Just heard about History channel special on 9/11 conspiracies

[snappyturtle]

I usually don't post here but thought you'd all like to know about this 9/11 Conspiracy Theories program slated for August 12th. It just said History channel and 8 pm...suppose that's Eastern time. William Tarply and Alex Jones to be on. If Prison Planet is a forbidden web site on DU...please ignore this post.

[CGowen]

1. Webster not William ... here are some pictures

http://www.911blogger.com/node/10346

[snappyturtle]

2. Sorry I know better than that but the second I typed "W" the rest

just followed....!

[dsa]

3. Ought to be interesting

Hopefully the History Channel will have plenty of experts to put these ignorant conspiracy wackjobs in their place.

[CGowen]

4. I heard it's going to be a hit piece ala Popular Mechanics again

Probably something with "missile in Pentagon" and "blaming the Jews"

An Internet search for "9/11 conspiracy theories" yields nearly two million hits. Were the attacks on 9/11 perpetrated by the Bush Administration to advance its own interests? Could a government missile have hit the Pentagon? As outrageous as these ideas may sound, many people believe them. Why do these theories arise in the first place? An interview with James Miegs, Editor-in-Chief of Popular Mechanics, who refutes many of these theories. Watch as experts in the fields of aeronautics, engineering and the military put these theories to the test.

http://www.history.com/shows.do?action=detail&episodeId=240087

[dsa]

5. You call it a hit piece

I call it the truth. Tomay-toes, tomah-toes.

[Perry Logan]

7. Yea! Why is anything that presents a different point of view a "hit piece"?

The only real "hit pieces" I've seen against the Truthers have come from other Truthers. They are always accusing one another of being CIA agents.

[freedom fighter jh]

16. It's not "anything that presents a different point of view."

A hit piece is a presentation in which people who with credentials that imply that they know better make ridiculous statements to support the OCT and no one who can present a coherent argument on the other side gets a chance to do so.

[CGowen]

9. So in what kind of truth or theory of truth do you believe? n/t

[Ezlivin]

11. Those "experts" don't exist

However, you can find plenty of politicians, scientists, airline pilots and engineers who support a new investigation into the events of 9/11.

[dsa]

12. Don't exist? Are you kidding me?

One of those experts is right here. I am a physicist who understands the science behind the so called "impossible events" on 9/11. For every "expert" you cite, there are hundreds of thousands of engineers and scientists just like me. Try a few of these on for size:

Purdue University structural dynamics modeling of aircraft impacts
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation

Massachusetts Institute of Technology site about the WTC by professors and researchers
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc

Exploration of 9/11 theories by aerospace engineers
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0290.shtml
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0274.shtml
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0311.shtml

Discussion of the WTC collapse by retired fire chiefs
http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html
http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/WTC/Fire.html

PBS NOVA episode describing the science of the WTC collapse
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc

Animations matching the video and photo evidence from the Pentagon
http://www.mikejwilson.com/911

University of Sydney Department of Civil Engineering discussion of the WTC collapse
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

Journal of Debunking 9/11 theories featuring peer reviewed articles
http://www.jod911.com

Civil engineers explain WTC collapse
http://www.architectureweek.com/2002/0529/news_3-1.html

Here's a list of other journal articles and technical reports on the WTC collapse:

Simulation for the collapse of WTC after aeroplane impact - Lu XZ., Yang N., Jiang JJ. Structure Engineer, 66(sup.). 2003, 18-22

Bazant, Z.P., & Zhou, Y. "Addendum to 'Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis" Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 3, (2002): 369-370.

Brannigan, F.L. "WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings", Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150.

Clifton, Charles G. Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers, HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001.
http://www.hera.org.nz/PDF%20Files/Elaboration%20on%20WTC%20Paper.PDF

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

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

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

Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C. "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation," JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Therese McAllister, report editor. World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations
http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm

Gabrielson, T.B., Poese, M.E., & Atchley, A.A. "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.

Glover, N.J. "Collapse Lessons," Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103.

Marechaux, T.G. "TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering," JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.

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

Newland, D.E., & Cebon, D. "Could the World Trade Center Have Been Modified to Prevent Its Collapse?" Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 7, (2002) 795-800.

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

Pinsker, Lisa, M. "Applying Geology at the World Trade Center Site," Geotimes v. 46, no. 11, (2001).
http://www.agiweb.org/geotimes/nov01/NNwtc.html


Civil engineers, mechanical engineers, physicists, aerospace engineers, material scientists, electrical engineers, engineering mechanics, geologists, computer scientists, fire experts, acoustics engineers -- they all agree with the official explanation of the 9/11 attack. What proof could you possibly offer to make me believe you instead of them?

[mmmlink]

15. You do realize that long list of articles describing

the technical aspects of the WTC collapse predates the NIST Final Report by 2-3 years (Oct. 2005). It is interesting how many different theories and papers there are from those that support the government's story, even the FEMA final report isn't supported by NIST. I wonder how many of them include demolition as a possible collapse scenario. I assume none.

[defendandprotect]

17. A&E/History ain't what it used to be . . . but I will watch for program --

Thank you!!!

[defendandprotect]

6. Discovery/History Channel has been under a lot of pressure and documentaries confiscated/destroyed -

so I'm not too confident of what they may be going to show on 8/12 but hope it will be something enlightening.

So DU also fears Prison Planet, eh?

Well, the trend with Bush in power has been to try to smother evidence of JFK coup --
and "Oswald employed by CIA" -- though that counter-documentary was so poorly done and ridiculous that it was pulled almost right away.

There are strong indications that the final chapter in the "Men Who Killed Kennedy" -- where we see Barr McClellan's story -- and especially Madelaine Brown's story --- and the expose of who and what LBJ really was -- were confiscated and destroyed -- all copies.

Ironically, supposedly Ford and Carter had something to do with trying to save LBJ's reputation for the sake of the family???? Carte rmay have been talked into complaining? Ford's motives are clear -- he's was helping the cover-up.

Don't think it's a largely believable story -- would have had to have been more power behind the confiscation. If only Ford/Carter, I think History Channel would have resisted. Looks like more power was used -- irrestible force?

Across the country, probably people have copies of these programs --

I ironically started to film the Tunnheim Panel documentary -- and only got the first three-quarters of it and missed the ending where Tunnheim makes the pronouncement -- !!!!

but I'm sure someone in America has it -- !!!

Now I don't even tape anything -- I used to have a TV with the DVR as part of it -- and it was super easy to tape.

[Perry Logan]

8. Who's afraid of "Prison Planet"? That's where I go to get laughs.

Here's Alex Jones (proprietor of Prison Planet) imitating a spider:
http://911verses.com/underground/Over_the_Edge_2005-09-30_Alex_Spider_Jones.MP3

[stressfulreality]

10. awesome! these theories deserve attention! =D n/t

[CGowen]

13. A&E, HEARST and Popular Mechanics

A&E Television Networks (AETN) a joint venture of The Hearst Corporation, ABC, Inc. and NBC Universal, is an award-winning, international media company. AETN is comprised of A&E Network®, The History Channel®, History International™, The Biography Channel®, The History Channel en español™, Military History Channel™, Crime & Investigation Network™, A&E HD™, THC HD™, AETN International, and AETN Consumer Products.
Okay, so the Hearst Corporation owns the History Channel.


So what? Uh, well... they also happen to own Popular Mechanics. Take a look at their own website...

http://us-amnesia.blogspot.com/
http://www.hearst.com/magazines/property/mag_prop_pm_2000.html

A&E Television Networks is a joint venture of The Hearst Corporation (37.5%), The Walt Disney Company’s Disney-ABC Television Group (37.5%) and General Electric’s NBC Universal (25%).

http://www.aetninternational.com/news.jsp?id=14617637

[CGowen]

14. History Channel alters program description and postpones first airing 1 week

From

An Internet search for "9/11 conspiracy theories" yields nearly two million hits. Were the attacks on 9/11 perpetrated by the Bush Administration to advance its own interests? Could a government missile have hit the Pentagon? As outrageous as these ideas may sound, many people believe them. Why do these theories arise in the first place? An interview with James Miegs, Editor-in-Chief of Popular Mechanics, who refutes many of these theories. Watch as experts in the fields of aeronautics, engineering and the military put these theories to the test.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x167564#167773

to

Examines the various conspiracy theories espoused on the Internet, in articles and in public forums that attempt to explain the 9/11 attacks. It includes theories that the World Trade Center was brought down by a controlled demolition; that a missile, not a commercial airliner, hit the Pentagon; and that members of the U.S. government orchestrated the attacks in hopes of creating a war in the Middle East. Each conspiracy argument is countered by a variety of experts in the fields of engineering, intelligence and the military. The program also delves into the anatomy of such conspiracies and how they grow on the Internet.
http://www.history.com/shows.do?action=detail&episodeId=240087

[defendandprotect]

18. Will hope for something truly enlightening and investigative . . ..

But it looks like the internet will be under attack and the more likely theories re 9/11 --

Presumably, Bushco wants to shore up the official story --

Let's hope the programming is is as dumb as the Popular Mechanics "debunking" --

[CGowen]

19. A reason could be that the PM editor read it and saw that his name was misspelled "Meigs" / "Miegs"