"You got shortchanged on this History Channel program...."
I just received an email from 9/11 researcher James Gourley:
You got shortchanged on this History Channel program. You got to say about 2 sentences at the beginning. Did you tell them about the dust? My girlfriend keeps yelling at the TV about the dust.
This thing is so aggravating to watch. Did you see it?
Yes, James, I saw it. And yes, I EMPHATICALLY told them about the dust -- the iron-rich microspheres especially, and the molten metal beneath the rubble of the Towers and flowing out the South Tower just before it collapsed. And the many fine, peer-reviewed articles in the Journal of 9/11 Studies. Somehow all those points were missed by these guys... as they hit on the "softer" areas of 9/11 research -- flight 93 (shot down..), missile hitting the Pentagon? and so on...
You said it -- I, we -- were short-changed -- out of two hours, scientists and engineers from the 9/11 Truth community were given just a couple of sentences. I would like to see the scientists and engineers who have contributed mightily to the 9/11 truth movement given more time on-air. Kevin Ryan, Richard Gage, Tony Szamboti, Jim Hoffman, Gordon Ross, Cate Jenkins, Greg Jenkins, Kenneth Kuttler, Crockett Grabbe, David Griscom -- I could go on. NONE of these scientists and engineers for 9/11 truth were interviewed or at least none of them were given time. A couple of sentences in two hours of stuff...
OTOH, I was pleased to see the discussion on the Mineta testimony (which appears prominently in three papers in the Journal, and which I also emphasize in talks such as at the Vancouver BC conference). They tried to wiggle out of that by saying that perhaps Mineta meant flight 93, 50 miles out etc -- but Mineta (bless him) made it clear before the Commission that he was talking about the flight approaching the Pentagon. And he stuck by his testimony about the Cheney behavior -- something new that comes out in the History channel piece. I thought David Ray Griffin did well on this point also -- why this could not be an order to shoot down the approaching plane.
Let's watch how hits on the major 9/11 sites pick up now... particularly at the Journalof911Studies.com interests me.
I would also like to thank those who have been improving several Wikipedia sites related to 9/11 (not me -- but I've noticed).