Find Your Next Favorite Book
Our Money-Back Guarantee

Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-Up of 9/11


Authored by a lifelong journalist who was for 35 years a media critic, this text provides 26 "exhibits" of evidence proving "beyond a reasonable ... Show synopsis

Find your copy

Buy it from  $4.29
Buy new from  $12.04

Change currency

Reviews of Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-Up of 9/11

Overall customer rating: 4.500

The Media And 9-11

by otto on Jun 4, 2014

This is a hefty book. About 350 pages of pretty small print. I highly recommend it because not only will it help you understand 9-11 better, it will help you see the world more clearly. The book mainly deals with the media's treatment of the 9-11 issue. There's basically just one chapter that discusses the evidence which shows that the official story is false. And that's okay, because the media cover-up of 9-11 is indeed one of the most fascinating aspects of 9-11. And it's not just the mainstream media that's covering up the biggest crime in American history. It's not just the Right. It's the Left too. As Zwicker says: "The almost total uniformity within Left media in sync with the White House and Right media is more than puzzling." Chapter five, the Chomsky chapter, is a favorite of many people and indeed it is excellent. In this chapter Zwicker does a brilliant job of exposing Noam Chomsky as a member of the controlled opposition. That's right, Chomsky works for the bad guys. Chomsky knows the official story is bogus, but for selfish reasons he pretends he believes it and he publicly supports it. The official story is so ridiculous and so full of holes that anyone who takes just a little time to honestly and objectively study the situation can only come away with the conclusion that the official story is a big lie. It's very hard to believe that a smart guy like Chomsky can't figure out this very simple puzzle. Of course it's not just Chomsky. This chapter also includes a list of media people who support the official story but who should know better. Many of these people not only refuse to question the official story, but they ridicule those who do. This list includes people like Alexander Cockburn, David Corn, Greg Palast, David Barsamian, and Amy Goodman of Hypocrisy Now. Of course there are many more media people who deserve to be on this list of shame, including a guy who I really used to like, Bill Maher. He's the host of Real Time and likes to "keep it real" by enthusiastically supporting the official 9-11 lie. By the way, if the truth about 9-11 ever comes out into the mainstream, I wonder how these people will explain the fact that they participated in the cover-up of the murder of 3000 innocent Americans. At the end of the book, Zwicker suggests one way they might respond: "We didn't know." But of course they did know.


Caveat Emptor!

by BrotherK on Aug 19, 2007

Barrie Zwicker seems like a nice guy. I base this not only on his appearance and demeanor in the DVD which accompanies his book, Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-Up of 9/11 (henceforth known as TOD), but also on the tone of the book itself. He strikes me as an intelligent, easy-going, honest and earnest fellow. There were times during my reading of this book when I would think, ?This would be the perfect book to send to Bob, because it?s so reasonable.? Well, Bob has since gone over to the ?conspiracy? side anyway, and I?m glad that I did not recommend TOD. I hate to say that, actually, because there is much to be admired in this tome. It pulls together a vast amount of information, personalizes it, and gives us a paper trail to follow via copious footnotes (28 pages of them). In fact, I would say that this is a perfect resource for your 9/11 library if you are already convinced that the official story was not the whole story?especially if you are sharing information with others. This is where you have to be wary, however. There are four big reasons why I can?t recommend TOD to a neophyte. First, there are quite a few proofreading errors in this book. Most of them are trivial, e.g. ?That?s their theme song That their national anthem.? (219) But this topic requires the utmost care. Proofreading errors mean sloppy writing and/or editing, and the reader begins to get the impression that the work was not properly attended to as errors begin to pile up. Second, the book is poorly bound. Again, yes, this is a very superficial comment, but a paperback which costs $24.95 should not detach from its back cover halfway through the first reading as mine did. An examination of the spine reveals that there is only a thin line of glue to hold the cover to the bound book itself. The impression of shoddy workmanship can easily move in the reader?s mind from package to contents. Third, Zwicker goes way too far in his condemnation of Noam Chomsky. I, too, am puzzled and frustrated at Chomsky?s resistance to 9/11 research . . . but I think that I understand it, too. As Zwicker points out, Chomsky has also failed to align himself with (and has even attacked) those who espouse a JFK assassination conspiracy. Why? I think it?s clear that he doesn?t want to align himself in any way with theories which cannot be proven. Chomsky?s entire reputation rests upon his ability to compile massive amounts of irrefutable proof of his theses. What would he have to gain by joining in with the 9/11 "conspiracy" folks? I can?t think of anything. What could he lose? Only his reputation . . . upon which the past four decades of his life?s work rests. Now, let me hasten to add that I think that when quartered, this is three parts cowardice. I find it difficult to believe that any sane, rational, intelligent person could look at the evidence and not conclude that something was amiss with the official story. (If fact, I think you have to be some kind of pigheaded intellectual slob not to come to that conclusion, but that?s not very nice, so I won?t say it.) But reputation does make cowards of most of us, I suppose. Zwicker doesn?t go there, however. He takes a step into la-la land (also known as David Icke World) when he concludes that Chomsky is an agent of the national security state (see page 220). Of course, he couches this as a theory, but in the context of proposing two theories, the first of which is even more ridiculous than this second one. Chomsky is an agent for the military-industrial complex? Well . . . he certainly hasn?t been earning his pay if that?s true. (I wonder if this implicates Hugo Chavez as an agent as well?) At any rate, this is a serious error on the part of Zwicker, and it was hard to press forth in his book after this fifth chapter). Fourth, Zwicker goes to the other end of the spectrum when he devotes a chapter to praise Dr. David Ray Griffin. Now, I must say that I, too, find much to admire in Dr. Griffin. His The New Pearl Harbor was the first book I read which defied the official explanation of the 9/11 attacks, and I would definitely recommend it as a starting point for the 9/11 agnostic. But, again, Zwicker just goes too far. The title of the chapter is, ?Dr. David Ray Griffin: Modern Day Prophet.? That?s bad enough, but I could swallow it if not for two additional facts. First, Zwicker uses the word ?prophet? way too many times. I don?t have the heart to count, but I would guess that in the course of seventeen pages, he uses ?prophet? at least thirty times. Second, and, believe it or not, even more offensive to mine nostrils, he structures much of the chapter around the qualities of a prophet as displayed by Griffin. (To wit?or the lack thereof?prophets are outspoken; Griffin is outspoken. Prophets are courageous; Griffin is courageous. Prophets wrote books of the Bible; Griffin wrote books which have become the Bibles of the 9/11 Truth Movement. It?s just plain embarrassing. I don?t feel that I?ve wasted my time in reading this book, believe it or not. As I said up front, there?s much to recommend it, and I have added to my knowledge of 9/11 via its discourse. I hate to think that this would be someone?s introduction to this subject, however. Which is why, even though I'd give this book a "good" rating, I'd have to lead off with, "Caveat emptor!"

Love it or hate it? Review it now

Discussions about Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-Up of 9/11

Start a new discussion
  1. What's on your mind? Review post guidelines

Join Today!

Share your ideas with other community members

Create account

Already a member?

Log in now

Subjects related to Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-Up of 9/11

Get $300 in coupons and other goodies. Sign up for newsletter No, thank you.

You're signed up (and we you). Watch for our Welcome e-mail and your first coupon. Thanks!