National Geographic Society

  • Connect:

Remembering 9/11

Explosive 9/11 Claims

Could the towers have been brought down by controlled demolition? Blasting a college dorm helps answer that question.

Info

Check your local listings.

Remembering 9/11: Explosive 9/11 Claims

Published

Could the towers have been brought down by controlled demolition? Blasting a college dorm helps answer that question.

Share

1 comments
Barry Mead
Barry Mead

This is called confirmation bias. Nat. Geo. has talked of flaws but failed to be independent,fair or recognise their own flaws. I could demonstrate how 1000's do not need to be in on it but rather than that i will use 1 example then focus on their other failures. Thousands would be needed to replace a plane with a rogue one? WRONG 1 remote controlled plane, controlled by 1 person,same person remote access to the real plane and takes it down to a place of their choosing. Using war game inserts on radar to confuse FAA. If the hijackers did not need thousands then why should any agency with huge black ops budgets and contacts ? Why when an agent can be told do x y z without being in the loop,they complete what is seemingly trivial yet is a essential part of the plot. If the NAT GEO. Lies are true then we have NO national security and ALL the government war plans in active use are well known. They are not so nat geo lie is debunked. But let us look to nat geo trying to prove thermate will NOT cut through  steel, and the demolition test. Nat Geo did NOT request demolition crew to ensure the evidence would be destroyed. Therefore that is like eating a banana and throwing away the skin, then getting another person to eat a banana not telling them to throw the skin away, then saying aha a banana skin proves the banana couldnt be eaten without evidence being available. Sorry but INVALID TEST. Thermite? well Nat Geo use thermate to prove nano thermite (military grade only) cant be used. So we use something readily available to prove something not available that cant be used to see if it is different was used? That's like  a conspiracy theorist using a cessna to hit the world trade center to prove no boeing did because the damage is not the same. However we next step to using 1500lbs of thermate, to imply it would need mega amounts. But then despite using shaped charges in the tnt destruction of the building earlier,they do not do so now, they try to blow up a vertical column (not needed as actually only bolts are needed to be severed) And in fact they are then casting more questions on natural collapse if 1500lbs f explosive force cannot damage a vertical column then explain how the top section dissolved in the air despit having nowhere near that force on it? Anyway Nat geo ensure rather than a shaped charge, the force goes straight upwards so almost 0 force acts on the beam. This has been disproven http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYW-z7nrTZk  but i am not here to say whether this is conspiracy or not. But simply to say Nat Geo has attempted to seem "fair" but actually deliberately willfully engineered each test to fail. This is fraudulent investigating and testing and as such they are fakes as they are actively lying to people in order to validate an official theory. Like NIST who when challenged have said things like- we used LESS than 1% of available evidence, we cannot explain this,we didnt know how to explain it so we ignored that. Essentially not a "claim" of fraud for NIST and Nat Geo a FACT of fraud. To negate this in Nat Geo case, they must redo each experiment with the attempt to genuinely "get away with it" ie minimise who needs to know, try hard to cut steel like others have,and at the least before debunking alternatives,let them do a test where they make a fire create  a symetrical collapse of a building,or create a dissolving of all concrete especially the top and laterally eject material. I say they cannot and will not because all they want is to imply truths which in fact are neither provable or in cases are provably false. NEVER believe 1 source. Not even me, go check check check, i want you to Nat Geo wants you to hold them as a truth and stop looking there. I will not i suggest you don't either.