>> ^blankfist:

I'm with imstellar28, this video is some guy presenting a hypothesis and testing it. NatGeo made a claim he believed was untruthful, and he wanted to prove it wrong. And he was successful.

He should have stuck with debunking NatGeo. He gets himself into trouble with all the "scientific" claims he makes that fall outside of his experiment and have no evidence.

20 seconds in he's claiming that the fires were "burning out and cooling down" after the plane hit. His cited evidence is verbal testimony from a Fox News helicopter.

At 55 seconds he lays the groundwork for the molten metal being steel. The evidence? "It looked like steel in a foundry."

He continues to cite eyewitnesses throughout the video; eyewitnesses who wouldn't know molten steel from boiling orange juice or magnesium flares from flash photography.

There's a reason eyewitness testimony is almost useless in science.

Part of the scientific method is not overstating the implications of your results, and simply stating what your results find. Through out the video he talks about alot more than just NatGeo doing shitty experiments, which is the ONLY thing his results indicate. Sloppy science.

That may be so, but here are fourteen hundred engineers/architects who believe the official story does an insufficient job scientifically proving it's "facts".

I'm not sure that all of those engineers believed that the WTC were brought down with explosives. They signed a petition demanding a more thorough investigation. How do you know that many of them aren't backing this petition because they believe a more thorough investigation could reveal improper building standards, faults in construction or over looked safety concerns with respect to building skyscrapers that the original investigation overlooked. This is common with any type of disaster involving a man made structure, ie plane crashes, train wrecks, building/bridge collapses, sunken boats....

Even if every single one of the 1400 or so engineers who signed the petition believed it was definitely explosives, thats still means very little. More than 200 000 people graduated with engineer degrees in the US during 2005 ALONE. When you consider how many graduate in India, China, Europe, and the rest of the world, 1400 is an abysmally small faction, easily less than 1 in 1000. If 999 biologist told me life on earth has evolved from a single ancestor for every one biologist that told me it was magic, I know which theory I would lend more credence to.

>> ^Pantalones:

Back to the video...
The NatGeo program made three claims, and then supported them with an experiment. This guy did more experiments and contradicted NatGeo. Thus the process of science. We all remember science right? Testing, changing the variables and retesting for the fuck of it to gain a better understanding? Clearly the NatGeo conclusions were at best incomplete, and at worst completely wrong.
When it comes to receiving new information, there are four possible responses:
1) Outright rejection based on a bias, which can include previous education.
2) Complete acceptance.
3) Curiosity and an impulse to investigate potential flaws or openings for more explanation.
4) Complete disinterest and remembering that now ice cold Hot Pocket left in the microwave.
Scientists are either #1 or #3. Great scientists are by definition #3 at some point in their life. The rest of us (pundits, politicians, citizens, etc...) fall into the other two categories.


Thanks for this. The point of the video is that the official story and investigation declared this impossible. The official media shows on this like NatGeo and PopMechanics make bold statements and act as experts and declare things impossible.


Some guy proves them all wrong in his back yard.


Anyways, the fact of the matter is the WTC was built like a box within a box, and the floors for each level spanned the outer tube to the inner core. The reality is that no possible fire could take down the inner core. Yes, heat even from jet fuel could maybe weaken the hangers and they might give. We would then have to talk about energy of "pancaking" and acceleration and forces, which I think there are legitimate questions about.

But the reality is that the inner core would maybe bend over from damage, maybe the pancaking might cause problems at the base.. but it seems impossible for the inner core to collapse, especially from fire. Go google how it was constructed and where the official damaged sections from the plane and jet fuel officially were. In one tower the core was more damaged.

I'm with @imstellar28, this video is some guy presenting a hypothesis and testing it. NatGeo made a claim he believed was untruthful, and he wanted to prove it wrong. And he was successful.

I don't understand all these defensive apologist attacks when someone poses a different perspective than the widely accepted one. If science can disprove the "truthers", then great, let it do so. But ridiculing people who are trying to understand what caused the buildings to fall seems like the wrong approach to me in any integral pursuit of truth.

Also I've never seen more "scientists" in my life than on VideoSift. It's like a scientist convention on here when someone posts a 9/11 video. And do scientists make a habit of calling people idiots? Somehow I always thought they'd be above that.

The NatGeo show asserts the exact opposite. Why do they go to so much trouble to argue against the theory with an obviously false premise? Seriously, the show said thermite won't cut steel. It wasn't just a shoddy experiment, it was a willful lie that people believe. You can make it part of a larger story, as this guys hints (without making direct accusations). But his experiments make a clear counter argument at a media piece attempting to contradict, in part, an alternative 9/11 theory. In other words, his intention wasn't to invalidate the official conspiracy, he was defending the relevant piece of an alternative theory.

Which is a bit of a cultural signal that people do accept alternative theories.

I've said it many times: the first draft of history NEVER survives later scrutiny. There are ALWAYS changes.>> ^rychan:


You realize his central experiments are basically worthless? We know thermite cuts steel. That's what people use it for all the freaking time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite#Civilian_uses
"Thermite can be used for quickly cutting or welding steel such as rail tracks..."

Back to the video...

The NatGeo program made three claims, and then supported them with an experiment. This guy did more experiments and contradicted NatGeo. Thus the process of science. We all remember science right? Testing, changing the variables and retesting for the fuck of it to gain a better understanding? Clearly the NatGeo conclusions were at best incomplete, and at worst completely wrong.

When it comes to receiving new information, there are four possible responses:
1) Outright rejection based on a bias, which can include previous education.
2) Complete acceptance.
3) Curiosity and an impulse to investigate potential flaws or openings for more explanation.
4) Complete disinterest and remembering that now ice cold Hot Pocket left in the microwave.

Scientists are either #1 or #3. Great scientists are by definition #3 at some point in their life. The rest of us (pundits, politicians, citizens, etc...) fall into the other two categories.

Yah. This is why I don't upvote NatGeo videos. That and the overdramatic presentations. At least this episode dispensed with the cable news suspense music.

In reply to this comment by UsesProzac:
Awesome reference!!

In reply to this comment by garmachi:
And every twenty years or so, hooded wolves with lasers ride in on mechanical horses, steal one of each pair and send them back months later, roont.

I'm glad someone got it!

Awesome reference!!

In reply to this comment by garmachi:
And every twenty years or so, hooded wolves with lasers ride in on mechanical horses, steal one of each pair and send them back months later, roont.

Premium (when it's not cut-off for non-payment).

I like MSNBC, History, Discovery, some HD channels, NatGeo, MSNBC, CNN, BBC, and a buncha other stuff. Premium cable just makes it easy.

Planning on buying an FTA box though....free po.....I mean free channels!

thank god none of you have your own "dog whisperer" shows on NatGeo because you couldn't tell apart a dog from a bench.

scared dogs wimper, lower their body and tuck their tails under their body.

this dog was excited as can be blatantly see from his raised, wagging tail.

That town must have had a rather promiscuous, blonde, blue-eyed milkman, it seems.

As much as a mystery NatGeo seems to want to make out of this, there might just be a more plausible scientific explanation:

"Even though we could not find a definitive explanation for this higher incidence, the existence of other 'twin towns' around the world – most of them in remote isolated areas with high levels of inbreeding just as Linha São Pedro – shows that external influence is not needed for this to happen," [a scientist] says.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16492-nazi-angel-of-death-not-responsible-for-town-of-twins.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news

But as they explicitly state, however, it's not a definitive explanation.

Interesting sift.

>> ^ipfreely:
Submitter looking for Brazilian Twins... found this interesting video by mistake, I presume.


Funny.

Actually it was featured on Huffington Post. Nice try.

>> ^nomino:
Why is the narrator talking to me like I'm retarded?


Because you have to be retarded to watch "NatGeo." Sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy, actually. Treat your audience like morons and eventually you'll only have morons in your audience.

Your video was a dupe, I'm afraid.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Giant-Leopard-Seal-Trys-to-Feed-and-Care-For-NatGeo-Diver -> http://www.videosift.com/video/Up-close-photography-of-a-leopard-seal

Not sure why siftbot didn't suggest it as a dupe, since both videos share three separate tags. Odd.