BBC 9/11: The Conspiracy Files

Aphelion said:
It seems the skeptics can't agree.

In the other thread they are saying this is a long since debunked animation and was a mistake by the BBC. And you accuse CTs of not having a consistent story?
Click to expand...

Are you saying that people who can't agree if a documentary states that the collapse of the WTC was initiated by pancaking or pancaking occured after the initiation of the collapse, equal a disagreement of whether a set of explosives brought down the WTC or a high-energy beam?

Granted the animation wasn't introduced well, but after watching it again I see what they were using it to demonstrate, perhaps LashL will feel the same way after watching it again. He/she may change his/her mind.
 
CptColumbo said:
Are you saying that people who can't agree if a documentary states that the collapse of the WTC was initiated by pancaking or pancaking occured after the initiation of the collapse, equal a disagreement of whether a set of explosives brought down the WTC or a high-energy beam?
Click to expand...

No.

Granted the animation wasn't introduced well, but after watching it again I see what they were using it to demonstrate, perhaps LashL will feel the same way after watching it again. He/she may change his/her mind.
Click to expand...

Im sure he/she will change their mind when they see you need back up to avoid admitting you are wrong.:rolleyes:
 
Aphelion said:
Ask alexg and LashL. I would think presenting a long debunked graphic as the collapse mechanism would count as an error.

Watch this space, there may well be a retraction as the complaints have been enough to force the higher ups in the BBC to investigate.
Click to expand...

LashL only makes 4 posts in this thread. Can't find any for alexg.

LashL makes no claims about the animation in this thread.

Here are her posts:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/search.php?searchid=693616

Please substantiate your claims or retract them.
 
CptColumbo said:
What was I wrong about?
Click to expand...

I have just rewatched the the segment of the documentary with the graphic. The narrator says:

The load bearing beams buckled when they were unable to carry the load above and the floors progressively caved in.
Click to expand...

The also show the part of the animation where the connections between the trusses and columns break. This is incorrect and is a factual error.
 
One would think that if this were an inside job, an official story of the collapse would be set in stone and propagated right away.

The fact that the theory has evolved as new study progresses and the dynamics are better understood doesn't surprise me, is sound science, and actually to me is a good indicator that this stuff is real and viable.

A lot of CTs have no idea how much scrutiny the 'official story' has been under since day one in the engineering community, and how much it is studied today. They are willing to throw this body of work out en masse as 'full of crap' all while the world's structural engineers are studying and learning from it in droves.

IMO there is yet to be presented an alternative explanation that could even survive a fraction of that scrutiny.
 
twinstead said:
One would think that if this were an inside job, an official story of the collapse would be set in stone and propagated right away.

The fact that the theory has evolved as new study progresses and the dynamics are better understood doesn't surprise me, is sound science, and actually to me is a good indicator that this stuff is real and viable.

A lot of CTs have no idea how much scrutiny the 'official story' has been under since day one in the engineering community, and how much it is studied today. They are willing to throw this body of work out en masse as 'full of crap' all while the world's structural engineers are studying and learning from it in droves.

IMO there is yet to be presented an alternative explanation that could even survive a fraction of that scrutiny.
Click to expand...

When will the engineering community have access to the computer simulations and photos/videos that NIST used?
 
The load bearing beams buckled when they were unable to carry the load above and the floors progressively caved in.
Click to expand...

This is absolutely correct. The exterior columns bowed in and collapsed.

Do you have a problem with this statement.
 
babazaroni said:
This is absolutely correct. The exterior columns bowed in and collapsed.

Do you have a problem with this statement.
Click to expand...

Beams are horizontal. They did not fail. The statement is incorrect. Why are you having trouble understanding this?

Don't get me wrong, im happy to school you, but I would have thought repeating myself 4 times wasn't necessary.
 
Aphelion said:
I have just rewatched the the segment of the documentary with the graphic. The narrator says:



The also show the part of the animation where the connections between the trusses and columns break. This is incorrect and is a factual error.
Click to expand...

Where was the word "pancake" and "initiated" in that sentence? The first part of the animation is, I believe, from a History Channel show called "Rise and Fall of an American Icon" (I could be wrong about this, it looked like the same animation, but both groups could have used the same source) It shows the trusses bending inward, which is in agreement with the NIST assessment. The inward bowing of the trusses is what caused the outer collumns to bend inward. Again, the animation wasn't introduced well, but IMO it isn't in disagreement with the prevailing theories.
 
Aphelion said:
Please learn to read. I said in the other thread at least 4 times.
Click to expand...

Yes, even some skeptics here start with the pancake progression initiation. But none stick to it after it is explained.

This shows that we are not monolithic government shill group.
 
Aphelion said:
When will the engineering community have access to the computer simulations and photos/videos that NIST used?
Click to expand...
I am sick of the bs your spouting. You vomit every old debunked woowoo claim. Do you have an original bone in your body? JAQing off is not evidence. When are you woowoos going to learn that?
 
CptColumbo said:
Where was the word "pancake" and "initiated" in that sentence? The first part of the animation is, I believe, from a History Channel show called "Rise and Fall of an American Icon" (I could be wrong about this, it looked like the same animation, but both groups could have used the same source) It shows the trusses bending inward, which is in agreement with the NIST assessment. The inward bowing of the trusses is what caused the outer collumns to bend inward. Again, the animation wasn't introduced well, but IMO it isn't in disagreement with the prevailing theories.
Click to expand...

It is in complete disagreement with the final NIST report. The trusses do not bow in that animation, they break away from the columns. This is totally wrong and is a collapse sequence thoroughly rejected by NIST. You are wrong and the BBC made a factual error.
 
Aphelion said:
It is in complete disagreement with the final NIST report. The trusses do not bow in that animation, they break away from the columns. This is totally wrong and is a collapse sequence thoroughly rejected by NIST. You are wrong and the BBC made a factual error.
Click to expand...

There you go using those words "complete" and "totally" again. In what way is it in complete disagreement with the NISTs "final" report? Keep in mind the doc did not state this was what initiated the collapse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom