Backup for http://www.iraq-war.ru/article/118149

Two major 9/11 anomalies have been thoroughly documented, specifically:

1) The stand down of US air defense on the morning of 9/11 that permitted commercial jet aircraft to fly erratically and in restricted air space without challenge

2) Overwhelming physical evidence that World Trade Center buildings #1, #2, and #7 were brought down by controlled demolition

A third significant anomaly has not been discussed, let alone acknowledged: the reporting by the major US TV news networks in the first hours few hours immediately after the attacks.

Specifically:

1. MSNBC presented an elaborately detailed story about the lifestyle and anti-US philosophy of Osama bin Laden - while both towers were still burning and long before Bin Laden had been accused by anyone.

2. Fox News featured a "man in the street" eye witness who explained in strangely formal language the science behind why the towers collapsed when most engineers and firemen were utterly baffled and in shock by what had just taken place.

3. CBS featured a Bush administration insider (and not identified as such) as a guest who actively worked to dissuade Dan Rather (and viewers) from speculating that there must have been explosive charges placed in the buildings for them to have collapsed the way they did.

How was it that these stories - based on no fact, no research and no inquirry - appeared in full blown form so quickly on US news networks and then became part of the core myths of what happened on 9/11?

Were these stories prepared in advance?

There's an old intelligence saying that "once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, but three times is enemy action."

Because most of these clips ran only once and were not repeated after they'd done their job, it made it difficult, if not impossible, for viewers to analyze them critically.

Now, thanks to the magic of video tape and a few people who immediately started taping the news after the attacks, we have this important evidence that at the very least these attacks appear to have been anticipated and prepared for by forces that have the ability to exert strong influence over the output of the newsrooms of major US news networks.

Now watch this essential video here [convenient 'witness' says it was "mostly due to structural failure because the fire was just too intense."]

But wait, there's more!

by TerraHertz on 12.02.2007 [00:37 ]

On Sept 12, 2001, the magazine New Scientist published online a lengthy article going to great lengths to dispell any possible discussion about 'remote controled airplanes' being used to impact the towers.

This was months before anyone suggested such a possibility. In fact given the time zones, it was probably posted less than 24 hours after the US event. The article included quotes from 'experts' around the world. Mighty fast writing work! Supposed to have been written by "Catherine Zandonella, San Francisco".

For the original article at www.newscientist.com/hottopics/usterror/usterror.jsp?id=ns99991280, web.archive.org must be used: http://web.archive.org/web/20040603034629/http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/usterror/usterror.jsp?id=ns99991280.

My comments on that article are entitled "When is an Autopilot not an Autopilot?"

Interestingly, some fellow claiming to be an expert in aeronautical systems and autopilots then spent a great deal of time and effort both publicly ridiculing my article, and arguing in email with me. But ... I have a friend who actually worked on these systems, and I'm an electrical engineer. My friend told me something interesting about the physical hardware, that isn't something you'd guess, but "should" have been know to 'Mr Expert'. He did not know that detail, and made assumptions that contradicted it. (I'm keeping the detail to myself, its a great tool for sorting out real experts from fake.) So, he was a paid shill. That someone was going to so much trouble to dispell speculation re the NS article is as interesting as the existence of the article itself.

Discovering that article and its 'shill support', was one of the key details that convinced me 911 was an inside job. There were several others early on. By now of course the mountain of evidence is overwhelming.