PBS Colorado 911 Explosive Evidence
- Thread starter delldude
- Start date
Glenn Quagmire
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2012
- Messages
- 4,809
- Reaction score
- 4,343
This was not a PBS production.
"Three years ago I wrote a column headlined "PBS, Yes and No." It dealt with controversial episodes in which the public had reason to believe PBS was associated in some fashion with a certain television program yet PBS, as a broadcasting service, didn't have anything to do with it.
One of those episodes involved a series of programs being aired as part of a fund-raising pledge drive by the PBS-member station in Denver, KBDI. The films were produced by an organization known as "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth" that claimed the film "9/11: Blueprint for Truth" offers "evidence that all three World Trade Center high-rises were destroyed not by fire and damage, but by explosive-controlled demolitions on September 11, 2001."
In other words, I wrote at the time, "someone wired these buildings with explosives intending to bring them down in this attack, and this has been covered up by the government, the 9/11 Commission and the mainstream media." I also wrote that "on a personal level I find the idea embedded in 'Blueprint' of a government conspiracy to blow up those buildings to be preposterous and simply beyond belief and I fault the station for promoting this as part of a pledge drive and presenting it without an accompanying on-the-air program in which critics have their say."
http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/2012/09/the_disaster_that_keeps_on_giving_1.html
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/4220721
"Sooner or later, every conspiracy theory comes down to some factual claim that, if true, would be at odds with the conventional account of September 11. For example, the claim that "jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel" is used to suggest that the fires that followed weren't hot enough to cause the subsequent collapses. After all, if fire didn't bring down the towers, what did? Conspiracy theorists often repeat the refrain that "we're just asking questions." In practice they are eager to start supplying answers: The Towers were felled by bombs, thermite, secret demolition squads or some other cause. But what about those underlying factual claims? Are they accurate? We wanted to find out.
Our method was simple: Rather than try to tell the entire story of what did happen on September 11, we worked to assess the claims that conspiracy theorists themselves present as the foundations of their arguments. This is an important distinction often missed by conspiracy theorists who criticize PM's work. There is an enormous body of evidence--documents, engineering studies, forensic data, eyewitness accounts--that supports the mainstream view of September 11. Conspiracy theorists ignore or discount the vast bulk of this material and focus relentlessly on their small handful of anomalies. (Scientific American columnist Michael Shermer has an excellent piece on the fallacy of arguing from anomaly.)
We took conspiracy theorists at their word when they said they wanted to understand these anomalous facts. We dug as deeply as we could for answers. In every case that PM has investigated to date, the very evidence 9/11 conspiracy theorists use to support their arguments have turned out to be mistaken, misinterpreted or taken wildly out of context."
Read more: Debunking 9/11 Myths - Frequently Asked Questions - Conspiracy Theories - Popular Mechanics
Follow us: @PopMech on Twitter | popularmechanics on Facebook
Visit us at PopularMechanics.com
"The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking (as well as creationism, Holocaust denial and the various crank theories of physics). All the "evidence" for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy. Such notions are easily refuted by noting that scientific theories are not built on single facts alone but on a convergence of evidence assembled from multiple lines of inquiry."
"For example, according to www.911research.wtc7.net, steel melts at a temperature of 2,777 degrees Fahrenheit, but jet fuel burns at only 1,517 degrees F. No melted steel, no collapsed towers. "The planes did not bring those towers down; bombs did," says www.abovetopsecret.com. Wrong. In an article in the Journal of the Minerals, Metals, and Materials Society and in subsequent interviews, Thomas Eagar, an engineering professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, explains why: steel loses 50 percent of its strength at 1,200 degrees F; 90,000 liters of jet fuel ignited other combustible materials such as rugs, curtains, furniture and paper, which continued burning after the jet fuel was exhausted, raising temperatures above 1,400 degrees F and spreading the inferno throughout each building. Temperature differentials of hundreds of degrees across single steel horizontal trusses caused them to sag--straining and then breaking the angle clips that held the beams to the vertical columns. Once one truss failed, others followed. When one floor collapsed onto the next floor below, that floor subsequently gave way, creating a pancaking effect that triggered each 500,000-ton structure to crumble. Conspiricists argue that the buildings should have fallen over on their sides, but with 95 percent of each building consisting of air, they could only have collapsed straight down."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fahrenheit-2777
"Three years ago I wrote a column headlined "PBS, Yes and No." It dealt with controversial episodes in which the public had reason to believe PBS was associated in some fashion with a certain television program yet PBS, as a broadcasting service, didn't have anything to do with it.
One of those episodes involved a series of programs being aired as part of a fund-raising pledge drive by the PBS-member station in Denver, KBDI. The films were produced by an organization known as "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth" that claimed the film "9/11: Blueprint for Truth" offers "evidence that all three World Trade Center high-rises were destroyed not by fire and damage, but by explosive-controlled demolitions on September 11, 2001."
In other words, I wrote at the time, "someone wired these buildings with explosives intending to bring them down in this attack, and this has been covered up by the government, the 9/11 Commission and the mainstream media." I also wrote that "on a personal level I find the idea embedded in 'Blueprint' of a government conspiracy to blow up those buildings to be preposterous and simply beyond belief and I fault the station for promoting this as part of a pledge drive and presenting it without an accompanying on-the-air program in which critics have their say."
http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/2012/09/the_disaster_that_keeps_on_giving_1.html
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/4220721
"Sooner or later, every conspiracy theory comes down to some factual claim that, if true, would be at odds with the conventional account of September 11. For example, the claim that "jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel" is used to suggest that the fires that followed weren't hot enough to cause the subsequent collapses. After all, if fire didn't bring down the towers, what did? Conspiracy theorists often repeat the refrain that "we're just asking questions." In practice they are eager to start supplying answers: The Towers were felled by bombs, thermite, secret demolition squads or some other cause. But what about those underlying factual claims? Are they accurate? We wanted to find out.
Our method was simple: Rather than try to tell the entire story of what did happen on September 11, we worked to assess the claims that conspiracy theorists themselves present as the foundations of their arguments. This is an important distinction often missed by conspiracy theorists who criticize PM's work. There is an enormous body of evidence--documents, engineering studies, forensic data, eyewitness accounts--that supports the mainstream view of September 11. Conspiracy theorists ignore or discount the vast bulk of this material and focus relentlessly on their small handful of anomalies. (Scientific American columnist Michael Shermer has an excellent piece on the fallacy of arguing from anomaly.)
We took conspiracy theorists at their word when they said they wanted to understand these anomalous facts. We dug as deeply as we could for answers. In every case that PM has investigated to date, the very evidence 9/11 conspiracy theorists use to support their arguments have turned out to be mistaken, misinterpreted or taken wildly out of context."
Read more: Debunking 9/11 Myths - Frequently Asked Questions - Conspiracy Theories - Popular Mechanics
Follow us: @PopMech on Twitter | popularmechanics on Facebook
Visit us at PopularMechanics.com
"The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking (as well as creationism, Holocaust denial and the various crank theories of physics). All the "evidence" for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy. Such notions are easily refuted by noting that scientific theories are not built on single facts alone but on a convergence of evidence assembled from multiple lines of inquiry."
"For example, according to www.911research.wtc7.net, steel melts at a temperature of 2,777 degrees Fahrenheit, but jet fuel burns at only 1,517 degrees F. No melted steel, no collapsed towers. "The planes did not bring those towers down; bombs did," says www.abovetopsecret.com. Wrong. In an article in the Journal of the Minerals, Metals, and Materials Society and in subsequent interviews, Thomas Eagar, an engineering professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, explains why: steel loses 50 percent of its strength at 1,200 degrees F; 90,000 liters of jet fuel ignited other combustible materials such as rugs, curtains, furniture and paper, which continued burning after the jet fuel was exhausted, raising temperatures above 1,400 degrees F and spreading the inferno throughout each building. Temperature differentials of hundreds of degrees across single steel horizontal trusses caused them to sag--straining and then breaking the angle clips that held the beams to the vertical columns. Once one truss failed, others followed. When one floor collapsed onto the next floor below, that floor subsequently gave way, creating a pancaking effect that triggered each 500,000-ton structure to crumble. Conspiricists argue that the buildings should have fallen over on their sides, but with 95 percent of each building consisting of air, they could only have collapsed straight down."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fahrenheit-2777
Yeah and its all in the credits....
I liked the part where NIST claimed there was no explosive residue........and later admitted they never tested for it.
Or the guy who provided data of no steel building collapsing before 911.
How you say 'peer reviewed' ?
Looks like a boat load of experts with Phds....not smacks with a couple BS degrees.
Being PBS Colorado aired it, you're now calling them a bunch of wackos?
You didn't bother to watch it......LOL
I liked the part where NIST claimed there was no explosive residue........and later admitted they never tested for it.
Or the guy who provided data of no steel building collapsing before 911.
How you say 'peer reviewed' ?
Looks like a boat load of experts with Phds....not smacks with a couple BS degrees.
Being PBS Colorado aired it, you're now calling them a bunch of wackos?
You didn't bother to watch it......LOL
traderjake
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Messages
- 5,669
- Reaction score
- 9,308
Buildings due not collapse through their center of mass at free fall speed unless explosives are used.
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
http://www.ae911truth.org/
WTC Building #7, a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane, exhibited all the characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives:
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
http://www.ae911truth.org/
WTC Building #7, a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane, exhibited all the characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives:
- Rapid onset of collapse
- Sounds of explosions
- Symmetrical structural failure
- Free-fall acceleration through the path of what was greatest resistance
- Imploded, collapsing completely, landing almost in its own footprint
- Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
- Expert corroboration from the top European controlled demolition professional
- Foreknowledge of "collapse" by media, NYPD, FDNY
- FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
- Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly qualified witnesses
- Chemical signature of the incendiary thermite found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples
- Slow onset with large visible deformations
- Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)
- Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
- High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never collapsed
- Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration
- Improbable symmetry of debris distribution
- Extremely rapid onset of destruction
- Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes
- Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally
- Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking
- Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
- 1200-foot-diameter debris field: no "pancaked" floors found
- Isolated explosive ejections 20–40 stories below demolition front
- Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame
- Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises
- Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples
- Evidence of explosives found in dust samples
- Slow onset with large visible deformations
- Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
- Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
- High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer-lasting fires have never collapsed
Good points, Jake.
Quag's will take the opinion of 2100 IPCC government subsidized scientists as gospel.
2100 Architects forensically dispute NIST investigation claims and they are wackos.
And in his sourcing, I didn't see anyone dispute the Assoc of Architects claims.
Quag's will take the opinion of 2100 IPCC government subsidized scientists as gospel.
2100 Architects forensically dispute NIST investigation claims and they are wackos.
And in his sourcing, I didn't see anyone dispute the Assoc of Architects claims.
traderjake
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Messages
- 5,669
- Reaction score
- 9,308
Glenn Quagmire
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2012
- Messages
- 4,809
- Reaction score
- 4,343
"The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking (as well as creationism, Holocaust denial and the various crank theories of physics). All the "evidence" for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy. Such notions are easily refuted by noting that scientific theories are not built on single facts alone but on a convergence of evidence assembled from multiple lines of inquiry."
Glenn Quagmire
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2012
- Messages
- 4,809
- Reaction score
- 4,343
You implied it was a PBS production with the thread title and in your initial post:delldude said:
"2012 Documentary by Colorado PBS station 12"
And no, I don't think they are a bunch of wackos at the station. I think it is fine to air that show. However, as the PBS Ombudsman said, they should have made it clear it was not a PBS production and allowed for a debate afterwords.
Dog Wonder
Veteran
Calling it PBS gives it credibility, unless it is actually from PBS.
traderjake
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Messages
- 5,669
- Reaction score
- 9,308
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Joseph Goebbels quotes
Glenn Quagmire
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2012
- Messages
- 4,809
- Reaction score
- 4,343
Shouldn't you be investigating the newest CT? That should get you all giddy.
traderjake
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Messages
- 5,669
- Reaction score
- 9,308
Glenn Quagmire said:
Don't you mean "giggity"?
Similar threads
