National Geographic stages a clinic in propaganda technique PLUS 8 questions we all should be asking National Geographic

Time to brush up on your talking points!

On Monday, August 31, News Corp’s National Geographic Channel will air a special entitled “9/11: Science and Conspiracy”, in which they purport to offer an independent analysis of the growing questions surrounding the 9/11 attacks. If the promotional web site for this program is any indication of its objectivity, then we will be witnessing another step forward for Orwellian Newspeak. Therefore, we must prepare for the impact of this show on our friends and colleagues.

Below are some questions we should ask people who cite this National Geographic (NG) piece. Before we get to questions of factual content and verification, let’s begin by asking a few questions about how NG has framed the issue:

(1) Why does NG use propaganda techniques such as name-calling and associative labeling in a piece that purports to be objective? For example, why does NG persistently refer to apologists for the government account of 9/11 as “scientists”, while labeling independent scientists who question the government’s account (on the basis of evidence and peer-reviewed analysis) as “conspiracy theorists”? Is this a fair way to frame a true debate?

(2) Why does NG make repeated use of only two federally-funded sources — Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center (EMRTC) and Purdue University — to support every claim they make? Let’s be clear: there are two main points of view concerning the World Trade Center (WTC) destruction: (i) the “official” account put forth by the U.S. government (that plane crashes + fire = explosion of steel and concrete into dust), and (ii) the perspective of a growing number of independent scientists and other analysts who cite overwhelming evidence both for controlled demolition of the WTC and systemic cover-up by the US government. Given that the second group are forthrightly accusing the US government of lying, is it objective to try to settle the debate by relying solely on the pronouncements of institutions receiving major funding from the US government? Is this not akin to letting a hired hit man preside as judge in a criminal court case against his mafia boss? EMRTC and Purdue University are anything but independent. For example, as Jim Hoffman observes: “One prior connection between EMRTC and 9/11 is that explosives expert Van Romero, who gained some notoriety with his initial candid observations that there must have been explosives in the Towers, was Director of the EMRTC from 1995-1997, a period of active research into the kind of nano-composite explosives found in the WTC dust. Romero appears to have been rewarded handsomely for retracting those observations.”

(3) Does NG have peer-reviewed support for their claims? If so, why does NG fail to provide detailed references for their claims? The NG web site mentions several studies performed by EMRTC relating to the 9/11 attacks (specifically, a test of the effects of burning jet fuel on steel, a test of thermite on steel columns, and a comparison of the impact of projectiles versus explosives in a structure simulating the Pentagon). However this web site provides no link to such studies. Curiously, these studies are nowhere to be found at the EMRTC web site, either. Moreover, why have both NG and EMRTC failed to respond to requests (such as I have personally made) for the detailed write-ups of these studies?
Now, on to the evidence:

(4) Does NG address the strongest challenges to the government account, or do they merely select a few straw man “conspiracy theories” to knock down? More specifically, do they answer David Chandler’s hard questions (Video 1, Video 2, Video 3) about the WTC destruction? Or do they address the evidence submitted by physicists and other scientists in the three peer-reviewed papers published by independent critics of the official story (including: Fourteen Points of Agreement …)?

(5) Does NG provide viewers with an opportunity to review the video coverage of the WTC disintegration in both real time and in slow motion? More importantly, does NG offer viewers an examination of WTC 7 destruction in both real time and in slow motion?

(6) Does NG explain how the Twin Towers disintegrated in symmetrical progression, at near free-fall speed, when they were over-designed to withstand much greater stress than they actually experienced from airplane impact and fires?

(7) Does NG explain how WTC 7 was symmetrical flattened in near free-fall speed, when it had only suffered minor damage (and when it was never even hit by an airplane)? Do they mention that NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology), the agency responsible for the official investigation and report on the WTC 7 destruction, was forced to admit that WTC 7 fell at free-fall speed for a material duration of its “collapse”? Moreover, do they consider that free fall is only possible with no supporting structural resistance? In this case, how can one explain the utter lack of resistance provided by the building’s underlying structure, which was heavily over-engineered for safety and which only suffered minor fire damage?

(8) Why does EMRTC only test the impact of standard-grade thermite rather than weapons-grade nano-thermite, and why did NIST fail to test for thermite at all, when (as Kevin Ryan points out) NIST is staffed with experts on nano-explosives? How feasible would it have been to apply nano-thermite materials in spray-on form to the WTC steel components during the buildings’ fireproofing upgrades? Is the precise correlation between the location of these upgrades and the location of the airplane strikes merely a coincidence? [/ol] If you seek balanced coverage of these questions, you will need to claim the balance for yourself by viewing the introductory videos at Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (ae911truth.org) or by reading “29 Structural & Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Explosive Demolition in Collapses of All 3 WTC High-Rises on 9/11.”

Let’s openly respond to the NG hit piece. The victims and their families deserve no less.