9/11 STORY PULLED
SURE we've got a "Free Press" in America. HA!
We were amazed that a FOX affiliate had actually done a story on 9/11 that WASN'T a "tinfoil hat" hit piece. ...So amazed in fact that we linked to their website so other people could see for themselves. -Oh, but our amazement was short lived.
Within days, the story was killed, the transcript removed from their website, the video links taken down, and all references in the archives were gone. POOF, just like that, it never existed.
Wouldn't you love to know who "gave the order" to make that story disappear without a trace? They must be pretty powerful, huh?
This only further reinforces what we already know: There is a deliberate effort by the mainstream media to suppress the irrefutable evidence of a 9/11 cover up. No problem. We've got a copy of the video below. Be sure to save one for yourself and then spread this info FAR and WIDE.
This is what the government and the corporate media criminals didn't feel you had the right to see. (**Note: We're obviously not referring to the reporters who did the story! We're referring to those who have kept this info out of the media for more than 4 years now.)
Oh, and maybe you should drop them a line...ask them why they pulled the story. Ask them why, if what the government says is true, they're so afraid of THE EVIDENCE.
UPDATE: Unbelievable! There is apparently a battle going on at that station because the links are now back up. I went through that site myself...all references had been removed. Now the story is back on the home page, in the archives, and the original pages (below) have been restored. VERRRYYY Interesting.
When I first posted this story (before the links had been taken down) I said we should write the station and THANK the brave reporters who put the piece together. Well, maybe we owe them an even bigger thanks. It looks like they not only had the courage to report on this; they also had the courage to fight having it squashed.
http://www.wicz.com/news2005/viewarticle.asp?a=282 (Part 1)
http://www.wicz.com/news2005/viewarticle.asp?a=291 (Part 2)
UPDATE 2: I have gotten some emails from people stating the FOX affiliate removed this story from their servers because of "bandwidth" problems. Here is my reply to one such email on 12-6-05:
<<<Regarding your main "news" story, it is totally false. Bad information really spreads fast! Why don't you do fact checking with the TV station and get the real scoop?>>>
The first assertion of my "news story" is: Fair coverage of the 9/11 issue has been non-existent in the mainstream media. There is nothing "false" about that claim.
The next assertion is: A very fair and well done story regarding 9/11 was removed from the FOX affiliate's website without a trace. Nothing false about that either.
Then we imply that the story was killed intentionally. This is what you apparently have a problem with. Having contacted the station, you "know" (because they told you) it was just a bandwidth issue. Well ask yourself this:
If hundreds of thousands of people were coming to YOUR website looking for a specific story, would you "solve the problem" of a bandwidth overage by removing ALL references to the story?
Oh, I would understand why you might take down the video link, but I have no idea why you would take down all the text pages and remove all the links to those text pages from your home index and archives. Common sense dictates, if you were experiencing bandwidth problems, you would simply take down the cause of those problems (the video) until you were able to find another hosting solution.
To put it another way: The text links on their home page, in their archives, and the text pages they reference, have no significant bearing on bandwidth. Nor would a simple text note. Maybe something like this:
"Demand for our 9/11 story has been so great, we've got to find another company to host the video! Thank you for your interest, we will be re-posting the video ASAP. Bookmark this page and come back soon!"
A little note like that (at the bottom of the two pages that originally introduced the story) would have been a much easier solution. Additionally, it probably would have caused some anticipation and even greater interest. And that, after all, is what "news people" want for their stories.
You'll have to forgive me. After years of watching the mainstream media ignore the truth while simultaneously demonizing those who demand it, I've become cynical. Prior to your letter, I had already been told the "bandwidth" story, I simply found it hard to believe. If I am wrong - if those running the website thought removing every reference and leaving only blank pages where the story used to be was the best solution to their bandwidth problem;my sincere apologies. You'll note, at the end of my piece, I commend them for putting it back up. And I meant it.
The real aim of what I wrote (if I had to choose just one) was to raise awareness of the video - to provide access to it (if in fact the news station no longer would.) As of today, nearly 30,000 downloads on my end alone. Not so bad.
Update 3: Addressing some other general assertions that have been made regarding this story:
<<<I used to think that telling the truth was what made us different than them. Now I see that wild speculation can actually help the truth movement in big ways, so why bother with integrity >>>
...I think it is a bit of a stretch to challenge my integrity on this. I didn't "lie," I stated what I believed to be true. Given the history of the media, it was hardly "wild speculation." http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spyring.html
Keep in mind, when I wrote the piece, the story was gone and people were writing "hey, where is that story you told us about?" ...I had no idea they were going to put it back up at the time. I had every reason to believe they wouldn't. And frankly (if that was to be the case) I wanted people to let them know it was unacceptable. I'm sick of waiting (as I suspect most are) for this information to get real coverage. I've posted my take on the whole "bandwidth" issue. People can decide for themselves what makes sense to them. ...and whether I can ever be trusted again. (Yes, sarcasm.)
<<<You might have done more harm than good>>>
In the grand scheme of things, this argument measures about a "1" on a scale of 10. I'd like to think we've all got more important things to consider. If people want to believe this has harmed the 9/11 truth movement, it's their right. I don't believe that to be the case...and if out of all the information on my site this is the only thing they have a problem with, maybe there are better targets out there.
<<<Consider this: Speculation about what happened has made the story bigger that it ever would have been had the story not had the appearance of being "supressed".>>>
Ya, no kidding. It's all over the place now - big time. FOX 40 even did a story on my story about their STORY!
In just a few days we ended up drawing a lot of attention to something that desperately needs to be seen - hardly a bad thing. In the end, it is the substance of the FOX 40 story itself (not the controversy surrounding it) that truly matters. I think those who watch their report on the "loose change" documentary will easily figure that out.
English - Spanish - Italian -
German - French - Bulgarian -
- Portuguese -