The government doesn't want a 9/11 public trial
LeoAlphaMale Wed, 02/17/2010 - 8:58am
RT again covers again what the corporate, consolidated, controlled mainstream media in this country refuse to.
“The trials need to be held. They need to be held here [NYC]. They need to be held in a civilian court where the evidence can come out – evidence that’s still being collected … in this mass murder, which begs for a new investigation ... evidence that just might be in the lungs of the sick and dying by the tens of thousands first responders. Let’s get that evidence out there to find out what really happened.”
- LeoAlphaMale's blog
- Login to post comments
Good job. Well-done.
________________
JFK on secrecy and the press
Manny is an excellent spokesperson.
It is reprehensible that the best coverage of the subject comes from RT. I do appreciate RT for their honest coverage. I just lament the fact that the US and UK mainstream media have been reduced to pure propaganda vehicles. This country is so fu##ed up.
Security is their bullshit cover story.
Kangaroo trials are best held in closed military tribunals. Everyone knows that.
Manny
is the man, hence the name.
Exceptional
This is an exceptional interview. Manny maintains his poise and dignity throughout, while speaking so clearly about the cesspool of U. S. politics that has so tragically impacted his life. Good thing I'm not a spokesperson. I'm sure I'd end up swearing.
It's great RT covers this
It's great RT covers this topic, but I really think this so called "mainsteam" media is controlled by the russian government and has an agenda. They will cover any topic that can discredit the USA. It's refreshing to us, but when you follow what happened to Russia since 1999, you quickly realize that they are far from being better than the USA. In fact, the Moscow's bombings of 1999 were almost a preview of 9/11. It was proven to be an undercover operation to put the blame on Tchetchenia and start a war. That's also what brought Putin in the spotlight.
Watch the documentary called "Disbelief" on Google Video. It's really scary. You can see a TV show that had the courage to reveal the truth but, it was never aired, and instead was locked away (if not destroyed) for 75 years. You also see a lawyer who works for the victims of the bombings being interviewed, and then, 2 days later, he is murdered. I saw this documentary once on national TV here in Canada.
It helps you understand maybe why Putin was the first to call Bush on 9/11....
I really don't understand why Webster Tarpley is so much in awe for Putin.
To me, he's a dictator and the russian news media are totally controlled. There is at least one journalist, critical of Putin's regime, who was murdered. Papers and TV stations have been closed by the government.
So we can't rely on RT's credibility to convince people about 9/11.
What does the politics of
What does the politics of the news organization have to do with it? If the Wall Street Journal, a rag with a contemptible editorial page, imo, decided to cover the facts around 9/11, I wouldn't question their motives. I would simply acknowledge that they were doing what a newspaper is supposed to do: report the facts around the stories that impact the lives of significant numbers of people.
If state rivalry forces the truth to come out, then three cheers for state rivalry.
As an aside, I don't buy into the latest Russo-phobia fashion, which in large measure has been generated by the neo-conservative think tanks. The Russian state is probably no more and no less contemptible than most other modern states, certainly no more than our own.
If you compare Russia to the
If you compare Russia to the USA, maybe, but again, watch that documentary about the 1999 bombings and the rise of Putin. It's based on facts.
You are right about the fact that rivalry can help us get facts we wouldn't hear about BUT you seem to think that either you report the facts accurately either you don't report them at all. If the Wall Street Journal covers the facts around 9/11, you really think they will do it fairly and objectively? Disinfo can consist of distortion, or taking elements out of context.
When I watch RT, most of the time, they interview one person, and they make their entire "report" based on one person's testimony, whatever the subject. I'm a 9/11 truther to the bone, but I can't hope that this so called news media will help us in any way to connect with the average american citizen blinded by all the propaganda and the quasi religious patriotism. And even if it would break through and begin to be popular with the general population, it wouldn't be difficult to dismiss them with such a credibility problem.
I'm not into Russo-phobia, I'm into Disguised-dictatorship-hating.
Saying that one murderer is not worse than another will not convince me to listen to either one of them. Propaganda is propaganda, period.
I prefer to support what the CBC did for instance, with The Fifth Estate. It was far from perfect, but there was a clear difference between their last report about 9/11 truth and the first one which dismissed the entire movement. And they interviewed many persons with different point of views, which gave us the advantage because the counter arguments were very weak. Overall it was a potential eye opener to many canadians, and I hope, americans.
This is a very credible mainstream tv program, watched by serious viewers around Canada. It was aired in french last week on the national french news network. To the uninformed citizen, this can be a serious breakthrough. And when it comes from such a close country, with tight relationships with USA, it becomes much more important.
I also think this wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for the excellent web-based documentaries produced by private citizens and of course the relentless efforts of a core of dedicated researchers like Steven E Jones, Richard Gage and AE911 truth, David Ray Gritffith, Kevin Ryan and so many others.
I really don't see where RT is making a difference. Sorry, but it's my perception.