9-11 Conspiracies

[solidground]

Re: 9-11 Conspiracies

i was away so i missed it..i knew it was gonna be biased because of who they put on the show and the link to who owns it..id like to see it ..but everytime someone "debunks" theories, experts can debunk the debunking..its a matter of opinions- just gotta look at who the experts are that are debunking the theories and why.. for example popular mechanics guy was cheneys cousin when he wrote the debunking article a few yrs ago.

[solidground]

Re: 9-11 Conspiracies

Building #7 was severly damaged from debris falling when the towers collapsed which also started the fire. The fire was kept burning by diesel fuel in multiple generators as well as a feed from underground. They claim that it burned for over 8 hours and the the owner of the building feared for the safety of the fire fighters and called off efforts to put it out.

no way man barely had any fires at all and it didnt burn for 8 hrs..it was demolished as larry silverstein admitted on PBS..just last week in asia a bigger builing burnt for longer and wiped out the upper 15-20 floors, never fell..same thing happened at wtc a fwe weeks ago, didnt fall..building 7 is so far away from the towers, u hvae to see it in person, theres like 4 closer buildings..no way it could have fell with the amnt of fire and for the limited duration...research what was in building 7 and it makes sense..cia, fbi, enron list goes on.

[solidground]

Re: 9-11 Conspiracies

article off prisonplanet..as some of you know im pretty active about this stuff and helping firefighters/first responders that were there that day..and i can tell you honestly that most of them are not satisfied with the investigation and have alot of questions and many i spoke to do not believe the official story at all on account of what they saw that day.


History Channel Hit Piece: Dirty Tricks, Malicious Lies & Journalistic Fraud
The real story behind Brad Davis, NBC, Popular Mechanics and the History Channel - media ***** stooges who engaged in deliberate deception, manipulation and chicanery to please their corporate bosses
Alex Jones & Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, August 21, 2007


MP3: Alex Jones Responds to the History Channel Hit Piece

The History Channel 9/11 special that aired last night was by far the worst hit piece we have ever witnessed, a completely savage, dishonest and deceptive abomination, replete with dirty tricks, malicious lies and a level of journalistic fraud that goes way beyond simple bias.

Bradley Davis, the producer of 9/11 Conspiracies: Fact Or Fiction, is a paid liar and a hit piece specialist who deceives people by gaining their confidence and then attacking them behind their back.

He is famous for the smear job documentary on Michael Jackson and makes a career out of conning people and then stabbing them in the back. His tongue is so smooth, that even the Loose Change crew were prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt on his impartiality before last night's hit piece was aired, with Davis having tricked them into believing he was a friend.

Before filming began, Alex Jones asked Davis point blank if the documentary was going to be a hit piece, which Davis denied. After we brought attention to the History Channel's blurb on their website, which clearly characterized the show as a hit piece, Davis panicked and promised to alter the promo, calling it a "misrepresentation," as well as re-edit the entire program to make it more balanced. The promo temporarily disappeared from the website and the broadcast of the show was put back by a week.

(Article continues below)




During the course of this second exchange, Davis again promised Jones that the show was not going to be a hit piece and was very upset that we had discovered he was behind the NBC hit piece on Jackson - seemingly frightened that his cover might be blown and his next victim would be alerted to his scheming tricks. He was terrified and kept repeating that he didn't want to be quoted on anything he said.

Just like Popular Mechanics swore that their straw man smear job wouldn't be a hit piece, Davis engaged in journalistic fraud and complete dishonesty by lying directly to Alex Jones' face in claiming the documentary was to be neutral just so he could secure the interview.

Just like William Randolph Hearst, the progenitor of the term "yellow journalism," Davis will go down in history as a liar and a fraud.

The show itself was deliberately crafted, edited, shot and manipulated to portray the 9/11 truth movement in a completely negative light, while exalting the so-called experts to almost God-like status.



- The program makers pulled out all the stops to hire nationally renowned NBC news anchor Lester Holt (pictured) to narrate the show, a trusted voice that was utilized to brutally debunk 9/11 truth representatives.

- The debunkers, people like James Meigs whose scientific expertise stretches as far as being the editor of Video Review and Entertainment Weekly, were labeled as experts while real experts like Physicist Professor Steven Jones were stripped of any such description.

- The debunkers' interviews were pristinely shot and framed, with beautiful backdrops and highly sympathetic camera angles and filters, whereas the truthers were shot from bizarre positions, their images were deliberately distorted and even the color filter of the shot had been manipulated to make their appearance look tainted, blurred and contorted. This was an intentional ploy and a crude act of manipulation to detract credibility from the truthers and violates all known ethical standards of journalism.

- The producers of the show failed to offer the proviso that Hearst Publishing, the owner of Popular Mechanics, also holds a controlling stake in the History Channel (via its stake in the A & E Television Network), therefore concealing from the viewer a blatant conflict of interest that negated the neutrality of the show before it had even begun.

- The debunkers were afforded far more time on camera while the truthers were sidelined.

- The narrator of the show would dismiss the questions and evidence raised by the truthers as unproven or debunked in an ad hominem manner without providing any evidence to justify the assertion.

- The truthers were edited so that only hesitant responses to questions were broadcast, casting doubt on the veracity of their claims in the mind of the unsuspecting viewer.

- The show included a clip of Alex Jones' appearance at the University of Texas, at which around 500 people packed the lecture hall to hear his speech, but deliberately and maliciously edited the footage to include shots taken during recess, so as to make it appear that the lecture hall was mostly empty. In addition, lingering shots of empty chairs were included to further deceive the viewer into thinking few had attended the speech. This is journalistic fraud of the worse kind - a blatant misrepresentation and deliberate skewing of actual events.

- In a similar vein, footage from 9/11 truth protests was broadcast but the angle of the shot was always tight, so as to make out that few people had attended the demonstration, when in fact thousands were present.

- Davin Coburn of Popular Mechanics, mirroring a dirty trick that was also employed in the BBC hit piece, maliciously lied and smeared Alex Jones and others in the program by claiming that most of the 9/11 families hate them and that they are responsible for causing the families more pain. Coburn and the show's producers know this is an outright lie and that the majority of the family members are asking the same questions as Alex Jones and others. Bill Doyle, representative of the largest group of 9/11 family members told the Alex Jones Show directly that over half of the family members have questions about the official story. Alex Jones and the Loose Change crew offered contact details for numerous 9/11 first responders, firefighters and family members that were asking questions of the official version, but absolutely none were interviewed by Brad Davis and the rest of the show's producers.

- The producers of the show tried to make out that Loose Change had recanted their position on the issue of controlled demolition, when in fact Dylan Avery and the other members of the crew were merely using their Final Cut version to focus on other topics, having already covered controlled demolition at length in previous versions. This trick was used to claim that evidence for bombs and controlled demolition, which is attested to by scores of firefighters and first responders, none of which were interviewed by the producers, had been debunked.



- Articles and text from 9/11 truth websites were shown, but the actual URL addresses of the sites were blurred out, with the History Channel obviously frightened that people might actually visit such websites and find out that the program was a pack of lies.

- The debunkers attempted to wriggle out of Secretary Norman Mineta's bombshell testimony about Cheney's actions in the Emergency Operations Center, by claiming that Mineta was talking about Flight 93 and not the plane that hit the Pentagon. In reality, Mineta makes it clear in his testimony that he is talking about Flight 77, "the airplane coming in to the Pentagon," and this is then confirmed by Commissioner Lee Hamilton.



- The debunkers admitted that temperatures inside the twin towers were not hot enough to melt steel, but claimed that they were hot enough to weaken steel and cause the collapse. The debunkers uniformly failed to address the fact that firefighters and first responders described witnessing molten steel beneath the rubble of the towers and they also ignored Professor Steven Jones' scientific analysis of the iron-rich microspheres found in the rubble. In a website posting last night, Professor Jones stated that he emphatically pushed the dust analysis during his interview with the producers, but the topic was completely overlooked. The New York Times reported that the molten steel was "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered" but the History Channel, mirroring NIST, failed to address the issue.

- The debunkers mentioned WTC 7 only in passing and completely failed to address why the building, which wasn't hit by a plane, collapsed in 7 seconds into its own footprint after suffering only limited fire damage from falling debris. They also failed to mention why news outlets were reporting the collapse of Building 7 over an hour before it actually fell.

- The wargames that dovetailed 9/11 and deliberately confused NORAD personnel so as to slow response to the real attack were completely excluded.

- The Able Danger program and how the hijackers were discovered before 9/11 was completely excluded.

- The fact that the money man behind the hijackers, Pakistan’s ISI Chief Mahmoud Ahmad, was meeting with U.S. government and intelligence officials before and on the morning of 9/11, was completely excluded.

- William Rodriguez' first-hand testimony of explosions prior to the impact of the planes was completely excluded, as was the testimony of numerous firefighters who attested to bombs and explosions.

- NBC reporter Pat Dawson claimed that FDNY Chief of Safety Albert Turi had only described explosions, not bombs, going off, contradicting Dawson's own report at the time which stated, "Reports of a secondary device, that is another ‘bomb’ going off."

After watching this two hour charade, Alex Jones was left stunned and irate that the producers had deliberately set out to create something that goes way beyond the scope of bias - an intentional propaganda attack piece strewn with manifestly provable lies, dirty tricks and misrepresentation, and that the show's producers, and in particular Brad Davis, had purposefully lied all along in order to shield the fact that this was a savage hit piece of the highest order.

In comparison, The History Channel makes Fox News look fair and balanced!

Framing Alex Jones as a demon and making out that he is causing pain to 9/11 families, when in fact during our last visit to ground zero most of the firefighters and police personally thanked us, is a very serious allegation and we are waiting to see what kind of damages will accrue as a result while we consider our next step.

As we expected all along, Brad Davis and the rest of the charlatans at NBC, the History Channel and Popular Mechanics, have pleased their corporate masters by unleashing the most twisted, distorted, dishonest and savage hit piece in television history. They have shown their hand by deliberately abandoning any pretense at ethical journalism and delivering exactly what their Hearst "yellow journalism" Publishing and GE bosses demanded - a bias, malicious, deceptive, and manipulative tissue of lies and another reason for Americans to disengage from an establishment media empire that continues to hemorrhage viewers on a daily basis due to its ceaseless lies and propaganda.

[solidground]

Re: 9-11 Conspiracies

picture of the flight in PA that imo was shot down, where is the wreckage.

[daved150]

Re: 9-11 Conspiracies

lol..."the truthers"...


HEY DJ!!! WELCOME BACK BUDDY!!!!

[JsJs24]

Re: 9-11 Conspiracies

picture of the flight in PA that imo was shot down, where is the wreckage.

It wasn't shot down. Some of the passengers tried to take over the controls and it crashed.

[solidground]

Re: 9-11 Conspiracies

^ good post..i understand there are 2 sides to this and can see points on both ends..but a huge amount of Americans, more then most think do not believe the official story..The gov't should serve us and all we want is a new/unbiased and detailed investigation.

[kite]

Re: 9-11 Conspiracies

Amazing to me how many people are experts on how a fully fueled plane should look after a crash.
The remark about the gov't faking a phone call really trips me out. You really think the loved one's don't know the sounds of their significant others voice?
How in the world do you know that 80-90% of the people on the flight smashing into the Pentagon worked for the CIA, etc..?
As I said before, the conspiracy theorists are the ones who brought all this stuff up so the burden of proof is on them. I have yet to hear anything other than paranoid rhetoric.

[solidground]

Re: 9-11 Conspiracies

plus who has ever been able to make a phone call on a plane while its in the air, its impossible..kite go to google video and watch 9-11 mysteries its the best 9-11 truth film imo and it uses science to explain what happened.

[solidground]

Re: 9-11 Conspiracies

The Cellphone and Airfone Calls from Flight UA93
A. K. Dewdney

Acknowledgment: I wish to thank Brad Mayeaux for assistance in preparing this article

Introduction

If the hijackings of September 11 were staged, the organization responsible would also be sure to add other elements to the basic plan, not only developing lists of hijackers, but sending fake cellphone calls from some of the passengers. The following analysis focuses on Flight 93, from which more alleged cellphone calls were made than from the other three flights combined. It could be called the “Cellphone Flight.” Like the staged attacks themselves, the calling operation would be complex, involving the a) deployment of voice mimicry techniques, b) gathering personal intelligence on at least some of the passengers, c) coordination of calls with the operation’s timeline.

1. Background

Any analysis of the cellphone and “airfone” calls from Flight 93 must begin with some basic, high-altitude cellphone facts. According to AT&T spokesperson Alexa Graf, cellphones are not designed for calls from the high altitudes at which most airliners normally operate. It was, in her opinion, a “fluke” that so many calls reached their destinations. (Harter 2001) In the opinion of a colleague of mine who has worked in the cellphone industry, it was a “miracle” that any of the calls got through from altitude. (See the recent proposal to install equipment to make cellphone calls possible from aircraft.) An aircraft, having a metal skin and fuselage, acts like a Faraday cage, tending to block or attenuate electromagnetic radiation. One can make a cellphone call from inside an aircraft while on the ground because the weakened signal is still close enough to the nearest cellsite (relay tower) to get picked up. Once above 10,000 feet, however, calls rarely get through, if ever.

Here is the statement of an experienced airline pilot: “The idea of being able to use a cellphone while flying is completely impractical. Once through about 10,000 feet, the thing is useless, since you are too high and moving too fast (and thus changing cells too rapidly) for the phone to provide a signal.” (AVWeb, 1999)

People boarding aircraft for the last decade or so have all heard the warnings to turn off their cellphones for the duration of the flight. The reasons for this regulation are somewhat mysterious, since the usual explanation, that delicate aircraft electronics might be affected by cellphone signals, is cast somewhat in doubt by the fact that all avionics are shielded from stray electromagnetic radiation. (Spitzer 1987) On the other hand, the FCC had apparently requested that airlines make this rule, owing to the tendency for cell phone calls made from aircraft at lower altitudes to create “cascades” that may lead to breakdown of cellsite operations. (Fraizer 2002)

The cascade problem is more likely at altitudes of 10,000 feet or lower, where reaching a cellsite, although still a touch-and-go matter, is more easily accomplished. However, because of its superior position, the cellphone may reach several cellsites at once. This can create problems, as software that determines which site is to handle the call makes its judgment based on the relative strength of calls. If the call is made from an overhead position, it may well not be able to distinguish relative strength at different cellsites. When this happens it is designed to close off the calling channel, selecting another channel in its place. But the same problem of deciding which cellsite should handle the call also occurs on the new channel, so the new channel is closed, and so on. One by one, in a rapid cascade that would last only seconds, all the channels would be closed, leading to a network-wide breakdown.

As I have pointed out elsewhere, cellphone calls from commercial aircraft much over 8000 feet are essentially impossible, while those below 8000 feet are highly unlikely down to about 2000, where they become merely unlikely. (Dewdney 2003) Moreover, even at the latter altitude (and below), the handoff problem appears. Any airliner at or below this altitude, flying at the normal speed of approximately 500 mph, would encounter the handoff problem (Dewdney 2003). An aircraft traveling at this speed would not be over the cellsite long enough to complete the electronic “handshake” (which takes several seconds to complete) before arriving over the next cellsite, when the call has to be handed off from the first cellsite to the next one. This also takes a few seconds, the result being, in the optimal case, a series of broken transmissions that must end, sooner or later, in failure.

It must also be remarked that the alleged hijackers of the Cellphone Flight were remarkably lenient with their passengers, allowing some 13 calls. However, it would seem highly unlikely that hijackers would allow any phone calls for the simple reason that passengers could relay valuable positional and other information useful to authorities on the ground, thus putting the whole mission in jeopardy.

[solidground]

Re: 9-11 Conspiracies

double post

[Stout1]

Re: 9-11 Conspiracies

Did anyone catch the show on History channel last night? It was pretty good, they laid out a boat load of theories and then pretty much shattered them, lol! It was really interesting.

Sometimes your "source" of info isn't always neutral or may have alterior motives

.....

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/august2007/020807hitpiece.htm

James Meigs of Popular Mechanics is far from a neutral on this subject and in fact works under the very company that owns the History Channel itself, yellow journalism originators Hearst Corporation. The Popular Mechanics book Debunking 9/11 Myths is thus ultimately produced by the same people putting out this documentary.

[kite]

Re: 9-11 Conspiracies

Sometimes your "source" of info isn't always neutral or may have alterior motives

.....

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/august2007/020807hitpiece.htm

James Meigs of Popular Mechanics is far from a neutral on this subject and in fact works under the very company that owns the History Channel itself, yellow journalism originators Hearst Corporation. The Popular Mechanics book Debunking 9/11 Myths is thus ultimately produced by the same people putting out this documentary.

True

[daved150]

Re: 9-11 Conspiracies

plus who has ever been able to make a phone call on a plane while its in the air, its impossible..kite go to google video and watch 9-11 mysteries its the best 9-11 truth film imo and it uses science to explain what happened.

i actually just talked to my uncle on a flight from ft myers fla to dallas texas...in flight. i actually think i talked to fuzzy while he was still in flight or JUST about to land...he called me

[solidground]

Re: 9-11 Conspiracies

i dont believe you haha..theyve made it possible in recent years, believe 2003..but over certain altitudes it is very unlikely, so 13 calls for a few minutes is a long shot.This isn't one of the arguments i like to make bc i dont believe its all that important.

"As I have pointed out elsewhere, cellphone calls from commercial aircraft much over 8000 feet are essentially impossible, while those below 8000 feet are highly unlikely down to about 2000, where they become merely unlikely.