MEDIA FAIL: C-SPAN Tries And Fails To Cover Up The Facts Of 9/11

By on August 9, 2010 in News 19

You gotta love seeing CIA Disinfo Agents Squirm.

, , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Albo98

    That he got paid for doing his job is the biggest travesty. His scope of understanding seems very limited.
    Host seems clueless as well. I'd bet Alex Jones was behind the calls. Good job I say.

  • chinagreenelvis

    Just another reason why nothing you see on television matters. TV broadcasting is not a realm of freedom. It is a carefully controlled and monitored sandbox of social engineering, run by powerful corporations who tug at the political strings of the entire world.

    • sandy

      And an important reason for why we do not want any company to have majority control over the Internet.
      I think the US has enough monopolies – media is owned by only a handful of people, thus the lack of other voices getting through.

  • Christopherdemilio

    He doesn't really look like he's squirming. He looks collected, and genuinely believes what he's saying. Watch National Geographic 9/11: Fact or Conspiracy? Please. I was a “Truther” before. And I can't say I believe anymore. If you care about getting all sides of the story, please watch the video on YouTube. Thank you for your time.

    • Nano Thermite

      The US Gov't.

      * Maintains, according to their “best science,” that while jumbo jetliner crashes were not enough force of impact and explosion to take down 2 of the 3 steel-framed high-rises, the Twin Towers + Building 7, that the ensuing oxygen-poor office fires SOMEHOW DID, and as in the case of Building 7, CAUSED OVER 400 MASSIVELY-REDUNDANT STEEL FRAME CONNECTIONS TO FAIL PER SECOND, resulting in the symmetrical implosion and “House of Cards Collapse” of a 47-story building NOT HIT BY ANY PLANE at velocities attaining gravitational free fall ( -Just exactly the way a controlled demolition would look like)???
      * Neglects the healthcare and families of HUNDREDS of NY's chronically-poisoned firefighters, first-responders and other witnesses who gave legal statements detailing the series of explosions heard and felt at all 3 buildings prior to their collapses THAT WERE NOT ALLOWED TO BE PRESENTED AS EVIDENCE in the Official (White House-controlled) 9/11 Investigation Commission (just like how Building 7 was left out)???

      I imagine your documentary doesn't deal with these issues at all.

      Oh and what about Molten Steel present for 3 months after the attacks? How does National Geographic account for this given that Kerosene fuel is incapable of melting steel let alone burning for 3 months straight maintaining temperatures over 1,100 degrees?

      I think you may want to watch BluePrint for Truth and look deeper into the massive amount of evidence that Natl' Geographic and other supposed debunkers never discuss or deal with in a satisfactory manner for anyone skeptical of the Gov'ts conspiracy theory.

      • Synapse

        This (and all the retarded theories) have already been addressed. This one especially at http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm . Why is it that some retard who's never seen any of these things in real life and probably graduated in philosophy thinks he even remotely has a grasp on the facts, more so than structural engineers and the people who have actually investigated the evidence (and not just from their computer screen)?

        • Turk

          NanoThermite found in ruble dust ie controlled demolition.

          http://www.AE911Truth.com

          • Tuna Ghost

            Nano-thermite wasn't found, genius. The scientists running the show over there are, perhaps not surprisingly, not very good at science.

            http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2009/08/23/more…

          • Nano Thermite

            Steven Jones Tells 9/11 “Debunkers” to Put up or Shut up!
            Editor's Note: “Put up or Shut up” is my title.

            What you need to know about “Peer-review”

            “Useful information for “non-scientists” about the process of peer-reviewed publishing, such as has been the case with Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction, and Environmental Anomalies at the World Trade Center: Evidence for Energetic Materials .” – 911truth.org

            April 7 2009
            Steven Jones
            911blogger.com

            Since the days of Sir Isaac Newton, Science has proceeded through the publication of peer-reviewed papers. Peer-review means a thorough reading, commentary and even challenge before publication by “peers”, that is, other PhD's and professors. This paper was thoroughly peer-reviewed with several pages of tough comments that required of our team MONTHS of additional experiments and studies. It was the toughest peer-review I've ever had, including THREE papers for which I was first author in NATURE. (Please note that Prof. Harrit is first author on this paper.) We sought an established journal that would allow us a LONG paper (this paper is 25 pages long) with MANY COLOR IMAGES AND GRAPHS. Such a scientific journal is not easy to find. Page charges are common for scientific journals these days, and are typically paid by the University of the first or second author (as is the case with this paper) or by an external grant.

            A peer-reviewed journal is also called a “refereed” journal. Peer-reviewers are almost always anonymous for scientific publications like this — that is standard in the scientific world. While authors commonly recommend potential peer-reviewers, editors choose the referees and usually pick at least one or two reviewers that the authors did NOT mention — and that is almost certainly the case with this paper (based on commentary we received from the reviewers). In the end, all the reviewers — who were selected by the editor(s) — approved publication. Thus, the paper was subjected to peer review by the editor or editors, and it passed the peer-review process.

            Debunkers may raise all sorts of objections on forums, such as “Oh, it's just paint” or “the aluminum is bound up in kaolin.” We have answered those questions in the paper, and shown them to be nonsense, but you have to read to find the answers. I may also provide answers here and in emails, often quoting from the paper to show that the answers are already in it.

            Here's what you need to know (especially if you are not a scientist): UNLESS AN OBJECTOR ACTUALLY PUBLISHES HIS OR HER OBJECTION IN A PEER-REVIEWED ESTABLISHED JOURNAL (yes that would include Bentham Scientific journals), THEN THE OBJECTION IS NOT CONSIDERED SERIOUS IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD NOT WORRY ABOUT NON-PUBLISHED OBJECTIONS EITHER.

            So how do you, as a non-scientist, discern whether the arguments are valid or not? You should first ask, “is the objection PUBLISHED in an ESTABLISHED PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL?” If not, you can and should say — “I will wait to see this formally published in a refereed scientific journal. Until then, the published peer-reviewed work by Harrit et al. stands. “

            BTW, there also has been no PUBLISHED REFEREED paper yet that counters either the “Fourteen Points” paper or the “Environmental Anomalies” papers we published last year.

            IF it is so easy to publish in Bentham Scientific journals, or if these are “vanity publications” (note: there is no factual basis for these charges) — then why don't the objectors write up their objections and get them peer-reviewed and published?? The fact is, it is not easy, as serious objectors will find out.

            Our results have passed the gauntlet of peer-review (including in this case, review at BYU consistent with the fact that there are two authors from BYU).

            We say that this paper has the “imprimatur of peer-review”. That is a significant breakthrough. You cannot say that of big-foot or Elvis sightings… We are now in a different world from such things, the world of the published scientific community. CAN YOU APPRECIATE THE DIFFERENCE? I hope so. And this is what has our opponents so worried IMO…

        • Tuna Ghost

          The site you linked to is very good, and there's several more with very lucid, easy-to-understand diagrams and videos. So easy to understand that even a philosophy major like me can understand it (some of us do know a thing or two about physics, btw). But the biggest argument, apart from the wealth of physical evidence suggesting the towers fell because two big ass planes hit them, is the ridiculous notion that the US gov't could actually carry off a scam like this and get away with it when it has consistently incapable of getting away with even much, much smaller operations.

          • Anonymous

            This is always the classic, radically uneducated and militantly ignorant comeback to everything: the US government was responsible and and they can’t do crap!

            Nobody believes the US gov’t was responsible, simply specific elements within the US gov’t, notably the office of the V.P., and the office of the SecDef.

            As to to the US gov’t not able to accomplish any operations, talk to any experienced military people, or combat vets who have been involved in various large and small operations and you will learn of many, many operations which went quite smoothly, be they major, super-sized airlifts, seaborne ops, etc., etc., etc.

            I have seen buildings brought down by fire, earthquake, in combat operations, and controlled demolitions, and those three buildings collapsed in a steady-state manner completely in keeping with controlled demolitions.

            Most important, many of those passengers aboard those four airliners that day — only two of which appear in the normal FAA flight registry (two were DOD special charter, which means they must take off at the scheduled time, but allow commercial pax to fill any unfilled seats) — fall into three unique groups.

            There was one attractive female attorney, rumored to be having an affair with a married partner, sadly but conveniently onboard that day. What is interesting about the law firm partner, was the nature of that legal firm: a very rightwing outfit responsible for representing Fox in several of those well-known lawsuits — which they won — involving Fox’s right to broadcast fictional news!

            Another woman, number three wife (and well-insured) of a Bush administration appointee, who quickly went on to wife number four (I believe most will know of whom I speak).

            The third and last interesting individual (not to be confused with those three unique groups involving some of the other pax), was a physicist at the Directed Energy Section of the Naval Surface Weapons Center.

            Importance? During the Strategic Defense Intitiative (nicknamed “Star Wars”), two ploys were foisted on the Soviets, hoping they would believe them and outspend themselves on defensive countermeasures.

            One the missile ground-to-space satellite killer; the second one an airborne laser which blew up buildings.

            Now, there were previously hidden pressure charges in the building, and the aircraft-bearing laser simply altered the barometric pressure in the building, setting off the pressure charges.

            Several days prior, EurekaGGN began installing fiber optic cabling in the uppermost floors of the two towers by utilizing an airblown process, blowing or pumping the cable through existing HVAC vents which ran underneath the floors.

            That’s enough for now. But feel free to research further.

        • Nano Thermite

          So Fires took down Building 7?
          The US Gov't.

          * Maintains, according to their “best science,” that while jumbo jetliner crashes were not enough force of impact and explosion to take down 2 of the 3 steel-framed high-rises, the Twin Towers + Building 7, that the ensuing oxygen-poor office fires SOMEHOW DID, and as in the case of Building 7, CAUSED OVER 400 MASSIVELY-REDUNDANT STEEL FRAME CONNECTIONS TO FAIL PER SECOND, resulting in the symmetrical implosion and “House of Cards Collapse” of a 47-story building NOT HIT BY ANY PLANE at velocities attaining gravitational free fall ( -Just exactly the way a controlled demolition would look like)???
          * Neglects the healthcare and families of HUNDREDS of NY's chronically-poisoned firefighters, first-responders and other witnesses who gave legal statements detailing the series of explosions heard and felt at all 3 buildings prior to their collapses THAT WERE NOT ALLOWED TO BE PRESENTED AS EVIDENCE in the Official (White House-controlled) 9/11 Investigation Commission (just like how Building 7 was left out)???

          Where is this debunked again? I read your “report” and these facts are just not dealt with in a satisfactory manner. No Steel Framed Structures have ever collapsed due to fire alone. The laws of physics were not suspended so 9/11 could happen. It was made to happen.

          AE911Truth.org
          Blueprint for Truth
          http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-818269…

    • Collective Wisdom

      If you are serious about truth go to http://www.ae911truth.org/

      1244 architectural and engineering professionals
      and 8965 other supporters including A&E students
      have signed the petition demanding of Congress
      a truly independent investigation.

      Don't be a sucker to the main stream programing!!!!

  • Christopherdemilio

    I'm sorry, it's called “National Geographic 9/11: Science & Conspiracy”.

  • Word Eater

    Try “explaining the explainable” instead of worrying about the unexplainable.

    If someone saw something, what was it? You can't just hand wave and hope no one looks behind the curtain.

    Some of the claims have been addressed. Some questions have been answered.

    Others keep getting asked and everyone just shrugs and says, “that's a good question.”

    Never forget, indeed.

  • your so cute

    2972 people died that day all sides need to be looked at and all questions need to be answered. No excuses

  • David Kelly

    For a 'Terrorist Expert' this chap doesn't seem very clued up and his admission that he doesn't see anything amiss with the official 9/11 scenario is a testament to his lack of expertise. The sheer volume of evidence from very credible people surely, at the least, warrants further investigation? I get the impression this guy just believes what he is told and lacks the capacity for critical thought – not his fault probably watches too much TV.

  • sandy

    haha “the conspiracy theories are worst over seas” comment. Well DUH – there is so much media control and censorship in the US of course we go to overseas media. Media overseas have given us information prior to it leaking within the US. If Net Neutrality goes away completely and our access to sites filtered to us due to the highest bidder – sites like this and others would never be seen, they will effectively be blocked by their preferred content.
    Contact the FCC and let them know WE the Citizens of the USA own the main trunk lines, we LEASE the land for these companies to use to bring access to our home. Like the telephone line for example – once you receive service – you can call whom ever you like and not have that connection lose quality because it's not one of their “paid” advertisers. You do not have to listen to any ads before making a call – you just make your call. We the People of the United States – it is OUR government to control so corporations do not abuse/posion and kill us for more money. The government isnt “evil” the government is OURS – still – they can only represent us properly when they know where our vote stands. Call your local congress critters, senante and the FCC – do not let any company have a majority control over what we have access to online.

  • Nano Thermite

    Steven Jones Tells 9/11 “Debunkers” to Put up or Shut up!
    Editor’s Note: “Put up or Shut up” is my title.

    What you need to know about “Peer-review”

    “Useful information for “non-scientists” about the process of peer-reviewed publishing, such as has been the case with Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction, and Environmental Anomalies at the World Trade Center: Evidence for Energetic Materials .” – 911truth.org

    April 7 2009
    Steven Jones
    911blogger.com

    Since the days of Sir Isaac Newton, Science has proceeded through the publication of peer-reviewed papers. Peer-review means a thorough reading, commentary and even challenge before publication by “peers”, that is, other PhD’s and professors. This paper was thoroughly peer-reviewed with several pages of tough comments that required of our team MONTHS of additional experiments and studies. It was the toughest peer-review I’ve ever had, including THREE papers for which I was first author in NATURE. (Please note that Prof. Harrit is first author on this paper.) We sought an established journal that would allow us a LONG paper (this paper is 25 pages long) with MANY COLOR IMAGES AND GRAPHS. Such a scientific journal is not easy to find. Page charges are common for scientific journals these days, and are typically paid by the University of the first or second author (as is the case with this paper) or by an external grant.

    A peer-reviewed journal is also called a “refereed” journal. Peer-reviewers are almost always anonymous for scientific publications like this — that is standard in the scientific world. While authors commonly recommend potential peer-reviewers, editors choose the referees and usually pick at least one or two reviewers that the authors did NOT mention — and that is almost certainly the case with this paper (based on commentary we received from the reviewers). In the end, all the reviewers — who were selected by the editor(s) — approved publication. Thus, the paper was subjected to peer review by the editor or editors, and it passed the peer-review process.

    Debunkers may raise all sorts of objections on forums, such as “Oh, it’s just paint” or “the aluminum is bound up in kaolin.” We have answered those questions in the paper, and shown them to be nonsense, but you have to read to find the answers. I may also provide answers here and in emails, often quoting from the paper to show that the answers are already in it.

    Here’s what you need to know (especially if you are not a scientist): UNLESS AN OBJECTOR ACTUALLY PUBLISHES HIS OR HER OBJECTION IN A PEER-REVIEWED ESTABLISHED JOURNAL (yes that would include Bentham Scientific journals), THEN THE OBJECTION IS NOT CONSIDERED SERIOUS IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD NOT WORRY ABOUT NON-PUBLISHED OBJECTIONS EITHER.

    So how do you, as a non-scientist, discern whether the arguments are valid or not? You should first ask, “is the objection PUBLISHED in an ESTABLISHED PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL?” If not, you can and should say — “I will wait to see this formally published in a refereed scientific journal. Until then, the published peer-reviewed work by Harrit et al. stands. ”

    BTW, there also has been no PUBLISHED REFEREED paper yet that counters either the “Fourteen Points” paper or the “Environmental Anomalies” papers we published last year.

    IF it is so easy to publish in Bentham Scientific journals, or if these are “vanity publications” (note: there is no factual basis for these charges) — then why don’t the objectors write up their objections and get them peer-reviewed and published?? The fact is, it is not easy, as serious objectors will find out.

    Our results have passed the gauntlet of peer-review (including in this case, review at BYU consistent with the fact that there are two authors from BYU).

    We say that this paper has the “imprimatur of peer-review”. That is a significant breakthrough. You cannot say that of big-foot or Elvis sightings… We are now in a different world from such things, the world of the published scientific community. CAN YOU APPRECIATE THE DIFFERENCE? I hope so. And this is what has our opponents so worried IMO…