Merged National Geographic Special - "9/11 Science and Conspiracy" Debunks Thermite Myth

RedIbis said:
This thread is about the NatGeo special and its strengths and weaknesses. You wouldn't be trying to get me a yellow card, now would you?
Click to expand...

Damn straight, Red Ibis, the NatGeo special could have been much stronger! They could have relied on the DNA and other forensic evidence at the pentagon, right Red?

Yeah, Red, you and me brother, keeping it on topic!

Resolved: the Nat Geo special could have been even more devastating if Nat Geo had gone into the reams of data regarding the DNA evidence and the forensic data.

I'm on board, and hearing no objection from Red Ibis, he is on board!

You and me are a hell of team, Red.
 
RedIbis said:
This thread is about the NatGeo special and its strengths and weaknesses. You wouldn't be trying to get me a yellow card, now would you?
Click to expand...

What are the weaknesses outside of the fact that they didn't turn it into a mini-series by describing each eyewitness account and each bit of evidence for Flight 77 that they had available?
 
RedIbis said:
I've thoroughly reviewed Gravy's links and have never found his subjective, non-scientific analyses particularly persuasive.
Click to expand...

Again READING FOR COMPREHENSION is your friend. You should try it sometimes.

What was I responding to? Your whine about how they only showed one image. So if you google wtc7lies you will find dozens of pictures. Did I say a word about Gravy's "subjective, non-scientific analyses?" No I didn't.

Thank you for showing most twoofs biggest failure.

Now if you want some help, PM me and I'll help you sign up for a great reading comprehension course my wife offers online.
 
BigAl said:
What are the weaknesses outside of the fact that they didn't turn it into a mini-series by describing each eyewitness account and each bit of evidence for Flight 77 that they had available?
Click to expand...

Call it "Hard Science", "Hard Science- 2nd Edition", "Hard Science- 2nd Edition Recut", "Hard Science- Final Cut", and "Hard Science-No Coup Required"?
 
RedIbis said:
No, I did. I wouldn't expect anyone to criticize Gravy around here, no matter how unscientific his "research" tends to be.
Click to expand...

Seems a 767 flew right over your head Red.

Was not the point of referring to Gravy's site your complaint that another site had only one picture and that there were other PICTURES on Gravy's site. The point was not to tell youi to READ gravy's pages but to gaze upon the PICTURES there.

Was the subject diversion deliberate Red?
 
RedIbis said:
No, I did. I wouldn't expect anyone to criticize Gravy around here, no matter how unscientific his "research" tends to be.
Click to expand...

Yet again, your critical reading skills fail you.

Where did I discuss Gravy's analysis? I never did.

I discussed your failure to do even 5 minutes of basic research for images of flight 77's debris at the pentagon.

Gravy's site (wtc7lies) has one of the best grouping of images of the debris.

do you say those images are wrong? Or fake? Inaccurate?
 
RedIbis said:
No, I did. I wouldn't expect anyone to criticize Gravy around here, no matter how unscientific his "research" tends to be.
Click to expand...

Scientific. That is the ticket! You know what is scientific?

DNA analysis. And Forensic Pathology.

Could have used more of that in the Nat Geo special, says Red Ibis and I!

Red, feel free to chime in any old time!
 
RedIbis said:
No, I did. I wouldn't expect anyone to criticize Gravy around here, no matter how unscientific his "research" tends to be.
Click to expand...
Your obsession with Gravy is in your signature and your inability to show his research wrong is epic. You are experiencing similar results with the National Geographic Special.
 
RedIbis said:
I didn't start this thread. I just made some observations about the NatGeo special. For instance, I noticed that when they discussed the "massive" physical evidence, they kept replaying the same picture of a blue painted scrap on the lawn. If there was so much physical evidence, I would think they wouldn't have to replay the same picture over and over. Just an observation.
Click to expand...
And the photo with the "A" from "American Airlines" on it. The photos of the bodies. The photos of parts that were once said to be engine components of a cruise missile which were later matched to a schematic diagram from an airliner and identified as compressor parts.

The evidence for an airliner hitting the pentagon is massive. Just because National Geographic didn't pore over every single piece of supporting evidence doesn't give any other theories with zero evidence (cruise missile theories) any more weight.
 
RedIbis said:
This thread is about the NatGeo special and its strengths and weaknesses. You wouldn't be trying to get me a yellow card, now would you?
Click to expand...

Truthiness 101: When backed into a corner, try to keep the discussion constrained to such a narrow focus that it becomes meaningless.

So, Red, are you going to tell us what you think happened at the Pentagon? Or are you going to offer up one of these hilarious rejoinders:

1. "I don't know what I think."
2. "I have no strong feelings about the matter."
 
WUBRINY63 said:
There certainly isn't many debunkers here parading this piece of entertainment out as some kind of victory. Is it embarrassing to debunkers that these types of shows are still being produced in 2009? Why is 9/11 conspiracy still so huge?
Click to expand...

I find it very entertaining to watch the Truthers making dicks of themselves.
 
willhaven said:
And the photo with the "A" from "American Airlines" on it. The photos of the bodies. The photos of parts that were once said to be engine components of a cruise missile which were later matched to a schematic diagram from an airliner and identified as compressor parts.

The evidence for an airliner hitting the pentagon is massive. Just because National Geographic didn't pore over every single piece of supporting evidence doesn't give any other theories with zero evidence (cruise missile theories) any more weight.
Click to expand...

Massive? And did someone say something about a missile here? I think what RedIbis was trying to point out was that if the evidense really was massive then maybe the show could have shown much more than just one photo that didn't even come out until much after 9/11 happened.
 
Algebra34 said:
Massive? And did someone say something about a missile here? I think what RedIbis was trying to point out was that if the evidense really was massive then maybe the show could have shown much more than just one photo that didn't even come out until much after 9/11 happened.
Click to expand...

Or they could have interviewed some of the folks that actually watched flight 77 go into the Pentagon.
 
AJM8125 said:
Or they could have interviewed some of the folks that actually watched flight 77 go into the Pentagon.
Click to expand...

Sure. But that's not always reliable enough for debunkers as far as 9/11 goes either. It's got to be a two way street or no one is going to get anywhere in this 9/11 debate.

Personally I think something hit the pentagon from the air. I think most likely it was flight 77. I just don't understand why there is not more visual or physical evidence of it.
 
Algebra34 said:
Sure. But that's not always reliable enough for debunkers as far as 9/11 goes either. It's got to be a two way street or no one is going to get anywhere in this 9/11 debate.

Personally I think something hit the pentagon from the air. I think most likely it was flight 77. I just don't understand why there is not more visual or physical evidence of it.
Click to expand...

Have you read Firefight?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom