There are lots of saved original tv news broadcasts on the Internet from September 11, 2001, that all tell a whole different story than the one we are shown today by mainstream media0.
It is insinuated that the media also participates actively in the alleged conspiracy and is involved in a cover-up of the truth about the terror attack on September 11, 2001.
In such a catastrophic situation, it is inevitable that information is not verified completely at the time of broadcast. There is nothing suspicious about correcting the wrong information at a later time.
Catastrophes like the terror attack are obviously very violent: Those people closest to the events, in Manhattan, at the Pentagon, and in Shanksville, were all in different states of shock and could hardly be expected to objectively evaluate what was really happening. There was hardly anyone wholly untouched by the events of the day, regardless of where they were in the world.
The alternative is unacceptable: Should the public not be informed that a fourth plane presumably was hijacked and heading towards either Capitol Hill or the White House? Or abstained from taking precautions against possible new attacks by closing the bridges to Manhattan and close down the airspace over North America, simply because authorities did not have a complete understanding of the situation, something which is impossible during an unfolding crisis? It would have been incredibly irresponsible and quite unacceptable.
The same question could be posed to the: Why should we believe any of the many different conspiracy theories that have been proposed several years after the terror attack, theories that are based on speculative calculations of highly complex subject, by amateur detectives whose primary – and often only – tool is the Internet, and who have a clear political/conspiracy-driven agenda?
Contrary to conspiracy theorists, journalists are trained to, and have experience in, news broadcasting. Their job has two goals: To report what happens at the moment based on what they and witnesses observe, and later, when the dust has settled, and far more information has come in, to put the pieces together and evaluate what happened.
Following the terror attack, many investigations were initiated, and the causes and events of the day were thoroughly disclosed with the wrong information no longer included. That is why we have a far better substantiated account than the one we got during the terror attack.
It happens constantly that wrong information is broadcast by journalists.
Dewey defeats Truman
One of the most famous examples of a wrong news story was when Thomas E. Dewey was called as the winner of the U.S. Presidential Election in 1948, even though it turned out that his opponent, Harry S Truman, had actually won1.
Harry S Truman with the famous front page story
Another example is the famous shipwreck Titanic which led to this front page story in a New York newspaper2:
Anders Behring Breivik
The day after the Norwegian terrorist Anders Behring Breivik detonated a bomb in Oslo’s government quarters and then shot and killed people on the nearby island of Utøya on July 22, 2011, the Norwegian police announced that at least 80 killed were found on the island4. On July 25, the number was adjusted down to 68 5, 6.
The claim is therefore:
- Ignoring that events are not always reported correctly the moment they happen
- Løbeseddel, i11time.dk
- Dewey Defeats Truman, Wikipedia
- Evening Sun, New York, 15. april 1917
- Titanic, Survivors, victims and statistics, Wikipedia
- Norsk politi: Mindst 80 er dræbt i skudmassakre på ø, Politiken, 23. juli 2011
- Reduceret dødstal: 68 mistede livet på Utøya, Politiken, 25. juli 2011
- Ikke overraskende at dødstallet er mindre, JyllandsPosten, 25. juli 2011