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: 12767
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 (1-119) not displayed.
.
.
.
#120. To: Mister Clean (#118)
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.
Great! Where's the evidence that the FDNY brought WTC 7 down?
It's not my construct. It's right there in Silverstein's quote.
http://www.wtc7.net/warnings.html Eyewitness Accounts of Foreknowledge of WTC 7's Collapse Dozens of responders who were in the vicinity of WTC 7 in the afternoon of the attack reported receiving warnings that the building would collapse. Several describe the evacuation of a zone around the building about a half hour before the 5:20 PM collapse. These witness accounts of these warnings and evacuation actions are one of two bodies of evidence indicating foreknowledge of WTC 7's collapse. An archive of transcripts of interviews of more than 500 members of emergency services contains at least 26 interviews that describe either warnings or foreknowledge of WTC 7's collapse. The following table excerpts the phrases from each interview relating to expectations of collapse.
Evacuation of Collapse Zone Fire chiefs cordoned off and evacuated area around Building 7 in preparation for its collapse. That decision was not made lightly, becasue it it meant suspending search and rescue operations in and around the northern end of Ground Zero. A detailed article published in Fire Engineering Magazine describes that decision: Be that as it may, FDNY chief officers surveyed 7 WTC and determined that it was in danger of collapse. Chief Frank Cruthers, now the incident commander, and Chief Frank Fellini, the operations commander, both agreed that a collapse zone had to be established. That meant firefighters in the area of the North Tower had to be evacuated. This took some time to accomplish because of terrain, communications, and the fierce determination with which the firefighters were searching. At 5:30 p.m., about 20 minutes after the last firefighters evacuated the collapse zone, 7 WTC collapsed. It was the third steel-frame high-rise in history to collapse from fire -- the other two had collapsed earlier that day. 1 Firehouse Magazine ran series of articles with interviews of fire chiefs. Fire Chief Joseph Pfeifer describes Chief Nigro ordering people away from the building: Yes, I watched 7. At one point, we were standing on the west side of West Street and Vesey. And I remember Chief Nigro coming back at that point saying I don't want anybody else killed and to take everybody two blocks up virtually to North End and Vesey, which is a good ways up. And we stood there and we watched 7 collapse." 2 Fire Chief Daniel Nigro describes his reasons for creating the collapse zone: The biggest decision we had to make on the first day was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story building heavily involved in fire. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt. I issued the orders to pull back the firefighters and define the collapse zone. It was a critical decision; we could not lose any more firefighters. It took a lot of time to pull everyone out, given the emotionalism of the day, communications difficulties, and the collapse terrain. 3 Chief Frank Cruthers recalls Chief Nigro convening a meeting of fire chiefs on the subject of establishing a collapse zone. Of primary importance early on in the operation was the structural condition of 7 World Trade Center. Assistant Chief Frank Fellini had been approached by several chiefs who were concerned about its stability. It had been heavily damaged in the collapse and was well-involved in fire. Chief Fellini had looked at it and described to us some damage to its south side; he felt that structural components of the building had been compromised. So when Chief Dan Nigro arrived at the command post, he convened a meeting of staff chiefs, and this was a major subject of the meeting. We were all in accord about the danger of 7 WTC, and we all agreed that it was not too conservative of a decision to establish a collapse zone for that building, move the firefighters out of the collapse area, and maintain that strategy. 4 Professional photographer Tom Franklin provides some detail about the timing of the evacuation: It was about 4 p.m., and they were anticipating Seven World Trade Center collapsing. The firemen were leaving en masse. 5 It was 4:45 p.m., and all the firemen and rescue workers were evacuating Ground Zero after word came that a third building -- WTC 7 -- was ready to fall. 6 Mark Jacobson, reporter, New York Magazine described being surprised by a fireman's certainty that the skyscraper would come down: Hours later, I sat down beside another, impossibly weary firefighter. ... Then, almost as a non sequitur, the fireman indicated the building in front of us, maybe 400 yards away. 'That building is coming down,' he said with a drained casualness. 'Really?' I asked. At 47 stories, it would be a skyscraper in most cities, centerpiece of the horizon. But in New York, it was nothing but a nondescript box with fire coming out of the windows. 'When?' 'Tonight ... Maybe tomorrow morning.' This was around 5:15 p.m. I know because five minutes later, at 5:20, the building, 7 World Trade Center, crumbled. 7 Indira Singh, a volunteer EMT, describes hearing rumors that the building would be brought down: What happened with that particular triage site is that pretty soon after noon, after midday on 9/11, we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down. ... I do believe that they brought Building 7 down because I heard that they were going to bring it down because it was unstable, because of the collateral damage. ... By noon or one o'clock they told us we had to move from that triage site up to Pace University, a little further away, because Building 7 was gonna come down or being brought down. ... There was another panic around four o'clock because they were bringing the building down and people seemed to know this ahead of time, so people were panicking again and running. 8 Battalion Fire Chief John Norman describes the size of the collapse zone -- 600 feet in radius: After we found Chief Ganci, in addition to recon, I was detailed to make sure the collapse zone for 7 WTC had been set up and was being maintained. The sector commanders were trying to clear out of that area. We expected it to fall to the south, into the areas we were searching. 9 Now we're still worried about 7. We have guys trying to make their way up into the pile, and they're telling us that 7 is going to fall down - and that was one of the directions from the command post, to make sure we clear the collapse zone from 7 and this is a 600-foot-tall building, so we had to clear a 600-foot radius from that building. 10 Deputy Fire Chief Nick Visconti describes resistance to the evacuation by firefighters who wanted to fight the fires in Building 7: Now, World Trade Center 7 was burning and I was thinking to myself, how come they're not trying to put this fire out? ... At some point, Frank Fellini said, now we've got hundreds of guys out there, hundreds and hundreds, and that's on the West Street side alone. He said to me, Nick, you've got to get those people out of there. I thought to myself, out of where? Frank, what do you want, Chief? He answered, 7 World Trade Center, imminent collapse, we've got to get those people out of there. ... There were a couple of chiefs out there who I knew and I called them individually. I said to them, listen, start backing those people out, we need them back up to the command post. While this was going on, I saw individual company officers. I was whistling, Captain, bring your guys this way. I was getting some resistance. The common thing was, hey, we've still got people here, we don't want to leave. I explained to them that we were worried about 7, that it was going to come down and we didn't want to get anybody trapped in the collapse. One comment was, oh, that building is never coming down, that didn't get hit by a plane, why isn't somebody in there putting the fire out? A lot of comments, a bit of resistance, understandable resistance. 11 References
From who? Silverstein said the FDNY made the decision... "And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." So if "pull" really does refer to a demolition, there should be evidence that the FDNY actually did bring WTC 7 down.
Indira Singh, a volunteer EMT, describes hearing rumors that the building would be brought down: What happened with that particular triage site is that pretty soon after noon, after midday on 9/11, we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down. ... I do believe that they brought Building 7 down because I heard that they were going to bring it down because it was unstable, because of the collateral damage. ... By noon or one o'clock they told us we had to move from that triage site up to Pace University, a little further away, because Building 7 was gonna come down or being brought down. ... There was another panic around four o'clock because they were bringing the building down and people seemed to know this ahead of time, so people were panicking again and running. 8
Rumors are not evidence.
Here is your evidence.
http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/Flashes/squibs_along_southwest_corner.htm Nails in the Coffin of Trade Seven Close-ups from WTC-7 Collapse Footage Show Unmistakable Signature of Demolition Charges
If Silverstein's "pull it" comment is to be held up as proof that WTC 7 was deliberately brought down then it has to be examined fully. Silverstein said the FDNY made the decision to "pull" the building. Therefore, the FDNY demolished WTC 7. Yet there is not a shred of evidence that is what really happened.
What evidence is there indicating that the FDNY planted the explosives? Answer: NONE.
What we know is WTC7 was a controlled demolition and the FDNY knew it was coming down.
I know that those who would hold up Silverstein's "pull it" comment as some great revelation are deluded.
It is a very small piece in what is a very large picture.
In the unfortunate use of the verb "pull," there is other evidence that Silverstein meant to implode WTC 7. There are audio recordings of the recovery crews at Ground Zero preparing to implode what was left of WTC 6. A Supervisory is shouting the news: "We are getting ready to PULL Building 6." What was left of 6 was then detonated in a controlled demolition. Therefore, "pull," in this context, means controlled demolition. Now, it has been argued that Silverstein meant the firefighters, and some of the quotations you cited, concerning the evacuation of the firefighters away from the Western section of Ground Zero, around Building 7, could be construed in this manner. The one chief kept talking about a "collapse," as opposed to a "pulling" of the building, and none of the quoted firefighters or officers seems to know the exact time, but there is urgency in conducting the withdrawal from the area. One firefighter said the building could come down in the morning as well as a more "imminent" time. The medical worker at triage mixes the two versions, using "collapse" and "bring down," reflecting two claims she heard. What is very obvious is that WTC 7 collapsed straight down, just like a controlled demolition, and Silverstein's comments are more in that direction than a "collapse." Silverstein has been party to more than one controlled demolition, and that is the context of the "lingo" he used that day. His remarks and the video are sufficient evidence for a reasonable suspicion that the building was "pulled." Just what that means, legally, I don't know, for the building would have to have been prepared for demolition in advance (in fact, far in advance), a stumbling block for the controlled demolition explanation of the destruction of WTC 7. I lean toward that explanation, with the video and the recorded statements of the supervisor of the WTC 6 clean-up being run through Silverstein's PBS remarks. What I don't know is: 1. IF it was "pulled," why was it pulled? 2. Was it legal to have the preparations made in advance for such an event? 3. How could firefighters have done it? Were they trained for such an action? Did they drill for it? Are such demoliton preparations SOP in NYC? If they are SOP, why hide the fact they did it? What argument can't be made is, IF Silverstein "pulled," or agreed to have the FDNY "pull" WTC 7, that is proof that the Towers were "pulled," and that if WTC 7 was "pulled," the entire incident was manufactured by George Bush or some other government cabal. That would take an investigation none of us are in a position to complete.
My opinion is that it was the Command Center/Tactical Operations Center for the mayor of NYC. It had to be destroyed.
Machiavelli suggested that such ploys are the correct approach to cowing the masses. I think that one was in the COMMENTARIES, rather than THE PRINCE. Basically, the ruler(s) should always do BIG outrages, not petty ones. The bigger the outrage, the more likely the ruler(s) will pull it off. The people become confused at the barely concealed nature of some hideous act, and are more confused at the flimsy, constantly changing, nature of the "official explanations." "They MUST be serious about this. It must be ME. I must be wrong about what I observed, for no one could tell a lie this absurd and hope to pull it off." It's been going on for a real long time now.
"The bigger the lie, the more it will be believed." ~Joseph Goebbels
2. Was it legal to have the preparations made in advance for such an event? 3. How could firefighters have done it? Were they trained for such an action? Did they drill for it? Are such demoliton preparations SOP in NYC? If they are SOP, why hide the fact they did it? Excellent questions to which the conspiracy theorists have no answers. But then again, conspiracy theorists never have any answers.
1. IF it was "pulled," why was it pulled? My opinion is that it was the Command Center/Tactical Operations Center for the mayor of NYC. It had to be destroyed.
Silverstein's comments only create problems for 9/11 "truthers" because his comments raise questions the "truthers" can't answer. But that's the nature of the conspiracy theorist, they never have any real answers.
First,it is good to see your contributions on freedom4um.Your comments and insights are an asset to this forum. Second, I will cut and paste from a previous reply. ------------------------------------------------- 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. ----------------------------------------------- If such programs are in place,you would expect the information to be on a "need to know" basis since the information could be exploited by "real terrorists."
2. Was it legal to have the preparations made in advance for such an event? 3. How could firefighters have done it? Were they trained for such an action? Did they drill for it? Are such demoliton preparations SOP in NYC? If they are SOP, why hide the fact they did it Excellent questions to which the conspiracy theorists have no answers. 1. IF it was "pulled," why was it pulled? Why get's into specific operational details that we can only speculate about. Why send two planes into two Towers instead of two planes into one Tower? We don't have the necessary information to answer either of those questions. 2. Was it legal to have the preparations made in advance for such an event? Yes, it would be legal if the preparations included pre-planned locations to place the explosives in the event of an emergency and pre-wiring. 3. How could firefighters have done it? Were they trained for such an action? Did they drill for it? Are such demoliton preparations SOP in NYC? If they are SOP, why hide the fact they did it Agencies inside the federal government have specialized teams assigned specialized tasks that the public knows very little about.There is a team standing by right now to respond to a nuclear explosion or a biological attack. These specialized teams are trained for their assigned taskings and they do drill.If such demolition preparations are SOP, you can make the case information is on a need to know basis. why hide the fact they did it? Three buildings came down. All three appeared to be controlled demolitions. If you announce one was a controlled demolition, you open up a can of worms.
If you announce that it was a controlled demolition as part of a government conspiracy without any evidence, you're not likely to convince many people.
Comments (161 - 246) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestWhy 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?
#137. To: honway (#136)
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.
#138. To: Dakmar (#120)
Since it's your construct, you tell us.
#139. To: Mister Clean (#137)
Where's the evidence that the FDNY brought WTC 7 down?
#140. To: Mister Clean (#137)
(Edited)
1. World Trade Center Disaster: Initial Response, Fire Engineering, 9/2002
2. WTC: This Is Their Story, http://firehouse.com, 4/2002
3. Report from the Chief of Department, Fire Engineering, 9/2002
4. Postcollapse Command, Fire Engineering, 9/2002
5. Newseum, Running Toward Danger, 2002, page 204
6. The After-Life of a Photo that Touched a Nation, Columbia Journalism Review, 3/1/2002
7. The Ground Zero Grassy Knoll, New York Magazine, 3/27/2006
8. Interview with Indira Singh. 'Ground Zero 911, Blueprint for Terror, Part One', Guns & Butteer, 4/27/2005
9. Search and Rescue Operations, Fire Engineering, 10/2002
10. WTC: This Is Their Story, http://Firehouse.com, 5/2002
11. WTC: This Is Their Story, http://Firehouse.com, 8/2002
#141. To: honway (#139)
Dozens of responders who were in the vicinity of WTC 7 in the afternoon of the attack reported receiving warnings that the building would collapse.
#142. To: Mister Clean (#141)
So if "pull" really does refer to a demolition, there should be evidence that the FDNY actually did bring WTC 7 down.
#143. To: honway (#142)
Indira Singh, a volunteer EMT, describes hearing rumors that the building would be brought down
#144. To: Mister Clean (#143)
Rumors are not evidence.
#145. To: Mister Clean (#143)
(Edited)
#146. To: honway (#144)
Here is your evidence.
#147. To: honway (#145)
Close-ups from WTC-7 Collapse Footage Show Unmistakable Signature of Demolition Charges
#148. To: Mister Clean (#147)
What evidence is there indicating that the FDNY planted the explosives?
#149. To: honway (#148)
What we know is WTC7 was a controlled demolition and the FDNY knew it was coming down.
#150. To: Mister Clean (#149)
#151. To: honway (#109)
#152. To: roughrider (#151)
1. IF it was "pulled," why was it pulled?
#153. To: Burkeman1 (#116)
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.
#154. To: roughrider (#153)
#155. To: roughrider (#151)
1. IF it was "pulled," why was it pulled?
#156. To: Fred Mertz, roughrider, Mister Clean (#152)
To: roughrider
#157. To: Ringo Blankenship (#156)
#158. To: roughrider (#151)
3. How could firefighters have done it? Were they trained for such an action? Did they drill for it? Are such demoliton preparations SOP in NYC? If they are SOP, why hide the fact they did it?
#159. To: Mister Clean (#155)
1. IF it was "pulled," why was it pulled?
#160. To: honway (#159)
Three buildings came down. All three appeared to be controlled demolitions. If you announce one was a controlled demolition, you open up a can of worms.
.
.
.