History Channel Special: "The 9/11 Conspiracies" August 12, 2007

History Channel Special: "The 9/11 Conspiracies" August 12, 2007

infowars.com

Just received the following email. I was interviewed for this History Channel Documentary on 9/11 "conspiracies" at the conference held at the University of Texas at Austin in April. I believe Webster Tarpley and Alex Jones and others at the conference were also interviewed. Curious to see how much of our comments get through... In any case, a 2-hour documentary on the 9/11 Truth community etc. ought to be interesting... Don't know who they interviewed for the "other side.."

(visit the link for the full news article)

This blog was from professor Steven Jones, and was written after he recieved a confirmation email about the show. Who knows what direction they will take this show in, I just hope everyone gets fair coverage. All too often these conspiracy shows leave you with the feeling that they have solved the mystery for you, leaving the viewer with a false sense of satisfaction. If nothing else it will get people thinking, so thats always a good thing. Do you think this show going to be a good thing for 9/11 truth?

infowars.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Don't expect too much from this. The history channel has this funny was of not presenting history clearly. How very ironic ! I've seen many shows on the "history" channel that are a total wash of history. Hope for the best expect the worst !

I don't expect much, but is this the first time 9/11 conspiracies have been on television other than being mocked by conservative comedy shows and political pundits?

In my opinion, the History Channel has displayed a neoconservative bias in the past, although late at nite they broadcast a lot of shows about UFOs and similar phenomena. I think in the end it will be an attempted hatchet job on the movement...though the "official story crowd" is still losing ground even after attempted hatchet jobs in the past.

My thing is, as long as they present both sides and the production isn't blatantly biased, then it is a good thing. Present facts and supporting evidence for both cases, and don't wrap it up with a final conclusion that leaves you feeling like you should believe one way or another.

The last 9/11 show that I saw on any History/Discovery/National Geographic type channel simply brought in a bunch of experts confirming that it all happened the way of the official story. They did not bring in even one person to refute it or at least address any of the obvious questions that people watching would have had. Granted, it wasn't supposed to be a conspiracy show, but it was irritating to see them just completely ignore inconvenient details that wouldn't support the official story.

Sounds interesting, I'll check it out.

Originally posted by uberarcanist
though the "official story crowd" is still losing ground even after attempted hatchet jobs in the past.

The offical story crowd is losing ground? What does that mean? Who is the offical story crowd? Anyone that does not agree with non-factual theories that can not be backed with proof?

Originally posted by uberarcanist
In my opinion, the History Channel has displayed a neoconservative bias in the past, although late at nite they broadcast a lot of shows about UFOs and similar phenomena. I think in the end it will be an attempted hatchet job on the movement...though the "official story crowd" is still losing ground even after attempted hatchet jobs in the past.

Exactly what ground have "we" lost?

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Anyone that does not agree with non-factual theories that can not be backed with proof?

Non-factual theories that can not be backed with proof?

You mean like the official 911 theory?

Originally posted by ccaihc
Exactly what ground have "we" lost?

A lot of people's opinions. Somewhere around a fourth of the country doesn't believe everything unfolded as described on TV, that our leaders at least knew it was coming.

Originally posted by danx

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Anyone that does not agree with non-factual theories that can not be backed with proof?

Non-factual theories that can not be backed with proof?

You mean like the official 911 theory?

Yeah, like thousands of structural engineers and scientific papers and demonstrations and videos and need I go on?

But they're all government shills so whatever

Originally posted by ccaihc


Yeah, like thousands of structural engineers and scientific papers and demonstrations and videos and need I go on?

But they're all government shills so whatever

Thousands?

please list me 50, along with their credentials.

www.luxinzheng.net...
"Simulation for the collapse of WTC after aeroplane impact", Structure Engineer, 66(sup.). 2003, 18-22.

ojps.aip.org...
"Addendum to 'Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis", Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 3, (2002): 369-370.

search.epnet.com...
"WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings", Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150.

www.hera.org.nz...
Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers, HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001.

search.epnet.com...
"Construction and Collapse Factors", Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108.

search.epnet.com...
"Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster", Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135.

search.epnet.com...
"Dissecting the Collapses", Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46.

proquest.umi.com... P%2bbOgPiGn%2bvjLp%2fmr%2fJ03qNYYsrG%2faRCmg--
"Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation", JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12.

webcat.library.ubc.ca...:%20Data%20C ollection,%20Preliminary%20Observations,%20and%20Recomm&Search_Code=TALL
World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Therese McAllister, report editor.

ojps.aip.org...
"Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center", The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48.

weblinks2.epnet.com... essionmgr2+dbs+aph+CD40&_us=dstb+ES+ri+KAAACB1D00009012+fcl+Aut+sm+ES+sl+%2D1+or+Date+F0D7&_uh=btn+N+6C9C&_uso=st%5B0+%2DJN++%22Fire++Engineering%22++ and++DT++20021001+tg%5B0+%2D+db%5B0+%2Daph+op%5B0+%2D+hd+False+0217&fn=11&rn=15
"Collapse Lessons", Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103

proquest.umi.com... 2bFfC%2fAQoYYSnaH0gr3QcVARSJXT1dWZrzzA--
"TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering", JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.

ojps.aip.org...
"World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations", Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135.

ojps.aip.org...
"Could the World Trade Center Have Been Modified to Prevent Its Collapse?", Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 7, (2002):795-800.

www.nist.gov...
"Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center", National Instititue of Standards and Technology: Congressional and Legislative Affairs. Statement of Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., before Committee of Science House of Representatives, United States Congress on March 6, 2002.

www.agiweb.org...
"Applying Geology at the World Trade Center Site", Geotimes v. 46, no. 11, (2001).

www.pbs.org...
Why the Towers Fell, A Companion Website to the Television Documentary. NOVA (Science Programming On Air and Online)

proquest.umi.com... 2fC%2fAQoYYSnaH0gr3QcVARQ0ZXr67E7TTA--
"No Code Changes Recommended in World Trade Center Report", ENR v. 248, no. 14, (2002): 14.

search.epnet.com...
"Study Absolves Twin Tower Trusses, Fireproofing", ENR v. 249, no. 19, (2002): 12-14.

www.civil.usyd.edu.au...
World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects, The University of Sydney, Department of Civil Engineering

search.epnet.com...
"WTC Engineers Credit Design in Saving Thousands of Lives", ENR v. 247, no. 16, (2001): 12. The Towers Lost and Beyond, Massachusetts Institute of Technology


Here are some more from actual engineers...
www.icivilengineer.com...
www.architectureweek.com...


And, here are the basic definitive websites for debunking all of this conspiracy nonsense (most focus on Loose Change, as it's the big one)...
enr.construction.com...
www.popularmechanics.com...
www.sciam.com...
wtc.nist.gov...
www.guardian.co.uk...
www.democracynow.org.../09/11/1345203
www.phoenixnewtimes.com...
news.bbc.co.uk...
www.salon.com...
911research.wtc7.net...
www.loosechangeguide.com...
www.cs.purdue.edu...
www.usatoday.com...

Or, if these don't convince you, how about the words from the actual creators of Loose Change?
video.google.com...
Dylan Avery: "We made that film essentially as a bunch of kids. That's the reality of the situation; we were a bunch of kids tackling a subject far beyond the scope of any one documentary. I would be the first to admit that our film definitely contained errors, it still does contain some dubious claims, and it does come to some conclusions that are not 100% backed up by the facts…."

smithmag.net...
Korey Rowe: "We know there are errors in the documentary, and we've actually left them in there so that people discredit us and do the research for themselves."

It's not quite a thousand, but it should do.

How did the authors of the above articles come by their information?

There have only been two or three actual studies as far as I'm aware, and two of them were federal (FEMA's in 2002, and NIST's), and a possible one was done by Larry Silverstein's company for insurance reasons, but I've only seen a diagram from that one.



This is what all of those early "experts" were saying:

Hyman Brown, a University of Colorado civil engineering professor and the Trade Center's construction manager, speculated that flames fuelled by thousands of litres of aviation fuel melted steel supports.

"This building would have stood had a plane or a force caused by a plane smashed into it," he said. "But steel melts, and 90,850 litres of aviation fluid melted the steel. Nothing is designed or will be designed to withstand that fire."

911research.wtc7.net...

Remember, these people aren't metallurgists.


SE Chris Wise told the BBC this, reported Sept. 13:

There's nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning. The columns would have melted, the floors would have melted and eventually they would have collapsed one on top of each other.

Which is of course another exaggeration that we now know not at all to have been the cause of the collapse.


Another SE:

On September 17, the BBC quoted another expert, professor of structural engineering at the University of Newcastle, John Knapton, on the subject of melted steel.
"The buildings survived the impact and the explosion but not the fire, and that is the problem."

"The 35 tonnes of aviation fuel will have melted the steel... all that can be done is to place fire resistant material around the steel and delay the collapse by keeping the steel cool for longer."

"Twin Towers' Steel Under Scrutiny" news.bbc.co.uk...


Another one:

Richard Ebeltoft, a structural engineer and University of Arizona architecture lecturer, speculated that flames fueled by thousands of gallons of aviation fuel melted the building's steel supports.

911research.wtc7.net...


Hopefully I won't have to explain to anybody that the supports didn't melt, that, according to the official story, NO steel melted, and the columns weren't even heated to sufficiently weaken, but the trusses gave way in some vague way that somehow jerked out the adjacent columns. That's the official story now, and it took a few years to develop.

All the experts on parade from yesteryear were just shown to be talking out of their asses in assuming that the fires themselves failed the support columns in any way. In fact, I bet anyone looking into half of these articles/papers would start to see that there's no consistent consensus yet as to what exactly was the exact failure mechanism that brought them down even among people on the "official" side, and that most of them somehow conflict with NIST's report.

I... what? Did you even read the links I posted or did you pick your own links to refute some point I wasn't trying to make?

Seriously, did you read even the first link, which is almost enough alone to disprove most theories.

Those were to illustrate a point, which could be illustrated even further if you want to go through all of the links you've just posted.

Seriously, did you read even the first link, which is almost enough alone to disprove most theories.

"Almost enough"? Not aiming very high, are we?

[edit on 4-8-2007 by bsbray11]

If there is a link on the internet that alone can disprove a conspiracy theory to a conpiracy theorist, please provide it, because I honestly don't think one exists.

Originally posted by ccaihc
And, here are the basic definitive websites for debunking all of this conspiracy nonsense (most focus on Loose Change, as it's the big one)...
enr.construction.com...
www.popularmechanics.com...
www.sciam.com...
wtc.nist.gov...
www.guardian.co.uk...
www.democracynow.org.../09/11/1345203
www.phoenixnewtimes.com...
news.bbc.co.uk...
www.salon.com...
911research.wtc7.net...
www.loosechangeguide.com...
www.cs.purdue.edu...
www.usatoday.com...

... Not to mention that most of these links you provide that you claim to 'definitively debunk' all of 'this conspiracy nonsense' are links to mainstream media articles which are the opinions of their authors.

If there is a link on the internet that alone can disprove a conspiracy theory to a conpiracy theorist, please provide it, because I honestly don't think one exists.

I think there's a big difference between a person who believes there's something more than what she was told about 911, and your definition of 'conspiracy theorist', which I suspect that is probably pretty similar to your definition of 'crazy'.

Forgetting your biased opinion for a moment about 'this conspiracy nonsense', since we're in the 911 forum let's focus just on the 911 conspiracy theories.

With that being said.. No, there isn't a single website that can disprove all the 911 inconsistencies and you know why? Because they can't all be disproved.

[edit on 4-8-2007 by danx]