View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

National Geographic's 9/11 Conspiracy Program

Share or recommend interesting films and videos about paranormal phenomena, awakening topics, skepticism, spirituality, metaphysics, science, conspiracies, etc.

Re: National Geographic's 9/11 Conspiracy Program

Postby ProfWag » 11 Sep 2009, 04:22

Don't forget that "fact" also means "objective reality." Just sayin'...

Look QP, it's been fun, but as I've been saying for a while, I simply am still pretty busy in life. Coupled with the FACT that my mother is on her deathbed. Her eyes are sinking back in their sockets, her skin is clammy, her hands are curling inwards, and she's been unresponsive for 2 days now. So, once I take care of things at home, I'll be back at it to fight for truth, justice, and the American way!
Talk to everyone soon!
ProfWag
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54






Re: National Geographic's 9/11 Conspiracy Program

Postby quantumparanormal » 11 Sep 2009, 04:24

ProfWag wrote:Don't forget that "fact" also means "objective reality." Just sayin'...


Bingo, and since a 9/11 cover-up conspiracy is not known to have occurred, it's not "objective reality," nor is it that thousands are required to help cover-up a government-led conspiracy. It hasn't occurred, so how can it be objective reality? We have not seen with our "objective" eyes thousands of FBI agents aiding in a government-led cover-up conspiracy, for example. We can calculate it, sure, but such a calculation would be a probable one, not an absolute one or one based on fact. We could test the theory and, hence, observe with our objective eyes whether or not thousands would indeed be required, but that would be BAD!

ProfWag wrote:Look QP, it's been fun, but as I've been saying for a while, I simply am still pretty busy in life. Coupled with the FACT that my mother is on her deathbed. Her eyes are sinking back in their sockets, her skin is clammy, her hands are curling inwards, and she's been unresponsive for 2 days now. So, once I take care of things at home, I'll be back at it to fight for truth, justice, and the American way!
Talk to everyone soon!
ProfWag


I'm so sorry about your mother. I wish you the best.
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: National Geographic's 9/11 Conspiracy Program

Postby ciscop » 14 Sep 2009, 15:26

ProfWag wrote:Don't forget that "fact" also means "objective reality." Just sayin'...

Look QP, it's been fun, but as I've been saying for a while, I simply am still pretty busy in life. Coupled with the FACT that my mother is on her deathbed. Her eyes are sinking back in their sockets, her skin is clammy, her hands are curling inwards, and she's been unresponsive for 2 days now. So, once I take care of things at home, I'll be back at it to fight for truth, justice, and the American way!
Talk to everyone soon!
ProfWag


i thought the american way was to bomb everybody else that isnt white.

and
im sorry to hear about your mom, i wish you well
and we will wait for your return
For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)
User avatar
ciscop
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 12:04

Re: National Geographic's 9/11 Conspiracy Program

Postby The Warrigal » 14 Sep 2009, 15:30

Professor Wag.

By best wishes to you and your family at this trying time.

Take care my friend.
The Warrigal
 
Posts: 119
Joined: 22 Jun 2009, 11:44

Re: National Geographic's 9/11 Conspiracy Program

Postby quantumparanormal » 14 Sep 2009, 22:38

ciscop wrote:i thought the american way was to bomb everybody else that isnt white.


Now that's a racist statement.
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: National Geographic's 9/11 Conspiracy Program

Postby ciscop » 15 Sep 2009, 02:02

quantumparanormal wrote:
ciscop wrote:i thought the american way was to bomb everybody else that isnt white.


Now that's a racist statement.


Calm down,
someone forgot to take his meds
this is just a forum

:lol: :lol: :lol:

i might be wrong, but i think that line i used
comes from george carlin.
For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)
User avatar
ciscop
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 12:04

Re: National Geographic's 9/11 Conspiracy Program

Postby WhiteTiger » 16 Oct 2009, 10:33

ProfWag wrote:No, in this case it's a fact.
It's a fact that the Bush Adminisration would have had to have been in on a conspiracy.
It's a fact that the NYC Fire Department would have had to have been in on a conspiracy.
it's a fact that the NYC Police Department would have had to have been in on a conspiracy.
It's a fact that NYC Port Authority would have had to have been in on a conspiracy.
It's a fact that all of the Pentagon would have had to have been in on a conspiracy. (This alone shows well over a thousand people who would have had to have been in on a conspiracy. Thousands who were on scene that day do not questions there was a plane that hit their building. For that to be a conspiracy, they would all have to be lying and covering up)
it's a fact that the media would have had to have been in on it.
it's a fact that the photographers who took pictures would have had to have been in on it.
It's a fact that cleanup crews would have had to have been in on it.
Shall I continue? There's well over a thousand people there, hence, my statement. At least as much as facts can be so-called. Thanks to "zero-probability," nothing is impossible either, yet it's still in our vocabulary.


No, those are in fact opinions, and skewed ones at that. You are stating involvement of entire organisational bodies when the reality is that it takes but one or a very few properly placed conspirators within each organisation to issue directives and orders that hamstring the rest of the body of the organisation, preventing effective proactive or reactive measures. In most of those instancees it doesn't even require any direct conspiratorial presence in the organisations themselves, simply that someone with authority to direct the activities from without the organisation be involved in a putative conspiracy.

I suppose it seems a stronger argument to imply that "all those people" "have to be involved", but it's contra logical and very very far from "fact".



Tiger
Ignorance can be fixed. Stupid is forever
WhiteTiger
 
Posts: 55
Joined: 04 Oct 2009, 19:53

Re: National Geographic's 9/11 Conspiracy Program

Postby WhiteTiger » 16 Oct 2009, 11:12

Btw, I watched the "9/11 science and conspiracy" mocumentary (misspelling intentional) and virtually every "scientific" debunking demonstration was horribly, grossly flawed. right off the top of my head, the thermite demo was an utter farce that was apparently intentionally designed to fail considering that it was devised and staged by specialists of the energetic materials group who certainly had to know better.

The open pit "heat the beam" demonstration was also laden with errors, such as a fixed pool of fuel, and transverse loading rather than compressive loading of an I beam (of all things) which has enormously more conductive surface area per lb than the 2+ inch walled boxbeam columns which were the core supports for the towers.

Virtually all of the materials science in those staged for the camera dramatic events was of that same order of value, which is to say virtually none that relates to the events of 9/11, but which all make dandy emotional response triggers for the uninformed and those who can't or won't think for themselves.



Tiger
Ignorance can be fixed. Stupid is forever
WhiteTiger
 
Posts: 55
Joined: 04 Oct 2009, 19:53

Re: National Geographic's 9/11 Conspiracy Program

Postby Scepcop » 16 Oct 2009, 13:38

I don't have cable TV so I didn't get to see the National Geographic program. Is it online somewhere? Does Youtube or google video have it?

ProfWag, that is an old argument. FYI:

- There does not have to be thousands of people in on it. Only a small handful, with the rest afraid to question or say anything. Each person is on a need to know basis and only assigned to a specific job. Remember the Manhattan Project involved 160,000 people who all kept it a secret.

- There have been whistleblowers from the FBI and CIA, not just about 9/11 but about all sorts of things - lies, cover ups and crimes. I posted some whistleblower testimonies in the conspiracies board already.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: National Geographic's 9/11 Conspiracy Program

Postby Scepcop » 16 Oct 2009, 14:20

WhiteTiger wrote:No, those are in fact opinions, and skewed ones at that. You are stating involvement of entire organisational bodies when the reality is that it takes but one or a very few properly placed conspirators within each organisation to issue directives and orders that hamstring the rest of the body of the organisation, preventing effective proactive or reactive measures. In most of those instancees it doesn't even require any direct conspiratorial presence in the organisations themselves, simply that someone with authority to direct the activities from without the organisation be involved in a putative conspiracy.

I suppose it seems a stronger argument to imply that "all those people" "have to be involved", but it's contra logical and very very far from "fact".

Tiger


Tiger makes a good point. There are many secrets in government. Many. How do you think they are kept? They only need key people in key positions of authority. Same thing happened in the JFK case.

Former CIA official William Colburn said "The CIA owns anybody of any significance in the media".

Everyone else is on a "need to know" basis. They are assigned their job and they do it, and that's it.

I heard that when you are a Freemason, you pledge to protect other Masons, even if they are wrong. Their symbol is even on the back of our dollar bill. Do you think that's a coincidence? Yeah right.

ProfWag, my condolences to your family. Family comes first. You should be with your loved ones during this time.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: National Geographic's 9/11 Conspiracy Program

Postby Scepcop » 16 Oct 2009, 14:31

http://www.ae911truth.org/info/92

Sep 11, 2009
National Geographic Channel on 9/11: Manipulation vs. Objectivity
— Dwain Deets and Gregg Roberts

AE911Truth plans to release a longer response than this one as soon as resources permit. In the meantime, readers are encouraged to examine these other recently published pieces:

Jim Hoffman, National Geographic Does 9/11: Another Icon Debased in Service of the Big Lie

Kevin Ryan, Finally, an Apology From the National Geographic Channel (with comments at Kevin Ryan's Blog).

Richard Gage, AIA, Gregg Roberts, and David Chandler, Evidence for the Explosive Demolition of World Trade Center, Building 7 on 9/11

National Geographic Channel (NGC) first broadcast its two-hour special misleadingly entitled "9/11: Science and Conspiracy," on August 31, 2009. NGC, with 67% ownership by Rupert Murdoch, posed as a neutral party explaining both sides in an ongoing dispute. In reality, it manipulated the presentation, doing many subtle and not so subtle things to support the side of the official story.

In actuality, this so-called documentary was a de facto hit piece, an assault on truth, and obviously skewed in support of the government's explanation of 9/11 and against "9/11 truth." Whatever their intentions, the producers failed completely in any supposed attempt at balanced reporting and a fair presentation of both sides of the story.

The Manipulation Channel

The first big manipulation was the use of a highly misleading title, suggesting that those supporting the official story represent the scientific viewpoint, while those questioning the official story are merely "conspiracy theorists" who have no science or scientists on their side. The truth is that those supporting the official story were manipulating and those questioning the official story were much more objective in their reasoning.

Most troubling, NGC used a devious tactic at program's end against those questioning the official story. These four leaders of the objective side (Dylan Avery, Richard Gage, David Ray Griffin, and Steven Jones) had pointed out shortcomings in the several "experiments" (better called pseudo-scientific demonstrations) sponsored by NGC. According to NGC, these experiments would answer the key questions in the dispute between the two sides, but the 9/11 skeptics were critical of each of the demonstrations, saying that each of them were irrelevant. NGC twisted this criticism of the experiments as evidence that 9/11 skeptics would refuse to accept any experimental results that work against their conclusions – and would do so for that reason alone.

NGC actually used the term "truthers" to refer to the objectivists, a silly-sounding label used as shorthand within the community of 9/11 skeptics, but not one that they use when speaking to critics. The use of that insider label was one of the many appeals to emotion rather than reason used in the show. To help understand this, compare the use of the "N" word by African-Americans themselves, as opposed to its use by people who are not members of that group and instead are hostile toward its members. The repeated use of the word "beliefs," more appropriate to emotional and religious contexts, rather than the word "conclusions," which carries a connotation of rationality, is another example of this kind of manipulation.

In each case of critiquing the demonstrations, Gage said, "the experiment design doesn't even take into account the evidence for explosive controlled demolition." His critique was glossed over by NGC as if he hadn't even said it. What did he mean by this? It turns out, Gage had provided NGC a full briefing on this evidence, and what he meant by explosive controlled demolition. Gage furthermore was assuming as he was making these critiques that his terminology would convey the meaning developed during his full briefing. It turns out that, in what survived the producers' cuts, NGC chose to exclude all of this evidence presented by Gage.

Had Gage known that NGC would censor his list of evidence, he might have given a more specific reason for criticizing the various demonstrations. For example, in the aviation fuel fire test, where NGC showed that a single steel beam under load would sag when it reached over 2,000 degrees F. In reality, 2,000 F wasn't an important temperature at all in the larger context, or even the fact that aviation fuel could burn that hot. Part of the evidence for explosive controlled demolition was that temperatures in the structures reached more than twice that temperature – far above what burning aviation fuel could produce. NGC's experiment was moot. Not a single leading 9/11 skeptic would deny that steel that is sufficiently overloaded and heated will twist out of shape and eventually fail entirely. Indeed, Gage said this on the show.

Other key parts of the evidence for explosive controlled demolition was the more than two seconds of free-fall acceleration of Building 7, the molten metal at Ground Zero that remained extremely hot for many weeks (unexplainable for jet fuel and office fires), the evidence of unignited nanothermite in the dust, the massive girders thrown 600 feet horizontally, and the symmetrical destruction of all three buildings, accelerating into what should have been the paths of greatest resistance. Although the nanothermite was discussed by Jones, it was dismissed by the NGC narrator as merely something some 9/11 skeptics believe in. NGC reinforced this dismissal of the importance of nanothermite by not at all being bothered that their thermite demonstration did not address nanothermite, which was found in the dust from the destruction, but rather its tamer cousin thermite, which NGC was willing and able to obtain.

The NGC narrator was cast as a voice of authority. The tone and inflection conveyed the idea that this show was presenting the "final word," bringing truth out of the controversy. During the lead-up to the building demolition demonstration, the narrator commented that it would take so many people and so much time to wire the explosives, she didn't even know if it would be possible to wire ''both'' buildings. The use of the term "both" was part of an effort throughout the program to ignore Building 7. It falsely implied that only two buildings "collapsed" that day. Building 7 is widely regarded among 9/11 skeptics as a more obvious problem for the official story than the Twin Towers, since its destruction precisely resembled a controlled demolition. (It takes some people longer to see that the destruction of the Twin Towers also had to be a controlled demolition, albeit one that used an "overkill" amount of explosives and started at the impact zones.)

NGC attempted to make its case using personalities in the public's eye, casting them as authorities on this matter. One was Matt Taibbi, editor of Rolling Stone magazine. At one point, Taibbi said, "We ask people who really know the answers. I've asked dozens of structural engineers and scientists about what happened on 9/11, and the answer I uniformly get from credible sources is always the same—overall, this story tends to be supported by the evidence." Such a statement completely dismisses the expertise of Gage and Jones, the more than 800 architects and engineers at Gage's website, in favor of unnamed alleged dozens of structural engineers and scientists somewhere out there. No opportunity was given to counter this outrageous put-down and dismissal. With regard to structural engineers, see our a recent article "29 Structural & Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Demolition in Collapses of All 3 WTC High-Rises on 9/11" by Gregg Roberts and AE911Truth staff. The article presents hard evidence that Taibbi's unnamed dozens would find hard to refute.

Had any of the show’s producers bothered to research Dr. William Pepper’s exoneration of Martin Luther King’s alleged assassin, James Earl Ray, in a civil trial in 1999, they would have learned that there was in fact a bona fide conspiracy to murder King that was conducted by agencies within the US government and the Memphis police department. US Army snipers followed orders, taking up a position as backup shooters, without knowing why they were so ordered. They were never ordered to shoot because the primary shooter did his job. After realizing what they had been made part of, several of them left the US and went into hiding, two of them returning reluctantly and courageously to testify at the trial. The jury rendered a rapid verdict in favor of the King family’ endorsing the evidence and conclusions that Pepper presented. Real conspirators were exposed and identified, proving that these types of activities do in fact occur, but are kept almost completely out of public awareness with the help of media collaborators like the NGC producers. This victory for truth in the King case creates the disturbing dissonance that comes before comfortable lies give way to uncomfortable but ultimately empowering truths. It would have established a critical precedent, of which there are others, for people to understand the horrible reality of 9/11.

Maria Gilardin of TUC Radio has an excellent interview with William Pepper telling the truth behind the King assassination.

http://www.tucradio.org/2008_03_19MLKtrial.mp3

http://www.tucradio.org/2008_03_26MLKtrial.mp3
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: National Geographic's 9/11 Conspiracy Program

Postby Scepcop » 16 Oct 2009, 14:36

National Geographic Does 9/11:
Another Icon Debased in Service of the Big Lie
by Jim Hoffman

http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/Nat ... index.html
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: National Geographic's 9/11 Conspiracy Program

Postby WhiteTiger » 16 Oct 2009, 15:27

Scepcop wrote:I don't have cable TV so I didn't get to see the National Geographic program. Is it online somewhere? Does Youtube or google video have it?


I can't bring myself to potentially sit through the whole farce again so I don't know if this is the entire program, but the "science and conspiracy' episode is at least partly available here. Click the "video" link immediately below the title.



Tiger
Ignorance can be fixed. Stupid is forever
WhiteTiger
 
Posts: 55
Joined: 04 Oct 2009, 19:53

Re: National Geographic's 9/11 Conspiracy Program

Postby ProfWag » 16 Oct 2009, 22:47

WhiteTiger wrote:
ProfWag wrote:No, in this case it's a fact.
It's a fact that the Bush Adminisration would have had to have been in on a conspiracy.
It's a fact that the NYC Fire Department would have had to have been in on a conspiracy.
it's a fact that the NYC Police Department would have had to have been in on a conspiracy.
It's a fact that NYC Port Authority would have had to have been in on a conspiracy.
It's a fact that all of the Pentagon would have had to have been in on a conspiracy. (This alone shows well over a thousand people who would have had to have been in on a conspiracy. Thousands who were on scene that day do not questions there was a plane that hit their building. For that to be a conspiracy, they would all have to be lying and covering up)
it's a fact that the media would have had to have been in on it.
it's a fact that the photographers who took pictures would have had to have been in on it.
It's a fact that cleanup crews would have had to have been in on it.
Shall I continue? There's well over a thousand people there, hence, my statement. At least as much as facts can be so-called. Thanks to "zero-probability," nothing is impossible either, yet it's still in our vocabulary.


No, those are in fact opinions, and skewed ones at that. You are stating involvement of entire organisational bodies when the reality is that it takes but one or a very few properly placed conspirators within each organisation to issue directives and orders that hamstring the rest of the body of the organisation, preventing effective proactive or reactive measures. In most of those instancees it doesn't even require any direct conspiratorial presence in the organisations themselves, simply that someone with authority to direct the activities from without the organisation be involved in a putative conspiracy.

I suppose it seems a stronger argument to imply that "all those people" "have to be involved", but it's contra logical and very very far from "fact".



Tiger

The soure of my information: http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/someoft ... sandindivi
Feel free to contact them to disagree or provide some sort of source for your rebuttal please. You state that "the reality is that it takes but one or a very few properly placed conspirator..." Actually, the reality is that it would take but one "conspirator" to open his/her mouth and provide the truth. Hasn't happened and probably won't.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: National Geographic's 9/11 Conspiracy Program

Postby ProfWag » 16 Oct 2009, 22:57

WhiteTiger wrote:
Scepcop wrote:I don't have cable TV so I didn't get to see the National Geographic program. Is it online somewhere? Does Youtube or google video have it?


I can't bring myself to potentially sit through the whole farce again so I don't know if this is the entire program, but the "science and conspiracy' episode is at least partly available here. Click the "video" link immediately below the title.



Tiger

Gee, I wonder whose side of the debate you are on...
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

PreviousNext

Return to Share Interesting Videos and Films

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron