It has surfaced that the history channel has postponed the airing of the show one week, and changed the teaser description.
below is a snapshot of the old site
here is the updated version
so now the question, why did they change the description? the origional description 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.
it was changed to:
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.
dosn't look like much of a change except "members of the U.S. government orchestrated the attacks" sounds a lot more belevable than "attacks on 9/11 perpetrated by the Bush Administration" (implying the entire govt was involved), the aeronautics experts were switched for intelligence agents, and all reference to Popular Mechanics vanishes.
A while back, Pop Mechanics released an edition called debunking 911 myths so we already know there opinion on that one.
What's more important is Alex Jones reported that the history channel is owned by Hearst Publications, the same people who sell popular mechanics. If this is true then it means The History Channel interviewed their BOSSES to see what they thought about what they had already decided on.
Alex is demanding a disclosure that the show is an infomercial for their owner's magazine.
Now to the topic of Hearst Publications:
Hearst Publications is probably best known for it's infamous owner William Randolph "You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war." Hearst. That famous quote was to a photographer with reference to a FICTITIOUS Mexican American war which Hearst was writing about in his newspaper.
A lesser known case of the meddling mister Hearst is the lobbying which lead to the passage of an unconstitutional prohibitive tax law against the "Demon Marihuana" which was just the Spanish name for the hemp plant which had been used for rope, and paper, and sails, and clothing for years (but not Hearst's paper because he was in a deal with dupont to produce wood pulp paper) (and not used in dupont's new Nylon rope). it is suspicious that the illegal tax act was passed 2 years after an automatic hemp stripping machine was made (which would likely have undercut nylon, and wood paper)
Hearst papers WERE a textbook example of "yellow journalism", we hope they have reformed, but they haven't given any evidence to support it.
I know there are good people at the history channel, they produce shows about corruption all the time, as with the BBC. But when the BBC took on 911, they ended up with a documentary which asked the hard questions, then debunked some of the official theory, then talked about some of the conspiracy theories, then put some of the easy questions to rest, let the hard ones fester, and then implied that they had debunked every single conspiracy theory and answered all the questions. Then they rolled the credits with the director of the x-files talking in a soothing voice about people who couldn't accept reality embracing theory's which simplify the world.
I hope the history channel doesn't presume to know just what did happen (I don't), and presents the evidence fairly. But they had better get rid of the interview with their bosses or else it's gonna look silly.