The UK Telegaph reacts to the Richard Falk case: "UN Human Rights Official Claims 9-11 Was US Plot"

[Jonathan Mark]

This following is a post on 911blogger. It explains a misleading title from The Telegraph's article. Follow links for video and postings of this article.


The UK Telegaph reacts to the Richard Falk case:
[B]"UN Human Rights Official Claims 9-11 Was US Plot"[/B]


[NOTE: The headline the Telegraph chose to use, "UN Human Rights Official Claims 9-11 Was US Plot." is inaccurate and misleading, and is reproduced and preserved here at 911Blogger because of the significance of it being employed by a mainstream media institution like the Telegraph.
In his blog post Richard Falk did not "claim" or "suggest" that "9/11 was US plot" or that the "US government may have orchestrated the September 11 terrorist attacks." What Falk said was, there are "awkward gaps and contradictions in the official explanations," there was "an apparent cover up", and there are "well-evidenced doubts about the official version of the events: an al Qaeda operation with no foreknowledge by government officials." - loose nuke]
This article was placed today on World For 9/11 Truth, and appeared first in The Telegraph, also today. Pretty good exposure to have this in The Telegraph. URL: http://world911truth.org/un-human-rights...s-us-plot/It will be interesting to watch how the US press, and world press, handles this developing story, particularly if he does, indeed, get fired.


For more information see this source link for this 911blogger post:
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-01-25/un...as-us-plot


Jonathan Mark
Flyby News9-11

In first 3 minutes, watch
9/11 - WTC-7 - Exposed!
Video clip produced by Robert Bowman
National Commander, ThePatriots.US


"Building what?" - Judge Edward Lehner
upon hearing mention of WTC Building 7
Watch The Ad One Million New Yorkers Will See:
BuildingWhat.org

[URL="http://www.ae911truth.org/"]1,421 Architects and Engineers
Call for New 9/11 Investigation[/URL]

[URL="http://www.flybynews.com/cgi-local/newspro/viewnews.cgi?newsid1014738186,11057,"]9/11 Investigation vs New World Order
Perspective - Resource - Archives[/URL]

[Jonathan Mark]

David Ray Griffin's Response to UN Watch's Article: "NGO Says Richard Falk Has "Zero Credibility," Urges UN Chief to Fire Him"


"Yes, Richard Falk's comments are "preposterous" except for the enormous amount of evidence supporting those comments. It is unfortunate that the Secretary-General chose simply to "condemn" Falk's comments instead of using the UN's resources to investigate the relevant evidence. Surely such an investigation is justified by the fact that the official account of 9/11 has been rejected by more than a dozen professional organizations, including Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (with over 1,400 professional members), Scientists for 9/11 Truth, Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, Lawyers for 9/11 Truth, Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth, Military Officers for 9/11 Truth, and Intelligence Officers for 9/11 Truth. Given the fact that the official account of 9/11 is now rejected by virtually all professionals who are independent (of the US government) and have studied the evidence, it is this official account that is "preposterous," not Mr. Falk's comments."


David Ray Griffin
January 26, 2011

Source url

[David Guyatt]

The moral of this is don't expect the Daily Bellylaugh to do anything it's pals at Vauxhall Bridge don't approve of.

The official story is the official story and no sanctioned news organization will do anything to question that. And they will do a lot to denigrate anyone who does.

[Jonathan Mark]

Thanks for your reply, David..
you have to work hard to find moral to the mainstream press doings these days, especially related to the false flag events of September 11.
A little humor helps put it into some perspective, and this following Colby quote.

[size=12]"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone
of any significance in the major media."
-William Colby,
former CIA Director,
quoted by Dave Mcgowan, Derailing Democracy
The CIA and the Media[/SIZE]

[Jan Klimkowski]

I've long considered that Colby quote to be a boast, a carefully calculated overstatement, by DCIA.

Having spent more than 15 years making films for the BBC, (as MSM as MSM gets), and American MSM such as National Geographic and Discovery, my sense would be that intelligence services own people in key commissioning and editorial positions in all MSM organs, either through direct control or leverage (blackmail).

However, there are many coalface journalists that the intelligence agencies don't own, and so occasionally important work is done within MSM. Usually it is squashed or sanitized prior to transmission -either by company lawyers, intel-owned editorial managers or D-notices (National Security restrictions).

Michael Mann's movie The Insider is an insightful, dramatized, depiction of the way in which Power is exercised within MSM.

Tailwind is a good example of investigative journalism of integrity being squashed by Power.

A journalist such as Robert Fisk, employed by an MSM newspaper - The Independent -is not, in my judgement, owned by any intelligence agency.

However, many iconic "investigative journalists" are clearly owned, starting with Grandaddy Bob Woodward and the lie of "Deep Throat".

[Jonathan Mark]

Jan, I appreciate your reply.. There is much in common with your thoughts, experiences and what the Colby quote described. But, yes, if he left the word "any" from the quote, it would have been more accurate about the status of the CIA and media.

However, following the events of September 11, 2001, and ongoing media consolidation, the foundation of what Colby set-up entered into a new level of control. The fatal Anthrax attacks, which was sent to media and Congress, was a special weaponized grade developed in US military facilities. Who knows what the threats were when it was being mailed around? In any case it became evident that the media became complicit in the US push for deceptive illegal (preemptive) wars, and loss of civil liberties in the so-called "homeland."

The manner that the mainstream media, and even alternative progressive media is not covering the unprecedented events of what happened on 9/11/01 and its cover-up, shows the significance of the Colby quote back when he made it, and the threat we are all under today.

[Ed Jewett]

Top UN Officials Have Public Meltdown over Call for New 9/11 Investigation
Secretary-General and US Ambassador Call Law Professor's Measured Remarks "Preposterous"

by Dick Scar


Global Research, February 7, 2011
AE911Truth.org

Richard Falk, retired Princeton University professor of international law and a United Nations-appointed human rights expert on the Human Rights Council, was blasted by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon for suggesting in his January 11 blog entry that there was a cover-up regarding some aspects of the official account of 9/11. Falk mentioned "the reluctance to address the sort of awkward gaps and contradictions in the official explanations" that David Ray Griffin documents in his books. Falk also wrote, "What may be more distressing than the apparent cover-up is the eerie silence of the mainstream media … What must we learn from all this? Don't connect dots without evidence."

Sec.-Gen. Ki-Moon condemned these remarks as "preposterous".

UN Watch, a pressure group that monitors the U.N., is calling for Prof. Falk to be removed from his post on the Human Rights Council. This incident is attracting more attention because the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs is considering problems with US payments of UN dues. US Committee Chair Lleana Ros-Lehtinen wants President Obama to pull the US out of the Human Rights Council.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?c...&aid=23115

[Paul Rigby]

I've long considered that Colby quote to be a boast, a carefully calculated overstatement, by DCIA.

Having spent more than 15 years making films for the BBC, (as MSM as MSM gets), and American MSM such as National Geographic and Discovery, my sense would be that intelligence services own people in key commissioning and editorial positions in all MSM organs, either through direct control or leverage (blackmail).

However, there are many coalface journalists that the intelligence agencies don't own, and so occasionally important work is done within MSM. Usually it is squashed or sanitized prior to transmission -either by company lawyers, intel-owned editorial managers or D-notices (National Security restrictions).

What Jan omitted to mention is that all journos at the BBC are subject to MI5 vetting: MI5 has long had - presumably still does - an office within the BBC for precisely this purpose. There is abundant evidence that anyone considered "unsound" suffers at the BBC, either being re-routed into safer areas, denied promotion(s), or simply dumped. Why anyone with an ounce of genuine commitment to free speech and independent investigation would persist with such an appalling organization is, frankly, baffling.

A journalist such as Robert Fisk, employed by an MSM newspaper - The Independent -is not, in my judgement, owned by any intelligence agency.

Fisk was one of a number of journalists who left N. Ireland after MI5 routed MI6 in the savage war (chiefly of proxy) in the mid-1970s. Coincidence? And if The Independent really was what it says on the masthead, it wouldn't last a minute.

[Jan Klimkowski]

What Jan omitted to mention is that all journos at the BBC are subject to MI5 vetting: MI5 has long had - presumably still does - an office within the BBC for precisely this purpose. There is abundant evidence that anyone considered "unsound" suffers at the BBC, either being re-routed into safer areas, denied promotion(s), or simply dumped. Why anyone with an ounce of genuine commitment to free speech and independent investigation would persist with such an appalling organization is, frankly, baffling.

I "omitted" to mention it because it's been discussed many times on DPF, by myself and others. As you very well know.

The fact that the deep state attempts to control output, through such means as vetting by intelligence services, does not mean that it succeeds in controlling the thoughts, actions and output of all BBC employees.

I have on several occasions provided examples, from first hand experience and accounts told me by other journalists and documentary makers, of how editorial interference occurs.

However, I have personally been involved in getting good and important work broadcast to millions of people around the world when I was employed by the BBC, so your position is - quite simply - an overstatement of the reality.

A journalist such as Robert Fisk, employed by an MSM newspaper - The Independent -is not, in my judgement, owned by any intelligence agency.

Fisk was one of a number of journalists who left N. Ireland after MI5 routed MI6 in the savage war (chiefly of proxy) in the mid-1970s. Coincidence? And if The Independent really was what it says on the masthead, it wouldn't last a minute.

So, Paul, are you stating that Robert Fisk was an MI6 or MI5 asset in the 1970s?

Are you further claiming that Fisk is still an asset of British intelligence?

Would you suggest that his copy is vetted by British intelligence?