Why has Indymedia allowed the Bush administration and US Intelligence agencies to shape the story exactly as they please with hardly any resistance, even though there are gaping holes in the official story?
Not only has the FBI admitted to finding not one piece of hard evidence, but there is a significant amount of evidence pointing elsewhere.
This is the result of starting an investigation with the culprit already decided. You cannot find evidence against them, and you ignore the evidence that points elsewhere. It is high time to demand an investigation.
Even with people like Michael Moore and Mike Ruppert talking to overflowing crowds around the country as they ask the hard questions, Indymedia has ignored the story. . .Even when a Congresswoman publically demands an investigation, not only into 911, but also names Bush and Cheney as people that should be investigated, which is an inspiring act of courage in these times, and still the story is ignored by Indymedia. Even Atlanta Indymedia in Congresswoman McKinneys home state has said nothing.
This is an unbelievable failure for an organization that talks about speaking truth to power.
Is Indymedia afraid to challenge this bullshit story? There is a strong racism regarding Arabs and Muslims in this country. When you say terrorist, people almost automatically think Arab. Perhaps Indymedia has also fallen prey to this bias? It is confusing really.
Here is the story that is the backbone of the current "war on terrorism"; the story that has allowed the US to openly talk of attacking and dominating numerous countries; the story that has created an atmosphere making the US sponsored war in Colombia more acceptable to the public and Congress; political coups more likely (Venezuela); the story that has allowed the US and other governments to strip citizens of their rights, impose harsh new laws, and introduce emergency laws declaring martial law and involuntary conscription at any time. This story that has opened the door for a major advance of world fascism has remained mostly unchallenged - and this when there is alot of credible evidence that the story is false and the truth of what happened and how remains hidden and wthout any serious investigation.
This is an investigative journalists dream. . .the story of a lifetime. . .and a golden opportunity to strike a blow for truth and justice.
The commercial media has seemingly assisted the government to convince the US citizens of the FBI explanation of what happened, and has not bothered to question even obvious and glaring contradictions in the official story. This is not surprising to me that this has happened. One can almost say that it is their job to do so.
What really is surprising, and very disappointing, is that Indymedia has hardly done any better. A few sites have had some coverage, but the rest not a peep. On a few sites, indymedia people themselves have come out and called inquiry into what happened "conspiracy theory" and summarily dismissed such investigation as a waste of time, even though the official story is so much smoke.
Indymedia is dropping the ball big time on the one of the most important stories of our times.
|
There's a lot of conspiracy theory flowing on the IMC newswires. I mean real, unfounded, conspiracy theory. Stuff that has not a single shred of evidence but "proves" it's point by saying "can you prove me wrong?". Stuff mentioning the ZOG in other words, the evil left-wing "Illuminati", or even communist conspiracies involving the UN. Extreme right-wing conspiracy crap, basically. Certainly, corporate media lies and governments lie, but that doesn't make any alternative narrative automatically "true". And these alternative narratives also tend to contradict eachother.
Given this, it shouldn't be surprising that a lot of IMC volunteers have been a tad skeptical to the "questioning 9-11" stuff. There are several "investigating" websites, some which also have a link collection to holocaust revisionism etc. It takes a while to find the serious investigation, like Mike Rupperts website, and even longer to read through the evidence and credentials and discover that there actually are some solid facts at the bottom of this.
What I'm saying is that IMC skepticism on this issue has been founded, but that IMC still has worked as a distribution network for info on it - good and bad. If you want to convince more editorial volunteers this is worth looking into; you'll need to be carefull pointing out your sources and that there are sources who have a strong reputation for critical journalism, and who are not right-wing nutcases.
I certainly hope you'll succeed in raising the demand of a thorough and serious investigation. Even if the explanation for foreknowledge and refusal to act is simply gross incompetence, that certainly should cost the heads of some govt. agency leaders and the administration.