Readers Demand New York Newsday Give A Fair Hearing To 9/11 Skepticism
Readers demand New York Newsday give a fair hearing to 9/11 skepticism!
Your letter to letters@newsday.com can help tip the balance!
Read on... and forward freely!
QUOTES
"Your article would have been much more beneficial to your readers if it had examined the specific reasons that many ordinary, respectable people have questions about the cause and motives behind the tragedy."
- Ellis Baumel, Newsday reader, Nov 10
"It seems to me that we really haven't a choice in believing or disbelieving '9/11 conspiracy theories' in general, but rather which conspiracy theory to believe, including the 'official' conspiracy promulgated by the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission. Indeed, there was a conspiracy. I've yet to meet anyone who proposes that all four planes hijacked themselves that morning... I'm sorry to say the official version is presented to us by a most dubious source..."
- Dave Mc Laughlin, Newsday reader, Nov 9
Nov. 11, 2005:
Dear friends of truth and justice for the September crimes,
An enormous opportunity for the 9/11 skeptics' community to gain a fair hearing and a voice in a major daily paper may be within grasp!
Please take 10 minutes time to write a letter to New York Newsday today, urging them:
1) To fairly cover why people reject the official story (the "official conspiracy theory") of the Sept. 11 attacks, and to fairly detail the evidence of US government facilitation of 9/11 and the omissions of the 9/11 Commission;
and
2) To give voice to the millions of actual 9/11 skeptics, researchers and activists by interviewing and quoting at least some of them, rather than exclusively quoting their detractors and "debunkers."
Since millions of Americans do reject the official story, shouldn't that view have been reflected on Newsday's editorial pages at least once in the five years since Sept. 11, 2001?
This is an exciting moment, because Newsday has actually published two such letters this week - an indication that they are probably receiving dozens or hundreds of complaints from their readers.
Meanwhile, Rep. Curt Weldon has turned up the heat on the Able Danger issue, saying that the truth of 9/11 has been subjected to a cover-up of Watergate proportions.
A new peer-reviewed article by Brigham Young physicist Steve Jones claims that the Twin Tower collapses were the result of pre-planted explosives. The latter has received much attention in the Utah press.
(See 911Truth.org front page for coverage of Steve Jones and Able Danger.)
Now imagine if a major daily were to finally pick up these loose strings of 9/11! The whole ball of lies could unravel within a few weeks.
THE TWO LETTERS PUBLISHED IN NEWSDAY
AND TIPS ON HOW TO GET YOUR OWN PUBLISHED
ARE BELOW.
Keep in mind that in persuading the editors, writing your own letter is far more effective than just copying someone else's. Newsday requires confirmation of your name and address by telephone before publishing.
REVIEW: NEWSDAY'S RECENT 9/11 ARTICLES
You may recall that in October, Newsday headlined several stories about Fire Department chaplain Intikab Habib. Immediately after the paper revealed his suspicions that September 11th was an inside job, Habib was run out of the FDNY.
This led 911Truth.org and others to launch a letter-writing campaign in Habib's defense, and in the hope of getting Newsday to cover the skeptical perspective on 9/11. The Habib stories had created a false impression that questioning the official story is somehow a Muslim phenomenon. In private conversations, Newsday's own writers and editors admitted that 9/11 skepticism is of course widespread and unrelated to religion.
(For details on the Habib case and the earlier campaign, see
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?...51003121935871).
Finally, Newsday published an article about 9/11 skeptics last Sunday... and it was dreadful!
Writer Mary Voboril maintained a calm tone; she did not sneer and mock, as has been usual with such articles. But otherwise she performed the usual hatchet job on "9/11 conspiracy theories."
No actual skeptic was quoted. Although the article mentioned a "two day conference" of skeptics in New York, there was no indication that the author had been there. (Apparently she was referring to the two lectures by David Ray Griffin on the weekend of Oct. 15-16.)
The derogatory phrase "conspiracy theory" was used only in reference to those who question the US government (although the government's version also involves a conspiracy). No 9/11 truth website or resource or writer was mentioned. No effort was made to explain why so many people reject the official story.
Instead, the usual suspects among the professional "debunkers" were rounded up for the usual general soundbites, among them Chip Berlet and Professor Michael Barkun.
Conspiracy theory, questioning the government's story: that's some kind of psychological sickness, right?
Well, it appears that many readers were disgusted by Newsday's treatment. Two letters published indicates many, many more were received. - and importantly, it tells us that Newsday may be ready to listen to its own readership.
One-half of New Yorkers believe the US government knew about 9/11 in advance and consciously allowed it to happen, according to last year's 9/11 Zogby poll. There's little doubt this is true of the majority of liberal Newsday's readers!
(Zogby poll http://www.911truth.org/article.php?...40830120349841)
If the Newsday editors receive several hundred more letters by Tuesday, they will get the message.
It's up to you to make it happen!
THE LETTERS
Letter Published in Newsday, Nov. 10, 2005:
OFFICIAL WORD ON 9/11 IS MISLEADING
I found your article on 9/11 "conspiracy theory" believers insulting and uninformative. ["The truth is out there - maybe," Nov. 6]. As one who experienced the 9/11 attacks in lower Manhattan that day, I was initially inclined to believe the official story of 19 al-Qaida hijackers.
But, upon reading David Ray Griffin's "The New Pearl Harbor," I have had cause to reconsider. Your article fails to note that the official explanation of what happened on 9/11 is a fairly elaborate "conspiracy theory," with many unanswered questions. Your article would have been much more beneficial to your readers if it had examined the specific reasons that many ordinary, respectable people have questions about the cause and motives behind the tragedy.
It is hardly comforting to think that your own government might have allowed such a thing to happen in order to achieve long-planned geopolitical goals. It would be much more "comforting" to believe the official story, that we weere caught off guard by evil terrorists.
Ellis Baumel
Bayside
Letter Published in Newsday, Nov. 9, 2005:
WHICH 9/11 THEORY TO BELIEVE?
"The truth is out there - maybe" [News, Nov. 6] was of keen interest to me, as one who was present in the World Trade Center that morning and also as an attendee at the "two-day conference" mentioned in the article.
It seems to me that we really haven't a choice in believing or disbelieving "9/11 conspiracy theories" in general, but rather which conspiracy theory to believe, including the "official" conspiracy promulgated by the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission. Indeed, there was a conspiracy. I've yet to meet anyone who proposes that all fuor planes hijacked themselves that morning.
I'm sorry to say that the official version is presented to us by a most dubious source, with a serious track record for disseminating disinformation about nonexistent "weapons of mass destruction" and impossible links between the religious fanatic Osama bin Laden and the staunch secularist Saddam Hussein.
Of course, there are plenty of other theories, some worthy of further examination, others quite dismissable. I myself am not yet ready to subscribe to any one to the exclusion of others.
Dave Mc Laughlin
Woodside
HOW TO - Suggestions (from 911Truth.org)
Letters to the Editor: letters@newsday.com
Other contacts, including by mail: www.newsday.com/go/services/contact
The only rule we absolutely beg you to follow is to be civil.
If you hope to get your missive published, it should pack a punch and run no more than 200 words. Keep in mind that Newsday (like other newspapers) will only publish letters that include a return address and phone number, so that they can confirm it's really from you. Do mention if you live in the New York area, or if you read or subscribe to Newsday in print or online. We don't care if you mention 911Truth.org [or NY 9/11 Truth] - pick the sites, authors and sources you prefer.
The idea is not to have a thousand people sending the exact same message. This action will be most effective if you each write your own piece, so we are only giving you suggestions, of which you might cover one or two along with your own ideas.
The point is not to pick on Newsday. It is mainly by omission that Newsday is distorting the reality of 9/11. Newsday is one of the few major US dailies that still engages in investigative reporting - and that could actually decide to make a difference in ending the September 11th cover-up and exposing the co-perpetrators and collaborators likely to be found within our own government and its covert agencies.
FOR MORE TIPS, TALKING POINTS, HISTORY, LINKS GO HERE:
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?...1935871#action
THANKS EVERYONE - ALL THE BEST
Nicholas Levis
trahila@earthlink.net
Member, NY 9/11 Truth
New York correspondant for 911Truth.org
