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: 13360
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 (1-206) not displayed.
.
.
.
#207. To: Mister Clean (#203)
Angelina is skinnydipping right now. Prove my claim is false. Complete and utter Red Herring tossed out by a dishonest shill to save face. To be relevant, you should ask me to prove that your statement isn't evidence of the fact that you are Brad Pitt. I can't do this. You statement is evidnece of this fact. It's shitty evidence, but it is still evidence. Instead, you play word games and ask me to prove the statement false. Which has nothing to do with the discussion above. I said Dakmar's statement was evidence and I said nothing about it being true of false. But you know this. This new dishonesty proves up you lack of integrity.
.
It is in fact evidence that you are Brad Pitt, it just happens to be unreliable, as is any claim you make.
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
Wrong. A claim made by some guy on an Internet message board is not evidence. But since you'll obviously believe whatever somebody posts, Angelina is sitting in my lap right now feeding me grapes.
But back to the point. You said that the 911 theories had no effect on the 2006 elections. You put this out as an assertion of fact. There were no qualifiers on this bullshit claim. You made the claim more than once and when called on it, you tried to change the subject. Now ... Back up your bullshit or admit that you tried to lie to us. Post the article or study that supports your claim that the 911 theories had NO effect on the 2006 elections.
.
It will do for the purposes of your blanket claim that 911 was not a factor in anyone's vote in 2006. Unless you are calling me a liar.
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
Sinkspur you is....
My claims are as unreliable as yours.
Wound up pretty tight, huh? I suggest you have a couple beers with lunch or go smoke a bowl.
Where are all of my pro-Bush posts?
You are lying again. But you know that. Evidence is anything that tends to prove the assertion under question. You are trying to wiggle out of you lie by confusing evidence with the quality of the evidence. Two different things entierly - but you know that. This new dishonesty further proves your lack of integrity.
.
The same reason I didn't vote for Bush the second time, although I did the first time (forgive me, everyone). I smelled a big, stinking RAT after watching those buildings fall, and then listening to all the BS stories being spewed by the controlled media.
You are the only one calling me a liar, whereas you are called a liar hundreds of times a day, by dozens of different individuals. Who would an objective observer be more likely to believe?
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
Since you said 2004 I'm guessing MC will use that to try to prove his case.
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
Angelina just went to fetch me a scotch.
And you just gave your father a blow job.
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
I have not called you a liar.
Good point. The 9/11 BS angered me so much I forgot to vote in 2006...just stayed home. Just like I will next year unless Paul is the 'R' nominee. Since that won't happen; I can just stay home and watch Hillary waltz in.
Fine, then you are saying that facts presented to make one's case is in no way a definition of evidence. Either way you appear to be a duplicitous dullard.
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
Internet postings are not facts.
So you are calling me a liar, and then lying about it. Clever. Are you Alberto Gonzales?
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
Angelina just went to fetch me a scotch. Now you are using cheap word games to push your dishonesty. You know what I said about the nature of evidence is correct, but you don't like it and you don't want others to take it the heart. The definition puts you in a box. So you respond with a vague disparagement that you can later argue was just a simple statement of fact - if you are later called on this new dishonesty. You really are a dishonest sack of shit - but you know that.
.
If I wanted to call you a liar, I'd call you a liar.
You need a drink. Hell, you sound like you need the whole bottle.
Horseshit. I see facts posted on the internet every day. How does posting assertion on the internet make it false?
.
You need a drink. Hell, you sound like you need the whole bottle. Changing the subject. The last refuge of a lying sack of shit when caught out in his lies. Let's get back to the subject at hand. You made an assertion of fact that the 911 theories had no effect on the 2006 elections. There were no qualifiers in this assertion. You tossed it out as a stone cold fact. You did this more than once. When asked for proof of this fact, you squirmed and tried to change the subject. After getting hammered for many posts, you tried to revise your original statement by telling us that it was just opinion - you did this after you first tried to defend the statement as fact. Post your proof for you assertion that the 911 theories had NO effect on the 2006 elections or admit thay you were trying to foist a lie off onto this forum.
.
Jesus, you guys would be just as well off arguing with the Rain Man. 15 minutes to Wapner. 15 minutes to Wapner. 15 minutes to Wapner. 15 minutes to Wapner. 14 minutes to Wapner...
You seem to have these types of debates on the other forum, too. Someone gives you a fact, and you spin for hours on "proving" it. In this case, the proof is a personal voting record, of the poster. I don't even understand what more else you want around that.
Swimming around in my bourbon highball..... That's great....you have managed to post tons of stuff, all saying nothing specifically, and making you out to be a sterile, empty personality. Good for you!
Swimming around in my bourbon highball..... You really are out-of-touch with human interaction.
Swimming around in my bourbon highball..... Oddly enough, you aren't the only person to pick up on that. There is something wrong in that department with this guy. I'm getting that picture too.
Swimming around in my bourbon highball..... Holy sh*t, Percy! You might be on to something...maybe 'Mister Clean' is just an experimental computer 'spin' program.
No proof has been offered. Only a claim. A claim, by the way, that is as valid as my claim of really being Brad Pitt.
Clean, I suggest going out and getting intimate with a human. Your posts are repetative, and boring as hell.
Swimming around in my bourbon highball..... You know all about boring, don't you?
Yes, Mr. "I walk around with wet naps", you nailed it. When people meet me, they definitely say, "Wow, too bad that guy is so boring...." That's me, boring.
Swimming around in my bourbon highball..... Why would the NYFD blow up WTC 7? Hmmmm. They didn't. It went more like this: One Battalion Chief coming from the building indicated that they had searched floors 1 through 9 and found that the building was clear. In the process of the search, the Battalion Chief met the building's Fire Safety Director and former Deputy Fire Safety Director on the ninth floor. The Fire Safety Director reported that the building's floors had been cleared from the top down. By this time, the Chief Officer responsible for WTC 7 reassessed the building again and determined that fires were burning on the following floors: 6, 7, 8, 17, 21, and 30. No accurate time is available for these actions during the WTC 7 operations; however, the sequence of event indicates that it occurred during a time period from 12:30 p.m. to approximately 2:00 p.m. The Chief Officer then met with his command officer to discuss the building?s condition and FDNY's capabilities for controlling the building fires. A Deputy Chief who had just returned from inside the building reported that he had conducted an inspection up to the 7th or 8th floor. He indicated that the stairway was filling with smoke and that there was a lot of fire inside the building. The chiefs discussed the situation and the following conditions were identified: - The building had sustained damage from debris falling into the building, and they were not sure about the structural stability of the building. - The building had large fires burning on at least six floors. Any one of these six fires would have been considered a large incident during normal FDNY operations. - There was no water immediately available for fighting the fires. - They didn't have equipment, hose, standpipe kits, tools, and enough handie talkies for conducting operations inside the building. At approximately, 2:30 p.m., FDNY officers decided to completely abandon WTC 7, and the final order was given to evacuate the site around the building. The order terminated the ongoing rescue operations at WTC 6 and on the rubble pile of WTC 1. Firefighters and other emergency responders were withdrawn from the WTC 7 area, and the building continued to burn. At approximately 5:20 p.m., some three hours after WTC 7 was abandoned the building experienced a catastrophic failure and collapsed. BTW, Some of the guys (and gals) proposing 'wild' conspiracy theories can't even answer a basic question about the properties of steel that a sharp high-school science student could ...
They can't answer any questions but that's because they can't tolerate any questioning of their conspiracy theories.
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. The History Channel has changed the broadcast dates and, curiously, the program description. Monday, August 20 09:00 PM Tuesday, August 21 01:00 AM Saturday, August 25 08:00 PM Sunday, August 26 12:00 AM Examines the various conspiracy theories espoused on the Internet, in articles and in public forums that attempt to explain the 9/11 attacks. It includes theories that the World Trade Center was brought down by a controlled demolition; that a missile, not a commercial airliner, hit the Pentagon; and that members of the U.S. government orchestrated the attacks in hopes of creating a war in the Middle East. Each conspiracy argument is countered by a variety of experts in the fields of engineering, intelligence and the military. The program also delves into the anatomy of such conspiracies and how they grow on the Internet.
I wonder if these are the kind of experts who will testify to about anything so long as you pay them enough money?
.. and who are they affiliated with.. those scientists who point out the facts have nothing to gain.. in fact much to lose..
I am Brad Pitt and I'm posting poolside from our villa in south France.
#208. To: Mister Clean (#203)
#209. To: ... (#207)
You statement is evidnece of this fact. It's shitty evidence, but it is still evidence.
#210. To: Mister Clean (#203)
#211. To: Mister Clean (#209)
A claim made by some guy on an Internet message board is not evidence.
#212. To: Mister Clean (#206)
It also reflects extreme laziness on your part.
#213. To: Dakmar (#208)
It is in fact evidence that you are Brad Pitt, it just happens to be unreliable, as is any claim you make.
#214. To: ... (#210)
Now ... Back up your bullshit or admit that you tried to lie to us.
#215. To: Cynicom (#212)
Sinkspur you is....
#216. To: Mister Clean (#209)
A claim made by some guy on an Internet message board is not evidence.
#217. To: Dakmar (#173)
I voted Libertarian in part because I thought the GOP was covering up several details of 911.
Remember...G-d saved more animals than people on the ark. www.siameserescue.org
#218. To: Mister Clean (#213)
#219. To: who knows what evil (#217)
#220. To: ... (#216)
Evidence is anything that tends to prove the assertion under question.
#221. To: Mister Clean (#220)
#222. To: Dakmar (#218)
You are the only one calling me a liar,
#223. To: Dakmar (#219)
Remember...G-d saved more animals than people on the ark. www.siameserescue.org
#224. To: Mister Clean (#222)
I have not called you a liar.
#225. To: Dakmar (#224)
Fine, then you are saying that facts presented to make one's case is in no way a definition of evidence.
#226. To: Mister Clean (#225)
#227. To: Mister Clean (#220)
Evidence is anything that tends to prove the assertion under question.
#228. To: Dakmar (#226)
So you are calling me a liar
#229. To: ... (#227)
You really are a dishonest sack of shit - but you know that.
#230. To: Mister Clean (#225)
Internet postings are not facts.
#231. To: Mister Clean (#229)
You really are a dishonest sack of shit - but you know that.
#232. To: ..., Dakmar (#231)
The uncertainty of the outcome is what frightens people.
#233. To: Mister Clean (#181)
#234. To: Mister Clean (#199)
#235. To: Mister Clean (#209)
But since you'll obviously believe whatever somebody posts, Angelina is sitting in my lap right now feeding me grapes.
#236. To: Dakmar (#221)
To: Mister Clean And you just gave your father a blow job.
#237. To: PercyDovetonsils, dakmar, minerva, christine (#235)
You really are out-of-touch with human interaction.
Remember...G-d saved more animals than people on the ark. www.siameserescue.org
#238. To: PercyDovetonsils (#233)
In this case, the proof is a personal voting record, of the poster.
#239. To: Mister Clean (#238)
#240. To: PercyDovetonsils (#239)
Your posts are repetative, and boring as hell.
#241. To: Mister Clean (#240)
#242. To: Mister Clean, horse (#118)
Link
#243. To: EdCondon (#242)
BTW, Some of the guys (and gals) proposing 'wild' conspiracy theories can't even answer a basic question about the properties of steel that a sharp high-school science student could ...
#244. To: All (#0)
UPCOMING SHOWS
#245. To: All (#244)
Each conspiracy argument is countered by a variety of experts in the fields of engineering, intelligence and the military.
#246. To: Ringo Blankenship (#245)
I wonder if these are the kind of experts who will testify to about anything so long as you pay them enough money
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest