BBC 9/11: The Conspiracy Files

Aphelion said:
I wonder if the next issue of the oxford engish dictionary will accept the above as a definition to put under cowardice. LOL

Arus you have no integrity, no intellectual honesty, and you conceded defeat pages back with your ad-hominem attacks.

Next time you make a claim make sure you can back it up.
Click to expand...

Also by you

Four planes were hijacked on 911 by members of a group called Al Qaeda. Two were flown into the Twin towers, which suffered massive structural damage and after being on fire for a while collapsed. During this collapse WTC 7 amongst many other buildings were damaged and caught fire. It later collapsed. NIST are investigating the exact cause. Flight 77 hit the Pentagon and Flight 93 crashed after the passengers fought back. This attack was allowed to happen by members of the intelligence community
Click to expand...

Well are you going to or what ?
 
It was not an analogy, it was an example of how a documentary could be factual but mislead by omission.
Click to expand...

When did this turn into a discussion of Michael Moore movies?











I'm sorry ... I ... I just couldn't resist. It was a moment of weakness.
 
gumboot said:
How about I present for you some things the CBC programme gets wrong?

They, in fact, get their very first fact wrong.

They show a man who believes "100%" that the US Government murdered his son and orchestrated 9/11. They then state he is not alone, citing a 40% statistic in a poll.

The poll does not indicate that people believe the US Government carried out 9/11. It says they concealed or refused to investigate evidence. That's not even remotely the same thing.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

That doesn't indicate bias.

Why does the BBC doc use an animation for the towers collapse that even NIST reject?
 
Aphelion said:
I forgot that one. Read this article:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/200207producerstruggles.htm

It also has the audio of Dylan and Jones grilling the producer.
Click to expand...

Do you have a source other than Prison Planet?

I've found that Alex Jones doesn't do the best job of fact checking. He would rather go with a sensational story than a factual one.

He sites Wikipedia as his only source. Wiki can have entries written by anybody, and it's mods can't always keep up with the inaccuracies.
 
Last edited:
CptColumbo said:
Do you have a source other than Prison Planet?

I've found that Alex Jones doesn't do the best job of fact checking. He would rather go with a sensational story than a factual one.
Click to expand...

You could try watching the video. I have, and they do indeed use the NOVA animation of pancake collapse which NIST have rejected.
 
CptColumbo said:
I did watch the video.
Do you have another source for NIST rejecting that specific animation?
Click to expand...

Yes, try the NIST report in which they say the collapse initiated when sagging trusses pulled the exterior columns inward.

Are you saying the collapse was a pancake collapse?
 
Aphelion said:
Yes, try the NIST report in which they say the collapse initiated when sagging trusses pulled the exterior columns inward.

Are you saying the collapse was a pancake collapse?
Click to expand...

I'm asking you to site a reputable source that says that specific animation was rejected by the NIST.

You wrote:
Why does the BBC doc use an animation for the towers collapse that even NIST reject?
Click to expand...
 
CptColumbo said:
I'm asking you to site a reputable source that says that specific animation was rejected by the NIST.

You wrote:
Click to expand...

The animation shows a pancake collapse. NIST have completely rejected a pancake collapse. Hence, NIST have rejected the animation of being a true representation of the collapse. Why would you need them to reject the animation specifically?

Are you interested in truth atall, or just trying to score extremely petty points?
 
I will rephrase for you.

Why does the BBC use an animation that portrays a pancake collapse when this has been completely rejected by NIST?

Happy?
 
Aphelion said:
The animation shows a pancake collapse. NIST have completely rejected a pancake collapse. Hence, NIST have rejected the animation of being a true representation of the collapse. Why would you need them to reject the animation specifically?
Click to expand...
"Completely," you're sure about that? Do you know what the pancaking is, in relation to buildings?
Are you interested in truth atall, or just trying to score extremely petty points?
Click to expand...

Aphelion said:
That doesn't indicate bias.

Why does the BBC doc use an animation for the towers collapse that even NIST reject?
Click to expand...

It shows your lack of understanding about what you are complaining about, and a lack of thinking about what you are writing. It also shows that you really haven't looked into any of the "facts" that AJ writes about and don't understand what critical-thinking is.
 
NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.
Click to expand...

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

So the BBC is totally wrong to show an animation of pancake collapse. It didn't happen, hence the BBC got it factually wrong.

Are you having difficulty understanding this? I will use smaller words if you like.
 
Aphelion said:
I already told you. The only error of fact was the dropout thing.
Click to expand...
Are you being wilfully stupid? He was called a self-confessed dropout. If I said you were a self-confessed truther that would be correct because you claimed to be a truther. If I said you were a self-confessed murderer, the fact would be wrong but since you told me you were a murderer it would be your error not mine. No wonder the truth movement is called a bowel movement and they will forever be called that with illogic like yours.
 
Aphelion said:
The animation shows a pancake collapse. NIST have completely rejected a pancake collapse. Hence, NIST have rejected the animation of being a true representation of the collapse. Why would you need them to reject the animation specifically?

Are you interested in truth atall, or just trying to score extremely petty points?
Click to expand...


Really ?

From your own link.

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.
NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon
Click to expand...

The collapse of each tower was not started by pancaking but by the bowing and failure of the external steel columns, please learn to read.

NIST have rejected pancaking as the cause of the collapse.
 
stateofgrace said:
Really ?

From your own link.



The collapse of each tower was not started by pancaking but by the bowing and failure of the external steel columns, please learn to read.

NIST have rejected pancaking as the cause of the collapse.
Click to expand...

Quit the ridiculous spinning. In the other thread on this subject, your fellow OCTers are admitting this is a mistake by the BBC.
 
Aphelion said:
Quit the ridiculous spinning. In the other thread on this subject, your fellow OCTers are admitting this is a mistake by the BBC.
Click to expand...
Oh I see,so initiate means what exactly?

Besides did you not say this ?

I dont think the BBC piece had any errors.
Click to expand...

Please make up you mind what you believe, you are starting to talk in circles.
 
stateofgrace said:
Oh I see,so initiate means what exactly?

Besides did you not say this ?



Please make up you mind what you believe, you are starting to talk in circles.
Click to expand...

Its called changing your mind. People who dont think what they are told to think do it often.

Please join the other thread and tell LashL and alexg they are wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom