It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

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

page: 12
15
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by jprophet420
 


No, we invaded Afghanistan because they were harboring Al Qaeda. I am not sure why that gives so many people problems.....


Tell me swampy are Al Queda Afgans?

[edit on 31-8-2009 by Donny 4 million]




posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by jprophet420
 


No, we invaded Afghanistan because they were harboring Al Qaeda. I am not sure why that gives so many people problems.....


Tell me swampy. Are Iraqis Al Queda?

[edit on 31-8-2009 by Donny 4 million]



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by Donny 4 million


Swampy time to reboot. We are on SEVEN not TWo no floor mentioned, Get some coffee and get back to us .


Reading comprehension Donny, reading comprehension!
Swampfox was clearing up a mistake done by Twitchy in regards to the fires. He claimed that there were small fires in WTC7 and firefighters claimed they could take it out with a few hoses:

originally posted by Twitchy:

Oh yeah, you mean the fires that fire fighter accounts said could be taken out with a couple lines? Too bad the 9-11 commission wouldn't allow them to testify. They would have heard accounts of explosions and how the fires had mostly been supressed.


He mixed up reports from WTC South Tower and WTC7. Swampfox had to correct this. Do you ever comprehend what you are reading? And what amazed me is the fact that HE got three stars! Three stars for incorrect information!


Is swampy a big enough boy to answer for his ownself? I still think he was snoozin.



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by Donny 4 million


Swampy time to reboot. We are on SEVEN not TWo no floor mentioned, Get some coffee and get back to us .


Reading comprehension Donny, reading comprehension!
Swampfox was clearing up a mistake done by Twitchy in regards to the fires. He claimed that there were small fires in WTC7 and firefighters claimed they could take it out with a few hoses:

originally posted by Twitchy:

Oh yeah, you mean the fires that fire fighter accounts said could be taken out with a couple lines? Too bad the 9-11 commission wouldn't allow them to testify. They would have heard accounts of explosions and how the fires had mostly been supressed.


He mixed up reports from WTC South Tower and WTC7. Swampfox had to correct this. Do you ever comprehend what you are reading? And what amazed me is the fact that HE got three stars! Three stars for incorrect information!


You are sooo cute when you switch from spook to demeaning reading teacher. No mention of 1 or two here. Total lack of any comprehension.
Does swampy ask you to please post for him when he is preocupied?

Originally posted by GenRadek
Have you gone through any firefighter accounts from WTC7? At all?
...Small fires? heh try HUGE fires.

Twichies answer-----
Oh yeah, you mean the fires that fire fighter accounts said could be taken out with a couple lines? Too bad the 9-11 commission wouldn't allow them to testify. They would have heard accounts of explosions and how the fires had mostly been supressed.
You're not hard to debate, often enough, you debunk your own material. On one thread you are throwing your magic rust theory around to explain the steel getting super hot, then on another thread you are saying the steel didn't get that hot. Telling us the debris pile wasn't insulating the fires, and that fire fighter accounts were saying what exactly?



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 07:38 PM
link   
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.

Source

This will be a snow job.



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 09:03 PM
link   

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]



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 09:14 PM
link   
I'm watching it now..

they definitely proved it wasn't Controlled demolotion with available technologies to the public! wiht out a doubt, it is possible for a plane to have take down the Towers..

However.. i tthink it is still very possible that it was a controled demolition of technologies that are not available to the public..

What is bothering me though, is the format.. they are ONLY talking about the planes going into the buildings and the pentagon!

In fact this is typical of mainstream media.. they won't touch Eyewitness testimony (such as those of the Pentagon cops and 3 otheer witnesses who did not know each other) that saw the plane hit the Pentagon from a different direction!! They won't go into the evidence of that supposed CIA Agent who was arrested in Canada weeks prior to 9/11 and supposedly writing a note to a judge saying of what is about to happen in the coming months!
I understand its just an episode on Forensics, but Forensics are a small part of the combined circumstantial and paper trail evidence that tells of a conspiracy..

I want someone to make a documentary - write a book that lays all the questions on both sides and then goes into answering them.. so atleast ALL bases, all questions are covered.. Shows like this only try and answer a small portion..

I do think it was hiackers.. What i don't believe is that the "Government" didn't know.. no way, no how.. they knew! i don't know who knew.. but some ppl in our government knew!



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 


See Donny, none of them will touch this because they know it is true. They are not even interested to comment on my research that NIST has it all WRONG! I think some of these people who call them selves’ debunkers, are nothing more than trolls baiting and waiting for their opportunity to sling mud at good people. They enjoy using the 911 threads because, 911 is one of the most sensitive emotional topics of all time. Just wait till someone wants to challenge the NIST report and I will keep posting these two articles.

Now that I have proven NIST report is a lie, we can assume demolition is what brought down the WTC. We just need to find out what part of our military did Cheney used to set it up. Chances are probably slim to nothing in founding out, in my opinion I believe Chenney had the perps killed, by his own assignation squad. So there would never be any living witness to turn on Cheney and the Bush administration.

911review.org...


The Audacity of Hope: Restoring Science to 9/11
Our government must correct all of the errors in their multiple studies of the collapse of these buildings. To do that, scientific integrity must be restored!
The Audacity of Hope: Restoring Science to 9/11
Crockett Grabbe
President Barack Obama's inaugural promise that "We will restore science to it rightful place..." sounds like good news. In our article "Science in the Bush: When Politics Replaces Physics," published on the web in September of 2007 [1], Lenny Charles and I pointed out how scientific integrity had been placed well behind politics in analysis, not only in areas such as climate change and public health issues, but also particularly in analysis of the attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001.
** We described in some detail in the article how the physics in the NIST Committee analysis of what happened in the World Trade Center collapses is wrong. A paragraph of it was quoted from our article by noted columnist Dr. Paul Craig Roberts in his September 11, 2007 editorial "9/11: 6 years later" [2]:**
Physicists have raised unanswered questions about the official explanation's neglect of the known laws of physics. Recently, Dr. Crockett Grabbe, a Caltech trained applied physicist at the University of Iowa, observed: "Applying two basic principles, conservation of energy and conservation of momentum, the government explanation quickly unravels. NIST conspicuously ignored these principles in their reports. NIST also ignored the observed twisting of the top 34 floors of the South Tower before it toppled down. This twisting clearly violates the conservation of both linear and angular momentum unless a large external force caused it. Where the massive amounts of energy came from that were needed to cause the complete collapse of the intact parts below for each tower, when their tops were in virtual free fall, is not answered in NIST's numerous volumes of study."
These scientific principles are a fatal flaw for the NIST Committee's explanations for the building collapses, as expounded in my Journal of 911 Studies Letter on January 29, 2008.


www.ae911truth.org...



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


YOU JUST ANSWERED MY QUESTION!!!

Makes me so upset... I was wondering why already, 1 hour and 15minutes into the show, they are spending so much time on just the 2 towers and the planes.. now, they've spent 20 minutes on some stuff about the Pentagon and the plane flying into it.. going back and forth b/w scientists to take up the allotted 2 hour timeframe..

Even from someone who is on the fence and does NOT believe in a full blown conspiracy... this show, just like the one on the History channel and like mainstream media are tooo afraid to ask and answer the real questions..
- like the circumstantial evidence that is used to convict slime everyday in our justice system!



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by jprophet420
 


No, we invaded Afghanistan because they were harboring Al Qaeda. I am not sure why that gives so many people problems.....


umm no this isnt true at all.

The United States govt was in negotiations with the Taliban govt for months to build an oil pipeline across the country. And when those negotiations failed to produce an agreement, an invasion plan was drawn up.

This invasion plan was complete a few days before 9-11 happened. The govt merely used the 9-11 false flag as a mean to invade afghanistan.

I wont pretend to know all the details about 9-11 and frankly the arguments here give me a headache.

I rely on my eyes and 21 years in high-rise construction to reach my conclusions. Those buildings all collapsed which indicates demolition. No way every floor gave out at the exact same time by fire. Nor was it the pancake theory cause the video clearly shows every floor going out.

and no fire is going to turn concrete into baby powder. There should have been huge chunks falling all around yet all we had was a fine powder. Fire doesnt contain the energy to do that to concrete.

who was behind it i dont have a clue. but i do know what a controlled demolition looks like and that was it on 9-11. id bet my house on it



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by herbii
I'm watching it now..

they definitely proved it wasn't Controlled demolotion with available technologies to the public! wiht out a doubt, it is possible for a plane to have take down the Towers..

However.. i tthink it is still very possible that it was a controled demolition of technologies that are not available to the public..



They did NOT definitely prove it wasn't controlled demolition. Did you see the test building they used? THE CORE WAS STILL STANDING.

The towers were brought down by BASEMENT conventional AND nuke TO TAKE OUT THE CORE.

Hence, the EMP that was experienced seconds before each collapse.

[edit on 31/8/09 by MajesticJax]



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 09:32 PM
link   
I just don't get it

I distinctly remember a news report saying the plane that hit the Pentagon Vaporized upon impact.

VAPORISED......is that possible?

the whole fricken plane?

I believed it then and was quite fascinated

Believe it now.......NO ,not possible

I feel the truth will never be revealed.........

the next false flag will completely erase any doubts we have about 911



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 09:32 PM
link   

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]


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 after having served for many years as an Army Officer, University Professor, and Department of the Army Civilian.

He began his government career at White Sands Missile Range, NM, in 1979. In February 1989, following a succession of promotions, he became Director of the Directorate for Applied Technology, Test and Simulation (DATTS). In that role, he successfully led the directorate in its mission to perform test, evaluation, assessment, modeling, and simulation of electromagnetic, directed energy, nuclear, electronic warfare, and space environmental effects applicable to DoD weapon systems and componentry, other Government development efforts, and commercial products and programs. Under his leadership, DATTS developed a solid reputation for service by its dedication to providing responsive, affordable support to its growing customer base. Based on that reputation, Dr. Meason expanded DATTS operations to include more comprehensive capabilities in electronic warfare/electro-optical/electromagnetic (EW/EO/EM) effects to better serve the directorate's clients.

Prior to his government career, Dr. Meason was a teaching professor and leading researcher at the University of Arkansas and other academic institutions. His academic and government careers have covered virtually all major areas of nuclear science, with achievements advancing the understanding of basic and applied phenomena in the fields of nuclear physics, radio and nuclear chemistry, nucleo-geo-cosmo chemistry, and nuclear engineering. He has authored over 100 scientific and technical papers and referees for journals such as IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, Nuclear Science and Engineering, and Physical Review (nuclear section). He has evaluated proposals for the National Science Foundation and the Atomic Energy Commission and has been a consultant for environmental monitoring of natural and man-made radionuclides to the Electric Power Research Institute. He is a member of Sigma Xi, the Nuclear Chemistry and Technology Division of the American Chemical Society, and the ASTM Committee E10.7 on Hardness Assurance.

Dr. Meason, a native of Lubbock, Texas, earned a Bachelor of Science degree in chemistry and physics at West Texas A&M University and continued his studies at the University of Arkansas, earning a Master of Science degree in nuclear chemistry and a Ph.D. in nuclear physics and chemistry. He was awarded the Fulbright Fellowship for Lecturing and Research, University of Hacettepe, Ankara, Turkey.

Dr. Meason served in the U.S. Army Individual Ready Reserve and was discharged in 1982. He currently resides in Socorro, NM. He and his wife, Joan, have two grown sons, John and Paul.


END QUOTE

Source

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



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 



Wrong again. There were two separate groups in Afghanistan. The native Afghanis, who we funded and supplied through Pakistan and then the Arabs who came to fight who were supplied and funded by Osama and others.



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 09:51 PM
link   
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.



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 09:53 PM
link   
I had no idea this would be a total "hit piece" on so called "Truthers".

The so called "Debunkers" are loving every minute of this you can bet your life on it.

The steel column test is the best one, lets put a column with weight pushing on the very middle and weakest point. Lets also put the jet fuel right at the exact perfect height so that the hottest point of the flames is on the weakest, weighted down point of the column. Then when it breaks in 3 minutes and 50 seconds scream "I told you so dummy trooffers"

Think about it why didn't they just flip that column upwards with a couple side braces and large heavy weights on the very top of the column?? Then fire it up, this would have been at least with in the same ball park as the WTC event.

Instead we got a total "gotcha job" even the Debunkers have to admit that was a pretty ridiculous experiment(except standard rule is never admit defeat) as were the rest of them.



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 10:00 PM
link   
This program was a shame and a sham.

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.

Anyone who watches this and say, yeah that's right... Truthers are emotional power driven nuts....

Shame...

Edit:

The narrator then goes on to say the wound should never be healed..... What was that about?








[edit on 31-8-2009 by squidboy]



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by admriker444
 





The United States govt was in negotiations with the Taliban govt for months to build an oil pipeline across the country.


UNOCAL was the ones negotiating the pipeline deal.




Unocal Statement: Suspension of activities related to proposed natural gas pipeline across Afghanistan

El Segundo, Calif., Aug. 21, 1998 -- As a result of sharply deteriorating political conditions in the region, Unocal, which serves as the development manager for the Central Asia Gas (CentGas) pipeline consortium, has suspended all activities involving the proposed pipeline project in Afghanistan. We are discussing this suspension with the other members of the consortium.

This decision to suspend activities is consistent with Unocal's long-held position concerning its involvement in the project. For the past several months, Unocal has been reviewing this project with CentGas participants. We have consistently informed the other participants that unless and until the United Nations and the United States government recognize a legitimate government in Afghanistan, Unocal would not invest capital in the project. Contrary to some published reports, Unocal has not - and will not - become a party to a commercial agreement with any individual Afghanistan faction.

Unocal was instrumental in proposing the Central Asia gas pipeline project in 1995 and in forming the seven-member CentGas consortium in October 1997. The consortium was formed to evaluate and, if appropriate, to participate in the future construction of a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to natural gas markets in Pakistan and, potentially, India.

Unocal will only participate in construction of the proposed Central Asia Gas Pipeline when and if Afghanistan achieves the peace and stability necessary to obtain financing from international lending agencies for this project and an established government is recognized by the United Nations and the United States. For this reason, we strongly support the United Nations conflict resolution process underway in this and other regions.

We believe that the CentGas pipeline would benefit the entire region by providing vitally needed energy infrastructure, employment and training, as well as hard currency revenues to the several countries involved. The proposed pipeline is an example of a large-scale project that may, after the appropriate conditions are met, help Afghanistan move from its present devastation toward economic reconstruction.

Since the pipeline project was first proposed, there have been a number of complex issues that Unocal has taken very seriously. Unocal recognizes the legitimate concerns regarding the treatment of women in Afghanistan. Consistent with our core values and business principles, Unocal is currently providing humanitarian support and skills training to Afghanistan through CARE and the University of Nebraska at Omaha. Neither program is designed to provide pipeline construction skills training. These programs meet or exceed UN guidelines for doing fieldwork in Afghanistan. They include basic job skills training and education for both men and women, and elementary education for boys and girls. Unocal has also contributed relief assistance for victims of the recent earthquakes through the Red Cross and the United Nations.



web.archive.org...://www.unocal.com/uclnews/98news/082198.htm




Unocal announces it is withdrawing from the CentGas pipeline consortium, and closing three of its four offices in Central Asia. President Clinton refuses to extend diplomatic recognition to the Taliban, making business there legally problematic. A concern that Clinton will lose support among women voters for upholding the Taliban plays a role in the cancellation. [New York Times, 12/5/1998]


www.historycommons.org...


Meanwhile, focus shifted to a pipeline across less contentious territory...

www.wsws.org...

Now, can we put the "we invaded Afghanistan to build an oil pipeline" crap away??? BTW, the pipeline that we negotiated over as listed in the wsws.org article is currently pumping oil, as 2006, there wasnt a pipeline even under construction in Afghanistan.

[edit on 31-8-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by MajesticJax
 


So, why do we have video showing that for both towers, large portions of the cores were the last to fall? I mean, if you are right that they wired the core to blow in the basement....why didnt it fall first?



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 

How do we know they weren't sheared a few feet, causing the instability for the buildings to fall?

Watch the tv antenna during the collapse.




top topics



 
15
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join