As preface to this posting - I'm 40 yrs. old, I am educated w/ BA & MA, and I've never persued or investigated the details of any conspiracy theory on any subj.

Over the past 2 months I have become quite interested in the various 9/11 conspiracy theories. Why? 1) I believe the current administration is robbing its citizens of their constitutional freedoms via the Patriot Act and initiated an unjustified war in Iraq, which causes me to be highly suspect of their intentions and actions on any issue; and, 2) These theories are of the most serious order and magnitude, and as such, I want to seek out the detailed facts behind these allegations (i.e., hard facts from legitimate sources)

What I observed last night on the History Channel's "9/11 Conspiracies: Fact and Fiction" was good propaganda masked as serious investigative reporting. As others have noted on this forum in other similar postings, I agree that this program had the typical hallmarks of good propoganda. It was clear from the beginning that this film had a tightly focused agenda to discredit the selected sound bites of "crazed conspiracy nuts" with their own unsubstantiated and shallow facts by a select host of conservative "experts". There's no doubt that this program was extremely poor investigative reporting, if we assume that this was the intended form of journalism.

Though strangely enough, I found this program quite valuable, and here's why. The level of irresponsible investigative journalism that I observed on the History Channel's program reflected the same level of irresponsibility that I've observed from ALL of the conspiracy theorists' reporting. What makes a fact in investigative reporting? Being able to back it up with 2 or 3 legitimate primary sources. During my initial research thus far, I've yet to see this very many times on both sides, especially when you take a deeper dive into the cited sources themselves. Instead, I've encountered a bottomless pit of unchecked assumptions, inferences, pseudo-facts, pseudo-science, red herrings, scare tactics, subjective hidden agendas, and sometimes outright lies...Equally, and On Both Sides.

Ultimately, this kind of irresponsible reporting is very counterproductive in a variety of ways, but most importantly, it is horribly unethical and dangerous. A message to both sides: You change your facts as often as your underwear. Research the facts right the first time or shut it down! Consciencious US citizens like myself seek the truth, not version 2, 3, 4 etc. of a half-baked, poorly researched narrative. Both sides have the absolute obligation to provide thoroughly researched information - void of any unchecked assumptions, inferences, pseudo-facts, pseudo-science, red herrings, scare tactics, subjective hidden agendas, and lies - that is backed up with several primary legitimate sources.

After two months of research, I've barely been able to separate fact from fiction when I examine the conspiracy theories and their skeptics' responses. Why? I can only conclude that this critical landscape, this life and death debate, has been littered with so much irrresponsible garbage, that we may have all reached a point of no return, where it is almost impossible to ferret out any real, long-lasting facts on the matter, or even be able recogize what is a fact at all.

Welcome MMA.

Have you per chance had the chance to view the "Pilots for truth" reconstruction of the flight path of flight 77 ?

The reason I ask is that you appear to be looking for absolutes, and as you said they are rare on both sides.

This reconstruction is based on the actual data recovered from the black boxes and conflicts with the official story and the released official video.

Again, welcome. ;)

MMA, welcome to the site. (Even though, I've only had an account for about 15 hours now).

You aren't the only one that wants pure facts in this arena. However, there are no solid facts to be had. All of the explanations that have been provided by the government, the administration, the researchers, the conspiracy theorists, and various "experts" in the field... all of them rely heavily on assumption. There are eye witness accounts that support both extreme views, and every detail in between.

I don't think we will ever have a final, all-inclusive agreement on what happened one day 6 years ago. But I think it's important that people on both sides of the argument, and at all points along the spectrum be allowed to state, discuss, and even argue their beliefs without being censored or ridiculed (too much).

It's hard to believe that one person could commit such acts of violence toward another for money or power. But at one point, I believed in a guy who, once a year, would hand deliver presents to every (Christian) household utilizing a team of magical flying animals. What other lies have we, as citizens, been told? And who is responsible for telling us the truth? I'm not saying it's true. I'm saying it might be true, and that deserves research and discussion.

- Joshua

tell me who you'd expect to have better facts... a conspiracy nut or an official investigation.

as it stands, the books that "conspiracy nuts" have written, hold up to greater scrutiny than the 9/11 Commission report.

What cold hard facts are you seeking that you do not yet have provided to you?

Perhaps you are looking in the wrong places?

Hello JoshuaBair,

I respect what you're saying, but frankly that's the sort of response that really gets me going. This philisophical response by the conspiracy theorists - that a good conspiracy does not allow for solid facts to be found, is absurd to me. And I should clarify that when I mean facts, I mean something that you can back up with 3 primary, legitimate sources. If this cannot be done, then a conspiracy theorist or the skeptic, should not proport it or report it to be fact.

For example, if a 911 conspiracy theorist reports as fact that the cell phone calls by flight 93 passengers were not possible to make and were manufactured/cloned, and uses 1 source of cell phone study and 1 source talking about the existence of this technology to clone voices, then this is NOT FACT. It should be reported as pure inference, at best. But, could this inference be proven factual, or at least be further investigated before reporting such assumptions as facts? I believe it could, given that the reporter has the committment to want to get it right, even it if may result in proving the reporter's theory wrong. In fact, I would think the reporter would want to avoid "putting the cart before the horse" at all costs?

As for censorship, I'm with you. But I must say, if someone is going to report something as serious as a 9/11 conspiracy as fact and use words like "truth" and "lies", then they better be able to back it up with facts and clearly identify those ideas that are opinions versus facts. That is their obligation; anything less than that is unacceptable. So when you say, "...without being censored and ridiculed," I would say that those who are irresponsible, are absolutely subject to ridicule and hopefully public exposure.

welcome mma, message us anytime.

MMA, we usually say things such as "the cell phone calls COULD have been faked", and try not to speak in absolutes.

Fact: The technology and precident exists for faking the calls. Doesn't mean that the calls weren't made, but it does suggest that there is more than one answer to the cell phone question.

You could always "tone down" the conspiracy theories by adding your own adjectives in strategic locations. "might", "may", "could have", "appears to", etc.

The question is, should the same be done to the "official" explanation? "19 Hijackers (may have) taken control of 4 planes", "WTC7 (appears to have) collapsed due to structural failure after (possibly) being on fire for 8 hours"

- Joshua

The same should not be done to the official explanation because the official explanation is backed by evidence and has been validated at fact, where as your asserstion that the phone calls were faked is is conjecture.

What do you seriously think happened, that the people talking to their loved ones from the ground were being tricked? How would you fake so many phone calls to so many different people? It's quite a stretch, but alas.. I forget who I'm talking to.

Precisely what about the phone calls do you think were fake? I highly resent that mine and Slamin's post have been removed. Slamin had a good point, that while Bush was able to fake 911 after a few months in office he failed to fake WMD after 5 years. After their successful 911 plot that should have been a no brainer.

You ignore my post about all the other terror attacks in London, Spain, Russia. the plots against our financial centers not long ago in NY and Newark, Fort Dicks, JFK plot. The plot against a flight from Britain to the US. The Not to mention the first WTC attack. The intention of that attack was to topple one WTC building into the other, with the bomb in the basement. It could have been even worse then 911 if it had been successful. Is this all fake? If you honestly beleive that 911 was an inside job, then are all of these inside jobs as well?
I'm honestly curious as to how you can reasonably account for all of it.

I never made any claim that any of these terror events were "faked". I'm not sure where you are going with this sequence. I don't think that if I state that I have seen a significant amount of video and eye-witness statements -- enough to convince me that the "official" explanation is either a mistake, or an intentional lie -- I don't see what that has to do with any other event leading up to it.

- Joshua

abasolutely.

especially because the FBI has zero evidence implicating Bin Laden in the attacks.