BBC 9/11: The Conspiracy Files

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...

They showed two seperate animations.

The animation of pancaking floors was to show how the puffs could happen.

The other animation, showed trusses breaking free of the columns. If this was to show how the collapse started, then it was in error.

However, the trusses did break free of the columns, after the columns bowed in and collapsed.
 
babazaroni said:
They showed two seperate animations.

The animation of pancaking floors was to show how the puffs could happen.

The other animation, showed trusses breaking free of the columns. If this was to show how the collapse started, then it was in error.
Click to expand...
However, they were shown to be bowing before they broke free.
 
Aphelion slinger of woo,

You might want to post the definition of beam and explain the use of the word usually. As I said before, you are a great slinger of feces.
 
Aphelion said:
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.
Click to expand...

BZZZZZZZZTTTTTT!
Wrong.
A beam is an element. It may be vertical or horizontal.
H-beams, I-beams---all may be installed in ANY position.
If vertical, it is a collum. If horizontal, it may be a joist, perlon, rafter, or other name. On an angle, it may be called a rafter, truss member, lots of things.
It is made from a beam.Just as a molecule is made from----
atoms.
A beam is a building block.
 
~enigma~ said:
So you are saying whenever NIST and FEMA spoke of beams, they meant horizontal? So the center of the towers had 47 columns and not beams? You are really a woowoo O great slinger of woo...
Click to expand...

H3ll--he admitted that collums are beams, too, when you asked what vertical beams were called. Consistency ain't his strong point.
Just chose the definition you want, and change it if they catch on...
 
babazaroni said:
They showed two seperate animations.

The animation of pancaking floors was to show how the puffs could happen.

The other animation, showed trusses breaking free of the columns. If this was to show how the collapse started, then it was in error.

However, the trusses did break free of the columns, after the columns bowed in and collapsed.
Click to expand...

Thats a blatant lie. The animation they showed had nothing to do with puffs. Please quote what they said.
 
rwguinn said:
H3ll--he admitted that collums are beams, too, when you asked what vertical beams were called. Consistency ain't his strong point.
Just chose the definition you want, and change it if they catch on...
Click to expand...

Now your exercise in nitpicking is complete, please tell me whether the BBCs illustration of the collapse sequence was in error.
 
Aphelion said:
So you admit they broke free. That isn't the real collapse sequence. Hence the BBC got it wrong and made a factual error. Thankyou.
Click to expand...
I'm still not seeing what they got wrong. The bowing is what initiated the collapse, which is followed by the trusses breaking free.
 
rwguinn said:
H3ll--he admitted that collums are beams, too, when you asked what vertical beams were called. Consistency ain't his strong point.
Just chose the definition you want, and change it if they catch on...
Click to expand...
Anybody notice the irony in his Aphelion name? An aphelion is the point in the earth's orbit where it is farthest from the sun. Seems it is also where our woos brain is farthest from logic.
 
RWGuinn you havent commented on the ongoing debate about whether the animation was wrong and yet you jump in when you can correct a definition. Is that the action of a critical thinker? Or the action of someone who wants to be right at all costs?

You are not skeptics if you cannot admit that you are wrong.
 
Aphelion said:
RWGuinn you havent commented on the ongoing debate about whether the animation was wrong and yet you jump in when you can correct a definition. Is that the action of a critical thinker? Or the action of someone who wants to be right at all costs?

You are not skeptics if you cannot admit that you are wrong.
Click to expand...

What was he/she wrong about?
 
Aphelion said:
RWGuinn you havent commented on the ongoing debate about whether the animation was wrong and yet you jump in when you can correct a definition. Is that the action of a critical thinker? Or the action of someone who wants to be right at all costs?

You are not skeptics if you cannot admit that you are wrong.
Click to expand...

I have no comment on the BBC mess.
Were I wrong on the definitions I corrected, I wold so admit. I was not wrong.
You, however, were attempting to change a universal definition into a specific, simply to support your own narrow, totally incorrect point. (beam; simply supported--get it? That's engineering humor!)
This is due to the fact that your brain functions appear to be much like those of a dinosaur--Awkward, slow, antiquated, limited, and simple--not to mention extinct.
As a critical thinker, however, I WILL correct sloppy thinking/goal-post motion, and pseudo-science when and where it occurs.
Can't do it for everyone--the CT'ers are so wrong so all-the-time that one just throws up one's hands and does the best he can.
 
this is why aphelion is nothing more than a troll

he lied in his response that he believe that the BBC video contained no errors.

So since he lied, I do not have to answer his question on why the CBC video is biased (and its already been explained to him why its biased).
 
Aphelion said:
Thats a blatant lie. The animation they showed had nothing to do with puffs. Please quote what they said.
Click to expand...

From the narration during and immediately after the animation:
BBC Narrator:The Official explanation suggests that when each plane slammed into the tower it damaged the core structure. Then the ensuing fire weakened the building further. Although steel needs 1500 degrees celcius to melt, at 650 degrees it looses half it's strength. The lode bearing beams buckled when they were unable to carry the weight above and the floors progressively caved in. This is three floors of the World Trade Center and everything in them. Compressed and fused into a slab about 3 feet thick.

PM:When those towers collapsed, remember the collapses began from the top. They did not begin from the bottom, and so when the floors began crashing down upon themselves the air just simply looked for the path of least resistance and generally that meant straight out the windows and a little bit of debris and smoke went with them and that, sort of, represents those puffs that people think are "squibs" or explosive charges.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom