I have been following these podcasts and find them very worth the time it takes to listen to them. I was initially skeptical about Grove, but I believe he is making a real effort to be transparent about his identity/experience/motivation and that gives him credibility with me.

With that said, I must point out that THIS episode is not to be missed, on the basis of the follow-up phone call to Davin Coburn alone. If you thought the radio interview with him was pathetic, you gotta hear the phone call (from the guy who brought us "Hello, Loiseaux Co -- what does 'pull it' mean?"). He is no longer even ALLOWED to discuss the matter! Oh my God, the schadenfreude you will experience!

Under Fire, ABC Yanks Official Blog of 9/11 Docudrama
On September 10 and 11, ABC is planning to air a “docudrama” called “Path to 9/11,” billed as “an objective telling of the events of 9/11.” In fact, the film was written by an unabashed conservative who twists the facts to blame President Clinton.

The show’s official blog attracted many comments from the public criticizing the film for its inaccuracies. In response, writer Cyrus Nowrasteh and director David Cunningham posted a number of strikingly defensive blog posts. Some excerpts:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/04/path-blog-yanked/

(lots of truthers on this blog today)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/5305868.stm

I like how Davin calls himself a fact checker, and yet he can't answer one single question.  All he can do is spout off the same old bull that the MSM and gov't have been doing for years.

 Nice fact checking jackass.

I've just saw a add that the movie will be present on cable TV september 11. The movie was in theater in april 2006 and is coming on DVD september 5. Isn't a little bit faster that what we're use to see ? Odd.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060902/news_1n2wtc.html

Government reports discount Sept. 11 conspiracy theories

By Jim Dwyer
NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE

September 2, 2006

Faced with an angry minority of people who believe the Sept. 11 attacks were part of a shadowy plot run by Americans, separate reports were published this week by the State Department and a federal science agency insisting that the catastrophes were caused by hijackers who used commercial airliners as weapons.

Radio hosts, academics, amateur filmmakers and others have spread arguments on the Internet and cable television that the official narrative of 9/11 was little more than a cover story. One of the many theories they propose is that the Bush administration wanted to use the attacks to justify military action in the Middle East.

Most elaborately, they propose that the collapse of the World Trade Center was actually caused by explosive charges secretly planted in the buildings, rather than by the destructive force of the airliners that thundered into the towers and set them ablaze.
The government reports and officials said the demolition argument is utterly implausible on a number of grounds. Indeed, few proponents of the explosives theory are willing to venture explanations of how daunting logistical problems would be overcome, such as planting thousands of pounds of explosives in busy office towers.

Nevertheless, federal officials said they moved to affirm the conventional history of the day because of the persistence of what they call “alternative theories.” On Wednesday, the National Institute of Standards and Technology issued a seven-page study based on its earlier 10,000-page report on how and why the trade towers collapsed.

“With the fifth anniversary coming up, there seemed to be more play for the alternative viewpoints,” said Michael Newman, a spokesman for the institute.

A nationwide poll taken earlier this summer by the Scripps Survey Research Center at Ohio University found that more than a third of those surveyed said the federal government either took part in the attacks or allowed them to happen. Sixteen percent said the destruction of the trade towers was aided by explosives hidden in the buildings.

The demolition theory has managed to endure what would seem to be enormous obstacles to its practicality. Controlled demolition is done from the bottom of buildings, not the top, to take advantage of gravity, and there is little dispute that the collapse of the two towers began high in the towers, in the areas where the airplanes struck.

Those who believe in the demolition theory remain unconvinced by government statements new or old, and the officials who issued the would-be rejoinders said they are not surprised.

The State Department report, which officials said was written independently of the NIST synopsis, is titled, “The Top Sept. 11 Conspiracy Theories” and says, “Numerous unfounded conspiracy theories about the Sept. 11 attacks continue to circulate, especially on the Internet.”

The report brought to light one little-known detail about that morning: a private demolition monitoring firm, Protec Documentation Services, had seismographs at several construction sites in Lower Manhattan and Brooklyn.

Those machines documented the tremors of the falling towers, but captured no ground vibrations before the collapses from demolition charges or bombs.

You could just hear the fear in Colburn's voice....

Just want to say great job to all you guys and girls who are fighting the good fight over there in the US.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/09/04/sept11.homeland.tech.ap/index.html