Evasion noted. It is quite revealing that you cannot answer the straightforward questions posed.
Once again:
How are the media of other nations being persuaded and/or compelled not to do stories supporting 9/11 conspiracy theories? How are the typical competitive forces which cause news media outlets to outscoop each other being restrained sufficiently that they do not pursue 9/11 conspiracy theories? How is the individual professionalism of investigative journalists and reporters in uncovering and presenting important stories to the public being curtailed such that they do not pursue 9/11 conspiracy stories?
Answering the above questions, and providing tangible evidence to support your answers, is of necessity if you wish to get anyone to believe your position. So, please, present your answers and the evidence which supports them. I trust it's something more substantial than just referencing Noam Chomsky again.
You have a golden opportunity to present your case and sway people to your point of view. You need only answer the relevant questions and support those answers with some verifiable evidence. Why are you not seizing this opportunity?
Anybody who is seriously interested in why I consider Chomsky, Barrie Zwicker, etc., credible on the subject of media distortion and inaction is just going to have to read them. It's not my job to hold their hands. I wouldn't necessarily mind using the forum as a means of teaching, but that's not my priority. If that doesn't suit you, that's just too bad.
That doesn't mean that I'll never again go into some of their works and details of their arguments. In fact, before I shelved Zwicker's
Towers of Deception, I had marked off additional sections that I intended to post here at JREF. However, that wasn't a priority when I shelved the book, and it certainly isn't now.
As for the question of why,
after already having accepting a Chomsky-like viewpoint, I find the application of his general viewpoint applicable to the specific case of 911 to be valid (even if Chomsky, himself, doesn't go there), I consider this self-evident. Basically, the same forces that mitigate against forcefully challenging political power structures are there wrt both 911 and, say, the question of GW Bush being a war criminal.
Since you couldn't trouble yourself to answer a couple of simple questions of mine, while wanting me to spend great gobs of my own time holding your hand (even if you didn't realize that that's what you're asking for), and since you don't seem to listen very well, it's off to my ignore list you go. Your evasion of my simple questions is duly noted, and congratulations - you're my first ignore-lister at JREF. I suggest that, in your dealings with other posters in the future, if you don't want to make it to their ignore lists, you keep the principle of reciprocity in mind, and don't be overly presumptuous of what you think they owe you, in terms of commitments of their time.
