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 GeographiK wades in on 911...

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 10:56 AM
link   
cough - gag - cough.... choke, sniffle and puke...

www.break.com...

you got to love the effort ... now how about showing the evidence Naitonal GeographiK




posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 11:19 AM
link   




So in other words, up until now, National Geographic was perfectly all right with you as long as they were only reporting on butterflies and topless women in remote tribal villages, but the very billionth of a second they or anyone else deviate from your conspiracy party doctrine, that's when you scream GOVERNMENT SHILL. To you, it has absolutely nothing to do with the credibility of the source, and everything to do with whether they agree or disagree with your own conspiracy doctrine.

Does that about sum it up?



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave




So in other words, up until now, National Geographic was perfectly all right with you as long as they were only reporting on butterflies and topless women in remote tribal villages, but the very billionth of a second they or anyone else deviate from your conspiracy party doctrine, that's when you scream GOVERNMENT SHILL. To you, it has absolutely nothing to do with the credibility of the source, and everything to do with whether they agree or disagree with your own conspiracy doctrine.

Does that about sum it up?


[sigh] Nova and Popular Mechanics went to the "dark side" early on. It's not an issue of countering theories. It's an issue of wrong, incomplete and irrelevant data used to prop up a story we have been fed from the beginning that does not add up to the evidence.

Nova propped up the "pancake" theory - never addressing the fact that such a theory left the central columns standing and did not address the neat lengths things broke into for removal.

Pop Mech... The list is long on what THEY twisted and lied about...

So do we expect SciAm to be free of such manipulation? No. Not necessarily. We might hope that they are avoiding the dark side, but we cannot assume this is so.

Just because they have developed a good reputation does NOT mean they are incorruptable.



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu
[sigh] Nova and Popular Mechanics went to the "dark side" early on. It's not an issue of countering theories. It's an issue of wrong, incomplete and irrelevant data used to prop up a story we have been fed from the beginning that does not add up to the evidence.


So when you say, "went over to the dark side", you mean that they both published 9/11 documentaties that were contrary to your conspiracy scenarios...? What else would you mean by, "went over to the dark side" if not that?

Before they commited sacriledge and dared to go againt these conspiracy stories, all they did was put out articles about Japanese bullet trains and documentaries on how the Wright brothers developed their airplane. I don't recall how any of that was ever considered "dark side" before the 9/11 issue came along.


Pop Mech... The list is long on what THEY twisted and lied about...


Can you give me even ONE example? Accusing them of lying, and being able to document an actual lie they ever made, are two separate things...which is the entire point I'm making, actually.



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Amaterasu
[sigh] Nova and Popular Mechanics went to the "dark side" early on. It's not an issue of countering theories. It's an issue of wrong, incomplete and irrelevant data used to prop up a story we have been fed from the beginning that does not add up to the evidence.


So when you say, "went over to the dark side", you mean that they both published 9/11 documentaties that were contrary to your conspiracy scenarios...? What else would you mean by, "went over to the dark side" if not that?


No... They put out information as "truth" when, at best, it was speculation, and a great deal was proven entirely false.

Any publication or media outlet that represents lies as truth, that fabricates "explanations" to promote belief in a specific scenario... They are "dark." They are on the "dark" side.


Before they commited sacriledge and dared to go againt these conspiracy stories, all they did was put out articles about Japanese bullet trains and documentaries on how the Wright brothers developed their airplane. I don't recall how any of that was ever considered "dark side" before the 9/11 issue came along.


It was not an issue of "dar[ing] to go againt these conspiracy stories..." It was promoting as truth things that subsequently could be proven to be fabricated and lies.




Pop Mech... The list is long on what THEY twisted and lied about...


Can you give me even ONE example? Accusing them of lying, and being able to document an actual lie they ever made, are two separate things...which is the entire point I'm making, actually.


They said that no firemen heard explosions... That's one.
Here's a few threads about others;

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I posted a long evaluation of Pop Mech's "sins" back shortly after the book came out, but cannot find it now doing a search here... I'm not on my personal computer, so I cannot pull it up just now.

But really, if you have read their book, and actually looked up information they discuss, lies and wrong info are rampant.



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu
They said that no firemen heard explosions... That's one.
Here's a few threads about others;


I'm seeing a lot of problems with your argument. The first link is implying that the PM people lied when they claimed the FAA says that intercepts are so uncommon, but all it says is that the FAA doesn't keep track of intercepts. Those are two completely different things. If anything, the reason why the FAA doesn't keep track of intercepts is *becuase* they're so uncommon. It neglects the fact that the FAA might keep track of scrambles, and it also neglects the fact that NORAD DOES keep track of intercepts. If either statement is true, then PM's statement mentioning all this is true.

The other two posts aren't even proving anything one way or the other. They're just trying to insinuate impropriety by mentioning "links" to suspicious characters. No proof is offered that these suspicious characters would even try to manipulate anyone's research to begin with other than an unsubstanciated assumption they would, which is why I'm assuming the author mentioned there were "links" to these people to begin with.

Why do "links" to William Randolph Hearst show PM is lying, specifically?


But really, if you have read their book, and actually looked up information they discuss, lies and wrong info are rampant.


I have the book at home, actually. Would you mind terribly citing which page in the book says that firemen never heard any explosions? The whole flipping world heard explosions- eyewitnesses, people inside the towers, news casters, even we sitting watching the events on TV- heard explosions. I find that statement rather hard to believe at face value.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



I did not mean ANY explosions... I meant the controlled demo types. Like *pop* *pop* *pop* one after another.

Here: I found my posting:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Take a look.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu

I did not mean ANY explosions... I meant the controlled demo types. Like *pop* *pop* *pop* one after another.


Well, for one thing, all the explosions were random, as in flammable items within the building going BOOM as the fires reached them in turn, not explosives in some preplanned sequential order. We know that becuase the entire world was watching what was going on during 9/11, so the entire world heard the explosions, not just that handful of fire fighters you're referring to. There's no such thing as a quiet explosion.

For another, they couldn't be controlled demolitions to begin with becuase if they were, the buildings would have come down at that very moment they were heard, not 1/2 hour later. What do you think controlled demolitions are supposed to do, after all?

The reason why the 9/11 commission declined to listen to your fire fighters' testimony should be obvious- the commission had already documented everything they were going to say from other sources, so they didn't need to hear testimony about it again. Where is there any impropriety here?



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Goodoldave, I have not encountered anyone supporting the official conspiracy theory that ackowledges there were explosions or what the origin may have been. I may be wrong, I thought NIST completely denied any explosions or sounds of explosions and said there was no evidence to support it. Are these your speculations or do you have links showing other people believe this to be true also?

As far as when what explosions occurred and how long time gap there was between them, I would be curious to if you have access to a rulebook on controlled demolitions that states this? All the information I have seen indicates that there are many different phases to a demolition, and if this what was done, these phases would have to be timed as to be provided audible cover up distractions by other events like planes striking etc. To assume that all controlled demolition phases should happen with a certain number of seconds/moments or it is not a controlled demolition seems strange logic.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by superleadoverdrive
Goodoldave, I have not encountered anyone supporting the official conspiracy theory that ackowledges there were explosions or what the origin may have been. I may be wrong, I thought NIST completely denied any explosions or sounds of explosions and said there was no evidence to support it. Are these your speculations or do you have links showing other people believe this to be true also?


I cannot say what other people do or do not believe. All I can say is that everyone who was there...including the woman I was lucky enough to meet who was actually in the building at the time...reported there were explosions. I we definitely know the building was chock full of flammable objects- electrical transformers, fire extinguishers, pressurized pipes, etc- that would go BOOM if they catch on fire, and we definitely know there was a fire. At least some of the explosions we heard had to have been one of those flammable objects exploding, becuase we definitely would have heard them explode sooner or later, the longer the fires burned.

Therefore, I can see how NIST would deny the explosions were controlled demolitions, but for NIST to deny there were ever explosions AT ALL, well, I'd like to see where they actually say that for myself.


As far as when what explosions occurred and how long time gap there was between them, I would be curious to if you have access to a rulebook on controlled demolitions that states this?


Not a rule book, no, but I do go by the article in "how stuff works", as they get their information from people in the controlled demolitions industry. It says the whole method of getting a building to fall straight down is to destroy the key supports all at once so the only thing it can do is fall straight down.

How controlled demolitions work

You will also notice what type of extensive work would be necessary to even install controlled demolitions to begin with. There's no way any such work could have been performed in an occupied building without anyone noticing.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   
Goodoldave, I am open-minded and do find your point of view enlightening, thanks for your thoughtful responses.
On regards to who and how, I agree that anyone would be skeptical as to how such a feat could be accomplished. Then I read two of Kevin Ryan's papers regarding who the occupants in the towers were in the time leading up to and on the day of 9/11. Many of the tenants throughout the building, including the ones directly where the planes hit were companies with ties to secret intelligence, CIA covert operations, military contractors and demolition supplies and the Bush family. If you are open minded to the possibilities and implications of this and read these two papers, I don't think it would be a far leap to begin to get a picture of who could have helped and how, and more importantly, their motive....which the papers address also, how these companies benefited tremendously financially in the years following the disasters. Here are the links to Kevin's papers if you are interested.
www.911truth.org...
www.911truth.org...

[edit on 29-10-2009 by superleadoverdrive]



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Did you read my piece on Debunking 9/11 Myths?

And no... The firemen heard sequential pops, NOT like random exploding objects, stating it sounded like controlled demo. D9/11M said, as I recall, that the were no firemen who heard these series of explosions. That is untrue.

Anyway, it is clear you are desperate to hold the Official Conspiracy Theory together. Either you are one of our friendly shills or you just can't accept that our government attacked us that day.

I don't argue any longer with either group. Believe as you want to.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   
There is one major problem with the controlled demolition theory. The towers collapse started at the aircraft impact points. When the planes hit the towers, parts of the aircraft and the resulting fireball came out of the other side of the buildings. Any explosives planted in those areas would have either have been consumed in the fireball or detonated in the impact. The fact that the towers remained standing after the impacts should prove that there were no planted explosives in the area of the impact.

If you were going to drop the towers covertly, you would plant your explosives in the lower levels of the building. This way you would need fewer charges and you could take full advantage of the mass of the towers.

I get a big laugh out of the claims that an army of MIBs wired both towers for a controlled demolition. If you listen to some of the claims, they used nano-thermite (whatever that is) or micro nukes. They give them great credit in being able to do all of this without being caught, but, what they don't understand is that anybody who could do this, would come up with a better plan than flying two airliners into the towers. I know I could.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by superleadoverdrive
Goodoldave, I am open-minded and do find your point of view enlightening, thanks for your thoughtful responses.
On regards to who and how, I agree that anyone would be skeptical as to how such a feat could be accomplished. Then I read two of Kevin Ryan's papers regarding who the occupants in the towers were in the time leading up to and on the day of 9/11. Many of the tenants throughout the building, including the ones directly where the planes hit were companies with ties to secret intelligence, CIA covert operations, military contractors and demolition supplies and the Bush family. If you are open minded to the possibilities and implications of this and read these two papers,


Thank you for posting this. After reading this material, I have to tell you, all it does is prove what I've been saying from day one- these damned fool conspiracy web sites are putting out utter rubbish to deliberately get people all paranoid over shadows. It's less of a case there's any actual conspiracy, and more of a case that these web sites are intentionally making mountains out of mole hills for their own personal agenda.

Example #1- I was interested in your claim that "the tenants had connections to the CIA", so I read this article and located where in the bibliography that backed up the claim that Marsh and McLennon (the tenants occupying the floors where AA11 hit) had CIA connections. It turned out to be an article for a business journal detailing their fraudulent business practices. Their connection to the CIA is entirely one employee commenting that "everything there was so secret, it's like working for the CIA". Look it up yourself if you don't believe me.

Example #2- The author also made great mention of the fact that Marsh & McLennon made "mysterious changes to the fire sprinklers" on the floor, which is a misrepresentation. Building codes for the state of connecticut...and I can't believe the building codes for NY are any different...dictate that only the local fire marshal can authorize changes. If the fire marshal demands that M&M make changes, they are legally required to make them. If they need to make any changes themselves, they are legally required to have the fire marshal to inspect it. I'll wager that the NYPA likewise needed to be involved to make sure the system actually worked becuase the NYPA is the one supplying the water. In short, whatever construction M&M did, the NYFD and the NYPA has a full record of what it was.

In short, the author of the paper misrepresented "like working for the CIA" it into "having CIA connections", and construction that the NYFD and NYPA watches like a hawk into innuendo over "mysterious changes to the sprinkler system" which implies that's the time when these supposed controlled demolition were placed, all without coming out and actually saying it. There is no way he could have done this unintentionally. My point is, if the author needs to introduce misrepresentation and manufacture innuendo to get his point across, then it's a de facto admission that he knows the things he's saying are false.

By all means, check it out yourself to see whether what I've posted here is incorrect in any way.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Simple Answers for Simple Minded people. That's what the History Channel, and National Geographic have provided.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   
"404 Page Not Found

We're sorry, but the page you attempted to find was not found on Break.com.
To help you in find what you're looking for please click on one of the links below. "

spell it properly, it is National Geographic. you are doing yourself no favours by purposly spelling it wrong.

Your thread lacks any actual substance. what is it you find wrong by national geographic investigating 9/11.

personally, i think that all investigations into it are good, even if they start out with a certain mindset. -> "it was terrorists, anybody think overwise is stupid" or " it was the goverment, dam sheeple.."

Because there is always the chance of previously unknown facts/footage or even previously classified/filed away documents being released under the foia.


[edit on 29-10-2009 by MR BOB]



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu
And no... The firemen heard sequential pops, NOT like random exploding objects, stating it sounded like controlled demo. D9/11M said, as I recall, that the were no firemen who heard these series of explosions. That is untrue.


...to which I will repeat, there is no such thing as "quiet explosions". Whatever the firefighters heard, were heard throughout Manhattan, and no other person can corroborate the events the way you interpret them. Even the woman who I talked to who was in WTC 1 at the time said herself it sounded like a bunch of giant boulders crashing down the stairwells after her, rather than any, "pop pop pop".

...and I will likewise ask again- where in any of the PM writeups refute that anyone heard explosions? I'm not arguing against the claim, I just don't know where PM had made it. I know full well there were explosions so I am amazed they would actually say that.


Anyway, it is clear you are desperate to hold the Official Conspiracy Theory together. Either you are one of our friendly shills or you just can't accept that our government attacked us that day.


The very hundredth of a second you interpret me as some secret gov't agent send to ATS specifically to fool you, is the moment you've lost all credibility as being able to interpret the events of 9/11 rationally. Please rephrase this statement.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


I never said ANYTHING about "quiet" explosions, nor did I say you WERE a shill.

I said EITHER you were a shill OR you just can't fathom that our government would attack us.

Pay attention, s'il vous plait.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   
I've seen more instances of people testifying to hearing explosions like a series of "gunshots" or "boom boom boom boom boom" than I can even remember. I am constantly seeing new testimony as time goes on. I just saw testimony the other day from a PA police officer, in a YouTube video saying there were continuous explosions in the buildings after the impacts and before they were totally destroyed.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu
I never said ANYTHING about "quiet" explosions, nor did I say you WERE a shill.

I said EITHER you were a shill OR you just can't fathom that our government would attack us.

Pay attention, s'il vous plait.


You are splitting hairs mighty thinly here. Any explosions that only could be heard by the people standing right next to them are by definition "quiet explosions". In the real world, any explosions that would constitute actual controlled demolitions would have been heard all the way across the river to New Jersey.

Claiming that only some small select group of firefighters heard sequential explosions while the people standing 50 feet away didn't hear anything makes no sense whatsoever and is of rather dubious credibility, regardless of whether or not I'm a shill, don't pay attention, or collect bubble gum cards.

Please explain how anything I just said is incorrect.




top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join