New Victim's Family Supports Search For 9/11 Truth
Parents of United Airlines 175 flight attendant Alicia Titus on quest

to find out what really happened on September 11

Media Wants Waco-Style Massacre

“Everybody should say, ‘show me the law and I’ll pay the tax,’ ” Brown told AFP. That is what he

told federal authorities who can’t seem to produce a copy of a law requiring payment of the

federal income tax.

Filmmaker Aaron Russo’s America: From Freedom to Fascism documentary interviews a number

of former IRS agents and other authoritative people who say that the powers that be, when asked to

provide a copy of the law, such as an enabling statute, that requires U.S. workers to pay federal

income tax on their wages, come up empty-handed.

The 9/11 Solution: The big clue everybody missed

Google Video | March 5, 2007

If a crime were committed and immediately afterwards "experts" appeared on the scene

claiming knowledge that no one could possibly have about it what would you think?

Two major 9/11 anomalies have been thoroughly documented, specifically:

1) The stand down of US air defense on the morning of 9/11 that ... all » permitted

commercial jet aircraft to fly erratically and in restricted air space without challenge

2) Overwhelming physical evidence that World Trade Center buildings #1, #2, and

#7 were brought down by controlled demolition A third significant anomaly has not

been discussed, let alone acknowledged: the reporting by the major US TV news

networks in the first few hours immediately after the attacks.

Specifically:

1. MSNBC presented an elaborately detailed story about the lifestyle and anti-US

philosophy of Osama bin Laden - while both towers were still burning and long before

Bin Laden had been accused by anyone.

2. Fox News featured a "man in the street" eye witness who explained in strangely

formal language the science behind why the towers collapsed when most engineers

and firemen were utterly baffled and in shock by what had just taken place.

3. CBS featured a Bush administration insider (and not identified as such) as a guest

who actively worked to dissuade Dan Rather (and viewers) from speculating that there

must have been explosive charges placed in the buildings for them to have collapsed

the way they did.

How was it that these stories - based on no fact, no research and no inquirry -

appeared in full blown form so quickly on US news networks and then became part

of the core myths of what happened on 9/11?

Were these stories prepared in advance?

There's an old intelligence saying that "once is happenstance, twice is coincidence,

but three times is enemy action."

Because most of these clips ran only once and were not repeated after they'd done

their job, it made it difficult, if not impossible, for viewers to analyze them critically.

Now, thanks to the magic of video tape and a few people who immediately started

taping the news after the attacks, we have this important evidence that at the very l

east these attacks appear to have been anticipated and prepared for by forces that

have the ability to exert strong influence over the output of the newsrooms of major

US news networks.

Under the guise of 'American' objectives and lack of congressional oversight, the CIA accomplish

their exploits by using every trick in the book (and they know quite a few) that they actually teach

in the notorious "School of the Americas", nicknamed the "School of Dictators" and "School of

Assassins" by critics.  The Association for Responsible Dissent estimates that 6 million people

had died by 1987 as a result of CIA covert operations, called an "American Holocaust" by former

State Department official William Blum.  In 1948, the CIA recreated its covert action wing called

the Office of Policy Coordination with Wall Street lawyer Frank Wisner as its first director. 

Another early elitist who served as Director of the CIA from 1953 to 1961 was Allen Dulles, a

senior partner at the Wall Street firm of Sullivan and Cromwell, which represented the Rockefeller

empire and other trusts, corporations, and cartels.
 

Zelikow: Losing to Bacteria
An Open Letter to Philip Zelikow and the Washington Post

By
Nicholas Levis, 911Truth.org
newyorkcity@snafu.de

NEW YORK, Oct. 11, 2004

Philip Zelikow, a high-level national security adviser to both Bush administrations, acknowledges that America faces a new infectious disease: lack of faith in the U.S. government's 9/11 Commission report.

As executive director of the freshly-retired Kean Commission, Zelikow was a principal author of the 567-page document, which purports to explain everything that matters about September 11th, 2001.

Sales of the 9/11 report have far outpaced those of his earlier study in statecraft, Germany Unified and Europe Transformed. He co-wrote that book in 1999 together with one of his closest associates from the original Bush White House, Condoleezza Rice.

Despite blockbuster sales for the 9/11 report, Zelikow tells the Washington Post he is alarmed by the concurrent spread of "conspiracy theories" about the attacks, which he describes as pathogens:

"Our worry is when things become infectious, as happened with the [John F. Kennedy] assassination," Zelikow says. "Then this stuff can be deeply corrosive to public understanding. You can get where the bacteria can sicken the larger body." ¹

It's too late, Dr. Zelikow. The "bacteria" are winning, and your own work is to blame.

Perhaps the disease would have slowed if you had showed the courage to step down as executive director last March - when your resignation was demanded by the same Sept. 11 families who had fought the White House for 14 months to gain a 9/11 Commission in the first place.

They saw a grave conflict of interest in your having participated in White House briefings on al-Qaeda in 2000 and 2001. You did so on behalf of the incoming Bush administration, along with Dr. Rice, Richard Clarke and Sandy Berger, all of whom later testified to the Kean Commission.

"It is apparent that Dr. Zelikow should never have been permitted to be Executive Staff Director of the Commission," the Family Steering Committee wrote.

They asked you to resign, and to take your rightful place on the other side of the table, as a witness to be questioned in the investigation, in public and under oath. ²

Perhaps this might have restored some credibility to a Commission badly damaged a few months earlier when its most outspoken member, Max Cleland, resigned after condemning it as a whitewash. ³

But you ignored the families and stayed on, undeterred. You continued to steer the Commission and its agenda.

You stayed on, as one of only two staff members or commissioners with relatively unrestricted access to White House documents. (The other was Jamie Gorelick, a former high official in the Clinton administration and close associate of George Tenet. Small world.)

A few weeks later, we were treated to a star turn at the hearings by your co-author, Dr. Rice, as one of the most important witnesses before the Commission, even as you conducted behind the scenes.

And now you worry that people won't buy what you have to say about 9/11.

Guess what? They don't.

A representative poll of eight hundred New York state residents by Zogby International found less than 40 percent of them say they believe the 9/11 Commission report answered all of the important questions about Sept. 11. ⁴

Sixty-six percent of New York City residents are therefore calling on the state attorney general to open a new criminal investigation, one based on the 383 questions of the Family Steering Committee, most of which the 9/11 Commission report simply ignores.

The same poll found that 41 percent of state residents believe high officials knew about 9/11 in advance, and "consciously" allowed the attacks to proceed. That view is shared by one-half of New York City residents - the very people who would have the most reason to be well-informed about Sept. 11.

But 41 percent of the good people of upstate New York, a microcosm of Middle America, also believe there was foreknowledge, as do 30 percent of the state's registered Republicans.

What would the same poll questions reveal, if they were posed to residents of the entire United States? Or to a sampling of the world population?

Isn't this big news? Half the people in the city where the worst attacks occurred believe their own government may have been involved. Why wasn't it in the papers, alongside the Bush-Kerry polling numbers? Shouldn't the papers be examining the unanswered questions that make people think this way?

What have the papers given us instead?

Zelikow's worry about the spread of heretical ideas is apparently shared by the Washington Post, which published his comments yesterday in a pop-psychology piece by Carol Morello, analyzing the souls who have fallen prey to "conspiracy theories" about 9/11.

Morello's first step is to define what the "conspiracy theorists" think in the narrowest possible way. She focuses on a single notion - that the crash of a Boeing 767 does not explain the pattern of damage at the Pentagon. Her article pretends that this is the central hypothesis for all who question the official story of 9/11, which is untrue.

Before the Pentagon anomaly first arose as an issue among American researchers of 9/11 (in Nov. 2001), a broad case for doubting the government's claims had already been built. It was based in ample evidence of foreknowledge on the part of high U.S. officials, contradictions in investigators' statements about the alleged hijackers, and many other indications of complicity in the attacks by elements other than the Bin Laden networks.

This constantly growing body of evidence caused Sept. 11 families and advocates for disclosure to lobby for an independent investigation. It ultimately became the basis for a vibrant "9/11 truth movement." ⁵

But Morello's presumption - that uncertainty about what happened at the Pentagon is the sole issue of concern - allows her to ignore all that. All that really matters to her is what makes these conspiracy theorists tick, and whether they can be cured.

As Philadelphia Daily News reporter Will Bunch pointed out, Morello is merely knocking down her own strawman. In a college debate, she would lose the point. ⁶

If we must psychologize rather than argue, as Morello does, then I daresay she is in avoidance. Taking on the facts of 9/11 with an open mind would perhaps force her, in Zelikow's words, "to repudiate much of [her] life identity," which relies on rejecting ideas that her society characterizes as outlandish, as "conspiracy theory."

But what is "conspiracy theory"? Morello rounds up the usual suspects among experts who treat disbelief in official stories as a pathology.

Michael Barkun, author of "A Culture of Conspiracy" and much-cited in these matters, wisely informs us that "conspiracy theories are one way to make sense of what happened and regain a sense of control. Of course, they're usually wrong, but they're psychologically reassuring."

"Usually wrong"? Why does Prof. Barkun hedge his bets?

We need to unpack our terms. "Conspiracy theory" describes the official 9/11 report as well as it does the alternative views. The events of Sept. 11 obviously were not the product of a single perpetrator, but of a criminal conspiracy.

Criminal conspiracy is treated in countless volumes of what prosecutors call conspiracy law or racketeering statutes. Another word for it is organized crime. Any attempt to explain a criminal conspiracy constitutes a theory. Prosecutors devise theories based on initial clues, and then try to see which of them best fit the evidence overall. Convictions often follow.

Neither Morello nor Zelikow is concerned about "conspiracy theories" per se. They are applying the term selectively, to include only hypotheses in which elements of the U.S. government were themselves involved in the attacks for political and financial gain.

If Cheney says Saddam Hussein backed the 9/11 attacks, as the vice-president did on many occasions despite his recent protestations to the contrary, this is not called a conspiracy theory, although it obviously involves a theoretical conspiracy. Yet this is the most important 9/11 conspiracy theory to date, because it was used to justify the invasion of Iraq.

If Zelikow tells us that 19 men agreed to hijack four planes and fly them into buildings and evaded all detection (although those identified as the ringleaders had been under observation by U.S. and allied agencies for years beforehand) this is not labeled conspiracy theory, although it describes a conspiracy.

The only theories branded as "conspiracies," and thus subject to ridicule and dismissal without examination, are those that suspect wrongdoing from the U.S. government - which did its best to hide and destroy evidence, and then sent out a top adviser to both Bush administrations, Zelikow, to investigate what happened.

In the case of the Pentagon, the government has suppressed videotapes of the attack taken from a nearby hotel, a gas station, highway surveillance cameras, and the Pentagon's own cameras. At a press conference following the Kean Commission hearings of Dec. 8, 2003, the chair and co-chair promised that this evidence would be released, to help dispel speculation.

That evidence has not been released, and Zelikow suggests to the Post that there is no need:

"Asked if there were unreleased photographs of the attack that would convince the doubters, Zelikow, of the 9/11 commission, said, 'No.'"

Is it any wonder that people don't believe Dr. Zelikow? First the government suppresses evidence. Then its chief investigator of 9/11 justifies this by saying it would be pointless to release the evidence, and shifts the blame to the "conspiracy theorists," who are pathologically incapable of believing the truth.

The New Yorkers who are unsatisfied with the 9/11 Commission report are not supposed to get answers; they are remanded to the nearest therapist.

For three years, the Washington Post has joined America's other major press organs in ignoring the unanswered questions that cause so many people to reject the official conspiracy theory of the 9/11 attacks.

You would think the Zogby poll results, which were at least mentioned on washingtonpost.com if not in the newspaper itself, would finally move the Post to file some real stories.

This isn't the place to go into every item the Post has failed to report about Sept. 11 - one might start by reading the book mentioned in Morello's article, The New Pearl Harbor by David Ray Griffin - but I submit that DC journalists would normally want to explore the following question:

What about the reports that the Pakistani secret service ISI wired $100,000 to Mohamed Atta? The ISI is often credited as the creator of the Taliban, and its operatives have been linked to the Bin Ladin networks. ISI is also linked to CIA, as historically close allies.

The ISI director, Mahmud Ahmed, was on a two-week visit to Washington and met for breakfast at the Capitol on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001 with the heads of the congressional intelligence committees, Bob Graham and Porter Goss. A month later, when Pakistani strongman Pervez Musharraf reshuffled his cabinet on the eve of the Afghanistan invasion, he forced Ahmed to resign, acting on a request from the FBI. ⁷

After 9/11, Graham and Goss oversaw the 858-page report of the congressional joint inquiry into 9/11. The term ISI never occurs in their report, at least not in the 75 percent of the text published after "redactions."

In all of the Washington Post coverage of Goss's recent confirmation hearings as director of the CIA, wasn't his breakfast with the ISI chief worth an article?

The 9/11 Commission report fails to mention reports of a Pakistani connection, not even to explain them away, but at least it offers this gem:

"To date, the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance... Similarly, we have seen no evidence that any foreign government - or foreign government official - supplied any funding." (p. 172)

So who financed the attacks is of little significance. Now we know the first rule of the Kean Commission: Don't follow the money!

Does the Washington Post agree?

The Kean Commission "discussed the theories," Zelikow tells the Post. "When we wrote the report, we were also careful not to answer all the theories. It's like playing Whack-A-Mole. You're never going to whack them all."

Now we know the second rule of the Kean Commission: Don't test theories. Just whack them if you can, and otherwise do your best to ignore them.

We shall conclude with two more of the "moles" that Zelikow and the Commission refused to whack. Is the Washington Post willing to take a swing?

First: The owner of World Trade Center Building 7, Larry Silverstein, interviewed for a PBS documentary of 2002 ("America Rebuilds"), seems to reveal that this building's little-reported collapse on the afternoon of Sept. 11 was the result of a decision to intentionally demolish the building.

Isn't this worthy of a follow-up call to Mr. Silverstein's offices? Is it possible to wire a 47-story skyscraper for a controlled demolition within a few hours? If not, what does this imply?

Second: The 9/11 Commission report revised the older NORAD and FAA timelines of air defense response on Sept. 11. For more than two years, these two agencies presented a series of conflicting chronologies to explain the failure of standard operating procedure, under which the errant flights of Sept. 11 should have been intercepted by jet fighters as a routine matter of reconnaissance.

Last June, the Kean Commission issued a staff statement that radically contradicted all accounts upheld until then by either NORAD or FAA, establishing an entirely new timeline. This is now Chapter 1 of the 9/11 Commission report.

It exonerates everyone of blame for the failures of 9/11, in keeping with the dictum of Kean's vice-chairman, Lee Hamilton: "We're not interested in trying to assess blame, we do not consider that part of the commission's responsibility."

Given the complexity of this issue, it may be asking too much of the Washington Post to figure out if the new timeline holds water - it most assuredly does not.⁸ But if the Commission's version is right, then officials at NORAD and the FAA were issuing false accounts for more than two years. Isn't that, at least, an issue?

Are none of our taxpayer-financed public officials going to be held accountable for what they say and do? Can the official story of 9/11 be changed every few months without consequence?

Sen. Mark Dayton of Minnesota doesn't think so. At hearings on the 9/11 Commission report, Dayton said NORAD officials "lied to the American people, they lied to Congress and they lied to your 9/11 commission to create a false impression of competence, communication and protection of the American people." ⁹

This, at least, made the Minneapolis Tribune. But where is the follow-up? Isn't the reality that either NORAD or the 9/11 Commission (or both) must be lying about what happened on Sept. 11 worthy of coverage in the newspaper that was once synonymous with investigative reporting?

Or is the Post too busy making fun of "conspiracy theory"?

¹ Re: "Conspiracy Theories Flourish on the Internet," Carol Morello, Washington Post, Oct. 7, 2004
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A13059-2004Oct6?language=printer

² "Statement of the Family Steering Committee for the 9/11 Independent Commission," March 20, 2004. See http://www.911independentcommission.org/mar202004.html

³ On the history of the Commission and its conflicts of interest, see my earlier article "The Rice/Zelikow Connection," May 15, 2004 at http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20040527201054793

⁴ "Poll: 50% of NYC Says U.S. Govt. Knew," press release. See http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20040830120349841

⁵ As portals to the kingdom of 9/11 research and truth movement sites, the author recommends 911Truth.org, the New York activist site ny911truth.org, and his own collection at http://summeroftruth.org

⁶ "Putting on our tin-foil thinking cap," William Bunch, http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/extra/archives/001002.html

⁷ Timeline of reports on allegations that ISI Director Mahmood Ahmed ordered a $100,000 wire transfer to Mohamed Atta in the weeks prior to Sept. 11. http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/essay.jsp?article=mahmoodahmed

⁸ "Analyzing the 9/11 Report, Chapter 1," by Michael Kane: http://www.williambowles.info/911/911_analysis_1.html;
for a series of links showing the official timelines for air defense on 9/11/04 being rewitten over time, see "The Emperor's New Timelines" at http://summeroftruth.org/#timelines

⁹ "Senator Dayton: NORAD lied about 9/11," following up on Minneapolis Star-Tribune, July 31, 2004 http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20040731213239607

Dave Zirin | February 3 2005

The words "libelous" and 'the New Republic" have a proud history of walking arm-in-arm. Now, in the esteemed tradition of [former TNR writer who peddled fiction as fact] Stephen Glass, The New Republic has stooped to a new low, publishing a piece that calls for violence, torture, and even death for leading leftists who dare oppose Bush's war on terror and the slaughter in Iraq.

Author Tom Frank -- clearly from the Glass School of Journalism the New Republic has made famous -- described sitting in on an anti-war panel sponsored by the International Socialist Organization, the Washington Peace Center, the DC Anti-War Network and other groups.

After having heard the 100 plus attendees cheer sentiments like "Money for Jobs and Education Not For War and Occupation," Frank became so riled up, he unloaded a deranged harangue about the suffering he would like to rain upon people daring to organize against this war. After Stan Goff, a former Delta Forces soldier and current organizer for Military Families Speak Out, expressed sentiments like "We ain't never resolved nothing through an election," Frank's jag began. Clearly too doughy to do it himself, Frank started to fantasize about a Teutonic strongman who could shut Goff up.

Frank writes, "What I needed was a Republican like Arnold [Schwarzenegger] who would walk up to [Goff] and punch him in the face."

As the panel continued, every cheer and standing ovation seemed to set Frank deeper down a path of psychosis. After International Socialist Review editorial board member Sherry Wolf asserted that Iraqis had a "right" to rebel against occupation, Frank upped the ante in his efforts to intimidate anyone considering entry into the anti-war movement.

He wrote, 'these weren't harmless lefties. I didn't want Nancy Pelosi talking sense to them; I wanted John Ashcroft to come busting through the wall with a submachine gun to round everyone up for an immediate trip to Gitmo, with Charles Graner on hand for interrogation."

Later, when Wolf quoted Booker Prize winning author Arundhati Roy's defense of the right to resist, Frank was sent into such a state of panic, he once again dreamed of the mighty hand of state repression, writing, "Maybe sometimes you just want to be on the side of whoever is more likely to take a bunker buster to Arundhati Roy."

Interestingly, Frank didn't have the guts to slander another one of the panel speakers, exonerated death row inmate Shujaa Graham. Graham, who has been moved to speak out against the torture of Iraqi prisoners by intimately connecting their pain with his own experience of torture in California's death row, escaped Frank's pen. I guess it's hard to pose fantasy threats of torture and death toward someone who has actually looked it in the face.

We can write this piece off as just another one of the smarmy New Republic 20-something writers getting his jollies slamming the left. We can say that Frank -- his entire piece an exercise in poorly executed humor, ill-written grammar, and awkward phrasing -- just forgot to break his Prozac in half that morning. But there is something far more insidious at work here.

This piece is yet another effort to intimidate and silence people who aren't willing to toe the "party line" espoused by Democrats and Republicans alike that the death of 1,400 US troops and 100,000 Iraqi civilians is somehow justified. Frank's piece is an exercise in hate and intimidation. To be quiet in its face is to give ground in a period when we have precious little to give.

Therefore, this is a call for people to e-mail The New Republic and let them know what you think about humorous musings on killing Arundhati Roy or torturing Stan Goff. Let them know that a disgraced magazine will not intimidate us, especially one with the credibility of The National Enquirer. Let them know that we will publicly debate Tom Frank or any of their 20 something post-graduate hacks on the merits of this war anytime and any place. This is the only way to deal with darkness: shine as bright a light as possible -- right in it's face.

E-mail letters@tnr.com to let them know what you think.

New Republic Writer Calls For Anti-Bush Left-Wingers To Be Killed

AP | March 11 2006

Reporters who write about government surveillance could be prosecuted under proposed legislation that would solidify the administration's eavesdropping authority, according to some legal analysts who are concerned about dramatic changes in U.S. law.

But an aide to the bill's chief author, Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, said that is not the intention of the legislation.

"It in no way applies to reporters — in any way, shape or form," said Mike Dawson, a senior policy adviser to DeWine, responding to an inquiry Friday afternoon. "If a technical fix is necessary, it will be made."

The Associated Press obtained a copy of the draft of the legislation, which could be introduced as soon as next week.

The draft would add to the criminal penalties for anyone who "intentionally discloses information identifying or describing" the Bush administration's terrorist surveillance program or any other eavesdropping program conducted under a 1978 surveillance law.

Fines of up to $1 million, 15 years in jail

Under the boosted penalties, those found guilty could face fines of up to $1 million, 15 years in jail or both.

Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, said the measure is broader than any existing laws. She said, for example, the language does not specify that the information has to be harmful to national security or classified.

"The bill would make it a crime to tell the American people that the president is breaking the law, and the bill could make it a crime for the newspapers to publish that fact," said Martin, a civil liberties advocate.

DeWine is co-sponsoring the bill with Sens. Olympia Snowe of Maine, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. The White House and Republican Senate leaders have indicated general support, but the bill could face changes as it works its way through Congress.

Existing U.S. law makes it a crime to disclose classified information to an unauthorized person, generally putting the burden on government officials to protect the information.

But a special provision exists to provide added protections for highly classified electronic — or "signals" — intelligence. That would include U.S. intelligence codes or systems used to break them.

Government officials potential targets

David Tomlin, the AP's assistant general counsel, said government officials with security clearances would be potential targets under DeWine's bill.

"But so would anyone else who received an illegal disclosure under the proposed act, knew what it was and deliberately disclosed it to others. That's what some reporters do, often to great public benefit," he said.

Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said the language would allow anyone — "if you read a story in the paper and pass it along to your brother-in-law" — to be prosecuted.

"As a practical matter, would they use this to try to punish any newspaper or any broadcast? It essentially makes coverage of any of these surveillance programs illegal," she said. "I'm sorry, that's just not constitutional."

Ron Brynaert / Raw Story | April 6 2006

A study by a group that monitors the media reveals that, over a ten month span, 77 television stations from all across the nation aired video news releases without informing their viewers even once that the reports were actually sponsored content, RAW STORY has found.

One "news report" that aired on three stations relied on a video news release (VNR) produced by a PR firm on behalf of General Motors which was even apparently based on a "false claim."

Center for Media and Democracy's Fake TV News: Widespread and Undisclosed is "a multimedia report on television newsrooms' use of material provided by PR firms on behalf of paying clients," containing video footage of the 36 video news releases (VNRs) cited in the report, plus a map and spreadsheet of the stations cited.

General Motors, Intel, Pfizer and Capital One are among the companies who produced VNRs with the help of three PR firms, and "[m]ore than one-third of the time, stations aired the pre-packaged VNR in its entirety."

An Oklahoma City FOX station owned by Sinclair is pegged as the "report's top repeat offender," airing five VNRs in full on its news broadcasts, with "the publicist's original narration each time."

Three stations "not only aired entire VNRs without disclosure, but had local anchors and reporters read directly from the script prepared by the broadcast PR firm."

News broadcasts based on a General Motors VNR stand out in the report as a striking example of "fake news," not just because they were left largely unchanged when aired on stations in Louisiana and Pennsylvania.

"GM, who introduced the first manufacturer web site in 1996, has recently lowered prices, in some cases by thousands of dollars, on all of their models as a direct result of the customers' ability to comparison shop on the Internet," Medialink's Kate Brookes "reported" in all three broadcasts.

But the Center for Media and Democracy blasts GM's "historical claim" as "fake."

"A simple dated search for "automotive web site" in the Nexis news database revealed a press release from August 1995 in which Volkswagen heralded the launch of their web portal," the report states. "It wasn't until February 1996 that General Motors announced gm.com in their own press release."

A comparison between the General Motors VNR and one of the news broadcasts can be seen at this link.

Last year the New York Times published an article called "Under Bush, a new age of prepackaged TV news" - written by David Barstow and Robin Stein - which reported on the stealthy use of VNRs created by government agencies that crept into network news broadcasts.

The Times revealed that even though Radio-Television News Directors Association's "code of ethics" specifies to "clearly disclose the origin of information and label all material provided by outsiders," the Federal Communications Commission has "never disciplined a station for showing government-made news segments without disclosing their origin."

Last June, Chris Baker at the Washington Times reported that the Radio-Television News Directors Association "submitted a 13-page statement that said few TV stations air VNRs, and those that do almost always identify the source" to the Federal Communications Commission. The statement drew from an "informal survey of 100 members" because, as the president of the Association told the Washington Times, "concrete data" was "hard to come by."

An article in Thursday's Times by Barstow (New York Times registered link) indicates that the Center "presented its findings yesterday to F.C.C. officials, including Jonathan S. Adelstein, a commissioner who has criticized video news releases."

__________________

Humorous music video explaining why you can't trust the major media

Complicit, Cowardly Corporate Media Hides Bilderberg - June/07
Barely a passing mention of meeting of 200 global powerbrokers in U.S. press

Kurt Nimmo | April 7 2006

In America, the corporate media loves to toot its own horn and showcase its celebrity propagandists. For instance, consider the “news” that Katie Couric, CFR member, who “was trained in hard news, and she still occasionally does a solid job of grilling interviewees,” according to the Chicago Sun-Times, will leave NBC and head for CBS, where she will be an “anchorwoman,” managing editor, and the “new homecoming queen of news,” or rather government script reading.

CBS is owned by the “entertainment” leviathan Viacom and was previously owned by Westinghouse, manufacturer of military and nuclear hardware. Frank Carlucci of Carlyle Group fame was director of Westinghouse from 1989 until it merged with CBS in 1997.

Entertainment and sex appeal are paramount in corporate news and Couric, known for wearing short skirts and showing off her legs, is an ideal choice to feed America its daily dose of transnational corporate and governmental propaganda.

It is rumored Couric is dating one of the Reyes brothers from Reyes Holdings LLC, a Republican billionaire who owns a large distribution company that services McDonalds. The Reyes brothers are no strangers to the corporate media—they sit on the board of the Tribune Company, owner of the Chicago Tribune, WGN, the Chicago Cubs, the Los Angeles Times, Newsday, the Hartford Courant, the Baltimore Sun, the Daily Press, and many other media outlets. In short, Katie Couric, in her professional and personal life, is a consummate insider.

In regard to the news, we can expect more of the same, only it will be delivered with sex appeal over at CBS. One has to wonder if workers at CBS will cut away the front of the anchor desk, as they did when Couric appeared on Jay Leno’s show “to expose her legs while she interviewed American Idol judge Simon Cowell and Austin Powers star Mike Myers,” according to the Wikipedia write-up on Couric, thus demonstrating that the “Couric Effect” and tedious sexuality as a form of entertainment is more important than the news or the prospect of a well-informed public.

Reuters covers LA 9/11 Symposium

Proof That 'Flight 77' Eyewitness Report Skewed
'I saw faces of passengers' man furious with newspaper for twisting his words

Many Flight 77 skeptics who believe that an American Airlines Boeing 757 did not

hit the Pentagon on 9/11 scoff at eyewitness testimony which claims to describe

intricate details about the alleged commercial airliner. In at least one case those

doubts have now been validated.

James R. Cissell, an eyewitness to the object that struck the Pentagon on

September 2001, is furious with a Cincinnati newspaper for falsely attributing

quotes to him that he never made.

Joseph Skelton - cremationofcare.com Thursday, February 22, 2007  

Lou Dobbs Wakes Up to 9/11 Lies [Removed by CNN "the most trusted news source?"]

You Tube | August 11 2006

Want to see what CNN doesn't want you to see anymore? Click HERE

Discovery Channel scoops CNN on TWA 800 story

• Cops Arrest, Beat, intimidate AFP Journalist Christopher Bollyn

_____________

Despite widespread media indifference, people are waking up.

Scientific Poll: 84% Reject Official 9/11 Story

_____________

Do you believe any of the conspiracy theories suggesting the U.S. government was somehow involved in 9/11?   * 63346 responses  Yes. The government has left many questions unanswered       about that day.  58%  No. These theories are absurd and disrespectful -- especially   to those who lost their lives on 9/11.  36%  I'm not sure.  5.8%

• 9/11 conspiracy theorists multiply

• Alex Jones: Most Police, Firefighters Now Believe 9/11 Inside Job
   

  Saying that the "entire atmosphere had changed," Alex explained how police

  support for protesters at ground zero had gone from 20% support two years ago

  to around 60% support now - with many willing to affirm that sentiment on camera

  and many knowledgeable about Alex Jones' work and the 9/11 truth movement.

   

  "Police just saying 'keep your investigation going, we appreciate you' on video,"

  said Jones.

   

  "The firemen we've been talking to - a hundred per cent are on our side and

  have seen the documentary films....it is just incredible what's happened at the

  grass roots."

   

  _____________

   

  Panelists raise doubts over 9/11
  Speakers at CU say government deceiving citizens

  John Aguilar / Daily Camera | October 31 2006

  The idea was to turn the concept of a conspiracy theory on its head.

  A panel of scientists and scholars, gathered in a classroom Sunday afternoon

  at the University of Colorado at Boulder, suggested to several hundred vocal

  supporters that the true conspiratorial types when it comes to the terrorist

  attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, are the federal government and the mainstream

  media.

   

  "They pounded a script into our heads that we now know is backed by zero

  evidence," said Kevin Barrett, a professor of Islamic studies at the University

  of Wisconsin at Madison.

   

  Barrett was one of a trio of speakers who came to CU to lay out their case

  that the World Trade Center towers didn't collapse as a result of jet fuel melting

  and softening of the buildings' steel structure, but rather from a deliberate

  demolition effort perpetrated by the United States government to justify its

  invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq and assert its power around the world.

   

  "Three thousand lives were lost at the World Trade Center as a means to

  global domination," Barrett said.

   

  He characterized the 9/11 attacks as a "false flag operation" carried out by

  the United States with the intention of stirring up the passions and buying the

  allegiance of its people.

   

  "A false flag operation is a contrived event — shocking and spectacular — used

  o achieve political ends, start wars and justify suppression," he said.

   

  The two other speakers focused on the structural and chemical analysis of the

  buildings' ruins and enumerated the inconsistencies or errors that came out of

  the government's 9/11 investigations.

   

  Kevin Ryan, a chemist who said he was fired from Underwriters Laboratories

  after he challenged the lab's analysis of the performance of the World Trade

  Center's steel, took to task the National Institutes of Standards and Technology

  for its investigation of the collapse.

  NIST has offices in Boulder.

   

  He said the temperatures of the fires in the buildings were never high enough

  to cause the collapse of the towers, as NIST contends.

   

  "Neither jet fuel nor office furnishings can cause that kind of fire," he said.

   

  Steven Jones, a retiring physics professor at Brigham Young University in

  Utah, questioned NIST's conclusion that the molten metal seen pouring out

  of a window on the 80th floor of one of the towers shortly before its collapse

  was the melted remnants of the aircraft's aluminum shell.

   

  Instead, he said, his own tests at BYU indicated that the liquid metal bore the

  signs of a high-powered, sulphur-laced explosive meant to "cut through steel

  like it was butter."

   

  The speakers, presented by the group Colorado 9/11 Visibility, didn't have many

  detractors in the audience.

   

  "I happen to be an engineer and the facts just don't add up," said Steven Dunbar,

  a Lafayette resident who is dubious of the government's innocence in the 9/11

  attacks. "The scientific evidence is not adding up."

   

• Palast Charged with Journalism in the First Degree

Violent clashes at Russian anti-government protest -  15 April 2007

FBI seminar hosts H'wood scribes

Paul Bond The Hollywood Reporter - Thursday, January 11, 2007 

 

FBI memo to Hollywood: If it's not too much trouble, could you please portray our counterterrorism

efforts with a bit more realism?

 

Hoping for an answer in the affirmative, the FBI hosted its first workshop for screenwriters Wednesday

at the Federal Building in Westwood.

Italian TV Network Covers WTC 7 Evidence

9/11 blogger - Wednesday May 02, 2007 

Seven is exploding

On April 16, 2007, a major Italian network (Canale 5) has aired some conclusive

evidence that Building 7 did not collapse on its own, but was deliberately taken

down with the use of explosives.

The piece was part of a larger presentation we provided to the network as an update

on the ongoing research on 9/11. In particular, we included a clip we had all seen

many times before, but possibly never listened to with the full attention it deserved.

Here is the 6 min. segment (please ignore yellow subtitles):

Yes, we all saw that last clip more than once, but each time we must have stopped

at the powerful evidence the blast itself represents, while disregarding the ensuing

exchange, which in our opinion represents the final nail in the coffin of the official

version on WTC7. Without even the need to discuss Larry's intentionally ambiguous

"pull it" statement.

Our presentation was broadcast as a rebuttal to a bunch of accusations leveled on

the same channel by a group of Italian debunkers against the movie "Inganno Globale"

(produced by this writer/website), which is possibly the "flagship" for 9/11 Italian truth

seekers, being somehow the equivalent to any other major 9/11 movie in English

available on the web