BBC debunks 9/11 conspiracy theories

Post Reply New Topic

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/ ... ation&only

I eagerly await hordes of leftists who swear that anything posted on LGF can't possibly be credible without actually watching the videos (unedited BBC footage) posted as part of the article.

lgf
though sometimes
foul and dark
hath spak'n
in manners
that bury
hatred and foulness
for a moment
at least

(Translation: LGF, though usually annoying and right-wing. Has said something I argee heartily with.)

What i found puzzling was the amount of time given to a psychologist (iirc) who suggests that CTers cling on to MIHOP/LIHOP theories as some sort of safety blanket. Does that make any sense?

Heres a critical review of the program i found re-posted on another site. Apologies for the long CnP, but i cant find a source.

Yeah, it's hard to find good links too but you have to know the right way to find good links, because mainstream links are often to some bought-and-paid media organizations or if theyr not mainstream it's hard to trust their credibility. The latter is a perfect idea how propaganda works, it takes alittle bit of truth as bate, and fills in the rest with lies and disinformation or half-truths of their own. It's a play on emotions.

Like I said it's hard to find good sources. I prefer to use life experience to some extent, but I do have some resources if I need them, I don't believe in not backing myself up... Though sometimes my resources aren't online.

The central core was not completely destroyed!! ! It was THE LAST THING destroyed! You want proof? Look closely at the video at the towers collapse (it's mostly hidden under the smoke). Look at the remains of the tower. You want to know where the very few survivors were found? The central core. Where else? The basement, where if the central core had not partially held up, would have been crushed entirely.

Think about this seriously. Conspiracy theorists cannot get simple things like this right, and yet they repeat the lies when they are proven wrong! WTC could not, literally, could not have been the result of controlled demolition. The proof? It's in the video. Not a single engineering expert thinks it was intentionally blown up. Yet, it doesn't matter. Quotes are taken out of context from dozens of people, survivors of 9/11, people who INSIST(!) that their words are being misinterpreted. Yet still no correction is issued and there words are used again.

People who died on 9/11 have been accused of being complicit with mass murder (certain people that were on the flights that crashed into the Pentagon and in PA)! Survivors that are supportive of the War of Terror are accused of being paid off. It's sheer lunacy!

Every single one of the 9/11 conspiracy allegations is dealt with all the links on this site.

The program noted the fact that the extremist "Israel should not exist" group Hezbollah had started a rumor starting 4,000 Jews had failed to show up for work at the WTC on 9/11. The BBC then demolished the rumor. This rumor is believed throughout the Muslim world alreadly, must like the the forged "Protocols of the Elders of Zion." Should be BBC be condemned for proving this lie the falsity that is is?

I should also note that the "documentary" Loose Change (both the original and revised version) uses "The American Free Press" as a source for it's incorrect claims. This "newspaper" (the documentary treats it as if it is some normal journalistic enterprise) is neo-Nazi is nature. It's website links to David Duke's current organization. Remember him? He used to be Grand Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan and was last seen in Iran's Holocaust Denial Conference.



These claims of course of not based on actual physical evidence or witnesses.



They found a conspiracy. It was organized by Osama Bin Laden's al-Qaeda orgazation. OBL declared war on the United States in 1996. Al-Qaeda had previously bombed the U.S.S. Cole, and two American embassies in Africa. The WTC had been bombed in 1993 by a nephew of the architect of the now captured 9/11 plot, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.



The 9/11 committee was specific in pointing out specific mistakes going back several admistrations including both Bush administrations. One Democratic member of the committee, Richard Ben-Veniste, harshly attacked the Bush adminstration, and it's witneses throughout the hearing.



I don't know what this is in reference to, but it is not proof of a conspiracy. Governor Kean has made critical comments of George Bush in the past.



Yes, they have been.



I agree.



How would you define "a large number?"



One victim is not a large number. Mr. Rodriguez did not originally claim that bombs were in the building. His story has changed significantly.

I will also note that any bombs powerful planted in the basement that were enough to destroy the world Trade Center would have destroyed the basement entirely, and killed Mr. Rodriguez instantly. Furthermore, this scenario is literally impossible based on the video and photographs of the collapse itself.

People are dying at this moment:



Now why is the top of the building tilted like this? Is it a bomb? Is it controlled demolition? No, it is not. The combined damage due to the crash of a commercial jetliner and fire has weakened the steal on one corner of the building to the point where it can no longer support the upper floors. It must collapse. It is the rules of physics.

When watching the video you will see that after the failed corner fails the other side of the building comes down as well in order the equalize the weight on each four sides of the structure. This is where Bin Laden apparently thought it would stop (with both sides evened out), as the engineer explained in the video the United States captured in Afghanistan. But it didn't. The force of gravity pushed now pushed down both sides in a pancake fashion, crushing and killing anyone that remain in the structure.



Fine, they failed to mention the "strongest evidence." Except there is no evidence. A plane crashed in Pennsylvania. Here is a part of it:



By the way, this is hardly the smallest wreckage from a plane crash. There have been crashes with smaller pieces of debris. It all depends on the angle and the speed of the aircraft.



Perhaps the writer of this misunderstands. No mystery aircraft landed in Clevaland. Flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania. Here is the cloud that followed it's crash:



The women who took this picture, BTW, has gotten threats from conspiracy theorists, who are convinced she is some kind of government agent.



They have been routine anti-terrorism exercises all the time since the 1993 WTC bombings. I don't understand the connection here?



The BBC also says that they are still investigating the WTC collapse when they have essntially wrapped it up. This might have to do with the program being slightly dated. In addition, there can be a combination of a fog of war and people trying to protect their own careers/reputations (ie: Sandy Berger's theft of classified info) that results in criminal charges without the result of a conspiracy. Once again, the 9/11 commission (with I, at the time, opposed the formation of, and was often a critic of) did not find evidence of a domestic conspiracy.



From the Washington Post (I'm sorry I don't have a direct link):



This was a criminal justice issue not a conspiracy. Look up the word "FISA warrent" on Google or Wikipedia.



PBS also doesn't like the carry Richard Pipes, or Robert Conquest when it does it's history of the Cold War.



The CIA did it! Wow. This is the same CIA that green-lighted Joe Wilson's anti-Bush polemic, basically forced out someone Bush put in charge that wanted to reform the whole wreck of a structure, and engages in leaks to undermine the adminstration. The CIA isn't exactly what it used to be.



To dissent is to debate something philosophical. To deny the facts is just lunacy. Don't get me wrong, a certain lunacy is fine. You want to believe in astrology, or UFOs, or maybe even that we didn't really land on the moon? That doesn't hurt anybody. That doesn't effect a person's overall philosophy. But when you start thinking that it was actually the government was behind 9/11 was the evidence clearly shows it was not. That's worrisome. That is in holocaust denial territory.

Debunk This

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlneVs4lnCs

On Google Video there is a documentary called 9/11 Mysteries. It is currently the defining presentation on how controlled demolitions took down the WTC buildings. The movie format is high quality with over 1.8 million views.

Last edited by Jacob_Landshire on 24 Feb 2007, 7:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I will transcribe it, and then issue a full rebuttal.



If it is proven that the WTC Towers, or WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition, I will give you everything I own. I swear to it.

"Mysterious of 9/11 is full of outright lies, and quotes taken without context. The people who made it are liars are should be condemned as such.

Here is a link* to a documentary that gives you "Mysteries of 9/11" and then answers every single charge. I challenge you to provide refutations to their rebuttals, either yourself or via other sources. Don't just say "I don't buy it." Show me how it was possible to fool the workers inside the Twin Towers while the installed the huge numbers massive charges that would be needed to set it off. Don't tell me it was some special termite charge because that is a lie and I can provide proof it you like. Don't tell me there were thousands of small bombs smuggled in and set off because there is no physical evidence of that either. Don't tell me of some massive bomb in the basement because the basement was one of the only parts of the structure to survive partially intact.

Answer the engineers who wrote actual reports explaining how when the two towers of the WTC collapsed the severely damaged WTC 7. Don't tell me this is a lie because I can show you pictures, including the fire that followed. Did you know that a large portion of the structure facing the trade center had it's foundation ripped out from under it? Do you think THAT might have had something to do with the collapse? Engineers do.

*Earlier I mentioned that the concrete central core was the last part of the building to be destroyed. This rebuttal documentary has the photographic evidence I was searching for but couldn't find in my cursory search.

It was a plane. There were parts of the plane on site, and photographed. Here is a list of witnesses that have been cited in newspaper articles. I challenge you to say they were all paid off, or threatened, or lying. I also challenge you to say that the bodies recovered at the site were not really the bodies. This victims of the crash included the Auditor General of the United States. Was he paid off or just part of the conspiracy?



There was no attached pod. No one, and there were thousands of witnesses, reported seeing a pod. Quoting Popular Mechanics book on this subject:



Of course, none of the other angles show this "pod," and the 9/11 "Truth" movement can't find photographic experts that support their claims. But maybe they are all paid off or afraid of the government.

People question the government’s version of what they saw on Sept. 11 because it conflicts with a person’s sense of reason. On the morning of Sept. 11 we saw some large holes, where the planes crashed into the towers, along with some flames and lots of smoke. Then suddenly the buildings erupted into clouds of dust and debris accompanied by a tremendous roar. To say that the buildings collapsed is an understatement, they were pulverized. Pieces of steel were hurled out laterally in every direction for hundreds of feet. Blast waves smashed out building windows from about the same distance. When the dust settled the only recognizable pieces left were sections of steel. The entire event is counter-intuitive to what one would expect to happen if the buildings experienced structural failure at the points of initial damage.

This isn’t an overly complex issue. It can seem a complicated subject when people draw out every last minute detail and engage in endless debate about the composite make up of some dust sample taken at ground zero, or argue the credentials of this or that expert. The fact is, what happened on Sept. 11 is unprecedented in the history of building fire or structural engineering. No building has ever been smashed to smithereens as a result of fire or structural failure.


I’ll post this short video clip of Jim Hoffman once again because it really is an excellent presentation linking the events at the World Trade Center to the use of explosives.

I haven't got to transcribing the YouTube video yet. I am actually looking forward to it. I am thinking of maybe making a video presentation using photographic, and maybe video evidence. If anyone knows of a good video editing program alternative to the one that comes with XP please PM me with it.

I will try to get the response up my Monday. I can't guarantee that because this is more then just a normal rebuttal. I am going to respond sentence for sentence with specific examples.

And I found found that picture of the core of the WTC. Ready? Here it is:



See it? It collapsed very quickly after that. However remnants were still left, the outer frame of the building is in the distance:



ADDENDUM: I HAVE FOUND A VIDEO (showing the core in detail)! !! It is astonishing!

Can you point to another instance of a 75+ story skyscraper being hit with a fully fueled airliner? What are you trying to compare it with? There is no similar point of reference. I can point, however, to a case of a case of steel collapse in a structure because of prolonged fire. Here it is:



This is the Madrid Windsor fire. This is cited in Loose Change as evidence of that the 9/11 attacks were a conspiracy because the World Trade Center collapsed and the Madrid Windsor didn't They say this despite the fact that the Madrid Windsor is much shorter then the WTC towers and it was not struck by an aircraft that caused massive structural damage to the building itself.



Here is a picture of the Madrid Windsor after the fire. As you can see there was a partial building collapse. This collapse occured due to the weakening of the steel due to fire. The reason the entire structure did not collapse was apparently due the placement of two entirety concrete "technical floors" below the steel floors above (the Madrid Windor is a more recent construction then the WTC and the fire took place during construction). The WTC had no technical floors. The concrete inner core was surrounded by the open, and lighter steel support beams.

So a fire can cause a collapse.

Last edited by jimservo on 22 Feb 2007, 10:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Maybe so but that Bin Laden confession video is still fake as f**k.

It would be illogical for the government of the United States to fake a video of Bin Laden's confession since the evidence points to him ordering the attack anyway. No evidence exists of U.S. government involvement in the attack.

I will try to deal with that Osama "confession" video (actually footage of him watching, and responding to the 9/11 attacks) in a future post.

Bin Laden released a statement denying responsibility for the attacks after 9/11. However, admitting them would have put the Taliban-led Afganistan into even more awkward position then it already was (if you will remember, the Taliban offered to "try" Bin Laden themselves before the unacceptable offer was deemed void by the military assault). Bin Laden did not expect, according to testimony from his captured lieutenants, the U.S. to respond as swiftly as it did. Rather, he apparently expected a more muted response. Bin Laden viewed both Bill Clinton, George Bush, and even Ronald Reagan (despite his cold war image, the U.S. rapidly retreated after our Marine barracks were bombed in Beirut) as weak. Therefor, he likely believed that the United States, and her allies would accept the Taliban's offer and back away from bloodshed.

For the record, Bin Laden has always been a brilliant tactical thinker but a much less intelligent strategic thinker.

After the ousting of the Taliban regime, Bin Laden was forced to flee to (one presumes, based on all press reports) the tribal regimes along the Afghan-Pakistan border. There was a time in which Bin Laden's popularity actually dropped off quite a bit in the Arab world. After 9/11 his popularity had risen as he struck out against the great symbols of American power, but now his host had fallen and his area of control had diminished. It was at his time of perhaps lowest popular appeal that he released a statement publicly acknowledging he carried out the attack. The statement was inherently risky. It revealed him as a liar, but it also was designed to appeal to his greatest triumph. It was also a power play. Bin Laden desires (or desired, it possible that he died in the last couple of years) to be the leader, or at least figurehead of the radical Islamists community. If one watches closely at communications between al-Qaeda, al-Qaeda of Iraq, ect. one can see more then just terrorist propaganda, but internal politics as well.

Well, anyone that's a lot of rambling. I will get to the video after I get to transcribing and rebutting that YouTube video.

I must admit that others have gathered essentially all of the information that I am l presenting. Credit to should go to these people rather then myself for collecting that data.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/proofs/speed.html




This photograph shows the South Tower about five seconds into its "collapse" from the west. This was the less symmetrical of the two collapses.


http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/symmetry.html


These photographs show the South Tower from the south at about two seconds and eight seconds after its top started to plunge downward. They show that the collapse became more symmetric as it progressed. Any natural collapse would have become less symmetric as it progressed.

I'm sorry Jacob. You're wrong. I had prepared a long response, but I don't know if it's worth the trouble anymore.

Watch this video. Watch what happens. There is no bomb. The floors are given way. I don't know how it's possible, honestly, to reach a different conclusion.

A plane crashed into the building Jacob. When it impacted it caused an explosion. This started a fire that rapidly spread. The fire reached temperatures that caused steel to weaken (not melt). Once, steel weakens a certain amount it will buckle and break. This cannot be denied.

If you are unwilling to look at the video then look at this picture:



Do you see that? The columns are leaning inward. This is a very bad sign for a building, especially a skyscraper.

Do you know who said they thought it would collapse at the time this image was taken? The police, on the ground. That's why they were trying to get people out at the time.

Why don't the conspiracy people put these images on their websites?