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".
No comments:
Post a Comment