Why 9/12 Is A More Important Day Than 9/11

Originally posted by ipsedixit

Originally posted by isthisreallife
As for the Freedom of the Press. That had been gone long before 9/11.

I agree with you in an academic sense. People have said that there has never been a truly free press, but press freedom seems to ebb and flow.

It is just that on 9/12, there was such a marked contrast from what had been reported only the previous day, on 9/11, which speaks to Human_Alien's point perhaps as well. I think freedom of the press died another of its many deaths on 9/12.

This is what they were reporting on 9/11:

The next day it was all forgotten and for practical purposes, never pursued in the mainstream press, in an honest way, again.

edit on 11-9-2011 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

Why is nobody listening..........
Where is the justice.

Wake up

This is the video that has done it for me.
I was a bit on the fence about 9/11
but you can hear a definite bomb go off.

Originally posted by rigel4
Why is nobody listening..........
Where is the justice.

Wake up

This is the video that has done it for me.

If the press had been allowed to follow the story and tell the truth, I am sure that the real perpetrators of 9/11 would have been run to ground and indicted. Many other situations and lives would have been saved and the general outlook in America would be much brighter.

Political power is dangerous to those who hold it, which is why foolish men are always after it. They are dangers to themselves so its not surprising when they grab hold of something that is inherently negative and evil.

reply to post by gabby2011


Thank you. I thought so too.

Originally posted by isthisreallife
Well, I won't even begin to touch upon your bias, as it is already long established in your mind that the United States conspired to create the events of 9/11. Which unfortunately reflects your entire post as a whole, but Fine.

As for the Freedom of the Press. That had been gone long before 9/11. I would say that the JFK Assassination was the last instance of true unbiased press. Since then the bias, the division and the sheer stupidity of our news agencies has never ceased to amaze me.

If the JFK Assassination was the last instance of an unbiased press, how do you explain the Watergate Scandal of the 70's? There are countless examples of an unbiased press even after the JFK case. However I am more in agreement with the OP. The Press changed after 9/11 and it was immediate.

The following video was posted in another recent 9/11 thread and I had just watched it today. A quick rundown of this video and why I feel it is relevant to this discussion: The video is all about news reporters and witnesses to the event. Each witness talks about explosions. Explosions on lower levels, explosions here explosions there. It shows reporters on the scene talking about explosions they heard, reports of explosions, and it goes on and on and on. There is no debate on this issue, it is simply what was reported at that time, on that day. Then the video ends with the press conference held by Mayor Rudy Giuliani in which he was asked about these explosions and his response was that there were no secondary explosions that he was aware of and that any "explosion" was actually caused by the impact of the planes. No follow up question, no one pointed out the entire days worth of reports to the contrary... the answer was simply accepted as fact regardless of the mountains of evidence that suggested otherwise.

So yes on 9/11 there was still real reporting going on, by 9/12 there was no longer "reporting" instead the media was "repeating"

The video "9/11 Total Proof . . ." that was embedded in this thread is no longer accessible from the embedded links due to the termination of the YouTube account that contained the video. Here for people who might otherwise miss the video is a copy from another account.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
The video "9/11 Total Proof . . ." that was embedded in this thread is no longer accessible from the embedded links due to the termination of the YouTube account that contained the video. Here for people who might otherwise miss the video is a copy from another account.

I have to admit--total proof is a lot more impressive than regular proof.

For whatever reason, account closures, etc., this video keeps disappearing from YouTube. I'm including a link to it again. It's original title was The Ultimate Con, but it has appeared with YouTube titles like, "9/11 Total Proof", or variations of the same.

By the way, does anyone know the name of the MSNBC commentator who was ordered to leave the building by a fire chief? She's the cute blonde reporting from the street and appears around 5:20.

a reply to: ipsedixit

I have 1 guess.

First guess

Happy HOLY days

a reply to: loveguy

Mika Brzezinski was reporting from ground zero at the time the South Tower, the first one to go, collapsed. I think it must be her. Unfortunately this clip is a little grainy. She is the daughter of the former advisor to Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski.

If that is really her, conversations around the dinner table at Thanksgiving must have been interesting that year.

a reply to: ipsedixit

Ashleigh Banfield. At CNN now I believe.

originally posted by: ipsedixit
Obviously 9/11 is a very important day.

It is the day upon which rogue elements comprised of members of the Bush administration, aided by allies and supporters both in the United States and abroad, undertook to create the illusion of a monstrous terrorist attack on the United States by Islamists allied with Osama bin Laden and a shadowy organization that US government spokespersons called Al Qaeda.

I know that what I'm about to say is a little bit off-topic for this thread (or maybe not, not sure) but I have gotten to the point to where I just can't think about this in these terms without the thought that there's just no way the Bush administration could have done this on their own.

So the question I always come back to is this - What was the political left doing? Can we honestly believe they would have had no clue what was going on? If the answer is no, there must have been willful cooperation. It could not have been just the Bush administration and it could not have been only one party.

I have often wondered why the American left seems to be thought of so innocently in these theories. As though they were unwilling participants in the strangulation of freedom (and so forth) that ensued after 9/11. I mean, come on. They would have had to have known something.

originally posted by: BrianFlanders


I know that what I'm about to say is a little bit off-topic for this thread (or maybe not, not sure) but I have gotten to the point to where I just can't think about this in these terms without the thought that there's just no way the Bush administration could have done this on their own.

So the question I always come back to is this - What was the political left doing? Can we honestly believe they would have had no clue what was going on? If the answer is no, there must have been willful cooperation. It could not have been just the Bush administration and it could not have been only one party.

I have often wondered why the American left seems to be thought of so innocently in these theories. As though they were unwilling participants in the strangulation of freedom (and so forth) that ensued after 9/11. I mean, come on. They would have had to have known something.

Yes, it seems likely that the typical conspiracy about 9/11 would involve all political parties.

This is exactly why, IMO, that they can be ignored as nothing more than illogical ravings.

They blame Bush, and no one on the left. It is nothing more than shallow minded thinking from shallow minded people.

a reply to: BrianFlanders

Both major political parties are involved in 9/11, just as they both are involved in the Kennedy assassination. Obstructing justice by covering up for the perpetrators is equivalent to being accessories after the fact, which is indictable.

The armed forces were involved in 9/11 too.

Having said that, not every Republican was involved, not every Democrat was involved and not every person in the services was involved. Not every Pakistani was involved, not every Saudi was involved and not every Israeli was involved.

Some members, of all those groups, were involved, undoubtedly.

I don't think we will get the truth about the major political crimes of the last 50 years or so in the US, unless a major political upheaval takes place that restores the system of checks and balances that was the outstanding feature of government in the American republic.

Here's a blast from the past. America's "road not taken". It is a nice reminder of what America might yet become, if the people made up their minds to go in that direction. Some rough cross country hiking might be necessary in order to get back on that road.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

I don't think it is Banfield in the clip from "The Ultimate Con". I know that Mika Brzezinski was actually working for CBS but had worked for MSNBC until September of 2001. The clip above shows the MSNBC banner, but I'm wondering if they were taking a CBS feed or if Brzezinski was still with MSNBC on Sept. 11.

I know both Banfield and Berzezinski were reporting from Manhattan that day, but after comparing their voices, I am pretty certain that it is Berzezinski in the clip featured above in this thread.

Banfield also appears to be telling a different story in the clip below, as if she had been in a situation different from the one described in the "Ultimate Con" clip.



However, this does appear to have been broadcast from the exact location of the other clip though, so you might be right. Banfield was quickly promoted "overseas" after 9/11. Essentially, it would appear that she was gotten out of the way.

en.wikipedia.org...

After the initial reporting of the tragedy had ended, Banfield received a promotion, as MSNBC sent her around the world as the producer of a new program, A Region in Conflict. They also launched a heavy ad campaign that centered around Banfield, labeling her, "The One."[6]

a reply to: BrianFlanders

I guess to answer that is to accept that there is another government in the US that does not get changed out every 4-8 years. They play the long game that democracy does not allow for and neither side of the isle has any control over them.

If it was not for this second government, communism would have beat democracy a long time ago. It gives the illusion to the people that they are free to chose but the ship never changes course.

It was either 9/11 or the next day that I saw a poll on CNN asking the American people if we should bomb Afghanistan. There were no known facts, just speculation at the time, but something like 80% said yes. I voted no. To this day I still have my suspicions about that particular poll. Were there really that many knee-jerkers ready to bomb an entire country out of suspicion?

a reply to: ipsedixit

That wasn't getting her out of the way, it was savvy marketing. They tried the same thing with Arthur Kent in the early 90s, till he showed he was a chicken# at heart.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

I guess to answer that is to accept that there is another government in the US that does not get changed out every 4-8 years. They play the long game that democracy does not allow for and neither side of the isle has any control over them.

Give us one name in this other government please.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: MALBOSIA

I guess to answer that is to accept that there is another government in the US that does not get changed out every 4-8 years. They play the long game that democracy does not allow for and neither side of the isle has any control over them.

Give us one name in this other government please.

Ask Bill Clinton....

"Sarah, there’s a government inside the government, and I don’t control it." - Bill Clinton, as quoted by senior White House reporter Sarah McClendon in reply to why he wasn’t doing anything about UFO disclosure.

I am sure your important enough, that he would disclose a name to you because he knows that if YOU don't know the names then it must not be true.

You have to admit, your question is fundamentally... weak snip.