See other 9/11 Articles
Title: History Channel to Air 9/11 Conspiracies Special
Source:
History Channel
URL Source: [None]
Published: Aug 3, 2007
Author: History Channel
Post Date: 2007-08-03 10:31:04 by Ringo Blankenship
Keywords: None
Views: 12621
Comments: 246
UPCOMING SHOWS Sunday, August 12 08:00 PM Monday, August13 12:00 PM 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 Miegs, 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. Rating: TVPG Running Time: 120 minutes
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-95) not displayed.
.
.
.
#96. To: Ringo Blankenship (#0)
The purpose of this documentary is to make sure that wacko 9/11 conspiracy theories remain wacko 9/11 conspiracy theories. And that's a good thing.
Do you think they will show/analyze WTC 7 coming down?
Then of course there is building seven- enough said. Towers don't explode like that and come tumbling down - all three in the same manner despite being hit in different areas and one not hit all. ITS ABUSRD ON ITS FACE. good lord, can you believe there's anyone with two working brain cells who cannot see that?
I like people looking into the 911 stuff. There are many unexplained things in the official story. These problems could be innocent or they could range all the way to a dark conspiracy. I can't say, and for that reason I think the more eyes on the subject the better. And I don't see any harm coming out of the informal investigations. What's wrong with trying to fact check a government story? Especially if the government is telling the truth. What makes me suspicious is the angry and hostile reaction that some people have to a study of this matter - and the determined effort I see to stop people from asking questions. I have to wonder where this is coming from. I've noticed that goobs and Freepers rarely form opinions on their own.
.
Yep - it's the Fruit of the Forbidden Tree phenomenon. It's like when a raunchy rap cd isn't selling too great and then they slap on a "Warning: Parental Advisory is Advised" label and the thing starts selling like hotcakes.
It will probably get some attention but nowhere near enough to please the typical conspiracy theorist.
If they even show video of WTC 7 coming down, I will be greatly surprised.
One thing is for sure, the documentary won't change anything. The 9/11 "truth" movement has peaked.
Yes, it might be risky to show/analyze the collapse of WTC 7 to a national audience. I doubt History Channel will be allowed to do so. They probably don't want a repeat of the Larry Silverstein "pull it" PBS fiasco.
There was no "fiasco" involved in Silverstein making that comment.
You don't have to be an engineer or an architect. Anyone who has stacked toy blocks smells a rat. Look, I don't even suffer the deniers anymore. They are one of two things- shill trolling liars or stupid dopes who don't trust their own eyes and common effing sense. It really is too obvious to even discuss.
It really is too obvious to even discuss. well said. i'm going to do the same. their lack of shame irks me though.
Well, they have to be shameless when advancing absurdity. This song basically sums up what they are doing- denying the plainly obvious with a straight face while hoping we accept it because we just can't believe anyone would lie so plainly to our faces: Honey came in and she caught me red-handed Creeping with the girl next door Picture this we were both butt naked Banging on the bathroom floor How could I forget that I had Given her an extra key All this time she was standing there she never Took her eyes off me How you fi give the woman access to your villa Trespass and a witness all the hackling of the pilla You better watch your back before she turn into a killer Let’s review the situation that you’re caught up inna Now to be a true player you got to know how to play If she even say a night convince her say a day Never admit to a word weh she say And if she claim a you tell her baby no way But she caught me on the counter¡ wasn’t me She saw me bangin’ on the sofa¡ wasn’t me I even had her in the shower¡ wasn’t me She even caught me on camera¡ wasn’t me She saw the marks on my shoulder¡ wasn’t me Heard the words that I told her¡ wasn’t me Heard the screams getting louder¡ wasn’t me She stayed until it was over Honey came in and she caught me red-handed Creeping with the girl next door Picture this we were both butt naked Banging on the bathroom floor I had tried to keep her from what She was about to see Why should she believe me when i Told her it wasn’t me Mek she know say that she really nah no right fi vex A never you she see a mek de gigolo flex A smaddi else whe favor you inna de complex Seeing is believing so ya betta change ya specs You know whe a go bring hole heap of thing from in de past All the little evidence you better know fi mask Quick pon you answer and know how fi talk And if she pack the gun you better know fi run fast But she caught me on the counter¡ wasn’t me She saw me bagin’ on the sofa¡ wasn’t me I even had her in the shower¡ wasn’t me She even caught me on camera¡ wasn’t me She saw the marks on my shoulder¡ wasn’t me Heard the words that I told her¡ wasn’t me Heard the screams getting louder¡ wasn’t me She stayed until it was over Honey came in and she caught me red-handed Creeping with the girl next door Picture this we were both butt naked Banging on the bathroom floor How could I forget that I had Given her an extra key All this time she was standing there she never Took her eyes off me Want to tell her that I’m sorry for the Pain that I’ve caused I’ve been listening to your reason It makes no sense at all Need to tell her that I’m sorry for the Pain that I’ve caused You may think that you’re a player But you’re completely lost Cause I say¡ Honey came in and she caught me red-handed Creeping with the girl next door Picture this we were both butt naked Banging on the bathroom floor How could I forget that I had Given her an extra key All this time she was standing there she never Took her eyes off me
"You know we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is, is pull it.' Uh, and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse." --------------------------------------- Words have meaning. Note the words, "decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse." Clearly Silverstein was associating the decision to pull with the result, the collapse. Note Siverstein did not say, they made that decision to pull and then the firemen were evacuated and then hours later we watched the building collapse. "Uh, and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."
There was no "fiasco" involved in Silverstein making that comment. But your only agenda is your lunch of salmon and spinach? No one believes that. Not with absurd replies like this one about Lucky Larry.
Ron Paul for President
He's probably hoping 'lurkers' believe that...
Here's some of the best evidence showing what Silverstein's words meant. "You know we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is, is pull it.' Uh, and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."
Israel backed by army of cyber-soldiers
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
Shaggadelic, man...
86% of Americans doubt the official tale while 63% believe absolutely it was an inside job.
Note the words, "decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse." Clearly Silverstein was associating the decision to pull with the result, the collapse. Note Siverstein did not say, they made that decision to pull and then the firemen were evacuated and then hours later we watched the building collapse. "Uh, and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse." Like I said, the tactic seems to be to assert absurdity with a straight face in the hopes that at least some people will question the plainly obvious because they are confused by the shamelessness of such audacious lies.
Must be true 'cause the TV told me so...
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
Why would the NYFD blow up WTC 7?
Gee, why would the FDNY decide to blow up WTC 7? How on earth did the FDNY manage to rig explosives in WTC 7 to bring it down?
Since it's your construct, you tell us.
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
Yep. The media told me . . . 19 Arab Hijackers whose pictures were on the tv in hours after 9/11 did the deed- and then they found a tape of OBL monologueing about his evil plan like a James Bond villian in a house in Afghansitan. And Saddam was a year away from Nukes. The media told me . . . And OBL had not one- but "many" huge "hi-tech" bunker caves complete with hydrolic lifts where he kept his tanks and long range artillery. The media told me . . . And drones could spray our cities launched from mysterious ghost ships that Saddam had. The Media told me . . . And Saddam killed half a million people and they were in mass graves never found. The Media told me . . . He had rape rooms. The media told me . . . He shredded people in plastic shredders. The media told me . . . He had tons of "WMD" and advanced programs that "no one could doubt after Powell's speech". The media told me . . . And the insurgents were just Saddam "Dead enders" numbering a few hundred. The media told me. Then they were "Zarqawi" Al Qaeders. The media told me. Then they were Iranian trained spies. The Media told me. Now they are both Al Qaeders and Iranian trained- oh- and Iran is a year away from nuking us. The Media tells me . . . And everyone fighting us in Afhganistan is "Taliban"- the media tells me. And Al Qaeda was all but defeated in 2004 the media told me . . . Now it is "reformed" and stronger than ever. The media tells me . . .
This sho' enuf a bizarre sight in the middle-a all this shit
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
Since it's your construct, you tell us. Hmmmm. What would you call that? A red herring, a non sequitur, or a straw man? Elements of all three logical fallacies I think.
Hat trick? Where's that catalog?
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
I think that the official spin on this one was that lack of evidence for mass graves is the proof that there were mass graves, in other words, the fact that we can't find them means that he hid them so well, and if he hid them so well, that means they exist! I kid you not - this was more or less the official neoconservative line about WMDs and mass graves.
I know it is. "Human Rights Watch"- a spook front group- said the reason why they can't find the half million bodies they bandied about in their reports before the war and that were splashed all over our truth telling fact checking media was that . . . and I kid you not . . . the records of where they were had been looted.
Believe it or not there is one. BeAChooser is still the reigning champ of the logical fallacy. He had posts that used up to 10 different ones at the same time.
Don't ever talk to badeye
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
Anyone else notice Badeye refers to Neil McIver as a "tax scammer" on his FR homepage? Is that something Neil is aware of?
long history of hate from badbreath, almost sorry I brought it up.
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
He's got some issues...
Now that's exactly the sort of remark that's likely to set him off. Good work. :)
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
Most gay/pederasts do.
I bothered with him for a few months on LP several years ago, but rather quickly came to the realization that he is a game playing bizzare goof. I remember the thread I all but stopped posting to him . . . he literally denied having posted something he had just posted- on that very same thread- only two posts earlier- that everyone could see! I figured out he wasn't playing with a full deck and pretty much ignored him since. Saved myself a lot of grief as I saw him enrage quite a few people with his stupid act numerous times. Some posters have this assumption that everyone is on these boards is rational and posts in good faith and that if they just try to get their message across to the other person with good arguments they will persuade them to their side. Such posters open to argument and who respond to rational debate and rules of logic are about as rare as white caviar. Most posters simply want to defend their rote learned views no matter what- and will use whatever argument or method no matter how cheap or false to protect their little "ism", world view, or beliefs and are in no way open to rational arugment. Indeed, most are not even aware of what constitutes "evidence" in a debate, how to establish truth from falsehood, how to even follow the most linear of logical syllogisms or even be consistent for two paragraphs in their arguments. They don't know how to think in other words. And you can't help such people. No amount of discourse with them will ever accomplish anything. The key to these boards, to get something out of them, is to identify such people and ignore them entirely- while keeping an eye out for the far fewer posters who can think and are not just ideological rote spewing dopes.
I prefer to look at it as "Badeye" was chased off to FR even by Goldi-Dupes. There's always hope.
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
It is called design for demolition. -------------------------------------------------------- http://www.istructe.org/thestructuralengineer/HC/Abstract.asp?PID=4626 Report: Design for Demolition Why design for demolition? In the past, structural engineers have paid scant attention to the problems associated with the eventual demolition of their structures. The likely reasons for this are, perhaps, firstly, that the lifespans of traditional buildings have been so long and uncertain that the problem of demolition has had little immediacy at the design stage. Secondly, the client who commissions the construction of a building is often not the client who commissions its demolition; economic considerations are thus sharply separated. Thirdly, techniques for the demolition of traditional gravity structures are reasonably straightforward, requiring little or no engineering input. P. Waldron and D.I. Blockley ---------------------------------------------- My comments: Any rational person would know that one day in the future the Towers would have to come down. No skyscraper has ever been built that will last forever. A design taking into the consideration the absolute fact that one day the building will be coming down sounds plausible to me. Consider a scenario where due to an earthquake,hurricane or a design flaw a building the size of the Towers or WTC7 in downtown Manhattan was in imminent danger of toppling. Time would be critical. You can make the case that a design which included the ability to rapidly prepare the building for demolition would be the responsible thing to do.
Comments (137 - 246) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestAn 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 Miegs, 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.
#97. To: Mister Clean (#96)
#98. To: Burkeman1, Mr. Clean, EdCondon (#92)
Blah blah- Turkish built high rise apartment blocks- built in the most shoddy manner with sub standard material don't collapse in 9.0 earthquakes as completely as those towers did after being hit by basically big aluminum tubes and small fires burning for 40 minutes.
#99. To: Ringo Blankenship (#97)
#100. To: ... (#99)
What makes me suspicious is the angry and hostile reaction that some people have to a study of this matter - and the determined effort I see to stop people from asking questions. I have to wonder where this is coming from.
#101. To: Ringo Blankenship (#97)
Do you think they will show/analyze WTC 7 coming down?
#102. To: Mister Clean (#101)
#103. To: Ringo Blankenship (#102)
If they even show video of WTC 7 coming down, I will be greatly surprised.
#104. To: Mister Clean (#103)
#105. To: Ringo Blankenship (#104)
They probably don't want a repeat of the Larry Silverstein "pull it" PBS fiasco.
#106. To: christine (#98)
#107. To: Burkeman1 (#106)
Look, I don't even suffer the deniers anymore. They are one of two things- shill trolling liars or stupid dopes who don't trust their own eyes and common effing sense.
#108. To: christine (#107)
their lack of shame irks me though.
#109. To: Mister Clean (#105)
There was no "fiasco" involved in Silverstein making that comment.
#110. To: Mister Clean (#105)
They probably don't want a repeat of the Larry Silverstein "pull it" PBS fiasco.
#111. To: robin (#110)
Remember...G-d saved more animals than people on the ark. www.siameserescue.org
#112. To: All (#109)
There was no "fiasco" involved in Silverstein making that comment.
#113. To: robin (#110)
#114. To: Burkeman1 (#108)
#115. To: who knows what evil, robin, Burkeman1 (#111)
He's probably hoping 'lurkers' believe that...
#116. To: honway (#109)
There was no "fiasco" involved in Silverstein making that comment. . . .
#117. To: Burkeman1 (#116)
#118. To: honway (#112)
Uh, and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.
#119. To: honway (#109)
Note Siverstein did not say, they made that decision to pull and then the firemen were evacuated and then hours later we watched the building collapse.
#120. To: Mister Clean (#118)
Why would the NYFD blow up WTC 7?
#121. To: Dakmar (#117)
Must be true 'cause the TV told me so...
#122. To: Burkeman1, mr clean (#121)
#123. To: Dakmar (#120)
Why would the NYFD blow up WTC 7?
#124. To: Burkeman1 (#123)
#125. To: Burkeman1 (#121)
And Saddam killed half a million people and they were in mass graves never found.
#126. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#125)
in other words, the fact that we can't find them means that he hid them so well, and if he hid them so well, that means they exist! I kid you not - this was more or less the official neoconservative line about
#127. To: Dakmar (#124)
Where's that catalog?
#128. To: Burkeman1, badeye the ohio coon (#127)
#129. To: Dakmar, christine (#128)
Remember...G-d saved more animals than people on the ark. www.siameserescue.org
#130. To: who knows what evil (#129)
#131. To: Dakmar (#130)
Remember...G-d saved more animals than people on the ark. www.siameserescue.org
#132. To: who knows what evil (#131)
#133. To: who knows what evil (#131)
He's got some issues...
The uncertainty of the outcome is what frightens people.
#134. To: who knows what evil (#131)
He's got some issues...
#135. To: Burkeman1 (#134)
(Edited)
#136. To: Mister Clean (#119)
(Edited)
Gee, why would the FDNY decide to blow up WTC 7? How on earth did the FDNY manage to rig explosives in WTC 7 to bring it down?
.
.
.