Sunday Times Book Review: "Terrorism: 9/11 Revealed: Challenging the Facts behind the War on Terror

www.timesonline.co.uk...

Its good to see a major news paper reviewing 9/11 books

The daily mail also wrote an article about 9/11 because of this book, that was, according to some, "the largest article ever printed by the UK mainstream media, raising many of the serious questions about the 9/11 cover up". ATS Thread

Scarcely a day had passed before the first conspiracy theories about the 9/11 attacks began to emerge. The “miraculous” recovery of lead hijacker Mohammed Atta’s passport from the ruins of the World Trade Center, the spotting of a team of Israelis who cheered as they filmed the incident in New York, the odd behaviour of George W Bush, who continued to read a story about goats to children for an hour after he had been informed about the attacks — all of these events were grist to the conspiracy theorists’ mill.

One of the strongest (and unsubstantiated) theories to emerge suggested that millions of dollars had been made by speculators on the New York stock exchange who had advance knowledge of the campaign. The passing of four years has diminished neither the breadth and intricacy of 9/11 conspiracy theories nor, it would appear, the public appetite for them. Like JFK and Martin Luther King’s assassinations, it is an event destined to be the subject of intense speculation for generations to come.

Rest of the article..



[edit on 9-4-2005 by Zion Mainframe]

a couple of issues i just have to point out here :

it is a literary rewiew , published without comment in the arts supplement . nothing about 9/11 in the main section or any edetorial comment what so ever

OTOH ` the 1/2 blood prince ` got page after page in the TIMES main section , the business section and the arts pullout

does that make the " harry potter mythos " real and true ???????????

regards the daily mail article - despite asking several people , i have so far been unable to secure a print copy of the alledged " article " which even on the woo2 site is written up in the manner of a book review , NOT an article

if it was printed , my best guess is that it was in a glossy suplement - which NEVER get repeated on the web page

YRS - APE

Check the ATS thread and the link you rainbow winged luv bug .

The reason I posted this review is to show that more and more the mainstream media is spending time, money and space on questioning the official 9/11 story, which is VERY important. You're comparing this to Harry Potter...

[edit- to express proper language procedure towards fellows]

[edit on 5-9-2005 by ADVISOR]

BOOK REVIEWS are not " the main stream press " , not even close

PS - do uou always get so uptight ? calling peolpe "rainbow winged luv bug" just for having the temerity to point out the flaws in you " logic " reflects worse on you than me

so has it sunk in yet - its a BOOK REVIEW , with absolutly ZERO oped

they pack these supplements out with ANYTHING which meets thier submission guidlines to " fill " the issue


YRS - APE

[edit- to express proper language procedure towards fellows]

[edit on 5-9-2005 by ADVISOR]

Originally posted by ignorant_ape

PS - do uou always get so uptight ? calling peolpe "rainbow winged luv bug" just for having the temerity to point out the flaws in you " logic " reflects worse on you than me

No, normally not. But this got me a bit upset, you compared this book with Harry Potter.

Anyway, this is not just a book review in a local newspaper you wrap old fish in, this is The Times!
Even though its not an op/ed, its still a review about a book which questions the official 9/11 story. As I pointed out, the Daily Mail also wrote an article about it, last month. This is highly important, IMO. The mainstream media mostly ignores all the conspiracy theories (which are sometimes very credible) and hardly questions the officialy 9/11 investigation.

I hope to see more if these reviews in other newspapers. Even though there just book reviews, it still helps to make people aware of the many controversial facts about 9/11.

[edit- to express proper language procedure towards fellows]

[edit on 5-9-2005 by ADVISOR]

QUOTE :No, normally not. But this got me a bit upset, you compared this book with Harry Potter. "

glad to hear it

BUT you did claim that column inches should be used as a demonstrator of veracity when judging a story - i thought it quite humourous to point out the acres of newsprint devoted to the rawling novels

i consider both books to be fiction , so ultimatly i stand by my observations

if you insult me again - i will bring in my " big guns " - the dreaded " sunday sport " who " proove " with froint page spreads that there is a london double decjer bus on the moon

PS - for peolpe who are unaware of the " sunday sport " phenonemon , please google it , BEFORE you flame the crap out of me

YRS - APE

With the greatest of all due respect...

It's a book review; it's an individually authored piece, and it's not representative of the publication itself.

For what it's worth, I found two images of the original Daily Mail article (in case there's any question of it's existance!), which are further down.

To keep this in perspective, I do think it's prudent to note that though it has been claimed that the above referenced articles were the "first mainstream media attention" paid to the various conspiracies, that seems to me a little inaccurate - what we're seeing are actually two book reviews, one of which goes into more detail (and more questioning) than the other.

I do see a difference there - but perhaps that's just me?

tinkle flower :

fair point , i guess i got a bit snappy earlier , as you say its hardly " mainstream media coverage "

such book reviews are the stable fluff and filler used to get the page count and layout to the correct size and shape

also bottom line - papers thrive on controversy - given a choice between some crazy conspiracy kook job and the review of a deliah smith cook book the crazy conspiracy story will win every time

in the vicious UK tabloid circulation war - anything that gets a title more exposure is ` fair game "

YRSA - APE

I don't care what paper the review appeared in, you should learn the difference,m especially now a days. It appears to be another book that is taking advantage of mis-qoutes, statements made out of panic & not understanding the evidence. Like the recent surge of docudramas, articles & websites, they are choosing to ignore evidence to further their claims (which oddly enough have no proof, they simply fill gaps in popular thinking), not to mention the arm chair quarter backing over 4 years. I don't think anything could be shown to these conspiracy believers that would make them happy. Meanwhile, I am STILL waiting for any proof, other then circimstancial void filling, of ANYTHING other then the "official" story. It seems when all the facts point to something happening, one needs to provide something other then speculation & panicked statements from people in shock.

My 7 year olds school paper has an "article" by a 1st grader claiming the moon really is made of cheese & she even lays out some "facts" as to why. That doesn't make it fact, doesn't make it reliable, but it certainly is cute. Funny how believable it is if you think like a 7 year old...

Originally posted by Jake the Dog Man
I don't care what paper the review appeared in, you should learn the difference,m especially now a days. It appears to be another book that is taking advantage of mis-qoutes, statements made out of panic & not understanding the evidence. ... Funny how believable it is if you think like a 7 year old...

Yeah, we know these articles are book reviews, relating to a book which appears to rely upon certain unproven hypotheses, theories and perhaps a whole heap of misquoted factoids. I don't think that wasn't the point though - I've a feeling the point was that a mainstream media source had actually included something (albeit a book review, rather than an OpEd) relating to a possible 9/11 conspiracy.

Implying that readers are nothing but the mental equivalents of grade schoolers isn't really going to help your cause....but I'm not sure which point you were making anyway.

Then again, perhaps you didn't read the entire thread?

Originally posted by Tinkleflower

Originally posted by Jake the Dog Man
I don't care what paper the review appeared in, you should learn the difference,m especially now a days. It appears to be another book that is taking advantage of mis-qoutes, statements made out of panic & not understanding the evidence. ... Funny how believable it is if you think like a 7 year old...

Yeah, we know these articles are book reviews, relating to a book which appears to rely upon certain unproven hypotheses, theories and perhaps a whole heap of misquoted factoids.

And just to be fair, the official story is also unproven. We are to blindly believe what NIST or FEMA tells us, as they never released how they got their "test" results.

If you would like to try to prove the official theory on behalf of your government, however, feel free to do so on this thread.

Interesting to see this sort of coverage, but I seriously doubt anyone will make a serious reconsideration of their opinions from such a source at the same time.

Originally posted by bsbray11

And just to be fair, the official story is also unproven. We are to blindly believe what NIST or FEMA tells us, as they never released how they got their "test" results.

Which again wasn't the point

This thread was about coverage of a situation, not about the situation itself. It's relating to how one book covers certain questions, and how a major news source reviewed that book - it's not about the questions themselves.

S'all.

Interesting to see this sort of coverage, but I seriously doubt anyone will make a serious reconsideration of their opinions from such a source at the same time.

That's where I think the confusion might lie. If the articles had been anything other than book reviews, this would be something that the rest of the media would consider too, and this attention would in all likelihood trickle down to the public at large and would also garner attention from the currently silent experts who no doubt have much to say on the matter.

Point remains - these are two book reviews. Not two op eds, or two opinions about the events in question. That is a difference.

(And please don't misunderstand me - though I don't agree with many alternate theories posted here relating to 9/11, I still have many unanswered questions myself; I'm hardly a carte blanche "I believe the terrorists did it all by themselves" believer..though by the same token, I'm also not following the "the terrorists had nothing to do with it, this was all the government at work" trail either. That's why I have questions. Both sound a little too unlikely for me)

“Then again, perhaps you didn't read the entire thread? ”

Yes, I not only had read it, but I have read it a few times and still don’t understand YOUR point or your confusion. We are living in a time of people not understanding professional boundaries, let alone respecting them. We are also living in a time when people question everything, even if they see it with their own eyes. There are far too many former reliable sources that are now run, written or edited by people who also don’t know the difference. Any joker who has an agenda to put forward can create a website or write a book these days, so don’t be impressed. When books, websites or book reviews are taken as, confused with, or quoted reliable sources, don’t you think this leads to confusion of facts and other reliable sources? All of which leads to the conspiratorial thinking that is growing every day about just about anything that happens on the planet. Deny Ignorance, don’t snuggle up with it.


“Implying that readers are nothing but the mental equivalents of grade schoolers isn't really going to help your cause....but I'm not sure which point you were making anyway.”
I’m thinking YOU need to read or reread my statement… I didn’t compare “readers” to grade schoolers (more specifically 1st graders) but “believers”… there is a big difference.

“And just to be fair, the official story is also unproven. We are to blindly believe what NIST or FEMA tells us, as they never released how they got their "test" results.
If you would like to try to prove the official theory on behalf of your government, however, feel free to do so on this thread.
Interesting to see this sort of coverage, but I seriously doubt anyone will make a serious reconsideration of their opinions from such a source at the same time.”

LOL! Yes, Agreed. Not much will be agreed or proven there, except how long a dead horse can be beaten! Again, deny Ignorance, don’t embrace it.

This discussion can be had with people stating their opinions about statements made in souces/thereories without getting so confused. I also have many questions & concerns with the official story of 9/11, but I also don’t understand why people are so anxious to believe tripe with no evidence. Just because someone doesn’t understand an explanation, doesn’t make it implausible or false. Ever hear the phrase “Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water”? Why do some people feel the need to place so much faith in a few unanswered questions, supported by a very small collection of questionable people? (PLEASE, don’t start cutting and pasting so called “proof”) Is it just so they can stop thinking about it? Hard to have a discussion about the coverage of an event without pointing out the many flaws in collection & belief process.

But again, I guess that isn’t the point of this thread….

Originally posted by Jake the Dog Man
. When books, websites or book reviews are taken as, confused with, or quoted reliable sources, don’t you think this leads to confusion of facts and other reliable sources?

Hmmm..perhaps that's the confusion.

I wasn't thinking anyone would actually take a book review as being something even close to a "reliable source" of factual information. It's a book review - a personal opinion on the written material. I spose I thought it was obvious that such a piece wasn't meant to be factual source material.

My bad?

Well, I apoligize... I thought that was the point of this thread.