Readers of Debunking the Debunkers should consider sending the occassional letter to their public broadcasters, in this case ABC News (Australia) online, in order to provide pressure to get them to 'tell the truth'. Public pressure forced CSPAN to interview Richard Gage from Architechs and Engineers for 911 Truth. The following letter attempts to undermine a war facilitating webpage. Even if your letter is short, it will help. Someone will read the content, and perhaps change their mind.
LETTER:
Hello [XXXXXXX],
I just went through your article titled "Explained: What Makes the Middle East a Witch's Brew" and noted a number of very significant omissions to the narrative such that it effectively misleads your audience when it comes to helping them "understand what is happening in Iraq and Syria."
The biggest overarching omission is that you neglected to explain that the conflict in Syria, that has helped fuel the fighting in Iraq, is essentially a PROXY WAR that was instigated by the US, UK, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other allies, where planning was conducted a number of years before hostilities erupted.
The problem is not ISIS. The problem is the proxy war in Syria and the geopolitical desire by the west to remove Iranian-Shia influence in Iraq. This is not to say that your analysis of the Maliki Government's pro-Shiite bias is incorrect, only that the opposition movements benefited immensely from this US-Saudi policy to the point where these countries backed extremists and escalated the fighting to serve their own agendas. The focus on fighting Assad in Syria over the last 3 years is the root cause of the ISIS ascension.
You needed to inform your audience that the initial pro-democracy protests in Syria were hijacked by armed gangs/defectors that we know were operating out of the Incirlik NATO base in southern Turkey:
http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2011/11/21/bfp-exclusive-syria-secret-us-nato-training-support-camp-to-oust-current-syrian-president/
Interviews with people, such as refugees including nuns, indicated that the protests were indeed hijacked and that people fled the country because of the 'rebels', who acted barbarically from the beginning:
See this SBS interview with mother Agnes-Mariam: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyL3M5hstiM
+ Nobel peace prize Laureate fact finding tour interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msA35ATXol8
Furthermore, the precursor to ISIS, as reported by The Guardian and Der Spiegel newspapers, actually received anti-tank weapons training from US, UK and French personnel in Jordan in 2012:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/10/us-syria-crisis-rebels-usa-idUSBRE9290FI20130310
Other reports of arms flowing across the Turkish border in trucks and weapons coming in from Qatar and Saudi Arabia can be found by those that look.
In your section "The Assad Problem" you mentioned sniper attacks on children without presenting any evidence of this claim. The reason evidence is important here is because we have had claims of chemical weapons use by the Syrian Government where the evidence (Carla Del Ponte's UN team, MIT scientists) indicated that the rebels were responsible for its use - the opposite of the claims made by western countries (USA, UK) involved in the proxy attack on Syria.
We do have footage of snipers shooting on civilians in Syria but they are unidentified individuals and are likely provocateurs. We cannot tell for sure. In an interview with former French Foreign Minister Roland Dumas, we find that he was approached by British officials in 2009, two years before violence broke out in Syria, to assist in efforts to oust/destabilise Assad:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kz-s2AAh06I
This is not to say that the forces of the Assad Government have acted by the conventions of a legally conducted war - obviously they have not, if we are to go by Robert Fisk's reports of the Syrian Army not taking prisoners at various stages of the conflict. However, the Assad Government is reacting to an armed uprising fully supported by a western military alliance. Herein lies the great crime, and the issue that you have neglected to cover.
I highly recommend watching the following videos that contain strong first hand evidence of foreign intervention in the conflict including the staging of the chemical weapons attacks that were wrongly (deliberately) blamed on the Syrian Government.
Corbett Report on Who is Really Behind the Syrian War: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCdaExnIpGs
Corbett Report on ISIS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LSIwvE0Nvo
Video Compilation on ISIS origins: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMjXbuj7BPI&list=UUEHsSWvrGVSIA63OV3J6vhA
FBI whisleblower interview on direct US support for terrorist groups: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uz677koGfPU
Syrian chemical weapons lies exposed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KFpaU9PC8o
Professor Michel Chossudovsky's very reasonable geopolitical assessment of the wars in the Middle East: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34j2Rf-IvJQ
At present your article is misleading your audience through the omission of vitally important evidence. In the interests of balance you need to make corrections (under the ABC Code of Practise guidelines).
This is the problem with the mainstream media at present - it is facilitating murder by uncritically reporting on these events and neglecting to remind viewers of deliberate western involvement in these types of wars - where they initiate the fighting and then escalate the situation.
Please make the necessary corrections.
_______________________________
Refuting the Hollow Arguments of the So-called 9/11 Debunkers & Truthers
Showing posts with label Australian media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Australian media. Show all posts
Saturday, October 25, 2014
Friday, October 22, 2010
Who is Really "Stupid and Wrong": Key Ideas and Evidence Concerning 911 that Prove the Attacks involved Inside Help. (911 Truth Debate in Australia)
A letter sent to Australian media:
Recently the President of the Trades Hall Council and Secretary of the Maritime Union of Australia, Kevin Bracken, telephoned into a local radio program that was discussing the Australian troop deployment to Afghanistan. Mr Bracken aired the implicit view that, in terms of the deployment's role in "stopping terrorism", we should be mindful that our commitment was, from the outset, completely unnecessary. His argument follows that we are fighting an unnecessary war because the attacks of 911 were orchestrated by a conspiracy originating closer to home, that Osama Bin Laden was merely a patsy.
Predictably, when this matter was raised in the Australian Parliament the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, quickly responded by characterising Mr Bracken's opinions as "stupid and wrong". However, when we compare the US Government's official story regarding 911 with the hard evidence relating to the World Trade Centre attacks we can quickly determine that the only people who are wrong here are those who back the official story.
There are four main points of physical evidence revealed in the destruction of the World Trade Centre Buildings that provide smoking gun physical evidence that completely undermines the official account; that fires caused the "collapses" of these structures:
Point One. The destruction of the Twin Towers, and World Trade Centre 7, exhibited features that were not at all consistent with a gravitational collapse. In fact these features can only be reasonably described as the products of explosive forces. World Trade Centre Building 7 in particular raises a huge red flag. Designed, like the towers, to withstand earthquakes, fires, and hurricanes, with only minor damage, and not hit by an aeroplane, this structure collapses in a manner identical to a controlled demolition seven hours after the disintegration of the Towers at 5:20pm. The collapse here defies the Laws of physics save for the use of explosives that would allow for such a rapid demise.
Point Two. Despite the building fires being too weak to melt structural steel there is ample evidence showing the melting of steel during and after the building destruction. The phenomena of melted steel is an impossible occurrence under the observed fire conditions witnessed in the buildings and can only have resulted from the presence of chemical incendiary (superhot burning) devices.
Point Three. Investigations by independent scientists showed the signature of the chemical incendiary THERMATE in multiple dust samples (and also upon a previously melted section of steel frame). The amount of material present in the dust samples indicated that many tons must have been used and provided clear evidence of foul play.
Point Four. In the last few years an international team of researchers looking into the WTC dust found high tech explosive particles (nano-thermite chips) in every sample collected. This military grade product, found in quantities that also indicated many tons were present, cannot be explained in any conventional way. This was the final nail in the coffin of the official story that fires had caused the World Trade Centre building collapses.
These four points of forensic proof indicate an attempt had been made at deceptively demolishing these three buildings. The deception was only partly successful.
The immediate question following this evidence is how could so many tons of explosive and incendiary materials be brought into these buildings ? At this point no one can surely say except to point out that the evidence is, nevertheless, there. One thing we do know is that an elevator modernisation program was underway in the Towers during the months leading up to the attacks providing plenty of opportunity to thoroughly rig these structures.
So what about the official investigations ? When it came to conducting the scientific "investigations" into the building collapses the FEMA and NIST studies basically ignored or whitewashed these obvious signs of inside work. In fact the "separate" investigations consisted of the same people who had connections & contracts to the US military. Some of these individuals even had connections to nano-thermite (explosive) research !
When we look at 911 from an objective stand point it is obvious that the attacks involved a large degree of inside help and that a cover-up was, and still is, in operation. The problem with successfully communicating this information to those who remain skeptical are twofold:
1. There is a strong reluctance by people, who have been psychologically conditioned to accept the official account, to take a second look at any evidence that interferes with their established views (and this includes the Australian Prime Minister), and
2. There are numerous liars in the US corporate media and Government who will try to keep a lid on anything that greatly rocks the establishment. They'll censor or deride all attempts at having a reasonable debate on this matter and push false counter claims to the truth evidence (debunking) so as to mislead the public.
In terms of the Australian experience involving our own terrorism "experts", the academics and bureaucrats who brief our media and the Government also appear to either not recognise the truth or deliberately go along with the lie.
On the other hand, our intelligence heads at the ONA and ASIS, who should be less susceptible to deception than others, almost certainly recognise the truth and more than likely push the lie about 911 to those not in the know. Their mission, like that of the CIA, is to "play the game" and protect strategic and corporate interests. The 911 lie is simply too big to let out of the bag, the repercussions for the shadowy intelligence community being too great.
In the middle of this mess is the Australian media's inability to report on such matters. Our investigative journalists, who should have been more curious and critical of the official 911 story, seem to be as misled as the general population.
The time has passed to gloss over the "conspiracy theories" concerning the 911 attacks. When we are talking about having our troops remain in Afghanistan, potentially for up to 10 more years, we need to be honest with ourselves and not trumpet the false belief that we are preventing more terror attacks like 911. That assertion is plainly ridiculous.
Anyone who engages in enough research can determine who is telling the truth about 911, either the US Government or independent researchers. The fact is that Australian troops arrived in Afghanistan under mistaken pretenses and now we have to decide whether they should stay for humanitarian reasons or withdraw.
Please visit these vital 911 truth sites and make a reasoned judgement on what to believe: Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth, 911Blogger, and (for counter-disinformation) Debunking the Debunkers Blog [Google them].
Please vote!
Herald Sun Poll: 65% Agree that the Official 9/11 Story does not Stand up to Scientific Scrutiny
Related Info:
Visibility 9-11 Welcomes Australian Union President, Kevin Bracken – A True Working Class Hero!
Defending The 9/11 Truth Tellers
Aussie Trades Unionist Exposes 9/11 Cover-up
Recently the President of the Trades Hall Council and Secretary of the Maritime Union of Australia, Kevin Bracken, telephoned into a local radio program that was discussing the Australian troop deployment to Afghanistan. Mr Bracken aired the implicit view that, in terms of the deployment's role in "stopping terrorism", we should be mindful that our commitment was, from the outset, completely unnecessary. His argument follows that we are fighting an unnecessary war because the attacks of 911 were orchestrated by a conspiracy originating closer to home, that Osama Bin Laden was merely a patsy.
Predictably, when this matter was raised in the Australian Parliament the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, quickly responded by characterising Mr Bracken's opinions as "stupid and wrong". However, when we compare the US Government's official story regarding 911 with the hard evidence relating to the World Trade Centre attacks we can quickly determine that the only people who are wrong here are those who back the official story.
There are four main points of physical evidence revealed in the destruction of the World Trade Centre Buildings that provide smoking gun physical evidence that completely undermines the official account; that fires caused the "collapses" of these structures:
Point One. The destruction of the Twin Towers, and World Trade Centre 7, exhibited features that were not at all consistent with a gravitational collapse. In fact these features can only be reasonably described as the products of explosive forces. World Trade Centre Building 7 in particular raises a huge red flag. Designed, like the towers, to withstand earthquakes, fires, and hurricanes, with only minor damage, and not hit by an aeroplane, this structure collapses in a manner identical to a controlled demolition seven hours after the disintegration of the Towers at 5:20pm. The collapse here defies the Laws of physics save for the use of explosives that would allow for such a rapid demise.
Point Two. Despite the building fires being too weak to melt structural steel there is ample evidence showing the melting of steel during and after the building destruction. The phenomena of melted steel is an impossible occurrence under the observed fire conditions witnessed in the buildings and can only have resulted from the presence of chemical incendiary (superhot burning) devices.
Point Three. Investigations by independent scientists showed the signature of the chemical incendiary THERMATE in multiple dust samples (and also upon a previously melted section of steel frame). The amount of material present in the dust samples indicated that many tons must have been used and provided clear evidence of foul play.
Point Four. In the last few years an international team of researchers looking into the WTC dust found high tech explosive particles (nano-thermite chips) in every sample collected. This military grade product, found in quantities that also indicated many tons were present, cannot be explained in any conventional way. This was the final nail in the coffin of the official story that fires had caused the World Trade Centre building collapses.
These four points of forensic proof indicate an attempt had been made at deceptively demolishing these three buildings. The deception was only partly successful.
The immediate question following this evidence is how could so many tons of explosive and incendiary materials be brought into these buildings ? At this point no one can surely say except to point out that the evidence is, nevertheless, there. One thing we do know is that an elevator modernisation program was underway in the Towers during the months leading up to the attacks providing plenty of opportunity to thoroughly rig these structures.
So what about the official investigations ? When it came to conducting the scientific "investigations" into the building collapses the FEMA and NIST studies basically ignored or whitewashed these obvious signs of inside work. In fact the "separate" investigations consisted of the same people who had connections & contracts to the US military. Some of these individuals even had connections to nano-thermite (explosive) research !
When we look at 911 from an objective stand point it is obvious that the attacks involved a large degree of inside help and that a cover-up was, and still is, in operation. The problem with successfully communicating this information to those who remain skeptical are twofold:
1. There is a strong reluctance by people, who have been psychologically conditioned to accept the official account, to take a second look at any evidence that interferes with their established views (and this includes the Australian Prime Minister), and
2. There are numerous liars in the US corporate media and Government who will try to keep a lid on anything that greatly rocks the establishment. They'll censor or deride all attempts at having a reasonable debate on this matter and push false counter claims to the truth evidence (debunking) so as to mislead the public.
In terms of the Australian experience involving our own terrorism "experts", the academics and bureaucrats who brief our media and the Government also appear to either not recognise the truth or deliberately go along with the lie.
On the other hand, our intelligence heads at the ONA and ASIS, who should be less susceptible to deception than others, almost certainly recognise the truth and more than likely push the lie about 911 to those not in the know. Their mission, like that of the CIA, is to "play the game" and protect strategic and corporate interests. The 911 lie is simply too big to let out of the bag, the repercussions for the shadowy intelligence community being too great.
In the middle of this mess is the Australian media's inability to report on such matters. Our investigative journalists, who should have been more curious and critical of the official 911 story, seem to be as misled as the general population.
The time has passed to gloss over the "conspiracy theories" concerning the 911 attacks. When we are talking about having our troops remain in Afghanistan, potentially for up to 10 more years, we need to be honest with ourselves and not trumpet the false belief that we are preventing more terror attacks like 911. That assertion is plainly ridiculous.
Anyone who engages in enough research can determine who is telling the truth about 911, either the US Government or independent researchers. The fact is that Australian troops arrived in Afghanistan under mistaken pretenses and now we have to decide whether they should stay for humanitarian reasons or withdraw.
Please visit these vital 911 truth sites and make a reasoned judgement on what to believe: Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth, 911Blogger, and (for counter-disinformation) Debunking the Debunkers Blog [Google them].
Please vote!
Herald Sun Poll: 65% Agree that the Official 9/11 Story does not Stand up to Scientific Scrutiny
Related Info:
Visibility 9-11 Welcomes Australian Union President, Kevin Bracken – A True Working Class Hero!
Defending The 9/11 Truth Tellers
Aussie Trades Unionist Exposes 9/11 Cover-up
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
STRATEGY FOR TOASTING PUBLIC BROADCASTERS ON 911 HIT PIECES [A Letter]
BACKGROUND INFO:
I saw this story by John Bursill about an Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) radio program dealing with 911. It was a short 7 minute 911 hit piece: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2010/2870592.htm
Bursill and other 911 activists left comments as did I. I also made a proper complaint about the program to the ABC at this address. The text of this letter follows below.
There are two key points everyone should consider.
1. You CAN hold taxpayer-funded public broadcasters to their Codes of Practice (or argue against corporate media content using government regulations) if you know what the rules are. [If you live in the USA things are more difficult since it has been ruled that the corporate media does not have to tell the truth. ie act responsibly].
2. Where Codes and regulations apply you can argue a case for public harm being done. Our guys are being killed, and so are many innocent people, because of the severe damage done by false information (re: the 911 false flag attack itself and those pushing this lie). Furthermore, in this particular case, I would argue that this is not just an academic exercise to correct a professor on simple "conspiracy theory conjecture" rather it has direct relevance to the public well being.
Note: The ABC intends to air the full Professor Williams lecture, from which the 7 minute hit piece clip was taken, on Sunday 18th April. If they do so I will certainly ask them to make a public apology, correction, or that they air a rebuttal piece from "our side". Lies and propaganda cannot go unchallenged !!
_________________________________________________
COMPLAINT versus ABC Counterpoint program:
[Dear complaint dept] I sent the following comment to this ABC web address (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2010/2870592.htm) in relation to the clip that went to air on April 12th, 2010. [see below for the message.]
I want the ABC to take action on the upcoming airing of Professor Williams lecture that is scheduled to go to air on Sunday 18th. Airing his lecture, which I have proved contains numerous, and very serious, falsehoods without warning viewers would place the ABC in violation of its Code of Practice (see Section 3). You should inform viewers that there are serious problems with the material presented by Williams as you have in other such circumstances when harmful misrepresentations are about to be put to air.
Please act quickly. Thanks.
ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
Mr Duffy you don't have much idea about the physical evidence that literally proves 911 was an inside job do you ?
You just believe the spin put out by Professor Williams without looking any further. If you had spent just a few minutes at http://www.ae911truth.org/ you would see that it is physically impossible for the World Trade Centre buildings to have "collapsed" WITHOUT the use of explosives.
Indeed, fragments of high tech explosive material have been recovered from the WTC site in quantities that indicate many tons of this stuff had been employed on the day.
Professor Williams needs to get his head checked. He mixes in lunatic fringe material and straw man arguments to make his case. The man needs to be openly debated by qualified members of the 911 Truth Movement here in Australia.
Here are three falsehoods pushed by Professor Williams in the clip:
1. That because the US Government is seen as incompetent then they could not have pulled off 911.
The problem here is that the US military and intelligence services are not so incompetent.
2. That because the attacks represent a relatively large operation someone would have talked.
The problem here is that although the Mafia and those associated with them number many individuals no one much talks under threat of death. Who would talk if they or their family members would be killed ? Plus, those speaking out would implicate themselves in the mass murder of 3000 innocent people.
3. He uses the discredited National Geographic hit piece "Science and Conspiracy" program as a good source of information. It is a very poor source of information and loaded with many false or misleading arguments.
There are two grossly misleading statements he makes in the clip about the "Science and Conspiracy" program:
Point 1.) that although it cannot melt steel, jet fuel can weaken steel so that is loses some of its strength (allowing a collapse).
The problem here is two fold, that:
A. If jet fuel (and normal fires for that matter) cannot melt steel then what caused the tons of molten steel found in the rubble of the World Trade Centre buildings ? Independent experts have found clear evidence (in the dust and from the steel itself) of the incendiary THERMATE, which is used by the military in demolition work. THERMATE, or a blast furnace, are the ONLY things that could cause such melting.
B. It does not matter if jet fuel or office fires could weaken the building steel because the observational evidence shows that only explosive forces could have caused the rapid "collapse" rates. Gravity alone is not enough to cause what was seen. The prime example is the freefall collapse of WTC 7. Steel NEEDS to be instantly removed so that it can fall so fast. Only explosives can do this. It's not rocket science, just basic physics. Please do some research.
Point 2.) "That a controlled demolition using conventional techniques would leave clear evidence that was not found at ground zero"
Clear evidence of unconventional explosives (unconventional techniques) were found at ground zero. In April 2009 a team of international scientists, writing in a peer reviewed journal, found clear evidence of nano-thermite explosive materials in all the dust samples collected. This is high tech military material and was present in amounts indicating there could have been 10-100 tons present in the buildings.
Mr Duffy, good journalists would look into this evidence and think for themselves rather that put to air this kind of discredited conjecture without some sort of disclaimer.
By allowing such false propaganda to go to air (you are planning on airing his entire lecture on Sun 18th April), when you have been informed of the problems, would place the ABC in violation of its Code of Practice. See Section 3 of the Code that deals with impartiality, balance and serving the public interest.
Airing knowingly false and misleading information, without fairly warning the viewers about these numerous problems, is not serving the public interest.
Knowing what you know from my message, and the other material sent to you by 911 truth advocates (such as John Bursill, you should in all fairness, qualify the speech you intend to air (and provide a link to the debunking of the National Geographic program Williams cites) or cancel his address altogether.
Here are two links that completely demolish the Nat Geo "documentary":
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2009/09/infowarrior-with-jason-bermas-jason.html
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2009/09/alex-jones-and-richard-gage-debunk.html
Mr Duffy, you need to think for yourself and question authority. You need to challenge Professor Williams on the physical evidence.
END MESSAGE.
I saw this story by John Bursill about an Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) radio program dealing with 911. It was a short 7 minute 911 hit piece: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2010/2870592.htm
Bursill and other 911 activists left comments as did I. I also made a proper complaint about the program to the ABC at this address. The text of this letter follows below.
There are two key points everyone should consider.
1. You CAN hold taxpayer-funded public broadcasters to their Codes of Practice (or argue against corporate media content using government regulations) if you know what the rules are. [If you live in the USA things are more difficult since it has been ruled that the corporate media does not have to tell the truth. ie act responsibly].
2. Where Codes and regulations apply you can argue a case for public harm being done. Our guys are being killed, and so are many innocent people, because of the severe damage done by false information (re: the 911 false flag attack itself and those pushing this lie). Furthermore, in this particular case, I would argue that this is not just an academic exercise to correct a professor on simple "conspiracy theory conjecture" rather it has direct relevance to the public well being.
Note: The ABC intends to air the full Professor Williams lecture, from which the 7 minute hit piece clip was taken, on Sunday 18th April. If they do so I will certainly ask them to make a public apology, correction, or that they air a rebuttal piece from "our side". Lies and propaganda cannot go unchallenged !!
_________________________________________________
COMPLAINT versus ABC Counterpoint program:
[Dear complaint dept] I sent the following comment to this ABC web address (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2010/2870592.htm) in relation to the clip that went to air on April 12th, 2010. [see below for the message.]
I want the ABC to take action on the upcoming airing of Professor Williams lecture that is scheduled to go to air on Sunday 18th. Airing his lecture, which I have proved contains numerous, and very serious, falsehoods without warning viewers would place the ABC in violation of its Code of Practice (see Section 3). You should inform viewers that there are serious problems with the material presented by Williams as you have in other such circumstances when harmful misrepresentations are about to be put to air.
Please act quickly. Thanks.
ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
Mr Duffy you don't have much idea about the physical evidence that literally proves 911 was an inside job do you ?
You just believe the spin put out by Professor Williams without looking any further. If you had spent just a few minutes at http://www.ae911truth.org/ you would see that it is physically impossible for the World Trade Centre buildings to have "collapsed" WITHOUT the use of explosives.
Indeed, fragments of high tech explosive material have been recovered from the WTC site in quantities that indicate many tons of this stuff had been employed on the day.
Professor Williams needs to get his head checked. He mixes in lunatic fringe material and straw man arguments to make his case. The man needs to be openly debated by qualified members of the 911 Truth Movement here in Australia.
Here are three falsehoods pushed by Professor Williams in the clip:
1. That because the US Government is seen as incompetent then they could not have pulled off 911.
The problem here is that the US military and intelligence services are not so incompetent.
2. That because the attacks represent a relatively large operation someone would have talked.
The problem here is that although the Mafia and those associated with them number many individuals no one much talks under threat of death. Who would talk if they or their family members would be killed ? Plus, those speaking out would implicate themselves in the mass murder of 3000 innocent people.
3. He uses the discredited National Geographic hit piece "Science and Conspiracy" program as a good source of information. It is a very poor source of information and loaded with many false or misleading arguments.
There are two grossly misleading statements he makes in the clip about the "Science and Conspiracy" program:
Point 1.) that although it cannot melt steel, jet fuel can weaken steel so that is loses some of its strength (allowing a collapse).
The problem here is two fold, that:
A. If jet fuel (and normal fires for that matter) cannot melt steel then what caused the tons of molten steel found in the rubble of the World Trade Centre buildings ? Independent experts have found clear evidence (in the dust and from the steel itself) of the incendiary THERMATE, which is used by the military in demolition work. THERMATE, or a blast furnace, are the ONLY things that could cause such melting.
B. It does not matter if jet fuel or office fires could weaken the building steel because the observational evidence shows that only explosive forces could have caused the rapid "collapse" rates. Gravity alone is not enough to cause what was seen. The prime example is the freefall collapse of WTC 7. Steel NEEDS to be instantly removed so that it can fall so fast. Only explosives can do this. It's not rocket science, just basic physics. Please do some research.
Point 2.) "That a controlled demolition using conventional techniques would leave clear evidence that was not found at ground zero"
Clear evidence of unconventional explosives (unconventional techniques) were found at ground zero. In April 2009 a team of international scientists, writing in a peer reviewed journal, found clear evidence of nano-thermite explosive materials in all the dust samples collected. This is high tech military material and was present in amounts indicating there could have been 10-100 tons present in the buildings.
Mr Duffy, good journalists would look into this evidence and think for themselves rather that put to air this kind of discredited conjecture without some sort of disclaimer.
By allowing such false propaganda to go to air (you are planning on airing his entire lecture on Sun 18th April), when you have been informed of the problems, would place the ABC in violation of its Code of Practice. See Section 3 of the Code that deals with impartiality, balance and serving the public interest.
Airing knowingly false and misleading information, without fairly warning the viewers about these numerous problems, is not serving the public interest.
Knowing what you know from my message, and the other material sent to you by 911 truth advocates (such as John Bursill, you should in all fairness, qualify the speech you intend to air (and provide a link to the debunking of the National Geographic program Williams cites) or cancel his address altogether.
Here are two links that completely demolish the Nat Geo "documentary":
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2009/09/infowarrior-with-jason-bermas-jason.html
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2009/09/alex-jones-and-richard-gage-debunk.html
Mr Duffy, you need to think for yourself and question authority. You need to challenge Professor Williams on the physical evidence.
END MESSAGE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)