It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
History Channel Hit Piece Consulted "Experts"?
08/23/07 - The latest hit piece against the 9/11 Truth Movement aired on The History Channel this past Monday. The program went through various events that occurred on September 11, 2001 in a fashion of introducing a "claim" followed by "expert" response. The majority of "expert" response was supplied by Davin Coburn and James Meigs of Popular Mechanics, which is owned by Hearst Publishing (Hearst Publishing is also part owner of The History Channel), which set the standard in Yellow Journalism. Replies from such "experts" did not include any solid rebuttal. It is no surprise that the only "experts" they interviewed were titled as such when in support (read: making excuses) for the government story. The experts who question the government story were instead referred to as "Conspiracy Theorists" and were either given very little airtime to present their research and/or concerns, had details edited out, or were omitted from the program altogether. Pilots For 9/11 Truth, Veterans For 9/11 Truth and Architects and Engineers For 9/11 Truth, nor eyewitness experts from the Citizen Investigation Team, were never contacted to present information for this program. Was it because the producers of this hit piece were unaware such organizations filled with Experts existed? David Ray Griffin -- who was interviewed for the program -- had this to say when asked if the producers were aware of the above organizations:
Yes, I made a big point of the fact that the main thing that had happened recently was the emergence of these professional organizations. But they of course weren't interested in that, because all the "experts" support the official theory. They didn't want people like you and Richard Gage.
We're not surprised David, and thank you. Popular Mechanics and The History Channel obviously do not want to challenge the real experts with solid research. When they do challenge a handful of experts such as Steven Jones and yourself, they give very little airtime to present analysis and edit content to suit their agenda. It is clear the producers of this hit piece are well aware of the above organizations and their work, they just do not want to present it to the American public. We're not surprised.
History Channel Hit Piece Consulted "Experts"? (scroll down on page)
"Pilots for Truth" founder Robert Balsamo, panicking after Mark Roberts challenged him to a debate.
“Mark Roberts deserves to die a traitors [sic] death for trying to suppress 9/11 families from seeking the Truth.”–"Pilots for Truth" founder, and ex-commercial pilot, Robert Balsamo
...And a few months later:
"Mark Roberts does deserve to die a traitors death....
I will not apologize for it this time. I will be there for his death should America fall into Civil War. That is not a threat. .that is a promise.
If he gets in my way of defending our Constitution.. it will be my pleasure to put a bullet in his head to defend our Constitution from enemies foreign or domestic." –
Originally posted by johndoex
Ask Ron and Mark why they refuse to debate in any other venue than Hardfire. Could it be because then they wont be able to sell DVD's of their show?
Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by billybob
Please go through Marks site. Please point out some errors that he has made in regards to 911. It's been posted for some time now and not a single person has found anything. If you find an arror pertaining to 911... i will personally e-mail him and ask him to make the appropriate corrections.
Mark Roberts Will Win Or Else!
Donate to the Mark Roberts "Everyone Is Wrong" Fund Today"
Originally posted by CaptainObvious
I do beleive he works with Dr. Griffen and supports his work. Dr. Griffen's work was shown to be incorrect by Mr. Ryan Mackey some time ago.
EDIT to add. I also posted videos some time ago in here that showed that Mr. Gage REMOVED audio from a controlled demolition video. He has since removed that.
Vesa has been quite an ally, along with many others, keeping me straight along the way. (By the way - the debunkers have also been very helpful in this regard and we should take the opportunity to thank them for pointing out errors here and there).
We will strike the controversial WTC7 squibs (in the upper right corner) from the online PPT and upcoming DVD update. I agree with the analysis - particularly the impossible "stationary explosions". ((Damn - I thought these were the real deal!)). I think what's happening is that the windows break - and right in time with the shockwave traveling up the front face! And the smoke inside is under pressure and "poofs out" - making them appear like explosions. The 2 stationary "poofs" would be due to the already damaged windows/panels which emerged prior to the collapse - although I can't understand why the smoke wouldn't be "billowing" up and out of the damaged opening more than it is.
Thanks again Vesa for your keen mind and friendship. Sorry you took heat on this blog.
Richard Gage, AIA, Architect