"I wonder what would happen if these individuals interviewed people like Paul Thompson, Ray McGovern, Peter Dale Scott, Lorie Van Auken, Mindy Kleinberg, Patty Casazza, Nafeez Ahmed, Jon Gold (hee hee), Kyle Hence, John Judge, Mike Berger, Kevin Fenton, P. Devlin Buckley, Sibel Edmonds, Coleen Rowley, etc... etc... etc... and put ALL of "the truth behind 9/11" to a REAL test."

Edit: I also wrote:

"Why does every "hit piece" focus on the "science?" Why don't they focus on the history, the facts, the lies, the distortions, the omissions, the family members, the first responders, the OBVIOUS reasons why a 9/11 Truth Movement exists in the first place? Obvious reasons that those who write "hit pieces" do their VERY best to avoid."

And a few days ago I wrote:

"Count how many "hit pieces" you see during the 8th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks against people like me, and count how many are valid pieces of journalism. I bet you will be able to count on one hand the amount of valid pieces, if that."

Edit: From last year... just take out BBC and put in National Geographic.

---

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

John A MITCHELL
Herblay FRANCE

bonsoir ,
and all the nano thermite chips have been turned over as well ? There must be millions on Staten Island just waiting to be turned over and analysed !!

see °1 ==> http://www.911blogger.com/node/20109

Yours

John

°1 _ _ _ _ _

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/9-11-science-and-conspirac...

CONSPIRACY VS. SCIENCE

Conspiracy theories are put to the test. How well do they stand up against the visual simulations of professional engineers? See how science supports official stories and debunks the conspiracies below.

THE COLLAPSE OF THE BUILDINGS

Official Story: The collapse was caused by fire initially fed by the jet fuel from the planes.
Science: Using original construction blueprints, photographs, and construction data, Purdue University, along with the American Society of Civil Engineers, created a model structure of the north World Trade Center tower and a scaled 767 jetliner. To model the fuel load, Purdue launched aluminum cans filled with liquid to represent an airline wing colliding with a steel column. The final simulation showed the internal destruction of supporting columns, the disintegration of the jetliner, the atomizing of the fuel, and the resulting fires that softened the steel framework of the building and brought it down.

Conspiracy: The fire could not have gotten hot enough to melt the steel.
Science: The Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center (EMRTC) designed explosives to test the effects of burning jet fuel on steel. EMRTC used a bare steel beam because the National Institute of Standards and Technology reports that much of the any fireproofing material would have been knocked off at the moment of impact. Within two minutes of igniting the fuel, the temperature peaked just above 2,000 Fahrenheit and complete structural failure occurred in less than four minutes.

Conspiracy: The collapse was caused by controlled demolition.
Science: The film crew recorded the demolition of a college dormitory building to learn all that is involved in the process of prepping and loading. The first step was to expose the columns in order to attach explosives to them. The World Trade Center had 47 inner core columns that would have needed to be prepared. To cut the steel beams the demolition team used a shape charge, which is piece of copper apportioned to a shape-charged weapon. When an explosive is attached and ignited, the device implodes and forms a stream of liquid copper that cuts through the steel. A demolition of this scale would leave clear evidence behind, but no such traces were found at Ground Zero.

Conspiracy: Thermite, which is less traceable, was used in the controlled demolition that brought down the towers.
Science: Some truthers claimdust that some New Yorkers found after the attack shares the components of thermite. Scientists assert that even if this dust did contain thermite, it would be impossible to determine whether the thermite came from a controlled demolition or simply from the melting of the airplanes. EMRTC designed an experiment to see if thermite was a plausible option in the collapse of the towers. The thermite in the test was not even able to melt a column much smaller than those in the World Trade Center.

THE ATTACK ON THE PENTAGON

Official Story: Hijackers caused a commercial airplane to crash into the building.
Science: Purdue University created a visual simulation of the crash, which indicated the victims’ bodies would have been pushed forward in relation to one another, just as they were in the actual attack. . To further investigate, EMRTC launched a projectile into a simulated structure. They did not include wings in the projectile model because Purdue asserted they were of little consequence as the Pentagon was so heavily reinforced. The experiment created a hole in the structure the approximate size of the projectile - similar to photo evidence from the actual attack.

Conspiracy: The Pentagon was either bombed or hit by a missile.
Science: EMRTC also planted an explosive in the same model structure and compared the results to photos of the Pentagon after the crash. The explosive test demonstrated a different sort of damage. The structure blew out from the point of the explosion, causing complete destruction of floors and walls. This dispersed debris did not match the photo evidence.

___________________________
"A time comes when silence is betrayal." -Martin Luther King Jr.

http://meetup.com/sftruthaction
http://myspace.com/sftruthaction
http://sftruthaction.blogspot.com

The thing about these corporate hit pieces is that on the surface, they might appear to be balanced in a generic sense. They do look at "both sides." In fact, by letting the truthers go first early in the program, they give the impression of "hey - look how fair we're being. We're even letting them make their case first."

However, this is also the weakness. When the anti-truthers get to go second, in effect having the last word, this could convey the impression that the anti-truthers have "won" and that the truth movement has been debunked. Never in one of these corporate hit pieces has the interviewer said to DRG for example: "You must obviously be aware of the community of debunkers who insist they've rebutted each and every one of your claims. What is your response to them, and what specifically about their answers to your claims do you not accept, and why?"

It's all about psychology. Even if the first half of the program shows the Danny Jowenko clip, the presence of "demolition expert Brent Blanchard" toward the end of the program "debunking" the demolition argument will be enough to reassure those who still cling to the official myth.

Speaking of the detractors:

Featured interviewees include "Truthers" Dr. David Ray Griffin, Dylan Avery, and Richard Gage; David Aaronovitch, journalist/author; Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone journalist; Patrick Smith, pilot and Salon columnist; David Baldacci, conspiracy novelist; and Brent Blanchard, demolition expert; among others.

Matt Taibbi's faulty logic and arguments were completely destroyed by Dr. Griffin in the debate between the two. Yet rather than acknowledging his shortcomings, Taibbi is still pimping for the OCT. And Brent Blanchard is a demolition expert pimping the no-demolition argument in 2009, long after there has been scientific proof otherwise. He's obviously working for the bad guys. I think both of these men deserve a visit from WeAreChange.

Never mind that Purdue evidently spent eons of time and mountains of money creating it (who paid for this?). We are asked to believe that the plane sliced effortlessly through the exterior columns but did not damage the floor? Their animation shows the plane sliding across the seemingly indestructible WTC floor.

Trailer here.

I remember first reading about this story here. I assume it will be similar to other 9/11 Conspiracy documentaries, nothing better than an 8th grade book report.

From the story: "On Monday, August 31, 2009, at 9pm ET, National Geographic Channel's "9/11: Science and Conspiracy" conducts a forensic investigation to test the tenets of some of the most common conspiracy theories."

Now I wonder what sort of forensic investigation they have conducted? Will it address the "Active Thermitic Paper"?

p.s. I suppose we should get used to seeing these kind documentaries crop up once a year around the time of 9/11.

This hit piece by National Geographic is an indication that we are indeed making progress. The fact that they have been compelled to produce another in a long line of hit pieces tells me that they are still trying to snuff out the Truth wildfire. Bringing National Geographic into the game indicates that they are taking the truth movement seriously, and have to use up some perceived credibility. They are ramping up their propaganda because our numbers are growing. Once someone sees the truth, they never go back. So every time we reach someone it increases our numbers. it is like flypaper. Once you light on it, you are there to stay. I am inspired by this hit piece.

Who owns the National Geographic Channel?

from Wiki:

"In the United States, National Geographic Channel, launched in January 2001, is a joint venture of National Geographic Television & Film and Fox Cable Networks. National Geographic provides programming expertise and the Fox Networks Group provides its expertise on distribution, marketing, and ad sales."

Make a note that National Geographic Television and Films is a taxable entity. They are a for profit venture. Adam Leipzig is the president. He comes from Disney and Touchstone, mainstream Hollywood. Can you say status quo?

The hideous evil intent of National Geographic is very evident from what I have seen so far. This type of covert deception leads to the murdeous ruin of many lives. There is no intent to truly present the alarming facts of 9/11, but rather an intent to keep people in the dark.
Personally, I label National Geographic as a lower scum than the actual perpetrators of 9/11, because of the show's treasonous attempt to mask the truth when the evidence is now overwhelmingly on the side of 9/11 Truth. I will bad mouth National Geographic on blogs and message boards, and I will promote other TV programming which is in their time slot. I will contact their advertisers and deride their Channel.

My ears are red.