History Channel Special: "The 9/11 Conspiracies" August 12, 2007

It's amazing how people believe in what they hear without questioning it or do their own research...most of these theories have been debunk, if u take the time to look them up... there are a bunch of pictures showing debris from 911, including the picture of mysterious missing so call engine. Hellooo wake-up people do ur own research. Why do u need a bunch of kids from loose change to telll u what happen.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord



Osama was an asset of the USA during the Afgan war with Russia. He fell "out of favor" shortly after that. Just as Saddam was once an asset of ours. We've had our thumbs into far too many pies over the years, but those that we once used or trusted don't usually keep that status for long, in Osama's case that's one of the reasons he hates us so much.

Originally posted by PriapismJoe
Just as Saddam was once an asset of ours.

Wait a minute. There's a huge difference between 'asset' and 'ally'.

reply to post by ccaihc


Ok, What do you have on the petigon ? I mean we are talking about the United States Petigon why only one video, If you want to call it a video ?

Originally posted by PriapismJoe
Osama was an asset of the USA during the Afgan war with Russia.

(That would be, the Soviet Union invasion of Afghanistan )

He fell "out of favor" shortly after that.

There are two avenues of speculation that still provide ample material for a serious conspiracy.

1) The former CIA asset is pissed at being abandoned by the US and ultimately becomes our enemy. The mishandling of a covert asset that then attacks the US is ripe with opportunities for examination of complicity.

2) The "falling out" is a cover for his sustained "asset" status. This board and other sources are full of reports of meetings in Europe between Osama and high-ranking CIA operatives within a 2-year window before 9/11/2001.

Just as Saddam was once an asset of ours.

I believe he was more of an ally. We didn't put him into power, but we certainly helped him solidify his position.

We've had our thumbs into far too many pies over the years,

Ah-ha! More conspiracy fodder. A "conspiracy" that results in 9/11/2001 need not be direct action in demolishing the building, it can be in the cover-up of a litany of botched covert foreign operations that resulted in the pieces falling into place.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

We've had our thumbs into far too many pies over the years,

Ah-ha! More conspiracy fodder. A "conspiracy" that results in 9/11/2001 need not be direct action in demolishing the building, it can be in the cover-up of a litany of botched covert foreign operations that resulted in the pieces falling into place.

Isn't it a widely accepted belief that we are least culpable in causing the hatred that led to the attacks? This I believe, but, controlled demolition, faked phone calls, missles, "pull it", etc......... is what I have a problem with.

If I may a different angle to this discussion. I am glad that it was on mainstream tv despite it being the History channel with limited viewership. Am sure that lots of people who have never even thought about the conspiracy angle may now think that something is up. Even though it was clearly one sided.

Also, I used it as an education for my 9 year old boy who watched the first half hour with me. First, he was too young to appreciate the magnitude of the event at the time it happened, with or without a conspiracy. So it served a bit as an eduction on 9/11. Second, I want him to have the ability to question the information that is provided to him. Whether that information is from a teacher, a parent, the news, or especially tv. Healthy scepticism is the way to lead your life. I also worry that the boy still thinks that Santa Clause is real. Or maybe he is so smart that he gets the scam and wants us to think that he still believes.

Originally posted by theebdk
I also worry that the boy still thinks that Santa Clause is real.

dude he's NINE.... thank God he still has childhood fantasies. Why would you worry???

Originally posted by Ram
It's like - what difference does it make anymore? What difference does it make at all?
I know other people are making much more money than I do in this world - What does my freaking voice matters anymore?

It doesn't make any difference and it never will, we are here to feel glad we have a place to voice our meaningless opinions, and make money for other via targeted advertising. So much easier to be manipulated when you are a willing participant.

Conspiracy dollar, big dollar, huge market...

It's not like the sanitised accepted media outlets will ever paint our views in a serious light, and due to this, those who drink from the mainstream will believe we have all lost the plot.

Better to make half assed shows poking fun and turning the viewpoints of your membership into the butt of jokes to pull in a bigger audience, more people to be spoon fed targeted marketing, more dollar, maybe a nice Harley or three, pay off the mortgage, put the kids through school.

Want to be big, gotta compromise your principles...

You are born, you generate revenue, you die. You should be thankful for what paltry pretend freedoms you are granted.

Ain't life keen?

reply to post by Implosion



There was a study released recently that found there was no relation between IQ and wealth. This I already knew. My grandpa was very wealthy and I helped take care of him in the last year of his life. The funny thing is that whenever we argued, it was because I did something honest or courteous. He flat out told me to stay out of business, because he said I worried too much about the other guy. For someone to win, someone has to lose. He never had a problem putting someone out of business. Wealth is obtained when you compromise your principles, or have none to begin with. I'm not talking about millionaires, I'm talking about the big money.

Quick question for you db'ers-

Last nights show mentioned that over 200 people witnessed a plane hitting the Pentagon, therefore that is supposed to equal some sort of proof.

Why do those same people who believe those eyewitness accounts completely ignore the eyewitness accounts of people in PA who claimed to have saw something streaking through the air and impact Flt. 93?


Incidentally, not much is being made of it, but I noticed something else that seems a little odd.

Larry Silverstein now claims he meant the firefighters when he said "pull it". Why would he refer to firefighters as it? If he really meant the firefighters, why wouldn't he say "pull them", as in "pull them out of the building"?

[edit on 21-8-2007 by slackerwire]

reply to post by PriapismJoe


Thats actually interresting.

Basically TV and the program we discuss "The 9/11 Conspiracies" August 12, 2007 - is run by people making money.
Lots of money are at stake..?

No principles - So that makes the idea of avoiding the truth even more true. That by avoiding the truth - better for business basically.

Well that is one heck of a world we live in then
I like the truth - even if it stink of lies.

What is the goal of all of this?
Is the goal to make money. Preventing the support of money by telling lies or avoid the truth.

Since governments and un-principle-people in charge of all of this, are so eager to avoid and care about "the other guy" - do they have a goal?
There must be som kinda deadlines - ideas - goals they want to aquire.

You don't go sort out a system without having some kinda goal with it. That is totally - mindless.

Why do they make TV-prgrams - that avoid making voices be heard..
I heard that - yes they started that 911 without knowing what to look for in the begining - While they made the film - they found out there was so many weird things comming together... Clues of lies - Conspiracy - But it was not mentioned in that History channel special thing.

Sounds like so many people got disapointed - But understand that they just chopped those parts out where they say - we found somthing wrong with the 911 day.
So this has become like the UFO area... Things are cut out - thus creating yet more holes - (can you say Circle?)

Im so tired.. forget it.
Im so tired of writing about this - Basically somone have seen loose change as a threat and they put it on world TV so all people can see it's a fraud of nut crackers.......

THERE HAVE been told SO many lies now!! - That it's to late to go back to the first lie and explain how it all unfolded -
And people did not listen in the begining where the first lies was told - How are they gonna listen after 1000 lies have been told? - or like one poster mention - Show me 50 ...

IT'S TOO LATE!!!

Though lies have been proven to be lies - Even Bush told you - Yes - we lied - Or.... In other words - We had suspected fear of Weapons of mass-atomic-destructions...

How can you people accept words entering your mind and just accept it - THEY LIED TO YOU !!

happy new year!!

The torrent for this show I think is up.

Here it is...
www.mininova.org...

I think... Since I haven't seen it yet but prob is.. I have been checking torrent sites all day and this is the 1st I have seen it..

Maybe we can dissect this thing piece by piece or something now.

Look, I do not have all the answers (like the program said CT's do) I am not set in my convictions (like the program said the CT's are). I do not have it all figured out and if you don't like my take on things that is fine (unlike the light painted on CT's by that absolutely biased program.) I really don't know what my take on things are, outside of the fact that there are some things happening (and have happened) that just do not sit right with me.

First off, like S.O. stated where is osama now? I don't think that S.O. is the only person asking that. I am FULLY aware that sadam was no saint (a horrible man actually) but how did we loose interest in the man that (might have) given America the biggest kick to the gonads since pearl harbor. I personally felt that if it takes every man we have in olive drab to get to the bottom of this so be it. I can assure you that at the time we walked into Iraq osama was high tailing it somewhere away from there. For pete sakes we can find sadam in a hole on a farm house but we can not find osama.

It only compounds it more that both of the men I spoke of previously were at one time or another funded by the U.S. Now I know this program that this discussion started over states that CT's like to ignore the facts. Well, if anyone needs a history lesson I would be happy to give it but I find it amazing that these facts are never mentioned by anyone anymore. Just do a google image search for rumsfeld saddam and you will find the two in quite a comfortable fashion. It quite frankly pisses me off that the whole WMD thing came to the table, did he have them sure! Did we turn our heads only to bring it up for vindication of a war later when he was gassing people, sure! I know that he was throwing rocks at Iran at the time (which B.T.W. still has F-15's we sold them, be it inoperable).

So, if anything can be said about the United States government they are some fair weather friends. And I have said it before and will reiterate it, OPERATION NORTHWOODS. I have seen some people in this thread state "it did not happen". O.K. so it did not happen, if you were a married man and you knew I considered having relations with your wife (quite possibly was ready to do the deed until you came home), would you feel comfortable with me taking her to the bar only to bring her home and say "everything is O.K. this is what happened"?

I find it quite frankly hard to believe any "facts" anymore and I think the media wouldn't have it any other way. Look at the upcoming presidential candidates, I am sure most people here are in the know about it but take Ron paul, the media don't want to give him the time of day. Fox squeezed his stats out of the straw vote like they did not matter. And not to be outdone ABC has squeezed Dennis Kucinich in the same manor. I will take the history channels 9/11 program with the same grain of salt as the media outlets their owners share stock in. If you want to sing praise about how they cut up loose change cool. Loose change is speculative at best (for the most part) and if popular mechanics feels good about "squashing" %80 of the points brought out in that movie great. There are still %20 of the questions left un-answered.

I don't need a news outlet to tell me there is something wrong, I don't need a news outlet to tell me that republicans want to support big business at our economy's cost. I don't need media outlet's to tell me democrats are not capable of fighting a war and want to let every Hispanic person through our borders (in case the sarcasm was not apparent there are good and bad on both sides). I don't need the history channel to tell me there are no more unanswered questions. The state of things in general does a better job that they will ever do.

I love how this program stated again and again that CT's love a vacuum. Gee, I guess everybody loves a vacuum and I have seen none greater than the vacuum that occurred between the time the towers fell and the time that the decision was made to make an attempt at an investigation into one of the worst attacks on us soil. Much like the vacuum created when our government overrides out own alma matter (the constitution) time and time again without being checked. Like the vacuum that is created when our government does not hand over court ordered information. Yes, CT's love a vacuum so please by all means's quit giving us so much.

I can never bring myself to look down upon those in search of answers, I damn sure don't have all of them. It hurts me more than anything to see people who genuinely just want answers and are left empty handed only to be called unpatriotic or terrorist sympathizers for it. After all the answers they are looking for could hinge on America's democracy. This program was completely one sided and I hope it does not deter people that have valid points from seeking the answers they deserve.

Originally posted by slackerwire
Quick question for you db'ers-

Last nights show mentioned that over 200 people witnessed a plane hitting the Pentagon, therefore that is supposed to equal some sort of proof.

Why do those same people who believe those eyewitness accounts completely ignore the eyewitness accounts of people in PA who claimed to have saw something streaking through the air and impact Flt. 93?


Incidentally, not much is being made of it, but I noticed something else that seems a little odd.

Larry Silverstein now claims he meant the firefighters when he said "pull it". Why would he refer to firefighters as it? If he really meant the firefighters, why wouldn't he say "pull them", as in "pull them out of the building"?

[edit on 21-8-2007 by slackerwire]

Boy those little punks down at Loose Change are sure clouding peoples minds. He was speaking to the fire cheif, who said he was thinking of pulling the firemen out. He answered "go ahead and pull it", pretty simple.
"pull it" is not a term used in controlled demolition, and the only times it has been used in demolition is for pulling down silo type structures.

Originally posted by PriapismJoe
Boy those little punks down at Loose Change ....

That little bit of insult wasn't needed to make your point.

I'd like to ask you to please click on the great big pulsing letters at the top of every thread in the 9/11 forum and have a read. Due to some "over the top" behavior from both "truthers" and "debunkers," our moderation policies are more strict in the 9/11 forum. We hoped it would be for a short time while things settle down, but it's evolving into a longer-term stance.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord



Wow, you are strict. I even let my 6 year old say the word punk. I'm going to have re-read your TOS.

Originally posted by PriapismJoe


Boy those little punks down at Loose Change are sure clouding peoples minds. He was speaking to the fire cheif, who said he was thinking of pulling the firemen out. He answered "go ahead and pull it", pretty simple.
"pull it" is not a term used in controlled demolition, and the only times it has been used in demolition is for pulling down silo type structures.

Why would he say "pull it" instead of "pull them"?

Have any ideas on my other questions?

reply to post by slackerwire


Eyewitnesses from 93 are inconsistent in what they saw, like most eyewitnesses. But there is plenty of physical evidence to prove the basic point that they were airplanes. Somebody would have to provide some awfully concrete evidence to convince me that they were not planes.


But I do have a peripheral question about the plane that went down after 9/11 in the ocean that you might be able to help me with. I read a report that quoted 2 military pilots who saw it from another plane as saying they saw missles come up from the surface of the ocean and shoot the plane down. Now this was right after it happened, and misinformation flies in the hours after any event, but there was never any mention of them again. Do you know the event I'm talking about?

Originally posted by PriapismJoe
Boy those little punks down at Loose Change are sure clouding peoples minds. He was speaking to the fire cheif, who said he was thinking of pulling the firemen out. He answered "go ahead and pull it", pretty simple.
"pull it" is not a term used in controlled demolition, and the only times it has been used in demolition is for pulling down silo type structures.

So you missed that call to controlled demolition inc where they ask for the meaning of the term?

Anyway, your first line shows how you really feel and think, someday that ego will hit your right in the face my friend.