New member asks: why the newsmedia silence?

andrewwatson

It is astonishing that a Google search of the terms ''911'' and ''cover-up'' yields 241,000 hits. whereas the same search on Google News produces just 3 results. None are from mass news media.
Is the entire press and broadcast media in the control of the Bush govt.?

sonic · Moderate Poster Joined: 06 Dec 2005 Posts: 196

You need to ask Rupert!!!

Best wishes,

Sonic

Andrew Johnson · Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 9:24 am Post subject:

Hi Andrew,

It's amazing isn't it? My answer would be that it's a question of censorship and self censorship and a kind of smugness. (I think Jeremy Paxman is a good example - he is very intelligent and will be quite stiff in questioning people - he did quite well with Colin Powell recently). However, for him to face up to the fact that WTC 7 was demolished with explosives will be quite tricky ("How could I have missed this?" he will think - even if only subconciously). This prevents people from accepting the evidence and therefore from it being covered.

There is almost certainly masonic control or some version of this as well, if you ask me (others may disagree).

andrewwatson · Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 11:39 am Post subject:

I had a small success this morning. Sent email to a Nevada radio talk show
called Wake Up America and got a detailed reply from the main producer. Her main concern was cross-border immigration but she admitted that there were lots of questions about 911. She knew about the Pentagon 'crash' and also about the Silverstein quote. I basically sent her the whole of David Ray Griffin 's latest piece on the oral histories of 911. Her line was that it was too shocking to handle.

Andrew W

xmasdale

Ally · Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 11:50 am Post subject:

xmasdale

sonic · Moderate Poster Joined: 06 Dec 2005 Posts: 196

You got it right Ally - Rupert Murdoch.

Sonic

Ally · Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 2:09 pm Post subject:

Check out this from Graham, outlines endemic corruption at the highest level of society. Gives a good picture of they sickos who pulled of 9/11(at a pathological level). Everyone must check this out if not seen. Anyone got the full 8hour interview?

andrewwatson · Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 2:13 pm Post subject:

What is interesting is that this radio producer believed that the govt. could well be behind the wtc attacks , but had not dared to say so. Strange that she was prepared to tell me, a total stranger. She did say that it was a former FBI man who had told her that he thought the Pentagon was hit by a missile, and that all the security videos were missing including one across the street.

andrewwatson · Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 10:49 pm Post subject:

Yesterday I sent emails to the Guardian Analysis Editor and the Independent Foreign News desk, each containing a list of leading sites such as the Steven E. Jones lecture and Griffin. I also wrote to Robert Fisk. I have had no response as yet from the first two.

D E A N · New Poster Joined: 27 Jan 2006 Posts: 5

What did Robert Fisk say?

andrewwatson · Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 6:41 am Post subject:

He hasn't replied yet - maybe he is out of the country.
Yesterday on a trip to London I stopped off at Houseman's bookshop in King' Cross, where I expected to find some stuff about 911. It is well-known for its links with the Peace movement. Amid all the posters about Iraq there was nothing at all on 911. Can anyone explain why the Socialist Left and the Stop the War Coalition are ignoring - or ignorant of - this crucial issue? I have emailed the latter for a clarification of their stance on 911.

Pikey · Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 10:14 pm Post subject:

Hi Andrew,

Ty · New Poster Joined: 08 Mar 2006 Posts: 3 Location: London

I dont think its to do with fear of work loss, or the opinion to accept an idea of conspiracy.

It is about control and the race to get to the top. The corporate world controls the Gov. Its called globalization. They will make money off of this.

andrewwatson · Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 11:31 pm Post subject:

There is a line between healthy scepticism and paranoia. I try to stay well within that line. Believing that there are double agents within the protest movement and the political left is sensible and sane. Believing that there is not one person in the peace movement who is not a neocon plant is in the same category as talk of secret societies and devil worship , and ultimately makes us all look ridiculous.

Sorry to be so blunt . I will accept that I could of course be wrong.

Ty · New Poster Joined: 08 Mar 2006 Posts: 3 Location: London

Thats what i think, that secret societies make us look ridicuous. BUTTT!!!!! (Then again, maybe they want everyone to think that) It's no secret at all.
This is a society of people who are after money, and it is not a secret. They have left enough evidence behind to pick up the breadcrums back to their criminal intentions. Just remember, that everything is money orientated. Whatever you do, it is powered by money. And they made alot of it after Sept 11th. Dont forget that, there are societies out there, one of them makes no secret of it. It is the Bush Administration.

freddie · Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 5:39 pm Post subject:

TY,

I agree that money plays a huge part in all this, the insurance scam, the insider trading, the madate for expanded military and secret service expenditure, oil and construction grabs etc.., but I also think 'power' is often seperate from money.

The fear created by the 'terror threat' enables these people to tighten control in so many areas, control that all the money in the world couldn't buy. That's the trick, they get us to accept it and ultimately because of our representational democracy, we mandate these people and their actions.

I suppose my point here is that they couldn't 'pay-off' all of us, so they gain power, manipulate our minds and ultimately get away with murder because of our political systems.

andrewwatson · Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 1:27 am Post subject:

I had a reply from Robert Fisk today. Rather than publish his views , I would be happy to tell bona fide members in an email.

Annie · Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 4:02 pm Post subject:

Hi Andrew

Have a look in the Articles section of the forum at a piece called "More attacks on press freedom". It's rather relevent to this discussion.

Also could you send me Fisk's reply? I can be found at anniemachon@yahoo.co.uk.

Thanks

Annie

Mark Gobell · On Gardening Leave Joined: 24 Jul 2006 Posts: 4529

I was browsing the letsroll911 boards and found this post by Phil Jayhan illustrating his problems with Google Ads

Apparently Google say that "911 is a sensitive issue"

Er yep you got that right.

But is that any reason to pull it's ads from Jayhan's sites.

You decide.

http://www.letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=5514&si d=04c0fb510a37608a2b03b77596677417

Ian · Editor Joined: 26 Jul 2005 Posts: 68 Location: Oxford

One way of broaching the 9/11 censorship issue with people is to consider the case of Charlie Sheen. Even the most ardent believer in the official story might have their eyebrows raised by the following.

If you search the BBC for 'Charlie Sheen', you get plenty of articles about his turbulent private life, but none whatsoever about his views on 9/11.

These articles are the ones I could find after his March 2006 interview on the Alex Jones Radio Show.

Sheen 'must stay away from wife'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4936388.stm
Sunday, 23 April 2006

Actor Sheen denies abusing wife
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4937850.stm
Monday, 24 April 2006

Sheen restraining order extended
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4770759.stm
Sunday, 14 May 2006

So, after mentioning this to people, ask them if they think it odd that Charlie Sheen's turbulent private life is deemed newsworthy by the BBC, but that his outspoken comments on 9/11 are not?

If they should have any doubts, refer them to these two articles, which amply show that the BBC does deem Hollywood celebrities and their political views / actions newsworthy, so long as they're 'supporting the troops'.

Actor Willis' $1m Saddam bounty
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3141942.stm
Friday, 26 September, 2003

Williams entertains Iraq troops
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3326751.stm
Wednesday, 17 December, 2003

I like to think of ways in which we can 'preach' to the 'unconverted'. Perhaps one of the first steps for people who are adamantly opposed to even the lowest dosage of 9/11 Truth is to get them to question that most sacred of institutions... the mainstream media generally, and specifically the BBC.

After the Hutton Inquiry especially, I have friends who swear that the BBC is at loggerheads with the government. Perhaps these few links might help make them think, at least in terms of what the BBC does and does not report.

One problem is however, that they probably won't even be aware that Charlie Sheen even expressed views doubting the offfical conspiracy theory of 9/11.

Like the 9/11 Commision Report, the BBC largely omits what it can get away with omitting, and often distorts what it is forced to report.

paul wright · Posted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 7:48 pm Post subject:

Can I test my bona fidelity. I promise not to broadcast
wy911@goowy.com

Mark Gobell · On Gardening Leave Joined: 24 Jul 2006 Posts: 4529

I like your idea Ian, very effective method.

Do we have any channels of redress with the BBC - I know we can register complaints based on content but can we complain about ommissions ?

I was reading their editorial policy yesterday and their stated aims of impartiality sound fine but as we know the reality is often very different.

Cheers

alwun · Posted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 10:24 pm Post subject:

Hi Andrew,

I,d also appreciate a look at Fisk's reply. Thanks.. alwun@it.st

	9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Campaigning	All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1