How to approach newspapers on a 9/11 article? ideas welcome

[scubadiver]

I have previously asked a local paper in Reading about whether they would publish a 9/11 article maybe at the end of August but I didn't get a reply. I think I will try again.

Any ideas on how to approach them?

[AntonH2]

I've written some letters to a socialist magazine, but they're quite explosive and perhaps not very suitable for an ordinary local paper..

Maybe a good angle would be to connect it with the 9-11 families request for a new independent investigation.. Or to bring up the 7/7 case.

This is my letter below, a reply to some stuff they wrote on 911, naturally it was never published..

--



That the planning and cover-up of 911 was performed inside the US government is proven beyond reasonable doubt. It is a proven scientific fact that the WTC towers were pre-planted with explosives. To be ambiguous about this is to accept the government and mainstream media version of 9/11.

I urge The Militant to get the facts straight and to join in with others
in the debunkment of the most alarming issue of our time. It is a false accusation to connect the 9/11 truth movement with
anti-semitism. Educate yourselves on the facts of controlled
demolition of the three World Trade Center towers, the missing planes of the Pentagon and Shanksville crashes, the organized derailment of the US air defence system preceding the attacks.

Rumsfield, Cheney, Rice and others are the main suspects of the murders of September 11:th 2001. It takes courage to print such a statement, as opposed to being content with just the casual critizism of the Al-Qaeda myth. I urge The Militant to learn about the facts and to shout out the conclusions loud and clear: 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!

AH,
London

[xmasdale]

Scuba,

I would say keep trying. Get on the phone to them and become a nuisance to them, but a reasonable and friendly-sounding one.


Anton,

I would say the problem with your letter is that some statements you make are not true. It is not proven beyond reasonable doubt that the planning and cover-up were performed inside the US government. Most people consider themselves reasonable. If they and their friends doubt the truth of what you say, which they do, you are inviting them to accept that they are unreasonable while you are reasonable. That approach insults people and therefore does not elicit sympathy. Rather it makes people become defensive, very likely to dismiss you as a crazy conspiracist.

It is not a proven scientific fact that the WTC was pre-planted with explosives. If it were it would be generally accepted by scientists. Instead, most scientists don't even bother to look at the issue or to question the official conspiracy theory, though a growing number are doing so. Also, even among those who question 9/11, there is a small minority who have other theories about how the towers were brought down.

Also "debunkment" does not exist in English. Try the gerund: "debunking".

Now, having stuck my neck out, let's see if I can come up with an improved letter. It is hard to be both persuasive and succinct.

How about this?

The official theory of what happened on 9/11 can be shown not to fit the facts. Steel framed skyscrapers do not collapse due to fire or to aircraft impact. Carbon based fires cannot melt steel. The most heavily defended building in the world, "the Pentagon", cannot be attacked by inexperienced pilots without some kind of defence stand-down. The "anti-Semitic" taunt is a cheap smear by those who refuse to question the 9/11 case.

Please research the facts of:
- collapse of the three World Trade Center towers, symmetrically at free-fall speed into their own footprints,
- the missing planes of the Pentagon and Shanksville crashes,
- the organised disruption of the US air defence system preceding the attacks.

The upper echelons of the capitalist class will use desperate means to tighten their hold on wealth and power. The main suspects of the tragic mass murder of that day and of the millions who are dying in the consequent "War on Terror", should be sought in Washington DC.

If you want help with future letters, e-mail or pm me your draft.

Good to meet you last night.

Noel

PS: I'm an English teacher.

[AntonH2]

Thanks, will do!

[scubadiver]

I am thinking of proposing an article entitled "Why trying to defend 9/11 is indefensible" and basically go through the reasons why the 9/11 truth campaign is critiscised by defenders and why there is no excuse for people to investigate it for themselves.

I will pm you a copy. The first paragraph is quite funny

[TonyGosling]

One can be tied up for weeks pouring over the minutiae of an article, best thing is just get down and bash out a rough draft where and when the inspiration strikes you. On the train or the bus on a walk or whilst relaxing at home , make sure you always have notebook and pen handy for that rare moment of inspiration.

First of all write something short and snappy yourself with a punchy headline.

For me the inspiration to pick up the pen and get ideas down in an easily digestible form, cutting to the chase, comes to me generally on the back of a moment of clarity, plus usually a snappy headline.

Quite okay to approach any paper with an article but a lot easier to think about writing something than to actually do it. Mind you it feels great to actually articulate stuff and get it out of one's system. Most cathartic... but a good article will leave you entirely drained of mental energy. Be clear that you're pitching the article at joe public which means being sensitive to their views.

You can always tidy up the article afterwards, main thing is to be ready where and when inspiration strikes.

[scubadiver]