After 1,379 Days, New York Times Finally Corrects Claim That Iran "Sponsored" 9/11 Attacks

Authored by Adam Johnson via FAIR.org,

In its reporting on a dubious lawsuit alleging Iranian meta-involvement in 9/11, the New York Times badly misunderstood the case and maintained for more than three years, in the paper of record, that the government of Iran “sponsored” the September 11, 2001, attacks. The belated correction, issued late Wednesday night on two widely spaced articles on the topic, unceremoniously noted that Iran did not, in fact, help commit the 9/11 attacks.

The correction came after a report about a lawsuit last week mistakenly claimed that Iran sponsored 9/11, something that had not been alleged in the suit. The article (6/29/17,archived) originally read:

The government has agreed to distribute proceeds from the building’s sale, which could bring as much as $1 billion, to the families of victims of Iranian-sponsored terrorist attacks, including the September 11 attacks.

That 9/11 was an “Iranian-sponsored terrorist attack”  is a spectacular claim, and one that would radically alter the official narrative of 9/11, just casually thrown into an article by the Times. In fact, it isn’t even something the lawsuit alleged. The case in question was a class action lawsuit for families of all terrorism victims, and since Iran was a “state sponsor of terrorism,” they were held generically responsible. (The US State Department maintains that Iran is a “state sponsor of terrorism” chiefly because of its support for militant groups like Hezbollah and Iraq’s Kata’ib Hizballah, whose attacks have been mainly directed at other combatants.)

Even if this had been what the lawsuit was alleging, it’s remarkable that reporter Vivian Wang simply took this as fact: No “alleged,” no “lawsuit claims”—Iran’s guilt was simply asserted. And that assertion stood for a week until someone, evidently, got word it was grossly wrong. Late Wednesday night (6/29/17, correction updated 7/5/17), the Times quietly added this correction to the piece:

Correction: July 6, 2017 An article on Friday about a jury’s decision to let the federal government seize a Midtown Manhattan skyscraper it says is controlled by Iran overstated Iran’s responsibility for the September 11 attacks. While a federal court found that Iran had some culpability for the September 11 attacks as a state sponsor of terrorism, it has not been established that Iran sponsored the attacks, which were planned and executed by Al Qaeda. (A similar error occurred in a September 25, 2013, article in the Times.)

It’s as if the editors at the Times just got the memo about who was responsible for 9/11.

But the week it took to correct this massive error was nothing compared to the close to four years it took to update the very same claim the paper made in September 2013. The original article, by Julie Satow (9/26/13, original archived), read:

Proceeds from a sale would probably be used to pay some of the $6 billion in damages claimed by family members of victims of Iranian-sponsored terrorism, including victims of the 9/11 attacks.

This article, published in the first year of Obama’s second term, finally got corrected this week (9/26/13, correction updated 7/5/17), with basically the same correction that ran on last week’s story:

Correction: July 5, 2017 An article on Sept. 25, 2013, about the federal government’s efforts to seize a Midtown Manhattan skyscraper it says is controlled by Iran overstated Iran’s responsibility for the September 11 attacks. While a federal court found that Iran had some culpability for the September 11 attacks as a state sponsor of terrorism, it has not been established that Iran sponsored the attacks, which were planned and executed by Al Qaeda.

The corrections, belated as they were, minimized the defamation of the original articles in a  lawyerly manner, conceding only that “it has not been established that Iran sponsored the attacks.” It has also not been established that Israel or Saudi Arabia or the Bush administration sponsored 9/11, but imagine the New York Times framing allegations against those actors this way. It’s unthinkable but, because Iran is an Official Enemy of the United States, it is not subject to the same editorial standards as those in good standing with the US State Department.

Per the North Korea Law of Journalism—which states that “editorial standards are inversely proportional to a country’s enemy status”—the Times can casually smear Iran as sponsoring  the deadliest act of terror on US soil, and it’s not taken seriously by anyone. Just thrown into an article, forgotten about and only corrected—with no special note by the paper—almost four years later.

One would be curious what the New York Times public editor would say about such a glaring error but the paper eliminated the position a month ago (FAIR.org6/1/17). Perhaps the Times’ in-house media analyst, Jim Rutenberg, who spends much of his time hand-wringing over “fake news” and RT, could spare a column on how this happened. This is unlikely, since with an Official Enemy, no amount of libel—no matter how egregious—merits a meaningful response from the paper of record.

Comments

Vinividivinci Sun, 07/09/2017 - 13:42 Permalink

Why the revision of "history"' now?
Timing is everything folks.
This seems like a lead-in to something else, bigger and more important, to come.
What that is...fucked if I know.

not dead yet NidStyles Mon, 07/10/2017 - 03:54 Permalink

The court decision that claimed Iran was culpable for 9/11 was most likely politically motivated. What the court based their decision on is that some of the hijackers had travelled through Iran on their way to somewhere else. Thus the court opened a pandoras box for suing Iran since it's impossible to sue Al Qaeda.

In reply to by NidStyles

sgt_doom Vinividivinci Sun, 07/09/2017 - 15:25 Permalink

Oh wow!!!!!!This is really progress!!!!Now perhaps they will explain to each and everyone why, back during the Reagan Administration and George Gilder was all the rage among the Fake Newsy swine, they never mentioned that he was the adopted son of that Patriarch of the Deep State, David Rockefeller?Or perhaps finally the Fake Newsy swine will finally come forward to announce why they never ever mentioned that Hillary Rodham Clinton's uncle, Wade Rodham, was a US Secret Service agent with the presidential protection unit during the Kennedy Administration????The Fake News Extravaganza continues . . . .

In reply to by Vinividivinci

NickyGall Sun, 07/09/2017 - 13:42 Permalink

When a country is controlled by its military-industrial-intelligence co-operative, there always has to be an enemy.  Currently, Russia, Iran and North Korea fit the bill.

VWAndy Sun, 07/09/2017 - 13:47 Permalink

 Ever get the idea that the NYtimes should be delivered in a new format? Im thinking it should come in 5 inch rolls with perferated pages.

Chupacabra-322 Sun, 07/09/2017 - 13:56 Permalink

Correction:

"Planned & executed by Mossad."

It is beyond the slightest shadow of doubt that Israeli agents had foreknowledge of the 911 attacks, and, together with scientific forensic proof of controlled demolitions of WTC 1, 2 and 7.

The very first people arrested on suspicion of involvement in the 9/11 attacks turned out to be five Israeli Jews: Sivan Kurzberg, Paul Kurzberg (Sivan's brother), Oded Ellner, Yaron Shmuel and Omer Marmari. Their white Urban Moving Systems van was stopped and they were arrested within hours of the attacks, on the afternoon of 9/11/01. Sivan Kurzberg, Ellner and Shmuel had been observed by several eyewitnesses at the rear parking lot of the Doric apartment complex in Union City, New Jersey. They were seen atop the van with cameras, high-fiving, smiling, joking with cries of joy and mockery, hugging each other, and taking photographs and video of the Twin Towers within a few minutes of the first plane impact.

Marc Perelman of New York's Jewish weekly The Forward reported on March 15, 2002 that the FBI had concluded that at least two of the Israelis were agents working for the Mossad, and their employer Urban Moving Systems Incorporated was a suspected intelligence front. On September 14, 2001, Urban's owner Dominick Suter fled the U.S. for Israel. Perelman also tells on video of how he was able to confirm that, according to the FBI, two of the five Israelis were "Mossad agents". Christopher Ketcham says the transcripts of the Carl Cameron report were later removed from the Fox News website following pressure from Abe Foxman of the ADL, and replaced with the rather Orwellian message: "This story no longer exists".

When arrested, the Israelis - dubbed the "High-Fivers" by the FBI - were found to have airline tickets with immediate travel dates for destinations world-wide, and tie-ins to 9/11. Dual US-Israeli citizen Michael Chertoff, who co-authored the USA Patriot Act" and headed the Justice Department's Criminal Division in the aftermath of 9/11, is a prime suspect for pulling strings to get the Israelis released and sent home.

Not only is Obama a Scum Fuck Pure Evil Psychopath, he's now officially become, although he's always been, an accessory to War Crimes, Treason & Conspriacy to Muder Amercian's.

Its safe to say now, any Criminal Fraud CEO "President" of the Criminal Fraud UNITED STATES, CORP. INC. from here on out would have to defacto continue the Crime, swear an Oath to Treason & continue the PsyOp / False Narrative Flag of 911.