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.

Debunker Paint

Now I wasn't really that impressed with the new Loose Change film to be honest. The historical stuff was interesting (particularly the bit about the Coup plot against Roosevelt) and the narration and music was generally an improvement. But I thought the editing was a bit half-assed in places (Did it really cost them more than a million dollars?) and in terms of its 9/11 stuff it wasn't really anything special. I prefer the Final Cut. Probably the best piece of footage in the entire movie was this little shot of a 'paint' chip being ignited. Now I don't know what debunkers paint their houses with but let's just say I don't want any of it near my house.



Comment from John-Michael Talboo:

All that being said about LC, they didn't need to include as much info about demolition seeing as how we have found the explosives. It seems the overall goal was to make as concise a presentation as possible. As to the other info not being special, remember that as 9/11 researchers we are very over-exposed. They mentioned this in a recent interview. I have already showed it to a newbie, and now they are a newbie truther! I think we needed a new Loose Change post-Obama/nanothermite. I actually think someone should edit together the best parts of Final Cut and Coup to make Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup Final Cut!

Related Info:

More About That Exploding Paint

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

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

TheAlexJonesChannel
YouTube.com
September 06, 2009

Nationally syndicated radio talkshow host Alex Jones interviews Richard Gage regarding his recent appearance on National Geographic Channel's two-hour special 9/11: Science and Conspiracy. Richard Gage is a San Francisco Bay area architect, a member of the American Institute of Architects, and the founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. More than 800 architects and engineers have now joined his call for a new investigation, including at least 29 structural and civil engineers.

National Geographic Channel on 9/11: Manipulation vs. Objectivity - AE911Truth plans to release a longer response than this one as soon as resources permit.

PrisonPlanet.com search results for: National Geographic 9/11

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 vs Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup

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

Debunking National Geographic - 9/11 Science and Conspiracy

National Geographic: "Science" and "Psychology"

National Geographic Should Stick to Documentaries About Girls Who Cry Blood

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".

National Geographic: "Science" and "Psychology"

I finally was able to download the recent National Geographic piece today and I have literally just finished watching it. The piece was by far the most muddled, poorly edited and logically flawed piece of propaganda I have ever seen. It was a lot like the History Channel piece, except instead of enduring 90 minutes of James Meigs' camp, Mr Garrison type voice, I had to endure 90 minutes of monotonous narration that makes Microsoft Sam look emotive.

Unlike other hitpieces, they keep the uses of words "conspiracy theorist" to a minimum - instead prefering the word "truther", which was uttered in a negative way so many times you can make a drinking game out of it. It was even written in text under the names of Gage, Avery, Jones and Griffin. At the start of each segment a load of points were quickly flashed on screen as moving text. Just about every fringe theory was dug up as these flashes of points included things like "the illuminati chose the date September 11 for its occultic significance" and something to do with a zionist conspiracy. The program made the rather hilarious assertion that "The government timeline of events has been consistent" - I literally was laughing for like five minutes at that.

Much like the History Channel piece, numerous comparisons were made to the false flag attack of Pearl Harbour. However, just like the History Channel hitpiece, no mention was made of the admitted false flag operation, which is perhaps even more comparable to 9/11 than Pearl Harbour due to the fact that the two were used to justify similar things - Hitler's Reichstag fire.

The program made very little mention of Building 7, and only even showed a video of it at the end when an activist mentioned it. Shots of the twin towers destruction were tightly edited and kept to a minimum - my guess is they didn't want to show the blatant demolitions too much. They reinforced the piledriver theory by deceptively overlaying a white rectangle on a video of the north towers collapse. Even though it's obvious that the piledriver is itself destroyed before anything else. To the programs credit, they did show images of Steven Jones' red chips, but whitewashed over them.

The bulk of the program consisted of four "scientific" experiments - the heating of a steel beam with jet fuel, a demolition, a thermite experiment and a Pentagon impact experiment. Here are my thoughts on them:

Steel Beam Plus Jet Fuel

You know how debunkers always criticize us for comparing the twin towers to other skyscraper fires such as the Windsor fire or the Beijing fire, arguing that the different constructions make them incomparable? Well what do they use for comparison? Do they make a scale model of a tube in tube structure and set fire to it? No! They take one random steel beam and expose it to a massive 2000 degree jet fuel fire. In reality of course, the temperature in the World Trade Center would have been conducted across a massive heatsink of interconnected steel beams. They also completely ignore the fact that paint tests done by NIST themselves found that the temperatures their samples reached were barely hot enough to ignite paper, let alone soften steel. The entire experiment proved nothing, much more comparible experiments have already been done. Such as the UL tests and other skyscraper fires.

The Demolition

This experiment of course attempted to demonstrate how difficult it would be to demolish a building without people knowing due to the amount of work that would have to be done. The only thing this experiment proves is how difficult it is to bring a building down - the demolition wasn't even fully successful! So on the one hand they are saying it takes massive amount of effort to implode a building, but on the other they are arguing the least controlled thing possible imploded the towers! A better experiment would have been to find twin buildings and rig one for demolition and set the other one on fire and compare the two.

Thermite

Just like the MythBusters car experiment before it, this experiment proved that ordinary thermite can't cut a steel beam in half. The experiment was pointless because, as they pointed out, they did not use superthemite. Also there was no load on the steel beam either. Just like the demolition experiment, all it really proved is how resilient steel is.

Pentagon Experiment

Now I believe a plane did hit the Pentagon, but this whole experiment was still pointless and proved nothing. They could have quite easily gone and interviewed some of the Arlington County firefighters and proved beyond all doubt that a plane hit. But I guess the government wants to keep that counter myth alive.

Amazingly enough, pretty much everything I've just said was actually mentioned in the episode. They actually allowed Gage, Avery and Griffin to respond to their debunking. Because this is what the program was really about, a psychological examination of "truthers" and how we continue to defend our theories even when they are "disproven". We were of course portrayed as cult members who like to believe in conspiracies because it makes us feel better. Hey, I've got news for you ... I don't LIKE believing in this stuff at all. I wish it was 19 guys directed by a man in a cave in Afghanistan. The truth sometimes keeps me awake at night.

In the end the main argument of the program was one of practicality. They once again made out that it would require a massive conspiracy of thousands of people and, while completely ignoring compartmentalization and well kept secrets such as the Manhatten Project and Area 51, they argued that it would be impossible for them to keep a conspiracy secret.

And, since they brought up Kennedy, why does Dale Myers' computer animation that supposedly proves the magic bullet theory have Kennedy and Connelly seated much closer together than they actually were?



I could go on but there's no point. The program debunks itself. I really am sick of these hitpieces. Who do they get to make these things? Mentally ill people who used to torture puppies as a kid? I don't know whats worse, the fact that people make this kind of crap, or the fact that people fall for it.

I'm looking forward to Ventura's 9/11 documentary and I hope Dylan will include a video of one of Stephen Jones' chips being ignited (he did) in his upcoming film.

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 Should Stick to Documentaries About Girls Who Cry Blood

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".