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

Originally posted by toxicblud
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.

Hmmmm that's not true.

33 Conspiracy Theories That Turned Out To Be True

reply to post by ANOK

how it is possible for the mass of 15 floors to crush the mass of 95 floors.

15 floor only had to crush 1 floor. Then 16 floors only had to crush one floor.

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi

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

Silverstein is a real estate investor. He has spent his professional life buying up complexes and re-building them.

I would imagine he has been well exposed to all facets of that business, and is very well experienced in construction, demolition, and the relevant terms used.

For example I was a jet engine mechanic in the Navy, but I could just as easily explain the hydraulic system, or the ejection seat mechanism etc.

reply to post by ANOK


What I was remarking upon is the word theory here. Theories are anything but true. Yes the information provided can be true but a theory is nothing aside from a theory. If theory could be proven it wouldn't be a theory anymore it would become fact. So I appologize for not clarifying.

Originally posted by samkent

15 floor only had to crush 1 floor. Then 16 floors only had to crush one floor.

If the 15 falling floors crushed the one static floor, then how is that one crushed floor is suddenly included in the 15 falling floors? That makes no logical sense at all. Mass was ejected during the collapse, during impacts remember? Every impact you are losing mass, not gaining it.

But regardless you are ignoring the mass of the 95 floors. The falling block of 15 floors is the same construction as the block of 95 floors. The 95 floors are pushing up against the 15 floors with the same force that the 15 floors are pushing down on the 95, equal opposite reaction. You have to look at it as either one floor impacting one floor, or 15 floors impacting 95 floors, otherwise you're ignoring the mass of the lower floors, and it will incorrectly favour complete collapse.

In your imagination you are seeing the 15 floors hit the one floor, and the floors all stays in one piece, while at the same time expecting the force to be enough to cause the spandrels to fail. If it had happened as you think there would have to be a stack of floors in the footprint, because the floors can not both be ejected out of the footprint, and all stay in one piece to have enough energy to cause other floors to fail.

We see from post collapse pics that the floors were mostly ejected in a symmetrical 360d arc. They did not stack up in the footprint.



(BTW notice WTC7 was the only building to collapse into its footprint from fire and debris from the towers collapses...)

Ill post some "highlights" of the show

- US thought any attack would come from the East, thats why the military jets flew the wrong way at the start (makes no sense as they knew the highjacked planes were not coming from the Atlantic Ocean)

- Eyewitnesses say they saw aircraft debris at the pentagon, saying its wrong to not believe it was an aircraft. It doesnt focus on the real question, ie why isnt there any video released that shows the aircraft, why was footage confiscated from the petrol station etc.

- A building hypothesis wasnt proven wrong by the experts as theyve got better things to do

- Debris from flight 93 found over a mile away was blown there.
- Coroner was "misquoted" about him not being needed

It basically answered a few questions it thought were debunked and never tried to answer anything that still is open to question. In short it was a very poor program.

Originally posted 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. 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?

I'm not convinced TPTB didn't have anything to do with 9/11 but it is misleading to go on with the idea that they collapsed only due to fire. They were actually hit by large planes traveling at very high speed. This did sever a large number of exterior supports and probably severely damaged the core.

From my (admittedly layman's view) It's not impossible that they collapsed (more or less) the way NIST says they did. At lest the two main towers. I think it's more constructive to focus on circumstantial evidence such as who had the most to gain from the attacks and work out from there. I don't think we could ever prove something like controlled demolition even if that was what brought them down. TPTB will just keep denying it and at the end of the day, it's their word against yours. Most people are going to believe them.

This doesn't mean you have to give up on the whole idea that something was really fishy about 9/11. But we should be more careful about putting too much stock in any theory. If you overreach and make too many claims that can't be substantiated it's going to be hard to change course.

I'm not a debunker. I'm convinced 9/11 wasn't what we've been told it was. I just don't think many of the alternative theories hold up much better than the official story. You have to be willing to let go of things that don't pan out.

In the end, if it was an "inside job" they would have expected conspiracy theories and planned for them. I don't think they would have used fake planes because if anyone could ever prove it, they'd be screwed. They would have planned it to make everything appear to have happened exactly the way they say it did. They wouldn't have used explosives if they didn't have to. This doesn't have to mean they didn't "soften" the buildings somehow in the months and years leading up to the event. But think about it. They wouldn't have wanted explosions going off if they weren't needed.

It only makes us look worse if we keep saying it was controlled demolition but can't prove it with anything concrete. They would have known that. They would have been happy for us to start talking about controlled demolition if the towers actually came down the way they say they did. This doesn't prove they weren't involved but it makes us look bad.

Just remember. You're accusing these people of murder. They didn't have any reason to fake anything as long as they could make it look like terrorists did it all. All they really had to do if you take the controlled demolition issue away and just assume the buildings collapsed on their own was somehow control the planes. Same with the Pentagon. Why would they use a missile or something if they didn't have to? That would just leave one great big chance for them to get caught red handed.

And, you can STILL say it was controlled demolition even if it was only the plane crashes and the fires that caused it. You have to consider they could have planned to hit the buildings exactly where they needed to in order to cause failure and collapse. They could have even used more planes if they needed to. Why would they need explosives?

Originally posted by jonco6
We have better debunkers on ats.
...at least here debunkers try and in alot of cases do deny ignorance.

Which, speaking of conspiracy theories, may have been the point BBC is making. That is to say, if they pretend to be debunking but intentionally do a shabby job, then they will fuel the conspiracy theories. Now...

Why might they want to do that?

reply to post by Frira


Asking the unanswered questions would be the best way to do that,

ie why was the camera footage confiscated that would have shown the plane?

Why was it never released to the public?

What does the government gain from keeping obviously non sensitive files secret?

Originally posted by Flyer
Ill post some "highlights" of the show

- US thought any attack would come from the East, thats why the military jets flew the wrong way at the start (makes no sense as they knew the highjacked planes were not coming from the Atlantic Ocean)

- Eyewitnesses say they saw aircraft debris at the pentagon, saying its wrong to not believe it was an aircraft. It doesnt focus on the real question, ie why isnt there any video released that shows the aircraft, why was footage confiscated from the petrol station etc.

The interceptors. Yes, they flew to their 'normal' holding zones off of the coast after they scrambled. Why? Because of the lack of coordination of information between the FAA, NORAD, and the Air Defense units, after the jets took off, they didnt have intercept vectors so they followed their procedures. (the utter and total confusion that the government was under that day was initially covered up....until it came out during the 9/11 Commission investigation)

The real question of the Pentagon video.......the interesting part is, people seem to think that the Pentagon has video cameras covering every square inch of the grounds (it doesnt) and that all the surrounding businesses install security cameras only to point them at the Pentagon as well. Why were they confiscated? To see if ANY of them might possibly show SOMETHING of Flight 77. You mention the petrol station....that tape was released to the public several years ago. You know what it shows? It shows the GAS STATION....several cameras, showing the inside of the station, the pumps, the driveways.....Because of the location of the cameras, none of them had a direct view of the Pentagon, although one of them did capture what was most likely Flight 77's vertical tail shortly before it captures part of the fireball. I say most likely, because again, the camera was actually pointed at the gas station property and only caught a small glimpse of what was going on.

Originally posted by ANOK

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?

They were horizontal but they were not BEAMS.

The beams were in the core.

psik

Originally posted by Flyer
reply to post by Frira

 

Asking the unanswered questions would be the best way to do that,

ie why was the camera footage confiscated that would have shown the plane?

Why was it never released to the public?

What does the government gain from keeping obviously non sensitive files secret?

But you answer a question I did not ask, and thus missed the point.

What would be the motivation to cause the BBC to provide weaker debunking than the typical ATS poster? Might they have an agenda that would be served by such... well, tactics?

Originally posted by Frira
reply to post by Frira

 

But you answer a question I did not ask, and thus missed the point.

What would be the motivation to cause the BBC to provide weaker debunking than the typical ATS poster? Might they have an agenda that would be served by such... well, tactics?

Well something strange is going on with the media and has been for a while.

I was banned from The Naked Scientist forum which is associated with a TV show in England.

www.thenakedscientists.com...

To me it looks like they just made up an excuse not really provide a reason.

psik

reply to post by Frira

What would be the motivation to cause the BBC to provide weaker debunking than the typical ATS poster?

People who write these articles are human too. Anyone with half a brain who looks at the facts must at least come to the conclusion that all is not well and good in OS-land.

But you don't seriously expect them to actually say that on the Beeb do you? No, they just print lame-ass commentaries like this that makes the OS look even more idiotic. Note the editors picks in the comments, see how relatively balanced they are?

It is the climb down you should be looking for, not an apology. You can see the same sort of thing with climate change, which is all of a sudden not such a dire emergency after all.

People may have a stake in being fooled and playing along much of the time, but they aren't idiots either.

Here's the link to the programme on BBC iPlayer, I'm not sure if people outside the UK can watch it, if not then I'm sure someone will put it on YouTube very soon.

www.bbc.co.uk...

I haven't had chance to watch it myself yet.

I'm not going to comment on my own personal views of what really happened on 9/11, but I'm going to post a video that proves a "tall structure" can fall in the exact same manner in which the World Trade Center collapsed. I know, I know, building v.s. blocks, haha, I don't care, that's not my point. I'm just saying.

The BBC show aired last night is available from the BBC I-Player here: www.bbc.co.uk...

(Not sure if it works for those outside of the UK - sorry?!)

What staggered me about last night’s show was the 10 minutes on WT7. Now, every other proposed conspiracy around 9/11 included in last night’s show started off by putting forward the conspiracy, presenting the conspiratorial evidence and then using a counter argument to offer some semblance of a balanced view (or to debunk - depending on your viewpoint)!

With the section on WT7 a Danish Scientist presents his findings surrounding thermite. This is immediately debunked by some American academics claiming that the dust particles analysed were simply paint from the steel interiors of WTC. However, at no point does the programme give any detail at all about why they thought WT7 collapsed. The BBC even make the claim themselves that this would have been the only steel skyscraper in history to have collapsed due to the heat of the fire.

I just find it odd that through all the "debunking" the BBC attempted they left this gaping hole surrounding their interpretation of why WT7 collapsed!

Complicity or ignorance?!

I started watching it and then turned it off.

Totally ridiculous. Starts tugging at the heartstrings in the beginning then straight away launches into Alex Jones (complete with the Star Wars Imperial March music) and shows clips of him ranting and raving. I don't really like him anyway, but it seems like they're just going out of their way to portray conspiracy theorists as "crazy."

I'm not surprised really...I watched the original 9/11 conspiracy files and it was exactly the same. I don't know why I thought this would be different.

reply to post by Kram09


Thats why Alex Jones does a whole lot more harm that good, anyone who asks questions is associated with a complete nutter.

The BBC have always gone along with the official story and not asked a single question at all, they just want to convince the viewers of the official version.