BBC 9/11: The Conspiracy Files

Aphelion said:
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.
Click to expand...

Just like you, a super intellect with absolutely no preconceived ideas whatsoever. You have made up your mind long before you came to this forum that the Towers were brought down by explosives and you are simply spinning it all out in a sad and desperate attempt to mask the fact that you have neither the evidence nor the logic to back it up.

You have desperately tried to cherry people other people’s posts, desperately tried to turn members upon one another and even more desperately tried to cherry pick the NIST link that you provided.

No nobody tells you what to think, other than ct sites where they do exactly the same as you have done here.

So are you even going to bother backing up yet another claim or just keep whining on and on.

If the Towers did not collapse from the damage caused by the planes and the fires, as you said they did before, then what caused them to collapse?
 
Last edited:
Re: Dylan the dropout. The documentary was not trying to make him look bad when they said that. Actually they were trying to make him look good, because it was in the context of them talking about this 23-year old guy who put something together on his laptop that has had 4 million hits, is getting a distribution deal, will be coming out on DVD etc. I think if they'd said "who never went to college or university" it would sound needlessly derogatory and patronising, so instead they called him a "self-confessed dropout", which gave him some cachet, whilst emphasising the fact that a pure amateur had done something pretty clever. It was only afterwards that they made him look bad by letting him condemn himself on camera.
 
Larry Lovage said:
Re: Dylan the dropout. The documentary was not trying to make him look bad when they said that. Actually they were trying to make him look good, because it was in the context of them talking about this 23-year old guy who put something together on his laptop that has had 4 million hits, is getting a distribution deal, will be coming out on DVD etc. I think if they'd said "who never went to college or university" it would sound needlessly derogatory and patronising, so instead they called him a "self-confessed dropout", which gave him some cachet, whilst emphasising the fact that a pure amateur had done something pretty clever. It was only afterwards that they made him look bad by letting him condemn himself on camera.
Click to expand...

Quite. The only people to make Avery, Jones and Fetzer look bad in that documentary were Avery, Jones and Fetzer.
 
I just finished watching the whole documentary, and again I am baffled by what they think they can trick us with.

Do they really think we would believe that a paper with the text "expenses" would survive the blazing fires in the towers? Look at this clip from 14:04 into the video, where they show the three compacted floors:

expenses.gif



This is just like the hoax with the passport.


SLOB
(this post was made using Irony Engine™ 2.0)
 
SLOB said:
I just finished watching the whole documentary, and again I am baffled by what they think they can trick us with.

Do they really think we would believe that a paper with the text "expenses" would survive the blazing fires in the towers? Look at this clip from 14:04 into the video, where they show the three compacted floors:

http://87.96.168.2/images/expenses.gif


This is just like the hoax with the passport.


SLOB
(this post was made using Irony Engine™ 2.0)
Click to expand...

Who said those floors were the floors that were on fire?
 
Aphelion said:
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.
Click to expand...

I apologize for the delay in my response. I was rewatching that section of the documentary, to put the animation in context. When I was done the forum was in "back-up" mode and it was after 1am for me.

I'm glad you actually did some research regarding the NIST. However, putting the animation in context would help you make sense of why that animation was used. As SOG wrote the program was not saying that the pancaking initiated the collapse, in fact they never use the word "Pancake." It was showing the animation to help explain why puffs of air came out of the building, as the upper floors "progressively caved in."

BTW they also used animation from LC, which is not supported by the NIST report. Why aren't you equally upset about that? Or are you biased?
 
CptColumbo said:
I apologize for the delay in my response. I was rewatching that section of the documentary, to put the animation in context. When I was done the forum was in "back-up" mode and it was after 1am for me.

I'm glad you actually did some research regarding the NIST. However, putting the animation in context would help you make sense of why that animation was used. As SOG wrote the program was not saying that the pancaking initiated the collapse, in fact they never use the word "Pancake." It was showing the animation to help explain why puffs of air came out of the building, as the upper floors "progressively caved in."

BTW they also used animation from LC, which is not supported by the NIST report. Why aren't you equally upset about that? Or are you biased?
Click to expand...


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?
 
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...

The animation shows pancaking after the initiation of the collapse.

Doesn't everyone agree that the floors pancaked after the collapse initiated?

You seem to confuse initiation with progression.
 
babazaroni said:
The animation shows pancaking after the initiation of the collapse.

Doesn't everyone agree that the floors pancaked after the collapse initiated?

You seem to confuse initiation with progression.
Click to expand...

Please reference the NIST report where they say this. There was no pancaking.
 
Aphelion said:
Please reference the NIST report where they say this. There was no pancaking.
Click to expand...

Please define pancaking.

I define it as one floor falling on the floor below it.

Does not mean that the end result is a bunch of floors all neatly stacked on one another, even though this did happen to a few floors.

NIST says initiation was not caused by pancaking. If you need a reference for this statement, someone will find it for you.

Pancaking initiation was the hypothesis they started with.
 
Anti-sophist said:
NIST doesn't say there was no pancaking, at all. Please stop confusing the collapse with the collapse initiation.
Click to expand...

NIST do not cover the actual collapse.

The graphic shown by the BBC showed the truss failure theory. NISTs theory is the complete opposite, they say the trusses pulled the columns inward and the joints did not fail.

It was an error. Even your fellow skeptics admit this.
 
Aphelion said:
NIST do not cover the actual collapse.

The graphic shown by the BBC showed the truss failure theory. NISTs theory is the complete opposite, they say the trusses pulled the columns inward and the joints did not fail.

It was an error. Even your fellow skeptics admit this.
Click to expand...

And the person you were responding to was talking about the collapse post-initiation, and you tried to quote NIST to them.
 
Aphelion said:
NIST do not cover the actual collapse.

The graphic shown by the BBC showed the truss failure theory. NISTs theory is the complete opposite, they say the trusses pulled the columns inward and the joints did not fail.

It was an error. Even your fellow skeptics admit this.
Click to expand...

That graphic came from Nova's explanation of the original FEMA hypothesis.

This hypothesis happened before NIST's investigation.

Yes, the BBC documentary did not explain initiation very well at all, but we have been talking about post initiation right?
 
babazaroni said:
That graphic came from Nova's explanation of the original FEMA hypothesis.

This hypothesis happened before NIST's investigation.

Yes, the BBC documentary did not explain initiation very well at all, but we have been talking about post initiation right?
Click to expand...



Learn to admit when you are wrong. The BBC was in error. End. Of. Story.
 
cludgie said:
Who said those floors were the floors that were on fire?
Click to expand...

Well, how did it survive the Pools of Iron[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]® in the pile? Obvious hoax.

Cheers,
SLOB
[/FONT](this post was made using the enhanced updated Irony Engine™ 2.1)
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]
[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
 
babazaroni said:
What specifically was it in error about?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

As CptColumbo pointed out, that graphic was to show how pancaking floors could cause the puffs to appear.

It was not to show how the collapse initiated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom