Message to PBS ombudsman Michael Getler about "Blueprint for Truth"

Dear mr. Getler,

In your column, which can be found at

you say the following about "9/11: Blueprint for Truth":

"I'm not going to review the films, but on a personal level I find the idea embedded in "Blueprint" of a government conspiracy to blow up those buildings to be preposterous and simply beyond belief and I fault the station for promoting this as part of a pledge drive and presenting it without an accompanying on-the-air program in which critics have their say."

Sir, unless you DO review those films, you have no business commenting on them whatsoever.

In your column, you commit the following logical fallacies in order to sway your readers towards your viewpoint:

  1. Appeal to emotion
  2. Argument from personal incredulity
  3. Special pleading

The third and last point applies to the comments cited from viewers: the reactions were overwhelmingly positive and yet you misrepresent this by choosing to post only outspoken negative comments and one moderately positive comment. For AE911Truth's presentation however, plenty of "balance" is given by gross distortions in mainstream media to which a helpless and uninformed public is exposed every day.

Why do I, a foreigner, contact you about this? Because 9/11 affects us all, profoundly. Soldiers from my country are dying in Afghanistan. People from Afghanistan seek refuge in my country. Civil rights in Western countries now exist only in theory. I do not deny the involvement of foreign terrorists in 9/11, but I do deny the ability of terrorists to bring down buildings in ways that violate various laws of physics. Especially if these events are at the core of what happened that day. You may or may not have heard about initiatives by 9/11 victims family members. Visit their website for more information. This organization has collected around 80000 signatures from New York City residents.

Furthermore, may I note that it is public knowledge that your government kidnaps and tortures men and even children in a lawless prison on Cuban territory, kills hundreds of thousands of men in Iraq over lies, yet you are confident it cannot conceivably be an accomplice to mass murder on 9/11.

Note that the 9/11 commission has already admitted that it was "set up to fail". It even considered referring NORAD for criminal prosecution. A cover-up under these circumstances amounts to a criminal conspiracy to commit treason.

Note that licensed Dutch controlled demolition expert Danny Jowenko confidently asserts that the destruction of WTC 7 was a professional demolition. He is not alone among his peers. He later noted that if one speaks about this in public in the United States, one is certain to lose his or her career opportunities.

As if that wasn't enough, exotic explosive materials have been found in World Trade Center dust. This perfectly augments other WTC dust studies by RJ Lee which indicate extremely high temperatures during the collapse of the Twin Towers. Temperatures that far exceed the range of any jet fuel or office fire, for particles that cannot possibly have been released during clean-up operations, but only during the exact moment of destruction.

You do not review this presentation because you can't. Because those who attempt to refute it, fail. If you think you can, you may attempt to answer one question. Use any expert consultancy you may require.

"How can WTC 7 collapse through the path of most resistance at a rate indistinguishable from freefall for a minimum of 2.25/2.5 seconds or eight storeys?"

Remember, NIST publically admitted this freefall event in their 2008 report on the destruction of WTC 7, after being forced to do so by physicist David Chandler. Watch this confrontation here:

The initial response from NIST is nothing short of scandalous. They later turn around completely and baldly assert this as fact without proper explanation. Have you read their report?

David Chandler is a member of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Visit their website to review the signed statements of more than 800 licensed architects and engineers passionately calling for a new investigation.

What is wrong with NIST's response?

Newton's second law of motion dictates: F = m * a.

Therefore if a (acceleration) is identical to the acceleration of gravity g (9.8 m/s2) for eight storeys, F from gravity is maximal and unimpeded. This means the resisting force is ZERO.

Something destroyed eight floors across the width of this building and it sure as hell wasn't gravity. For this to happen without the aid of explosives, Newton's third law of motion MUST be violated. In order for the top section of the building to crush the lower section at all, it MUST either decelerate or show a decline in acceleration from complete freefall. In this sense, there is a profound difference between acceleration and speed.

Some have argued that the building collapsed internally first, leaving a half empty shell for us to look at. Well allow me to put forth my own argument from personal incredulity: I find this a preposterous suggestion. No such internal collapse would have been possible without large visible deformations of the building's exterior. Furthermore, even then the reasoning in the paragraph above applies.

If you can answer the question plausibly, I will withdraw my comments and publicly apologize. Remember, you are convinced you are right. Please put your religious belief, which you convey to others with some degree of authority, to the test. If it turns out you cannot answer my question, I suggest you fully and publicly support KBDI in their airing of independent and honest documentaries and presentations from now on. The real skeptics will be thankful.


Michiel de Boer
The Netherlands

This letter will be published on


This is a superb letter and I wish that I could articulate things as clearly.


Cognitive Dissonence

Mr. Getler sounds scared as hell and is pushing away any chance at looking at the facts because he likely knows what he'll discover. He even goes as far as supposing what the film is about without even seeing it. A simple case of Cognitive Dissonance. Cognitive Dissonance, it's one thing if it comes from an impoverished mother who turns away from child abuse in in a household in order to maintain a shred of hope that the husband will correct his ill ways (it's still wrong of the mother), however it's pathetic coming from a someone like Getler who purports to be an intellectual with only a fear of his ego getting crushed. Truly pathetic.

Thanks for doing this blog

Thanks for doing this blog entry Snowcrash.

You saved me some work. I was thinking about doing an entry addressing Mr. Getler's comments also.

Thank you. :-)

I see room for improvement

of the letter but I expect it will do the job. You're welcome.

Don't you just love

.......... uneducated opinions? Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance. Albert Einstein.

"presenting it without ...

presenting it without an accompanying on-the-air program in which critics have their say."

This DVD IS THE critique of the official bull-xxxx.

These people turn things upside down all the time...

You are a real asset to the movement Michiel.

Thank you for your numerous contributions. I admire your tenacity and intelligence.

Excellent letter.

It's been three days and guess what....

No response.

Maybe I should send a copy to Zdenek Bazant, who, according to Dr. Greening:

"has been conspicuously silent on the demise of 7 and has told me he has no plans to publish anything about it in the near future!"

And further Greening admits, after some obfuscatory noise about not hearing bangs during WTC 7's demise:

"I don't buy NIST's crazy column 79 theory with the inside of the building collapsing before the outside, ........ so I admit to being totally puzzled by Building 7."

WTC 7: professionally demolished and covered up. Period.

Or... we can debate ad infinitum something we cannot bear to believe.

P.S. Thanks for the generous and kind comments.

Who is Michael Getler?

Excellent letter, SnowCrash. Given Mr. Getler's background, we shouldn't be surprised by his feigned shock at these "preposterous" conspiracy theories.
See his PBS biography:

--From 1956 to 1960, he served as an officer in the US Navy.
--From 1961 to 1970, Getler was a reporter and editor on specialized magazines in the defense, aviation and space fields published by American Aviation Publications.
--He joined The [Washington] Post in 1970 as a military affairs correspondent, covering the Pentagon and defense-related activities in Congress and the White House.
--In 1980, he returned to Washington in the newly-created position of national security correspondent covering both defense and diplomacy, including arms control.

Mr. Getler is certainly no stranger to covert military operations, and he must be taken to task for his pathetic attempt to smear the 9/11 truth movement. He should be bombarded with emails from across the country insisting that he perform his duties as Ombudsman -- "dealing with commentary and criticism from viewers and seeking to ensure that PBS upholds its own standards of editorial integrity." Do those standards include disowning a small, independent PBS station "in the Nazi part of Colorado" (quoting a viewer's letter) for airing a scientifically sound documentary that questions the government's own preposterous theory?

It's only a matter of time before all corporate media are exposed as accomplices in the treason of 9/11. Shame on Michael Getler.

PS. We also find this entry on Getler in Wikipedia:
According to the Family Jewels documents, he was under surveillance by the CIA in 1971 for having "run a story which was an obvious intelligence leak".[1]

That declassified memo is an interesting read about CIA and FBI surveillance...

COLBY: The third area is the fact that we surveilled some people to find out why they had classified information. Some of the names are pretty hot. [He mentioned a couple of reporters.] In 1971 we surveilled Mike Getler. He had run a story which was an obvious intelligence leak.

Maybe Getler learned to keep his mouth shut after that experience.

Michael Getler previously omsbudman for Washington Post

A little more background info...

If you are wondering how M. Getler got the job at PBS, it's because he did the same job at the Washinton Post.

He wasn't very good at doing that job at the Washington Post, and he's about as much of "people's advocate" as Howard Kurtz at the Post media desk. is In other words, not at all.

Getler responds
Posted by Michael Getler on October 2, 2009 at 2:13 PM [scroll to the bottom]

The Ombudsman ‘Should Resign’

The following letters are a sampling of those I got in response to a segment in last week’s column dealing with the use of a film called “9/11: Blueprint for Truth” by KBDI, a PBS-member station in Denver, as part of a pledge drive to raise funds. My column can be read via the link at the beginning of this Mailbag, but let me reiterate a couple of points. The thrust of the column was about incidents in which PBS, as a television service, and its programs were not involved, but stations or individuals were. PBS had nothing to do with the 9/11 film. Also, I did view the film. I don’t write film reviews but rather write about editorial issues raised by viewers about programs. I said KBDI had an obvious right to show the film, and I added that “on a personal level I find the idea embedded in ‘Blueprint’ of a government conspiracy to blow up those buildings to be preposterous and simply beyond belief and I fault the station for promoting this as part of a pledge drive and presenting it without an accompanying on-the-air program in which critics have their say.”

Here are the letters:

NOTE: In a strange coincidence, James Randi (founder of JREF) wrote in to protest a PBS program on autism (The Autism Film: Letters and a NETA/Producer Response). Hard to believe he wasn't aware of the 9/11 flap, but we don't know if he decided not to mention it, or did so and wasn't quoted. More than anyone else, Randi should be debunking the official story ("We are devoted to opposing pseudoscience, flummery, and deception"). But that's a whole other topic.

He posted some letters from his fans...BUT

Getler to this day still fails to answer the question I posed to him. He cannot answer the very specific question. He cannot cite an expert that can answer the question plausibly for him. His attitude towards Blueprint for Truth can therefore only be described as uninformed and extremely biased. If someone someday can plausibly answer this question for me, I will eat my shoe.

What happened to WTC 7 is impossible. The NIST report is a horrible fraud. Even if the cause is unrelated to a covert operation, it warrants the worldwide scientific and engineering community's FULL and UNDIVIDED attention. If this cannot be plausibly explained, the institute of science itself is compromised.

This is an unbelievable occurrence, apparently foretold by many however understood by no-one, that goes well beyond ignored warnings, geostrategic opportunism, and "mitigating factors" such as unique circumstances or incompetence. The implications are dark. WTC 7 is the crux of 9/11.