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: 12372
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 (1-141) not displayed.
.
.
.
#142. To: Mister Clean (#141)
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.
All the polls on the matter indicate otherwise. It was a major factor in the only poll that really counts, the last national election.
9/11 conspiracy theories played no role in the last election.
Why should anyone believe this crap? You failed to support your assertion (above) and you can't support it. Logically it doesn't stand. You'd have to prove that each and every person who voted in the last election was in no way influenced by 911 conspiracy theories - no exceptions - and you can't do this. On its face, and on its face alone, your statement is an over the top falsehood. But you know that.
.
I'm not sure what part of the world you are in, but the majority of Americans I am around have suspicions on various levels. From my point of view, you are in the minority. Just so you know, when you use the "Conspiracy Theorist" label.
Swimming around in my bourbon highball..... There is no evidence even remotely indicating that 911 conspiracy theories influenced voters in the 2006 election. So, in the absence of any such evidence, I most certainly can say that it wasn't a factor. If you believe people voted under the influence of 911 conspiracy theories, the burden is on you to support it. It's no different from all those claims of Saddam having WMD. Without any evidence of that WMD, there was no reason to believe he had any.
So what?
You made the assertion, now prove it up Mr. Propagandist. The words of an internet kook such as yourself are a nullity. Your bullshit rings very hollow.
.
So what? You are not being consistent here with the horseshit you just tossed out to me. You told me that there was no evidence that the 911 theories influenced the election. This guy above just gave you some evidence. This makes what you told me wrong. Instead of reconciling this, you tell the guy you dont' care if there is evidence that that the 911 theories influenced the election, e.g., "So what?". Better use your narrowing dodge now: I never said it was an animal, I said it was a dog.
.
There is no evidence that 911 kookery was a factor in the 2006 election. There, it's proven!
Show me your support for this dishonest assertion Mr. Bald Faced Liar. I note you are not expressing this as an opinion - and that you never have expressed it as an opinion in this discussion. You are putting it out as a fact. So show us your proof.
.
No evidence has been presented showing that 911 kookery was a factor in the 2006 election.
Can the dishonest dodge liar. And this is a dodge and you know it. You are putting words in my mouth. And you know it. This isn't the issue. The issue is your statement above: 911 theories had no effect on the 2006 election. I called you a bald faced liar to your face over this. Show us your proof for this assertion of fact or admit that you just made this up.
.
I voted Libertarian in part because I thought the GOP was covering up several details of 911. Now you'll need a new lie.
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
No evidence has been presented showing that 911 kookery was a factor in the 2006 election. You claimed that the 911 theories had no effect on the election. The guy above gave you evidece. I rubbed your nose in this. You then try to change the subject and the focus with the quote above. You are dishonest. You now have evidence that the 911 theories affected the election. Show us your proof that they did not or admit that you lied to us.
.
Now you'll need a new lie. Now you have two pieces of evidence that contradict your assertion that the 911 theories had no effect on the 2006 elections. Show us the proof for your assertion or admit that you tried to lie to us when you made the assertion. Again, I note that you didn't present your idiot, arrogant assertion as an opinion. You tossed it out as a fact. There are no qualifiers anywhere. So now prove up your fact for us.
.
911 was touted as reason for invasion of Iraq, Saddam ties to al qaeda and all, so it's ubundantly clear that MC hasn't a clue as what he is talking about.
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
I called you a bald faced liar to your face over this. Show us your proof for this assertion of fact or admit that you just made this up. The proof is the lack of evidence to the contrary.
I just gave you evidence, idiot.
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
Good for you.
Dakmar needs to prove he actually did vote libertarian because of 911.
Your claim is not evidence. It's just a claim.
I just gave you two pieces of evidence. An you have presented nothing to support your idiotic assertion. When pressed on this, you try to change the subject. The conclusion is that you are a liar and a propagandist. Now prove me wrong by supporting your assertion of fact that the 911 theories had no effect on the 2006 elections.
.
Comments (183 - 246) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestSo 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.
#161. To: Mister Clean (#160)
you're not likely to convince many people.
#162. To: honway (#161)
It was a major factor in the only poll that really counts, the last national election.
#163. To: Mister Clean (#162)
(Edited)
9/11 conspiracy theories played no role in the last election.
#164. To: Mister Clean (#155)
#165. To: ... (#163)
You'd have to prove that each and every person who voted in the last election was in no way influenced by 911 conspiracy theories - no exceptions - and you can't do this.
#166. To: PercyDovetonsils (#164)
I'm not sure what part of the world you are in, but the majority of Americans I am around have suspicions on various levels.
#167. To: Mister Clean (#165)
There is no evidence even remotely indicating that 911 conspiracy theories influenced voters in the 2006 election.
#168. To: Mister Clean (#166)
I'm not sure what part of the world you are in, but the majority of Americans I am around have suspicions on various levels.
#169. To: ... (#167)
You made the assertion, now prove it up Mr. Propagandist.
#170. To: Mister Clean (#169)
(Edited)
There is no evidence that 911 kookery was a factor in the 2006 election.
#171. To: ... (#168)
This guy above just gave you some evidence.
#172. To: Mister Clean (#171)
No evidence has been presented showing that 911 kookery was a factor in the 2006 election.
#173. To: Mister Clean (#171)
#174. To: Mister Clean (#171)
This guy above just gave you some evidence.
#175. To: Dakmar, Mister Clean (#173)
(Edited)
I voted Libertarian in part because I thought the GOP was covering up several details of 911.
#176. To: ... (#174)
#177. To: ... (#172)
The issue is your statement above: 911 theories had no effect on the 2006 election.
#178. To: Mister Clean (#177)
#179. To: Dakmar (#173)
I voted Libertarian in part because I thought the GOP was covering up several details of 911.
#180. To: ... (#175)
Now you have two pieces of evidence that contradict your assertion that the 911 theories had no effect on the 2006 elections.
#181. To: Dakmar (#178)
I just gave you evidence, idiot.
#182. To: Mister Clean (#177)
The proof is the lack of evidence to the contrary.
.
.
.