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

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

The INCREDIBLE Impacts of Methylene Blue The LARGEST Eruptions since the Merapi Disaster in 2010 at Lewotobi Laki Laki in Indonesia Feds ARREST 11 Leftists For AMBUSH On ICE, 2 Cops Shot, Organized Terror Cell Targeted ICE In Texas What is quantum computing? 12 Important Questions We Should Be Asking About The Cover Up The Truth About Jeffrey Epstein TSA quietly scraps security check that every passenger dreads Iran Receives Emergency Airlift of Chinese Air Defence Systems as Israel Considers New Attacks Russia reportedly used its new, inexpensive Chernika kamikaze drone in the Ukraine Iran's President Says the US Pledged Israel Wouldn't Attack During Previous Nuclear Negotiations Will Japan's Rice Price Shock Lead To Government Collapse And Spark A Global Bond Crisis Beware The 'Omniwar': Catherine Austin Fitts Fears 'Weaponization Of Everything' Roger Stone: AG Pam Bondi Must Answer For 14 Terabytes Claim Of Child Torture Videos! 'Hit Us, Please' - America's Left Issues A 'Broken Arrow' Signal To Europe Cash Jordan Trump Deports ‘Thousands of Migrants’ to Africa… on Purpose Gunman Ambushes Border Patrol Agents In Texas Amid Anti-ICE Rhetoric From Democrats Texas Flood Why America Built A Forest From Canada To Texas Tucker Carlson Interviews President of Iran Mosoud Pezeshkian PROOF Netanyahu Wants US To Fight His Wars RAPID CRUSTAL MOVEMENT DETECTED- Are the Unusual Earthquakes TRIGGER for MORE (in Japan and Italy) ? Google Bets Big On Nuclear Fusion Iran sets a world record by deporting 300,000 illegal refugees in 14 days Brazilian Women Soccer Players (in Bikinis) Incredible Skills Watch: Mexico City Protest Against American Ex-Pat 'Invasion' Turns Viole Kazakhstan Just BETRAYED Russia - Takes gunpowder out of Putin’s Hands Why CNN & Fareed Zakaria are Wrong About Iran and Trump Something Is Going Deeply WRONG In Russia 329 Rivers in China Exceed Flood Warnings, With 75,000 Dams in Critical Condition Command Of Russian Army 'Undermined' After 16 Of Putin's Generals Killed At War, UK Says Rickards: Superintelligence Will Never Arrive

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: 22161
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 # 191.

#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  

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.

PercyDovetonsils  posted on  2007-08-08   1:30:40 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

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.

So what?

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

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.

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.

...  posted on  2007-08-08   10:18:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

This guy above just gave you some evidence.

No evidence has been presented showing that 911 kookery was a factor in the 2006 election.

Mister Clean  posted on  2007-08-08   10:20:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

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.

...  posted on  2007-08-08   10:23:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

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.

The proof is the lack of evidence to the contrary.

Mister Clean  posted on  2007-08-08   10:31:25 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

I just gave you evidence, idiot.

Dakmar  posted on  2007-08-08   10:32:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

I just gave you evidence, idiot.

Your claim is not evidence.

It's just a claim.

Mister Clean  posted on  2007-08-08   10:35:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Are you calling me a liar? That's hilarious.

Dakmar  posted on  2007-08-08   10:36:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Are you calling me a liar?

Do you have reading comprehension issues?

Mister Clean  posted on  2007-08-08   10:38:38 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Answer the question or leave. Are you calling me a liar?

Dakmar  posted on  2007-08-08   10:39:46 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Answer the question or leave. Are you calling me a liar?

Did I use the word liar?

Read my posts slowly. Let the words sink in.

Mister Clean  posted on  2007-08-08   10:41:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

#194. To: Mister Clean (#191)

Your claim is not evidence.

It's just a claim.

Yep, you are calling me a liar. Since you refuse to answer even the simplest of questions I see no reason to engage you for any purpose beyond my own amusement.

Dakmar  posted on  2007-08-08 10:44:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Did I use the word liar?

Read my posts slowly. Let the words sink in.

You called him a liar.

Specifically, you disparaged his assertion as follows:

Your claim is not evidence.

It's just a claim.

He claimed he gave you evidence to contradict your dishonest assertion and you implied that what he said wasn't true.

You now try to escape this by playing word games: I never said it was an animal, I said it was a dog.

...  posted on  2007-08-08 10:46:14 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]