"The 9/11 Conspiracies: Fact Or Fiction?" on the History Channel

[WildCat]

Anyone watch this? Aired yesterday for the 1st time, I dvr'd it and am just starting to watch it now. About 4 minutes in there's a short clip of Gravy debating a truther!

I just started watching it, it's narrated by Lester Holt, who used to be a local TV news anchorman here.

[WildCat]

Oops! I just realized this was actually a year old, and I already saw it. :blush:

nvm

[albion]

It's available to watch online also.

I've got to say Mr. Holt has a rather annoying voice.

Edit: Well, you brought it to one persons attention at least :)

[GregHouseMD]

I saw it, (I love Tivo..) anyway I watched it this morning.

I noticed something about it, besides Gravy debating a fool truther.

They showed a number of truther protests, events, speed dates whatever you want to call them and they mostly had large numbers of people there, they all wore matching T-Shirts, they chanted and made a lot of noise.

Where have they all gone?

Nothing new on youtube has more than 9 people there.

Maybe "Without a Trace" could do a two part episode on the missing truthers, the one case they never solve?

[WildCat]

I noticed something about it, besides Gravy debating a fool truther.

They showed a number of truther protests, events, speed dates whatever you want to call them and they mostly had large numbers of people there, they all wore matching T-Shirts, they chanted and made a lot of noise.

Where have they all gone?
Those were taken at the height of the truth movement, on the 5th annivesary of 9/11.

I think most of those people have since become aware of how suckered they were, and have since left.

[albion]

Alex Jones is laughable.

Paraphrase: "A friend phoned me up and said a plane hit the WTC...I said the world is going to change" omg1111!

Dylan looks particularly comical on this, he keeps looking off camera and shuffling. I wonder if he sees his hopes of stardom going down the drain the more idiocy he spouts?

[Björn Toulouse]

....Dylan looks particularly comical on this, he keeps looking off camera and shuffling. I wonder if he sees his hopes of stardom going down the drain the more idiocy he spouts?



Hopefully, those zits have dried up now from the extended warm glow of the California sun.

[Bobert]

Oops! I just realized this was actually a year old, and I already saw it. :blush:

nvm
LMAO!
Are you ok?
;)
That post was the funnitest thing I have read all day!

[UnrepentantSinner]

Oops! I just realized this was actually a year old, and I already saw it. :blush:

I'm glad someone started a thread on it. I saw it the first time and watched large portions of it Monday night. It was awesome.

[eromitlab]

I'll have to see if it's re-airing soon. I watched it a couple of times when it first came out and AJ's minions were whining about how it was not only a hit piece, but it was vintage Hearst yellow journalism. (You only thought they stopped it in the 1890s.) It was great seeing the leading truthists entirely dismantled. The thing at the end with Alex comparing himself to Galileo and getting the facts completely wrong while drawing his comparison really ended the thing on a high note.

[Walter Ego]

It's available to watch online also.

http://911vids.blogspot.com/2008/02/history-channel-9-11-myths.html

[Drudgewire]

Alex Jones is laughable.

Paraphrase: "A friend phoned me up and said a plane hit the WTC...I said the world is going to change" omg1111!


That show is responsible for my favorite twoofer moment ever, simply because of the number of people reached, when Jones explained he was like Galileo trying to prove the world wasn't flat. :newlol

[UnrepentantSinner]

Dylan looks particularly comical on this, he keeps looking off camera and shuffling. I wonder if he sees his hopes of stardom going down the drain the more idiocy he spouts?

I was a slightly nerdy teen with bad skin, hell, I'm 40 friggin' years old and still have bad skin, but I've never been one of those bigger guys (6'2" ain't that big any more) who wanted to punch a zitty, nerdy douchbag ever until I watched Dylan on this show. It wasn't even about him being a zitty, nerdy douchebag... it was because of his blovating. Don't get me started on Alex Jones...

Back to the OP and some of the 9/11 related shows that are airing this week, I've been watching C-SPAN3's reruns of the 9/11 commission hearings and look forward to 102 Minutes on History tomorrow like I did 9/11 on CBS back in 2002 - with some trepidation and the knowledge that I'll be reduced to tears, but also that it will represent real history and not "Truth".

[Sizzler]

Since when are the idiots, I mean editors, at Popular Mechanics considered "experts"? I'd like to see their credentials. That show is a piece of rubbish.

[WildCat]

Since when are the idiots, I mean editors, at Popular Mechanics considered "experts"? I'd like to see their credentials. That show is a piece of rubbish.
And your credentials are...? :rolleyes:

[Sizzler]

And your credentials are...? :rolleyes:

None. I am just sick of seeing those two dolts speaking as if they have any expert opinion on the matter. They are freakin magazine editors.

[Drudgewire]

Since when are the idiots, I mean editors, at Popular Mechanics considered "experts"? I'd like to see their credentials. That show is a piece of rubbish.

They aren't experts, they're publishers.

Which is why they relied on over 300 experts and organizations rather than having one or two staff members do it all. (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=9)

[twinstead]

Jesus, Sizzler. Do you think maybe those 'idiots' perhaps gathered a crap-load of actual experts to comment on the subject?

[WildCat]

None. I am just sick of seeing those two dolts speaking as if they have any expert opinion on the matter. They are freakin magazine editors.
Except they cite actual experts, unlike the dolts who make up the truth movement. Who are the experts in the truth movement? We have Alex Jones, a paranoid talk show host, citing David Ray Griffin, a theology professor. The founders of the truth movement are anti-semite holocaust deniers. The biggest film in your whole movement was made by a college reject repeating the claims of a theology professor.

7 years later not a single paper by a truther "expert" has been published in a real journal.

It must really suck to be a truther, knowing there are no actual experts in anything relevant supporting them.

[Sizzler]

They aren't experts, they're publishers.

Which is why they relied on over 300 experts and organizations rather than having one or two staff members do it all. (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=9)

Right, so why do I have to listen to them talking from a position of authority every time (well not every time) I see a TV documentary?

And, why is the welder/demolition (sounds like good credentials to me) guy not considered an expert but rather a conspiracy theorist.

These shows are glaringly unbalanced.

[Sizzler]

Except they cite actual experts, unlike the dolts who make up the truth movement. Who are the experts in the truth movement? We have Alex Jones, a paranoid talk show host, citing David Ray Griffin, a theology professor. The founders of the truth movement are anti-semite holocaust deniers. The biggest film in your whole movement was made by a college reject repeating the claims of a theology professor.

7 years later not a single paper by a truther "expert" has been published in a real journal.

It must really suck to be a truther, knowing there are no actual experts in anything relevant supporting them.

To be fair the truth movement does have structural engineers in it. On the other hand, they haven't created a paper worthy of being published in a (move the goal posts) "real" journal.

[twinstead]

Right, so why do I have to listen to them talking from a position of authority every time (well not every time) I see a TV documentary?

And, why is the welder/demolition (sounds like good credentials to me) guy not considered an expert but rather a conspiracy theorist.

These shows are glaringly unbalanced.

Have you actually SEEN any truther videos? And you have the nerve to call the PM documentary 'unbalanced'? Shocking I know, but I am beginning to suspect your objections may have an ideological twinge to them...

[Drudgewire]

And, why is the welder/demolition (sounds like good credentials to me) guy not considered an expert but rather a conspiracy theorist.


Having a job doing something does not make you an expert at it. Earning the respect of your peers does.

Connect the dots, and your question will be answered.

PS: Is he the guy who was listed as "truck driver?" I'd forgotten that piece of gold from the show. :D

[DC]

i like the 2 guys from Popmech. they are funny

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=Ama5gZ99zYU

:D

[Sizzler]

The doc says..."Expert Response" and then cuts to David Colburn. What the hell is that? Garbage in my opinion.

[Sizzler]

Have you actually SEEN any truther videos? And you have the nerve to call the PM documentary 'unbalanced'? Shocking I know, but I am beginning to suspect your objections may have an ideological twinge to them...

Lets keep this in context. Truther videos are not trying to be balanced, I think we all know that (I don't like truther videos for that exact reason).

PM, the History Channel et al. are claiming to be balanced inquiry. The certainly are not.

Same *****, different pile in my opinion.

[Sizzler]

Having a job doing something does not make you an expert at it. Earning the respect of your peers does.

Connect the dots, and your question will be answered.

PS: Is he the guy who was listed as "truck driver?" I'd forgotten that piece of gold from the show. :D

I think the demolition industry is a little different than say, engineering. I may be wrong here, but I am under the impression that one does not need a degree of any sort to work in demolition. He claims in the video to have 12 years experience in demolition. At what point would he be considered an expert? And if indeed it does take the respect of his peers to achieve such, how do we know he doesn't already have that.

He is listed as a nurse.

[WildCat]

PM, the History Channel et al. are claiming to be balanced inquiry. The certainly are not.
It's hard to have a balanced inquiry when the entire weight of the evidence supports the accepted version of events, and all the conspiracy dolts have come up with after 7 years is "it doesn't look right to me and I hate Bush".

[Disbelief]

I think the demolition industry is a little different than say, engineering. I may be wrong here, but I am under the impression that one does not need a degree of any sort to work in demolition. He claims in the video to have 12 years experience in demolition. At what point would he be considered an expert? And if indeed it does take the respect of his peers to achieve such, how do we know he doesn't already have that.

He is listed as a nurse.

What is he doing in the demolition industry? Is he prepping the building? Is he putting in the charges? Is he coordinating all the activities? Is he doing the engineering to make sure the demo goes according to plan?

Does an autoworker loading parts on the assembly line become an expert in auto manufacturing?

[Drudgewire]

He claims in the video to have 12 years experience in demolition. At what point would he be considered an expert?


Well, for starters...


He is listed as a nurse.


Having "demolitions" (or at least something to do with buildings beyond working in one) somewhere in his job title might help. :p

[Sizzler]

It's hard to have a balanced inquiry when the entire weight of the evidence supports the accepted version of events, and all the conspiracy dolts have come up with after 7 years is "it doesn't look right to me and I hate Bush".

Which begs the question, why do a documentary of such rubbish in the first place?

[Drudgewire]

Which begs the question, why do a documentary of such rubbish in the first place?

Because, despite how badly twoofers want it to not be the case, reporting FACTS about 9/11 are automatically going to be unbalanced against the fairy tales which didn't stand up to any form of scrutiny prior to the show and never will.

[Sizzler]

What is he doing in the demolition industry? Is he prepping the building? Is he putting in the charges? Is he coordinating all the activities? Is he doing the engineering to make sure the demo goes according to plan?

Does an autoworker loading parts on the assembly line become an expert in auto manufacturing?

We aren't given that information. Colburn is listed as an expert though. I guess working as a magazine editor is enough.

[Sizzler]

Well, for starters...





Having "demolitions" (or at least something to do with buildings beyond working in one) somewhere in his job title might help. :p

People change careers all the time.

[twinstead]

Which begs the question, why do a documentary of such rubbish in the first place?

It's because of people who fall for these conspiracy theories. 911 is very similar to those who think the moon landings were hoaxed. A lot of scientists and others who worked on the Apollo project are a little offended that people think it was faked, on the slimmest of evidence.

I would imagine that most real experts who support the 'official story' are just as offended that people like you think they either don't know what they are talking about or in on it. Of course I could be wrong, and the vast majority of real experts actually are suspicious that 911 may have been an inside job--and the government responsible for the murder of 3000 people-- but are afraid to come out and say it because they might lose their tenure. ;)

[Sizzler]

Because, despite how badly twoofers want it to not be the case, reporting FACTS about 9/11 are automatically going to be unbalanced against the fairy tales which didn't stand up to any form of scrutiny prior to the show and never will.

You didn't answer my question. You simply repeated what you said before.

[WildCat]

People change careers all the time.
Exactly. David Ray Griffin was once a theology professor. Now he sells books to idiots.

[twinstead]

We aren't given that information. Colburn is listed as an expert though. I guess working as a magazine editor is enough.

Jesus. The editors are just the MESSENGERS. Their documentary was contributed to by hundreds of REAL experts.

Or, perhaps you are well aware of it but prefer to complain about the editors because it makes it easier to wave away the facts?

[Disbelief]

We aren't given that information. Colburn is listed as an expert though. I guess working as a magazine editor is enough.

Maybe the producers looked into that and found his self proclaimed expertise lacking.

[Sizzler]

It's because of people who fall for these conspiracy theories. 911 is very similar to those who think the moon landings were hoaxed. A lot of scientists and others who worked on the Apollo project are a little offended that people think it was faked, on the slimmest of evidence.

I would imagine that most real experts who support the 'official story' are just as offended that people like you think they either don't know what they are talking about or in on it. Of course I could be wrong, and the vast majority of real experts actually are suspicious that 911 may have been an inside job--and the government responsible for the murder of 3000 people-- but are afraid to come out and say it because they might lose their tenure. ;)

I see your point. But I don't think it is as quite right to compare it to the moon hoax conspiracy or any other "weak" conspiracy claims. The truth movement does have structural engineers, physicists, architects, ex-CIA, ex military, politicians, etc supporting its claims.

[Sizzler]

Jesus. The editors are just the MESSENGERS. Their documentary was contributed to by hundreds of REAL experts.

Or, perhaps you are well aware of it but prefer to complain about the editors because it makes it easier to wave away the facts?

Do you really think the show is balanced? Can I have your honest opinion before we proceed.

[Drudgewire]

Which begs the question, why do a documentary of such rubbish in the first place?

You didn't answer my question. You simply repeated what you said before.


Fine. Real answer: History Channel enjoys laughing at you guys as much as we do. :p

[Sizzler]

Maybe the producers looked into that and found his self proclaimed expertise lacking.

Perhaps.

[Sizzler]

Fine. Real answer: History Channel enjoys laughing at you guys as much as we do. :p

Fair enough.

[Dave Rogers]

I see your point. But I don't think it is as quite right to compare it to the moon hoax conspiracy or any other "weak" conspiracy claims. The truth movement does have structural engineers, physicists, architects, ex-CIA, ex military, politicians, etc supporting its claims.

Given that these people are divided into so many different, mutually exclusive, and often mutually abusive subsets, I would say that the difference is not that the 9/11 conspiracy theories are any less "weak", but simply that they are more numerous. That alone seems to suggest that they're more a matter of fashion than analysis of evidence.

Dave

[Sizzler]

Given that these people are divided into so many different, mutually exclusive, and often mutually abusive subsets, I would say that the difference is not that the 9/11 conspiracy theories are any less "weak", but simply that they are more numerous. That alone seems to suggest that they're more a matter of fashion than analysis of evidence.

Dave

This could be true. Or, it could be the result of a lack of meaningful investigation. For example the sulfidized steel. The source still hasn't been properly investigated. Another example is NIST's own admission that they are unable to fully explain the entire collapse events of WTC 1/2. Yet another example is all of the conflicting witness testimony, of which a large amount that did not support support the official theory, was left out of the Commission report.

I think the truth movement's biggest mistake was claiming "inside" job from the beginning. I personally side with the opinion that "the truth is that we don't know the truth" (forget who said this).

[Dave Rogers]

This could be true. Or, it could be the result of a lack of meaningful investigation. For example the sulfidized steel. The source still hasn't been properly investigated. Another example is NIST's own admission that they are unable to fully explain the entire collapse events of WTC 1/2. Yet another example is all of the conflicting witness testimony, of which a large amount that did not support support the official theory, was left out of the Commission report.

All of these are trivial strawmen. The sulfidized steel is an interesting corrosion phenomenon with no real engineering implications. NIST's "admission" is simply being taken out of context; they are easily able, as is everyone else who has studied the matter, to explain the gross features of the WTC1 and WTC2 collapses, they simply don't have the computing power to calculate the trajectory of every last piece of debris. And the remit of the 9/11 Commission was not to collate every piece of testimony and publish it without discrimination, but to determine the important features of how the attacks were carried out and how the response to them was organised and executed; this inevitably means they had to reconcile conflicting witness accounts, as is necessary in determining the history of any and every other event.

I think the truth movement's biggest mistake was claiming "inside" job from the beginning. I personally side with the opinion that "the truth is that we don't know the truth" (forget who said this).

I find it difficult to understand why you try so hard, not to find it out, but to pretend it isn't known.

Dave

[Sizzler]

All of these are trivial strawmen. The sulfidized steel is an interesting corrosion phenomenon with no real engineering implications. NIST's "admission" is simply being taken out of context; they are easily able, as is everyone else who has studied the matter, to explain the gross features of the WTC1 and WTC2 collapses, they simply don't have the computing power to calculate the trajectory of every last piece of debris. And the remit of the 9/11 Commission was not to collate every piece of testimony and publish it without discrimination, but to determine the important features of how the attacks were carried out and how the response to them was organised and executed; this inevitably means they had to reconcile conflicting witness accounts, as is necessary in determining the history of any and every other event.

We are moving off-topic here so I am only going to say the following. I agree with your point about NIST, yet disagree about the 9/11 commission and sulfidized steel. If you wish to further discuss this make a new thread and I'd be happy to talk about it.

I find it difficult to understand why you try so hard, not to find it out, but to pretend it isn't known.

Dave

The evidence I have been presented is not convincing enough for me to completely side with either the official story or the alternative theories. Simple as that.

[nicepants]

The doc says..."Expert Response" and then cuts to David Colburn. What the hell is that? Garbage in my opinion.

? David Colburn summarized the response of the experts he interviewed. There's nothing wrong with that.

[CHF]

Or, it could be the result of a lack of meaningful investigation.

The TM claims to have tons of evidence, an overflow of experts, support from rich celebrities and the backing of 36-84% of the population.

I can't imagine why it's taking so long for you guys to get this "meaningful investigation" going.

Any idea what the holdup is?

[Reality Believer]

Which begs the question, why do a documentary of such rubbish in the first place?
They made the documentary primarily for the same reason that all the other truthers make "documentaries": It makes money. It is good television.

A controversial subject like this is going to draw an audience and sponsors. That is the primary reason. Now the secondary reason may be more altruistic in the fact that they are defending history against the vocal minority that is spreading lies and fabrications.

[Sizzler]

They made the documentary primarily for the same reason that all the other truthers make "documentaries": It makes money. It is good television.

A controversial subject like this is going to draw an audience and sponsors. That is the primary reason. Now the secondary reason may be more altruistic in the fact that they are defending history against the vocal minority that is spreading lies and fabrications.

This is a very possible answer, both of them.

But, I can't imagine a truther video grossing much money seeing as they are readily available for free on the internet or at your local street corner. This does not include alex jones though, I am sure he makes a fair amount of money.

So beside alex jones, are there any other truthers out there making money off of their movies? (please don't include books. I am sure DRG makes a decent amount)

[Reality Believer]

This is a very possible answer, both of them.

But, I can't imagine a truther video grossing much money seeing as they are readily available for free on the internet or at your local street corner. This does not include alex jones though, I am sure he makes a fair amount of money.

So beside alex jones, are there any other truthers out there making money off of their movies? (please don't include books. I am sure DRG makes a decent amount)
All you have to do is look at the referenced website to see if they have a store that sells DVD's. If so, bingo!. It is good marketing practice to give away "teasers". Low quality versions that lead to sales of the high res version, or at least drive traffic to the web site to boost ad clicks and sales of tee shirts.

The web only, low production value, videos that are not attached to a store, are most likely there to evangelize and spread ideology, with a secondary effect to drive web traffic to the big players.

But look at the big picture. There would be no debunking documentaries in the first place if the bunk didn't exist. The bunk exists, for the most part, as a money making incentive.

So ... put this in your beanie and let it cook - Alex Jones is an agent for The Hearst Corporation! :jaw-dropp

[Corsair 115]

The truth movement does have structural engineers, physicists, architects, ex-CIA, ex military, politicians, etc supporting its claims.Then how about providing a list of these individuals and links to their relevant education, qualifications, and professional experience and backgrounds.

Next, compare the number of folks on this list to the total number of similar people in those fields. Then provide some sort of reasonable explanation as to why all these other individuals don't share the 9/11 conspiracy theory (theories, actually, since 9/11 conspiracists can't even provide a consistent, single theory of what happened).

[UnrepentantSinner]

Right, so why do I have to listen to them talking from a position of authority every time (well not every time) I see a TV documentary?

Do you not watch documentaries or do you and you've just missed the fact that they often will have a host or narrator? The experts are the ones they cut to for more information.

These shows are glaringly unbalanced.

Actually it was very balanced. They let the Truthers put on the noose with their own lies and the facts pulled the lever. Documentaries, unless they're propaganda like LC, are biased towards the evidence. That's the reason History didn't have a bunch of Creationists commenting for it's Evolve series.

[PhantomWolf]

Actually for once I have to sort of agree with Sizzler (*gasp*) Not that the guys from Pop Mechanics weren't up to the job, but I'd have liked to see them have talked to a few more of the experts rather than going second hand. Having watched other programs like The Towers and the Pentagon and Attack on the Pentagon shortly before it, the interviews in that with the engineers that did the studies for NIST, FEMA and even the Silverstein Group, as well as the many first responders and people who worked the Pentagon often did more debunking of the CT claims without even trying too. In those they had the guys that actually when into the storage areas and searched through the steel, collecting it. They even had the audacity to show some of the pieces (one of the impact beams is now a permanent sculpture in NIST's lobby.) Having the fre crews talking about having to climb over parts of the aircraft to get to the fires, or how and where the black boxes were found. How those in the building got covered in jet fuel and so on. I would have liked to see more of them giving their stories against the CTs because a) I believe it'd have had more impact, and b) I sort of got sick of them going back to the same two guys all the time.