Exposing the Criminal Liberal Bias of America's Newspaper of Record

Exposing the Criminal Liberal Bias of America's
Newspaper of Record

Thursday, June 12, 2014

A Fascinating, Little-Mentionned Fact About The 9/11 Attacks

As far as I can tell, no one else has noticed this until-now little-known 9/11 fact:

There is an extremely interesting recurring trend in multi media coverage of the events of September 11, 2001 :

In seemingly just about every instance,  research into the 9/11 attacks results in discovery of the following dichotomy:

A) - Media produced in accordance with the official government narrative is always super-professional, Hollywood-worthy high quality media. As in: lots and lots of money and effort were apparently expended in furtherance of the telling of the "official" story.

Think for example "United 93," the 2006 blockbuster Hollywood film that re-enacted the hijacking of United flight 93, the "fourth plane" that supposedly crashed into a ditch in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, after being hijacked by Islamists from Saudi Arabia (who BTW from a strictly HBD point of view, a people of low-average-IQ desert nomads only recently introduced to modernity, are simply not cognitively equipped to fly modern jetliners into a tiny target at five hundred miles per hour, no matter how many hours of flight simulation school paid for by Mossad or whoever wink wink. The best American pilots have actually tried to re-enact these alleged Saudis' alleged feat on 757 simulators, and have failed. See pilotsfor911truth.org for details).

Here's an example of the quality level of the official, MSM, Hollywood-sanctioned 9-11 narrative :

[please note: the asshole who directed this monstrosity of lies, is Paul Greengrass, the same schmuck who directed the "Bourne Supremacy."] 

Of the Hollywood film "United 93," Wikipedia says this :  

Critical response

United 93 was one of the most critically acclaimed films of 2006. Roger Ebert, Michael Medved, Peter Travers, and James Berardinelli all awarded it four stars on their rating scales, with Ebert calling the film "masterful and heartbreaking" and saying that it "does honor to the memory of the victims".[19] It was termed "one of the most moving films of the year" by Peter Travers in Rolling Stone. It holds an average 91% "Fresh" rating from the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes,[20] as well as a 90% rating on Metacritic, where the film appears on 39 U.S. top ten lists, more than any other 2006 film on the site,[21] (although the 2006 film with the highest average score on the site is the 1969 Army of Shadows).[22][23] The film was ranked #1 on 47 lists (the most of any 2006 film).[24]
Another extraordinary example of the high-sheen Hollywood "documentary" productions "investigating" the 9/11 attacks, are this amazing work of fiction,  produced by the Discovery Channel and narrated by Hollywood big-wig Terence Stamp :


On the other end of this reality spectrum, you have part two of the 9-11 narrative dichotmoy, namely :

B) - In almost every instance, internet multi-media reports actually challenging the official US government narrative of the 9/11 attacks,  appear amateurish, sloppy, in a nutshell the crazed musings of under-funded loons.

The one excellent exception to that rule, is the recently-emerging and excellent Architects and Engineers for Truth. org group, who even managed to get their one-hour video published on Public Television in Colorado, last year (ten years-+ after the attacks!).


The New Yortk Times: Complicit In The Biggest Coverup In History

No comments: