Anyone who has looked at the events of 9-11 knows there are basically two competing histories. First, there is the official version, presented by President George W. Bush in a speech given shortly after the attacks and bolstered by the appointed 9-11 commission, that Muslim terrorists were responsible for the death and destruction. This version has since been adopted and supported by the Obama administration and virtually every member of Congress.
The second version is fundamentally opposed to the official version in that it claims that the terror attacks were a sophisticated "false flag" operation carried out by Israelis with the assistance of highly-placed Zionist agents inside the U.S. government. This version posits that the Israeli plan was for the attacks to be blamed on Al Qaida in order to usher in the Zionist-designed "War on Terror" with its pre-planned invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.
While the official version is the only one discussed in the mainstream media, various strands of the unofficial version are found primarily on the Internet. As any serious student of 9-11 knows, the mainstream media ignores a whole host of legitimate questions, facts, and evidence about the attacks that would be reported and examined by the media if it were free to do so.
Americans are raised with the cherished belief that the United States has a free and unfettered press in which important matters are freely discussed. Yet, if the United States truly has a free press, how do we explain the conspicuous failure of the mainstream media, over a period of nine years, to discuss the crucial facts and discoveries about 9-11? If we believe that the press in America is free, how can we make sense of the media's blatant cover-up?
