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

Originally posted by PriapismJoe


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.

Numerous eyewitnesses have claimed something streaked through the sky and impact 93. There is no inconsistency there.

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?

Are you referring to American flight 587? If so, that went down in a neighborhood in Queens, not the ocean.

Originally posted by PriapismJoe
reply to post by slackerwire

 

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?

You thinking of TWA 800 maybe?

Originally posted by PriapismJoe
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.

Analise what he said.

'We decided to pull it, and then we watched the building collapse.'

That was the conclusion of his statement. If he was talking about pulling the fire crews out he would have said 'And we watched the fire crews exit the building', or something along those lines.

How did he go from talking about the fire crew and concluding with the building. It doesn't make sense that way. How would pulling the fire crew out conclude with the building collapsing?

And since when does a buildings owner have any say on what the fire crews do? He wouldn't even be in that equation. A fire is a safety issue and out of his hands at that point. If your house was on fire and you told the fire chief to quit fighting it he would probably laugh at you, and then have you arrested if you continued this demand.

And since when are fire fighters referred to as it?

How do you know 'pull it' is not a term used in controlled demolition? You read it on a de-bunking web site somewhere?
Pull it is an old demo term used when they pull the walls of buildings down with machinery, as 'pull it down'. It's one of those words that sticks and is used even when the method of demolition changes. It IS a common CD term.

Listen to this....This someone calling Controlled Demo inc,

www.pumpitout.com...

Obviously you know nothing about CD if you think that term and method of CD is only used on silo's LOL, where do you get this stuff?

Find me any fire fighting situation where they used the term 'pull it' in the context you are claiming, thanx...

And the steel was re-used for the bay area bridge, did you see my post? Seems you don't check things before you make these second hand claims.

[edit on 22/8/2007 by ANOK]

Originally posted by ThichHeaded
I didnt watch this show yet.. I will wait for bit torrent to come out..

There ya go:
www.torrentportal.com...

Just watched the show last night. The experts are the PM guys? Boy they couldn't find like experts on cell phones or building contruction? I was certainly disapointed to have waisted my time thinking it would be objective. I also agree with SO that the fringe theories should take a back seat to the preknowledge and lies about that preknowledge.

yea I had planned to watch this since the middle of the week, and I turned it off about a half hour into it.

I almost feel stupid that i expected more from the history channel, a station i watch regularly, and (used to at least) believe what I was being told.

Very dissapointed , and that's more that just about this program, like I said, about the HC in general. Guess I'm a bit naiive. I'll go turn on sports center when i know i can at least get real informative news about a subject.

Anok

He was talking about the firefighting operation, not the men. There is more to the operation than just men. You have equipment, trucks, medics, etc etc. He was basically saying that in light of the loss of life, don't worry about trying to save the building (in response to being told that they didn't think they could save the building). he wasn't making any kind of orders or commands. He was being told by the FDNY that the building could not be saved. To which his response was basically "let's just forget it".

As opposed to telling the fire dept to demolish the building in a manner that requires connecting large cables to the building and pulling it down like they did with WTC 6.

And PM were not the experts, and they stated that pretty clearly. They are just reporters who spoke to many experts. They clearly list all the experts used, what their credentials are, and what areas they contributed to.

but hey, kunkity klunk.

Originally posted by snoopy

And PM were not the experts, and they stated that pretty clearly.

No, wrong!

The program presented conspiracies in small units, then showed the words "Expert Responce", or some facimile, and then had one or the other and sometimes both PM guys take on the conspiracies with little or no evidence to back up their rebuttles.

Thats not clearly in my book!

You may want to go back and look again. The PM guys just report what the experts say. And they list all of the experts used by PM, what their credentials are, and what areas they helped with. This notion that PM is just making stuff up with nothing to back it up is completely baseless. And they even point this out in the documentary. Go check out the web site and they provide all the information you need. Every name of every expert used. Go read the book that they refer to.

And then you guys are also trying to imply that everyone that spoke in the documentary was PM. That as well is completely untrue. It was a fair and balanced presentation. Both sides were covered. The biggest CTers got to state their side and the experts got to state theirs.

Originally posted by snoopy
This notion that PM is just making stuff up with nothing to back it up is completely baseless.

The only "experts" PM consulted and cited on the WTC destructions was Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator of the NIST WTC team.

Start looking at what you're talking about and quit making assumptions. There weren't any large numbers of engineers behind these articles. It's a farce. It's damage control through the sheer power of influence of the mass media.

[edit on 27-8-2007 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by snoopy
This notion that PM is just making stuff up with nothing to back it up is completely baseless.

The only "experts" PM consulted and cited on the WTC destructions was Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator of the NIST WTC team.

Start looking at what you're talking about and quit making assumptions. There weren't any large numbers of engineers behind these articles. It's a farce. It's damage control through the sheer power of influence of the mass media.

[edit on 27-8-2007 by bsbray11]

WOW! Just WOW! Are you sure you watched the documentary?? Are you REALLY sure? Because if you did you would see how absurd your claim is. Anyone who simply watches it can see that what you are saying is so far from the truth. Go back and actually watch the documentary. As for PM experts:

Air Crash Analysis
Cleveland Center regional air traffic control

Bill Crowley special agent, FBI

Ron Dokell president, Demolition Consultants

Richard Gazarik staff writer, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

Yates Gladwell pilot, VF Corp.

Michael K. Hynes, Ed.D.,
ATP, CFI, A&P/IA president, Hynes Aviation Services; expert, aviation crashes

Ed Jacoby Jr. director,
New York State Emergency Management Office (Ret.); chairman, New York State Disaster Preparedness Commission (Ret.)

Johnstown-Cambria County Airport Authority

Cindi Lash staff writer, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Matthew McCormick manager, survival factors division, National Transportation Safety Board (Ret.)

Wallace Miller coroner, Somerset County, PA

Robert Nagan meteorological technician, Climate Services Branch, National Climatic Data Center

Dave Newell director, aviation and travel, VF Corp.

James O’Toole politics editor, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Pennsylvania State Police Public Information Office

Jeff Pillets senior writer,
The Record, Hackensack, NJ

Jeff Rienbold director, Flight 93 National Memorial, National Park Service

Dennis Roddy staff writer, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Master Sgt. David Somdahl public affairs officer,
119th Wing, North Dakota
Air National Guard

Mark Stahl photographer; eyewitness, United Airlines Flight 93 crash scene

Air Defense
Lt. Col. Skip Aldous (Ret.) squadron commander,
U.S. Air Force

Tech. Sgt. Laura Bosco public affairs officer,
Tyndall Air Force Base

Boston Center regional air traffic control

Laura Brown spokeswoman,
Federal Aviation Administration

Todd Curtis, Ph.D. founder, Airsafe.com; president, Airsafe.com Foundation

Keith Halloway public affairs officer, National Transportation Safety Board

Ted Lopatkiewicz director, public affairs, National Transportation Safety Board

Maj. Douglas Martin public affairs officer,
North American Aerospace Defense Command

Lt. Herbert McConnell public affairs officer,
Andrews AFB

Michael Perini public affairs officer, North American Aerospace Defense Command

John Pike director, GlobalSecurity.org

Hank Price spokesman, Federal
Aviation Administration

Warren Robak RAND Corp.

Bill Shumann spokesman,
Federal Aviation Administration

Louis Walsh public affairs officer, Eglin AFB

Chris Yates aviation security editor, analyst, Jane’s Transport

Aviation
Fred E.C. Culick, Ph.D., S.B., S.M. professor of aeronautics, California Institute of Technology

Robert Everdeen public affairs, Northrop Grumman

Clint Oster professor of public and environmental affairs, Indiana University; aviation safety expert

Capt. Bill Scott (Ret. USAF) Rocky Mountain bureau chief, Aviation Week


Bill Uher News Media Office, NASA Langley Research Center

Col. Ed Walby (Ret. USAF)
director, business development, HALE Systems Enterprise, Unmanned Systems, Northrop Grumman

Image Analysis
William F. Baker member, FEMA Probe Team; partner, Skidmore, Owings, Merrill

W. Gene Corley, Ph.D., P.E., S.E. senior vice president, CTL Group; director,
FEMA Probe Team

Bill Daly senior vice president, Control Risks Group

Steve Douglass image analysis consultant, Aviation Week

Thomas R. Edwards, Ph.D. founder, TREC; video forensics expert.

Ronald Greeley, Ph.D. professor of geology, Arizona State University

Rob Howard freelance photographer; WTC eyewitness

Robert L. Parker, Ph.D. professor of geophysics,
University of California, San Diego

Structural Engineering / Building Collapse
Farid Alfawakhiri, Ph.D. senior engineer, American Institute of Steel Construction

David Biggs, P.E. structural engineer, Ryan-Biggs Associates; member, ASCE team for FEMA report

Robert Clarke structural engineer, Controlled Demolitions Group Ltd.

Glenn Corbett technical editor, Fire Engineering; member, NIST advisory committee

Vincent Dunn deputy fire chief (Ret.), FDNY; author, The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety

John Fisher, Ph.D. professor of civil engineering, Lehigh University; professor emeritus, Center for Advanced Technology; member, FEMA Probe Team

Ken Hays executive vice president, Masonry Arts

Christoph Hoffmann, Ph.D. professor of computer science, Purdue University; project director, September 11 Pentagon Attack Simulations Using LS-Dyna, Purdue University

Allyn E. Kilsheimer, P.E.
CEO, KCE Structural Engineers PC; chief structural engineer, Phoenix project; expert in blast recovery, concrete structures, emergency response

Won-Young Kim, Ph.D. seismologist, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University

William Koplitz photo desk manager, FEMA

John Labriola freelance photographer, WTC survivor

Arthur Lerner-Lam, Ph.D. seismologist; director,
Earth Institute, Center for Hazards and Risk Research, Columbia University

James Quintiere, Ph.D. professor of engineering, University of Maryland member, NIST advisory committee

Steve Riskus freelance photographer; eyewitness, Pentagon crash

Van Romero, Ph.D. vice president, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology

Christine Shaffer spokesperson, Viracon

Mete Sozen, Ph.D., S.E. Kettelhut Distinguished Professor of Structural Engineering, Purdue University; member, Pentagon Building Performance Report; project conception, September 11 Pentagon Attack Simulations Using LS-Dyna, Purdue University

Shyam Sunder, Sc.D.
acting deputy director, lead investigator, Building and Fire Research Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology

Mary Tobin science writer, media relations, Earth Institute, Columbia University

Forman Williams, Ph.D. professor of engineering, physics, combustion, University of California,
San Diego; member, advisory committee, National Institute of Standards and Technology




Still want to stick to that claim about my "assumptions"?

I was talking about the article, I haven't seen the whole show yet. I stopped watching when I realized they weren't going to be technical, and that they were just going to make baseless assertions the whole way through and rely on appeals to authority.

It's fine if you just want to cling on to names and don't care what these people actually said, or anything of the actual science behind them. I can post similar lists of people in the same field that disagree and think the towers were demolished. (I skimmed and saw ~10 that were half-way relevant to the towers' destructions, ie demolitionists and SEs, but I see no dynamicists).

[edit on 27-8-2007 by bsbray11]

One thing I did find interesting was the C130 pilots quote how he saw Flt 77 going by and decided to tail it and thats how he ended up flying over the Pentagon. Now according to the 911 Commissions Report Flt 77 did a 330 degree turn to line up with the Pentagon, so did the C130 also do this 330 degree turn?

Anyone know somethin'? Caustic Logic maybe?

Originally posted by snoopy
WOW! Just WOW! Are you sure you watched the documentary?? Are you REALLY sure? Because if you did you would see how absurd your claim is. Anyone who simply watches it can see that what you are saying is so far from the truth. Go back and actually watch the documentary.
Still want to stick to that claim about my "assumptions"?

I'll admit to not watching til the end, maybe it was the way they would do a couple of segments and go to commercial right after the "Experts Responces". And others have brought up the way the CTrs were shown very briefly from weird camera angles and the "experts" were given more time and better camera angles.

Is that biased? I'll let you be the judge for yourself.

Your list is impressive. Was that in the final credits or shown periodically during the broadcast?

Originally posted by snoopy
He was talking about the firefighting operation, not the men.

Well you've obviously convinced yourself of that. Sry but I'm not that gullible.

What he says only works in the context of talking about the building, not the men or the operation.

'...and they made that decision to pull, and then we watched the building collapse'

Why would a person not familiar with firefighting, but IS familiar with building demolition (it's how he made his fortune) use a demolition term to mean something other than demolition? And as I said before if he was talking about firefighters the conclusion to his statement would have been along the lines of 'and then the firefighters pulled out.' or something similar, but no he concluded with a statement about the building, so obviously that is what he was referring to. It's how the English language works.

[edit on 27/8/2007 by ANOK]

reply to post by sp00ner


In all honesty Spooner, your reasoning is is very flawed.

The damage to WTC 1 and 2 were different. Agreed??????

So tell me how they collapsed the EXACT same way.

Originally posted by bsbray11
I was talking about the article, I haven't seen the whole show yet. I stopped watching when I realized they weren't going to be technical, and that they were just going to make baseless assertions the whole way through and rely on appeals to authority.

It's fine if you just want to cling on to names and don't care what these people actually said, or anything of the actual science behind them. I can post similar lists of people in the same field that disagree and think the towers were demolished. (I skimmed and saw ~10 that were half-way relevant to the towers' destructions, ie demolitionists and SEs, but I see no dynamicists).

[edit on 27-8-2007 by bsbray11]

Don't care about actual science behind it? Yeah, what would actual scientists in those fields actually know compared to the CTers. Those professional engineers and scientists who have done calculations and backed up everything with data are jsut names. They are just baseless assertions. Keep telling yourself that.

And in that list, it covered more than simply the demolition. There were many areas from the military flight prcededures to, cell phone technology.

Many people here have made it abundantly clear that they have not even watched the documentary.

And here are some additional people in the documentary:

Douglas Brinkley
Charles Strozier
Mark Fenster
Chip Berlet
Tom Ryan
Gene Corley
Mathys Levy
Brent Blanchard
Pat Dawson
Steve Obrien
Alan Kilshire
Stacey Taylor
Micheal Hynes
Barry Lichty
Nicholas Pelc
Wally Miller
Patrick Miligan
Lisa Jefferson
Deena Burnett
Lyzbeth Glick
Douglas Brinkley


And then you can add the 225+ engineers who all worked on the NISt research.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by snoopy
He was talking about the firefighting operation, not the men.

Well you've obviously convinced yourself of that. Sry but I'm not that gullible.

What he says only works in the context of talking about the building, not the men or the operation.

'...and they made that decision to pull, and then we watched the building collapse'

Why would a person not familiar with firefighting, but IS familiar with building demolition (it's how he made his fortune) use a demolition term to mean something other than demolition? And as I said before if he was talking about firefighters the conclusion to his statement would have been along the lines of 'and then the firefighters pulled out.' or something similar, but no he concluded with a statement about the building, so obviously that is what he was referring to. It's how the English language works.

[edit on 27/8/2007 by ANOK]

You're saying that the building owner is familiar with demolition? Please back up that claim with some proof. What experience did he have with demolition? And why would he be talking to firemen about demolition when they have no experience with demolition? And why would he be saying it twice on TV?

And why would he use an incorrect demolition term? And why would he of all people be making such a call? The guy clearly was not talking about the building in any way shape or form and was talking about the operation and the conversation if you actually listened to it all kept referring to the operation. And they kept using the term "pull" in regard to getting the men out. That is if you chose to do more than quote mine a single quote out of a whole conversation to base the context rather than the actual conversation.

let's be a little realistic here. And you are correct about how the English language works, which is why your claim doesn't hold water and that you have to make up facts like saying the guy is familira with demolitions.

CT's on this site are fluffed in the head, even in the face hundred of scientists who say one thing, they say their opinion is more realistic and plausible based on nothing but conspiracy theory sites. Every 9-11 CT here uses webpages made by other CT as evidence, but when actual scientists use math,physics,science to prove their point its all one big government cover up.

You should all be ashamed of yourselves for making a circus of the deaths of all the 9-11 victims.

[edit on 3-9-2007 by asala- Please mind your mouth when posting,]

[edit on 3-9-2007 by asala]

Originally posted by snoopy
...which is why your claim doesn't hold water and that you have to make up facts like saying the guy is familira with demolitions.

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?