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.


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

page: 16
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 06:04 PM

Originally posted by CameronFox
I'm sure all the tin-capped folks will be all over this claiming the government had this made as propaganda.

um, us "tin-capped" folks know Nat Geo would NEVER challenge the idea that a terrorist did it (which is what would come if they proved it happened in a way other than what's in the 9/11 report), they never have. though it's nice to get their perspective, it only reiterates what they been saying since day 1.

posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 05:01 PM

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by tomfrusso
What a show....I would say the biggest BLOW to the "truether" movement, more like it blew 1,000,000 holes into the "truether theories"

AND 100% predictable reactions on the part of Avery and the 2 so called "PHD's at the table.

Where are the "truethers" experiments?

It's easy to just sit there and deny everything they saw.

Could some one please tell me what "super thermite" is....

Maybe its alot like Kryptonite.....

This could be the biggest reason why ATS is killing ATS

why don't you answer your own question and google "super thermite"

look it's really simple for the government...answer the questions with reasonable answers and you won't have anymore "truthers"
questions i have not seen answered

1. why won't the government release the passenger manifests?, every other civilian plane crash has released these
2. why won't the government release the scores of video from security cameras around the pentagon, including from private property?.
3. why did the BBC broadcast 23 minutes early the collapse of building #7?

Maybe because it would jeopordize his government salary?

posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 05:45 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 09:49 PM
reply to post by tomfrusso

How many threads are you planning on posting this quasi-clever condescension on? No insult intended, of course.

posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 10:21 PM
What I learned on NG9/11 was that all the other buildings that have burned, like the Madrid Hotel, The One Meridian Plaza,The First Interstate Bank are the exception to the rule;"BUILDINGS THAT HAVE FIRES THAT BURN FOR LESS THAN A COUPLE OF HOURS FALL"
Yeah right... and why wasn't the NSA asked to participate in the 9/11 Commission Investigation?

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 02:51 PM
Since there is a long weekend and the gov. shills are probably soaking there fingers in a piece of humble pie. I would like to thank all that have been working so hard bringing the unknown 911 information to light.
It's a hard fight when the cards are stacked against the facts in these tragedies. Alas I see a solid increase in those fighters.
Enjoy the weekend and watch your back.

posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 11:52 PM
Well, I have to say I didn't see anything in the NatGeo special on 911 Conspiracy that I haven't heard or seen or debated before.

I was rather frustrated, however, at the manner in which this program was structured... The so-called "911 Truthers" were never — repeat never — called upon to present any concrete evidence beyond opinion and anecdotal horse crap.

This program concentrates primarily on the physics of the WTC and Pentagon events, and we're led to believe that it's a "scientific investigation"... But much of what I saw was a petulant group of "911 Truthers" refusing to even consider the results of CAD modeling and four controlled experiments demonstrating the energetic dynamics of jet fuel, thermite, projectiles and explosives on a variety of structural materials.

During the course of this 2 hour special, we're mainly listening to the "Truthers" whose position is, essentially, "it was an inside job because we say so"

However, they can't provide a shred of proof. They can't point to a known "inside job" anywhere in the world for comparison, because none exists. The weapons technology and extraordinary level of conspiracy required to pull off 911 is laughably fantastic.

I was very much relieved when this NatGeo program, in summation, compared the leading conspiracy theories to fairy tales and suggested that "911 Truthers" are living in serious denial — the sort of denial and conspiracy theory that is recognizable as a psychological backlash to catastrophes throughout history.

Exactly. I've said for years that we humans innately know what is real and what is possible, and when we see — with our own eyes — a terrorist attack, we know it is real. It was an attack on America. Occam's Razor, okay? Simplest answer tends to be the correct one. What is so difficult about accepting that as a fact?

— Doc Velocity

[edit on 9/6/2009 by Doc Velocity]

posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 08:56 AM
haha, they should have said "paid for by the U.S. government" at the end of this special..

what a joke

posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 09:53 AM
And I still say to the "Truthers," where's the evidence? They have nothing, not even a cohesive theory.

— Doc Velocity

posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 10:46 AM
reply to post by Doc Velocity

first off, im not a truther. i dont take part in any organizations because i am an individual. 2nd, i think if so many people dont believe the "official story" then they might as well investigate again. what would it hurt.? we should be sure we are right. why is that wrong?

posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 09:04 PM
reply to post by Doc Velocity

Stick this in your pipe of moronic fantasy.

Why the FBI got away with the first WTC bombing
By Jerry Mazza
Online Journal Associate Editor
Feb 28, 2007, 00:43
On February 26, 1993, a gray snowy day in Manhattan like the one I write on 14 years later, the FBI and US
government failed to stop the van-bomb explosion in the World Trade Center’s basement garage, just as NORAD
and the US government failed to stop the airliner blitz on the Twin Towers and Pentagon on September 11, 2001.
I remember crowds fleeing from the Towers in ’93, choking with smoke, exhaustion, and disbelief. But as James
Bovard points out in FBI Blunders and the First World Trade Center Bombing, events that led to that infamy
started years earlier.

[edit on 7-9-2009 by asala]

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 11:02 AM
Again, no evidence. Just infantile opinion and commentary from unqualified amateurs.

— Doc Velocity

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 03:05 PM

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
And I still say to the "Truthers," where's the evidence? They have nothing, not even a cohesive theory.

You answered your own question. You can't have evidence for a theory if you don't even have a single theory to agree upon. There is evidence for lots of things, but it is all therefore circumstantial until it is better understood and integrated with the "official" version of events that day. The reason there are no "cohesive" "truther" theories is because there has never been a "truther" investigation with the same available resources as the federal government's, which btw has been accused of corruption and conflicts of interest by at least one of it's own investigating structural engineers (Dr. Astaneh-Asl with FEMA BPAT), and caught in a number of logical fallacies by anyone who offers a whole 30 seconds of critical thinking against these reports (skepticism is not healthy?).

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
Again, no evidence. Just infantile opinion and commentary from unqualified amateurs.

Which is just your way of saying "Again, I have reinforced my incomplete understanding of 9/11 and satisfied my ego that there is nothing else worth knowing."

As long as someone else has unanswered questions, ie anyone that REALIZES that there is a ton of missing information, where the eutectic mixtures came from in the WTC towers and how we can reproduce such mixtures "naturally" to melt through steel columns, etc., no one is really going to care if YOU are satisfied in your ignorance or not.

Saying there is no evidence of any sort of controlled demolition is one (opinionated) thing to say; arrogantly insulting those who are trying to have more information about this day released to the general public is both unpatriotic and ignorant.

If there is more to know about what happened in those buildings that day, any more at all (and there obviously is, as anyone who has been following all this developing information for as long as I have -- more and more is learned every year), I sure as hell would want to know about it. I wouldn't spend my time harrassing every private citizen who is concerned about this. Without "truthers," you would not even know half of the things you know about 9/11 today. Like I said, we still do not know where the eutectic reaction came from that melted steel within the buildings; we were only very recently able to agree upon the obviousness of its existence since we found the exact same information in the appendices of the FEMA report. Stop being such a miserable stick in the mud and help us discover more FACTS regarding that day, since the federal government left so much critical information unanswered.

[edit on 7-9-2009 by bsbray11]

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 03:13 PM
reply to post by Doc Velocity

I have one other question for you and I hope you will put some deep thought behind it:

Who here regularly calls themselves a "truther" and who exactly are you referring to when you say "truther"? Did we come up with that title or did you? And most to the point why do you keep using it when we ourselves do not?

[edit on 7-9-2009 by bsbray11]

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 03:25 PM
reply to post by bsbray11

The term started because that is what 911truth.0rg called themselves.They call themselves truthers so to answer your question yes the truther movement choose that term. Its there rallying cry only problem is they only want to accept the truth as they see it.This is why no matter how much evidence is produced showing the truth they will all ways try to find the smallest part to discredit so they can throw out the whole analysis.I see it used on 911 posts all the time some theory they have gets disproved then they say well what about this.

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 03:41 PM

Originally posted by dragonridr
The term started because that is what 911truth.0rg called themselves.They call themselves truthers so to answer your question yes the truther movement choose that term.

I want you to keep reading what you just posted until you realize you make absolutely no sense at all.

These people -- at -- do not post here, do they? So a group of people at another website calls themselves "truthers," so what in the hell makes you think I have anything to do with them?? When did I cast my vote to make them my official representative, that I want you to address me with the terms they use for themselves? In case you aren't getting it, I DIDN'T.

I bet a lot of people in the KKK think al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11 just the same as yourself; does that mean you are a member of the KKK too?
Oh jesus, by your own reasoning, I'm afraid that it does. So be careful when you call me a truther, you racist.

Think before you post. I am not and never was a "truther," except in your own clouded mind.

[edit on 7-9-2009 by bsbray11]

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 04:24 PM

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.

Well...if it was total bias and outright lies, what do you expect people to say? Do you think that you have some special insight that gave you the vision to see that "truthers" or whatever they go by would have trouble with a shiny, well produced piece of government propaganda set out to do what they have been doing all along...try to convince us it was a surprise terrorist attack.

Let me ask this, to you or any of your ilk, if there was no conspiracy and "truthers" have nothing, and no one really cares about these conspiracy theories, why then are we eight years later still being being told what the "official story" is? Why is anyone trying so hard to prove the "OS" if it is so obviously the truth?

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 04:31 PM

Originally posted by bsbray11
I am not and never was a "truther"

Give you that, you're not a Classic Truther. Maybe Diet Truther.

I think it was something dubbed by the media. They were doing stories on the Truth Movement in mainstream mags like TIME, MAXIM, etc. The first one I read characterized it as being the new political obsession of middle-class educated white-collar types. The writer did some "leg-work" in a San Francisco Starbucks which we he said was representative. And then it hit colleges.

Some article probably picked up someone calling the groups Truthers and the name stuck.

Note those disputing Obama's birth place and right to be President are now called "Birthers."


posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 04:36 PM

Originally posted by CameronFox
reply to post by SPreston

Did you start that thread? Typically I stand clear of your threads Spreston. They lack substance, facts, or any pertinent information.

By the way, do you know who Joe Ferguson is? He was killed on 911 when the plane he was a passenger in struck the Pentagon. Joe Ferguson was the director of geography education outreach at the National Geographic Society. He was on flight 77 with 3 elementary children on a National Geographic sponsored field trip.

Was the God damn National Geographic controlled media in on it too? HAd elementary children killed?

Where are these bodies? How were they identified? Why is there no record of passenger bodies being found? No plane parts ID'd and no passengers. How do you know anyone died on a plane crashing into the pentagon?

Because someone told you that is what happened?

Why is it ok for you to just believe whatever you are told with no first hand experience or evidence or proof?

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 05:52 PM

Originally posted by mmiichael
Give you that, you're not a Classic Truther. Maybe Diet Truther.

Fair enough. And you're not a full KKK member, just an associate of theirs. So you don't burn black people, you just turn your head the other way and have a few rebel flags in your front yard.

new topics

top topics

<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in