National Geographic - 9/11 Science and Conspiracy Special 8/31/09

Originally posted by MajesticJax
Okay, let's talk people:

Outside Quote:

Director: Dr. John Meason
Dr. John L. Meason became Director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center (EMRTC) at New Mexico Tech University in May 2001

[...]

Want me to find some MORE military/government affiliated people connected with this whitewash? I'm sure it would be easy.

Great investigoogling. Now find Physics Prof Jones's credentials at the Mormon University.

Chomsky talked about the difference between professional expertise and the conmen selling you what you want to hear

I'll even link to the quote from Rense.com - the vilest Conspiracy site out there

www.rense.com...

I am not persuaded by the assumption that much documentation and other evidence has been uncovered. To determine that, we'd have to investigate the alleged evidence. Take, say, the physical evidence. There are ways to assess that: submit it to specialists -- of whom there are thousands -- who have the requisite background in civil-mechanical engineering, materials science, building construction, etc., for review and analysis; and one cannot gain the required knowledge by surfing the internet.

he goes on to point out why the Truther carnival is put up with - it diverts activism to a dead end.

this reaches the heart of the matter. One of the major consequences of the 9/11 movement has been to draw enormous amounts of energy and effort away from activism directed to real and ongoing crimes of state, and their institutional background, crimes that are far more serious than blowing up the WTC would be, if there were any credibility to that thesis. That is, I suspect, why the 9/11 movement is treated far more tolerantly by centers of power than is the norm for serious critical and activist work.

[...]

I think the Bush administration would have had to be utterly insane to try anything like what is alleged, for their own narrow interests, and do not think that serious evidence has been provided to support claims about actions that would not only be outlandish, for their own interests, but that have no remote historical parallel. The effects, however, are all too clear, namely, what I just mentioned: diverting activism and commitment away from the very serious ongoing crimes of state.

So the question becomes - are Jones and his ilk in finding magic explosive properties in primer paint another disinformation diversion. Or are they just trying to make a quick buck for themselves.

Do you take the word of an expert scientist about science or a known self-promoting hustler?

Look up Jones and Cold Fusion. His last media attention grabbing foray.


M




[edit on 31-8-2009 by mmiichael]

reply to post by MajesticJax

Watch the tv antenna during the collapse.

I have. I have also read the transcripts from the NYPD aerial units reporting the buckling of the towers and their statements about the instability they were seeing prior to the collapse, indicating a pending failure of the structure at the impact points. In addition, I have read the transcript of the phone call from someone in the tower reporting that a floor had collapsed and begging for rescue......a phone call cut off when the tower collapsed.

i have a friend that sent me what looks like a rocket leaving the Navy Annex building and going towards where the pentagon would be. I think ill post it here when i can New thread. A friend at dream works says its real...but what can be said about that??? no clue. Why did they Erect that Air force memorial..??? i think becuase they got bids the\at the Dept navy would of liked to have....Hummm inter deptemntal war....Nice

Originally posted by squidboy
This program was a shame and a sham.
....................
The narrator then goes on to say the wound should never be healed..... What was that about?
[edit on 31-8-2009 by squidboy]

I couldn't agree more with you. I expected a whitewash and got it plus confirmation, again, about who/what controls MSM.

Re "the wound" statement, Nat Geo was throwing the Truthers a bone, hoping to save some cred and some support. Well, this show made up my mind. Absolutely no more support of Nat Geo nor any of their subsidiaries. I hope this show raised many more questions and woke some latent Truthers up.

Oh, and that author who came to the conclusion that we don't want to believe that just one guy with a lucky shot could have taken down the president (JFK) because we hate to lose or just can't believe it... well, relative to me, he's partially right. I can't believe it, AND I DON'T BUY IT especially after watching the testimony of the Louisiana Attorney General and reading/watching everything I could about the JFK assassination for 40+ years.

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by MajesticJax
Hate to dissappoint everyone, but let's use the old adage of "follow the money".

Who owns NatGeo?

Our same old friends who own the History Channel et al.

This will be a snow job.

Hate to disappoint you, the people who published the Jones thermite paper and then the Jones-Harrit one are, respectively, Bentham and Springer.

Bentham is a known con vanity press run out of Dubai that publishes anything for an $800 fee. They've accepted a random generated nonsense paper done as tests.

Springer owns large share blocks in European broadcasting and was recently acquired by Bertelsmann, one of the biggest media conglomerates on the planet.

Snow jobs.

Follow the money.


M





[edit on 31-8-2009 by mmiichael]

Oh my gosh ! Can you you tell us what that means!
In relation ship to the topic?

reply to post by Another Vodka


No joke. I turned it on half way through. All I did was see an incredible bias.

It was pretty incredible how blantantly biased it was. Sean Hannity does a better job of making you think that he is fair and balanced.

Originally posted by Another Vodka

Originally posted by squidboy
This program was a shame and a sham.
....................
The narrator then goes on to say the wound should never be healed..... What was that about?
[edit on 31-8-2009 by squidboy]

I couldn't agree more with you. I expected a whitewash and got it plus confirmation, again, about who/what controls MSM.

Re "the wound" statement, Nat Geo was throwing the Truthers a bone, hoping to save some cred and some support. Well, this show made up my mind. Absolutely no more support of Nat Geo nor any of their subsidiaries. I hope this show raised many more questions and woke some latent Truthers up.

Oh, and that author who came to the conclusion that we don't want to believe that just one guy with a lucky shot could have taken down the president (JFK) because we hate to lose or just can't believe it... well, relative to me, he's partially right. I can't believe it, AND I DON'T BUY IT especially after watching the testimony of the Louisiana Attorney General and reading/watching everything I could about the JFK assassination for 40+ years.

Boo ya my beadie eyed friend.
USS Liberty, Northwood, sale of Port Athurority property.
Barry Jennings, Sebal Edmonds ETC ETC Footprint demolition with or with out planes or??

See, no surprise. 100% guaranteed that any truther would call it outright lies, bias, nonprofessional investigation (like what they do is), etc. No surprise, whatsoever. I give up at this point. There is no reasoning with them.

Originally posted by Another Vodka


I expected a whitewash and got it plus confirmation, again, about who/what controls MSM.

Re "the wound" statement, Nat Geo was throwing the Truthers a bone, hoping to save some cred and some support. Well, this show made up my mind. Absolutely no more support of Nat Geo nor any of their subsidiaries. I hope this show raised many more questions and woke some latent Truthers up.....

Ah the wound. Right now it's rotten, gang green's setting in.... Truthers want the wound healed, which would involve a new investigation with subpoena power. So why should it never heal?

I almost felt like it was saying... "It's a good thing to never know and it looks like you won't".... Devious almost.

I must admit, the one thing I found odd was the inclusion of Matt Taibbi. Does anyone know why his opinion was valid for this special? I understand his validity as a Journalist, but was he involved in 9/11 coverage? Has he investigating anything? Is he an expert with a PH D? Basically, he made a point to say (and I'm paraphrasing):

"Hey truthers, you can not and will not ever know the truth. You will not get secret papers or disclosure. Too bad for you, as your nothing compared to the Governement. You're not special... . I work for Rolling Stone. And the Government is untouchable, and I'm successful now because I choose not to touch this topic.... "

Why was this included?

When building 7 could have had a minute or 2 (not mentioned) or put options (not mentioned) or the Military operations that were taking place on 9/11 (exactly what was going on at the same time, not mentioned). So many more things could have been included.

They went with an opinionated "high on himself" journalist. I use the word Journalist lightly.

He's a constant reoccurring guest on Bill Mayer, and thus has a accompanying persona that fits with Mayer's (another over-spoken critic of the truth movement, almost to the point of evil (writes off everyone who questions it as nuts). So why?

And what's with MIT's Disinformation? How could an institution of science attach it's name to a bunch of babble and non scientific tests?

Again, one or two back yard experiments are not scientific proof. They are not.

It discredits National Geographic, History Channel, MIT, Rolling Stone Magazine, to name just a handful....

Originally posted by fleabit
See, no surprise. 100% guaranteed that any truther would call it outright lies, bias, nonprofessional investigation (like what they do is), etc. No surprise, whatsoever. I give up at this point. There is no reasoning with them.

Just tell them they're brilliant investigators who are seeking the REAL TRUTH. And that you got it. Then they'll listen.


Mike

Originally posted by fleabit
See, no surprise. 100% guaranteed that any truther would call it outright lies, bias, nonprofessional investigation (like what they do is), etc. No surprise, whatsoever. I give up at this point. There is no reasoning with them.

I find this hilarious. Want to know why? I would rather use my brain, then be feed televised mush.

To quote a list I made earlier....

Does Reasoning involve:

1. No mention of Building 7.

2. Unequal time of Pro official story vs. "Truther" theories. The time is not just 50/50 (fair debate). Even "truther time" is corrupted. Showing photos when a "truther" is speaking that contradict the truther speaking (see 6)

3. Constant use of "Truther" terminology (for those opposed to the official story) is used in a damning and downplaying way. Sarcastically even.

4. No Wall Street Questions (Put Options).

5. Loose changed played out of Context. Plays one excerpt to strengthen the Programs message (even if the original excerpt is sarcastic).

6. Tests in favor of Pro story (ie gas fire vs steel i beam), (Computer simulation of Plane entering building) are invalid, not accurate, and not scientific.

- Gas used in the Gas Fire was 600 or so gallons. Gallons that took down Tower - 24000 gallons. Amounts used were disproportionate and not scientific.

- The delusion that lots of lots of thermite = nano thermite. It doesn't.

- The Pentagon tests.... (What about a bunker buster, so forth)... Bad test overall. Only two runs....

- The Computer Simulation of the planes entering the towers. These were physically drawn and not based up any computer program (ie a program that runs that same event over and over again, and gets dozens results). This simulation was akin to a Pixar film, as it wasn't a computer simulation.

7. Use of Non experts as pro-official story experts (ie Demolition worker, Journalist) Rolling Stones Journalist Matt Taibbi constantly gives hearsay as evidence. "I've asked... Dozens of experts..." Jokes about his non-involvement progressing his career.... " After watching this program Taibbi came off as almost evil. Not a good witness, seems to have a hatred for the "truthers."

8. Argument that emotion explains why "truthers" believe what they believe.... "Trauma." Program calls "Truthers" emotionally driven, is invalid.

I can go on and on.

Please elaborate? What reasoning do I lack?

I'm sorry, but I just gave my list of reasons why I felt the program was a miss. What's yours for it being a hit?

This NG 911 debunker show is nothing more than pro governemnt disinfiomration. I thought we all new how the media works.. Dont think becasue N.G seems to be an independant media outlet that it actually is. Yes, it is entertaining, and most shows seems legit, but watch how the show will ALWAYS side with the big corp/gov disinfo theory as fact. Same with all so called conspiracy shows that main focus is too sway the masses back to the accepted mainstream story. This is nothing new.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Donny 4 million

 

The two lines is a direct reference to the fires in WTC2 as outlined in the quote I posted.

Why? No one was discussing anytng but building # 7.
Thanks for the reply.

It's threads like these that remind me why I stopped coming to the 9/11 forum.

It still amazes me that there are people who still believe the official story 100 percent. A report that was created with no subpoena power. Without the power to question with legal recourse, all we got was chicken feed.

Then periodically, the networks release programs that tell people don't look now, they are nuts... And people still eat it up... "Yeah, they are nuts, screw them..."

Anyone who can sit an watch this program and say, wow that was so a fair and balanced documentary.... I don't know. I really don't. I've taken debate, and well NatGeo got an F for presentation.

It's sad. But again, that's what I've found with the truther movement. Some people do not want to "wake up." So let them lie in slumber.

Really it's sort of like this.

You give a person knowledge. and they flick you the bird... You ask a question, they spit on you... You try and get others to ask questions, they label you nuts, then take the time to make a program(s) labeling you nuts over and over and over again.

It's a loss cause.... Sadly...

Ignorance is bliss. 8 years later, and people still think the offical story is true...

Ridiculous. All I want is another investigation, with subpoena power. Why is that a crime? I pay taxes. I work every day. I'm an American Citizen whose life has been impacted by that day (We all are). So why should I not want more info onto why my life has changed in the last decade...

You can't get anymore biased or disinfo than NIST, or Purdue.

We all remember that poor excuse for an aircraft impact simulation?

You know the one that shows the fuel, and internal damage as the plane
enters the tower?

Three big problems with that:

- the angle of entry was nothing like the angle shown by the 'real' damage
as seen in the photos/videos

- the wings of the aircraft did not span across 7 - 8 floors; Purdue shows
2-3 floors

- Where the heck did the 6 inch concrete floors end up? All they did was
show the perimeter and core columns (not even scaled at that).

Oh yes, the bonus bias omission: fireproofing gone on all steel columns

reply to post by squidboy

Ridiculous. All I want is another investigation, with subpoena power. Why is that a crime? I pay taxes. I work every day. I'm an American Citizen whose life has been impacted by that day (We all are). So why should I not want more info onto why my life has changed in the last decade...

I agree with you, but we are not entitled to any information because we are not members of the royal government elite club. To these people we are bottom feeders nothing more.
How dare we ask questions, to the very people we voted in office.

reply to post by randyvs

what's up op. have you been develeping your psychic ablitys lately? you sure got that one dead on.any thoughts on the lottery? i mean that's like me saying, all their going to do is reinforce the corrupt govt. version of what went on.

just as i predicted!
you know what ?i bet anyone could doi this
so i have a question .who produced this bit of msm propagandised collection of colaborated, clattering, clinking, , cattle crap.
even the op should be embarrased at that steel beam they used for the
fire test. lmao. then in the very next test, they show the massive
columns that are really used commercialy. lmao still. hilarious. the ones in the wtc even out weigh the ones you saw there. i don't think that beam they used,would pass inspection for a patio cover. lmao

[edit on 1-9-2009 by randyvs]

This show was a waste. The experiments were a waste of time and money. They proved nothing. It is hard to believe any corporate subsidized entity would portray a possible government conspiracy as an actual event to be taken seriously. They rather use the conspiracy theory as a pull for ratings. They try harder to dispell the conspiracy and try to prop up the so called facts. In reality the facts always seem to be brought to us by the conspirators themselves.

I didn't catch the show, we cut our television off about a year ago.... best thing I've ever done for my family, I highly reccomend it.
They actually had the unprofessional gall to use 'truthers'? That's some fine journalism there boys, and this new stereotype they are trying their damndest to create should tell us something really important...
They aren't attacking our information, they are attacking us. It is the inevitable last ditch tactics employed when your own arguments don't hold up to investigation.
If the official story works out so well, and so many people believe it as the gospel truth, then why are they spending millions upon millions of dollars to demonize the opposition? If the official story is true, then why are they calling us the 'truthers' and how the hell do you spin the word truth to mean something negative anyway? They're loosing, and the panic response has them scrambling to gain a foothold here and on other forums, using the same tired talking points but this time attacking us with the stereotypes one might use on a third grade playground.

Good luck National Geographic, it's a tough sale because while yeah, the dumbing down has been pretty effective, any tom fool can look at the buildings collapsing and realize that they are looking at a carefully planned, well executed, controlled demolition.

Didn't mention WTC 7? I don't blame them for not mentioning it though, why would they?



Click and look, watch the top of the building, the center, the core of it go first, and ask yourself why or better yet, how that is possible in a fire related collapse even with Mayor Ghouliani's fire code violating fuel tanks. In order for this to happen, at the speed it happens, ALL the load bearing supports have to fail simultaneously. Fire doesn't account for this, neither does the official story, nor do they account for the molten steel that Loizaeux confirmed at the WTC 7 site either.
I think Dan Rather, who was later run through the ringer and retired, said it best when he said... " it’s reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen too much on television before, where a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down.”

You can see the squibs (demolition charges) progressing upwards towards the point of collapse...



To mention WTC 7, they would have to explain things like this footage the otherwise meticulous BBC has since 'lost'...



Here's four pages of some interesting information about WTC 7... 1, 2, 3, 4.

As to what firefighters were saying about WTC 7, oddly enough, they were told to back off by someone who knew it was going to collapse...
Reports of Foreknowledge of the Collapse of Building 7 in the Oral Histories
These collapses are unprecedented in the history of modern steel framed construction, yet they were able to predict the collapses sufficiently enough to tell key personell to evacuate the building 7 and measure the safe distances? They were so sure it was going to collapse, they released it to the media before it happened for crying out loud.

No they probably didn't mention WTC 7.
That would be alot like not mentioning the guy that ran around cutting up the taped conversations between ATC and the pilots with scissors and depositing them into seperate trashcans, or not mentioning that the guy who wired Atta a hundred grand was meeting with Sentate Intelligence Committee members that morning, or not saying anything about the Bin Laden Construction Group being on site during it's construction and asking about explosives, or avoiding the subject of Israelis running around in vans full of explosives who turned out to be ex-mossad and IDF explosives experts that were given a free ride home by dual citizen Chertoff. I bet they didn't mention the flight schools in question were the same bunch of Bush era CIA fronts that gave us Oswald and co. either.
Oh the things they probably didn't mention...

Edit:
We all know that Silverstien said 'pull it'... even if he wasn't talking about demolishing the building, which he was IMO, what the hell is he doing involving himself with pulling fire fighters off of a building he has an insurance policy on? Can you imagine the insurance adjuster's relief when you tell him you prevented the fire fighters from doing their job for hours before the building collapsed? He got paid though... billions.

[edit on 1-9-2009 by twitchy]

Yeah I see a lot of things that don't add up the more I look into it. Some theories seem to be easily debunked and some things that don't look bad at first glance come across as at least gross negligence on closer inspection. I would like to point out that I hate the term 'truther' I find it offensive. What person wouldn't want to know the truth about something?