It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

BBC tries to debunk top 5 "conspiracy theories" in relation to the 911 events.

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 02:05 AM
link   
BBC tries to debunk top 5 "conspiracy theories" in relation to the 911 events. Source:

www.bbc.co.uk...

Believer or not, it looks like BBC tries to0 hard to pull explanations.




posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 02:14 AM
link   
They could have written this exact same article, with these five conspiracies and the corresponding official stories, over nine years ago. Way to step up to the plate BBC.

In addition, even when speaking of explosives potentially in the buildings, or anything else for that matter, they never imply, and in fact, stay as far away as possible from the actual biggest "conspiracy theory" of all: that elements of our government may be the responsible party.


edit on 29-8-2011 by ACitizen because: ambiguity



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 02:37 AM
link   
We have better debunkers on ats.
This has to be a joke.

It was all repeat offical story and ignore evidence at
least here debunkers try and in alot of cases do deny ignorance.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 02:57 AM
link   
Good to see they didn't dare to even mention the 4 Israeli men who were caught celebrating the demise of the towers and the 2 non Arabs who were caught planting explosives at the George Washigton Bridge.

Nice try BBC.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 03:20 AM
link   
That's the best the BBC can do? a debunking article that appears in one form or another on every anniversary? redundant to say the least.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 03:45 AM
link   
Whilst I admit the article does seem pretty lame and rather run of the mill I must say that the Beeb do produce some excellent documentaries at times and so I will refrain from commenting until after the programme is broadcast tonight on BBC2 at 21.00 BST.

I will post the carch-up as soon as it's available.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 06:19 AM
link   
I think this may be a rehash of a mockumentary previously shown by the BBC, Gavin Esler was the reporter who followed the official line with a rigour that beggared belief. Even people who normally give me grief over my views on various conspiracy theories where unconvinced by the BBC point of view, so much so that they felt it gave more impetus to the other theories that abound, one or two even moved over to the more extreme theories.

Watch it if you can, but keep any heavy objects out of reach as you may find yourself throwing them at the TV!



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 07:08 AM
link   
Well another way to look at it is they bring attention to the most controversial points of 911. They even mention that exactly the same "exercises" were scheduled for 911, similiarly to 7/7.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 09:01 AM
link   
the idea that a fire could bring down a steel-beamed modern building is pretty funny when you look at the history of fires on them. so basically a fire could burn for 2 days across 24+ floors and still not bring down the building. these building were the only steel-beamed ones to ever collapse due to fire. after 90, 102 minutes and then 7 hours. wow. its so hard to explain this to people who are brainwashed by the official story. I can't even convince older people. they are just so sure of the mass media. why would they ever lie?



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by nrd101
 



the idea that a fire could bring down a steel-beamed modern building is pretty funny when you look at the history of fires on them.

I think that the idea that you refer to the structures involved in 9/11 as "steel-beamed modern buildings" and then go on to try and sound like some kind of expert on fire performance and structural history.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   
MSM mind control.
A preemptive strike by the guilty ahead of the 10th anniversary of 9/11.
Cue interviews within the coming weeks with MSM stereotypical conspiracy theorists Martin Sheen, David Icke, Alex Jones, just to give the 9/11 conspiracy theory that little bit more credibility.
Once again they have gotten away with it.
May God have mercy on our souls.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by nrd101
 





the idea that a fire could bring down a steel-beamed modern building is pretty funny when you look at the history of fires on them


It's not funny since the WTC had NO horizontal steel beams (except core). Not on the exterior and not on the floors. All WTC had for horizontal strength was spandrels on the exterior and floor trusses on the interior.

All of these other buildings that burned had steel beams running horizontally.

Do a web search for pictures of residential floor trusses and compare them to 2x12 floor joices. Then tell me which one you would want in your own home when the basement has been on fire for 20 minutes before you detected it upstairs.

Trusses are very weak in the lateral direction. You can't even pick them up if they are laying on their side during construction.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   
I am going to watch the documentary 2night but I have to say even as a open sceptic of the conspiracy theorists views of 9/11 this article is far from a solid debunk. If anything it only fuels conspiracy theories with the BBC getting involved like this truthers will be screaming at their TV sets tonight “MSM PROPAGANDA”.

The BBC have made a really poor effort at debunking any of the conspiracies, they have just regurgitated the official line. Without wanting to get into a truther vs debunker argument the BBC have failed to look to the scientific community for ammunition to go about giving a more comprehensive debunk of 9/11 conspiracies. In addition to this by only using official reports they are opening themselves up for criticism within the conspiracy movement, this illustrates just how out of touch with the conspiracy movement the BBC really are. I also do not understand why they have to quoted more officials talked about eye witness accounts or looked to the historical background of 9/11 to give a better debunk.

I get the feeling reading this article that some intern at the BBC has been told the write this up quickly and all he’s done is ripped chunks of the 9/11 commission report, badly and also failed to look at other conspiracy theories.

All in all even as a vocal debunker of 9/11 theories this article does not impress me.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Comments are closed by the BBC.

They say:


The massive weight of the floors dropped, creating a dynamic load far in excess of what the columns were designed for. Debris was forced out of the windows as the floors above collapsed.

Controlled demolition is always carried out from the bottom floors up, yet this collapse started at the top.


So they don't bring up the conservation of momentum to try and account for how the stationary mass could be forced down.

They don't know what "controlled" means. Control does not provide the means to change the sequence according to them. Words are supposed to control what the readers think according to the BBC.

psik



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   

The massive weight of the floors dropped, creating a dynamic load far in excess of what the columns were designed for. Debris was forced out of the windows as the floors above collapsed.


Notice they say that debris was forced out of the windows lol? Are they talking about the squibs, or just the general ejection of the rubble?

Whatever, if rubble was being ejected, which it was as evidenced by the lack of debris in the footprints, then mass is being lost that is needed to continue the collapse. When mass and Ke is being lost then the force to cause the collapse to continue is being lost. 15 floors can not crush 95 floors, period. Mass being ejected is in accordance with the laws of motion, what isn't is the collapse continuing despite that loss of mass and Ke.

Oh and btw, not all controlled demolitions start at the bottom.






edit on 8/29/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Im watching it with a 15 min delay and it had me shaking my head.

An ex CIA man who worked there for 20 years said they couldnt do it because it would be immoral and unethical!

Since when did the CIA have morals or ethics?



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Yay, BBC propaganda at its best. Makes you proud to be British



edit on 29-8-2011 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
It's not funny since the WTC had NO horizontal steel beams (except core). Not on the exterior and not on the floors. All WTC had for horizontal strength was spandrels on the exterior and floor trusses on the interior.


Are the floor trusses not horizontal beams?

But horizontal strength was enough to overcome winds. The collapse was vertical against the majority of the buildings strength.

The problem with your argument is that trusses and columns are not the problem. The problem is you have 110 concrete and steel floor slabs, even if they were held in place with toothpicks the floors themselves can not eject out of the footprint, and crush themselves to less than the height of the lobbies. Forget about how they were held up for just a minute, and think about those floors and how it is possible for the mass of 15 floors to crush the mass of 95 floors. Every time the floors impacts you lose mass, and you lose Ke. For the collapse to continue until there are no more floors the Ke would have to have increased to overcome the loss of Ke to deformation, sound, heat, friction etc. How do you account for that?



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   
The best thing about a conspiracy theory is that it can neither be debunked or proven. It will always linger, if only on the fringes.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   


Initially the focus was on the phrase "pull it" used by the owner, Larry Silverstein, in a TV interview. But in fact he was talking about pulling firefighters back. (Demolition experts do not use the term "pull it" as slang for setting off explosives.)


So, Larry Silverstein is a demolition expert? I didn't know that...



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join