Notice: Use of undefined constant DISCLAIMER - assumed 'DISCLAIMER' in /home1/improba1/public_html/911truth/includes/fair_social.php on line 3
Notice: Use of undefined constant FAIR_USE - assumed 'FAIR_USE' in /home1/improba1/public_html/911truth/includes/fair_social.php on line 10
Tuesday, September 8 2009 - In the Media
National Geographic Does 9/11: Another Icon Debased in Service of the Big Lie
by Jim Hoffman
By now it's quite predictable: every year as the anniversary of the attack approaches, some of the most established mainstream media brands are pressed into service to sell the official story of 9/11.
The 2009 iteration of this spectacle is notable for the contrast between the designated brand and the obligatory message. That brand, best known for its high-brow photojournalistic National Geographic Magazine, has existed since 1889, complete with a non-profit Society dedicated to education in geography, archaeology, history, world cultures, and natural science. One can't help but wonder how National Geographic's many benefactors would feel if they understood how the brand was being used to prop up the "War on Terror" with its Popular-Mechanics-style attack piece to be aired on August 31, 2009.
A web feature on the website of the National Geographic Channel provides a preview of the show and a window into the methods and goals of the show's producers. Those methods are so heavy-handed that the critical reader can't help but see that those goals are something very different from educating. As an exercise, the reader might want to read the one-page feature first, and then compare notes with my analysis of it below.
National Geographic Then and Now
The 2009 documentary isn't the first time the National Geographic brand has been used to rubber-stamp the official account of the attack. On September 17, 2001 an article in National Geographic News attempted to explain the "collapses" with such memetic devices mouthed by "experts" as "the raging inferno" (likened to a fraction of the Hiroshima A-bomb) turning the steel to "Play-doh" and precipitating a "domino collapse" in which "the buildings' majesty was their own undoing".
As unscientific as these purported explanations are, with their transparent appeals to authority and metaphor, one might excuse them as the attempt of a journalist to make sense of the horrific events at a time when rational analysis was eclipsed by shock.
Clearly, something very different is at work in the 2009 effort, a fact that is apparent even in its lurid graphical production reminiscent of the BBC's Conspiracy FIles.
Deconstructing "9/11: SCIENCE AND CONSPIRACY"
Below is the text of the page tabbed "Science" in the 2009 National Geographic Channel feature promoting its "documentary" 9/11: SCIENCE AND CONSPIRACY. Added comments follow each of its points.
Although I show that every point in the page appears crafted to mislead the reader about a particular issue, the greater misdirection lies in how the article frames the broad subject of the official account of 9/11 and challenges to it.
First, the article gives no sense of the scope of those challenges, such as is readily surmised by an enumeration of outstanding anomalies in the official account. In other words, the article implies by omission that it has disposed of the only problems with the official account.
Second, the article selects exactly two prominent assertions countering the official story:
The placement of these two assertions on par with each other illustrates a key technique of disinformation in which a well supported theory is paired with a poorly supported one in order to discredit the former. 9-11 Research has made the case since 2003 that the Twin Towers and Building 7 were subjected to controlled demolitions and since 2004 that the vigorously promoted theories that a jetliner couldn't have hit the Pentagon were likely designed to discredit the truth movement.
Third, the article uses labels to flog its target in an obvious appeal to prejudice. The "Conspiracy" label prefaces each target claim, regardless of whether the claim implies a conspiracy or how any implied conspiracy compares to the officially theorized conspiracy. Conversely, the "Science" label prefaces each paragraph allegedly debunking the "conspiracy" claim.
Of course, "Scientists" only support the official story, and only "truthers" question that story. How comforting that the world is so simple!
Apart from insulting the reader with such patronizing language, the article also uses language more subtly, presupposing the official conclusion with repeated use of "collapse" while avoiding imagery of the Towers' destruction that better fits the word "explosion".
CONSPIRACY VS. SCIENCE
Conspiracy theories are put to the test. How well do they stand up against the visual simulations of professional engineers? See how science supports official stories and debunks the conspiracies below.
THE COLLAPSE OF THE BUILDINGS
Official Story: The collapse was caused by fire initially fed
by the jet fuel from the planes.
Contrary to what the article implies, the
was designed only to create a realistic visualization of the
767 colliding with the Tower, not to assess structural damage
or model how it supposedly led to the total destruction of the building
102 minutes later.
Conspiracy: The fire could not have gotten hot enough to melt the steel.
The fire-melting-steel claim was
introduced by apologists for the official story,
and has been used repeatedly as a straw man claim
to disingenuously attack critics of that story.
Conspiracy: The collapse was caused by controlled demolition.
Contrary to the assertion that "no such traces were found", the
reports of molten metal
at Ground Zero are numerous, and are corroborated by
extreme temperatures in the rubble persisting for months, and
particles of condensed metal aerosols
in the dust -- a signature residue of nano-thermitic pyrotechnics.
Conspiracy: Thermite, which is less traceable,
was used in the controlled demolition that brought down the towers.
First, it was Scientists who documented unignited
thermitic pyrotechnics in the dust,
and reported it in the scientific paper
-- a paper whose conclusions have yet to be challenged with
any substantial critique, much less a scientific one.
THE ATTACK ON THE PENTAGON
Official Story: Hijackers caused a commercial airplane to crash
into the building.
The poor quality of the Purdue simulation may be one of the factors in fueling the no-crash theory, one that is more persuasively refuted by analysis of a variety of features of the crash site.
Conspiracy: The Pentagon was either bombed or hit by a missile.
So EMRTC couldn't figure out how the Twin Towers could have been demolished with aluminothermics, but it could devise an experiment to show how explosives could obliterate parts of the Pentagon.
It's interesting that the article cites alleged experiments by EMRTC (The Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center) to support most of its "Science" points.
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 nanocomposite explosives found in the WTC dust. Romero appears to have been rewarded handsomely for retracting those observations.
Whatever role EMRTC may have had in the development of advanced energetic materials such as found in the WTC dust, it is clear that there are numerous connections between these weapons technologies and the authors of the official reports certifying the collapse theory -- connections that are all the more interesting when one considers the refusals of the same authors to test for residues of explosives.
The Opposite of Education
I'm confident that the producers of this article and its sequels will carefully shield the reader from the above-mentioned scientific paper Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, from the Journal of 9/11 Studies, from any meaningful critique of NIST, and from anything else that would dispel the fiction that the official story equates with science.
Why am I confident of this? Apart from the obvious construction of the web feature as propaganda, the show's producer, Robert Erickson, was making excuses for not covering the subject of nano-composite explosives and their development in US government labs in private communications before the show aired. The matter of what the show's producers knew and when they knew it is the focus of Kevin Ryan's essay Finally, an Apology From the National Geographic Channel.
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author, who is solely responsible for its content, and do not necessarily reflect those of 911Truth.org. 911Truth.org will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article.