NY Times: We'll devote two reporters and hundreds of words to disprove survivor's tale, but not one word on lies of Bush, Cheney
Today the NY Times ran an extensive article debunking the story of Tania Head, who claims to be a survivor of the 78th floor of the South Tower.
The Times devoted two reporters and hundreds of words to this story.
They have not devoted a single word to the demonstrable lies of George W. Bush's survivor's tale.
They have not said a word about Dick Cheney's whereabouts on 9/11.
They seem unconcerned that NORAD generals perjured themselves before the 9/11 Commission.
These are incontrovertible facts. There is no controversy here. The implications of these facts are potentially profound. The absence of media inquiry is profoundly criminal. The publication of Tania Head's indiscretion instead is an indictment of corporate media priorities.
Tania Head lied, but nobody died. George Bush lied, and thousands died.
- simuvac's blog
- Login to post comments
Par for the course
The Times is a servant of power, so naturally, they only go after those who lack power.
Of the NYT I would say (as Mike Malloy likes to say of the Bush gang: Have I mentioned lately how much I hate these people?
It's a bit of fluff for an "investigative piece"
No wonder they can't do anything right, if they can't even get any good info on her "real" history.
Of course, they aren't trying to investigate 9/11, either, but even if they could, they probably wouldn't do a very good job.
----
Senior 9/11 Bureau Chief, Analyst, Correspondent, Principle Investigator, Forensic 9/11ologist
To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men. — Abraham Lincoln
Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny. — Robert Heinlein
From the article: “She
From the article: “She never shared those details, and it was nothing we wanted to probe,” said Alison Crowther, the mother of Welles Remy Crowther, a man who died on 9/11 and who is credited with rescuing a number of people from the south tower, including, by Ms. Head’s account, Ms. Head. “I felt it was too private and painful for her.”
There are parallels to the holocaust narrative; nobody asked Ms Head for proof out of respect, nobody asked for (forensic) evidence for the holocaust event because of respect.
When requests finally (after the shock and awe periode is over) come they are denied:
In Ms head's case, from the article: "But she canceled three scheduled interviews, citing her privacy and emotional turmoil, and declined to provide details to corroborate her story.
In het holocaust case:
People who DO question or want convincing evidence for the holocaust get ridiculed, demonized, fined or imprisoned in many european countries!
But would anybody be denied, get imprisoned or demonized for wanting proof that the earth is round?
Of course not because it is easy to proove. Truth needs no protection, only lies do.
Who would bar, ban or ridicule research to proof that the earth is round other then someone who claims that it is flat? Who would persecute people for researching that the earth is round other then someone that benefits from his claim that it is flat?
Is Ahmadinejad (for example) a fool for not being convinced or is the (forensic) evidence unconvincing (absent) itself.
If the forensics cannot corroborate and in fact contradict the eye witness accounts what am I to believe? Should I believe at all? Can one rely only on eye witness accounts and hearsay, is it acceptable being attacked for wanting something more substantial? You should ask yourself these questions. History is full of deception and the ones who benefit from it do anything to protect their deceptions. So the New York Times, who did their proper job on the Ms Head story, should do theirs on lots of other claims starting with the claim of the official story of 911.
The central thesis of this
The central thesis of this statement is:"
Who would bar, ban or ridicule research to proof that the earth is round other then someone who claims that it is flat? Who would persecute people for researching that the earth is round other then someone that benefits from the claim that it is flat?"
Looks like a logical statement to me. But perhaps logic is not everybody's thing?
Why waste time on anything important?
"In a 9/11 Survival Tale, the Pieces Just Don’t Fit"
Such investigative journalism. Perhaps now the Times could spare those reporters for this story:
"In the 9/11 Official Story, the Pieces Just Don't Fit"