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: 12763
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 (1-151) not displayed.
.
.
.
#152. To: roughrider (#151)
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.
.
Are you calling me a liar? That's hilarious.
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
No, you haven't.
It's just a claim. It certainly is. We just polled one person and got some evidence. You are just arguing about the quality of the evidence now. But you, as a dishonest propagandist know this. And this evidence he presented is a hell of a lot better than any evidence that you have presented to back up your claim - which is nothing.
.
Do you have reading comprehension issues?
Gotta love the arguing the specific when a general observation is claims, and vice-versa. Classic propaganda technique, wouldn't hold up two seconds in a Jr High debate.
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
Answer the question or leave. Are you calling me a liar?
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
If you want to believe that 911 kookery influenced the 2006 election, go right ahead. I don't believe it.
No, you haven't. You are telling a deliberate lie here, but you know that. I gave you the Percy and Dakmar accounts on the thread above. But you know this. You are simply quibbling about the quality of the evidence. But you, as a dishonest shill, already know that. I gave you evidence to contradict you idiotic assertion of fact that 911 had no effect on the 2005 elections. Now back up your asserion or admit that you tried to lie to us.
.
Did I use the word liar? Read my posts slowly. Let the words sink in.
I don't believe it. This isn't the subject under discussion here. But you know that. What you are trying to do is wiggle out from your lie by changing the subject. But you know that. Anyone who would try this cheap tactic - such as yourself - is a dishonest shill. But you know that already.
.
Comments (193 - 246) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest1. 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.
#183. To: Mister Clean (#181)
#184. To: ... (#182)
I just gave you two pieces of evidence.
#185. To: Mister Clean (#181)
Your claim is not evidence.
#186. To: Dakmar (#183)
Are you calling me a liar?
#187. To: ... (#182)
When pressed on this, you try to change the subject.
#188. To: Mister Clean (#186)
#189. To: ... (#185)
And this evidence he presented is a hell of a lot better than any evidence that you have presented to back up your claim - which is nothing.
#190. To: Mister Clean (#184)
just gave you two pieces of evidence.
#191. To: Dakmar (#188)
Answer the question or leave. Are you calling me a liar?
#192. To: Mister Clean (#189)
If you want to believe that 911 kookery influenced the 2006 election, go right ahead.
.
.
.