BBC Parades out Debunked Sources to Refute ReThink911.org Campaign

The BBC recently published an article on the ReThink911.org campaign entitled, "Canadians wary of 9/11 explanations - and of US officials," which trotted out several debunked sources that we're very familiar with around here, so for anyone who might find their piece here is some further reading.

"Frank Greening, a nuclear scientist who lives in Hamilton, Ontario, knows the people behind the organisation - truthers, as they are known - well. He first met them years ago."- BBC

From blog contributor Scootle Royale's Top 10 Debunker Fails:

1) Frank Greening's 'Intelligent Thermite'

In an attempt to reconcile the thermite evidence with the official story, debunker Frank Greening once proposed that aluminium from the planes reacted with rust on the steel structures, "inducing violent thermite explosions", and that this "repeated in a rapidly accelerating, and increasingly violent cascade of destruction", resulting in the global collapse of the towers. In other words, he proposed that the twin towers were destroyed by thermite ... naturally!

In 2006, Gordon Ross responded to Greening's thesis in a hilarious essay entitled Sorry Dr. Greening et al ...

Dr. Greening is, I believe, a chemist so it is only fair to look at this field of study first of all. One of his most well known arguments is that there could have been natural thermite reactions within the tower fires. He lists those ingredients which are necessary for this natural thermite and shows that all of these ingredients were present, so his argument follows that a natural thermite reaction could have taken place. Now I will never claim to be good at chemistry but I know that if I leave margarine, flour, sugar and fruit in a cupboard, when I next open the cupboard I will not find a fruit crumble. Some mechanism is required to convert the ingredients. Similarly, if I take these same ingredients, set them alight and throw them out the window, I still will not get my fruit crumble. The mechanism must have some order. Dr. Greening fails to provide any explanation or narrative for these required mechanisms but rather relies on simply ticking off the ingredients and falling back on the unfailing support of his accolytes. It came as an enormous surprise to me that some educated people have been taken in by this, most notably and recently was Manuel Garcia, in his Counterpunch article. What we are being asked to swallow in place of our absent fruit crumble, is that the tonnes of aluminium aircraft parts were powderised upon impact, thoroughly mixed with tonnes of rust from the towers steel superstructure in exactly the required proportion to form tonnes of thermite, which then hung around for about an hour before distributing itself to key structural points throughout the tower, then igniting in a complex sequence to cause the towers' collapse. It is granted that a good imagination is a requirement for a good scientist, but this just abuses the privilege. Perhaps the name for this natural thermite should instead be intelligent thermite, or intelligent malevolent thermite.

As both a 9/11 truther and a Darwinism heretic, I find the fruit crumble analogy and 'intelligent malevolent thermite' designation doubly scrumptious. It is hard to believe anyone with the slightest semblance of rationality, never mind a professional chemist, would seriously suggest such a thing, but what do you expect from someone who denies Newton's third law?!

"His research was hardly shocking. It has been backed up by plenty of other experts, including those at Popular Mechanics who published a special report called Debunking the 9/11 Myths." - BBC

Debunking the REAL 9/11 Myths: Why Popular Mechanics Can't Face Up to Reality

Posted by Adam Taylor  

I am happy to announce that my latest article is finally available online! My newest work, titled Debunking the REAL 9/11 Myths: Why Popular Mechanics Can't Face Up to Reality, is a point-by-point refutation of Popular Mechanics' weak arguments regarding the controlled demolition of the three WTC buildings. If you thought Popular Mechanics' updated 2011 book refuted the so-called "conspiracy theories" about 9/11, think again.

Download Part 1 now at: http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/604-debunking-the-real-911-myths-why-popular-mechanics-cant-face-up-to-reality-part-1.html

Part 2: http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/612-debunking-the-real-911-myths-why-popular-mechanics-cant-face-up-to-reality-part-2.html

Part 3: http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/622-debunking-the-real-911-myths-why-popular-mechanics-cant-face-up-to-reality-part-3.html

Part 4: http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/634-debunking-the-real-911-myths.html  

Part 5: http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/653-debunking-the-real-911-myths-why-popular-mechanics-cant-face-up-to-reality-part-5-nanothermite-in-the-towers.html

Part 6: http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/668-why-popular-mechanics-cant-face-up-to-reality.html

Part 7: http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/683%20%20-debunking-the-real-911-myths-.html

Part 8: http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/683%20%20-debunking-the-real-911-myths-.html

Part 9: http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/748-debunking-the-real-911-myths-why-popular-mechanics-cant-face-up-to-reality.html 

NEW! Part 10: http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/766-debunking-the-real-911-myths-part-10.html 

Editor’s note: This is Part 10 of 10 (see Part 9), the conclusion of an extensive report by 9/11 researcher Adam Taylor that exposes the fallacies and flaws in the arguments made by the writers and editors of Popular Mechanics (PM) in the latest edition of Debunking 9/11 Myths. We encourage you to submit your own reviews of the book at Amazon.com and other places where it is sold. (Quotes from PM are shown in red and with page numbers.)

"Jonathan Kay, an editor at the National Post and author of Among the Truthers, said 9/11 conspiracy theories resonate for a reason." - BBC

Debunking Jonathan Kay, his book Among the Truthers, and Other 'Debunkers'

From ReThink911.org:

ReThink911 Keeps Building 7 in the Headlines

Let the BBC Editor Know the Public Doesn’t Buy Their One-Sided Coverage

Plus: NY Times Billboard Continues through December!

Yesterday the BBC published an article about the ongoing ReThink911 ad campaign in Ottawa. Featured on the BBC’s News homepage still today, the article has been seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

This piece marks the fifth mainstream news article about ReThink911’s Ottawa campaign since the announcement of the campaign on November 20. But unlike its Canadian counterparts, the BBC has a tendency for falseness and one-sidedness rivaled only by the likes of Fox News.

Tell the BBC Editor Their Reporting Is a Journalistic Disgrace

Please take 2 minutes right now to let the Editor of the BBC’s North America edition know how you feel about their reporting. Just copy-paste the letter below, or write your own. Please be sure to Bcc us at AE911Truth so that we can keep a count of how many emails are sent.

To: Claudia.Milne@BBC.co.uk Bcc: BBCoutreach@AE911Truth.org Dear Ms. Milne, The BBC’s article on the ReThink911 ad campaign in Ottawa is a journalistic disgrace. The number of false claims and one-sided maneuvers is simply astounding. Most disturbing is how the article falsely labeled Jonathan Kay and Popular Mechanics “experts,” while neglecting to quote a single one of the 2,100 engineering and architecture experts who are so critical of the official account that they are demanding a new World Trade Center investigation. In addition, the article provides links to every source it references that supports the official account of 9/11, but not a single link to a source critiquing the official account. With regard to the poll commissioned by ReThink911 and conducted by the polling firm YouGov, the article falsely, groundlessly calls it “unscientific,” and then conveniently neglects to embed or link to the 30-second video shown to the poll respondents. It seems rather obvious the video would be of interest to your readers. The article disrespectfully caricatures 9/11 activists by likening the group in Hamilton, Ontario to terrorists belonging to a “cell,” and the article does not mention even once the name of the ad campaign – or its website ReThink911.org. If your goal was to mislead the public about the very serious pursuit of truth regarding the events of 9/11, congratulations, I would say you succeeded admirably – except I think most people can see through this atrocious, unabashedly one-sided “reporting.” If you care at all about preserving the BBC’s journalistic integrity, I would suggest you make up for this horrible disservice to the public with an article that gives equal and unbiased attention to the more than 2,100 architects and engineers calling for a new investigation into the destruction of Building 7. Sincerely, [Your Name]

NY Times Billboard to Continue through December

Finally, we are thrilled to inform you that we have extended our NY Times billboard through the end of December for an absolutely rock bottom price. Our audacious billboard continues to greet reporters and editors on the way to work everyday. Soon we will be announcing new actions to hold the NY Times accountable for its lack of coverage of Building 7. Stay tuned!

Thank you as always for your tremendous support!