24 – The censorship

As a writer, I routinely research all sorts of subjects on the internet, from the mundane to the dark and depressing to the weird and wonderful. No other subject yields as many dead links, not-found pages and missing news articles as 9/11. Around 2003 and 2004, major news agencies began stripping 9/11 stories containing any hint of controversy from their archives – although other news stories from the same dates and earlier are still abundant – and mainstream news networks have consistently failed to report on issues and findings which oppose the official story, while independent and overseas networks have had plenty to say on the matter (take a look at some of the stories on Russia Today’s youtube channel (global or American), which include eyewitness stories refuting the official account, reports on evidence of explosives, whistleblowers’ statements and the progress of the ‘truth’ movement). In contrast to this, mainstream media in US allied countries approaches conspiracy theories by presenting only the wackiest loonies for scrutiny, and continuing to ignore the real scientific evidence. On 9/11, news anchors and reporters noted secondary explosions (1:16:23-1:19:26) and the way the towers came down as if by controlled demolition. On 9/12 and onwards, the story had changed, and no further mention of explosions or controlled demolition was made.

The US government condemns any questions or doubts about the attacks, and it appears President Obama has even developed a government security body devoted to distancing Washington from them, while free speech in the west is continually and stealthily eroded in the name of the very same false threat.

There is little to say about this matter – I cannot present broken links or a lack of information as evidence – but it is something which becomes obvious when you start paying attention and looking at sources outside our major and corporate news providers for information. I can only recommend reading the articles linked below – and conducting your own research – for more. And think about this: there are many reporters and investigative journalists in the world, often reporting many conflicting stories – how do we judge which ones are right and which ones are wrong? Is there any reason we should trust reports from mainstream channels more than reports from independent investigators? Does the BBC somehow guarantee everything it says is true? How do you choose what to believe? Is it a reasonable and considered choice?

“Threats of law suits against journalists have become the hallmark of the Bush administration in a not-too-clever tactic used to silence independent media in the US.” — Wayne Madsen, investigative journalist.

Further information and sources

Return home for conclusions


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: