JOURNALISTIC REMARKS

This program is part of the factual programing on NRK Television. It’s crew has in this instance, bravely defied the dominating zero-9/11Truth-tolerance culture which still permeate everything under the TV-broadcasters news-programming umbrella. For this I am very greateful. If you read this – Thank you.
Lars Ole Skjønberg, Schrödinger's Cat, NRK

Even though the segment is introduced by the show’s presenter, Hanne Kari Fossum, she only covers one (Harrit) of the four experts featured. The rest is covered by Lars O. Skjønberg and my remarks will focus on his contributions to the segment.

There is two proponents of 9/11 Truth (Harrit and Griffin), one proponent of the Buch/Cheney conspiracy theory (Sandmæl) and one neutral party (Mikkelsen) featured in the segment.

Although I suspect someone wanted Mikkelsen portrayed as endorsing the Bush/Cheney conspiracy theory, this is not the actual result as keen viewers surely already have picked up on. Mikkelsen encourage people to read the paper, when he describes it as interesting. Some of you might remember Steven Jones asking Ola Nilsen if he could conseed that the findings are interesting in my last post. Mikkelsen leaves no doubt about his position in that regard, nor does he doubt nano-thermites explosive role in this case. So far so good.

However, when it comes to Griffin the subtitler and the editor curiously manage to slip on the exact same banana-peel. Audio of Griffins voice is present underneath the voiceover at the beginning of this installment. This creates an illution of continous speech when in fact the audio changes track just before the correct video joins the new audio at 13:35. This allows for quoting Griffin out of context, omitting the fact that Griffin is speaking ironically about the “unique fire event”, which of course never really took place, something Griffin covers thoroughly in his ‘9/11: Time for a Second Look’ lecture, from which the clip is taken. This is so far like any other unfortunate mistake made by the mainstream media with regards to 9/11 Truth. What makes these first few seconds which are vital to establishing / disestablishing Griffin’s credibility so special, is like I just mentioned the tandem-mistake made by the subtitler in this very narrow corner of time in the world. When Griffin says “9/11 is seen as unique, on this day…” the subtitler translates it to “9/11 is ‘unique’, on this day…” further covering up the fact that Griffin is speaking ironically. This opens for the possible impression that Griffin agrees with Sandmæl and contradicts Harrit. Now; there are several oppotunities after this confusing intro, for acute and attentative viewers to understand Griffin’s position correctly. The reason I’m making a fuss about this is that first-impressions are often strongly guiding for how a following message is perceived and interpreted – a lesson learned the hard way by the youth of the countries invaded, because Osama bin Laden was and remains the boogie-man.

Still, I’ve been involved with 9/11 Truth long enough to realize that even accidental odds might yield bounty – in other words – it might actually be an honest mistake. Maybe everything will be perfect next time. :)

The ‘two-man banana-peel’-speculations aside, this is definately one of the most balanced mainstream stories on 9/11 Truth I have ever seen. Now let’s just hope an architect or an engineer decides to inform Finn Sandmæl publically on the many issues he seems to have with reality.