'The BBC now admits Al Qaeda never existed' video

[Garlic]

Has anyone seem this video floating about on Facebook and Twitter?

I don't get it. That video was uploaded in 2009 so why is everyone getting so excited now? Furthermore, there is nothing in the video to suggest the BBC made it. In fact, it largely resembles a BBC report from the late 1990s.

Has anyone got any thoughts?

[Guest primitive]

Has anyone got any thoughts?

Yes, I do have thoughts. Which is more that can be said about anyone actually dumb enough to believe this.

[Heart and Mind]

??? 9/11 = Inside Job

[Garlic]

??? 9/11 = Inside Job

I dunno who is responsible for 9/11 but I do know 100% that jet fuel cannot melt steel. I also know that my wife's childhood home is made of wood and burned for 2 hours without burning to the ground. On top of that, I know that 3 skyscrapers in the history of the world have fallen to a pile of rubble because of fire. All of them were on 9/11.

Anyway, facts aside, any idea what's up with this video? Has anyone seen it before the last few weeks?

[Heart and Mind]

All i know is that governments with secrets can go fuck themselves. So they all can go fuck themselves.

[Brett.Davids]

I dunno who is responsible for 9/11 but I do know 100% that jet fuel cannot melt steel. I also know that my wife's childhood home is made of wood and burned for 2 hours without burning to the ground. On top of that, I know that 3 skyscrapers in the history of the world have fallen to a pile of rubble because of fire. All of them were on 9/11.

Anyway, facts aside, any idea what's up with this video? Has anyone seen it before the last few weeks?

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842

If you know any engineers, you'll know that they don't let ideology get in the way of facts.

[Guest Smithsonius]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842

If you know any engineers, you'll know that they don't let ideology get in the way of facts.

"A man without facts is just a man with an opinion" is a quote I've seen more than a couple of engineers use...

[Garlic]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842

If you know any engineers, you'll know that they don't let ideology get in the way of facts.

'Three and a half years later, not everyone is convinced we know the truth. Go to Google.com, type in the search phrase "World Trade Center conspiracy" and you'll get links to an estimated 628,000 Web sites.'

Any article which uses Google search result numbers as a measure of the popularity, has instantly lost any credibility.

In any case, the article fails to adequately disprove most key points.

It is utter nonsense. Let me reduce the scale here-

It's the equivalent of a sparrow flying through the window of my semi-detached house with a beak-full of petroleum and then my house burning to the ground in 5 minutes.

[mickloud]

I do know 100% that...

I'm guessing you were being hyperbolic, but just in case...

The engineers aren't 100% certain. The government isn't 100% certain.  The terrorists aren't even 100% certain.  And the media, by and large, doesn't even care about what is true or false.  So some random guy who saw a few news reports about 9/11 and has an anecdote about a wooden house burning down couldn't even approach a 0.001% certainty about something like whether or not jet fuel could burn hot enough to cause an already-compromised steel building to collapse.

Nobody is ever certain of anything, except perhaps in mathematics. If you believe otherwise, you might not fully understand how certainty is acquired.  Of course, you were probably just being hyperbolic 

[Garlic]

I'm guessing you were being hyperbolic, but just in case...

The engineers aren't 100% certain. The government isn't 100% certain.  The terrorists aren't even 100% certain.  And the media, by and large, doesn't even care about what is true or false.  So some random guy who saw a few news reports about 9/11 and has an anecdote about a wooden house burning down couldn't even approach a 0.001% certainty about something like whether or not jet fuel could burn hot enough to cause an already-compromised steel building to collapse.

Nobody is ever certain of anything, except perhaps in mathematics. If you believe otherwise, you might not fully understand how certainty is acquired.  Of course, you were probably just being hyperbolic 

I believe you a correct.

[vennie]

I believe you a correct.

100%?

[Garlic]

100%?

113% this time

[Really?]

al Qaeda has released a video admitting that the BBC never existed. It was all just Islamist recruiting propaganda.

[Garlic]

al Qaeda has released a video admitting that the BBC never existed. It was all just Islamist recruiting propaganda.

OK, you've got me to chuckle. Well done.

But I'd still like to hear people's views on this one. Does anyone know the original source for this video? Does anyone believe it IS BBC?

[wilan]

I just wish that George W. Bush had never existed.

[Garlic]

Moved to chit chat?

Of course: what could be less worthy of being labeled a 'serious discussion' than wether or not a prolific terrorist group is real or not... ???

[wilan]

Moved to chit chat?

Of course: what could be less worthy of being labeled a 'serious discussion' than wether or not a prolific terrorist group is real or not... ???

Absolutely.

[Guest Skellington]

well to be fair, I lived directly 3 hours in-between all the cities and had to do some work in Somerset for the state, and a few of the government employees/administrators who live and work there that I spoke with said that no plane ever crashed, and some were even kind of nervous to talk about it. Two others said that the field that the plane supposedly "crashed" in isn't even the field that they have the memorial setup in (one lived a mile away), and others said that there wasn't even any debris or anything from the plane or something like that. It was a couple years ago.

I never suggested any opinion but merely mentioned it (what else would you talk about in Somerset if you're from out of town?), and I definitely wasn't subjectively listening either. I never really considered any eligibility to the government or anyone pulling off a hoax that blatant and extravagant before, but it's just strange that everyone who I even mentioned it to at the office  had something weird to say about it.

[Really?]

omg. jort, working from a top-secret bungalow in the Florida keys, listening obsessively to Puccini, living on a diet solely composed of fried Twinkies and fermented beet juice, muted pornographic home videos from the 1970s playing on an 11inch television monitor atop his desk, smoking high quality marijuana out of a disassembled metallic Comfort Inn pen, his penis submerged in a cup of boiling hot milk, replaced with a fresh brew every 11 and one half minutes, has cracked the case WIDE OPEN!

[Guest Skellington]

you hit it spot on!

[davros]

I find it quite amusing that people think governments are capable of keeping such secrets. The US couldn't even keep a blowjob in an office secret, yet a conspiracy that would involve a plethora of government departments, thousands of individuals and multiple countries whilst offering no explanation as to why they would comply is believable?

I dunno who is responsible for 9/11 but I do know 100% that jet fuel cannot melt steel.

It doesn't have to. Ever seen the effect of heating metal rods on their size?

Jet fuel would not need to melt steel. The heat would seriously weaken the strength of steal which, when supporting a skyscraper the size and weight of the WTC, causes serious problems to its structural integrity. In this case bringing the building down.

With all due respect people with a university level understanding of chemistry, materials science or structural engineering, when applying said knowledge, do not come to the conclusion that a jumbo couldn't take down the WTC. People with a high-school calibre knowledge of the subject do. This says a lot about the science behind this particular conspiracy theory.

[vennie]

I find it quite amusing that people think governments are capable of keeping such secrets. The US couldn't even keep a blowjob in an office secret, yet a conspiracy that would involve a plethora of government departments, thousands of individuals and multiple countries whilst offering no explanation as to why they would comply is believable?It doesn't have to. Ever seen the effect of heating metal rods on their size?

Jet fuel would not need to melt steel. The heat would seriously weaken the strength of steal which, when supporting a skyscraper the size and weight of the WTC, causes serious problems to its structural integrity. In this case bringing the building down.

With all due respect people with a university level understanding of chemistry, materials science or structural engineering, when applying said knowledge, do not come to the conclusion that a jumbo couldn't take down the WTC. People with a high-school calibre knowledge of the subject do. This says a lot about the science behind this particular conspiracy theory.

As someone with a university level of experience with engineering, while it is true that burning jet fuel will weaken the strength of steel in a serious manner at high enough temperatures (look up the charts, people!), it does not explain how building 7 is able to collapse under stress of a bit of rubble and dust and a single contained fire. Neither does it explain how a mid sized passenger aircraft is able to simply dissappear upon crashing in a field, leaving behind not even a single trace of the 6.5 ton steel/titanium engines or any other part of the plane. Stuff like this just baffles me.

Admittingly though, I haven't researched any of it. Just from my mechanical engineering experience/knowledge from the top of my head I find a lot of things surrounding 9/11 rather curious, that's all.

[Garlic]

As someone with a university level of experience with engineering, while it is true that burning jet fuel will weaken the strength of steel in a serious manner at high enough temperatures (look up the charts, people!), it does not explain how building 7 is able to collapse under stress of a bit of rubble and dust and a single contained fire. Neither does it explain how a mid sized passenger aircraft is able to simply dissappear upon crashing in a field, leaving behind not even a single trace of the 6.5 ton steel/titanium engines or any other part of the plane. Stuff like this just baffles me.

Admittingly though, I haven't researched any of it. Just from my mechanical engineering experience/knowledge from the top of my head I find a lot of things surrounding 9/11 rather curious, that's all.

Interesting point about building 7. In addition, my wife's childhood house is made of wood and it burned for an hour and didn't fall down. Also, the building looks identical to a demolition. On top of all of that, the building falls from top to bottom despite the plane entering many floors below the top. How did it weaken the top floor so that it fell first?

While we're on the subject of building 7, I'm sure you'll appreciate this video, Vennie.

Not saying there's any truth behind either if these videos but it makes an interesting topic of discussion.

[davros]

As someone with a university level of experience with engineering, while it is true that burning jet fuel will weaken the strength of steel in a serious manner at high enough temperatures (look up the charts, people!), it does not explain how building 7 is able to collapse under stress of a bit of rubble and dust and a single contained fire.

A bit of rubble? Are you serious? A single contained fire? If by single you mean multiple and by contained you mean rampaging, and if by a bit of rubble you mean two huge skyscrapers, then sure. Should that have destroyed it? I don't know. Did it? Yes.

Neither does it explain how a mid sized passenger aircraft is able to simply dissappear upon crashing in a field, leaving behind not even a single trace of the 6.5 ton steel/titanium engines or any other part of the plane. Stuff like this just baffles me.

It would baffle anybody. What is more baffling is that anybody thinks flight 93 just disappeared when the wreckage was found.

Admittingly though, I haven't researched any of it. Just from my mechanical engineering experience/knowledge from the top of my head I find a lot of things surrounding 9/11 rather curious, that's all.

Regardless of whether you have it, you've not used any engineering knowledge. A technical explanation of how a building would be expected to survive the stresses and strains to the point where it is inconceivable that it would fail to do so would be adequate.

[vennie]

A bit of rubble? Are you serious? A single contained fire? If by single you mean multiple and by contained you mean rampaging, and if by a bit of rubble you mean two huge skyscrapers, then sure. Should that have destroyed it? I don't know. Did it? Yes. It would baffle anybody. What is more baffling is that anybody thinks flight 93 just disappeared when the wreckage was found.Regardless of whether you have it, you've not used any engineering knowledge. A technical explanation of how a building would be expected to survive the stresses and strains to the point where it is inconceivable that it would fail to do so would be adequate.

Like I said, I haven't researched anything. I've seen some footage here and there, for example of building 7, which seemed structurally fine, much like other buildings surrounding the WTC. And sure, there were more fires than I said (a couple of rooms), but still, I found it odd for the building to collapse like it did, when it did. But you're right, I have no basis for any of this.

Regarding Flight 93....a hole in the ground was found, hardly any wreckage. Or at least, as far as Ive seen. The wreckage that was found seems so little even for a nose-down impact of said aircraft.

One side of me really wants to use that engineering knowledge, dive into it and debunk claims from either side for myself....but my practical side feels that it's been over 10 years and I don't really care anymore. Everything has been said and done about 9/11.

I just feel like, if one were to dive in like that, you'd find some discrepancies.