Video: Jason Bermas Debunks National Geographic 9/11 Hit Piece

September 7th, 2009

Jason Rips into National Geographic’s 9/11 hit piece and takes on the “no planes” theory, that is designed to make the real 9/11 Truth movement look foolish.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterDigg thisShare on RedditShare on Google+Email this to someone

4 Responses to “Video: Jason Bermas Debunks National Geographic 9/11 Hit Piece”

  1. Bruce Hatcher Says:

    Jason,
    Thank you for your efforts and zeal.
    Just one thing I’d like to get your comments on.
    Please review the videos at: http://thewebfairy.com/911/
    I was an air frame repairman on B-52s, while in the USAF.
    I know how such planes are constricted.
    There is no way an air plane could “disappear” into a building like the WTCs.
    It is my firm conviction, that the videos showing aircraft disappearing into the building, and the building “healing” itself after wing penetration, are computer generated graphics.
    Which goes to a massive conspiracy with the media, as most everyone suspects.
    Regards,
    Bruce Hatcher

  2. Bifurcatio Says:

    What a mess! There seems to be people who are fact based and people who are faith based, but hugely more disconcertingly there seems to be faith based people who report fact, and fact based people who take ridiculous things on faith.

    No, Jason, there is not enough room on this planet for 24 billion of us; and Alex, you should watch and take seriously Peter Joseph’s piece on religion in his video ‘Zeitgeist’.

    The whole problem is one of human development and nothing will change until the bulk of people live ‘here and now’ and take responsibility onto themselves and not take their cues from some old black book or a charismatic leader no matter how handsomely he holds his chin this way or that.

  3. Linda Says:

    I was in the Navy for six years. I worked on two different aircraft, A-7E’s and P-3′s. I will ask you to re-examine your thoughts on the no plane theory. It is impossible for an aluminum, hollow airliner to penetrate, enter into, melt, disappear into a concrete and steel framed building. Look at the evidence again.

  4. Matthew Hodson Says:

    I have a few comments and questions…

    1. Could the molten metal have been some metal other than steel?
    2. The lowest form of evidence in science is eyewitness testimony. Memory is fallible especially around traumatic events. This does not mean that eye witness testimony should be ignored, but physical evidence trumps testimony.
    3. Claims that the buildings could not have collapsed because jet fuel cannot melt steel were some of the most common arguments offered by 9 11 truthers.
    4. The Bush administration used the attacks as part of their strategy to start a war and enact legislation that stripped rights from citizens. These were despicable acts but are not in themselves proof that they had anything to do with organising the attacks on NY and Washington.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>