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All references to Popular Mechanics have been withdrawn and where it once read "As outrageous as these ideas may sound, many people believe them."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.
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.
This show will fail to disrupt the truth movement. There will be no credible evidence disproving our allegations of 911 being an inside job. But rather, it will continue to promote the official lie and will manipulate the views of those interviewed to which they will seem debunked by Popular Mechanics.
