9/11 third tower mystery 'solved'
By Mike Rudin
BBC, Conspiracy Files
The final mystery of 9/11 will soon be solved, according to US experts investigating the collapse of the third tower at the World Trade Center.
The 47-storey third tower, known as Tower Seven, collapsed seven hours after the twin towers.
Investigators are expected to say ordinary fires on several different floors caused the collapse.
Conspiracy theorists have argued that the third tower was brought down in a controlled demolition.
Unlike the twin towers, Tower Seven was not hit by a plane.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology, based near Washington DC, is expected to conclude in its long-awaited report this month that ordinary fires caused the building to collapse.
That would make it the first and only steel skyscraper in the world to collapse because of fire.
Quite an extensive piece on BBC 1 News at 10 this evening (Friday). Mostly quoting facts that the 9/11 Truth Campaign has been trying to get out for a long time.
But now the BBC knows what really happened, and they will tell us on Sunday.
A new report reveals that WTC7 had an unusual structure and that it was built over a substation. The fact that this explanation has not been previously revealed has led to many conspiracy theories. Perhaps on Sunday they will demolish the conspiracy theory proposed by Larry Silverstein that he gave the order to 'pull it'.
Does anyone know:
* what report?
* can we have a copy?
* why has it only been revealed to the BBC?
* what do our architects say about the unusual structure which the BBC can now reveal?
* how a substation could make the steel structure melt when subjected to fire?
If I didn't think it was just a coincidence that they were showing it on the same day as the 9/11 AGM I might just think we were having some impact.
this is now the headline news story,every hour on bbc news 24.
the headline is,
has the story of why building 7 fell,finally been solved by experts.
ive just seen it aswell,and this is gonna really piss all people who want the truth,right off.
in computer generated graphics,the bbc show what was happening in the building just before the collapse,how the * do they know what was happening just before it collapsed,
they didn't even know when it collapsed because they reported the collapse 25mins before it had even collapsed.
it pisses me off even more that our licence fee funds these lies and we get no say in the matter.
the truth will come out,i really believe that and the bbc must face charges for aiding and abetting and covering up this dispicable act.
the explanation they give is utterly laughable
and just a little question to everyone?
after the 3 skyscrapers had fallen,why was the areas around the buildings not sealed off,with yellow police tape like any other crime scene.
rescue workers could still have gone in and done their job,but none of the evidence should have been allowed to get out until forensic experts had combed the area.
maybe this has been discussed before and i missed it.
It's embarrassing for everything mainstream and cover-up that they now have to admit that the 911 commission didn't mention WTC7 in the report,
and the explanation they are coming up with cannot be anything other than ridiculous, I hope it makes people start to raise more questions and wonder why this was never investigated in the first place..
The reason that this comes in the mainstream media light at all is because of the truth movement, and it might do our cause real good.
Fiona Bruce clearly stated that the 3rd Tower it is alleged was the nerve centre of the operation to bring down the other two towers as it housed offices for the CIA and the FBI and that many believe i9/11 is an inside job or words to that effect.
Why are they promoting this view 7 whole years AFTER the event when it was common knowledge immediately thereafter.
Coming on the backs of three newsreports,
a) Muslims feeling they are the new ...Jews
b) An chief intelligence officer terminated
c) Evening Standard piece about 7/7
it appears they are slowly making the shift from the 'war on terror' to 'climate wars'
Note that Rudin's article states that NIST says "fire fighters could not fight the fires in Tower 7, because they didn't have enough water and focused on saving lives." However, NIST's claim is incorrect. There were fireboats moored near the WTC the morning of 9/11, to provide water to the site. See:
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/17_Pharvey.html
One of the boats, the John J. Harvey, could "pump 16,000 to 20,000 gallons of water a minute. 'That's the equivalent of 15 [fire] engines drafting water,' explained 65-year-old FDNY retiree Bob Lenney, who spent 25 years piloting Harvey." See:
http://www.fireboat.org/press/time_out_092701.asp
Rudin's magazine article on the truth movement and WTC7 comes out mid-morning on the 4th July and the final story "how WTC9 was solved" comes out mid-evening on the 4th July.
Call me a conspiracy theorist if you like but it appears to me that the bbc are trying to miss the majority of news consumers by scheduling the news outside of the main news viewing slots. And also designed to by-pass the maximum number of Americans who on their national holiday are out celebrating the glories of 1776.
Joined: 10 Dec 2005 Posts: 2017 Location: Croydon, Surrey
Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 8:20 am Post subject:
The BBC film shows the collapse from a couple of angles but not the best one......the film shot from the south-west (pesumably...the face being in bright sunlight);
Why it matters is explained in the intro: a new interview with Barry Jennings will also feature in the BBC's latest "debunking" exercise on July 6th:
Jennings is 52 years old and had worked at the Office of Emergency Management in WTC7 for many years. Was called on the morning of 9/11 and told to come into work immediately. Arrived to find nobody there but one other man, a colleague named Hess. Cups of coffee still steaming, sandwiches half-eaten, but only one other man in the whole building -- it's like the Marie Celeste. Phones "various individuals" and is told by one to leave. Starts to leave. Hears multiple explosions in WTC7 before and after WTC 1 & 2 came down, is trapped in WTC7 for hours after one explosion causes a stairwell landing to collapse, witnesses dead bodies in WTC7 while he and Hess are being rescued by firemen, says the lobby of WTC7 was completely wrecked, and denies that the fuel tank in WTC7 can possibly suffice as an explanation of its collapse.
For years it has been universally ignored by the BBC and the rest of the MSM, now the NIST report on it is due to come out, the MSM are suddenly acting as though it was common knowledge and will act as though there is nothing odd about the general public never having heard of it before from them
Don't forget that this is a victory for us, however frustrating it may be, the people are not stupid and any mention of WTC7 will wake people up. _________________
Joined: 09 Feb 2007 Posts: 630 Location: Manchester
Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 12:42 am Post subject:
Quote:
The National Institute of Standards and Technology's lead investigator, Dr Shyam Sunder, spoke to BBC Two's "The Conspiracy Files":
"Our working hypothesis now actually suggests that it was normal building fires that were growing and spreading throughout the multiple floors that may have caused the ultimate collapse of the buildings."
So what have NIST been doing in the two years since they said:
Quote:
The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 is... as follows:
- An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;
- Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, and as the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and
- Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors) resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.
This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation.
The 'orange vs. apple' video is excellent and reminds me of the '4 vs. 5 fingers' piece in Orwell's '1984'.
It could have also used quotations of the many top-class scientists and engineers on our side, like Hirschhorn, Bachmann, Jones, Schneider, Gage etc. _________________ Summary of 9/11 scepticism: http://tinyurl.com/27ngaw6 and www.911summary.com
Off the TV: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4szU19bQVE
Those who do not think that employment is systemic slavery are either blind or employed. (Nassim Taleb)
www.moneyasdebt.net http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/
Joined: 18 Feb 2008 Posts: 1 Location: New Zealand
Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 6:56 pm Post subject: Newbie here with request
Hia,
I've never posted here before but now I have a request.
I live in New Zealand and I am a fulltime 911 researcher and activist.
For all of you who are going to record the BBC doc. is there any chance of getting it online by as many people as possible?
That way as many as possible can down load it and spread it around before the BBC has it taken of again for violation of property rights.
I desperately want a copy of this documentary for my files and to be able to show here as and example of BBC propaganda.
watch out for Danny Jowenko; or I should say watch out for NOT seeing Danny Jowenko
He was there and saying all that he said about it being a controlled demolition. Cut to government appointed control demo expert who mocks the very idea and claims he and his staff have been the subject of a hate campaign including death threats. Oh and apparently "some" 9/11 truthers blame the fire department for demolishing building 7!!! _________________ "The conflict between corporations and activists is that of narcolepsy versus remembrance. The corporations have money, power and influence. Our sole influence is public outrage. Extract from "Cloud Atlas (page 125) by David Mitchell.
Joined: 10 Dec 2005 Posts: 2017 Location: Croydon, Surrey
Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 9:10 pm Post subject:
Fairer than I expected but still subtly bent.
Reliance on a few senior firefighters and government contractors to make the case for the official narrative and remind us of the 3000 victims.
....no firefighters or victims families to counteract these voices though.
However, all in all a good thing it was shown.
The BBC tries to salvage something of its reputation (having ignored this issue for the last seven years) but, in the long run, they will be seen for the complicit swine they are.....not, obviously, that they were part of the initial crime but that they have massively failed in their duty to we the public. Their loyalty is to their bosses who are, sadly, controlled by the globalist criminals.
Joined: 28 Jul 2005 Posts: 274 Location: North West London
Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 9:12 pm Post subject:
Excellent job by BBC
Well sorry but I thought that was a superb program that fully gave our point of view. It raised the debate over WTC-7 to a higher standard than hitherto and gave viewers loads of information about the two different sides of the great debate. It did exactly what the BBC is supposed to do, viz it remained impartial.
It was not a 'stitch-up job' as everyone has been telling me ad nauseam (I've just been to the weekend 9/11 event in Bristol). It did not tell viewers what to believe. All the way through it consistently kept giving both sides of the argument. With a load of excellent footage I've never seen before.
Ian Neil, will you finally admit how wrong you were? He's been consistently telling me how incredibly naive and gullible I have been to agree to participate in the BBC Conspiracy-file series. Please note that it is only the real presence and dynamic effectiveness of the 9/11 truth movement that enables a program like this to exist at all, because the story it told came basically from our reasonings about What Really Happened.
Bravo!
Last edited by astro3 on Sun Jul 06, 2008 9:13 pm; edited 1 time in total
It is full of errors, non-sequiturs and false claims. A couple struck me as so blatant I feel embarrassed to be British.
1. He claims that most experts disagree with the controlled demolition hypothesis:
“But most controlled experts disagree.
Mark Loizeaux who runs one of the world’s leading demolition companies, Controlled Demolition Incorporated, and who holds the world record for bringing down the largest steel structure, the J L Hudson building in Detroit, says it is simply not possible to bring down a building like Tower 7 which was fully occupied and without anybody seeing or hearing something.”
This is unbelievable. The “expert” that Rudin digs up is none other than the man who was called in to “clear up” after the demolition. Is this what investigative journalism has come to? On what planet does someone investigating a crime scene ask the person who destroyed all the evidence to testify as an objective third party expert? Its just laughable. In no place in the article does he mention Loizeaux’s connection to 911. Even for Rudin, this is pretty extreme.
2. The part about the BBC tape of Jane Standley reporting the collapse before it happened. His attempt at an explanation is to say that the BBC and CNN just made an error. Earlier in the article he admits that this is the first steel structured building ever to collapse as a result of fire. How the hell could a mistake predict that? If it was a mistake, I really want to get a hold of that person and get them to repeatedly make mistakes all over my lottery numbers. Maybe I should get the BBC to come with me to the racetrack and help me out with some of their special magical errors. Take a look at some of the pictures of the other WTC buildings. I cant remember which ones but a couple of them are just completely burnt out wrecks, yet they did not collapse. If they were burning more vigorously and this statement was a genuine mistake, surely they would have predicted one of those to fall. Its just one impossibility on top of another impossibility.
Before the BBC started their hitpieces I was not fully convinced that 7 was brought down by explosives (although I was convinced about many other aspects of 911 truth). However, seeing how manipulative and anti-reason these “documentaries” are, they have pushed me over the edge. I think that we should all use these documentaries to produce the exact opposite effect to which they are designed. If it is made so obvious how deliberately disingenuous they are, then more people will wake up. Just how many Ron Paul supporters woke up when they saw how he was treated by the MSM. The reaction documentary to the previous BBC hitpiece made by David Shayler was truly excellent and is required viewing. (Shame he subsequently had a very public spiritual opening and claimed to be every major figure from history).
_________________ "The conflict between corporations and activists is that of narcolepsy versus remembrance. The corporations have money, power and influence. Our sole influence is public outrage. Extract from "Cloud Atlas (page 125) by David Mitchell.
It was far more a reasonable representation than I expected as well. I have a suggestion for the demolition expert who said that WTC7 could not have been a controlled demolition as it takes months, MONTHS, to set one up, with all sorts of special explosives.
I suggest he torch all his buildings instead, mcuh cheaper and quicker, and watch them come down within hours!
Joined: 31 Jan 2007 Posts: 296 Location: Halifax, West Yorkshire
Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 9:18 pm Post subject: WTC: The BBC's theory
The BBC's theory is based on a hypothesis which is to be confirmed by computer modeling which will show that extensive fires on one side only of WTC7 would bring down the building symmetrically because it was built over a substation and therefore fewer columns were constructed going deep into the ground.
Joined: 10 Dec 2005 Posts: 2017 Location: Croydon, Surrey
Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 9:19 pm Post subject:
astro3 wrote:
Excellent job by BBC
Well sorry but I thought that was a superb program that fully gave our point of view. It raised the debate over WTC-7 to a higher standard than hitherto and gave viewers loads of information about the two different sides of the great debate. It did exactly what the BBC is supposed to do, viz it remained impartial.
It was not a 'stitch-up job' as everyone has been telling me ad nauseam (I've just been to the weekend 9/11 event in Bristol). It did not tell viewers what to believe. All the way through it consistently kept giving both sides of the argument. With a load of excellent footage I've never seen before.
Ian Neil, will you finally admit how wrong you were? He's been consistently telling me how incredibly naive and gullible I have been to agree to participate in the BBC Conspiracy-file series. Please note that it is only the real presence and dynamic effectiveness of the 9/11 truth movement that enables a program like this to exist at all, because the story it told came basically from our reasonings about What Really Happened.
Bravo!
Fair comment in a way astro3. We have to admit to being pretty biased on this one. They did cover just about everything (including allowing Dylan Avery to come back very effectively on the Barry Jennings criticism and to verbally spit on testimony of Richard Clarke) but they did bend the argument in favour of the official narrative by (for instance) not speaking to victim and fireman 9/11 truthers.....
...who could possibly have expected anything different.
....but, hey, you're right. The facts were given a pretty good shot.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 9:25 pm Post subject:
astro3 wrote:
Excellent job by BBCBravo!
Cheers for the lone favourable review Nazi Nick.
I'm waiting for the show to appear on the torrent system, when your review will have some context.
Oh Look! One of your supporters is just supporting you! _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 9:32 pm Post subject:
It has presented the evidence in a way skewed towards the official view.
Not good enough, but what do you expect?
Millions of viewers can and will see through that bias.
Key evidence is out there to a much wider public jury now.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You can attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
