|
History Channel - 9/11 Conspiracies,
Fact or Fiction? A Review
Arabesque:
9/11 Truth
Wednesday Aug 29, 2007
The
History Channel released a
new documentary about those who question the “official story”
of 9/11. While “9/11 Conspiracies, Fact or
Fiction” is professionally edited, and interviews many
different commentators, it is also highly biased. It frames
the entire discussion in this way:
“Conspiracy theory. Conspiracy Theorists
claim... Conspiracists say... Conspiracy, Conspiracy, Conspiracy!”
Cue Music and Response:
·
"Expert"
·
"No, that's not true" (Without explaining why: Begging the question)
·
The government is too incompetent!
·
We're an EXPERT! See the Graphic!
After some twenty dozen mentions of the dirty word
"conspiracy", we come mercifully to an end.
While Popular Mechanics continues its lame and pompous
efforts at defending the official "conspiracy theory", their "debunking"
efforts are objections that have been frequently answered elsewhere.
Take for example, their section on the controlled demolition
theories.
(Article continues below)
Controlled Demolition: "Conspiracy" Theorist,
"Expert", and Responses
Transcript
of History Channel Segment on WTC 1 & 2
My responses in bold italic
1.Conspiracy Theory: The speed of the collapse
was too fast
1A. [Prof. Steven Jones]
You would expect the tower to absorb the shock but not just fail
completely, and certainly not in less than 15 seconds as we observe.
1B. [Sofia Shafquat] That's basically free-fall
speed. I have a hypothetical demonstration. A collapse is clunkety
clunk, clunkety clunk, clunkety clunk, floor by floor.
Say that 110 times, and a major Republican tried this, he took
his watch with the second hand and he said clunkety clunk 110
times, it took him over 3 minutes.
"Expert" Response
2A. Controlled demolitions always begin from the bottom of the
building. You cut the bottom columns and then the building falls.
If you look at the World Trade Center, both of them began at the
impact wounds of the planes.
Straw-man: A controlled demolition is “controlled”.
Explosives can be set off in any pre-planned order.
2B. What they're trying to say is all kinds of
explosives that were perfectly timed, and that top section fell
a lot faster than it would have if it had to force all this other
debris down, and that's just not true, it's just factually inaccurate.
Begging the Question: Why is it not true? This
“expert” statement is “factually inaccurate”;
conservation
of momentum has existed long before the existence
of Yellow Journalism, Hearst, and Popular Mechanics.
3. Conspiracy Theory: WTC fires did not burn
hot enough to melt structural steel.
3A. No building built out of structural steel
that is designed to house people has ever collapsed before or
since 9/11 due to structural fire. And there are many, not just
one or two, there are many instances where fires have burned much
hotter and much longer, and stood.
3B. [Sofia] Jet fuel is a hydrocarbon, that's
all. It maxes out in a controlled burn at 1800 degrees. Steel
starts melting at 2750 degrees. Now we're 1000 degrees apart,
and office fires burn at this really low temperature of 600-800
degrees.
So regardless of the fuel, the temperature of an office fire is
not sufficient to weaken steel.
"Expert" Response
4A. As the debris flew through the building at almost 500 mph
it caused equivalent to sandblasting all the steel.
So all the fireproofing came off and that meant that the steel
was naked, it would have been subject to the fire.
Response: Speculation treated as fact. Kevin
Ryan showed that NIST’s experiment of shot gun blasts revealed
fire-proofing could not have been removed easily. Furthermore,
UL certified assemblies used in the WTC (which included steel),
and no structural steel buildings have ever collapsed—with
or without loss/existence of fireproofing.
4B. Engineers do agree it would have taken a
much hotter fire to melt the steel supporting the floors. But
they say it didn't have to melt to compromise the building's structural
integrity.
Response: Any structural engineer understands
that buildings are designed to distribute loads in the event of
structural damage. In the case of the Twin Towers, they were designed
to survive plane impacts, and the resulting exterior column loss.
4C. The fires burned at a temperature of about
1100 degrees in some cases. That's sufficient for the steel to
lose half its strength. Now if it only has half its strength it
doesn't have the ability to support the floors above it any more.
Very Misleading: NIST
recorded no temperatures high enough to even weaken the steel
in samples taken from fire zones.
5. Conspiracy Theory: Demolition explosives are
visible just before the Twin Towers collapse.
5A. Excerpt from Loose Change.
In all the videos of the collapses, explosions can be seen bursting
from the buildings 20 to 30 stories below the demolition wave.
5B. [Sofia S.] If you just look at the videos
and you just see these puffs coming out floor by floor by floor,
it's apparent that the floors are being blown out of the way as
the building was falling.
5C. There were a lot of things happening on the
screen that I would not normally expect to see in just a structural
failure, specifically, jets of what appears to be gas or possibly
explosions, coming out of the sides of the buildings long before
any of the debris had gotten down there.
6. "Expert" Response. [Cartoon of WTC-shaped
squishy gray popsicle going splat over and over]
6A. As the buildings collapsed they literally
pulverized the materials inside the buildings, the concrete floors
of the building were essentially turned to dust as were the sheetrock
walls, that's why you saw this light gray colored dust forming
as the buildings collapsed.
Special Pleading: This feature is characteristic
of Controlled Demolition. This argument therefore, does not disprove
it was a controlled demolition.
6B. A building like that is like a giant accordion,
it's full of air. When the top of that building comes down, all
that air has to come out, and where it comes out, it comes out
the windows, it blows out the windows.
Response: Kevin Ryan has written a paper responding
to these arguments in the Journal of 9/11 Studies: “Although
the piston analogy might have made some minimal sense for the
discarded pancake theory, it does not work at all for NIST’s
current pile-driver theory.”
6C. There was just an enormous amount of energy
that was being formed by the collapse of the building and that
energy compressed the air and caused the dust to be blown out
the side of the building.
Special Pleading: Again, a controlled demolition
could explain this feature, and it is arguable
that “structural collapse” alone could not.
7. Conspiracy Theory: Witnesses heard "secondary
explosions."
7A. [Sofia] The witness testimonials are fantastic,
because these people spoke absolutely reflexively when they were
there about what they heard and experienced, and they used the
word "explosion" over and over.
7B. [Narrator]
Some of those accounts were reported in the chaotic moments just
after the attacks.
"We received word of a secondary device that is another bomb going
off."
7C. [Jason Bermas] Pat Dawson talked to some
members of the FBI and they expressed that they believed that
secondary explosives were used to demolish the WTC and that was
onsite moments after the collapse of the building.
"Expert" Response.
8A. In fact, Dawson, who became a part of the story himself when
conspiracy theorists cited his report, never interviewed FBI officials
at Ground Zero. It was Fire Chief Albert Turi he spoke to just
minutes after the North Tower collapsed, when confusion and rumors
were rampant.
Response: Yes, and Chief Turi said he heard “bombs”—see
response below.
8B. [Fire Chief Albert Turi] There was a secondary
explosion, probably a device that had been planted before or on
the aircraft that did not explode and it exploded an hour later.
8C. [Pat Dawson] What is important to remember
is what Chief Turi said and what he didn't say.
What he said was that he thought he heard secondary explosions
in the building prior to the collapse. What he didn't say was
that he heard bombs.
Response: Actually, no—he did say: “another
bomb going off”, “secondary device”, “devices
planted in the building”. He’s
not alone.
8D. There are things that happened inside the
building, pieces coming loose as a result of the extreme impact
very well may have been interpreted as explosions.
Response: See
for yourself what the witnesses said. Here’s
what firemen
reported.
8E. I think the accounts are people trying to
figure out what was happening on one of the most chaotic days
in American history.
Response: In the lobby of the towers? See the
lobby for yourself: “It
looked like the plane hit the Lobby”.
9. Conspiracy Theory: Rigging of Twin Towers
with explosives was an "Inside Job"
9A. [Jim Fetzer] There were odd security lapses
in Buildings 1 and 2 the North and South Tower for the two weeks
before the events took place, where large sections of the buildings
were shut down, the employees were sent home, the security apparatus
was turned off and teams of so-called engineers were given access
to the buildings, which raises the question is it then possible
that there were previously positioned explosives in Buildings
1 and 2.
9B. [Webster Tarpley] No force can do that, except
a force inside the US command structure itself, who is capable
of preparing the Twin Towers and Building 7 for controlled demolition.
That's got to be a force that's massively present here in the
United States
"Expert" Response
10A. It would take an army of workers, it would take months, you'd
have to strip all the sheet rock off the wall, you'd have to run
100's of miles of wiring all throughout the building in order
to wire a building for demolition
so this idea that some crew in black would sneak inside during
the night and then wire a building for demolition, it's absurd
Response: “No
building exhibiting all the characteristics of controlled demolition
has never not been a controlled demolition.” We do not
need to know “how” they planted the bombs to observe
eleven separate and identifiable features of controlled demolition.
10B. The biggest problem for me is how do you
put explosives in those exact spots where the plane hit before
the plane hit. Because that's where the building failed. Everyone
can agree on that.
Response: Several pilots tried to hit the Twin
Towers at the speeds observed in a simulator and found that they
could not
hit them unless they slowed down to landing speed.
Live, remote
controlled “hijack” military exercises were taking
place on 9/11, and it is reasonable to suggest that this technology
could have been used to fly the planes into the towers.
What the Popular Mechanics “Experts”
“neglected” to mention:
The
Building Designers built the towers to survive the events of 9/11
Some obvious lies in the film:
·
Loose Change is not
backing away from Controlled Demolition
·
NORAD's radar are NOT focussed outside of the US (Outrageous
lie by Popular Mechanics!)
Some obvious omissions:
·
Conservations of momentum is not acknowledged by defenders of
the official story (speed of collapse of Towers)
·
Many Family
Members and survivors support a new investigation
·
Family Members
who supported NIST correction by Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice
·
Thermate
·
Serious discussion of Stand
Down/NORAD
·
Insider
Trading linked to CIA
·
Destruction of Evidence
·
Evidence
Cover-up
·
Promotions
of those most responsible for the 9/11 attacks
·
World
Trade Center First Responder Illness due to toxic air (and
the lies by the government that it was safe to breathe)
·
The
claims of the World Trade Center Designers! I guess they aren't
"experts".
Like all good hit pieces, there are some guilt by
association smears like:
·
Jim Fetzer and his faked Zapruder film book mentioned (Guilt
by association)
·
The highly speculative (and family member alienating) Voice
Morphing
·
"The 'Jews' did 9/11" (Guilt by association)
·
“Holocaust Denial” (Guilt by association)
In the final analysis, “9/11 Conspiracies,
Fact or Fiction?” is so bad that it will actually help
the 9/11 Truth movement.
This is because the documentary is so obviously condescending
to the intelligence of the viewer, and brings up so many questions
that it might lead some to actually research the facts—questioning
the “fictions” supplied by The History Channel and
Popular Mechanics.
See also:
Viewers
See History Channel 9/11 Special As Straw Man Hit Piece
History
Channel Hit Piece: Dirty Tricks, Malicious Lies & Journalistic
Fraud
The
Mother Of All 9/11 Truth Hit Pieces Airs Tonight
|
INFOWARS:
BECAUSE THERE'S A WAR ON FOR YOUR MIND
|
|
