Ammunition for Propaganda
A critical review of "9/11 Justice"
by Ace Baker
September 12, 2008
I watched the short film "9/11 Justice" last night at the 911TruthLA conference. It's also available on Google Video.
The film advances the proposition that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Richard Myers, and Condoleezza Rice are provably guilty of conspiracy to commit mass murder for the events of 9/11.
I agree. The neo-cons murdered Americans on 9/11. In fact, the film does not go far enough, and does nothing to point the finger of blame at any news media execs and anchors, who are also provably involved. I wholeheartedly agree with the general premise and intent of "9/11 Justice".
But the film is so riddled with errors and false assumptions that I wonder if the filmmakers were just sloppy, or were actually trying to discredit the movement and create potent ammunition for the government propagandists.
For example, the narrator claims: "A specialized explosive used by professionals to demolish a steel frame is called thermate. It is placed in key places, and melts large steel joints in an instant."
This is just plain wrong. Thermate is NOT an explosive, it is an incendiary. It is an alumnothermic reaction which produces very high temperatures, high enough to melt steel. That is what incendiaries do, it is not what explosives do. Explosives produce very high air pressure.
Thermate is NOT "used by professionals to demolish a steel frame". To cut steel, professional demolition engineers use high explosives, such as RDX. It is difficult to control the timing of a thermate reaction, and demolitions require precision timing.
This is not to say thermate was not PART of the 9/11 demolitions. We certainly see molten metal flowing out of the south tower just prior to the destruction. Likely it was used to melt floor trusses and cause floors to sag, which would later be blamed on "jet fuel fires".
But thermate CANNOT, I repeat, CANNOT possibly be responsible for the disintegration of the towers. The towers mostly turned to dust. They didn't melt. They exploded. There was a mushroom cloud. The film makes mention of the extraordinary explosive force of the demolition, but leaves us to assume this was from thermate. Based on this, the critics would be all too happy to dismiss the entire film as ridiculous, and that's a shame.
So total was the disintegration, I suspect it was a low-yield nuclear fusion reaction, sequenced from the top down. This might explain the high tritium levels, the high cancer rates, and the "China Syndrome" meltdown fuming reaction which persisted visually for months, and hasn't completely stopped to this day. Do you wonder why they haven't built anything on ground zero yet? What type of explosives were used is certainly debatable. But it wasn't thermate, and thermate isn't an explosive.
The thermate business comes from Steven Jones, of course. It's understandably seductive to be swayed by an actual Ph.D. physicist who purports to be a truther. But a review of the totality of Jones' work tells us something is terribly wrong. His entire thesis is founded upon the presence of molten metal, "flowing and in pools". Molten metal IS impossible to reconcile with the official story. So why then is there no mention of molten metal in Jones' "Request For Corrections" to NIST? Why is there no mention of molten metal in his "Ten Points of Agreement" article?
Another serious problem I have with "9/11 Justice" (and Jones) is that it repeatedly calls the destruction a "collapse". The twin towers did not collapse. They exploded. The word "collapse" is a meme propagated by the govern-media. It's mind control. Truthers would all do very well to avoid that term. Avoid it like . . . like an old cliche.
"Justice" repeats the Larry Silverstein "pull it" quote, perhaps the most infamous of all 9/11 tidbits. But the film leaps to the outrageous claim that "Larry Silverstein . . .accidentally told PBS that he had [WTC7] demolished."
Larry Silverstein did no such thing. A moment's thought will show that Silverstein delivered a very well-scripted, perfect little nugget of ambiguous disnifo. Silverstein was not speaking at some live event, he was interviewed for a PBS official propaganda show. Silverstein was rehearsed. The show was edited. It was reviewed. Rest assured, they WANTED you to hear Silverstein's statement.
"Justice" plays Silverstien saying, ". . .and they made that decision to pull, and then we watched the building collapse". Scandalously, the film claims that we don't know who Silverstein means by "they". That's false. Of course we do. Silverstein said, "I remember getting a call from the fire department commander . . .". "They" would refer to the Fire Department.
The Silverstein statement was deliberately crafted in just such a way that it COULD be interpreted to mean "demolish the building", but it could ALSO be interpreted to mean "pull the firefighting operation". Which, of course, is what his spokesman said he meant.
"Pull it" was NO accident.
Along the same lines, "Justice" uncritically accepts as true the claim that there was an August 6, 2001 White House memo warning Osama bin Laden was prepared to strike. This may be the most suspicious element included in the short film. It's very clear to me that the intent of "leaking" the August 6 memo was to reinforce the idea that "Osama did it", to focus public debate away from "What really happened" and on to "Could Bush have stopped it?" See how it works?
A misuse of a scientific term further discredits the film. Says the narrator, "Jet fuel does not create anything near the heat necessary to melt steel". What he meant to say was, "Jet fuel cannot burn at a high enough temperature necessary to melt steel.
Heat and temperature are not the same thing. Temperature is the degree to which something is releases energy, heat is the amount of energy released. My water heater has much more heat than a burning match, but the burning match is a much higher temperature than the water heater. The intended point about hyrdrocarbon fires and steel is correct, and important. But the botched terminology is just one more distraction.
A silly error needlessly confuses the issue on WTC7. WTC7 was 47 stories, not 42 as the film states. WTC7 is a smoking gun, no question. But if the filmmakers can't even get a simple fact straight, it doesn't bode well for credibility, especially in the minds of the undecided.
Throughout the 20 minutes, "Justice" just assumes the official story of plane crashes at the WTC. There is essentially no hard evidence to support this position, and a mountain of data proving that the airplanes are video composites. I certainly appreciate the contentious nature of the plane hoax debate within the movement, so I'll leave planes to one side for the moment, and deal with that another day. There is plenty else wrong with "9/11 Justice". Please don't promote this film.