"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."
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
HITstory Channel's Hit Piece on 9/11 Truth!
"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."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
55 comments:
Saw it, laughable that they considered it "objective." Very similar to the Popular Mechanics "debunking" piece. They cherry-picked the issues and provided little to no support for their own claims.
Neither one bothered to investigate why millions of dollars' worth of airline stocks were shorted before the attacks, making someone very rich. No mention of why Pentagon officials were warned not to fly the night before 9/ll either (reported twice in Newsweek). So many questions, so few real answers!
Surely it's just a coincidence that both Popular Mechanics and History Channel are owned by famously right wing Hearst Corp.
Apparently, this show attacks Steven Jones as a fraud and says there was no molten steel found at ground zero. If so, good for them. The media finally got something right for once.
It apparently also uncovers the fraudulent "Minetta story" that was, according to many truth movement ops and trolls, possibly including David Ray Griffin (a part of me still desparately hopes I am wrong about him), was supposed to really bury Cheney.
So far, if what I have read so far about this show is true, I haven't found anything I disagree with yet about the points this show makes --just fraudulent omissions, of course.
I think this is it, folks, the big 9/11 cover-up trap Bush, Cheney, Rove and the rest of those murderous thugs have been setting up for years (with that murderous op Steven Jones leading the way) to try to torpedo the 9/11 Truth Movement.
In addition to the points of omissions that moneysmith makes, I am wondering if Dr. Judy Wood, dustification, or directed energy weapons were ever mentioned. Anybody know?
What about Boeing and the excellent anti-hijacking capabilities that were developed and installed in their planes decades ago, not the least of which is automatic tower-control or remote-control of the plane in case of emergency? Was any of this mentioned?
I still have to see the show, but something tells me these real truths about 9/11 were neither mentioned nor "torn down."
"What about Boeing and the excellent anti-hijacking capabilities that were developed and installed in their planes decades ago, not the least of which is automatic tower-control or remote-control of the plane in case of emergency?"
Where on earth do you come up with this crap at? I worked on airplanes for years, both civil and commercial and that is absolute BS. In the first place, FAA regs do not allow "Remote Control" of ANY aircraft carrying passengers. And it's fiscally, physically, and practically impossible.
ILS systems of different categories allow for different "control" systems. Such as CAT 3 ILS which has auto glideslope, throttle control and several other features for landing in fog, but "Remote Control" is unreal.
There was no mention of Dr. Wood in the History Channel hit piece.
Or the Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth. Hmmmm
Missed it. I'm sure it will re-air or is on the internet.
We think it airs again tonight and on the week, we don't recommend it.
It's a waste of time.
LOL...yeah...another viewpoint, another approach to the facts....what a waste of time.
Facts? We think 'facts' were the last thing on the producers mind.
The show's only value is to show just how desperate and threatened the Right is by anyone questioning THEIR conspiracy theory.
It's a rehash of the Popular Mechanics hit job (link below).
http://tinyurl.com/nsvar
This "article" -- I wouldn't call it journalism -- has itself been debunked many times over. Check google for details -- too many links!
The Boeing 757-200 is no longer being produced, but Boeing still has the product information for it available online. I don't have any more access to information than anybody else, and apparently, I even have less access than some like LB@200, who seems to have personal working knowledge and experience from quite an interesting range of jobs. Kudos to you, LB@200. You seem to have really earned all those goodies you mention on your web site!
Below is an excerpt directly from Boeing's own web site. Keep in mind that some of the technology they are advertising here may be over 25 years old, and they are certainly not revealing absolutely everything they are really capable of on their web site.
As for the FAA, not sure what you are saying, LB@200, that they are going to reveal publicly exactly how and why hijackers have been successfuly thwarted for the last three decades? We probably don't even know the real number of hijacking incidents since the cockpit is probably locked shut, the passengers are told "Please do not worry. We have to land due to service problems," the plane lands at the first airport, clueless passengers are safely escorted off to be re-routed with another plane and allowed to go on their merry way, while the hijackers are quietly arrested and hauled off by the FBI.
I admit one potential gigantic hole in this story may come in the form of an answer to the question, "Why the hell isn't Boeing and/or some of these pilots and FAA people or even FBI agents who know better coming forward with this info if they know for a fact that hijackers could not have done what the government claims they did on 9/11?"
Okay, well... my point is that it is at least something worth investigating and discussing openly when we talk about 9/11, but being the only person on the planet (that I am aware of) proposing passenger planes were purposely flown into targets by American hijackers from a remote location, I can understand the reluctance by many to even go there. People just don't want to go there, and I can't blame them.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757family/pf/pf_200back.html
Flight Deck
The 757-200 flight deck, designed for two-crew member operation, pioneered the use of digital electronics and advanced displays. Those offer increased reliability and advanced features compared to older electro-mechanical instruments.
A fully integrated flight management computer system (FMCS) provides for automatic guidance and control of the 757-200 from immediately after takeoff to final approach and landing. Linking together digital processors controlling navigation, guidance and engine thrust, the flight management system assures that the aircraft flies the most efficient route and flight profile for reduced fuel consumption, flight time and crew workload.
The precision of global positioning satellite (GPS) system navigation, automated air traffic control functions, and advanced guidance and communications features are now available as part of the new Future Air Navigation System (FANS) flight management computer.
BIG difference between FMS and "Remote Control". NO "airplane" that carries passengers is "Remote Controlled".
Flight Management Systems, which is one of many terms used for what is commonly know as an "AutoPilot", are quite advanced nowadays. They offer almost literally, takeoff to landing, control of all flight systems control parameters, nav waypoints, and more. But, they are NOT Remote Control.
The CAT 3 ILS System I mentioned previously is from close to 20 years ago and it offered auto throttle retardation, auto flaps, Glideslope Lock, auto thrust reversers, and much more.
While it may appear that a plane can "fly by itself", it cannot, let alone be "Remotely Controlled" if carrying passengers.
Or
"Post-September 11 air travel security concerns have spurred Boeing to develop and test a tamper-proof, remote-controlled autopilot system. They've already patented the project, which sounds similar to a European effort announced last year. The idea goes like this: If anyone attempts to force their way into the cockpit, autopilot can be activated manually or by pressure sensors that are installed in the cockpit door. This would eliminate any possibility of terrorists using the aircraft as a deadly missile, although it doesn't mean other terrible things couldn't happen en route to the nearest military base or commercial airport. Once the "uninterruptible autopilot system" is activated, it cannot be reversed. Ground controllers can then guide the plane to its destination via remote digital control using radio waves, satellite GPS, and existing landing aids known as "autoland function." Boeing insiders claim the anti-hijacking autopilot kits will be ready in three years and can be fitted to airliners throughout the world."
http://tinyurl.com/2m2w7l
At issue is credibility and legitimacy, two attributes completely lacking in such groups as "911 Scholars for Truth." Conspiracy mongers will express what they hope and believe their audience will accept when they feel they need to appeal to what they believe will be considered credible and will be accepted by their audience.
Conspiracy kooks will convince themselves that this level of deception is acceptable since the vast unwashed populace which laughs at them or otherwise ignores their notions:
1. Don't want to believe the truth.
2. Have short attention spans and can't retain the truth.
3. Are incapable of understanding the truth.
4. Are part of the conspiracy.
5. Have some financial or other motive for denying the truth.
6. Are "electronically" brainwashed by the secret cabal.
http://tinyurl.com/ysjww6
a good cure for what ail's ya'..
I never said planes couldn't be remotely controlled...military has been doing it for years with target drones and more and is currently using RPV's now. What I said was FAA regs don't permit remotely controlled passenger planes. And Boeing may have a patent, but that doesn't mean it has passed or will pass flight worthy AD's yet.
The fact that you and your article refer to conspiracy theorists as "kooks", undermines your point and your credibility. You've ceded the intellectual and moral "high ground." Nice try. As someone else said earlier, "step out of the Matrix."
Holy Cow. That was great, Shoes!
For the record, I posted a more comprehensive list of "kooky" ideas about 9/11 in a comment entitled "The 9/11 Creed" (in honor of the "Apostle's Creed" from the Catholic Mass) a few days ago at one of my other favorite hangouts, stevenwarran.blogspot.com
One thing proposed is that this new process called "dustification" makes planes and buildings behave in ways we are not used to observing when these entities run into each other.
For instance, I have been looking for evidence that Flight 77 may have been "dustified" in some way just as it was hitting the Pentagon. It sure would explain a lot if it had been.
Well, tonight I discovered this evidence may have been right under our noses all along!
If you check out the infamous "five frames" released from footage taken from the Pentagon parking lot, frame two shows a big puff of white dust just before flight 77 (I am just going to assume it was flight 77) hits the Pentagon. The reason we've all missed it before is because frame 2 seems to be bleached out like crazy in nearly every version I've come across tonight so that the white cloud actually looks like a big white explosion instead of a big white cloud of dust.
Here is the video where I could see the white dust cloud, but I had to stop the video just perfectly. Otherwise, the frame was bleached, and it looked like a white explosion again instead of a white dust cloud (several versions of the five frames are shown in a row starting at about 4:10 into the video):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rgyq2H7PpO0&mode=related&search=
I am not a video expert by far, but I hope somebody out there can analyze this footage better and get the right contrast for a more accurate picture of what is going on...
The review of the History Channel's piece on 9/11 could also be the review for every Michael Moore movie (which this site constantly refers to) and actually, all the other clips that air here.
Have you ever SEEN a Micheal Moore movie? Or are you reading off some right wing crib sheet?
I have never seen a Michael Moore movie, crazy as this sounds even to me, a self-proclaimed movie buff. Lee might have a point worth looking into, for all I know.
Very high standards for getting the facts right are set for people like Michael Moore and the Loose Change people, as they should be. Then again I assume (or at least hope) the same high standards are also applied uniformly to everybody who has been granted a certain authority by the public, including Fox News.
As a chemist who has been burned in the laboratory a few times (both literally and figuratively) I learned long ago not to be so arrogant when it came to being certain about scientific "facts." You can imagine how I feel about facts that are even further removed from basic science (i.e., political or social "facts").
I cringe at the amount of arrogance I observe in (mostly men -- sorry, it always seems to boil down to a gender thing for me, but I'm working on it) pounding their chest and emphatically proclaiming something to be a solid, irrefutable fact (or the flipside of this -- a solid, irrefutable "impossibility"), especially when the fact/impossibility is anything beyond something as empirical as 2+2=4.
Bottom line: I automatically question anybody who takes on an air of arrogance and certainty about "facts and impossibilities" even when I have absolutely no idea what the heck they are talking about. I just assume on the spot that they have motives other than sincere fact-finding and that they are most likely incorrect in their assertions.
Shoes - No, I didn't see the movie because I don't believe the substance in movies made by some left-winger.
One cannot be serious about fact-finding if one believes MM movies
Shoes - No, I didn't see the movie because I don't believe the substance in movies made by some left-winger.
One cannot be serious about fact-finding if one believes MM movies
We think you forfeit your right to criticize or pontificate on ANYTHING if you don't take the time to view the material. If Micheal Moore is, if anything, a Populist.
Go see SiCKO, then you can criticize. geez Try thinking for yourself instead of regurgitating what you hear on FoXX Newz and talk radio.
I'll go take a lookie, Shoes. I should at least rent Fahrenheit 9/11, or find it somewhere online. Can't seem to be able to make that free version of Sicko you talked about work for me, though.
Meanwhile, congratulate me. I'm finally onto "tiny url." We'll test it out on a story full of pigeon dung, literally and figuratively, about the Minnesota bridge destruction. Talk about grasping at straws:
http://tinyurl.com/yvboyz
I agree with Shoes.
Before one can comment, one should have all the information. That way you can make an informed decision. Even for folks like hnicole (who, by the way, I'm glad is going to see Farenheit 9/11) who are "on our side."
You have to see it all before you can say.
Just like the WTC7 report. Oh, wait. NO ONE has seen it, because it doesn't exist.
On my way to rent Fahrenheit 9/11 as we speak, but in my attempts to find a free version online (no such luck!) I found something that appears to be an extensive and (reasonable?) critique, by a guy named Dave Kopel:
http://tinyurl.com/28hjy
I didn't get much beyond the first few paragraphs, but I like the points he makes here:
"Well there are lies from the Bush administration which should concern everyone... But two wrongs don't make a right, and the right response to Presidential lies is not more lies from his political opponents."
I am glad I am renting it so that I can do a second run with this critique in hand.
You might want to take Kopel with a grain of salt, h nic. Here's his wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kopel
He obviously has some sort of ax to grind re: Michael Moore.
http://tinyurl.com/28hjy
http://moorelies.com/
http://tinyurl.com/p2g36
http://www.mooreexposed.com/
http://www.moorewatch.com/
http://slate.com/id/2102723/
Michael Moore is a hack who uses editing and other tricks to make false points.
Anybody who believes anything MM says probably believes the WTC's were an inside job.
Do your study, do your research, read everything you can as I have, and make up your own mind instead of being lead around by the nose by propaganda and lies.
You obviously have not seen SiCKO which is virtually unassailable from the Right. Unless you're in the pocket of the insurance industry or Big Pharm.
(or some screw-loose-right-wing-nut ball.)
See the film, so that you can comment intelligently.
Thanks
If I did comment "intelligently", it would be the first and only intelligent comment ever seen on this blog...other than my own. LMAO
Go see the film, you'll enjoy it.
Been there, done it, and seen it. Bunch of propaganda, one sided, edited, garbage.
How would you know if you don't see it? Not a very informed opinion.
What part of been there, done it, and seen it, didn't you understand?
http://tinyurl.com/2d6atq
MM is a pompous, deceitful, two faced, arrogant, tub of lard.
Sounds like someone you'd worship...."snort"
The part where you watch the film before "reviewing" it. Sounds like
you're projecting your own self loathing on to MM.
Maybe you can't stand the fact that he was right in "Fahrenheit 911" and
even more so in "Sicko"
Looks like you missed and opportunity...
TONIGHT, August 23rd, 6:00 PM:
'SiCKO' Free for the Uninsured in Kansas City
http://tinyurl.com/7sud
"STICKS NIX HICK PIX..."
http://tinyurl.com/yrq9g7
What is up with the Michael Moore bashing? First he made a movie about auto-workers in Michigan who lost their jobs while company executives raked in big bucks. In "Fahrenheit 911," he showed the fallacies behind the war in Iraq, a view now shared by the overwhelming majority of Americans. And now "Sicko" -- an indictment of the for-profit insurance and health-care industries that have ruined millions of Americans. And for this he's repeatedly called a fat asshole? People, get a clue! He's fighting tooth and nail for the common man, for people who have no one to fight for them. WTF is your problem?
http://tinyurl.com/355rpl
MM has about as much to do with the common man as this website has to do with common sense...
Sorry. My IQ isn't low enough to watch that crap.
uhh....actually any IQ at all would be required to view an issue from all sides and then make a reasoned decision as opposed to being led around by the nose and believing anything anybody tells you...but, since your "IQ isn't low enough to watch that crap", that shows your lack thereof.
So why stick around? Why do you, Lee, Janet and all the anons keep coming back to S4I?
If you've viewed EVERYTHING as you say you have, and made your decision (which you CLEARLY have) then why subject yourself to our "drivel?"
Don't pull out the "I like to push the buttons of whining Liberal P*****S" again, either.
You'll need to present an actual argument. Unless, deep down, on an sub-conscious level, you still have your own doubts and then take it out on us.
In my community, that's called self-loathing.
The last thing I am is self loathing, and I don't necessarily want to be a member of your "community"....'course now that's "hate speech" because you're gay...right? wellll...lemme tell ya' sumpthin' buddy....
I've appeared in front of probably close to a MILLION GLBT fans when I was DJing. Actually did 2 Miss Gay Missouri/USA "Pageants"....and the KCMO annual Steppin' Out ball a couple of times...once with Jolo as the lead headliner show act. You were about 3 at the time...
I'll take anybodies money, gay or not. But I sure in the hell ain't gonna' take anything else they got to offer...and they never did...they could "tell" I wasn't "one of the boys"...didn't bother me, didn't bother them...so don't label me as some "hater" or any other BS.
I'll post on this site or any other site I choose to, because the last I knew it was a free country and I THOUGHT freedom of speech and differing opinions were what was wanted in an open discussion forum.
LB, this is like, the third or fourth time that you've been compelled to defend yourself against perceived insinuations by me.
For the last time, no one cares about your dj'ing "for the boys."
No one cares if you are a part of my community or not. Well, actually I do. I prefer, "NOT."
For a sometimes abrasive and condescending man, you're pretty sensitive about the whole issue. Settle down, already.
You wrote:
"....I THOUGHT freedom of speech and differing opinions were what was wanted in an open discussion forum."
That part is true. Not this:
-That's what makes my life so much fun...pushing leftie simpleton buttons....CLICK!!
-Wait...that would require an open mind as opposed to delusional thought patterns of simpletons who believe any whacked out crap they read...
-....pffftttt...
-I've forgot more about 9/11 and what happened than you'll ever know. All you got is a Canuck fudgepacker, an LA Libby, a few anons, and me. And I'm getting bored real quick with your limp canned responses. Theories aren't shit...facts speak for themselves. I've provided them, refute them....hell, you can't even show your own Blogger profile...who's got something to hide? Perchance you're one of Fatso's ex lesbo lovers or a current one....I smell a CONSPIRACY!!!!!*CLICK*
-And being a Canadian, what "right" do you have to post a link for the impeachment of our President? That's kinda' like me writing your Prime Minister and wanting them to outlaw gay marriage. Ain't none of my dam business.
-As Uncle Jed used to say about Jethro, "If that's boys' brains was lard, he couldn't grease too big a pan"
-And "kook" wasn't my word, it was on the website I posted...don't mean I don't agree with them though.
-uhh....actually any IQ at all would be required to view an issue from all sides and then make a reasoned decision as opposed to being led around by the nose and believing anything anybody tells you
-If I did comment "intelligently", it would be the first and only intelligent comment ever seen on this blog...other than my own.
and....as I've also said before(check your records)...the people on this website have NO sense of humor....Here, pull my finger...
We here at S4I are constantly laughing at you, not WITH you, AT you.
Keep it up.
As me and many of my friends are at you too...matter of fact, your little website is one of the hot topics in town at the cafe where all us redneck farmer animal killin' yahoo's have coffee every day...you think I'm mean....you don't know the meaning of the word...
Shirley, you read my mind! And isn't it interesting that LB is now resorting to veiled threats -- "you think I'm mean....you don't know the meaning of the word." Ooooo, I'm shaking in my stilettos!
gawd...your density just amazes me...what I was implying is that, you think I'm mean on here, you otta' here what all the people who live up here where I do say about you when I tell them your "theories". You accuse me of being....whatever...anything I've said is 2nd grade taunts compared to what Middle America thinks of you people.
You are so out of touch with the rest of the country it's scary.
If I'd tell ya' what they say about people like you....you'd pee your pants and run and hide. And I live in a predominately Democratic county with maybe 2 Repubs out of 15 elected people. Even the radical left wingers up here scoff at people like you.
...and I don't make threats, veiled or otherwise...I make promises......BOOOO! LMAO
(click)....sound of button being pushed
I hope the button being pushed was your computer's on/off switch and it's now OFF!
If site doesn't want different opinions or open discussion forums, why is it here?
If you don't want to hear from anyone else, why don't you just talk on the phone? After all, it's only the 4 of you on this little website. That can't be too difficult.
Bottom line LB@200 (as we've said many times before-but bears worth repeating) they are great at dishing it out BUT...
We welcome all comments. As long as the are constructive and informed.
Thanks
Lee:
Only 4 of us? Maybe just 4 of us, plus you, LB and oh, wait. There's just 2 of you.
Regardless, we might be the only ones commenting, but make no mistake that there's many more who are here to read, but don't care to comment.
Just like the anon's don't care to create a profile.
*Shirley shrugs shoulders*
Doesn't really mean anything. Start your own site then. Be sure to give us the address!
There are "only" two of us because the anonymous were cut out. What difference does a profile make? Why is it important to know a name, sex, etc. If this site needs all this infor., maybe applications should be filled out.
The comments should be all that matter not who makes them.
Anonymous posts are allowed here. Case in point -- this post.
I think I can hear the ocean.
I don't know if that's the ocean, shirley. It might be the sound of air moving between the konservative's ears.
Post a Comment