It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


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

page: 9
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 02:38 AM
NIST *HAS* released a preliminary report on WTC 7. The full report is due to be released in the near future.

--I thought the program was--Ok... I kept falling asleep, due to the material being so redundant. This whole mess is just redundant speculation and conjecture....leading to a big ole' waste of time.

posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 03:16 AM
I wish they had mentioned Operation Northwood and the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

My sister refused to believe any of the 9-11 conspiracy stories I would email to her. Her main objection, our govt surely could never do such a thing.

Once I showed her absolute proof that Vietnam was started based on a false flag and that the goverment tried another false flag with Cuba she became a believer.

Once people realize what our goverment is capable of doing, the so-called conspiracy theories seem more possible

posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 03:23 AM
You should show her USS liberty.

Supposedly Johnson told the people on a carrier trying to help the liberty from being attack by israeli planes this "I want that god damn ship at the bottom of the ocean, Recall the wings"

They were trying to get into war with Egypt during the 6 day war.. The only reason why the attack stops was cause of a Russian spy ship entered a few miles out.

I didnt watch this show yet.. I will wait for bit torrent to come out..

posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 03:27 AM

Originally posted by Conundrum04
reply to post by sp00ner

So I suppose you didn't find it odd that the PM guy(s), with his disgusting smug look on his face, explained away his "theory" on how WTC 7 came down and presented it as FACT when NIST still hasn't released anything on it yet?

[edit on 21-8-2007 by Conundrum04]

Find it "odd"?

I'd have found it odd if he said that while wearing a fruit hat and dancing... now that would be odd...

I really wasn't making a point about the 900 other statments, just the fact that the demolitions guy seems to be a touch more qualified to explain the reasons than the religious scholar and a highschool student.

Do I disagree with the other guys? No, personally I do not, While they gave their opinion before the official study is done, they have a very plausible concept of the failure, as the comissions working hypothesis is that the failure was not unusual for the circumstances. Could they be dead wrong later and have to eat crow? Sure, that's possible too. However, I find it far more likely that something along the lines of what they and the others described than any of the theories presented involving explosives and so on, based on the evidence presented by all sides in all cases.

posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 03:56 AM
If you missed the show they say this..

Sunday, August 26 12 am
Saturday, August 25 8 pm

It will be on again.. So like me who missed it.. that is when you can catck it again..

Hopefully I can find a torrent on this and watch it before then.

[edit on 8/21/2007 by ThichHeaded]

posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 04:23 AM
Ugh, I can't believe I wasted my time watching that.

I'm not a die-hard CT or anything, but the amount of bias in that "documentary" was amazing. There was absolutely no attempt whatsoever to give viewers a fair and balanced overview of the subject. It was just people giving their opinions as fact, vilification of CTs (apparently most CTs like making internet posts in their basements and have no empathy for the victims family's), and they conveniently left out a lot of important things. Like the aforementioned Operation Northwoods...they were talking about false flag operations and no one thought to bring it up??

Disappointing to say the least.

posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 05:00 AM
Operation Northwoods.....when will this finally get put to rest.

ON..was NOT implemented!

It was an idea, a proposal. Have any idea on how many proposals are put fourth every day in the govt/military?

Didnt we hear about a proposal a few months ago about a "gay bomb" to make the enemy gay and not want to fight.

It was someones idea, their thoughts and thankfully, neither came to fruition. So why is the dead horse being contstantly beaten by the CT's?

Reaching for straws isnt going to win converts. A coincidence that is most likely one of dozens that have intersected over the years and just like those, this one means nothing.

posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 05:34 AM

Northwood's was an idea yes, But it gives you an insight into how these people use situations to deceive and control as best they can the unwitting public mind. Just because Northwood's wasn't used doesn't mean the option wasn't on the table and had the right person been in office unlike the late JFK the plan would have gone ahead as proposed.

What people or CT's are trying to show you is that 911 was just another one of these state sponsored terror plots to manipulate the public mind and achieve goals for the chosen agenda. The evidence is parmount and all around you, The question is not one of seeing it but clearly you dont really want to belive it.

[edit on 21-8-2007 by Matthew5012]

posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 05:36 AM
I for one don't care if it never happened nor if it was "just a proposal"

No one who takes an oath to protect the constitution of the united states should be proposing such things, regardless of rather or not they were implemented, lying to justify a war is inexcusable and whomever proposed that should have been discharged.

As said i don't care if it was just a proposal, such things should never even be considered and the mere fact it was, is enough for anyone to raise questions, as to whats this government is capable of.

[edit on 21-8-2007 by C0le]

posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 06:19 AM
well i caught the replay at 1am pst and it was pretty much what i expected, though i LOVED the part where avery said "pretty much every point we present is backed up by fact" (or something close i didnt tape it) and later the LC crew goes on about how they are constantly changing it etc.

i agreed with a lot of what the demo guys said but i also disagreed with a lot, and those disagreements are actually echoed here pretty closely

most of you know im most definatly NOT in the CD crowd because ive yet to see any physical evidence that really refutes what i know from first hand experience. however there are some making statements even in this thread to refute a CD i disagree with.

i hope no one feels like im picking on them but i have to cite at least one example:

Originally posted by ccaihc
And let's face it, the explosives would be EVERYWHERE to take down the WTC. These are massive buildings, larger then anything that has ever been demolished.

thats not true, you could take out just the core on several floors and have a very nice top down collapse and it COULD be done logistically but it would be a NIGHTMARE and thats why i dont think it was feasable and the risk of someone discovering the operation would be HUGE but ill never say it was IMPOSSIBLE, just very very very improbably IMHO.

cc you also asked someone if they knew how much HE it would take to do the job, yah, ive done the calculations (im not redoing them all here, if youre morbidly curious, or anyone is, u2u me and ill send a link or go to my profile and follow the link to my debate, lots of calculations there)

IF i was going to lean towards ANY cd theory id have to jump on the wagon griff and valhall have. IF a cd was done id almost be forced to agree that it was done by hitting the core columns in the basement levels, but im not srue i would personally agree to a truck bomb, knowing how much it takes to just brute force a column of that size using standard demo blocks or sheet charges (not shaped charges, those are relativly small in comparison) having a truck bomb in teh vicinity would ahve to be large enough (guessing atm, havnt tried to actually calculate this one out yet, not enough data) to risk actually causing the towers to fall over at the base, but thats a SWAG with no real effort put into it. but i particularly like the bit in this theory that doesnt require it to be the big bad USG responsible for it. kudos

just my thoughts on it

posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 06:34 AM
I watched this, but had to get up early to get to my office, so I was unable to download it to my laptop.

I was actually surprised at how much air time the blow holes got. Alex Jones for one was on there quite often. Only a brief appearance by Steven Jones. There were many points made by both sides, yet as usual the evidence was provided by the real story.

I do have to say.... what the *&$* was that idiot doing ... cluckity clunk??? cluckity clunk?? Thank CHRIST Judy Woods wasnt on there! And Alex Jones needs a history lesson... Galileo was jailed (I believe it was house arrest) for saying that earth was not the center of the universe.

It was pretty much the same ol same ol with nothing new.

Dylan Avery should have left that zit alone... holy sh*t that thing was huge!

posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 08:56 AM
reply to post by Damocles

So you think it was such a precision operation, that the planes hit the exact collapse points on both towers? The explosives were either already there or were placed immediately following the crash by the "theories" I've been hearing here. All of the pro's said a controlled demolition would have been a monumental undertaking taking months and requiring dozens of workers. Plus, the building didn't look anything like CD, it fell from the top (impact point), not from the bottom like every controlled demolition ever done.

We all saw the planes hit, it was on TV even.

posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 09:13 AM
Not sure if it was mentioned before, but the point that I stopped watching that show was when they said that the nice convienant perfectly circular hole inside the pentagon was produced by a fire ball, not the nose of the plane. What are you kidding me, the wall wasn't even charred up......and I have never in my life heard of a fire ball that can blow a hole in a two foot re-inforced concrete wall. Maybe someone here who has more knowledge of fire balls and concrete walls can explain to me, how the nose of the plane disentegrated but a fire ball kept going and made a nice perfect 16 foot hole in the C ring, I believe. Yeah, it's DVR'd but I stopped watching at that point, it did not present "experts" for both sides, just one side.

posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 09:25 AM
Perhaps now the "movement" will focus more on reliable issues and less on angry slogan shouting and tenuous points that require leaps of faith.

This "documentary" focused more on "fantastic" conspiracy ideas that are indeed easily countered with a calm credentialed personality speaking with a slight smirk and nod.

I see two short-term outcomes:

1) Those who purposefully injected fanciful theories into the "9/11 Truth" mix will now be proud, as this two-hour show represents the pinnacle of debunkery.

2) Those who have faith in the theories attacked on the show will be angry and shout claims of shill, disinformation, and History Channel complicity. (I'm sure poor Lester is getting a slew of hate mail right now.)

Hopefully, we see a long term result of less reliance on angry street corner shouting from activists in black shirts and more of a reliance on fact-checking and provable hypothesis.

Originally posted by PriapismJoe
So you think it was such a precision operation, that the planes hit the exact collapse points on both towers?

This has been one of the (many) "Achilles heels" of the mix of theories embraced by the "movement."

All of the pro's said a controlled demolition would have been a monumental undertaking taking months and requiring dozens of workers.

Similarly, there are pros on record saying a small number of charges, in the right location, could have been useful in assisting the collapse after the buildings were significantly weakened by the kinetic energy of impact. This "demolition assistance" idea was a popular point in 2002 conspiracy speculation, and eventually overwhelmed by discussion of wholesale CD.

Plus, the building didn't look anything like CD, it fell from the top (impact point), not from the bottom like every controlled demolition ever done.

It didn't look anything like the demolitions shown within the few seconds on the 2-hour show. There are plenty of experts who have described that, when planning the demolition of tall structures, you need to "break the top" first to begin the appropriate momentum.

Too bad they didn't focus on the questions or issues for which responses are difficult:

1) Osama's history with the CIA (and our abandonment of the hunt for him).

2) The complex financial transactions indicating foreknowledge.

3) The sequence and timing of the President's odd morning responses.

4) The unlikely coincidence of a broad-scale military exercise that morning.

5) The illogical post-9/11 spending of the Homeland Security budget.

A critical examination of these issues would certainly raise conspiracy flags without the need to discuss remotely controlled passenger airlines, missiles, or controlled demotions.

posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 09:30 AM

The plane was under remote control so there point of impact was already worked out, a missile can hit its target from 100's of miles to within a few you really think it was that hard for them to hit a point of the WTC that they wanted to hit? the explosives that brought it down were set off in sequence close to the top where the impact zone was, the central columns where blown first (this is why you see the centre drop first) then the load is shifted to the outside and cannot hold it so it you have a free falling body, and they keep it that way by blowing every other floor out of the way on the way down (look at the video closely). all 3 buildings end up in a little pile of dust and metal in it's own basement.

[edit on 21-8-2007 by Matthew5012]

posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 09:30 AM
Oh, yeah it would have been nice if they would have showed the video of Demolition Expert Danny Jawenko clearly stating that WTC 7 was taken down with explosives and that it was done by experts!!! This show sucked even worse than the BBC hit piece.

posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 09:41 AM
i didn't like the documentary

it made it seem as if the "experts" debunked all of the conspiracy theories revolving around this event...

also, it left out some conspiracies...

posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 10:09 AM
A response from Prison Planet.

posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 10:12 AM
reply to post by Matthew5012

Did you see WTC 7 after the collapse? There were at least 20 stories of the core of the building still standing. It didn't end up in a neat and tidy hole. Also, the video footage of WTC 7 clearly showed it to be engulfed in fire. One whole side of the building had so much smoke pouring out of it that you couldn't even see the building from that angle. As one person said, "since when did destroying a whole building become a favorable alternative to a paper shredder?".

posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 10:29 AM
reply to post by PriapismJoe

Just being the little advocate that I am..

I cannot locate any photos indicating anything close to 20 stories remaining, 2-5 stories tops, all in a confined pile.

Also, if the building was CD I doubt it was brought down because of what was inside, but more so to what its worth in insurance.

[edit on 21-8-2007 by C0le]

new topics

top topics

<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in