The National Geographic channel has recently aired a whole string of 9/11 documentaries which perpetuate the official lie. Both 'How It Was' and '9/11: Science and Conspiracy' conveniently omit any reference to the smoking gun...WTC 7! In '9/11: Science and Conspiracy', the producers introduce the piece as an objective pitting of "conspiracy theorists" against science (As if these were the two polar opposites). They proceed with an experiment to find out if jet fuel is capable of reaching temperatures that can deform a steel beam. And, of course, it did. The trouble is, the beam they used was admittedly much much smaller than the actual support columns in WTC 1 & 2. As a welder, I can tell you that heat displacement varies enormously depending upon 1.) the thickness of the steel and 2.) the grade of steel. Different kinds of steel behave in different ways. The same temperature that may contort a piece of 1/8th inch angle iron will do absolutely nothing to the shape of a piece of 1 inch angle iron. So the experiment was a wash to begin with.
Next they offer up a research project by Purdue University by which we are to learn that the impact of the jet into the building can actually cause it to collapse. I'll not bother at this point to elaborate on the scientific facts offered by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth on this subject - You can watch this for yourself on several videos to be found here on my blog. However, an interesting point of research - The federal government has funded Purdue Universities science department for years. They receive very large amount of money from Big Brother, and as we know, it is not wise to bite the hand that feeds you.
World Trade Center 7 fell into its own footprint at an accelerating free fall speed nearly 7 hours after the first two towers fell and it wasn't hit by anything but some debris. THE FACT THAT ANYBODY EVEN HAS TO SPELL THIS PHENOMENON OUT TO ANYBODY IS COMPLETELY ABSURD! And yet, most Americans just don't bother to question this.
I guess, ultimately, we get the kind of government we deserve.
National Geographic has, apparently, been bought...Is anyone surprised?
If you look on Stephen T. McCarthy's "Ferret Faced Fascist Friends" site, he did a post where he recommends two videos-here's the links:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.loosechange911.com/
http://www.911pressfortruth.com/
They're shocking, and there's no way anyone can watch them and not question the "official" story.
Thanks!! I've seen Loose Change, but I'll be sure to check out Press For Truth.
ReplyDeleteBARQUEDUST ~
ReplyDeleteYou are entirely correct that WTC TOWER 7 is indeed "the smoking gun" of 9/11.
It's the smoking gun amongst tons of lesser circumstantial evidence all pointing to a massive lie! As I have frequently stated:
Uncle Sam's "official" 9/11 story is so full of holes it's useful only as a colander.
And as far as National Geographic is concerned... well, heck, here's a supposed "scientific" magazine for the layperson that's still trying to sell Darwinian Evolution to the people. I knew National Geographic was untrustworthy long before 9/11 occurred.
As Lyall Watson wrote in Science Digest in 1982: "The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin!"
Yeah, National Geographic is a full-of-crap leftist Dinosaur that refuses to join the modern, scientific world!
By the way, if you're a book reader, I also highly recommend "ALICE IN WONDERLAND AND THE WORLD TRADE CENTER DISASTER" by David Icke.
Putting aside Icke's false beliefs about The Bible and his "reptilian alien" theories (as I don't like to throw the baby out with the bathwater), he wrote one of the best books on 9/11 that I have read. It's subtitled "Why The Official Story Of 9/11 Is A Monumental Lie". And in it, he really delves deeply into so many of the smaller facts that get overlooked when we focus just on the big picture, such as buildings falling at free-fall speed, etc.
Of course, he draws comparisons to Operation Northwoods and some of the other obvious issues, but he also gets down to some of the minutiae which collectively also begins to carry a lot of weight! I'd suggest reading chapters six through fifteen. The rest of it I could have done without.
Keep up the good work on your blog, friend!
~ D-FensDogg
'Loyal American Underground'
@McCarthy
ReplyDeleteHaha.. I'm not sure the greatest way to "discredit" National Geographic is to recognize it's acknowledgment of evolution.
What's even more amusing is that you bring up David Icke. David Icke is a great example of the sort of quacks that are being used to cast negative connotations on the phrase "conspiracy theory" through association with (what has to be--no way an intelligent person can be THAT crazy) agents of disinformation. Also what's funny about you using David Icke is that you immediately discard his crazy stories but he's still credible for 9/11 theories, after using association to discredit National Geographic.
Grr!! It is crazy people like you that make pursuit of the truth so difficult! Average person is incapable of disassociating things.. So when people are presented with relevant information, they automatically discount it believing that its acceptance would mean accepting ALL such wild speculation.
.. "trying to sell Darwinian Evolution".. lol.. NO ONE is trying to sell "Darwinian Evolution". Evolution is fact and has become much better understood since Darwin
GARY ~
ReplyDeleteTruth is where you find it, Buddy!
I thought I made my approach very clear when, in conjunction with my reference to David Icke, I said, "I don't like to throw the baby out with the bathwater."
I understand the concept of government disinformation very well. And Icke's "way out" views in some respects fits that label. However, having not studied his writings (other than the one I referenced) I'm not prepared to say he's a government disinformation agent, just a plain wacko, a guy who has honestly misinterpreted information, or even a guy who's right and well ahead of me on the conspiracy curve.
What I will say, however, is that his book "ALICE IN WONDERLAND AND THE WORLD TRADE CENTER DISASTER" is perhaps the best book on 9/11 that I have read - and I've read at least four, including "Crossing The Rubicon" by Michael Ruppert and "Inside Job" by Jim Marrs.
Until you yourself have read Icke's 9/11 book, I suggest you take a more intelligent stance. In other words: "Don't be DOWN on what you're not UP on!"
And furthermore, why was I not surprised to find at the end of your comment that - SURPRISE! - you're a believer in Darwinian Evolution.
Partner, if you're still buying - yes, "BUYING!" - Darwinian Evolution, then trust me, I don't feel you have any business at all trying to "school" me on 9/11!
If you're not part of the answer, you're part of the problem. And yeah, this "crazy person" has determined that you're probably not part of the answer.
Save your insight for someone who will be more impressed with it than I am!
~ D-FensDogg
'Loyal American Underground'
What's Darwinian Evolution? There is no such thing.. There is just evolution--which is as commonplace among the scientific community as breathing is among everyone else.
ReplyDeleteHell, most theists accept evolution. There's nothing to "believe"--the "theory" revolves around over 200,000 facts(peer-reviewed scientific publications) that lead to an understanding of evolution. Science/intellect doesn't require "belief"---in fact, it scorns it. "Belief" is the antithesis of knowledge because it impedes objective acquisition of information.
.. but apparently you KNOW the truth and 99% of experienced scientists are idiots. You apparently assume to KNOW "truth" without possessing any factual evidence, but merely speculative assumptions that allow you to view the world in a much more simplistic fashion.
I strongly recommend AronRa in general(among others) for a little mental stimulation and exposure to the complexities of the world as we know it.. but for a good summary I suggest watching this:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TkY7HrJOhc
Science doesn't SELL anything.. In fact, scientists are just as keen on proving others wrong as they are about proving themselves right.. Which is what makes the scientific method such a reliable system.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePart 1 of 2:
ReplyDeleteGARY ~
Hokey-Smoke, man! Are you really this dense? What part of this comment did you not understand?: “Save your insight for someone who will be more impressed with it than I am!”
>>.....What's Darwinian Evolution? There is no such thing.
Yeah, you’re darn right there’s no such thing. But don’t “play dumb”, son; it’s very unbecoming!
Of course everyone who has spent more than a week with their television set turned off knows that “evolution” or “change” occurs in all organisms. But that change is limited. Even under fully controlled, optimal laboratory conditions, there is a limit to how much change (or “evolution” if you insist on using that word) can be forced upon an organism (e.g., the limited number of hairs that fruit flies can be induced to grow).
But those who still pray to the basic Darwinian theory of evolution (such as that proposed in ‘The Origin Of Species’) have, after a century and a half of insisting that one type of species can “evolve” into another type of species, nothing but a boat-load of theory and less than a handful of evidence to support it! In other words, Darwinism still hasn’t developed a leg to stand on!
It’s too bad you didn’t catch up with me even just four years ago, because I would have been pleased as punch to go hammer and tongs with you over the subject of evolution, and would have continued the debate until I had disproven the majority of your beliefs and cast deep, serious doubt on the remainder of them. But I no longer waste my breath and/or time on your ilk.
As I have often said, “You can't reason with a person who forms their beliefs without reasoning.” And I have since quit arguing with ideologues such as yourself. You can go and believe anything you choose and it’s fine with me. You can hide from the Light and deny the Truth until the cows come home blue in the face, and that won’t disturb me in the least. Go on, Brother, be as gullible as ya wanna be! Just don’t expect all of us to fall for all the nonsense you willfully do.
The so-called “scientific” Darwinists and neo-Darwinists have been caught passing off fossils of deformed human beings as “missing links”; they have been discovered and exposed promoting phony illustrations of embryo development sequences; they have glued moths to tree trunks in order to fake “evidence” of their theories; they have lied about the existence of computer models of evolutionary eye development, and told too many other lies to list them all here! But, in short, Darwiniacs have all the credibility of anthropomorphic Global Warming alarmists (another false theory you probably STILL believe in!)
Continued Below...
Part 2 Of 2:
ReplyDeleteI do not “buy” into this phony, pseudo-scientific argument for Darwinian evolution any more than I bought into Uncle Sam’s explanation for 9/11. I knew that our government was lying about aspects related to the 9/11 attacks on September 11, 2001! I did not buy it when Bill Clinton told us he smoked pot but didn’t inhale. I didn’t buy it when Al Gore told us we were causing Global Warming. I didn’t buy it when George W. Bush said he was a Christian and a Conservative (he was lying on BOTH counts!) I didn’t buy it when John McCain told us he stood for (American) principles that were opposed to Obamaism. I didn’t buy it when Obama told us he represented “Hope and Change”. And I’m not buying that Obama was born in Hawaii. But I’ll bet you bought into most of these things at one time or another.
And one more thing: there’s a darn good reason that Richard Dawkins has refused on more than one occasion to publicly debate Stephen Meyer. Frankly, he knows perfectly well that he would get his own butt handed to him on a silver platter!
Listen, man, I imagine that Barquedust doesn’t want to see his comment section turned into an argument about evolution. The topic of this blog installment was 9/11 and I only mentioned evolution because National Geographic has a track record of attempting to deceive the American people. Furthermore, I did not direct my initial comment to you, but rather to Barquedust. And still more, not only are you off-topic but your name doesn’t even link to a blog on this site, which essentially means that you’re nothing more than an Internet Troll. So, it’s time for you to get a life and BUTT OUT of mine!
I won’t be replying to any more of your nonsense here. And I expect you to refrain from addressing me from now on unless I address you first (which is highly unlikely). I have no interest in discussing 9/11 with you, much less evolution.
Any chance you might have had of discussing ANY topic with me now or in the future went right out the window when your first comment addressed to me included this bit of ad hominem crap: “Grr!! It is crazy people like you that make pursuit of the truth so difficult!”
You’ve wasted too much of my time already, so Troll-off, Gary!
~ D-FensDogg
‘Loyal American Underground’
I suppose you're copping out before facing anything that credibly contradicts your deluded stance, but I'll give it a go, anyway:
ReplyDelete1 VERY simple question
Why are no, idk, cheetahs, elephants, people, etc fossil remains found in the deep sedimentary layers where only trilobites and annomites can be found? In fact, why are there distinct layers of less complex creatures progressing to more complex as you come up through the layers? Seems straightforward enough.
As for Darwin having a "leg to stand on".. Darwin has nothing to do with any of this, and as I've already stated--there are more than 200,000 peer reviewed papers addressing numerous discoveries that support evolution.
"The so-called “scientific” Darwinists and neo-Darwinists have been caught passing off fossils of deformed human beings as “missing links”; they have been discovered and exposed promoting phony illustrations of embryo development sequences; they have glued moths to tree trunks in order to fake “evidence” of their theories; they have lied about the existence of computer models of evolutionary eye development" This is all absurd
Anyone who has done a little bit of research on the supposed "Peer Reviewed" articles used to support global warming won't be impressed by peer reviewed anything.
ReplyDeleteMarc
Sorry, Barquedust.. You can't stop accepting my responses, but so long as I'm addressed, I will respond.. Especially when it concerns such blatant stupidity. Such stupidity WOULDN'T concern me as much if it wasn't so prevalent--result of indoctrination at youth.
ReplyDeleteMarc, I'll put this as delicately as I can... hahahahaha. OMG, lmao. Seriously? xD You will accept a book of fairy tales that has been proven wrong in about every conceivable way, but you reject PROVEN science? .. You are either VERY stupid or just completely uneducated. "Peer Reviewed" is the most brutal process any hypothesis can be exposed to. If it's accepted, that means that the majority of the world's leading scientists/experts in that area accept it as accurate. However, since you CHOOSE to deny it(and not even based on your own education or intelligence, but because the faction you associate with has decided they don't wish to accept it) then it MUST be false.. And since you reject the idea of one "Peer Reviewed" article, then you're skeptical of all.. For the record, "Peer Reviewed" isn't a story or opinion in News Weekly, National Geographic or anything like that.
So please enlighten me.. What "research" have you done and what have you found to be incredulous?
Of course, typical idiots just pop in with some trivial comment and nothing to back it up. That is why anything you say is worthless, because you have already exhibited that you are the equivalent of parakeet. Keep your repetitive drivel for the ears of your master.
MARC ~
ReplyDelete(a) - Anytime a person speaks to you in what is supposedly an "adult" conversation with this sort of pop lingo: "hahahahaha. OMG, lmao." You can be sure you are dealing with the sort of person who is swayed by ten-minute YouTube videos and articles found on Wikipedia. You can also be sure that you are wasting your precious time attempting to get through to an ideologue from ‘Generation Text’ who spends little time objectively investigating what the opposition to his favored theorists have to say.
(b) – Anyone who refers to The Holy Bible as a book of “fairly tales” has spent more time studying their own navel than they have seriously digging into The Bible and authentically and open-mindedly evaluating it. You and I are both so well aware of the remarkable riches and proofs of Biblical texts that we can be sure anyone who dismisses it so disrespectfully is WILLFULLY ignorant and, again, not worth your time in responding to.
(c) – It’s actually pretty funny when an individual from ‘Generation Text’ presumes to teach you the meaning of “peer-reviewed” as if you need to be educated about the terminology. And it’s not funny, but sad, when someone who seems to have such an elevated regard for his own intelligence and education can be so in the dark about simple human concepts such as collusion or conspiracy, collective devotion to nonobjective ideologies, the consolidation of power for individual benefit and empowerment, and the influential power of grant money from Federal coffers and so-called “philanthropic” Foundations.
(d) - It’s astounding – truly ASTOUNDING! - when a person who knows virtually nothing about you can presume to make judgments about your education, your intelligence, your previous studies, and even your motivations for accepting or rejecting specific theories. Wow! A stranger can tell you that you reject concepts like Global Warming for no other reason than that a friend of yours does?! Can you even begin to fathom the arrogance and stupidity it takes to make a public pronouncement like that? If such a person could correctly deduce that with zero evidence to support it (rather than simply being moronically wrong), it would indicate an intelligence of such magnitude that we could expect said person to be running a Fortune 500 company or making billions of dollars on Wall Street by psychically predicting stock market fluctuations rather than “Trolling” the Internet attempting to start off-topic arguments with total strangers.
(e) - Marc, someone who has never met you says that you exhibit “blatant stupidity”; that you were “indoctrinated at youth” (never mind the fact that you have turned nearly 180 degrees away from the ideas you were indoctrinated with during your youth); and that you are “VERY stupid or just completely uneducated”. But you know what’s really humorous? The same stranger who tells you that “anything you say is worthless” has also asked you to “please enlighten” him about your reasons for rejecting Global Warming. If you’re dumb, he’s dumber!
(f) – It’s amazing how many Internet Thugs there are. Things that they won’t hesitate to say to you from a safe, anonymous position, they wouldn’t even dream of saying to your face if they were within arm’s reach.
(g) – Marc, I happen to know that you have only one “Master” and His name is Yeshua. Obviously, I am not your master, for if I were, you wouldn’t have so vigorously debated certain theological points against me in the past, as you have. I expect people who simply agree with me to simply agree with me. If I’m your master, Marc, you’ve been a naughty servant!
(h) – Marc, if you reply to this Troll again, in any way, you will be wasting valuable time. There’s only one thing I can say for Gary: He has convinced me that evolution is indeed a fact. And his brutish personality and uncivilized tongue has further convinced me that Gary himself is the “missing link”.
~ D-FensDogg
‘Loyal American Underground’
Marc, upon reading both you and what Gary had to say, I can say
Deletethat you are the exact reason why I never want to visit the USA.
The phrase you are doing the village idiot out of a job springs to mind. But I will say that your kind do give us folks in Australia a really good giggle. Just out of curiosity how old do you think the earth is .... ???
Gary,
ReplyDeleteJust for humors sake. My IQ tested at 132, I'm a Registered Nurse, I've looked at peer reviewed articles in multiple nursing magazines as well as other disciplines, and NO I'm not impressed with peer reviewed anything. Not only have I found "peer reviewed" articles I don't approve of in my own profession, I have come across them in others. The professor to the state university lost his job because he didn't buy into global warming, there have been a group of scientists who have signed a document stating they don't buy into global warming. Oh, and I wish I still had the article that talked about Kenya or Nigeria getting SNOW for the first time last year. One could ask the global warming alarmists to come up with some sources whose finances are not tied to the government propaganda machine. No Gary, not only are you rude but your just misanthropic in nature. As for me, I'll leave you here to argue your minds content. I have a life and children to take care of.
marc
Stephen: First off let me express my amusement at the fact that you adopt a 3rd grade tactic of addressing a person by pretending to speak to another person. Ironic in light of your attempts to dictate the format I must adhere to when addressing stupidity in such an informal median of exchange
ReplyDeleteA) I pretty much covered this. There is no obligatory formal format that must be adhered to
B) I'm quite familiar with the christian bible. When I was "saved" I was a very active member of my church and community outreach programs. I attended various seminars and programs outside of normal church attendance. Fortunately, I never surrendered my intellect and OBJECTIVE logic. Despite the natural biochemical and hormonal euphoria I experienced, I didn't allow it to cloud my reasoning--which consistently raised alarms when it came to subjects of "free will", evolution, noah's flood, slavery, subjugation, etc. I realized that religion was a creation of MAN which is fallible, which a blatant contradiction for a "book of truth".
C) The necessity for clarification of "peer-reviewed" is only made more transparent in Marc's last post. It is obvious that you still lack understanding of what "peer-reviewed" means. A peer-reviewed publication is not ANY article written by someone that is published in ANY magazine.. Not Nat'l Geographic or any nursing magazine. Such publications would entail Science and Nature magazine, among others. It doesn't matter who puts their name to something, the only thing that holds water is testability and proofs. As for nonobjective ideologies, I have a good understanding: church. Your implications that there is some collusion among the scientific to delude the world is ludicrous. Scientists are as keen to disprove others as they are to introduce their own hypotheses.
D) Another portrayal of your hypocrisy, lol. A statement such as "won't be impressed by peer-reviewed anything" says a lot.. not to mention the innumerable atrocities to intellect you exhibited.. What it says is that the person lacks a general understanding of the thing they are addressing and regardless of anything posed, they've already adopted a predisposed perspective. Such mentalities are crafted by crowd conformity.
E) You're right. Offering someone an opportunity to substantiate their their view is the very epitome of idiocy.. o.O
F) yawn. Would I walk up to you on the street and randomly say such things to you? No.. What'd be the initiative? If you said something as stupid as "evolution is fiction", though, I'd be more than happy express my disgust at your flagrant exhibition of ignorance. This is a petty argument equivalent to your supposition that my lack of a blogspot account is tantamount to "Trolling".. or.. perhaps i just don't blog and am here because I appreciate Barque's blogs. In either case, i do have facebook(what little attention I give it is only in acquiescence to requests of acquaintances): http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=504860268 . I have nothing to hide and nothing to be ashamed of. I seek truth and not support for my own dogmatic ideologies.
G) Wasn't referring to you as his master.
H) There aren't really any "missing links". Other than that, good job instructing Marc on how he should handle his own interactions and discourse.
Marc, congratulations. I never said you were lacking in any sort of intellectual capacity. I know of people that vehemently adhere to the idea that we live in a geocentric universe and are quite eloquent in their articulation of their ideas.. Myself, I once tested quite high on stanford standardized IQ test and easily passed the MENSA acceptance test. I, too, once allowed social strictures and constructs to influence my understanding.
ReplyDeleteI haven't read a nursing magazine and you failed to mention which specifically, but a peer reviewed publication is not one of opinion or supposition. A medical journal would be an example of a peer reviewed publication, MrMD(made that up) or something like that that just allowed people of that profession to submit their own personal experiences would not be a peer reviewed publication. Global warming IS happening. The only issue is whether or not it is affected by the activities of humans. Carbon IS proven to increase global warming. The only issue is whether or not humanity adequately contributes to that source.
Fluxes in weather, if anything, would only prove MORE indicative of human influence than not. That's not to say that it IS the cause(kenya snow, etc), however such anomalies have a source. If you're SOLELY reasoning that it means there is NOT global warming, that'd be fallacious logic. Being warmer in the north/south poles would cause colder climes in normally warmer areas do to a flux in atmospheric and oceanic systems. VERY simple example: Take a pool and dump bucket of ice in one corner(shadowed corner).. Corner of pool in sun should be warmer, but as ice melts current pulls melted ice water to sun corner and that water is cooler. The entire pool doesn't necessary cool at the same rate(if water was static, of course, you'd be more likely to see a more progressive cooling from the focal point, though). Such it is with earth. Atmosphere and oceans are not static. The mean average of global temps is increasing(no one is contesting that), which causes anomalies in some places that are normally warmer.
In the off chance anyone is at all interested in broadening their understanding of global warming, I'd like to suggest a series of videos by Peter Hadfield.. an old school journalist and science correspondent.
ReplyDeleteWho he is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YMxpqYEjyo
Understanding the scientific method:
(in reference to evolution, but applicable across the board)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcavPAFiG14
Confronting the fraudulent controversy:
Christopher Monckton Part 1 and 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbW-aHvjOgM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTY3FnsFZ7Q
Addressing climate change in general:
1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo
2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoSVoxwYrKI
3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU_AtHkB4Ms
4) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2B34sO7HPM
5) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5hs4KVeiAU
6) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg
7) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXesBhYwdRo
8) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvMmPtEt8dc
8a) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PWDFzWt-Ag
9) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZzwRwFDXw0
10) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmECHrOcFlc
11) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pa8duiMiS0
11a) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAaMzjjKTl4
Peter Hadfield makes his own youtube videos when he gets a chance. Unlike the naysayers, he actually sources ALL of his information(as any good, honest scientist should do).
Scientists are people that dedicate their knowledge, experience and intellect to gleaning the truth from the world/universe around us. To refute such work on a basis of unwillingness to accept is nothing short of ignorance and disrespect belittling the sum of our advancement in understanding throughout the whole of modern humanity.
Been a lot of things I've wished to espouse my views on, so I've created a blogspot after all. For now just a collection of random thoughts and opinions as they come to me
ReplyDeleteNational Geographic tried so hard. They succeeded in making the "official story" look more rediculous.
ReplyDeleteYou know what the most shocking/sad realization for me was? The official story of 9/11 is now printed in every school kids history book.
ReplyDeleteIn just 15 years (probably much sooner, I don't know exactly when they started printing the false history of 9/11 in the school kids books) but in this short amount of time we have falsified history forever. Given the last 4,000 years of writen hisotry, makes you wonder how many other things we read as historical fact are nothing more than a lie :(