Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Scams
pwned by PBS ombudsman:
Thursday, September 20, 2012
By Michael Getler
September 17, 2012
Three years ago I wrote a column headlined "
PBS, Yes and No."
It dealt with controversial episodes in which the public had reason to
believe PBS was associated in some fashion with a certain television
program yet PBS, as a broadcasting service, didn't have anything to do
with it.
One of those episodes involved a series of programs being aired as
part of a fund-raising pledge drive by the PBS-member station in Denver,
KBDI. The films were produced by an organization known as "Architects
and Engineers for 9/11 Truth" that claimed the film "9/11: Blueprint for
Truth" offers "evidence that all three World Trade Center high-rises
were destroyed not by fire and damage, but by explosive-controlled
demolitions on September 11, 2001."
In other words, I wrote at the time, "someone wired these buildings
with explosives intending to bring them down in this attack, and this
has been covered up by the government, the 9/11 Commission and the
mainstream media." I also wrote that "on a personal level I find the
idea embedded in 'Blueprint' of a government conspiracy to blow up those
buildings to be preposterous and simply beyond belief and I fault the
station for promoting this as part of a pledge drive and presenting it
without an accompanying on-the-air program in which critics have their
say."
KBDI is now called Colorado Public Television, or CPT12, and the
station and the Architects and Engineers group are back with another
film, "
9/11: Explosive Evidence — Experts Speak Out."
Here's a screenshot of the A&E website with a big PBS logo on it
that is an example of a PBS association that isn't what it seems.
The new film is a skillfully put-together collection of interviews
and sound-bites with dozens of "experts" supporting the idea that the
buildings had to be brought down by pre-wired explosives placed inside.
It is again part of what appears to be a successful fund-raising drive.
"The evidence is overwhelming," says professor Lynn Margulis, one of
the experts. These were "pre-engineered, precisely timed and precisely
placed explosives," adds civil and structural engineer William Rice.
Retired Air Force Lt. Col. Dr. Robert Bowman says: "We know we've been
lied to about 9/11. We don't know for sure who did it. We don't know
exactly how they did everything. And that's why we need a new
investigation — to find out. We do know that there was a massive
cover-up."
The most widely-cited dismantling of this theme came in "
Popular Mechanics" magazine in 2005 with a
follow-up in 2007. My layman's views, for what they are worth, have never changed.
CPT12, and before it KBDI, prides itself on presenting "bold and
diverse" programs and on "bringing on to TV what others won't," as the
station spokesperson says during the fund-drive. I think that's a good
thing and the Colorado station clearly has a right to present such
controversial material.
Is There a PBS Conspiracy?
What actually interests me about this new round of 9/11 conspiracy
films is not that CPT12 is showing it. Rather, it is the association
with PBS that it generates, and with PBS's unwillingness or inability to
separate itself more clearly from the production and distribution of
such programs. There have been other such cases, especially involving
programming for pledge drives. PBS is among the more widely trusted
brand-names in the country, so an association with PBS tends to convey
legitimacy to viewers, and some of them feel deceived and get upset, as
most of the letters below demonstrate.
Here, in simplified form, is what seems to have happened as far as I
can tell and with some explanations from PBS officials. As has been
pointed out many times in this column, all 350 or so PBS-member stations
are independent and can run whatever they choose, including the
well-known programs PBS distributes nationally, material from others who
distribute to public broadcasters, and locally-produced material. The
mixing of national and local programming is part of the PBS legacy, its
reason for being, and it's what makes PBS public, officials add.
When I first wrote about the films three years ago, they were not
being aired by other stations, as far as I could tell at the time. The
new A&E film, however, apparently has lots of online viewers, enough
to push it into the lead on the "most watched" and "most shared" lists
on the PBS website's
video page.
These most watched and shared categories reflect an aggregate of
national and, occasionally, local programs that attract large audiences.
Then, of course, other sites pick it up such as
Digital Journal
whose headline reads, "New 9/11 truth documentary among 'most watched'
on PBS this week," and Brasscheck TV under the headline "9/11: PBS lets
the cat out of the bag."
In many cases, aside from the absence of that little PBS logo in the
corner of your screen at the beginning and end of programs, there is no
other way to visually set apart material distributed by PBS, with their
stamp of approval, from other programs and pledge-drive material. Or at
least no one has figured out how to do it. Or possibly nobody wants to
do it because the service can have it both ways, be able to say that
wasn't invented here if necessary while allowing stations to get funding
from programs that come from outside PBS. Because this is a membership
organization with independent stations, the stations are not under any
obligation to inform PBS about what it plans to use during fund drives.
In the case of the latest 9/11 conspiracy film, the "most shared"
video that you can click on at PBS.org does say: "Colorado Public
Television Presents . . ." But when you get that video it has both the
CPT12 and PBS logos prominently presented and a PBS promotional
introduction.
Again, I have no problem with CPT12 or any station running
controversial, against-the-grain programming. That's okay and often a
good thing. But I do have sympathy with viewers who believe they were
misled by PBS, who believe that what they watch on a PBS station, or
video they click on from PBS.org, carries with it the legitimacy
conveyed by the PBS label. Some better way needs to be found to make it
clear when that is not the case.
Here's a sampling of the letters.
Endorsing 'Nonsense'?
I've grown to trust PBS over the years, with great content such as
NOVA. But I'm disappointed in what's going around the Internet today.
Are you aware that this
conspiracy theory video
is on the PBS site, making it look as if it is an official PBS
"documentary" and that PBS endorses such nonsense? Over the past day or
two, it has gone viral.
Here's how PBS is being implicated as endorsing the video:
http://www.care2.com/news/member/230449147/3449793.
"Amazingly, PBS (public broadcasting in the US) has been screening an
intelligent documentary about 9/11. It's called '9/11: Explosive
Evidence — Experts Speak Out.' It focuses on the hundreds of
professional architects and engineers . . ." Also,
http://www.brasschecktv.com/videos/the-911-files/911-pbs-lets-the-cat-out-of-the-bag.html
"9/11: PBS lets the cat out of the bag. Architects and engineers speak
out." Was this actually aired by one of your affiliate stations in
Colorado? Surely PBS isn't actually endorsing this kind of conspiracy
theory garbage? If this is not something that is officially endorsed by
PBS, you might want to make some kind of public press release about it.
Two more points: 1) The producers, AE911Truth.org, are actually using
the PBS logo on their website to make it look as if it is an official
PBS documentary. (Go to their website and look at the third slide in the
little slideshow on the home page.) 2) Colorado Public Television has a
comments section on their website. For this particular show, amazingly,
every single comment is glowingly positive — not one negative comment
about the show (see
http://www.cpt12.org/community/viewer_buzz.cfm?s=563&ta=1).
I would say this is a serious breach of journalistic integrity to only
show the positive comments and filter out all the negative comments.
Dan Delaney, Louisville, KY
(Ombudsman's Note: When we looked at the station's website on
Monday, Sept. 17, there were 230 comments. Of those, seven or eight were
negative, but they were hard to find and overwhelmed by the notes of
thanks and appreciation. I wrote to the chief of CPT12 to ask about the
lack of negative comments on such a controversial program and also about
the lack of any follow-up discussion, but so far no response.)
~ ~ ~
I cannot believe that you posted the video from Colorado Public TV
about 9/11 without at least some kind of counter to the nonsense that
was aired. Shame on you. I think your next posted video should be a
proof that the moon landing never happened or better yet, a video
proving that the earth really is only 6,000 years old. Instead of some
kind of balanced report, your showing of that video only serves to bring
out the fears of gullible and uninformed people.
Charles Rice, Luck, WI
~ ~ ~
As a long-time member of my local PBS station, KLRN, I first wish to
thank you for all of your efforts in the service of the continued
quality programming of PBS. I have a question which I am sure you can
answer to my satisfaction. I have recently received an unsolicited
email, informing me of an attached PBS documentary video concerning the
9/11 events. I have not watched the video, but judging from the wording
in the email, the intent is consistent with conspiracy theory and its
preposterous allegations (deliberately placed explosives, etc.) I
suspect that while PBS may have produced one or more documentaries on
9/11, they could only have been based on unbiased, factual information,
with journalistic integrity. I also suspect that the video referred to
in the email may have been "doctored" or edited in some way that
misrepresents PBS. Mr. Getler, when you have the time, would you kindly
send me a reply concerning the above? Can you indeed confirm that PBS
has not produced a documentary supporting the allegation that one or
more buildings in the World Trade Center were intentionally brought down
by explosives?
Al Boutin, San Antonio, TX
~ ~ ~
I wanted to alert the viewer advocate about something that I saw on
the PBS website and register a complaint. I notice that on the list of
the most watched online videos at the PBS website that a 9/11 Truther
video is currently very near the top. I understand that member stations
maintain their independence, and that this is crucial to the mission. I
do not see how it follows, however, that a video which is so misleading
and factually inaccurate should be made available through PBS's national
website. It seems to violate basic program quality standards which PBS
is known for. I am not advocating censorship, merely that PBS should
examine the decision/process that led to this appearing on the national
website and see if it aligns with the mission of public broadcasting to
produce a better educated populace. I appreciate your attention to this
matter.
Bob Blaskiewicz, Chippewa Falls, WI
~ ~ ~
Really? A film about 9/11 conspiracy theories, Building 7 and all the
rest? On PBS? Every time I think the media has hit a new low, something
like this pops up. What's next? Maybe you could find a film on how the
moon landing was all done in a Hollywood studio . . . I have to admit
that I am flat out stunned that PBS would give credence to this crap . .
.
Buzz Menzies, San Diego, CA
~ ~ ~
I enjoy watching PBS videos online. I was a bit surprised by the
featuring on the videos homepage of an 9/11 Truth video on the collapse
of the WTC. One reason Frontline is so persuasive and important is
because of how it and PBS mutually reinforce each other's credibility.
Is PBS vouching for this documentary as legitimate journalistic debate?
Marc Mayerson, Rockville, MD
A Public Service
Why have you taken the excellent video, "9/11: Explosive Evidence —
Experts Speak Out" down so quickly? It was the most shared video on your
site. It would be a public service to make it available through the
9/11 anniversary to stimulate discussion and debate.
Durham, NC
(Ombudsman's Note: Last time I looked, it was not down and still at the top of the most shared video listing.)
~ ~ ~
Thank you for airing the program about 9/11. It is deplorable that we
have been asked to believe the obviously-fabricated story that we have
been told by our government. I wish you would do a similar story about
the JFK assassination, in which I believe the Mossad and CIA had a hand.
Baltimore, MD
~ ~ ~
Congratulations and on airing the film 911: Explosive Evidence — The
Experts Speak Out. It takes tremendous courage to present the Truth on
this subject. And because of your courage I am going to contribute to
PBS. Many thanks and I hope everyone in the USA is able to see this film
on PBS.
Tucson, AZ
Posted by
Michael Getler on September 17, 2012 at 4:01 PM
...................................................................
Predictable
butthurt response at Conspiracy Emporium 9/11 Blogger:
"Waaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!"
Anyone wanting to waste an hour and a half of their life can
view it here.
The stupid faggot doesn't know that the only ones to ever blame Clinton for the 9/11 attacks are the far right who supported the Bush administration.
But there's more:
This is obviously all right wing "blame the Jews" Anti Semite garbage, but not one of Evdokas' 9 resisted dupes says anything, not even the Evdokas fake himself, even though(presumably) he wrote this manifesto:
Anti Jew propaganda is fine with Evdokas...as long as it isn't posted ON THE GROUP LIST.
Got it.
Update:8/6/2013
EVDOKAS EXPOSES THIS BLOG AS WORK OF MOSSAD LOL