New York Times DC correspondent covers up 9/11

"Would you believe me if I told you the fish was...THIS big?"

By Kevin Barrett, for Press TV

"Would you believe me if I told you the fish was...THIS big?"
“Would you believe me if I told you the fish was…THIS big?”

With some people – the really bad liars – it’s easy to spot what criminologists call “guilty demeanor.”

When George W. Bush sat reading to schoolchildren on the morning of 9/11, remaining in the classroom for almost ten minutes after supposedly learning that America was under attack, the guilty look on his face was palpable.

At 9:03 that morning, as schoolchildren chanted “kite plane must hit steel,” Chief of Staff Andrew Card supposedly whispered in Bush’s ear: “A second plane has hit the World Trade Center, America is under attack.” But in reality, Card could not possibly have told Bush that. Whatever Card said required only two seconds. That was not enough time to explain a novel situation outside the President’s usual frame of reference.

In fact, Card must have said something like: “The operation is under way, await further instructions.”

If the Secret Service had really learned that America was under surprise attack, its agents would have immediately grabbed Bush and rushed him – at full speed – to a safe location. Instead, Bush just sat there looking guilty as the children read the book “My Pet Goat” for eight or nine minutes while the Secret Service did nothing.

When the reading session finally ended, Bush remained at the school for another twenty minutes.

After Bush had dawdled nearly half an hour in the classroom, the presidential motorcade took its time following the pre-announced route to the airport. Bush’s plane unhurriedly took off around 10 a.m. – almost an hour after Bush supposedly learned of the 9/11 “surprise attack.”

The whole world knew exactly where Bush was; the school event had been widely publicized in advance. If hijacked planes had really been used as missiles that day, the President would have been considered their number one target. But apparently the Secret Service knew Bush wasn’t in danger. The Secret Service’s complete lack of interest in the safety of the Commander-in-Chief (and in their own safety) proves, all by itself, that 9/11 was an inside job.

New York Times “embedded White House journalist” David Sanger was in the Florida classroom that day. He saw with his own eyes that the Secret Service knew Bush wasn’t a target.

In the twelve-and-a-half years that followed, Sanger never breathed a word about the obvious Secret Service foreknowledge.

That raises the term “embedded journalist” to a whole new level.

A few days ago, Sanger followed in the footsteps of the “Pet Goat President,” and gave the world another lesson in “guilty demeanor.”

During a C-Span interview, Sanger was asked by a 9/11 survivor why the New York Times has refused to cover the obvious controlled demolition of World Trade Center Building 7. Sanger’s response was evasive, obfuscatory, and mendacious.

YouTube - Veterans Today -

The C-Span caller asked Sanger:

“Across the street from the New York Times building there’s a billboard asking where your paper’s coverage is of the over 2,000 architects and engineers who are demanding a new investigation of Building 7’s destruction on 9/11, and the overwhelming evidence that pre-planted explosives destroyed it. Since this has everything to do with our national security, can you explain what rational and scientific basis your paper has for failing to fairly and objectively cover this crucial issue?”

Sanger’s demeanor suggested he knew he was lying as he gave this circuitous answer:

“Trust me, the people who work at the New York Times have as much of a critical interest in what happened on 9/11 as anybody else. Because not only are they reporters there, but they live and work within the city. And we’ve devoted a fairly considerable amount of reportorial time over the past number of years to the question of all the different theories – conspiracy theories, regular theories, non-conspiracy theories – about what happened on that day. And you’ve heard the huge variety of them. We have not yet found any convincing evidence to suggest that there was a plot …that there was a plot that the President knew about in advance, which was one of the issues that came up. I was with the President on 9/11 at the school in Florida. I can tell you that he looked pretty shocked by what had happened, and shell-shocked by what had happened. And we have not found any evidence so far. That doesn’t mean that there’s none there. But we have not found any evidence so far to suggest that the building collapses were caused by anything other than the two airplanes that flew into them.”

Sanger blatantly evaded the caller’s question about Building 7. When he blamed the explosive destruction of the Twin Towers, and the smooth free-fall drop of Building 7, on “the two airplanes that flew into them” he was lying in two ways.

First, no airplane flew into Building 7.

Second, Sanger must know that the US government agency NIST admits that the planes and their jet fuel did very little damage to the Twin Towers. NIST blames office fires fueled by burning paper and carpets, not plane crashes or jet fuel, for the explosive pulverization of most of the Towers and their contents.

But whatever happened to the Towers, the destruction of Building 7 was the most obvious – and most perfect – controlled demolition in history. No smoother and more symmetrical near-free-fall implosion of a tall building has ever been recorded. Even Canadian scientist Frank Greening, the most prominent defender of NIST’s account of the destruction of the Twin Towers, has been forced to admit that NIST’s claim that Building 7 “just fell down from office fires” is ludicrous.

If David Sanger is really unaware of any evidence that Building 7 was destroyed by controlled demolition, he should just call up Frank Greening, the most-cited defender of the US government’s position on the destruction of the World Trade Center. Or he could try any of the more than 2000 Architects and Engineers.

Sanger’s bad faith – or his guilt-induced brain-freeze – is obvious when he divides the “different theories” about 9/11 into three categories: “Conspiracy theories, regular theories, and non-conspiracy theories.”

What can this possibly mean?

A “conspiracy” is a plan by a group of two or more people to commit a crime. How could there possibly be a “regular theory” or a “non-conspiracy theory” of 9/11? Is Sanger suggesting that a single individual may have acted alone?

As an embedded national security journalist, Sanger knows that the CIA was responsible for putting the weaponized term “conspiracy theorist” into circulation. The terms “conspiracy theory” and “conspiracy theorist” were virtually unheard-of until the mid-1960s, when the CIA issued a memorandum to its thousands of Operation Mockingbird media assets telling them to attack JFK assassination researchers using those words. That memo is preserved as CIA Document 1035-960, released in response to a 1976 FOIA request by none other than the New York Times.

Apparently the CIA put out a similar memo after 9/11. And Sanger apparently got the memo.

Or maybe he didn’t need to.

Sanger has been a speaker at Foundation for Defense of Democracies – the neocon-Zionist successor to Project for a New American Century, which openly called for a “new Pearl Harbor” exactly one year before 9/11.

YouTube - Veterans Today -

Former New York Times journalist Phillip Weiss calls Sanger a “complete insider” and a proponent of the Zionist notion that Iran is a threat to America.

Weiss has elsewhere alluded to another of Sanger’s possible motives for complicity in 9/11: Zionist sympathies. In his article “Do Jews dominate in American media? And so what if we do?” Weiss points out that the majority of his former colleagues and bosses at the New York Times are, in effect, Israeli propagandists: “The Jewish cohort of which I am a part has largely accepted the duty … of supporting Israel.”

David Sanger must know that Zionist billionaire Larry Silverstein, a close friend of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, bought the condemned-for-asbestos World Trade Center just six weeks before 9/11, doubled the insurance, then collected double-indemnity due to the “two unrelated terror attacks” (the two planes). Silverstein has confessed twice on television to the controlled demolition of World Trade Center Building 7.

Sanger must know that Netanyahu’s first reaction to 9/11 was “It’s very good!”  He must know that Israeli spies were arrested in New York filming and celebrating the destruction of the World Trade Center. He must know about the New York Police Department radio recording describing Israelis being arrested on 9/11 near the George Washington Bridge with a truck full of explosives.

YouTube - Veterans Today -

Sanger apparently has plenty of reasons for parsing “conspiracy theories” from “non-conspiracy theories” and pretending he doesn’t know that 9/11 was an inside job.

Archived Reads 0
Previous articleÉgalité et Réconciliation: An Interview With Gilad Atzmon By Alimuddin Usmani
Next articleWalled in by Zionist Ugliness
Kevin Barrett

Dr. Kevin Barrett, a Ph.D. Arabist-Islamologist, is one of America’s best-known critics of the War on Terror.

He is Host of TRUTH JIHAD RADIO; a hard driving weekly LIVE call in radio show. He also has appeared many times on Fox, CNN, PBS and other broadcast outlets, and has inspired feature stories and op-eds in the New York Times, the Christian Science Monitor, the Chicago Tribune, and other leading publications.

Dr. Barrett has taught at colleges and universities in San Francisco, Paris, and Wisconsin, where he ran for Congress in 2008. He currently works as a nonprofit organizer, author, and talk radio host.

Comments Closed


  1. The blunt truth is that 9/11 was a HUGE operation, not just a few “rogue” zionists or Jews or whatever they are. Thanks for exposing yet another zionist asset. They’re everywhere that matters.

  2. Well done again, Kevin. I tried to introduce myself to you at the 9/11 Conference on Walker St. in NYC in 2012, but you got involved talking with Susan Lindauer and others, and I needed to leave for an appointment. But I have read you so often, I feel I can call you by your first name.
    I made a fictional movie about Texas oilmen profiting from 9/11 and I keyed in on Bush’s behavior in the classroom. The very thing you bring up here about Card not having enough time to say what he claimed he said is significant. He was actually whispering into Bush’s ear to keep the woman teacher near Bush from hearing his words, and one cannot whisper intelligibly as fast as one can speak out loud. Since Bush already knew the operation was underway before his limo reached the school, Card may simply have said, “The second plane has hit. Just sit tight.” The fewer syllables are important because Bush had to hear it only once and not need further clarification by calling after Card, “Wait a minute. What was that?” I think projecting calm for the reporters, as if things were under control, kept them off balance.
    Of course, no matter what Card said, Bush’s sitting there and doing nothing (even press secretary Ari Fleischer in the back of the room held up a hastily scrawled legal pad for Bush: “Don’t say anything yet!”) clearly demonstrated that Dubya was not the chief Decision-Maker of the USA, and he should have been impeached for criminal negligence and dereliction of duty.

  3. I continue to be amazed, the charade of the ‘MSM’ and ‘Status Quo’ codes have not been thoroughly broken down and exposed by intelligent journalists before now. The error of not writing a narrative of the ‘myth’ of America constructed by the education system, the publishing houses, the radio and tv outlets, religious systems and media of journalism, along with the infiltration of local and national government positions has left the main population with a false narrative they will willing defend until the mind control used on them is pointed out.. . . .over and over again. . . until all the hidden written works are allowed to freely be read and dispersed to the populations.

    The bizarre way a conspiracy has been used to cover the racketeering and cartels behind it is amazingly sad.

    Keep producing the truth behind the fiction, some are hearing it as they awaken to the fact their video game console and internet toys have a spook attempting to control it.

  4. Excellent Mr. Barrett, excellent. It is common knowledge most people react similarly when placed in the same situation. Bush sat there realizing the magnitude of what they’d been planning and how now begun. There was no sense of urgency, insult, or indignation over someone attacking this country. No concern was immediate for the people in those buildings. Nothing.
    The truth of that day, now 12 years old plus a few months, is coming to the surface. Because he is a Bush, (to me he has an appropriate name for that is exactly what he is,) nothing will be done. It will be nice though to smear that name with facts and not false accusations, for as I have concluded, the entire clan is the traitorous family that sold out this nation and its people.
    As tragic as this is, this was a excellent article, very logical and reasonable summations and conclusions. At least, maybe, Jeb Bush chance at the White House in 2016, will be crippled if Americans get their head out of their orifice and awaken to the Bush treasonous nature of the Bush crime family (which by the way proliferates many websites.)
    Between Fetzer and his recent JFK revelations, and you Mr, Barrett and your 911 burrowing, I rarely check other websites anymore. VT is offering enough quality and factually information about our country it is difficult to keep up with. Congrats!
    Very interesting. But remember, these are Bush’s, and they are above the laws we are confined by.

Comments are closed.