I was extremely disappointed in the show that aired on National Geographic, “9/11: Science or Conspiracy”. I read a while back that National Geographic would be giving an un-biased view into the events of 9/11, putting the “Truthers” (as they continuously and mind-numbingly called them) against the official story, side by side. It actually started out as a decent showing, but about 20 minutes in, I realized that this was going to be another lame attempt to debunk the conspiracy theories.
The supposed “unbiased” and “thorough” documentary failed to cover most of the alarming evidence, including Building 7, insider trading, Tim Osman aka Bin Laden the CIA Informant, advance warnings, NORAD war games, Norman Mineta’s testimony, and witnesses on site who heard and felt the many explosions from below the buildings. The narrative in th
e documentary became so predictable, that I actually couldn’t wait to find out who EMRTC (Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center) was really working for. EMRTC was the company responsible for creating most of the irrelevant tests used to attempt to debunk the truthers.
After only two minutes of putting Google to work, it became quite clear. EMRTC is obviously a heavy government contractor, with severe conflicts of interest. Of course they would never do any test or experiment that could name the US Government liable. Here are some random pieces of information that were plucked from the internet:
(I think it’s also worthy to point out that the National Geographic Channel is primarily owned by CRF member Rupert Murdock, affiliated with Fox News.)
“EMRTC is a longstanding contractor for the U.S. government, researching explosives and weapons technology since WWII, working for DOD, Justice, DOE and numerous other federal agencies.” http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-1364052801.html
Found a photo on Wikimedia Commons, lists author as: “EMRTC, prepared under US Government Department of Defence contract”
Under the “Licensing” section of this photo it reads: “This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code. See Copyright.”
Other random internet text: “EMRTC supports the efforts of Homeland Security’s Office of Domestic Preparedness by providing emergency response training.”
“A request made by EMRTC to purchase 13 new vehicles for a total cost of $259069 under an existing state government contract.”
I also surfed the net a while longer, and found out I wasn’t the only one disappointed in National Geographic for their government shill work. Here are some quotes of what others had to say: (Quotes can be found at: http://ngccommunity.nationalgeographic.com/ngcblogs/inside-ngc/2009/08/911-science-and-conspiracy-directors-diary.html#ixzz0Ps0SrTSu)
“As I patiently viewed the program it had become abundantly apparent that this show would be a very slanted and one-sided. The “four experiments that can forensically simulate the 9/11 attacks” were if nothing else feeble. The National Geographic Channel should be ashamed for airing this program. It is a slap in the face not only to the people that lost their lives that day, their families and anyone who has a modicum of intelligence. How very disappointing, I expected more from National Geographic.”-Jo
“I'm pretty angry I wasted my time watching this program. I agree with earlier comments that the "science" models used in the program are totally weak.” -BabyDoc963
“Very upset about the program. NatGeo failed to answer anything except just show the same tests that have been shown for the past 8 years, and left out everything that still cant be answered by "officials"; building 7 collapse, planes vanishing for the first time in history after a crash, the loud explosions heard at both ground zero and the pentagon, the phone calls made in air with 100% perfect connectivity, Presidents Bushes slip ups, the stock options put on American Airlines and Boeing... Those are just a small fraction of what I want answers for .. NatGeo , you have just fueled the minds of the people who still want answers.” -tymel YOUNG
“A few things I find contradicting or missing from this program.
1. Jet fuel melts the steel and makes it weak enough to give out, but thermite does not. They have one piece of steel with many weights on it over a pool of jet fuel for one test. Then they use an entirely different style of steel and the way it sits in the thermite test.
2. They don't even mention the 3rd building that fell (building 7). It just fell on its own?
3. They mention how difficult it would be to conduct a controlled explosion, meaning it would be extremely difficult to bring a heavily built building down. 100 guys 3 months of working. Yet 2 Jets can hit and bring 2 separate (actually 3 - see #2) buildings down better than the group that did the controlled explosion on an 8-story dormitory.
4. The Pentagon - why was there no video shown (other than the one piece that shows nothing, then an explosion) in one of the cities that has the most video surveillance in the US?
Hopefully this makes people think and do some research. The 9-11 Commission spent less money on this investigation then the one that was done on Bill Clinton getting a bj.”
-woodsher
“More garbage as usual from National Geographic. You can keep spewing out your lies and propaganda but nobody's buying it anymore. I turned you off long ago.”-nothwind
“I'm disturbed that Nat Geo aired this program. While I agree that many intepretations are open to speculation, my issue comes from the Pentagon recreation. I didn't feel the model was built properly to scale and the explosives placed within the model, instead of outside, was a pointless example. If you place an explosive into a confined space, of course it will obliterate it. But if you place it on the outside, where a supposed hit could land, you will have a different outcome. Then there is the tail wing, which was far larger that the initial hole. Where was it? We had debris, but no real evidence of a plane crash in my opinion.
The entire program was an attack on the conspiracy theory and those that support it. I watched a program the other day while at work on PBS that had a lot of interesting info. Initial reports said a missile had hit the Pentagon. They announced the collapse of Building 7 before it ever happened; it had very minor structural damage. Multiple reports of hearing an explosion before the first plane ever hit the WTC. Why where these not addressed in this program? If you can't take all the supporting evidence and address it, of course the theory will not stand!”
-kalislahren
“I'm really dissapointed that NGC used the word "Science" in the title of this show. If you call Purdue University's computer graphics and the demonstrations that were done on this show in the desert "science" then we have made a mockery of what is known as the scientific processes that are well established. I'm sure real scientists that know these processes haven't stop laughing yet. When I watched the DVD documentary called "Blueprint For Truth" which you can see at ae911truth.org you can see that careful consideration was taken to use established scientific processes to explain the destruction of the twin towers and Building 7. This shows major purpose was to explain away the 9/11 Truth Movement's legitimate questions that contradict the governments official version. I bet if you follow the money that NGC gets to make these kind of shows it will take you to some rather interesting people and corporations. I have to give credit to Richard Gage, Dylan Avery and David Ray Griffin because they did their best considering they didn't have any control of the final editing version of this show. Now that's two shows that NGC did that were fixed for the official version. That means they got two strikes against them. I don't even want to see the third strike.” -Matthew_naus
“This is the absolute worst thing I've seen NGC do. I don’t even know where to begin...I won’t even try.”-FlintLock76
The supposed “unbiased” and “thorough” documentary failed to cover most of the alarming evidence, including Building 7, insider trading, Tim Osman aka Bin Laden the CIA Informant, advance warnings, NORAD war games, Norman Mineta’s testimony, and witnesses on site who heard and felt the many explosions from below the buildings. The narrative in th
e documentary became so predictable, that I actually couldn’t wait to find out who EMRTC (Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center) was really working for. EMRTC was the company responsible for creating most of the irrelevant tests used to attempt to debunk the truthers.After only two minutes of putting Google to work, it became quite clear. EMRTC is obviously a heavy government contractor, with severe conflicts of interest. Of course they would never do any test or experiment that could name the US Government liable. Here are some random pieces of information that were plucked from the internet:
(I think it’s also worthy to point out that the National Geographic Channel is primarily owned by CRF member Rupert Murdock, affiliated with Fox News.)
“EMRTC is a longstanding contractor for the U.S. government, researching explosives and weapons technology since WWII, working for DOD, Justice, DOE and numerous other federal agencies.” http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-1364052801.html
Found a photo on Wikimedia Commons, lists author as: “EMRTC, prepared under US Government Department of Defence contract”
Under the “Licensing” section of this photo it reads: “This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code. See Copyright.”
Other random internet text: “EMRTC supports the efforts of Homeland Security’s Office of Domestic Preparedness by providing emergency response training.”
“A request made by EMRTC to purchase 13 new vehicles for a total cost of $259069 under an existing state government contract.”
I also surfed the net a while longer, and found out I wasn’t the only one disappointed in National Geographic for their government shill work. Here are some quotes of what others had to say: (Quotes can be found at: http://ngccommunity.nationalgeographic.com/ngcblogs/inside-ngc/2009/08/911-science-and-conspiracy-directors-diary.html#ixzz0Ps0SrTSu)
“As I patiently viewed the program it had become abundantly apparent that this show would be a very slanted and one-sided. The “four experiments that can forensically simulate the 9/11 attacks” were if nothing else feeble. The National Geographic Channel should be ashamed for airing this program. It is a slap in the face not only to the people that lost their lives that day, their families and anyone who has a modicum of intelligence. How very disappointing, I expected more from National Geographic.”-Jo
“I'm pretty angry I wasted my time watching this program. I agree with earlier comments that the "science" models used in the program are totally weak.” -BabyDoc963
“Very upset about the program. NatGeo failed to answer anything except just show the same tests that have been shown for the past 8 years, and left out everything that still cant be answered by "officials"; building 7 collapse, planes vanishing for the first time in history after a crash, the loud explosions heard at both ground zero and the pentagon, the phone calls made in air with 100% perfect connectivity, Presidents Bushes slip ups, the stock options put on American Airlines and Boeing... Those are just a small fraction of what I want answers for .. NatGeo , you have just fueled the minds of the people who still want answers.” -tymel YOUNG
“A few things I find contradicting or missing from this program.
1. Jet fuel melts the steel and makes it weak enough to give out, but thermite does not. They have one piece of steel with many weights on it over a pool of jet fuel for one test. Then they use an entirely different style of steel and the way it sits in the thermite test.
2. They don't even mention the 3rd building that fell (building 7). It just fell on its own?
3. They mention how difficult it would be to conduct a controlled explosion, meaning it would be extremely difficult to bring a heavily built building down. 100 guys 3 months of working. Yet 2 Jets can hit and bring 2 separate (actually 3 - see #2) buildings down better than the group that did the controlled explosion on an 8-story dormitory.
4. The Pentagon - why was there no video shown (other than the one piece that shows nothing, then an explosion) in one of the cities that has the most video surveillance in the US?
Hopefully this makes people think and do some research. The 9-11 Commission spent less money on this investigation then the one that was done on Bill Clinton getting a bj.”
-woodsher
“More garbage as usual from National Geographic. You can keep spewing out your lies and propaganda but nobody's buying it anymore. I turned you off long ago.”-nothwind
“I'm disturbed that Nat Geo aired this program. While I agree that many intepretations are open to speculation, my issue comes from the Pentagon recreation. I didn't feel the model was built properly to scale and the explosives placed within the model, instead of outside, was a pointless example. If you place an explosive into a confined space, of course it will obliterate it. But if you place it on the outside, where a supposed hit could land, you will have a different outcome. Then there is the tail wing, which was far larger that the initial hole. Where was it? We had debris, but no real evidence of a plane crash in my opinion.
The entire program was an attack on the conspiracy theory and those that support it. I watched a program the other day while at work on PBS that had a lot of interesting info. Initial reports said a missile had hit the Pentagon. They announced the collapse of Building 7 before it ever happened; it had very minor structural damage. Multiple reports of hearing an explosion before the first plane ever hit the WTC. Why where these not addressed in this program? If you can't take all the supporting evidence and address it, of course the theory will not stand!”
-kalislahren
“I'm really dissapointed that NGC used the word "Science" in the title of this show. If you call Purdue University's computer graphics and the demonstrations that were done on this show in the desert "science" then we have made a mockery of what is known as the scientific processes that are well established. I'm sure real scientists that know these processes haven't stop laughing yet. When I watched the DVD documentary called "Blueprint For Truth" which you can see at ae911truth.org you can see that careful consideration was taken to use established scientific processes to explain the destruction of the twin towers and Building 7. This shows major purpose was to explain away the 9/11 Truth Movement's legitimate questions that contradict the governments official version. I bet if you follow the money that NGC gets to make these kind of shows it will take you to some rather interesting people and corporations. I have to give credit to Richard Gage, Dylan Avery and David Ray Griffin because they did their best considering they didn't have any control of the final editing version of this show. Now that's two shows that NGC did that were fixed for the official version. That means they got two strikes against them. I don't even want to see the third strike.” -Matthew_naus
“This is the absolute worst thing I've seen NGC do. I don’t even know where to begin...I won’t even try.”-FlintLock76
