murder 3,000 people, it’s comforting instead to chalk up the attacks of 9/11 to a series of unfortunate mistakes. The Bush administration did not admit that catastrophic errors were made, but if 9/11 wasn’t an inside job, there’s no other explanation.
Somehow the idea that the terrorists were too fiendishly brilliant for anyone to be able to stop them just doesn’t cut it, even for “official story” believers. Claims by George W. Bush, Condoleeza Rice, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld that no one could have anticipated hijacked planes being flown into buildings have been discredited. We know for a fact that war games going on that very morning simulated this very scenario.
So that leaves people who don’t believe in official 9/11 complicity on the part of the government to settle on the idea that the country’s defences broke down inexplicably. It’s not a pretty theory if you believe in your government, but it has to do. The alternative, that the Bush administration planned the attacks, is unthinkable for many.
So how can someone make the case that it was a string of honest mistakes that allowed the attacks to succeed? Basically the scenario goes like this:

Law enforcement agencies like the FBI had their eyes on some of the future hijackers long before 9/11 but didn’t follow up or somehow lost track of them.
Airport security on 9/11 singled out the hijackers for additional screening but failed to Continue reading →

Fallen light poles undermine Pentagon official story on 9/11

November 15, 2010

By Craig McKee

It seemed that they would confirm for the world that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001 just as the government said. But they might just have done the opposite.
“They” are the five light poles that lay on the ground after allegedly being knocked over by Flight 77 in the seconds before it is supposed to have hit the Pentagon.
The reason the existence of these poles is helpful in questioning the official story is that they provide us with an exact flight path that the plane would have to have taken if indeed it hit the building. If the flight path had deviated even by a small amount, the plane would not have hit these poles.
So is it possible that the actual flight path was different from the one outlined in the 9/11 Commission Report? That may depend on who you believe. The film National Security Alert by Citizen Investigation Team makes the case that the plane that people saw flying near the ground Continue reading →

How Occam’s Razor can be twisted to serve any 'official story'

November 13, 2010

By Craig McKee

Conspiracy “debunkers” have a number of weapons at their disposal to discredit those who try to expose deceptions and cover-ups.
They will often condescendingly brush aside what these people say by making fun of their ideas so they don’t have to actually refute them. If that doesn’t work, they can explain how the conspiracy would be too involved or that someone would give away the secret or that the powers that be “would just never do anything that terrible.” Failing that they can resort to putting their hands over their ears and singing, la la la la la la la la until their opponents go away.
But there’s another way touted enthusiastically by believers of official stories. That is to invoke the dreaded Occam’s Razor, which most people take as being “the simpler of two Continue reading →

Evidence points to bombs being detonated in the Pentagon on 9/11

November 9, 2010

By Craig McKee

A great deal has been written about the evidence for explosives in the World Trade Center, but not enough attention has been paid to the evidence that bombs were detonated in the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.
As I wrote in my Oct. 2, 2010 post, “How could Flight 77 have caused interior Pentagon damage on 9/11?”, there was a great deal more damage done to the interior of the Pentagon than a plane impact could account for – or any impact from the outside for that matter.
We know that the government’s conspiracy theory states that American Airlines Flight 77 penetrated the Pentagon at roughly a 45-degree angle and managed to go through three rings of the Pentagon, punching a round exit hole in the inside wall of the C Ring Continue reading →

More impossible 9/11 ‘eyewitness’ accounts: Renaud and McIntyre

November 5, 2010

By Craig McKee

One of the most bizarre and unbelievable accounts given by anyone with TV network connections on Sept. 11, 2001 was that of Theresa Renaud, described as the wife of CBS Early Show producer Jack Renaud.
Her account is available on the Internet and was presented in the film September Clues, which alleges that video we saw on and after Sept. 11 was tampered with to deceive the public.
Renaud was recounting live on CBS how she had been at her window and had heard the North Tower explosion. While telling the story, she sees the second alleged impact. Her account of that, live, was very revealing.
Before that second impact, she explained to host Bryant Gumbel that her office building in Chelsea looked “directly on to” the towers (even though it was several miles north). She described how her building was the tallest in the area, giving her a good view of the World Trade Center.
Renaud described the first impact this way: “I would say that approximately 10 minutes ago there was a major explosion from, probably it looks like from the 80^th floor, it looks like it’s affected probably four to eight floors, major flames are coming out of the, let’s see, the north side and also the east side of the building, yes.”
Gumbel then asks her if she heard the explosion. She continues: “Oh yes, yes we did as a matter of fact, in fact we did hear because I was standing there pretty much standing looking out the window. I didn’t see what caused it or if there was an impact.” Continue reading →