Part III: Media Coverage of the International ReThink911 Campaign, 2013-14
It is impossible to keep the lid on a lie forever – especially a major deception carried out in full view of witnesses and cameras.
The last article in the Media Response series was published in February 2010, when public broadcasters in eight countries were reporting doubts about the official 9/11 story, and nine corporate media reviews had explored the issue during the previous year.
Since then, the mainstream media has forged ahead on the subject. In the past six months alone, 20 stories in major papers have covered the September-December 2013 ReThink911 campaign – including Time Magazine, the NYT, the Ottawa Citizen, and BBC News Magazine.
As time passes our memories of 9/11 becomes less painful and more open to public discussion. There is increasing skepticism in both the social and corporate media about the credibility of 9/11 as the foundation for the continuing global war on terror.
Last year, President Obama was prevented from waging – on grounds of state terrorism –war with Syria.
As of March 2014, seven congressmen, backed by impacted 9/11 families, are calling for the release of a secret 2002 congressional study that implicates Saudi Arabia in financing the alleged hijackers.
Establishing the truth about 9/11 is a fundamental necessity for the achievement of peace between East and West.
The horrendous visual images of airliners careening into the tallest buildings in America were seared into the collective world brain on 9/11.
This collective human experience has been so powerful and haunting that no equally powerful and pervasive experience has emerged to show that the Twin Towers were not brought down by Muslim hijackers run by Osama bin Laden from Afghanistan.
Yet the weakness and falsity of the official story has been amply demonstrated by more than a decade of peer-reviewed research and scholarship, as shown by the 23-member 9/11 Consensus Panel’s evidence-based Consensus Points and reading list.
The tale of 19 hijackers is viewed more and more as a construct – and the “reality” that it created, as a contrived perception.
If there is one force with the power to reverse this perception, it is the dynamic ReThink911 campaign, which has taken hold strongly in the US and Canada and has plans to expand into Britain and other countries.
The ReThink911 Campaign
The ReThink911 organization spearheads its campaign with the Achilles heel of the 9/11 perception – the sudden collapse, later in the day, of the 47-storey steel skyscraper World Trade Center 7, which stood adjacent to the Twin Towers.
Massive in area, Seven’s base was the size of a football field. It was not hit by a plane.
It took the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) seven years to devise a computer simulation purporting to show how an enormous steel skyscraper could collapse symmetrically with a level roofline in six seconds – from “office fires” alone.
So for the month of September 2013, ReThink911 purchased large blue and orange billboards in major cities across Canada, the US, England, and Australia.
These included an enormous 5-storey high sign in New York City’s Times Square, posted throughout September and October, and seen by millions of people. A similar sign was posted in Dundas Square, Toronto.
Needless to say, the media could hardly ignore an “elephant in the room” this size, towering beyond the windows of the New York Times.
How did the media deal with the situation?
First, it is important to consider that the survival of truth in a democracy rests on the outcome of an information war that is based largely on psychological operations and propaganda.
With regard to the truth about 911, the history of corporate media reporting is reminiscent of Gandhi’s famous statement: ”First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
In 2010, at the time of my last media survey, the mainstream media was waking up to research from the 911 truth community.
By the fall of 2013, the new ReThink911 campaign had gained considerable attention in papers such as the New York Times, Time Magazine, the BBC Magazine, and the Ottawa Citizen.
Most of the 20 or so stories were neutral in tone, with only a few ridiculing or opposing the campaign.