BBC 9/11: The Conspiracy Files

cludgie said:
notice though that they never cited the editorial that admitted the 'hijackers alive' story was in error.
Click to expand...

If only as "proof" that Blair is leaning on the BBC under orders from his boss, President Bush.
 
Myriad said:
Then, what's a girder?
Click to expand...

Irishman goes for a job on an English building site. The foreman looks him over asks him, what's the difference between a joust and a girder.

The Irishman scratches his head for a minute, then says "Well the first fella wrote Finnegan's Wake, and the other bloke wrote Faust."


8den
-Even our idiots are well read-
 
Last edited:
gumboot said:
Because lots of debris hit WTC7 and not very much hit the Verizon Building.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...


Yeah, but given WTC7 and Verizon position (WTC7 however being slightly closer to the falling tower) I don't understand why Verizon got so few damage and WTC7 got enough as to completely collapse....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:September_17_2001.jpg

All the debris concentrated on WTC7, but Verizon should logically have been hit, even if there was less damage. The only damage it has is a small hole...

This WTC7 really remains a mystery. If fires and debris cause this kind of phenomenon I'm not going in a skycraper again... (I know the "strange architecture" claim, seems far-stretched to me...)

Can you be sure that WTC7 fell because of fires and impacts comined?
 
gumboot said:
Because lots of debris hit WTC7 and not very much hit the Verizon Building.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...
Some of the "minor" damage to the Verizon building wasn't minor at all. Beams from the north tower pierced the Verizon's subterranean cable vaults, causing massive disruptions in phone service. Repairs to the Verizon building alone took four years and cost about $300 million.
 
busherie said:
Yeah, but given WTC7 and Verizon position (WTC7 however being slightly closer to the falling tower) I don't understand why Verizon got so few damage and WTC7 got enough as to completely collapse....
Click to expand...

The Verizon building wasn't on fire for seven hours. It did not have fires on 16 visible floors. It didn't have a huge portion of its corner and center damaged. It wasn't groaning, creaking, and bulging. It was also built in a different way, in a different era.

Do you understand these differences?
 
busherie said:
Yeah, but given WTC7 and Verizon position (WTC7 however being slightly closer to the falling tower) I don't understand why Verizon got so few damage and WTC7 got enough as to completely collapse....
Click to expand...
Was stairway B from the north tower closer to the collapse of the towers than wtc 7 AND the Verizon building? Why were there suvivors from the stairway? Your question is extremely stupid not to mention offensive to anyone who lost someone on 9/11 busherie.
 
busherie said:
Yeah, but given WTC7 and Verizon position (WTC7 however being slightly closer to the falling tower) I don't understand why Verizon got so few damage and WTC7 got enough as to completely collapse....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:September_17_2001.jpg

All the debris concentrated on WTC7, but Verizon should logically have been hit, even if there was less damage. The only damage it has is a small hole...

This WTC7 really remains a mystery. If fires and debris cause this kind of phenomenon I'm not going in a skycraper again... (I know the "strange architecture" claim, seems far-stretched to me...)

Can you be sure that WTC7 fell because of fires and impacts comined?
Click to expand...

Yes. It had a very unusual architecture. It had long spans because it was built over a ConEd power station.

Because the footprint was larger then originally planned, all the north side columns were supported by cantilevered beams. It would be quite easy for key structural elements to be compromised by the east penthouse falling through the building.
 
Truthers want an independet investigation. Well, independent analysts investigated the attack on the Pentagon. And the results of the investigation were that AA 77 did in fact hit the Pentagon.

Results published and the truthers don't like it. Truthers will despise any results that do not concur with their theories.

See what an independet investigation does, truthers? It once again proves that the truthers theories are utterly wrong.
 
Dylan and Co said this once that what would it take them to believe the official story (paraphrasing) and they replied with "nothing". I think that sums it all up. The theories are just fantasies, good for a fictional tale, but not a documentary.
 
A new blog entry from the producer of the BBC programme, primarily quashing the notion of there being two cuts of the programme

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/conspiracy_on_conspiracy.html

Other bits include...

We didn’t find anything conclusive proving the conspiracy theories. Instead we found a lot of evidence which supported the official version and contradicted the various conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...

and

However, our opinion poll carried out by GfK NOP did not find much support for the underlying conspiracy theory. In a telephone poll of a 1000 adults we asked:
“Attacks were made on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon on September 11th 2001, commonly known as 9/11. It is generally accepted that these attacks were carried out by ’Al Qaeda’, however some people have suggested there was a wider conspiracy that included the American Government. Do you, yourself, believe that there was a wider conspiracy, or not?”
16% people believed the American Government was involved in a wider conspiracy as against 64% of those questioned who did not believe that. The rest said they did not know.
Click to expand...

Funny, I thought 80%+ were meant to think it was an inside job.:confused:
 
cludgie said:
However, our opinion poll carried out by GfK NOP did not find much support for the underlying conspiracy theory. In a telephone poll of a 1000 adults we asked:
“Attacks were made on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon on September 11th 2001, commonly known as 9/11. It is generally accepted that these attacks were carried out by ’Al Qaeda’, however some people have suggested there was a wider conspiracy that included the American Government. Do you, yourself, believe that there was a wider conspiracy, or not?”
16% people believed the American Government was involved in a wider conspiracy as against 64% of those questioned who did not believe that. The rest said they did not know.
Click to expand...


Funny, I thought 80%+ were meant to think it was an inside job.:confused:
Click to expand...
Was this poll done in the USA or in the UK?
 
Firestone said:
Was this poll done in the USA or in the UK?
Click to expand...

That I couldn't say for sure, its a UK based polling agency but they do have presence in the US. Probably more likely the UK but could be either.

Although at least the question asked is nice and direct, whereas the famous '84% say inside job' poll question was worded so you'd probably answer in the affirmative if you thought internal ass-covering was going as much as if you thought it was a huge Government conspiracy.
 
8den said:
Irishman goes for a job on an English building site. The foreman looks him over asks him, what's the difference between a joust and a girder.

The Irishman scratches his head for a minute, then says "Well the first fella wrote Finnegan's Wake, and the other bloke wrote Faust."


8den
-Even our idiots are well read-
Click to expand...


I heard that punchline as: "Dat's an aysy wun! Goethe wrote Faust and Joist wrote Ulysses..."
 
busherie said:
Yeah, but given WTC7 and Verizon position (WTC7 however being slightly closer to the falling tower) I don't understand why Verizon got so few damage and WTC7 got enough as to completely collapse....
Click to expand...


Because the distribution of debris from an uncontrolled building collapse is random. Why were only the top floors of WTC5 destroyed, yet WT6 and WTC3 were practically obliterated?

Damage is random. Collapse video shows that the primary damage to WTC7 - an enormous gouge out of the south face, was caused by a single enormous section of WTC1 that fell away from the tower and into WTC7.

No such large section hit the Verizon Building.

You are also misrepresenting the scale of damage to the Verizon Building. While it was not as massive as to WTC7, the building still suffered significant damage that, as Gravy pointed out, took many years and a lot of money to repair.

Lastly, although the damage would have condemned WTC7 to being torn down and replaced, the building may not have collapsed on its own without the fires. Just like with WTC1 and WTC2, it was a combination of massive structural damage and severe unfought fires that caused the collapse of the building.

Regarding the "unique construction"; you do not need to take our word for it. The plans for WTC7 are readily available online.

-Gumboot
 
busherie said:
Yeah, but given WTC7 and Verizon position (WTC7 however being slightly closer to the falling tower) I don't understand why Verizon got so few damage and WTC7 got enough as to completely collapse....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:September_17_2001.jpg

All the debris concentrated on WTC7, but Verizon should logically have been hit, even if there was less damage. The only damage it has is a small hole...
Click to expand...
This is only suspicious if you believe that the distribution of debris was uniform. It wasn't.
 
Prison Planet article http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/230207BBC.htm

For someone who isn't a spy, he sure is giving a very good impression of one.
Click to expand...

Aww, mister Rudin throws us a lolly to prove us that he's not a government agent. Nice try.
Click to expand...

You're so full of ****. Your documentary didn't mention anything about the 'New Pearl Harbor' quote in the document of the Project for a New American Century, which you could at least have attempted to spin into meaning that the neocons didn't plan but just 'wanted' a New Pearl Harbor. It made no mention of Larry Silverstein's 'Pull it' quote, which you could have attempted to spin into meaning that he 'pulled the firefighters' out of the building.
Click to expand...

I mentioned this to a fellow skeptic yesterday ^^

How Ales Jones and Prison Planet does that a lot...they post the theory, then the debunking of it...and try and make it seem a lie.

So any fence sitters who see it, might be stoopid enough to agree.
 
Guy Smith, the programme's producer, has just been interviewed on BBC TV's Newswatch. He categorically and emphatically denied the 'two versions' story that the 9/11 truth movement has been circulating. He also disputed any notion of anti-CT bias - the programme makers went in with an open mind, followed good journalistic principles, gave the three leading CT-ers the air-time to explain themselves, and then went to primary evidence sources and eyewitnesses to see whether the theories stood up. The evidence spoke for itself. He also debunked the 'only 3 CT-ers interviewed against 11 non-sayers' whine - several of the non-sayers had only a few sentences broadcast, the CT-ers were interviewed in-depth.

End of story? I think not! :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom