[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Jimmy Dore: CHINA & 20 Nations To Intervene & End Israel’s Genocide! 20,000 Women. 350 Kilometers. Zero Pay. In One Week. How Did Ibrahim Traore Pull This Off? Spain is in CHAOS! Revolution is in the air Joe Rogan Ambushes Gavin Newsom Via Text With A COVID Question He Never Saw Coming Batman Vs The Joker: Democrats Will Double Down On Chaos To Save Their Party US Vows To Quit IEA If The Agency Keeps Pushing Green Transition Tucker Carlson: People Are Frustrated That Certain Commit Crimes With Impunity No news again, but the battle of the machines marches on... Cash Jordan: Rioters ATTACK ICE HQÂ… Troops FLATTEN Uprising With ‘Zero MercyÂ’ Doctor Reveals What COVID Vaccines Do to the Lungs in Just One Week Sorry paid off influencers, MAGA bot accounts, and Satan....but I'm not going to just "move on" Marjorie Taylor Greene Bombshell Interview Welcome To The Land Of The Free... Until You Express An Opinion Putin ‘tells Iran to accept nuclear deal with no enrichment’ 76% of Honey at Stores is Fake "225,000 Ukrainians have now DESERTED the war" Ukraine is in a death spiral Col. Dan Davis The New York Times Finally Stops Avoiding The G-Word The Gaza Water Massacre: What Israel Just Confessed About Shooting Children Powerful ERUPTION spit out volcanic mud and debris - Army Personnel ran for their lives Another 'Conspiracy Theory' Comes True: California Bill Passes To Buy Fire-Ravaged Palisades For Low-Income Apartments A 1,600-year-old church in the Holy Land has been torched. But not by ISIS. More civilians have been killed while seeking aid in Gaza than were killed on 7 October. MORE TRANS VIOLENCE WAYNE ROOT: Here’s How Trump Turns the Epstein List Fiasco into Home Run Maxwell Says Epstein Client List Implicates Top Democrats Medical Record Review Of the Twins Who Died After Vaccination New federal secrets exposed as Republican unravels Lee Harvey Oswald's hidden ties to CIA Protest outside migrant hotel in Essex erupts into violence Congressman Faces Eviction Over $85k Back-Rent For Luxury DC Penthouse This Is Not Normal! We Just Had Four “1-In-1,000-Year Storms” In A Single Week!

9/11
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: 22888
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  

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 162.

#96. To: Ringo Blankenship (#0)

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.

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.

Mister Clean  posted on  2007-08-05   10:43:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Do you think they will show/analyze WTC 7 coming down?

Ringo Blankenship  posted on  2007-08-05   23:36:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

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.

Mister Clean  posted on  2007-08-06   11:19:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

If they even show video of WTC 7 coming down, I will be greatly surprised.

Ringo Blankenship  posted on  2007-08-06   11:41:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

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.

Mister Clean  posted on  2007-08-06   11:45:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

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.

Ringo Blankenship  posted on  2007-08-06   11:51:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

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.

Mister Clean  posted on  2007-08-06   11:57:38 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

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."

honway  posted on  2007-08-06   15:02:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

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.

roughrider  posted on  2007-08-06   22:41:49 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

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?

Excellent questions to which the conspiracy theorists have no answers.

But then again, conspiracy theorists never have any answers.

Mister Clean  posted on  2007-08-07   7:38:32 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

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

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.

honway  posted on  2007-08-07   20:05:38 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

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.

Mister Clean  posted on  2007-08-07   20:32:22 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

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.

honway  posted on  2007-08-07   20:46:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

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.

Mister Clean  posted on  2007-08-07   20:49:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

#163. To: Mister Clean (#162) (Edited)

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.

...  posted on  2007-08-08 01:08:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]