Why the Media Embraced "9-11 Truth"
Fri Sep 8, 2006 18:28

Why the Media Embraced "9-11 Truth"

By Henry Makow Ph.D.
September 08, 2006


Last week TIME Magazine and The Washington Post ran almost balanced and sympathetic stories about "the 9-11 Truth Movement."

These publications define reality for millions of unsuspecting Americans. Why would they legitimize a conspiracy view that implicates their owners, the Illuminati central bankers? Why would they publicize discrepancies that they have been covering up for five years?

Imagine you're in a meeting with the central bankers who control the American mass media and government. You're the successor of PR whiz Edward Bernays.

"Edward," they say, "the matrix is starting to unravel. A third of Americans believe their government was responsible for 9-11. Damn the Internet! What are we going to do?"

If I were Bernays, I would say. "Depends if you're planning another false flag terrorist event, martial law and an attack on Iran. If so, I would continue to ignore and marginalize this movement. You don’t want to give them a huge boost in credibility at this time."

"Eddie," they reply, "it's too late for all that stuff. Nobody that counts believes in the terror threat any more. Israel got a bloody nose in Lebanon and can't attack Iran. The military has its hands full in Iraq. The generals are in revolt. Plus the Internet is full of stories blaming the Mossad and Israel. Anti Semitism is on the rise. "

"Don't panic boys," I tell them. "I have the answer. "What we need is a "Time-Out" to restore everybody's faith in the system. We need a return to the Democratic Party, a return to the sanity of the Carter or Clinton era, a break from those mean ugly corrupt Republicans."

"How do we do that?" the bankers ask.

"Think Daniel Ellsberg and The Pentagon Papers. Think Michael Moore and "Farhenheit 911" We need to shift responsibility for 9-11 onto Dubya's shoulders and away from Silverstein and the Mossad, the neo-cons and us. We need to reposition the 9-11 Truth-ers in the mold of the 1960's anti-war movement and focus everyone on hating the 'government.' Then we'll elect Democrats in November and Bill Richardson, or someone like him, in 2008. It will be kinder gentler fascism for a while. We'll have time to plan the next step."

"Where do we begin?"

"Why not do a TIME cover story on those kids that made the Internet movie "Loose Change"? They don’t mention the dancing laughing Mossad agents who were arrested 'documenting the event' with explosives in their van, do they? Portray the kids as participating in the "great American tradition of self reliance and non conformist anti authoritarian dissent. They're fighting the power." [exact words TIME uses] Maybe we could bring Bob Dylan in on this."

"Eddie, this is dangerous. That film shows that Larry [Silverstein] ordered the demolition of WTC 7 the same day. Are Americans so stupid to believe that this 47-storey building was wired for demolition, and WTC–1 and WTC-2 weren't? Surely they'll figure out that all three were demolished and a plane was supposed to hit WTC-7. We'll all be hung for mass murder."

"Guys. Don’t worry. The people believe what they're told not their own eyes or common sense. We won’t mention WTC-7 in the article. We'll just focus on a couple of points and have our paid flunkies, I mean 'experts' refute them. The important thing is to emphasize that the 'government' did this. It was an "inside job." Dubya will take the fall in the public's mind."

"Is one story enough?"

"Put another one in The Washington Post focused on David Ray Griffin. We'll call it something like "The Disbelievers." Mention the Mossad a couple of times in passing but not the Germany Intelligence (BND) Report that says the Mossad organized the whole event. It'll be our experts and against theirs and the people will be confused. They'll blame Dubya and think the media is objective and doing its job."


At the risk of sounding optimistic, the mainstream coverage of the 9-11 Truth movement may be a sign that we will not have an Iran attack and another false-flag terrorist event soon. I think the bankers are scared that they are losing control of the American mind. Dubya has been very useful to them but it's time for him to go.

The only danger is that he and Cheney will do something desperate to hold on to power. Without the cooperation of the media, they can't succeed. Their term is almost up anyway. I think they know it and will take their money and exit gracefully.

For once, I am making a prediction that I hope will be correct!
Comments for "Why the Media Embraced "9-11 Truth""

Ryan said (September 08, 2006):

In your article "Why the Media Embraced "9-11 Truth" you put forward the opnion that the mainstream media is picking up the 9-11 story in order to pin the blame on the patsies instead of the true criminals. In reality they are most likely trying to "own" the 9-11 truth movement and discredit it all together with straw-man theories. Do you truly believe that Cheney and Bush will take the fall for orchestrating 9-11? I know they are just taking orders from above but if they are found by the general public to have carried out the 9-11 attacks wouldn't they be lynched by the american public? If this happened would it be reasonable to think that Cheney, Bush et al. might expose their handlers which would been the end of the New World Order.

Instead the mass mainstream media will attempt to take over some of the softer versions of 9-11 conspiracies in an attempt to whitewash the overall event. At the same time they will use ridiculous theories like no planes hitting the towers and unprovable ones like no plane hitting the pentagon in order to discredit the hardcore 9-11 theories. I do agree with your idea that we will see the renewal of the democrat party, which will unfortunately put most people back to sleep.


I believe Bush and Cheney will take the fall in the public's mind and the Democrats will take their place. I don't expect them to actually accept their due.

Kurt said (September 08, 2006):

I'm smiling while I type this. You always give the realistic viewpoint
which typically is dismal. What you're saying is still realistic, but
it's nice to hear some potentially good news. Enthusiasm must be
tempered with the knowledge that the evil is still there, but if it
gives us some temporary relief, then maybe this exposure will create a
backlash that will serve to make people more aware of what the media has
hidden, and how fragile the vestige of our freedom is.

Keeping the faith,

Robert said (September 08, 2006):

Good article. I believe that it will be 2008 before we see the next attack on US soil. Part of the problem is that there are some fanatical whackos out there who are NOT in the know with the elitist at the top. Those fools will pull off there own attack without any backing from the top.

With the hopes of controlling everything, some nuts fall through the cracks that do not see the "big" picture.

Henry Makow is the author of A Long Way to go for a Date. He received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto. He welcomes your feedback and ideas at henry@savethemales.ca.

Main Page - Sunday, 09/10/06

Message Board by American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]


messageboard.gif (4314 bytes)