9/11 Scholars Forum

Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths

Sydney Morning Herald has published a vicious piece of propaganda re architect Richard Gage’s recent Australian tour

Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:51:26 -0800 [10:51:26 AM CST]
From: "Nila Sagadevan"
To: All
Subject: Sydney Morning Herald Hit Piece on 9/11

Hi All,

The Sydney Morning Herald has published a vicious piece of propaganda re architect Richard Gage’s recent Australian tour:

Here is the newspaper’s readers’ response address: readerlink@mail.fairfax.com.au

The letter I just sent them is copied below. Also copied is a letter from a colleague.

For those of you who are not up to speed re the latest developments on the global pursuit of 9/11 truth, I’d suggest you visit these resources:

To find a group near you and get involved: http://www.911truth.org/page.php?page=grassroots_contacts

Thank you.

Kind regards,



If anyone who believes that 9/11 was an inside job is by definition an idiot (as your article implies), then the Sydney Morning Herald would have to sling that label at Colonel Robert Bowman, former head of the U.S. “Star Wars” program; Andreas von Bülow, former State Secretary in the German Federal Ministry of Defense; former CIA analysts Bill Christison and Robert David Steele; former Scientific American columnist A. K. Dewdney; General Leonid Ivashov, former chief of staff of the Russian armed forces; Colonel Ronald D. Ray, former U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense; all the members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, Veterans for 9/11 Truth, and Pilots for 9/11 Truth; Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, and most of the individuals listed under “Professors Question 9/11” on the “Patriots Question 9/11” website. The latest person of unimpeachable credibility to claim explosives were used to bring down the three towers is former NASA director of Aerospace Projects, Dwain Deets. (Incidentally, for whatever it’s worth, I am a retired aeronautical engineer and former commercial pilot).

One of the reasons these people reject the government’s conspiracy theory is that, if they were to accept the official account of the destruction of the World Trade Centre, they would need to affirm magical beliefs. A few examples:

The Twin Towers came straight down, which means that each building’s 287 steel columns all had to fail simultaneously; to believe this could happen without explosives is to believe in magic.

At the onset of each tower’s collapse, steel beams were ejected out as far as 600 feet; to believe that these horizontal ejections could be explained by gravitational energy, which is vertical, is to believe in magic.

Virtually all of the concrete in the towers was pulverized into extremely fine dust particles less than 50 microns in size; to believe that fire plus gravity could have done this is to believe in magic.

WTC 7 and the towers came down at virtually free-fall speed, meaning that the lower floors, with all their steel and concrete, provided no resistance to the upper floors; to believe this could happen without explosives is to believe in magic.

Pools of molten metal were found under each building. Because steel does not begin to melt until it reaches about 1,540°C and yet the fires could not have gotten over 1000°C, to accept the fire theory is to believe in magic.

The Sydney Morning Herald, regarding the 9/11 truth movement’s ‘conspiracy theory’ as a wrong-headed distraction, fails to see that the obviously false and truly distracting conspiracy theory is the official 9/11 myth, which has been used to justify imperial wars and increased militarism, thereby distracting attention from global apartheid and the ecological crisis. Literally millions of “nutcases” focus on the 9/11 myth because, until it is exposed, getting our governments to focus wholeheartedly on the truly urgent issues of our time will be impossible.

I suggest you publish this letter in its entirety so that your readers may visit the aforementioned sites and study this subject intelligently for themselves, rather than having to rely on your utterly untutored opinions.

Nila Sagadevan

I am writing to complain about unfair and inaccurate reporting contained in an article entitled "Fire, not a government plot, felled third tower", by RICK FENELEY, published in the Sydney Morning Herald, November 25.

1) The title of the article asserts, as fact or truth, the claim made by government officials, which, in itself, represents only one side of the debate or controversy. In other words, the title clearly supports, affirms, lends weight to one side of the debate (the government's postion) over the other. This obvious bias in the title does not seem to conform with the Herald's commitment to report and interpret honestly, striving for accuracy, fairness and independence.

2) In the second paragraph, the author states "It took 5.4 seconds for its 47 storeys to complete their fiery descent". Wrong, it did not take 5.4 seconds. Trivial error, check your facts.

3) In the third paragraph, the author states "Building 7 has preoccupied conspiracy theorists ever since." We all know the term "conspiracy theorist" has pejorative connotations. The use of the term "conspiracy theorist" in this manner is clearly intended to cast aspersions against any who dare question the government's official conspiracy theory. This journalistic practice does not conform with the Herald's commitment to report and interpret honestly, striving for accuracy, fairness and independence.

4) In the sixth paragraph, the author quotes a NIST reference to the hypothetical sound level of a blast event. The author then states "No witness reported it", as a statement of fact, without quotation or attribution. This is incorrect. There are witness reports as well as video and audio recordings of just such blast events occuring in the vicinity and at the same time that WTC7 collapsed. These reports and recordings are readily available in the public domain. There is no truth to the claim that "No witness reported it", this statement is wrong, it's an error.

5) In the seventh paragraph, the author writes "The 9/11 Truth Movement points to the discovery of thermite, a potential explosive." Wrong. Thermite is not a "potential explosive". There are no "9/11 Truth Movement" researchers claiming that "thermite" is an explosive. Thermite is an incendiary. The "explosive" material discovered in WTC dust by 9/11 researchers is not thermite, it is a nano-engineered form of thermite, commonly known as nanothermite, or super-thermite. There is an important distinction between regular thermite and nanothermite. Failing to make clear this distinction, is not a trivial error. It shows the author has conducted little research into the issues and has a poor knowledge of the subject. Please check your facts.

In conclusion, I consider this article to be little more than a formulaic promotional for the government's official 9/11 conspiracy theory. In terms of the Herald's commitment to report and interpret honestly, striving for accuracy, fairness and independence, this article is entirely without merit.

Views: 89


You need to be a member of 9/11 Scholars Forum to add comments!

Join 9/11 Scholars Forum

© 2020   Created by James H. Fetzer.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service