Tuesday, September 1, 2009

National Geographic Should Stick to Documentaries About Girls Who Cry Blood

Debunking the Debunkers
September 1, 2009

I just finished watching the National Geographic hit piece. Ultimately, I wasn't impressed. They really only addressed 2 or 3 key claims in the piece. Their experiments they did on testing how steel reacts to fire and thermite, I thought, were really a joke. They tested one steel beam that was just laying across a pit with a pool of jet fuel? It's interesting how they never mention that Underwriters Labs had created full scale models of the WTC floor sections, tested them in hotter and longer fires, and that they didn't collapse. Clearly the conditions were going to be different and have different results. Namely: the fact that their test was out in the open with plenty of oxygen fueling the fire while the Twin Towers clearly had oxygen starved fires; the fact that their beam wasn't attached to anything and therefore had far less support than in the WTC; and that they aren't clear how similar their beam was to the ones in the WTC. As for their thermite test, it seemed totally pointless. Steven Jones and Richard Gage made it clear that they weren't talking about using commercial thermite in a demolition, but they went ahead and tested it anyway! It's obviously very easy for them to debunk theories we're not saying happened. And in regard to their Pentagon tests, I didn't give it much thought. I believe Flight 77 did crash into the building, so it didn't really matter to me.

When I saw the "experts" they brought on, I was pretty amazed. They had Brent Blanchard, who I hadn't seen since the History Channel hit piece, Matt Taibbi, and some guy who wrote a book about conspiracy theories. These guys were clearly not an unbiased crowd. Brent always was one to denounce the Truthers so quickly. Like the thermite test, the demolition test Brent was a part of also seemed totally pointless since Gage and Jones, once again, made it clear they were not talking about conventional explosives. With Matt Taibbi, I almost laughed when I saw he was considered one of the experts. He and his false notion that it would take 1000s of people to pull off 9/11 when the movement has always presented plausible scenarios as to how it may have been a small amount of people, was really laughable. And as for this guy who writes about how conspiracy theories have no merit and are fantasy, what else would he say? He says the people in the movement are paranoid, but I notice how they never mention (in any of the hit pieces really) that the majority of people who lost friends and family on 9/11 are asking the same questions as the movement. To their credit, they did show a good shot of Building 7's collapse.

Ultimately, while the piece may not have done as much attacking as the others, it did some of the most poor debunking attempts I have ever seen. Hopefully they pick their ratings back up with their "girl crying blood" piece. That did look kind of interesting.

Related Info:

Dear friends who've just viewed the National Geographic Conspiracy Theory on 9/11

Exchange of emails (March 2009) with Robert Erickson, producer of the National Geographic special on 9/11

National Geographic Does 9/11: Another Icon Debased in Service of the Big Lie - Like Popular Mechanics' 9/11 Lies Straw Man, only dumber?

Finally, an apology from the National Geographic Channel

National Geographic Channel on 9/11: Manipulation vs. Objectivity

National Geographic vs Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup

THE INFOWARRIOR with Jason Bermas: Jason Debunks National Geographic & No Planes BS!

Alex Jones and Richard Gage Debunk the National Geographic Hit Piece on 9/11 Truth

Debunking National Geographic - 9/11 Science and Conspiracy

National Geographic: "Science" and "Psychology"

Sander Hicks: "National Geographic Pseudo-Science?"

National Geographic hitpiece will prove 9/11 fire collapse theory to be impossible.

National Geographic to Air New 911 "Documentary".