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

Mind my mouth? Or what i won't be able to post to this dumb forum? I love how quickly people who don't have a ridiculous conspiracy theory get attacked by moderators on this forum. Real fair and balanced. Get a job hippies!! NO ONE BELIEVES ANY OF YOU, your 911 conspiracies will die just like pearl harbor, jfk conpiracies eventually and you will all just be written off as paranoid losers.



Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.
Mod Note: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 3-9-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

Lol, im a paranoid loser, but the pearl harbor conspiracy has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt by FOIA. I'll watch my p's and q's as i respect my privilege to post here, but you can check my thread Modus Operandi for the facts.

As far as the tv special, they really did a poor job on most of it imho as it was not a debate style forum, it was conspiracy theory presented then debunked with no chance for rebutal.

the best point made was that CT'ers just want to be right and know something that others donr. the ego is injected and kills the movement as a whole. I tend to agree with this, however in many cases we (CT'ers, not as a whole but some of us as individuals) deny the ego entry into the equation and look for facts.

it would have been nice to see them turn the tables on the official story in the manner they did the CT's, but for me it goes without saying that if you dont have proof its a theory, and neither side has proof.

Another aspect of the story that i liked that was actually against the CT'ers was the lady from shanksville. she was harassed beyond what anyone should have to endure just for taking a photograph. It reminded me of som of the threads i have seen here where 'truthers' harassed several political figures in a deplorable manner. That crap needs to stop period.

And one of the good points is that in at least one of the segments some of the more intelligent CT'ers straight up owned the people supporting the official story. this is good because only one part of the official story has to be false to prove there is a cover up (at the least).

All in all it was a decent effort to at least present what is out there. i would give it 3 out of 5 stars. one star taken away for not allowing propper rebutal, and minus one star for bias that the official story is true.

Its already in the history books and you won't have a conspiracy topic ever.

Give the conspiracy a chance.

Put a counter chapter in the history books.

The WTC towers had core beams. The other building may have had thermite
sprinkled around as well in potted plants.

JFK JR's death is not so cut and dry.

JFK was on his way to kick out the Nazis ... no war with Cuba and Russia was
too much of a success for the Nam War people.

Put that in your history books to tell it like it is.

Do you know what is is Mr President.
Any president... let them know if you can..


[edit on 9/3/2007 by TeslaandLyne]

[edit on 9/3/2007 by TeslaandLyne]

Pearl harbor conspiracy theory has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, yet no where in any history texts is it even mentioned? Not to mention most historians don't agree with it? I had not even heard of it before the tv special. The only reason 9-11 conspiracies are so popular is because of the internet. So you have to ask yourself if there is so much compelling evidence why don't more people know about it. If it was so compelling everyone who read about it would be like yep there was a cover up and they would tell at least one person about it. But that is not what happens, instead many people look at the evidence a couple actually think there is something there but most just use simple logic and dismiss it as CT telling no one. The latter is what has obviously happened.

There was some parts of the official story that are incomplete, but lack of evidence isn't proof of a cover up. If you want me to believe there was a cover up you'll have to start accepting basic truths, same way in which loose changers have since given up the wtc towers 1/2 controlled demo theory. At least they can admit when they are wrong.

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne


Put a counter chapter in the history books.

right just like we should but creationism as a counter to evolution in the science texts. Same argument holds with your suggestion.... If we put one CT in the texts then we would have to put them all, and what version of the CT do we use. There are so many different versions of the 9-11 conspiracies , imo this is good evidence that they are man made constructs based in fiction.

Ohh yea and good idea lets foster anti government sentimentality at a young age so less youngsters feel compelled to vote/ get involved in politics.

CT is bad for american progress, the things being said around here hurt people and often make them angry for no good reason.

The tv special finally put all these 9-11 theories to rest IMO, the CTers were allowed their fair say, and then experts were allowed theirs. Seems pretty fair to me.

Would you like to vote on that.
Young people are apt to for the anti Nazi.
If they only knew the Nazi was controlling things like war profits.
You won't tell them. Who got hurt, JFK JR. Yes we know that.

Will it change things. No.

So say, Nazis go ahead have your day under the guise of America.

Fine, but I think there will always be a counter government culture.
Its been in America for 100s of years.

Here is one for the history books or history channel:
"The Assassination of JFK, Jr."
Far Right Draws First Blood in the "War on Terror"
911research.wtc7.net...

Who needs conspiracy, right. 'They' don't need it.



[edit on 9/3/2007 by TeslaandLyne]

A new 9/11 wrinkle or ripple

911 Ripple Effect


911 Ripple Effect champions a very powerful message; backed by expert examination of video evidence ...

Not overly confusion.. might even be able to make a statement.

Originally posted by ANOK

Sliverstein amassed his fortune buying out old building complexes, demolishing them and re-building. He's the head of Silverstein Proprties, it's what they do. No conspiracy here just facts.

And I would guess he's big buddies with Controlled Demolition Inc...

As for your other ramble...

Maybe you should familira [sic] yourself with the people you are defending?

Thank you, but that's completely untrue. The company doesn't simply go around demolishing buildings, and Larry has no expertise what so ever in building demolition. And think about your claim for a second. You claim he knows all about demolition, yet he used an incorrect demolition term? How is that supposed to make sense? If he was familiar with demolitions and he did call for the demolition, then why would he use the wrong term and use one that had been used repeatedly throughout the day in reference to getting the men out?

And please tell me what people am I defending? I am very familiar with the firefighters and I do not believe for a second that the firefighters were in on some plot to kill their own men. I think that's just sick and you should be ashamed.

Pearl harbor conspiracy theory has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, yet no where in any history texts is it even mentioned? Not to mention most historians don't agree with it? I had not even heard of it before the tv special.

i lay it out with sources here...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
i researched it thoroughly and have sources. if you disagree thats fine but i doubt you can debunk it, in fact i challenge you to. consider it a borderline dare even. you already read my previous post without checking my research and then claimed my research to be wrong, so i think we know where the smart money is.

Yes the Pearl Harbor circumstances have been mentioned on TV.

We knew the code and that a attack would take place.

We removed the aircraft carriers away from Pearl Harbor.

We also knew the attack on Midway Island so we could use
all our carriers to put down their carriers.
We knew their code for Midway Island by sending a ruse message
that the island needed supplies, then we heard a coded message
that identified the target needed supplies.

OSAMA must be working on foot now.
Will they ever make him pay.
Hitler too, bad guy but did he live on under cover.

*Sigh*

Just downloaded and watched "The 9/11 Conspiracies".

The overwhelming use of subliminal messaging was ASTOUNDING.

I particularly like the fact that all of the supporters of the official story followed the "Expert Opinion" card.


Maybe it's just me, but I would deem a professor of physics (S. Jones) to be more on par with the "expert" title than the editor of Popular Mechanics.


I suppose that if you are told to consider the editor of a magazine an "expert" you might as well go ahead and put dylan avery behind that expert card as well.


Another aspect of this video that I was particularly fond of was the fact that the "expert opinions" posted little to NO facts.

The documentary showed several instances of Steven Jones and others explaining WHY they felt the way they did followed by a cut to black, the "Expert Opinion" card, cut to "expert"and the expert DEBUNKING their claims by saying "I'm sorry, that's just simply not true."

HUH? What kind of PROOF is that? Hell, even the lunatic no-planers of the 9/11 movement can put up a MUCH better argument than "I'm sorry that's just simply not true."


I'm all for someone actually making a video PROVING the official story of 9/11. However, some guy from who knows where simply telling me that the official story is the truth isn't evidence enough.


The sad part is, the good majority of the people that watched that program probably breathed a sigh of relief that the "conspiracy nuts" were debunked. What's even more sad is the fact that this video didn't even ATTEMPT to debunk the 9/11 "conspiracy theories" with any kind of evidence. Their debunking consisted of a bunch of half assed "the conspiracy theory is wrong because I say it's wrong" nonsense.



For those of you guys that don't want to believe 9/11 was an inside job, that's good and fine and it's your right. However, please try to find a bit of evidence for yourself that lends credence to your beliefs. Don't accept self loving know it all's "because I said so" as being good enough proof.


Jasn

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
Yes the Pearl Harbor circumstances have been mentioned on TV.

We knew the code and that a attack would take place.

We removed the aircraft carriers away from Pearl Harbor.

We also knew the attack on Midway Island so we could use
all our carriers to put down their carriers.
We knew their code for Midway Island by sending a ruse message
that the island needed supplies, then we heard a coded message
that identified the target needed supplies.

OSAMA must be working on foot now.
Will they ever make him pay.
Hitler too, bad guy but did he live on under cover.

There were only 2 aircraft carriers and they weren't simply removed, they were on missions to deliver additional planes to Midway and Wake. And the only reason the Enterprise didn't make it back before the attack was because of a storm. Though I guess someone may likely argue that we had technology to generate a storm that would prevent the ship from returning.

Also, that code from Japan was not a declaration of war or attack.

And the guy Tyler who had spotted the planes thought the planes were B17 bombers headed to mainland.

And communication between Pearl harbor and Washington were interrupted by atmospheric conditions, which were not uncommon for the time. Keep in mind in those days communication was done with telegraph.

There are really simple sensible explanations for all these things. I think its more of a want to believe something bigger is going on than really happened. Like was said in the documentary, people need a big cause for a big outcome.

Originally posted by SimiusDei


For those of you guys that don't want to believe 9/11 was an inside job, that's good and fine and it's your right. However, please try to find a bit of evidence for yourself that lends credence to your beliefs. Don't accept self loving know it all's "because I said so" as being good enough proof.


Jasn

This is WHY many people don't believe 9/11 was an inside job. *Because* of the evidence. There really isn't anyone on that end that believes it just because someone said so. it's about the scientific evidence. While I am sure you may like to think that it's because people are sheeple and just go along with things, that's simply you trying to justify your own beliefs. And take that in comparison to the many people who get their information from the many many tabloid web sites that print false information with readers who just blindly accept it because they were told so. It more than works both ways in that area.

Originally posted by SimiusDei



Maybe it's just me, but I would deem a professor of physics (S. Jones) to be more on par with the "expert" title than the editor of Popular Mechanics.

First of all, it's an issue of structural engineering for which Dr jones is not qualified by his credentials. And it's not a debate between him and the editor from PM. The PM is simply a publication that used a long list of much more qualified people than Dr Jones and simply published the findings of those experts. If you check earlier in the thread you can see the very long list of experts who are the source of the article published by PM.

So again, it's not fair to say those experts are an editor from PM.

*Because* of the evidence

you certainly seem to cite a lot of evidence without citing any sources.

Originally posted by snoopy
First of all, it's an issue of structural engineering

No it's not. What about structural engineering makes it the primary field for dynamic (moving) bodies in a system, or the effects of fire on steel (metallurgy)? I've actually been in strength of materials classes, etc., they don't learn what you seem to think they learn. You aren't even qualified to know who an expert would be here.

After reading all the pages in this thread from the beginning I was inclined to register and throw my 2 cents into this debate. It seems to me the CTs get so caught up in the whole controlled demolition aspect of things, and that is the worst argument. Forget the twin towers and what happened to them on 9/11. Honestly I love a good conspiracy theory and probably for the reasons stated on the History Channel special (it massages my ego and makes me believe im in the know while others are not). That being said this thread has officailly changed my mind on what happened to the twin towers. I still believe in a conspiracy, but it does make alot more sense if Al-Queada (however you spell that) had operatives put some explosives in the basement vs the government wiring the entire building with demolitions. Next, as it was mentioned earlier in this post, and I think it is the BEST comment to date..."FOLLOW THE MONEY". Thats all. Something like 500 times the average daily volume of put options were purchased in the days or weeks leading up to 9/11 (put options make you money if a stock declines), and when this was to be investigated someone from high up said they do not have to divulge that information. So thats it I guess. Martha Stewart goes to jail for feeble tiny inside info trading, yet SOMEONE made a ton of money off of this tragedy, but thats OK, that information does not and still has not been divulged. I dont know if this is rumor or not, but straight out of a bad "Die Hard" sequal its been said that there was a whole heckuva lot of gold in the twin towers that mysteriously disappeared, again I dont know if this is just a rumor or not but if not then lets get some answers to that. These things are more important than the highly implausible "there were controlled demos placed all throughout the building". Next onto the whole "Pull it" scenario, its just as bad as one of the flight 93 victims calling his mother and saying "hi mom its me, you know bob smith" (or whatever his name was). We NEVER use last names when talking to family, our brains are not trained that way (I'm not supporting the whole voice morphing conspiracy, im just saying its awfully strange). I can understand the argument he meant pull the operation, but someone mentioned earlier in here that this would not be Silversteins call, and logically that makes sense. I highly doubt a fire cheif is going to walk up to the building owner or lessor and say hey this might go down or it might not if i keep my men in there fighting the fire, you make the call, just not plausible. Again I don't know what happened with WTC7 but this is awfully weird that he would use those words and the offical response would be he is referring to the fire fighters or the operation. Back to my original point, forget the twin towers. I think CTs would have a much better shot a gaining credibility if they focused on the pentagon and PA. When a debunker starts arguing the controlled demolitions angle just agree and bring up the more valid theories that dont have such cut and dry answers, like where is the evidence of plane crashes with the Pentagon and PA. I'm not saying planes didnt hit these places I am just saying show me the evidence. Honestly I think the PA plane was shot down and the remains landed in a local body of water (I remeber reading somewhere police found human remains in a local body of water) but the "lets roll" story is to just boost morale, and I dont know what reasoning someone would have for lying about WHERE the plane went down. As for the pentagon, I am not going to reiterate all the evidence that leads us to believe it was not the commercial airliner they claimed that hit that building, we have heard it all a million times before. In summary move on from manhattan the answers are not there follow the money focus on the other two events of the day and finally focus on why GW REFUSED to testify under oath and REFUSED an independant investigation.

[edit on 6-9-2007 by impactstyles]

Originally posted by snoopy
Thank you, but that's completely untrue. The company doesn't simply go around demolishing buildings, and Larry has no expertise what so ever in building demolition....
....And please tell me what people am I defending?...

Lol you need to read some bud. Larry's company is a real estate developer.

A real estate developer (American English) or property developer (British English) makes improvements of some kind to real property, thereby increasing its value....
....Building developers acquire raw land, improved land, and/or redevelopable property in order to construct building projects.

They might not have demolished every building they acquired, but to say they don't is complete ignorance. Of course he would be familiar with building demolition.
And he didn't used an incorrect term for building demolition. If he was talking about firefighters then it would have been an incorrect term. We all know what 'pull it' means and I have proven it means to demolish a building.

No one is saying the fire fighters were 'in on it', you seem to only read what you want to hear. We're talking about silverstein not fire fighters.
You are defending those that planned and carried out these attacks, and who allowed it to happen for personal gain.

And pls stop with the psychological attacks, you are the one who should feel ashamed spreading lies to cover up a crime. Only people with no argument left stoop to such low levels...

[edit on 6/9/2007 by ANOK]

Originally posted by jprophet420

*Because* of the evidence

you certainly seem to cite a lot of evidence without citing any sources.

You do understand the context of what you are quoting do you not? Please tell me what you would like a source for. if you would like a source for my opinion that the reason many people believe the scientists and engineers is because they provide evidence, not because they are told to do so, then I AM the source. You can even quote me on that.


So again, if you want a source, then ask me what you want a source for and i will give you one if it actually merits one.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by snoopy
First of all, it's an issue of structural engineering

No it's not. What about structural engineering makes it the primary field for dynamic (moving) bodies in a system, or the effects of fire on steel (metallurgy)? I've actually been in strength of materials classes, etc., they don't learn what you seem to think they learn. You aren't even qualified to know who an expert would be here.

yes it IS an engineering issue. You have to take into account eh whole structure and how it works, which is what structural engineers do. The structural engineers disagree with the guy who studies optics. They have far more experience than him. It seems like you are simply upset because you really want to believe that what the guy is saying is correct because it fits your beliefs.