To Members of the Media:

People are always asking us “how and why?” How did something that resonates with people across the nation and around the world go so wrong? The Steve Cuozzo analysis published in the New York Post on the eighth anniversary of 9/11 — “How NY Handed Osama a Victory” — was exceptionally well-crafted, but it left out a key element of the sorry narrative.

It is puzzling that the media treat the self-serving statements of Mr. Silverstein, Director Ward, and assorted politicians like gospel, in spite of their evident agendas and pitiful track records, while the perspective of well-informed citizens is mischaracterized and disregarded.

Cuozzo’s conclusion that “corrupt, rudderless state government is mostly to blame” won’t survive the glare of history, because corrupt, rudderless state government is a given in New York. The NYU Brennan Center recently affirmed — once again — that we have the most dysfunctional government in the nation. So why did the media leave Ground Zero in its hands?

Some journalists have objected to the aspects of the official plan that offend their sensibilities. In Cuozzo’s case, it is the $3 or $4 billion PATH station masquerading as a terminal. But how about what offends most New Yorkers and Americans? Why isn’t that a story?

We wonder what journalists make of this message sent to us on 9/11/09:

Good afternoon, I’m an Italian boy and my name is Andrea. It is right that New York and the whole America must regain its Twin Towers as they were before. Are and remain the symbol of the USA. — Calvanese Andrea

Or this comment from Scotland that was added to the TTA petition on 9/12/09:

Rebuild the twin towers and fill the empty space in all our hearts. The twin towers they fell for us so we should fight for them, its only fair. REBUILD THEM PLZ. THE FREEDOM TOWER IS NO USE, WE WANT BACK THE TWIN TOWERS. — Zara Nelson

Why do they bother? Don’t journalists ever wonder what these people see? If their yearning to reclaim towers that were as much a part of their world as ours is superseded by other priorities, what are they? Shouldn’t that be explained so that people won’t be confused?

How many buildings went up in the 20th-century that were dedicated to cooperation and world peace through world trade from their very inception? How many in all the centuries before? Even their twin shapes bespoke equality and solidarity. They weren’t disposable symbols. They were icons because, just like the symbols on our computer screens, they actually stood for something. In a world of false facades, they were true.

And they weren’t just literal icons, they were literal landmarks — they oriented our city and world. We saw them and knew where we stood, and without their reassuring presence, we aren’t quite sure. For everyone who says they were a symbol of imperialism, there must be a hundred who will tell you they were a symbol of opportunity and hope. And for everyone who insists they were ugly, there must be a hundred who caught their breath every time they saw them — whether for the first time or the thousandth.

In the end, 9/11 was about people, not buildings. There was a pathway to recovery that could have reassured the human heart, while protecting the bottom line. But it was sacrificed on the altar of: “This our chance to shine,” instead of the one that promised: “This is our chance to heal.” That is where the media could have made all the difference — and still can.

The real 9/11 conspiracy is the conspiracy of silence that has tried to bury the fact that a majority of us have always wanted to rebuild the Twin Towers — not a lunatic fringe, but, according to the polls, most New Yorkers and Americans — as well as friends around the world.

Leaving that vital information out of the editorials, front page news, and documentaries short-circuited the sort of vibrant debate that we see taking place today over healthcare, while making the current Hobson’s choice at Ground Zero seem inevitable. It is not.

This conspiracy theory isn’t based on dubious hypotheses, but on the failure of the most advanced communications network in history to circulate essential information that was readily available, thereby undermining consensus. As a result, the discussion that would have taken place around kitchen tables all over America, that would have prevented elitists’ “good taste” from trampling on the people’s good sense, never happened. But, it still could.

If the collective concussion we suffered in 2001 was to blame, then the press had another chance in 2005, when Donald Trump discovered and called national attention to the Belton-Gardner plan. “Twin Towers II” was the result of years of dedicated effort on the part of structural engineer Kenneth Gardner and his mentor, an architect on the original WTC team, the late Herbert Belton. But, instead of looking into what that plan could offer the troubled site, the media chose instead to make Trump’s ego the story. That was a very costly mistake.

Mr. Trump was simply and honestly reflecting the desire of most Americans. And the $20 billion that were, as Steve Cuozzo pointed out, sent to New York from Washington and then frittered away, certainly gave the public a collective stakeholder status. But the Trump-bashing effectively put other experts in the field on notice — including some eminent authorities who agree that Gardner’s plan is far superior to the official project — that it would be crazy to publicly say so. Is that likely to bring us the sort of World Trade Center we deserve? More