New York Times Says ‘Airplanes Took Aim at World Trade Center’ on 9/11 (11)
Yeah, mustang, those towers must have done something really awful to piss off those planes. 
I think the nyt revised their statement to read “Eighteen years have passed since terrorists commandeered airplanes to take aim at the World Trade Center and bring them down.”
Bunch of dorks working for the nyt
I think the nyt revised their statement to read “Eighteen years have passed since terrorists commandeered airplanes to take aim at the World Trade Center and bring them down.”
Bunch of dorks working for the nyt
The NY Times later deleted the Tweet. ...
MustangWriter: Gun Control???? We need aircraft control!!!!
Share:
The far-left New York Times reports it was “airplanes” that took aim at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 — not Islamic terrorists.
No kidding, this is what the New York Times published on Wednesday, the 18th anniversary of that terrible day: “Eighteen years have passed since airplanes took aim at the World Trade Center and brought them down.”
A tweet published by the Times on Wednesday announced the same bombshell: “18 years have passed since airplanes took aim and brought down the World Trade Center.”
Without bothering to retract the extraordinary news nearly 3000 Americans were the victims of airplanes that had suddenly became sentient, the Times deleted the tweet and rewrote the article.
Naturally, the article still withholds holds the crucial information about exactly who the terrorists were: “Eighteen years have passed since terrorists commandeered airplanes to take aim at the World Trade Center and bring them down,” it now reads.
But nowhere in the piece will you read the words “Islam” or even “al Qaeda.”
This is what Orwell called memory-holing, a deliberate act that involves the Powerful rewriting the past by erasing the past, all in the hope of controlling the future.
You can bet that had white supremacists brought down the World Trade Center, “WHITE SUPREMACIST” would appropriately blaze in every headline.
To point out just how dishonest the failing New York Times has chosen to be on this somber anniversary, try to imagine similar coverage on the anniversary of the 2015 massacre in that South Carolina church where a white supremacist murdered nine black Americans in cold blood.
“Five years have passed since a gun took aim in a Charleston, South Carolina Church, and nine people died,” the Times story and tweet would read.
Now let’s apply the Times’ so-called update to the 9/11 article to the Charleston shooting: “Five years have passed since a man used a gun to murder nine black Americans in a Charleston, South Carolina Church.”
We can spend the whole day ridiculing the obscenity that is the New York Times…
“Fifty years have passed since a gun took aim at Martin Luther King…”
“Fifty years have passed since dynamite blew up four little girls in Alabama…”
“Sixty years have passed since Emmett Till was strangled to death by a piece of rope…”
Now let’s use the updated version of the story…
“Fifty years have passed since a man killed Martin Luther King…”
“Fifty years have passed since some men blew up four little girls in Alabama…”
“Sixty years have passed since Emmett Till was lynched by some people…”
How in the world does the New York Times dare to write a story that claims to commemorate the 18th anniversary of a terrorist attack that murdered nearly 3000 people without reporting the WHY, without reporting the MOTIVE, without telling us WHO?
The New York Times is, by any objective journalistic standard, a terrible newspaper, a failed newspaper; or as the Daily Wire’s Andrew Klavan frequently and accurately says, a “former newspaper.”
EM WeaponsShare:
The far-left New York Times reports it was “airplanes” that took aim at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 — not Islamic terrorists.
No kidding, this is what the New York Times published on Wednesday, the 18th anniversary of that terrible day: “Eighteen years have passed since airplanes took aim at the World Trade Center and brought them down.”
A tweet published by the Times on Wednesday announced the same bombshell: “18 years have passed since airplanes took aim and brought down the World Trade Center.”
Without bothering to retract the extraordinary news nearly 3000 Americans were the victims of airplanes that had suddenly became sentient, the Times deleted the tweet and rewrote the article.
Naturally, the article still withholds holds the crucial information about exactly who the terrorists were: “Eighteen years have passed since terrorists commandeered airplanes to take aim at the World Trade Center and bring them down,” it now reads.
But nowhere in the piece will you read the words “Islam” or even “al Qaeda.”
This is what Orwell called memory-holing, a deliberate act that involves the Powerful rewriting the past by erasing the past, all in the hope of controlling the future.
You can bet that had white supremacists brought down the World Trade Center, “WHITE SUPREMACIST” would appropriately blaze in every headline.
To point out just how dishonest the failing New York Times has chosen to be on this somber anniversary, try to imagine similar coverage on the anniversary of the 2015 massacre in that South Carolina church where a white supremacist murdered nine black Americans in cold blood.
“Five years have passed since a gun took aim in a Charleston, South Carolina Church, and nine people died,” the Times story and tweet would read.
Now let’s apply the Times’ so-called update to the 9/11 article to the Charleston shooting: “Five years have passed since a man used a gun to murder nine black Americans in a Charleston, South Carolina Church.”
We can spend the whole day ridiculing the obscenity that is the New York Times…
“Fifty years have passed since a gun took aim at Martin Luther King…”
“Fifty years have passed since dynamite blew up four little girls in Alabama…”
“Sixty years have passed since Emmett Till was strangled to death by a piece of rope…”
Now let’s use the updated version of the story…
“Fifty years have passed since a man killed Martin Luther King…”
“Fifty years have passed since some men blew up four little girls in Alabama…”
“Sixty years have passed since Emmett Till was lynched by some people…”
How in the world does the New York Times dare to write a story that claims to commemorate the 18th anniversary of a terrorist attack that murdered nearly 3000 people without reporting the WHY, without reporting the MOTIVE, without telling us WHO?
The New York Times is, by any objective journalistic standard, a terrible newspaper, a failed newspaper; or as the Daily Wire’s Andrew Klavan frequently and accurately says, a “former newspaper.”
Theories that Directed Electromagnetic Energy Weapons Destroyed the Twin Towers
Directed energy weapons, more commonly known as energy beams, transmit energy between points separated in space without drastic attenuation. The most familiar types of directed energy weapons use electromagnetic (EM) radiation, which is the form of energy including radio waves, visible light, and X-rays. Lasers, masers, and antennas can be used to generate beams of EM radiation.
Because of the wave nature of EM radiation, it can be directed with a precision that is proportional to its frequency, and it can be superimposed such that multiple signals cancel out in some areas and add together in others -- phenomena known as destructive and constructive interference.
One directed energy weapon theory of the Twin Towers destruction postulates that powerful microwave antennas or masers in the basements of the Towers generated multiple upward-directed microwave beams. The phases and frequencies of the superimposed beams were carefully controlled to produce a region of strong constructive interference, originating around the crash zone, then moving down the Tower at about the rate the debris was falling. A version of this theory, which might be dubbed the "coaxial beam microwave interferometry theory" is described in some detail in the interview with Jim Hoffman entitled Your Eyes Don't Lie: Common Sense, Physics, and the World Trade Center Collapses. Hoffman has since rejected this theory for reasons described below.
Problems With EM Weapons Theories
There are at least three serious problems with any theory that EM weapons were used to destroy the Twin Towers.
The electromagnetic energy beam would have to have emanated from some source. What was the source, and how did it escape notice?
The weapon would have needed to possess an extremely high-powered energy supply. What was that supply, and how did it escape notice?
The weapon would have needed to direct the energy into regions within the Towers and move that locus down to produce the descending pattern of destruction observed in each Tower. How could such a weapon deliver energy to such zones without producing visible disturbances to objects in the beam's path?
The coaxial beam microwave interferometry theory postulates that the energy source was some ultra-high-powered maser or antenna in the foundation of each Tower, that the energy supply was electricity piped in via fat copper or superconducting cable from a distant location, and that the energy was delivered to a limited and time-varied zone of each Tower through interferometry. Leaving aside the matter of how so much electrical energy could be stored and/or transported to the site, and how a maser or antenna could be engineered to produce such high-energy multiple directed microwave beams, we see a number of problems with the idea that the energy could have been delivered to the zone of destruction through interferometry.
Each floor slab of the Towers consisted of concrete poured onto corrugated steel pans. Steel is electrically conductive, and therefore affects the propagation of electromagnetic waves -- the "Faraday cage effect." It is difficult to imagine that EM beams with the wavelengths required by this theory to produce controlled zones of constructive and destructive interference (radio or microwave) could have passed through so many floor pans without being blocked or severely attenuated.
The production of a slow-moving zone of constructive interference depends on the individual beams being standing waves. But it is difficult to imagine how an antenna or maser could be modified to produce standing waves, rather than waves propagating at the speed of light.
One directed energy weapon theory of the Twin Towers destruction postulates that powerful microwave antennas or masers in the basements of the Towers generated multiple upward-directed microwave beams. The phases and frequencies of the superimposed beams were carefully controlled to produce a region of strong constructive interference, originating around the crash zone, then moving down the Tower at about the rate the debris was falling. A version of this theory, which might be dubbed the "coaxial beam microwave interferometry theory" is described in some detail in the interview with Jim Hoffman entitled Your Eyes Don't Lie: Common Sense, Physics, and the World Trade Center Collapses. Hoffman has since rejected this theory for reasons described below.
Problems With EM Weapons Theories
There are at least three serious problems with any theory that EM weapons were used to destroy the Twin Towers.
The electromagnetic energy beam would have to have emanated from some source. What was the source, and how did it escape notice?
The weapon would have needed to possess an extremely high-powered energy supply. What was that supply, and how did it escape notice?
The weapon would have needed to direct the energy into regions within the Towers and move that locus down to produce the descending pattern of destruction observed in each Tower. How could such a weapon deliver energy to such zones without producing visible disturbances to objects in the beam's path?
The coaxial beam microwave interferometry theory postulates that the energy source was some ultra-high-powered maser or antenna in the foundation of each Tower, that the energy supply was electricity piped in via fat copper or superconducting cable from a distant location, and that the energy was delivered to a limited and time-varied zone of each Tower through interferometry. Leaving aside the matter of how so much electrical energy could be stored and/or transported to the site, and how a maser or antenna could be engineered to produce such high-energy multiple directed microwave beams, we see a number of problems with the idea that the energy could have been delivered to the zone of destruction through interferometry.
Each floor slab of the Towers consisted of concrete poured onto corrugated steel pans. Steel is electrically conductive, and therefore affects the propagation of electromagnetic waves -- the "Faraday cage effect." It is difficult to imagine that EM beams with the wavelengths required by this theory to produce controlled zones of constructive and destructive interference (radio or microwave) could have passed through so many floor pans without being blocked or severely attenuated.
The production of a slow-moving zone of constructive interference depends on the individual beams being standing waves. But it is difficult to imagine how an antenna or maser could be modified to produce standing waves, rather than waves propagating at the speed of light.
needyoubyfastway: Because of the wave nature of EM radiation, it can be directed with a precision that is proportional to its frequency, and it can be superimposed such that multiple signals cancel out in some areas and add together in others -- phenomena known as destructive and constructive interference.
One directed energy weapon theory of the Twin Towers destruction postulates that powerful microwave antennas or masers in the basements of the Towers generated multiple upward-directed microwave beams. The phases and frequencies of the superimposed beams were carefully controlled to produce a region of strong constructive interference, originating around the crash zone, then moving down the Tower at about the rate the debris was falling. A version of this theory, which might be dubbed the "coaxial beam microwave interferometry theory" is described in some detail in the interview with Jim Hoffman entitled Your Eyes Don't Lie: Common Sense, Physics, and the World Trade Center Collapses. Hoffman has since rejected this theory for reasons described below.
Problems With EM Weapons Theories
There are at least three serious problems with any theory that EM weapons were used to destroy the Twin Towers.
The electromagnetic energy beam would have to have emanated from some source. What was the source, and how did it escape notice?
The weapon would have needed to possess an extremely high-powered energy supply. What was that supply, and how did it escape notice?
The weapon would have needed to direct the energy into regions within the Towers and move that locus down to produce the descending pattern of destruction observed in each Tower. How could such a weapon deliver energy to such zones without producing visible disturbances to objects in the beam's path?
The coaxial beam microwave interferometry theory postulates that the energy source was some ultra-high-powered maser or antenna in the foundation of each Tower, that the energy supply was electricity piped in via fat copper or superconducting cable from a distant location, and that the energy was delivered to a limited and time-varied zone of each Tower through interferometry. Leaving aside the matter of how so much electrical energy could be stored and/or transported to the site, and how a maser or antenna could be engineered to produce such high-energy multiple directed microwave beams, we see a number of problems with the idea that the energy could have been delivered to the zone of destruction through interferometry.
Each floor slab of the Towers consisted of concrete poured onto corrugated steel pans. Steel is electrically conductive, and therefore affects the propagation of electromagnetic waves -- the "Faraday cage effect." It is difficult to imagine that EM beams with the wavelengths required by this theory to produce controlled zones of constructive and destructive interference (radio or microwave) could have passed through so many floor pans without being blocked or severely attenuated.
The production of a slow-moving zone of constructive interference depends on the individual beams being standing waves. But it is difficult to imagine how an antenna or maser could be modified to produce standing waves, rather than waves propagating at the speed of light.
One directed energy weapon theory of the Twin Towers destruction postulates that powerful microwave antennas or masers in the basements of the Towers generated multiple upward-directed microwave beams. The phases and frequencies of the superimposed beams were carefully controlled to produce a region of strong constructive interference, originating around the crash zone, then moving down the Tower at about the rate the debris was falling. A version of this theory, which might be dubbed the "coaxial beam microwave interferometry theory" is described in some detail in the interview with Jim Hoffman entitled Your Eyes Don't Lie: Common Sense, Physics, and the World Trade Center Collapses. Hoffman has since rejected this theory for reasons described below.
Problems With EM Weapons Theories
There are at least three serious problems with any theory that EM weapons were used to destroy the Twin Towers.
The electromagnetic energy beam would have to have emanated from some source. What was the source, and how did it escape notice?
The weapon would have needed to possess an extremely high-powered energy supply. What was that supply, and how did it escape notice?
The weapon would have needed to direct the energy into regions within the Towers and move that locus down to produce the descending pattern of destruction observed in each Tower. How could such a weapon deliver energy to such zones without producing visible disturbances to objects in the beam's path?
The coaxial beam microwave interferometry theory postulates that the energy source was some ultra-high-powered maser or antenna in the foundation of each Tower, that the energy supply was electricity piped in via fat copper or superconducting cable from a distant location, and that the energy was delivered to a limited and time-varied zone of each Tower through interferometry. Leaving aside the matter of how so much electrical energy could be stored and/or transported to the site, and how a maser or antenna could be engineered to produce such high-energy multiple directed microwave beams, we see a number of problems with the idea that the energy could have been delivered to the zone of destruction through interferometry.
Each floor slab of the Towers consisted of concrete poured onto corrugated steel pans. Steel is electrically conductive, and therefore affects the propagation of electromagnetic waves -- the "Faraday cage effect." It is difficult to imagine that EM beams with the wavelengths required by this theory to produce controlled zones of constructive and destructive interference (radio or microwave) could have passed through so many floor pans without being blocked or severely attenuated.
The production of a slow-moving zone of constructive interference depends on the individual beams being standing waves. But it is difficult to imagine how an antenna or maser could be modified to produce standing waves, rather than waves propagating at the speed of light.
needyoubyfastway: Because of the wave nature of EM radiation, it can be directed with a precision that is proportional to its frequency, and it can be superimposed such that multiple signals cancel out in some areas and add together in others -- phenomena known as destructive and constructive interference.
One directed energy weapon theory of the Twin Towers destruction postulates that powerful microwave antennas or masers in the basements of the Towers generated multiple upward-directed microwave beams. The phases and frequencies of the superimposed beams were carefully controlled to produce a region of strong constructive interference, originating around the crash zone, then moving down the Tower at about the rate the debris was falling. A version of this theory, which might be dubbed the "coaxial beam microwave interferometry theory" is described in some detail in the interview with Jim Hoffman entitled Your Eyes Don't Lie: Common Sense, Physics, and the World Trade Center Collapses. Hoffman has since rejected this theory for reasons described below.
Problems With EM Weapons Theories
There are at least three serious problems with any theory that EM weapons were used to destroy the Twin Towers.
The electromagnetic energy beam would have to have emanated from some source. What was the source, and how did it escape notice?
The weapon would have needed to possess an extremely high-powered energy supply. What was that supply, and how did it escape notice?
The weapon would have needed to direct the energy into regions within the Towers and move that locus down to produce the descending pattern of destruction observed in each Tower. How could such a weapon deliver energy to such zones without producing visible disturbances to objects in the beam's path?
The coaxial beam microwave interferometry theory postulates that the energy source was some ultra-high-powered maser or antenna in the foundation of each Tower, that the energy supply was electricity piped in via fat copper or superconducting cable from a distant location, and that the energy was delivered to a limited and time-varied zone of each Tower through interferometry. Leaving aside the matter of how so much electrical energy could be stored and/or transported to the site, and how a maser or antenna could be engineered to produce such high-energy multiple directed microwave beams, we see a number of problems with the idea that the energy could have been delivered to the zone of destruction through interferometry.
Each floor slab of the Towers consisted of concrete poured onto corrugated steel pans. Steel is electrically conductive, and therefore affects the propagation of electromagnetic waves -- the "Faraday cage effect." It is difficult to imagine that EM beams with the wavelengths required by this theory to produce controlled zones of constructive and destructive interference (radio or microwave) could have passed through so many floor pans without being blocked or severely attenuated.
The production of a slow-moving zone of constructive interference depends on the individual beams being standing waves. But it is difficult to imagine how an antenna or maser could be modified to produce standing waves, rather than waves propagating at the speed of light.
a bush n gang hit by his VP,etc.they let our guard down/wake up usa.One directed energy weapon theory of the Twin Towers destruction postulates that powerful microwave antennas or masers in the basements of the Towers generated multiple upward-directed microwave beams. The phases and frequencies of the superimposed beams were carefully controlled to produce a region of strong constructive interference, originating around the crash zone, then moving down the Tower at about the rate the debris was falling. A version of this theory, which might be dubbed the "coaxial beam microwave interferometry theory" is described in some detail in the interview with Jim Hoffman entitled Your Eyes Don't Lie: Common Sense, Physics, and the World Trade Center Collapses. Hoffman has since rejected this theory for reasons described below.
Problems With EM Weapons Theories
There are at least three serious problems with any theory that EM weapons were used to destroy the Twin Towers.
The electromagnetic energy beam would have to have emanated from some source. What was the source, and how did it escape notice?
The weapon would have needed to possess an extremely high-powered energy supply. What was that supply, and how did it escape notice?
The weapon would have needed to direct the energy into regions within the Towers and move that locus down to produce the descending pattern of destruction observed in each Tower. How could such a weapon deliver energy to such zones without producing visible disturbances to objects in the beam's path?
The coaxial beam microwave interferometry theory postulates that the energy source was some ultra-high-powered maser or antenna in the foundation of each Tower, that the energy supply was electricity piped in via fat copper or superconducting cable from a distant location, and that the energy was delivered to a limited and time-varied zone of each Tower through interferometry. Leaving aside the matter of how so much electrical energy could be stored and/or transported to the site, and how a maser or antenna could be engineered to produce such high-energy multiple directed microwave beams, we see a number of problems with the idea that the energy could have been delivered to the zone of destruction through interferometry.
Each floor slab of the Towers consisted of concrete poured onto corrugated steel pans. Steel is electrically conductive, and therefore affects the propagation of electromagnetic waves -- the "Faraday cage effect." It is difficult to imagine that EM beams with the wavelengths required by this theory to produce controlled zones of constructive and destructive interference (radio or microwave) could have passed through so many floor pans without being blocked or severely attenuated.
The production of a slow-moving zone of constructive interference depends on the individual beams being standing waves. But it is difficult to imagine how an antenna or maser could be modified to produce standing waves, rather than waves propagating at the speed of light.
in Case You Missed It
As in Septembers past, media reflection, including coverage by The Real News, does not include any discussion of what actually happened on September 11, 2001. In New York City, where the main event took place, three skyscrapers fell down because two got hit by airplanes. Over two thousand people were inside the tallest of the buildings when they were reduced to dust about an hour after the initial impacts. The third building, half a block away and not penetrated by an airplane, fell down hours later with nobody inside. If that strikes you as a reason for further investigation, you're not alone, but you wouldn't know that if you rely on the mass media for news. According to one item of unreported news, a little more than half of a polling sample watching video of the collapse of that third building thought it was intentionally demolished and not the result of fire, as our government maintains. Three thousand architects and engineers have organized to correct the government's account, but news-mongers refuse to acknowledge them.
Also absent from today's anniversary observances is any mention of the lawsuit now pending in federal court to force the FBI to reinvestigate the events of that day. The lawsuit demands a decree requiring the FBI to comply with a legal mandate that it assess any evidence not considered by the official 9/11 inquiry, specifically, evidence that World Trade Center buildings one, two and seven were brought down by explosive demolition. Witnesses' reports of explosions in the buildings before their collapse, along with evidence of incendiaries and explosives in the dust afterwards, were never properly investigated, as the complaint explicitly charges.
Another item censored out of today's news is the release of a report by a team of scientists at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, demonstrating that the third building to fall down in New York could not have collapsed because of fire. The authors, including the chairman of the university's civil engineering department, have invited the public to comment on the report. They may be overly optimistic in their expectation that the public will ever find out that the report exists.
Don't look here for any news updates on the status of a federal grand jury that was supposed to have been assembled to initiate a formal investigation of the events of September 11. The authors of a demand on the U. S. Attorney for New York City have petitioned the federal district court there to issue a writ of mandamus ordering the federal prosecutor to report whether he's actually convened a grand jury in compliance with their demand. Law buffs might like to hear from such a grand jury just how and why so much of the physical evidence of the buildings' failure could have been removed so promptly and completely from the crime scene. News-mongers seem disinclined to ask.
Instead of information on any of these events or the mysteries they address, we news-consumers must be content with tearful memorials, interspersed with spates of Arab-bashing, all accompanied by thoughts and prayers for the departed and their survivors.
MustangWriter: Gun Control???? We need aircraft control!!!!
Share:
The far-left New York Times reports it was “airplanes” that took aim at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 — not Islamic terrorists.
No kidding, this is what the New York Times published on Wednesday, the 18th anniversary of that terrible day: “Eighteen years have passed since airplanes took aim at the World Trade Center and brought them down.”
A tweet published by the Times on Wednesday announced the same bombshell: “18 years have passed since airplanes took aim and brought down the World Trade Center.”
Without bothering to retract the extraordinary news nearly 3000 Americans were the victims of airplanes that had suddenly became sentient, the Times deleted the tweet and rewrote the article.
Naturally, the article still withholds holds the crucial information about exactly who the terrorists were: “Eighteen years have passed since terrorists commandeered airplanes to take aim at the World Trade Center and bring them down,” it now reads.
But nowhere in the piece will you read the words “Islam” or even “al Qaeda.”
This is what Orwell called memory-holing, a deliberate act that involves the Powerful rewriting the past by erasing the past, all in the hope of controlling the future.
You can bet that had white supremacists brought down the World Trade Center, “WHITE SUPREMACIST” would appropriately blaze in every headline.
To point out just how dishonest the failing New York Times has chosen to be on this somber anniversary, try to imagine similar coverage on the anniversary of the 2015 massacre in that South Carolina church where a white supremacist murdered nine black Americans in cold blood.
“Five years have passed since a gun took aim in a Charleston, South Carolina Church, and nine people died,” the Times story and tweet would read.
Now let’s apply the Times’ so-called update to the 9/11 article to the Charleston shooting: “Five years have passed since a man used a gun to murder nine black Americans in a Charleston, South Carolina Church.”
We can spend the whole day ridiculing the obscenity that is the New York Times…
“Fifty years have passed since a gun took aim at Martin Luther King…”
“Fifty years have passed since dynamite blew up four little girls in Alabama…”
“Sixty years have passed since Emmett Till was strangled to death by a piece of rope…”
Now let’s use the updated version of the story…
“Fifty years have passed since a man killed Martin Luther King…”
“Fifty years have passed since some men blew up four little girls in Alabama…”
“Sixty years have passed since Emmett Till was lynched by some people…”
How in the world does the New York Times dare to write a story that claims to commemorate the 18th anniversary of a terrorist attack that murdered nearly 3000 people without reporting the WHY, without reporting the MOTIVE, without telling us WHO?
The New York Times is, by any objective journalistic standard, a terrible newspaper, a failed newspaper; or as the Daily Wire’s Andrew Klavan frequently and accurately says, a “former newspaper.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftncKDv4JMsShare:
The far-left New York Times reports it was “airplanes” that took aim at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 — not Islamic terrorists.
No kidding, this is what the New York Times published on Wednesday, the 18th anniversary of that terrible day: “Eighteen years have passed since airplanes took aim at the World Trade Center and brought them down.”
A tweet published by the Times on Wednesday announced the same bombshell: “18 years have passed since airplanes took aim and brought down the World Trade Center.”
Without bothering to retract the extraordinary news nearly 3000 Americans were the victims of airplanes that had suddenly became sentient, the Times deleted the tweet and rewrote the article.
Naturally, the article still withholds holds the crucial information about exactly who the terrorists were: “Eighteen years have passed since terrorists commandeered airplanes to take aim at the World Trade Center and bring them down,” it now reads.
But nowhere in the piece will you read the words “Islam” or even “al Qaeda.”
This is what Orwell called memory-holing, a deliberate act that involves the Powerful rewriting the past by erasing the past, all in the hope of controlling the future.
You can bet that had white supremacists brought down the World Trade Center, “WHITE SUPREMACIST” would appropriately blaze in every headline.
To point out just how dishonest the failing New York Times has chosen to be on this somber anniversary, try to imagine similar coverage on the anniversary of the 2015 massacre in that South Carolina church where a white supremacist murdered nine black Americans in cold blood.
“Five years have passed since a gun took aim in a Charleston, South Carolina Church, and nine people died,” the Times story and tweet would read.
Now let’s apply the Times’ so-called update to the 9/11 article to the Charleston shooting: “Five years have passed since a man used a gun to murder nine black Americans in a Charleston, South Carolina Church.”
We can spend the whole day ridiculing the obscenity that is the New York Times…
“Fifty years have passed since a gun took aim at Martin Luther King…”
“Fifty years have passed since dynamite blew up four little girls in Alabama…”
“Sixty years have passed since Emmett Till was strangled to death by a piece of rope…”
Now let’s use the updated version of the story…
“Fifty years have passed since a man killed Martin Luther King…”
“Fifty years have passed since some men blew up four little girls in Alabama…”
“Sixty years have passed since Emmett Till was lynched by some people…”
How in the world does the New York Times dare to write a story that claims to commemorate the 18th anniversary of a terrorist attack that murdered nearly 3000 people without reporting the WHY, without reporting the MOTIVE, without telling us WHO?
The New York Times is, by any objective journalistic standard, a terrible newspaper, a failed newspaper; or as the Daily Wire’s Andrew Klavan frequently and accurately says, a “former newspaper.”
A new theory put forward by Norwegian engineers claims that a furious chemical reaction was responsible for the collapse of the twin towers following the September 11 terrorist attacks. The theory suggest superheated molten aluminum from the plane fuselages reacted with water from the buildings sprinklers resulting in a devastating series of explosions.
More Threads
Karen McDougal - Playmate Model will testify in Hush Money Trial
s*xual skills
Gal / sdarlagg passed away on April 10, 2024
Unions support Democrats!
The GOP Representatives owned by Vladimir Putin
The weird and the random facts around the world
your favorite topic?
Democrats destroyed America
the way you look
Kultur-multur
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
Stats for this Thread
351 Views
10 Comments
in USA Forums
Created: Sep 2019
Last Viewed: 11 hrs ago
Last Commented: Sep 2019
2 Likes
Last Liked: Sep 2019
Related Forums
- Karen McDougal - Playmate Model will testify in Hush Money Trial
- s*xual skills
- Gal / sdarlagg passed away on April 10, 2024
- Unions support Democrats!
- The GOP Representatives owned by Vladimir Putin
- The weird and the random facts around the world
- your favorite topic?
- Democrats destroyed America
- the way you look
- Kultur-multur
Share:
The far-left New York Times reports it was “airplanes” that took aim at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 — not Islamic terrorists.
No kidding, this is what the New York Times published on Wednesday, the 18th anniversary of that terrible day: “Eighteen years have passed since airplanes took aim at the World Trade Center and brought them down.”
A tweet published by the Times on Wednesday announced the same bombshell: “18 years have passed since airplanes took aim and brought down the World Trade Center.”
Without bothering to retract the extraordinary news nearly 3000 Americans were the victims of airplanes that had suddenly became sentient, the Times deleted the tweet and rewrote the article.
Naturally, the article still withholds holds the crucial information about exactly who the terrorists were: “Eighteen years have passed since terrorists commandeered airplanes to take aim at the World Trade Center and bring them down,” it now reads.
But nowhere in the piece will you read the words “Islam” or even “al Qaeda.”
This is what Orwell called memory-holing, a deliberate act that involves the Powerful rewriting the past by erasing the past, all in the hope of controlling the future.
You can bet that had white supremacists brought down the World Trade Center, “WHITE SUPREMACIST” would appropriately blaze in every headline.
To point out just how dishonest the failing New York Times has chosen to be on this somber anniversary, try to imagine similar coverage on the anniversary of the 2015 massacre in that South Carolina church where a white supremacist murdered nine black Americans in cold blood.
“Five years have passed since a gun took aim in a Charleston, South Carolina Church, and nine people died,” the Times story and tweet would read.
Now let’s apply the Times’ so-called update to the 9/11 article to the Charleston shooting: “Five years have passed since a man used a gun to murder nine black Americans in a Charleston, South Carolina Church.”
We can spend the whole day ridiculing the obscenity that is the New York Times…
“Fifty years have passed since a gun took aim at Martin Luther King…”
“Fifty years have passed since dynamite blew up four little girls in Alabama…”
“Sixty years have passed since Emmett Till was strangled to death by a piece of rope…”
Now let’s use the updated version of the story…
“Fifty years have passed since a man killed Martin Luther King…”
“Fifty years have passed since some men blew up four little girls in Alabama…”
“Sixty years have passed since Emmett Till was lynched by some people…”
How in the world does the New York Times dare to write a story that claims to commemorate the 18th anniversary of a terrorist attack that murdered nearly 3000 people without reporting the WHY, without reporting the MOTIVE, without telling us WHO?
The New York Times is, by any objective journalistic standard, a terrible newspaper, a failed newspaper; or as the Daily Wire’s Andrew Klavan frequently and accurately says, a “former newspaper.”