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: 22659
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 # 134.
#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...
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.
#135. To: Burkeman1 (#134)
(Edited)
I prefer to look at it as "Badeye" was chased off to FR even by Goldi-Dupes. There's always hope.
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)
#134. To: who knows what evil (#131)
He's got some issues...
Replies to Comment # 134.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 134.