There is a 9/11 cover up occurring. It appears to be intentional. When the truth about 9/11 comes out, that it was an inside job involving members of the Bush Administration, there will be a massive international investigation. The media that helped with this cover up will be held accountable, if there is any hope for the future of democracy.
How do I know there is a cover up? Popular Mechanics' Editor recently appeared on Amy Goodman's Democracy Now with the producers of "Loose Change," the documentary exposing evidence of 9/11 as an inside job. As is Popular Mechanics' habit they quickly descended into name-calling and innuendo that was meant to character assassinate rather than debate facts. Words like "holocaust deniers," "JFK conspiricists," were used to charge the producers of Loose Change with the old tin foil hat smear.
This has not been unique to Popular Mechanics. Other major media have suddenly become professional psychoanalysts, suggesting that anyone questioning the flawed physics of the official 9/11 story is in need of therapy. This is in the grand and proud tradition of media in the former KGB run Soviet Union press. Strangely, the US media has never suggested that the tens of millions of Americans who still believe that Iraq engineered the attacks of 9/11, need therapy. Nor have they forcefully and en masse suggested that govt. members who believe that global warming is a myth need therapy.
I'm not saying everyone at NIST was part of a cover up. But, someone in leadership steered it away from doing its job, and it was too blatant to be ineptitude. Just as no one believes the entire 9/11 Commission was corrupt, but the Director, Philip Zelikow, who'd worked in the Bush Administration and was a close confidant to Condoleeza Rice prior to the Bush Admin. was guilty of steering the 9/11 Commission away from MANY of the hard questions about 9/11, and deleted crucial testimony like Norm Minetta's account of how Cheney's "orders" still stood. Orders that could only have been a stand down order to allow the Pentagon to be attacked.
How do I know that NIST is part of a 9/11 cover up?
At the point NIST investigated the WTC collapses, logical testing of explosives wouldn't even have been a "conspiracy theory." At that point one would have thought that perhaps the terrorists planted bombs, or had a truck near, or had explosives on the planes. It would have been normal professional forensic procedures to look for explosives traces, given the spectacular explosion of the three buildings on 9/11. Those collapses due to fire meant that every person worldwide who worked in a steel reinforced skyscraper may be working in a death trap. It would be imperative to understand how and why this happened, and an office of "Standards" and "Technology" would be the one to provide the answers. Their job isn't to hear a White House story of what happened and then set about to prove it. Their job is to find out if other buildings were vulnerable. Fire, at that point, was not known to be the "only" explanation. We'd seen buildings in Oklahoma City brought down by explosives. At that point there was no reason to think that the WTCs did not involve explosives as well, and in addition to the other factors of the plane crashes.
The fact that NIST "DID NOT EVEN TEST FOR EXPLOSIVES" is very telling. Coupled with years of watching the Bush Administration trying to stop the 9/11 investigations, and the disrespectful and combative way some Republicans in Congress treated the 9/11 widows. The same Republicans who tried to stop the widows' eventual creation of the 9/11 Commission. Then the way Bush tried to get master conspirator, Henry Kissinger, to run the Commission investigation, and then Philip Zelikow (Bush Admin and Rice confidant) ran it at the Bush Admins' insistence. The 9/11 widows demanded Zelikow step down and not head the Commission when they learned of his role in the Bush Admin. The Jersey Girls were ignored, and Zelikow steered the 9/11 Commission away from any of the hard questions. Of course, even the Democratic head of the Commission, Lee Hamilton, is not pristine. He presided over the Iran Contra hearings years ago, which methodically steered away from many damning facts about pre-election meetings between Reagan Admin. representatives and the Iranian revolutionaries. Meetings that likely cut a deal so that the US hostages would be held until "after" Carter's defeat, in return for eventual shipments of weapons. This was known then as the "October Surprise," which became books and a film. Of course little of this important behind the scenes information was covered, let alone explored, in any real way by US media.
Yes, the role of US media must become part of the larger 9/11 investigation. Other media in other nations as well. The issue of media ownership must be looked at worldwide. In the US a half dozen companies controls a vast majority of what Americans see, hear, and read in their media. Many media personalities have also worked as hard as Popular Mechanics to smear and character assassinate anyone who looks at the cold hard facts of 9/11, and questions the "official version".
This media machine which covered up this massive hoax and enabled the illegal wars . . . must be investigated. The media monopolies must be broken down. The leftist media, like David Corn of the Nation, and others who've systematically defamed 9/11 skeptics must be investigated. Through ignorance or intent, we don't know. We'd have to ask him. We must learn what motivated these people to avoid looking at the facts of 9/11 like cool clear journalists, and why they rather descended into childish character assassination of 9/11 skeptics immediately.
We are not talking about the entire media establishment being corrupted, for there are many in the media who know that 9/11 was an inside job, but also know that if they came out on it, their career would be over. Not only American journalists but others outside the US as well. I spoke to a writer at a major Canadian newspaper who informed me early on of Canadian journalists who'd been fired in the months after 9/11, for probing into the discrepancies between the official 9/11 story and reality. Also, it would only take one key person at editorial meetings, or television, or radio production meetings to chime in anytime anyone questioned 9/11 and steer them away from the issue by simply saying, "Oh my God, we're not going to consider that lunatic crap are we?"
This would have effectively shut down any discussion, because only recently and only thru the dogged determination of independent researchers, whistle blowers, and web publishers, does the average media person now have access to physics and other facts about 9/11 that challenge the official story. The US media completely ignored the issue until recently, so there would have been no way anyone in a newsroom could have challenged a systematic shut down of discussion on the issue without looking like a fool. Even though on the face of it, the bizarre collapse of the three towers, and the mysterious absence of the US Air Force on 9/11 didn't sit well in many people's guts. Is it outlandish to think that plants could be working in major American media? Not at all, it is historical fact that this has been done in the past.
Before the CIA illegally overthrew the elected democratic leader of Iran, Mohammed Mossedeq, in 1952, over 50% of Iran's media had been infiltrated by US govt. hired agents according to historical record. Their job was to plant stories at that critical moment and steer the Iranian and world public's minds away from the crime US covert ops had committed against Iranian democracy. To think that the forces behind 9/11 would not prepare a similar situation in the US prior to pulling off the crime of the century would be na´ve, dangerously na´ve. Of course the destruction of independent media in America began in earnest in the 1980s when Reagan and Republicans in Congress assaulted PBS and NPR, beginning raids on their funding, and forcing them to increasingly suck at the tit of corporate funding. Any critical listener saw their coverage change over these years, becoming a mere shadow of their former independent media selves.
Another blatant crime much of the media committed is pretending to be unaware of, or barely mentioning if at all, that one of Bush's main references for proving Hussein had WMD was a lie. Hussein Kamel was an Iraqi defector, and a son-in-law of Saddam Hussein. Bush referred to his testimony about Iraq's WMD over and over and over again to convince Americans we may be facing a "mushroom cloud" of destruction if we didn't illegally and preemptively attack Iraq. What Bush DIDN'T tell us was that in that same testimony transcript, Kamel says bluntly: "All weapons-- biological, chemical, missile, nuclear, were destroyed."