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: 22894
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
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 132.
#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?
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 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."
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."
Why would the NYFD blow up WTC 7?
Since it's your construct, you tell us.
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?
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
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.
He's got some issues...
Now that's exactly the sort of remark that's likely to set him off. Good work. :)
There are no replies to Comment # 132. End Trace Mode for Comment # 132.
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)
#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.
#109. To: Mister Clean (#105)
There was no "fiasco" involved in Silverstein making that comment.
#112. To: All (#109)
There was no "fiasco" involved in Silverstein making that comment.
#118. To: honway (#112)
Uh, and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.
#120. To: Mister Clean (#118)
Why would the NYFD blow up WTC 7?
#123. To: Dakmar (#120)
Why would the NYFD blow up WTC 7?
#124. To: Burkeman1 (#123)
#127. To: Dakmar (#124)
Where's that catalog?
#128. To: Burkeman1, badeye the ohio coon (#127)
#129. To: Dakmar, christine (#128)
#130. To: who knows what evil (#129)
#131. To: Dakmar (#130)
#132. To: who knows what evil (#131)
Replies to Comment # 132.