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 NinjaPuppy » 16 Oct 2009, 23:22

Gee ProfWag, we are supposed to pick a side? I'll take a side of fries, thank you.

I don't 'pick a side'. I prefer to nitpick my preferences one issue at a time. I love a good point/counterpoint issue myself. I find it hard to form an opinion of any kind from a laundry list of claims and counter claims. It's like watching an eternal game of ping-pong. While one claim may be spot on correct, the next might be dead wrong in the same sentence by the same person. I don't feel that I have to agree with every point of a subject to be pro or con.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44






Re: National Geographic's 9/11 Conspiracy Program

Postby ProfWag » 16 Oct 2009, 23:33

NinjaPuppy wrote:Gee ProfWag, we are supposed to pick a side? I'll take a side of fries, thank you.

I don't 'pick a side'. I prefer to nitpick my preferences one issue at a time. I love a good point/counterpoint issue myself. I find it hard to form an opinion of any kind from a laundry list of claims and counter claims. It's like watching an eternal game of ping-pong. While one claim may be spot on correct, the next might be dead wrong in the same sentence by the same person. I don't feel that I have to agree with every point of a subject to be pro or con.

Dang Ninja, that's, like, three times in a row you've been absolutely right... ;-)
Although, from my point of view, it's pretty obvious that most people either support Richard Gage and/or his conspiracy theories or they don't. I don't, so I guess I'm showing my bias in my posts, huh?
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: National Geographic's 9/11 Conspiracy Program

Postby WhiteTiger » 17 Oct 2009, 00:07

ProfWag wrote:Gee, I wonder whose side of the debate you are on...


I'll save you the trouble of wondering or guessing: I'm on the side of physical evidence, technical accuracy, and relevance, all of which were woefully absent in the "science and conspiracy" show.

I'm a retired engineering sort with rather wide pan disciplinary experience. In the thermite segment for example, the show made a glaring error that no one with any experience with thermite would make, and the only plausible reason I can see for specialists to make such an error is to ensure that the "demonstration/experiment" outcome supported a predetermined conclusion.

I've had involvement with the in situ repairing of large iron castings by thermite welding and one thing no professional does with thermite is to allow any moisture to be present in the refractory containment vessel, yet these energetic materials "experts" are shown slathering well over an inch of wet earth clay into the receptacle where they are about to set off a thermite charge. Of course the violently exothermic reaction vaporised the moisture in the wet clay into live steam with the result of blowing virtually all of the charge onto the ground in a camera pleasing 4th of July display of sparks.

Naturally with but insignificant dregs left within the containment, it had no outcome other than depositing a miniscule amount of iron scale onto the "test piece" so they could show the camera how it's "just not reasonable" to suspect thermite involvement in the twin towers.

Sure looked like a deliberate setup for failure of the "experiment" to me. I mean, thermite is an old and well understood technology and no experienced pyro or explosives technician could accidentally make such a basic error. You don't get entrusted with the regular handling of high explosives if you are that much of a doofus. The only reason I can see for such a farce is to ensure a predetermined outcome, since the technicians had to know that an honest test would have resulted in the piercing of that steel plate containment vessel. Mustn't show anything which would substantiate that thermite can and does cause catastrophic failure in steel.



Tiger

(edited for typing errors)
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 » 17 Oct 2009, 00:26

WhiteTiger wrote:
ProfWag wrote:Gee, I wonder whose side of the debate you are on...


I'll save you the trouble of wondering or guessing: I'm on the side of physical evidence, technical accuracy, and relevance, all of which were woefully absent in the "science and conspiracy" show.

I'm a retired engineering sort with rather wide pan disciplinary experience. In the thermite segment for example, the show made a glaring error that no one with any experience with thermite would make, and the only plausible reason I can see for specialists to make such an error is to ensure that the "demonstration/experiment" outcome supported a predetermined conclusion.

I've had involvement with the in situ repairing of large iron castings by thermite welding and one thing no professional does with thermite is to allow any moisture to be present in the refractory containment vessel, yet these energetic materials "experts" are shown slathering well over an inch of wet earth clay into the receptacle where they are about to set off a thermite charge. Of course the violently exothermic reaction vaporised the moisture in the wet clay into live steam with the result of blowing virtually all of the charge onto the ground in a camera pleasing 4th of July display of sparks.

Naturally with but insignificant dregs left within the containment, it had no outcome other than depositing a miniscule amount of iron scale onto the "test piece" so they could show the camera how it's "just not reasonable" to suspect thermite involvement in the twin towers.

Sure looked like a deliberate setup for failure of the "experiment" to me. I mean, thermite is an old and well understood technology and no experienced pyro or explosives technician could accidentally make such a basic error. You don't get entrusted with the regular handling of high explosives if you are that much of a doofus. The only reason I can see for such a farce is to ensure a predetermined outcome, since the technicians had to know that an honest test would have resulted in the piercing of that steel plate containment vessel. Mustn't show anything which would substantiate that thermite can and does cause catastrophic failure in steel.



Tiger

(edited for typing errors)

Interesting your take on the Nat Geo show. Dr. Steven Jones simply called it BS because "super-thermite" was used at the WTC instead of regular thermite so you could have saved a lot of typing. Though I wonder if they have experimented with super-thermite" enough to know what it would do to a 110-story building. Maybe they have or maybe they are just making stuff up. I don't know
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: National Geographic's 9/11 Conspiracy Program

Postby WhiteTiger » 17 Oct 2009, 00:51

Ah, I intentionally didn't address the "super thermite" question since it wasn't what was in the show in question, other than verbal mention. I'll say that if they are making crap up, they aren't at all original about it, because I was hearing rumbles about something similar back in the 80's, but only circuitous and passing references, and not going by any specific label.

I was attempting to keep my remarks relevant to the show itself and the putative science demonstrations in it.



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 » 17 Oct 2009, 02:41

WhiteTiger wrote:Ah, I intentionally didn't address the "super thermite" question since it wasn't what was in the show in question, other than verbal mention. I'll say that if they are making crap up, they aren't at all original about it, because I was hearing rumbles about something similar back in the 80's, but only circuitous and passing references, and not going by any specific label.

I was attempting to keep my remarks relevant to the show itself and the putative science demonstrations in it.



Tiger

I can see you really are a seasoned forum participant Tiger. Well done in keeping things on track! Wish I could do as well, but I can't.
So, I guess my point is if Nat Geo did a demonstration about thermite and they countered that it wasn't thermite, but "super thermite," then hopefully they have something to show how "super thermite" works. And if Nat Geo counters with an experiment on "super thermite," then would Jones, et.al. then say it wasn't "super thermite" but "super-duper, nano bandano thermitocopolopigus?"
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: National Geographic's 9/11 Conspiracy Program

Postby NinjaPuppy » 17 Oct 2009, 04:43

ProfWag wrote:And if Nat Geo counters with an experiment on "super thermite," then would Jones, et.al. then say it wasn't "super thermite" but "super-duper, nano bandano thermitocopolopigus?"

There is no such thing as super-duper, nano bandano thermitocopolopigus, and don't you tyr to trick me into googling it up either. As far as the difference between thermite and super thermite, there is a difference however. I understand that super thermite 'tastes great and is less filling' than regular old thermite. Let's move on, shall we?
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: National Geographic's 9/11 Conspiracy Program

Postby ProfWag » 17 Oct 2009, 05:16

NinjaPuppy wrote:
ProfWag wrote:And if Nat Geo counters with an experiment on "super thermite," then would Jones, et.al. then say it wasn't "super thermite" but "super-duper, nano bandano thermitocopolopigus?"

There is no such thing as super-duper, nano bandano thermitocopolopigus, and don't you tyr to trick me into googling it up either. As far as the difference between thermite and super thermite, there is a difference however. I understand that super thermite 'tastes great and is less filling' than regular old thermite. Let's move on, shall we?

:-)
Actually Ninja, this whole thermite ideo was the creation of one Dr. Steven Jones--same guy I asked about in the other thread.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: National Geographic's 9/11 Conspiracy Program

Postby brett » 17 Oct 2009, 09:25

well i finally got to see this Nat Geo presentation - and was NOT overly surprised by the tone and content :roll: - after all i guess it is a reasonable question to ask as to WHO owns and runs that franchise - and what connections do they have to the establishment ( vis US government ?? ) - and weather Nat Geo would go against the "official" line - or are they in fact part of the smokescreen ??
LIFE - just filling the bits between birth, death and taxes
User avatar
brett
 
Posts: 436
Joined: 06 Aug 2009, 22:23
Location: Plymouth UK

Previous

Return to Share Interesting Videos and Films

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest