History Channel Special: "The 9/11 Conspiracies" August 12, 2007

Just received the following email. I was interviewed for this History Channel Documentary on 9/11 "conspiracies" at the conference held at the University of Texas at Austin in April. I believe Webster Tarpley and Alex Jones and others at the conference were also interviewed. Curious to see how much of our comments get through... In any case, a 2-hour documentary on the 9/11 Truth community etc. ought to be interesting... Don't know who they interviewed for the "other side.."

Hi Professor Jones,
I just wanted to let you know that our 2 hour documentary, "The 9/11 Conspiracies," is now set to air on August 12 at 8pm. Once it airs, we can send a copy to you; just pass along the best address to send to you. Thanks so much for doing the interview.

Best regards,
Brad Davis

Picture (Metafile)
Bradley Davis
Producer, NBC News

(Note that Brad is with NBC News, but said that the documentary would air on the History Channel. 8pm -- I think that is Eastern Time.)

Discussion on topic...


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Spread the word! Many hands make light work! EMA: educate, motivate, activate.
Improve your activist toolkit and get your free RCFPs here http://www.RockCreekFreePress.com

awesome, but damn

For a LIHOP/facilitation 9/11 Truther like me this is good news and bad news. I fear the show will focus on the physical evidence and leave out what I believe to be the important information. I hope invites will be extended to folks like Paul Thomspon, Nafeez Ahmed, Sander Hicks, and shit even Daniel Hopsicker, in addition to the more popular leaders of the movement (Alex Jones, Stephen Jones, and Tarpley---whose LaRouche cultish leanings are clearly evident in his recent work).

Before you vote me down, at least take into account how a LIHOPer feals in this movement, we are often called disinfo agents or just dumb and in denial, and are generally marginalized. Please don't vote this down and let LIHOP/facilitation theorists have a voice in the movement too!

I anticipate that this History Channel special will be similar to that of the BBC's, which essentially was a hit-piece. Hopefully I am wrong.

LIHOP is only part of 9/11

In my opinion there were 3 separate events staged on 9/11.

1) The land clearing job for the Port Authority of NY & NJ in NYC. Didn't the technicians do a great job destroying every WTC building with a minimal of damage to the other buildings. Those planes were not the standard passenger aircraft.

2) The Pentagon reconstruction assistance - missile shot through the thick rings.

3) The testing of an electromagnetic weapon of some sort in Shanksville. No Plane involved. The 8 miles of "wreckage" could have been released by the C-130 afterwards.

It will be interesting to see if the History Channel will air just another 9/11 show that supports the official government theory.

It will also be interesting to see if & or how they deal with WTC 7.

2 hours are not enough time to cover everything.

Seen there presentation on.........

JFK........Pure bullshit. Why would this be any different?

Pure bullshit.

I couldn't agree more WISDOM. I happened to see the JFK farce the so-called "History Channel" put out. Expect more of the same.


They don't include interviews with 9/11 family members, or 9/11 first responders, and instead, only focus on Alex, Webster, and Prof. Jones, then this documentary is nothing but a half truth. Not even half, more like a quarter.

Based on what the site says, it's going to be a fraction of the truth.

Donate To 9/11 First Responders

It looks awful...

... the usual crap. I saw the blurb you linked to and my heart sank.

looks like it'll be a James

looks like it'll be a James Meigs propaganda fest.....


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 Miegs, 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.

It's going to be a "theory fest." I take it back, it's a fraction of the truth.

Donate To 9/11 First Responders

They better include a

They better include a certain website...


i expect nothing less than a

i expect nothing less than a hit piece from the likes of The History Channel. they have a well documented history of covering the governments ass in all areas. they recently ran a special with Gerald Posner going on and on about how amazing Oswald was etc. and one about how Sirhan Sirhan acted alone. really pathetic stuff. its all about editing. Tarpley is strong when given ample time to speak, Alex Jones can do very well when he stays on topic and is like a rolodex of damning 9/11 facts and Steven Jones has rock solid evidence and if given the time to explain it is extremely damning and will drive the average viewer to reevaluate 9/11. but will The History Channel put things in the proper context or cherry pick? again i think its pretty obvious based on their history. and no offense to the Loose Change guys, but they are not the best presenters and leave certain things out. The History Channel could no longer ignore us so they will take the P.M. route and pretend to "debunk" straw man aspects of The Pentagon and CD etc. while ignoring molten metal, the best shots of squibs and flashes, the bulk of Steven Jones work, former military/air force/intelligence people etc. saying 9/11 is a fraud, Israeli spying/shadowing of "hijackers",Israelis caught with explosive residue found in their van, funding of "hijackers", the most damning Pentagon anomalies and not just the 16 foot hole in the C ring, 9/11 family members calling for new investigation, fire fighters talking of explosives, Philip Zelikow, Zakiem, Silverstein, WTC7 overall(they might show the collapse but wont fully explain it or what was IN the building), FBI stifled pre-9/11, the impossible survival of "hijackers" passports etc., the NORAD info(which will get the Vanity Fair treatment) etc. etc. etc. dont get it twisted, it would be enough(if still unfair) if they only focused on CD and the Pentagon if it was an HONEST and full discussion of them. we would "win" on that damning evidence alone if given a fair shake. of course it wont be. it never has been. (i also expect them to talk about how some of us have a "psychological need" to buy into conspiracy theories etc. that seems to be pretty standard operating at this point from "debunkers".)

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

History Channel has a history

"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 Miegs, 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."

Has anyone ever seen a sincere documentary of any kind about 9/11 on the History Channel? I haven't. The "missile at the Pentagon" claim in the second line pretty much says it all -- the focus will be strawman attacks on the weakest claims which are easy targets.

The History Channel's agenda is to rewrite history for the purposes of making it seem there have never been any real cover-ups - a Disney-esque version of the US.

Hi Steve

Great news.

Hope the documentary works out.

Aidan Monaghan

The History Channel?

The mere fact that this special is airing on The History Channel leads me to believe this will be nothing but a 'hit piece'. The History Channel will definitely not be providing any favorable info regarding the 9/11 Truth Movement.

"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves" – Edward R. Murrow

NBC News=GE=Military-Industrial Complex


I heard that they are mostly focusing on the film makers and so-called "leaders" in the truth movement, which means Mr. James Fetzer will likely be featured.

I hope I'm wrong but can't see it happening any other way.

"Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy."
-Ron Paul

Why would they fail to include

David Ray Griffin in their 911 special?

Should we not all demand that he be included in any presentation?

It IS a hit piece if they leave out Griffin

David Ray Griffin provides the best overarching (and detailed, end-noted!) summary of the shortfalls of the Official Conspiracy Theory. If NBC/GE/History Channel doesn't consult him (he wrote some of the most essential reading of this movement!), you can bet they aren't interested in the truth that history will eventually reveal despite their obfuscations.
And if so, History Channel's reputation will be as solid in the future as Leni Riefenstahl's (the propaganda filmmaker for Hitler).

MIHOP/LIHOP are not useful characterizations IMO.

I agree that those individuals have very credible viewpoints and without addressing those ideas, our approach to 9/11 is incomplete.

I don't even like to think in terms of MIHOP/LIHOP. I think a better characterization is inderict MIHOP (via Al Qaeda as a front group) or direct MIHOP.

Look at the historical precedents...

*the "Black Hand" involved in the provocation for WWI,
*The Lusinatia for example... noone doubts that Germany actually pulled the trigger, but the situation was manipulated by US/British to have a provocation to enter the war.
*Pearl Harbor, a clear case of provocation through embargos, etc. and then active stand-down and facilitation of a GENUINE attack by Japan.

Could Al Qaeda have accomplished the effects of 9/11 on their own, no. But that doesn't mean that they weren't involved and it doesnt' mean that low-level terrorists who thought they were involved in a Jihad weren't utilized.


Asked on my site the following about Sibel Edmonds...

I'm glad the Sibel Edmonds story back in play again, because I have a question about all this. I always wondered about this part of the 9/11 puzzle.

If I maintain a MIHOP point of view about 9/11, and Sibel Edmonds claims to have proof that she read intelligence reports from the summer of 2001 that al Qaeda operatives planned to fly hijacked airplanes into U.S. skyscrapers ..... then how can I claim that it was an inside job?? What's the point of pursuing Sibel's story because it clearly disproves the MIHOP theory - doesn't it??

I think the al Qaeda operatives planned to fly hijacked airplanes into U.S. skyscrapers part of the story is a planted story, and the puppermasters who made all this happen want to make it look like Bush & Rice et al failed miserably to protect the US.

If that's Not the scenario, then why is Sibel Edmonds story so important ?? (other than they are trying to gag her!!)

Someone explain this, please :)

I responded with...

That's easy. If your belief is that the United States Government perpetrated the attacks from top to bottom, you might be correct, but what does that mean?

There is evidence to suggest that the American, British and Israeli Governments have influence over what "Al-Qaeda" does (through their connections to the ISI). Imagine 100 "radical islamists" (people who have been screwed over because of poverty, dictatorships, and policies that favor Israel imposed by the United States that have essentially become mercenaries for the "cause"), and a few CIA/ISI agents ordered to infiltrate that group to give them missions of sorts... missions that help the Military Industrial Complex...

Those "radical islamists" could have been directed to carry out 9/11 by those means... It is a distinct possibility, which would explain for the information that DOES EXIST that implies "hijackers" were on those planes (maybe not who we were told entirely).

Which might also explain why Able Danger was shut down, because the individuals they were monitoring were meant for another purpose (9/11).

Imagine American, British, Israeli, Saudi, Turkey Governments funneling money into different banks throughout the Middle East, covertly, to fund "Al-Qaeda." Look at Mariane Pearl who is suing "Al-Qaeda" and the "Pakistan-based Habib Bank Ltd over the 2002 abduction, torture and murder of her husband."

"Habib Bank Limited is one of Pakistan's biggest banks. The lawsuit alleges the bank and its subsidiaries knowingly conducted financial transactions on behalf of charities linked to extremist groups."

I wonder if any American, British, Israeli, Saudi, or Turkey money finds it's way into the Habib Bank Limited?

Anyway, Sibel is all about the money connected to finance 9/11, and the people in D.C. it is connected to.

A lot of that is theory by the way, but substantiated by a lot of information.

Sibel said an informant of 10 years spoke of planned attacks using planes, etc... Who's to say there wasn't a plan? Who's to say he didn't stumble across the plan, and try to warn the FBI? Apparently MANY FBI agents were aware of a plan to attack us using airplanes...

Where did that "plan" originate from?!?!?

People think Foreknowledge is LIHOP. I don't acknowledge that phrase. I don't know what happened, but I know information exists that indicates our Government may have been involved in some way. Whether it was by influencing "terrorists" to attack us, whether it was by financing the "terrorists", whether it was by remote controlling the planes, whether it was by controlled demolition for the towers, whether it was the ordering of a stand down for the U.S. military, whether it was a "black op" (and all of the information I know is just a made up fairy tale), I don't know.

I do know that the 9/11 Report is "pathetic" as Lorie Van Auken said.

Donate To 9/11 First Responders

Anyone who doubts the importance of Sibel Edmonds

Should read Webster Tarpley's 9/11: Synthetic Terror. He details the importance of her testimony in his book.

p.s. Tarpley is a "MIHOPer"

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Sorry, the distinction DOES matter

'I think a better characterization is inderict MIHOP (via Al Qaeda as a front group) or direct MIHOP.'

Except that 'Indirect MIHOP' is still just that--MIHOP. To consider al Qaeda as a 'front group' is false-flag, synthetic terror all the way. LIHOP is different. It accepts the contention that al Qaeda is an autonomous, hostile, aggressive force bent on our destruction (even if provoked by US foreign policy according to the 'blowback' characterization), and holds that key figures in the government and military here simply made sure to 'get out of their way' to ensure that these foreign, autonomously devised attacks succeeded. No matter how damning the charge of purposely allowing such attacks to occur, this conception of the actual purveyors of the attacks--to which far too many liberals still subscribe without examining the evidence--is like nectar to the warmakers in Washington.

That's precisely why I never

That's precisely why I never say LIHOP w/out including facilitation. I call it LIHOP/facilitation. This is a case where the line is blurred so far as Al Qaeda's role as an "autonomous, hostile, aggressive force" and/or just an instrument of American foreign policy. The two are certainly not mutually exclusive. Facilitating the attacks includes: stopping investigations into Al Qaeda (WAMY, Catchers Mitt, Vulgar Betrayal, Able Danger) with malicious intent (not negligent ) and ulterior geopolitical motives. However, in this scenario Al Qaeda does maintain some level of autonomy as they ar the prime-mover of the attacks. I believe that elements within the US intelligence community piggy-backed their way onto the attacks and took actions to ensure the attacks would be a success (facilitation).

So there is a blurred line where I am at w/ regards to LIHOP & MIHOP.

I'm afraid this might be

I'm afraid this might be worse for us wanting the truth to get out. It looks like A&E, who owns the History Channel, is partly owned by Hearst, who also owns Popular Mechanics. All 911 truth folks, are going to have to be more discerning as to who they have entrusted to "tell the story".

One good thing I do recall about the History Channel is that there was a story once suggesting that the FBI was responsible for the anthrax mailings, having killed people, while the Neo-con government strategy was being worked to get the public onto the page the Neo-cons were on....the war on "terror" !

Consider also, that since last lear, the Zogby poll putting the 911 truth crowd at a little under half, and the growth of the movement since, (it only growns-does not diminish at all), in all liklihood, it is over half now, believing the government is conducting a cover-up. (#@** Apparently James Zogby now has given his support for R Guiliani!!!)

This new History Channel piece (hit piece?) will probably create doubts among those we were starting to reach. I can hear it now though,.....as I try to drop links into web sites to enlighten and explain facts to those devotees of the official story, the laughing and derision, "blu, I told you you were hooked up to 'kook' sites." So, now they will have something new to hang their hats on.

I hate to be bearer of bad news, but, considering how many times we've all been disappointed, we need to be realistic. I hope as you do also with all my heart that the rest of the public realizes the facts though. Maybe, it will pique enough people's interest though to do some of their own research., to realize the truth.

Maybe, the next strategy, needs to be, and I try to convey this, although it is soooo difficult sometimes, even among Liberals, to convey the fact that the military industrial complex owns stock in all forms of media, as well as weaponry, etc. I've suggested dozens and dozens of times, and left the link for the documentary: "Orwell Rolls in his Grave" Sometimes, I think it may have an effect. It is a powerful documentary, although depressing.

The most severe form of learning disorders are owned by those that "already know everything."

When Geraldo interviewd Jimmy Walter...

on FOX news in November 2004, I was not familiar with the evidence. When Geraldo was belittling Walter and saying "So who did it?" and Walter said "The United States Military with Dick Cheney at command," I burst out laughing.

Even though I burst out laughing because I thought it sounded far-fetched, my curiosity was minimally piqued. It wasn't long after that that I got sucked into the rabbit-hole.

Believe it or not, even hit pieces do have some positive effect.


I wasn't crazy about Orwell Rolls in His Grave.
While the movie did make some important points, it also laid the blame almost strictly on the Republicans. That's the same as laying the blame of 9/11 strictly on Bush. We know there's a lot more to it than that. It would be nice if it were as simple as throwing out the republicans and bringing in some nice, honest democrats to take their place, but we know that this would be nothing more than a cosmetic fix.

"Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy."
-Ron Paul

Ron Paul has recently completely denounced 9/11 Truth

Ron Paul has recently COMPLETELY denounced 9/11 Truth.

He should no longer be considered a part of the "United Front" for 9/11 Truth. Small loss! His often quoted line, "Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy" tells the whole story. He is an economic "Libertarian" zealot: against social security, medicare, and all other social services. He is an outspoken advocate for "privatization" (corporatization) of ALL OF THE COMMONS except the military and police. (Lucky us: we can still have a military police state!) Corporatization of highways, water, schools, etc. ad infinitum.

No more free passes for the Raggedy Ann Randians, spawners of the Greenspans and Milton Friedmans, at one with the Straussians and Neocons! Every time your puerile propaganda appears here it will be answered.

9/11 Truth Ends War

Prepare to Counter History Channel

I agree completely with Chris' sentiments above in regards to the History Channel. It is simply not to be trusted. The majority of their focus is on the history of war and conquest from the point of view of the US government. They routinely distort, or outright lie, when it comes to presenting their "history". The presentation of history is itself subjective and political ( I strongly recommend reading Howard's Zinn's "The Politics of HIstory")

Having said that, I am certain this will be a hit piece. The decision to even participate in this is documentary is questionable, but that's water under the bridge now. It has been my experience over the years that, as a rule, you can never rely on for-profit media systems to tell the truth, especially in areas that threaten the powerful. 90% of the time they will distort and attack anything that fundamentally challenges that power.

I strongly encourage editors and writers out there to immediately begin preparing "A response to The History Channel" with all the relevant videos and papers.

I am very biased towards the science angle and in particular the forensic evidence Dr Jones et al have uncovered, but it's equally important to look at the empirical data we have as well, both from direct testimony about explosives to the video evidence (e.g. time calculations of collapses, molten metal, pulverization, the physics of squibs, etc, etc).

I would argue it is crucial to be on the offensive for the next month and a half and be relentless in our presentations, blogs, email, actions, etc.

The Hearstory Channel?

Yes, this will be another Hearst-a-thon. The History Channel is owned and operated by the Hearst corporation, and of course Pop Mechanics is a Hearst magazine. We can expect glowing reviews from Seventeen magazine, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the San Francisco Chronicle and other Hearst publications.


Propaganda does not get more obvious, and we can probably guess who else will be involved.

Hearst Publishing owns

Hearst Publishing owns History Channel. This is gonna be a HIT PIECE. James Miegs from Popular Mechanics says he debunks all the theories on the show according to the History Channel web site.

Coming Soon: The Mother Of

Coming Soon: The Mother Of All 9/11 Truth Hit Pieces
History Channel, Popular Mechanics, NBC & Hearst Publishing team up for smear job as conflicts of interest run rife

An upcoming documentary entitled The 9/11 Conspiracies, to be aired on the History Channel, may represent the biggest hit piece to date on the 9/11 truth movement and is rife with bias, cronyism and conflicts of interest.

The so-called documentary promises not to look at the flaws in the official story from a neutral perspective but to start out by suggesting that any deviation from the official line is "outrageous".

The program also features so called independent "experts" who are actually in the employ of the program makers themselves who in turn rely on scores of multi-million dollar contracts with the government and the military-industrial complex.

The program, scheduled for Sunday, August 12 at 8:00 PM and Monday, August 13 at 12:00 AM, will feature Alex Jones, the Loose Change crew and other 9/11 researchers such as Professor Steven Jones and Webster Tarpley.
One may therefore be forgiven for thinking the piece could allow for a fair representation of the 9/11 truth movement. However, a short blurb on the History Channel's website sets a rather familiar one sided tone (click for screenshot).

This suggests that we should be prepared for more pseudo psychology as "experts" condescendingly explain why people turn to "conspiracy theories" for comfortable simple explanations of complicated world events. Maybe the History Channel will even seek the expert analysis of the former director of the X-files just as the BBC did in their own 9/11 hit piece which was broadcast earlier this year and received a great deal of criticism for its reliance on emotional bias and avoidance of the core issues.

In the same vein as the BBC piece, the new documentary will once again feature James Meigs, Editor-in-Chief of Popular Mechanics, who is neither an expert on 9/11 research nor on engineering, but rather is an expert on yellow journalism and shilling for the Bush Administration.

Meigs has flatly refused to debate 9/11 questions with either Alex Jones or the Loose Change producers and will now only appear unopposed.

Further investigation into the makers of the new documentary also throws up a whole host of conflicts of interest.


"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA