Graphic Source: Clipart.com

Well, I saw a documentary, or should I say a so called documentary about 9/11 on the History channel. Ordinarily, I like the programs on the history channel very much. They really have some very interesting ones on the Romans, Druids and such. The one on Atlantis was a gem, as was the show about the sunken ruins off the coast of Japan. Great shows one and all. Their new show about what lies under the streets of different cities is also great. You would never suspect that there are actually cities under some of the cities. These subterranean cities are cities that were at street level, but were built on top of for hundreds of years, until they became underground cities. They exist all over Europe for example. Now it makes you wonder how such an outfit that creates great shows like these, can let itself be used as a front for a hatchet job.

I guess that some of you out there are now saying to themselves, what the heck is this guy talking about? Well let me tell you. I decided that the show that was advertised on the history channel, that was going to tell us the "entire story" about 9/11 just might be worth watching. Oh I knew that there would probably be things in the show that I didn't and couldn't agree with, but I always keep an open mind. So I took my open mind and sat it on the couch and lifted the remote, set it to the history channel and waited for the 9/11 program to come on. It wasn't long before it started and as the show touted itself as being the true story and that it was going to debunk all those conspiracy theories out there, I began to suspect that maybe the show itself was a conspiracy. How is that, a conspiracy about a conspiracy? Some people on hearing this might be mumbling to themselves, "another crackpot"

Believe it or not, all people that think there was a conspiracy are not crackpots and I am NOT one of the crackpot conspiracy type, it is just that some of the things that we have been told don't fit correctly and some are scientifically not possible. When I view a show that says it is going to debunk something, I expect scientific proof or good evidence to be shown, I don't think that this is too much to ask. When I only get talking heads saying "their theory was ridiculous" or "they don't know what they are talking about", I just can't consider this proof. Worst of all, when it is presented in such a fashion that it tries to make those people who have different ideas look like a bunch of idiots, by repeatedly showing scenes of one jerk in the crowd yelling out obscenities or something of that nature, over and over, this actually get me angry. It shows me that the content of the program is not sufficient to rebut some or all of the allegations. If you wanted to stop a conspiracy theory, wouldn't it make more sense to show why it couldn't be true than to constantly say the person with the theory was an idiot, even if you didn't use that particular word?

I couldn't help but feel that by the time this show was over, it really hadn't proved anything and had no business being on prime time. That was, unless someone important with an agenda wanted it there. Could this show have been part of the infamous disinformation campaign that is admitted going on in this country right now? Sure it sounds far fetched, but where a show that supposedly is going to set us straight on 9/11, by covering all the facts and debunking the claims about them, doesn't even mention the molten steel found in the basement of the buildings that could be an indication of a controlled demolition, or the missing gold and evidence from the basement, how are we to believe them. If they would have said something like they investigated the claim about the gold and stated what records were checked and affirmed and that there was no hoard of gold, then one might say, "Well maybe it was just a story". They did talk about controlled demolition and they had a supposed demolition expert on and he stated that it was not controlled demolition, because no evidence of explosives or caps were found, but I would think that they would have been blown up, wouldn't you? Anyway, he was not very convincing. He said that he looked through the rubble. Can you imagine trying to find a blasting cap that had been detonated in all that rubble. How much of it could have been left, if anything?

They went into things like the planes hitting the towers and stated that the steel didn't have to melt for the towers to collapse, it just had to become weakened from heat. An expert came on and said that the protective coating on the steel came off when the planes hit and this allowed the steel to weaken from the fire. Maybe this is true, but why not tell us how molten steel got into the basement, instead of leaving that fact hanging, especially when there are many people claiming that this is exactly what would happen in a controlled demolition. Another thing, you have to admit if you ever saw a controlled demolition, is that the collapse looked exactly the same. Here is what I wonder about and it was never addressed, how come the steel didn't weaken unevenly, making the building lean and collapse more to the side? Would all the steel have weakened so precisely that it would cause an demolition type collapse? Hey why spend all that money on expensive explosives, just set the buildings on fire and let them collapse on their own?

The program also talked about the attack on the Pentagon. They said that conspiracy theorists were zeroing in on Vice President Cheney and one of the reasons for that was, that just the day before he was talking about an attack scenario. They called the pilot of the plane that supposedly went into the Pentagon an accomplished pilot, that is NOT what we have heard since the incident. They called him that because the maneuver he would have had to execute to crash a plane the way he supposedly did, would not have been possible in most tries by airline pilots, so they had to make him seem incredibly talented. Now correct me if I am wrong, isn't this the guy that we were told, was only taking lessons and learned how to fly and not land? If that is so, and I think it is, how could he have done something that airline pilots with a lot of hours behind the stick say that they would be lucky to accomplish in one out of ten tries?

Then there was the small hole going into the Pentagon. Many people believe that a missile hit the building and not a plane because of the size of the plane and the smallness of the hole. They felt that the hole should have been bigger and they claim that there are no wing marks. Well! We were told by someone on the program that there were hundreds of witnesses that saw a plane hit the building, and yet, while I don't expect to see hundreds testifying, there was a lone witness that states, yes I saw a plane hit the building. Wow what great proof. Then we had a guy come on and say yes there were marks made by the wings. Wow more great proof. They said that the reason there was no pictures of the plane hit, was that the camera that was mounted there only took a photo every few seconds and the plane hit so fast that there was no chance to get it on cameras. Hey, come on, this is the Pentagon. I just can't believe that they didn't have a camera that took at least one picture per second watching the building at that area. Finally they discussed the small hole in the third building in. A lot of people wonder about this hole, because to get to the third building you have to break through many, many concrete and steel pillars that are holding up the building. To tell the truth I wondered how a hole could get there, because I thought whatever hit would have broken up and stopped before reaching that point. Here was finally some evidence. Engineers came on and showed how the mass of the supposed plane became like a liquid because of the speed it was traveling through the building at and it dragged along all sort of debris that created the hole. I can buy this, but it still doesn't mean that a plane hit and not a missile.

In conclusion, who does it serve to make people that you don't agree with look stupid? Just because you have access to the media and they don't, doesn't mean that you should misuse that media in such a way. In the end, it was the History channel that came out the loser in my mind and I am sure that many others, after they thought about it, felt the same way.