Hey Ford, You Watchin' This?

**Unchainme** · 08-20-2007, 09:43 PM

Damn Nick..Beat me to it!

So does the BCE own the History Channel el-Ford-o?

**FORD** · 08-20-2007, 10:02 PM

History Channel Back-Pedals On 9/11 Hit Piece
Program description, broadcast date changed after pressure from Infowars readers

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Friday, August 3, 2007
The makers of an upcoming two hour hit piece on the 9/11 truth movement have back-pedaled and altered the program description on their website after Infowars highlighted the blatant biased agenda of the piece and its multiple corporate conflicts of interest.

Yesterday we revealed how the so-called documentary, to be broadcast on the History Channel later this month, promises not to look at the flaws in the official story of 9/11 from a neutral perspective but to start out by suggesting that any deviation from the official line is "outrageous".

The program description on the History channel read:

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 Meigs, 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.

Click here for a screenshot.

The idea that the Bush Administration would not lie about the orchestration of 9/11 and manipulate public sentiment in its aftermath, in spite of every other falsehood and manipulation it has engaged in, simply cannot be labeled "outrageous" from the off before an examination of the evidence has even begun. Not in any balanced piece anyhow.

We pointed out how 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.

A visit to the same page on the History channel site today reveals that the description has been altered to disguise the bias and hide the conflicts of interest.

All references to Popular Mechanics have been withdrawn and where it once read "As outrageous as these ideas may sound, many people believe them." it now simply describes some of the main areas of 9/11 research:

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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The true story behind government sponsored terror, 7/7, Gladio and 9/11, get Terror Storm!
Let us help you reach a huge audience of potential customers. Help support the website and take advantage of low advertising rates. Click here for more info.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition to the alteration of the program description, the broadcast date has been put back by one week. It remains to be seen whether this move has been undertaken in order to re-edit the piece to avoid further accusations of bias and conflict of interest, or is merely an attempt to let the attention it has already received die down before airing.

The History Channel still has not relented to our request to add a proviso, as do CNN when they carry a story about their parent company Time Warner, that their upcoming show is nothing more than an infomercial for the Popular Mechanics book Debunking 9/11 Myths and that any attempt to portray it as a neutral investigation would permanently taint the reputation of the channel.

In the event that James Meigs of Popular Mechanics is still featured to counter independent 9/11 researchers, it will become apparent that the History Channel and its parent company A&E Networks have not only set out to produce a bias hit piece but also that they have now blatantly attempted disguise that fact to an otherwise unwitting audience.

The piece still promises to "delve into the anatomy of such conspiracies and how they grow on the Internet", so in place of serious debate of the overwhelming evidence of 9/11 prior knowledge and government complicity, viewers should still be prepared for an onslaught of pseudo psychologists telling them how delicate minds invent comfortable reality coping mechanisms or some such blathering nonsense.

We spoke to the producer Brad Davis about the upcoming show and he refused to comment on the conflicts of interest, but did tell us in a previous conversation that the show would be balanced, so we will reserve full judgment until the documentary is aired and then it will become immediately apparent if Mr. Davis was telling the truth or not.
Copyright © Infowars.net All rights reserved.

Printed from: http://www.infowars.net/articles/aug...oryChannel.htm

**Unchainme** · 08-20-2007, 10:11 PM

Ford...So you're not going to take a look at the other side to at least entertain the idea that it was a Legit attack?

**Nickdfresh** · 08-20-2007, 10:40 PM

Infowar$? LOL

When do they call out those two "Loo$e Change" douches for constantly "revising" their film every time they get own3d on something they got wrong?

**Unchainme** · 08-20-2007, 10:44 PM

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Infowar$? LOL

When do they call out those two "Loo$e Change" douches for constantly "revising" their film every time they get own3d on something they got wrong?

So Nick, Just curious here..You don't agree with Ford in regards to 9/11? :confused:

**Nickdfresh** · 08-20-2007, 10:46 PM

What do you think?

**Unchainme** · 08-20-2007, 10:49 PM

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
What do you think?

Doesn't really appear that way.

Or are you asking me if I believe the Attacks were real or not?

**Redballjets88** · 08-20-2007, 10:51 PM

it will be interesting but the second they say it wasn't a conspiracy (and they will) FORD will find someone in their company that is part of the "BCE"

**Nickdfresh** · 08-20-2007, 10:52 PM

Originally posted by Unchainme
Doesn't really appear that way.

Or are you asking me if I believe the Attacks were real or not?

No. I'm asking why you think I agree with Ford's conspiracy stuff...

**Unchainme** · 08-20-2007, 10:55 PM

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
No. I'm asking why you think I agree with Ford's conspiracy stuff...

Well..I really havn't seen you go out against it that strongly before, Thus I really didn't know of your opinion on the whole thing until this thread.

I would like to point out, that In My Opinion everytime one of the 9/11 Truthers speak out..They probably Help The Republicans out voting wise...Thus causing the opposite of their intent.

**Nickdfresh** · 08-20-2007, 11:03 PM

I've bashed most of these theories in most threads, unless I'm too bored by them...

But to be fair, I am a conspiracist of a sort...

The conspriacy debate comes down to those that believe that the whole "operation" was an Inside Job or "made it happen on purpose" (called MIHOP) versus those that believe the gov't passively enabled and allowed a terror attack without knowing specific prior details or "let it happen on purpose" (called LIHOP)...

I guess I am sort of a LIHOP, with the caveat that maybe they let it happen because they were just too incompetent and lazy...

From Wiki:

Main approaches

Most 9/11 conspiracy theories generally originate from dissatisfaction with the official explanation of 9/11.[22] There are three main forms:

* Incompetence - the weakest version suggests that there was a conspiracy to cover-up failures within the government. What is being covered up may be limited to inadequate counter-terrorism strategies and inappropriate responses to warnings received by the intelligence and security services, or it may go further to suggest that the military response at the time of attacks was also incompetent.[23]
* LIHOP ("let it happen on purpose") - this version suggests that key individuals within the government had at least some foreknowledge of the attacks and deliberately ignored them or even actively weakened America's defenses to ensure the hijacked flights were not intercepted.
* MIHOP ("made it happen on purpose") - the strongest version suggests that key individuals within the government planned the attacks and collaborated with al-Qaeda in carrying them out. There is a range of opinion about how this might have been achieved.

Proponents of LIHOP...Claims that Al-Qaeda investigations were blocked and warnings ignored

Shortly after the attacks, David Schippers, the chief prosecutor for the impeachment of Bill Clinton, stated that the government had been warned in 1995 about a future attack on a government building and that later he was contacted by three FBI agents who mentioned uncovering a possible terrorist attack planned for lower Manhattan.[34][35] According to Mr. Schippers, as the agents informed their superiors, they were briefed not to pursue the issue and were threatened with prosecution. Mr. Schippers declared, "Five weeks before the September 11 tragedy, I did my best to get a hold of Attorney General John Ashcroft with my concerns." According to Mr. Schippers, Ashcroft responded that the Justice Department does not start investigations at the top. Author William Norman Grigg agrees with Mr. Schippers in his article "Did We Know What Was Coming?" According to the article, three unnamed veteran federal law enforcement agents confirmed "the information provided to Schippers was widely known within the Bureau before September 11."[36]

FBI agent and Al-Qaeda expert John P. O'Neill warned of an Al-Qaeda threat to the United States in 2000. He retired from his position in mid 2001, citing repeated blocking of his investigations of Al Qaeda by FBI officials. After his retirement from the FBI, the World Trade Center hired him as its chief of security. He started work on September 11, 2001; 9/11 rescue workers found his body in a staircase inside the south tower rubble.[37] The story of John O'Neill has been made into a fictional film Who Killed John O'Neill? based on real events.[38]

Former Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA) has asked questions about a classified US military intelligence program known as "Able Danger" that identified Mohammed Atta and three other future 9/11 hijackers as likely members of an Al Qaeda cell operating in the US, prior to the September 11 attacks. Pentagon officials said they have found three more individuals who recall an intelligence chart identifying Mohamed Atta as a terrorist one year prior to the attacks.[39]

In September 2006, Acting Pentagon Inspector General Thomas Gimble, in a 71-page report given to Defense Department officials, rejected claims that "Able Danger" uncovered data that could have thwarted the September 11 attacks, saying the allegations could not be substantiated: "Able Danger team members did not identify Mohamed Atta or any other 9/11 hijacker... In fact, Able Danger produced no actionable intelligence information." 9/11 Commission co-chairman Thomas Kean said he hoped the report would put an end to discussion about Able Danger: "After this I don't know where it can go."

Reacting to the Pentagon report, Rep. Weldon said "The report trashes the reputations of military officers who had the courage to step forward and... describe important work they were doing to track al-Qaida prior to 9/11"....

**Redballjets88** · 08-20-2007, 11:03 PM

Originally posted by Unchainme
Well..I really havn't seen you go out against it that strongly before, Thus I really didn't know of your opinion on the whole thing until this thread.

I would like to point out, that In My Opinion everytime one of the 9/11 Truthers speak out..They probably Help The Republicans out voting wise...Thus causing the opposite of their intent.

yeah it does. the average person hears that "truth" stuff and thinks that libs are psychos and avoid voting democrat.

**Nickdfresh** · 08-20-2007, 11:06 PM

Help Republicans?

Well, the Democrats always have Bush - and his tinfoil conspiracy crap emerging form his Admin's talking points such as "it's all Clinton's fault" or "the media wants us to fail in Iraq (it's their fault we fucked up!)" tin foil shit to balance it out. Don't they?

**Unchainme** · 08-20-2007, 11:07 PM

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
[B] I've bashed most of these theories in most threads, unless I'm too bored by them...

But to be fair, I am a conspiracist of a sort...

The conspriacy debate comes down to those that believe that the whole "operation" was an Inside Job or "made it happen on purpose" (called MIHOP) versus those that believe the gov't passively enabled and allowed a terror attack without knowing specific prior details or "let it happen on purpose" (called LIHOP)...

I guess I am sort of a LIHOP, with the caveat that maybe they let it happen because they were just too incompetent and lazy...

I do agree with that...But I don't lay it on one party..It was a collective level of lazyiness that occured within the Gov't, going back a while. There were times when we could've got Bin Laden Easy...But no one decided he was a big enough threat.

Hey Ford, You Watchin' This?

Hey Ford, You Watchin' This?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment