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: 22229
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 # 150.
#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."
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?
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
There are no replies to Comment # 150. End Trace Mode for Comment # 150.
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.
#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.
#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.
#139. To: Mister Clean (#137)
Where's the evidence that the FDNY brought WTC 7 down?
#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
#145. To: Mister Clean (#143)
(Edited)
#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)
Replies to Comment # 150.