The Jackass Returns
Today's Story in the New York Post Finally Gives Fair Play to 9/11 Truth, What a Big Change from 2005.
by Sander Hicks August 28, 2009
(NEW YORK) You know the world is really coming to an end when the New York Post lets me, a leading 9/11 Truther, effectively review, and pan, the new anti-Truther documentary, National Geographic Channel's "9/11: Science and Conspiracy." But that's what happened today. Read it online, or see my scan of the print piece. My jaw is still on the floor.
Let's start with the documentary itself. "Science and Conspiracy" is fundamentally-misconceived, half-hearted, poorly-planned, slapped together, badly written, mis-cast, and self-defeating. It contains four scientific "experiments" pulled off in the New Mexico desert by a bunch of pyrotechnic geeks, the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center (EMRTC).
Should we gloss over EMRTC's ties to Homeland Security and FEMA? Executive Dennis Hunter is their liaison to defense contractor SAIC. (And yes, that SAIC, the one where right-wing anthrax suspect Steven Hatfill labored away alongside Jerry Hauer, who later became Giuliani's mysterious "bioterror expert".) On camera, EMRTC come off as hapless and inept. They can't get their rocket to hit the broad side of a concrete board structure. When it does, it teaches us nothing about what hit the Pentagon, anyway. Appropriately enough, EMRTC then blow up the concrete board structure with a powerful bomb they make, to show what a "missile" at the Pentagon might have done (if that missile was a bomb inside a concrete board box in the New Mexico desert. Get it? No?)
EMRTC then do "tests" with materials that are purported to be sort-of World Trade Center-related, but they don't use the right stuff here either. To disprove that nano-thermite (i.e. "super thermite") could have been used in the destruction of the World Trade Center, they choose to use the much milder plain thermite. They light it on fire and try to damage a steel pillar. When the pillar is still standing, the doc cuts to 9/11 truth leaders like Richard Gage who says something like "this experiment was assinine. What a waste of time."
I love this part: the arrogant, British sounding female narrator then intones, "Instead of accepting the facts presented by experts, truthers continue their search for ellusive answers." But this documentary never presents any controlled demolition "experts." They promised to interview Chemist Kevin Ryan, a real scientist who was fired for standing up against the NIST cover-up at Underwriters Laboratories in 2004. But the Ryan interview never happened. And Ryan recently wrote at 911 Blogger about Brent Blanchard, the documentary's one controlled demolition "expert":
As a photographer for Implosion World, Blanchard is often consulted for these tabloid programs when a “demolition expert” is needed. But no evidence has ever been given that the real experts allow photographers to plan and implement their high-rise demolitions. Hopefully, the NG Channel will feature interviews with experts who actually have planned and implemented such operations, like Danny Jowenko, who stated that WTC 7 was a demolition.
Four years ago, I was attacked in the NY Post for writing "Big Wedding" and opening a fair-trade coffeehouse that dared discuss taboo topics. I was labeled "THE 9/11 JAVA JACKASS" in a big headline across the page. But today, I was given a generous amount of space to denounce the 9/11 cover-up. Rupert Murdoch owns BOTH the New York Post and the National Geographic Channel. Could it be that he wants to support 9/11 Truth a bit now, as an experiment in destabilizing Obama? After all, Obama's recent denunciations of 9/11 Truth have gone beyond Bush's. Obama is closer to Wall Street and is such a media darling, he brazenly attended Bilderberg during the campaign.
Well, I'm still trying to make sense of the Post's about-face today on 9/11. What does it mean? Is the opposition running out of steam?
Do they know? At this point they must: We have real science on our side. We have real red nano-thermite chips found in four out of four samples tested. We have the peer-reviewed paper by real scientists like Kevin Ryan, Stephen Jones, Niels Harrit, et. al. The paper that presents proof of nano-thermite is like a 500 lb. monster in the room. It's almost running in between the lines of the article in today's Post. I spoke about the Harrit paper often with the reporter, but she couldn't fit it in. It's clear that the doc. Producers were apprised of nano-thermite. But the Niels Harrit evidence is never cited. That would be too real.
When you can't win with science, you chose pseudo-science.
Read the Post review of "9/11: Science and Conspiracy."