04 May
September 11, 2001 attacks in New York City: V...

Image via Wikipedia

Recent occurrences have made it necessary to revisit what exactly happened on September the 11th 2001. The media along with a number of sources played a massive role in how the world viewed the incident, and certain reactions were provoked because of this event.

On the morning of that fateful day, the basic story we are told is that 19 Al-Quaeda terrorists, directed by Osama Bin Laden, hijacked 4 commercial aeroplanes, crashing two of them into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, one into the pentagon (which vaporised on impact), and the final plane crashed in Shanksville – failing to reach its intended target. An estimated 3000 people were killed on the day.

As a result of this incident the US government, spear headed by President Bush, launched a “war on terrorism”.

A number of interesting things started happening once this war was declared. Bush eagerly signed the “USA PATRIOT ACT”, which unlike other acts was not read through, argued and scrutinised; it was rushed through the senate because of the sudden need to crack down on terrorism. The obvious question, what exactly does this act enable the American government to do?

The act stands for United and Strengthening America by Providng Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT), I know, who comes up with this stuff right? This act severely reduced restrictions on law enforcement agencies, such as the CIA and FBI, and gave them the ability to listen to telephone conversations and email communications; access to medical and financial records; also authority to regulate financial transactions involving foreign and domestic individuals or companies.

Basically, this act allows the American government to “legally” monitor and control every aspect of the lives of Americans, in the name of protecting their citizens from terrorism.

If you think about it its all really quite clever. Prior to the act its not as if they couldn’t pry into peoples lives; but at the time it all had to be hidden and done in secret. None of the information could be used as evidence in court because it was illegally obtained. Needless to say, this so called war on terrorism granted certain people an immense amount of power, and we are left to trust that these people are only trying to offer protection. A protection that is offered, whether you like it, or not.

A more interesting question to ask at this point would be how much did the US government make spend in an effort to capture Bin Laden?

It took 3,519 days since September 11, 2001 for Osama Bin Laden to be killed, and in that time the US government has spent over $1.28 trillion. The exact total figure for the period is unknown, but what we do know is that according to a Congressional Research Service Report done on the 29th of March 2011, Congress has approved a total of $1.28 trillion for “military operations, base security, reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs and veterans health care for the three operations initiated since the 9/11 attacks”, namely Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) in Afghanistan; Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) in Iraq; and Operation Noble Eagle (ONE), providing enhanced security to military bases.

The specific breakdown is as follows:

$806 billion – Iraq

$444 billion – Afghanistan

$29 billion – enhanced security

$6 billion – “unallocated items”

These are only the expenditures that “we know” about. Oh and lets not forget the money being spent on “Operations and Maintainance” which went from $42 billion in 2004 to $79 billion in 2008.

Where does all this money come from? It comes from the pockets of the man on the street in the form of taxes.

Obama’s administration earlier this year had a meeting behind closed doors to obtain “emergency war funding” of $120 billion, and this is stated to be a ‘best case scenario’ as it does not include funding for the continued war in Iraq.

Evidently, a “war on terrorism” has proved to be quite a profitable venture for the US government.

Well talk a little more about motives as the series progresses; for now this will suffice.  Lets ask a few questions about the 9/11 incident itself:


A year prior to the attack the US military practiced defensive responses to planes being used as weapons against the World Trade Center, suicide crash bombings and an assault on the Pentagon.  Was this a regular training exercise? Or was this a rehearsal for an upcoming plan?

Why did the US air defence system fail to follow standard protocol for responding to passenger flights that have diverted?

Several US defence agencies were said to have been using real planes while conducting terror drills and war games on the morning of 9/11. One of the drills included placing “false radar blips” on the screens of air traffic controllers, and this was one of the reasons why it was not noticed that the commercial airlines had flown off course. *Raised eyebrow *, why did the media not focus any attention on such an important aspect of that day? Clearly these ‘war games’ created a level of confusion about whether or not the hijacked planes were for real or part of the exercise; is this a coincidence or were the war games a cover up for the air strike?

Why did the head of a national demolition association state that the collapse of the towers looked like a “classic controlled demolition”?

Building 7 of the world trade center was not hit by any of the planes, but why did it collapse at the exact same speed as the towers that were hit by the planes?


Why did eyewitnesses testify that they heard explosions “below” the area hit by the planes?

Why did some eyewitnesses say they heard an explosion occur “just before” the plane hit the building?

According to two first responders and an unnamed NTSB official, the black boxes were found at ground zero, but they were immedieately confiscated by government officials. Where are these black boxes that show what happened on the planes, and why have they not been released to the public?

Why did it take ‘442 days’ to write a commission report of what happened on 9/11?

Why is there no record of the black boxes in the 9/11 commission report?

There are many more questions to be asked, but this should be enough to get you thinking and researching.

When we start to probe deeper, we begin to see the role the media plays in painting a one sided picture of events; subtly mentioning but refusing to focus on certain crucial attributes that had significant effects on the outcome of things.

It would be a fair question to ask “why would the government create such an elaborate plan that involves wars and the loss of so many lives”?

“History” smiles knowingly as you ask the question. Quite frankly, the government does not care about the lives of its citizens. A commander of an army knows that people are like any other dispensable resource, and when you view them that way, that is how you gain power and conquer nations. Lives will be lost along the way, but the end justifies the means.

The battle for power is a timeless expedition in our civilization. In a generation of CD’s, DVD’s and High Definition TV’s; you have to know how to win a battle on the big screen.

Click Here To Read More Of The MURDER BY MEDIA Series

Posted by on May 4, 2011 in THOUGHTS


Tags: , , , , , , ,

8 responses to “MURDER BY MEDIA 4: A CLOSER LOOK AT 9/11

  1. Duncan

    May 4, 2011 at 2:49 pm

    It’s been an interesting debate since 9/11 over whether or not it was organised by the government etc. I doubt whether or not we will ever know 100% for certain what happened, but suffice to say there are equally persuasive arguments to the contrary of all the conspiracy theories (and that is not meant to be a derogatory term) – such as which “debunks” many of them.

    I suppose my point is that either side could be true, who knows!


      May 4, 2011 at 3:17 pm

      True say we can never know 100% the details of what happened. But we can compare both arguements in order to find out the truth.

      As you say either side could be true. Which is all the more reason for us to be suspicious, because the media chose to focus on “one side” of the story, and virtually neglected to mention the possibility that the American government was involved.

      Clearly, the media chose a very specific side, and they stuck to it regardless of any contrary evidence.

      I put it to you, what do you think would happen if the news all over the world wasnt “Osama is dead”, but instead was “Did Obama fake Osamas death?”.

      Its one of two things. Either the media is being intimidated. Or the media is in on the plot.

      • Duncan

        May 4, 2011 at 4:53 pm

        Oh absolutely, I agree with you! Part of the media definitely took one side or the other and stuck to it, but there were also many reports of the conspiracy theories – but I agree, the “official” story was more widely reported.

        I suppose I would say that I see the media’s job to report what appears to be happening, then to question it or comment on it. So with the bin Laden murder, they report that he has been killed, then in the days following go over the alternative angles.

        I’m not sure I agree that it is an either or situation with being in on the plot or being intimidated – I think there can certainly be a bit of the former – but I would suggest that there is less of the latter, simply because there are plenty of examples of the media going against the grain and reporting that governments have got it wrong.


    May 4, 2011 at 7:41 pm

    The general belief is that the media reports what appears to be happening, like you have said.

    The whole idea of this series to look look at the less obvious side of the media. A side that deliberately leads people to believe certain things and think a certain way.

    The media “needs” to present itself as being the objective neutral party in any scenario, otherwise too many people would question its credibility.

    A much smarter method, is to present both sides, but gently lean towards one end of the spectrum. Which makes it look more likely that they are supporting the truth.

    As the series continues we will look more at the methods that the media uses to deceive, and how it works hand in hand with a much bigger agenda.

    More to come.

    • Duncan

      May 4, 2011 at 7:48 pm

      I look forward to the rest of the series! I just think that maybe your points are towards the 90-100% area of the spectrum, when they would perhaps carry more weight if they were more towards the 60-70% area (in my opinion). Otherwise you run the risk of sounding like David Icke! But I suppose blog posts are meant to provoke reaction by coming down firmly on one side of the fence.

      Anyway, I’m enjoying the articles though, I’ll be reading the next installment with interest.

  3. Pingback: nuclear war 2011
  4. Blithering Idiotted

    May 31, 2011 at 4:29 am

    That is a super-peachy-keen post. Thanks for really blathering on like that! Seriously, I don’t think I could have spent more effort wishing for something heavy to fall on me to erase that nonsense from my mind!

  5. Body Language

    May 31, 2011 at 10:09 pm

    I’m impressed! Your article has really made me think. I think I will post about your blog.

    Thank you.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: