Independent Review of WTC7 'Conspiracy Files'

[kbo234]

Yet more tall stories with no foundation

Reviewed by Thomas Sutcliffe
The Independent Monday, 7 July 2008

Imagine an infection that actually feeds on the only antibiotic available to counter it and you have some measure of the problem in dealing with conspiracy theories. When conspiracists encounter solid evidence against their favoured scenario, they have only two options available to them. They can compromise their religious belief in the narrative they've constructed, or they can simply enlarge it, extending the conspiracy so that, amoeba-like, it absorbs this irritating foreign body and digests it whole. Almost invariably, they choose the latter, and The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 – the Third Tower, a film about the collapse of World Trade Centre Building 7, offered several choice examples of the process. What conspiracists believe about Building 7 is that it was deliberately destroyed, brought down by a pre-planned explosion so that the evidence proving government complicity in the events of 9/11 would be shredded. They base their conviction on footage of the collapse, in which it does indeed look as if the building has been brought down by controlled demolition. They then shore up this ill-informed impression with oddities picked from the rubble of that day – passing remarks, inaccuracies in the news coverage, fragments of debris – all of them carefully sifted and separated from their context so that their larger meaning is obscured. And woe betide you if you suggest that the resulting collage is implausible in any way.


Mark Loizeaux did, a demolitions expert who pointed out that preparing a large skyscraper for demolition takes months of work and requires a cat's cradle of wiring all over the building. Not only that, but the amount of explosive required to bring down Building 7 would have shattered windows for hundreds of yards around, whereas the only windows broken in nearby buildings were those directly exposed to falling debris from the Twin Towers. A large chunk of grit for any amoeba to swallow, you would have thought, but rippling weirdly around the edges, that's just what happened. Richard Gage, founder of the ironically titled Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, speculated that either specially concealed charges had been laid when offices were remodelled or that they had actually been incorporated into the building when it was first built in the 1980s, the government showing an impressive grasp of forward planning in the field of nefarious skulduggery. Other conspiracists took a simpler route: if Loizeaux was undermining their theory, then he must be part of the conspiracy, too. Indeed, now they thought of it, nobody was better qualified to have done the job. Loizeaux and his employees became the object of a hate campaign.

As did Jane Stanley, a BBC correspondent at the time of the attacks who became notorious to conspiracists because she discussed Building 7's collapse in a two-way with the studio in London at a time when it was still visible over her left shoulder. This is another cherished "smoking gun" for the cranks, and one that's nicely illustrative of their thinking. Asked what she could tell viewers about the reported collapse of Building 7, Stanley replied, "Well, only what you already know. Details are very, very sketchy." She was thinking on her feet, she explained, having been confronted with a statement that she had no way of checking. She described it as "a very small and very honest mistake", which wasn't quite true, since the "very honest" response to the original question would have been "I can't tell you a bloody thing about any collapse because this is the first I've heard of it, and frankly I don't know which way is up right now". One wishes BBC correspondents would occasionally adopt this degree of candour, but habits die hard and the engrained instinct is to conceal your ignorance rather than advertise it. So you have a choice: either the BBC had inadvertently revealed that, in concert with other broadcasting organisations, it was working from a prearranged script drawn up as part of the biggest conspiracy in world history, or a flustered reporter did the best she could in the middle of a breaking story. Probability of the former, vanishingly small; probability of the latter, approaching certainty, and yet if you opt for flustered c***-up, the conspiracists will dismiss you as a hopeless dupe of the new world order. Incidentally, if you're minded to send me a long email denouncing my gullibility and directing me to websites offering incontrovertible proof that Dick Cheney did it, don't bother. As you may already have guessed, I'm in on it, too.

email address: t.sutcliffe@independent.co.uk

[Sherlock Holmes]

It’s quite a desperate article, written from the depths of intellectual snobbery. Sadly this is the attitude of the vast majority, cynical, pompous and pathetic. I meet more and more of these people everyday it seems, members of the pseudo-intelligentsia.

It’s the kind of mind-set that walks around with the walls falling down around them while they loudly sing out “Rule Britannia”. Having a red hot poker shoved into their soft parts while they say “Yeah that’s good, I’m good thanks, great, thanks, that’s not a red hot poker, that’s a feather duster.”

[kbo234]

[spiv]

Sutcliffe himself states "They [conspiracy theorists] base their conviction on footage of the collapse, in which it does indeed look as if the building has been brought down by controlled demolition".

So 'looks like a demolition' couldn't possibly be a demolition. Just goes to show the power of 'joined up thinking' of the media. And they call us nutcases!!

He goes on to say "They [conspiracy theorists] then shore up this ill-informed impression with oddities picked from the rubble of that day – passing remarks, inaccuracies in the news coverage, fragments of debris". Was it not 'fragments of debris' (traces of gunshot powder) which Jill Dando's killer was convicted on? It's called forensic evidence, and is the very reason put forward why the state wants all our 'fragments' of DNA.

Sutcliffe accuses those of us who question the official conspiracy theory of "shoring up this ill-informed impression with oddities picked from the rubble of that day". But his article clearly shows it is he who is the very one exhibiting this behaviour. Pots, kettles and black spring to mind.

Of course, he fails to spot (but of course, it wasn't mentioned in the programme) that Mark Loizeaux just happens to own/direct 'Controlled Demolitions Inc', the very company which, no doubt, earned a huge sum of money from clearing away the debris from the three WTC piles of rubble before a proper forensic criminal examination could be done on it.

[Disco_Destroyer]

Fav quotes

[IanFantom]

I think it shows how a myth, however nutty, can become the truth. It's the secondary reports that appear in the mainstream media that then sanitise the original and brainwash the public.

Of course we're not accusing Thomas Sutcliffe of being part of a conspiracy. He probably just wants to be seen as a safe pair of hands who will be trusted to avoid sensitive issues by writing about the people rather than the facts.

But look at what the BBC's theory is actually saying. I've posted that on the other thread (BBC reports 9/11 third tower mystery 'solved' - http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=121921#121921)

Regards,
Ian

[Disco_Destroyer]

This film is so bad at protecting the official theory that it has led me to think (wishfully) that the BBC have made a programme to satisfy the powerbrokers but also to convince any Engineer or Scientist where the truth really lies.

[TonyGosling]

This review has nothing in substance whatsoever and the characteristic hallmarks of someone who's run out of facts.

Brand the opposition as 'a disease' or as 'animals'.

It shows a measure of desperatio that newspapers are prepared to print this stuff that will only appeal to a fear-riddled reader who cannot think, only hate.

[Disco_Destroyer]

[quote="Disco_Destroyer"]Fav quotes

[Disco_Destroyer]

I am quite sure the Industrial Revolution took place, do you think they'll try to deny it??

[Disco_Destroyer]

Oops guys dispose of your Gas Appliancs before its too late:-

[Disco_Destroyer]

Also some room fire stats of interest:-
Flame temperatures in room fires


There is fairly broad agreement in the fire science community that flashover is reached when the average upper gas temperature in the room exceeds about 600°C. Prior to that point, no generalizations should be made: There will be zones of 900°C flame temperatures, but wide spatial variations will be seen. Of interest, however, is the peak fire temperature normally associated with room fires. The peak value is governed by ventilation and fuel supply characteristics [12] and so such values will form a wide frequency distribution. Of interest is the maximum value which is fairly regularly found. This value turns out to be around 1200°C, although a typical post-flashover room fire will more commonly be 900~1000°C. The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [13] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C.
The peak expected temperatures in room fires, then, are slightly greater than those found in free-burning fire plumes. This is to be expected. The amount that the fire plume's temperature drops below the adiabatic flame temperature is determined by the heat losses from the flame. When a flame is far away from any walls and does not heat up the enclosure, it radiates to surroundings which are essentially at 20°C. If the flame is big enough (or the room small enough) for the room walls to heat up substantially, then the flame exchanges radiation with a body that is several hundred °C; the consequence is smaller heat losses, and, therefore, a higher flame temperature.



Temperatures of objects


It is common to find that investigators assume that an object next to a flame of a certain temperature will also be of that same temperature. This is, of course, untrue. If a flame is exchanging heat with a object which was initially at room temperature, it will take a finite amount of time for that object to rise to a temperature which is 'close' to that of the flame. Exactly how long it will take for it to rise to a certain value is the subject for the study of heat transfer. Heat transfer is usually presented to engineering students over several semesters of university classes, so it should be clear that simple rules-of-thumb would not be expected. Here, we will merely point out that the rate at which target objects heat up is largely governed by their thermal conductivity, density, and size. Small, low-density, low-conductivity objects will heat up much faster than massive, heavy-weight ones.


References


[1] Fristrom, R. M., Flame Structure and Process, Oxford University Press, New York (1995).
[2] Cox, G., and Chitty, R., Some Stochastic Properties of Fire Plumes, Fire and Materials 6, 127-134 (1982).

[3] Gaydon, A. G., and Wolfhard, H. G., Flames: Their Structure, Radiation and Temperature, 3rd ed., Chapman and Hall, London (1970).

[4] McCaffrey, B. J., Purely Buoyant Diffusion Flames: Some Experimental Results (NBSIR 79­1910). [U.S.] Natl. Bur. Stand., Gaithersburg, MD (1979).

[5] Audoin, L., Kolb., G., Torero, J. L., and Most., J. M., Average Centerline Temperatures of a Buoyant Pool Fire Obtained by Image Processing of Video Recordings, Fire Safety J. 24, 107-130 (1995).

[6] Cox, G., and Chitty, R., A Study of the Deterministic Properties of Unbounded Fire Plumes, Combustion and Flame 39, 191-209 (1980).

[7] Smith, D. A., and Cox, G., Major Chemical Species in Turbulent Diffusion Flames, Combustion and Flame 91, 226-238 (1992).

[8] Yuan, L.-M., and Cox, G., An Experimental Study of Some Line Fires, Fire Safety J. 27, 123-139 (1997).

[9] Ingason, H., Two Dimensional Rack Storage Fires, pp. 1209-1220 in Fire Safety Science-Proc. Fourth Intl. Symp., Intl. Assn. for Fire Safety Science, (1994).

[10] Ingason, H., and de Ris, J., Flame Heat Transfer in Storage Geometries, Fire Safety J. (1997).

[11] Heskestad, G., Flame Heights of Fuel Arrays with Combustion in Depth, pp. 427-438 in Fire Safety Science--Proc. Fifth Intl. Symp., Intl. Assn. for Fire Safety Science (1997).

[12] Babrauskas, V., and Williamson, R. B., Post-Flashover Compartment Fires, Fire and Materials 2, 39-53 (1978); and 3, 1­7 (1979).

[13] Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials (ASTM E 119). American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia.

[14] Sullivan, A. L., Ellis, P. F., and Knight, I. K., A Review of Radiant Heat Flux Models Used in Bushfire Applications, Intl. J. Wildland Fire 12, 101-110 (2003).

Written 28 April 1997; revised 25 February 2006. Copyright © 1997, 2006 by Fire Science and Technology Inc.

http://www.doctorfire.com/flametmp.html

[spiv]

And Disco, whatever you do, never ever fly - the engines might melt or weaken!!

[marndin]

My correspondence with Thomas Sutcliffe today:

Dear Thomas

Your article in the Independent today avoids the facts in order to support the ‘official’ version of events why?

False Flag terrorism has been used throughout history, Reichstag, Gulf of Tonkin, USS Liberty, Moscow bombings, when you look at the PNAC document, which clearly lays out the path we have taken post 9/11. It makes total sense.

The program also failed to mention that the 3 buildings that collapsed on that day were NEVER insured against terrorist attacks until ‘Lucky Larry’ took over the lease for all three buildings. Making a fortune and saving him the job of taking them down (as was his wish) at the same time.

Also, how did the identities of the ‘hijackers’ become known so quickly when NONE of them were on the flight manifests?

If you have any children or grandchildren (I have), you have a duty to them as well as to the public to do your job properly and look a little deeper into this event. We are heading down a VERY dangerous path.

Regards

Martin Noakes



Reply 1:

Dear Mr Noakes,

Nobody would deny that false flag incidents occur -- or that the US Government would be perfectly capable of employing them. But don't you think it odd (as conspiracists tend to say) that in this HUGE conspiracy, involving hundreds, if not thousands of plotters -- no one has since blown
the whistle. It's not what happens when real conspiracies occur... And
the charge of ignoring the facts is a bit rich given the astonishly partial account of the truth that the so called Truth Movement employs.

Best Wishes

Tom



My Reply:

Hi Tom

Many thanks for your reply.

As far as I can see all we're demanding is a truly independent and thorough investigation with no stone unturned... Is that too much to ask? After all protocol was not followed at all on that day, and the very people who failed to do their jobs properly were not persecuted as you'd expect, they were PROMOTED!!!

Ground zero was a crime scene. So why did they ship off the steel to be melted down?

Bush has stated on at least 2 separate occasions that he saw the FIRST plane hit before entering the school... How is this possible? No video was released of the first plane hit until 24 hours later! http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ALtNYBX7OmM Go to 5:21 to hear him make that statement.

Donald Rumsfeld admits Pennsylvanian plane was shot down! http://www.metacafe.com/watch/143607/rumsfeld_9_11_confession/

We'll have to agree to disagree, but I'm very confident that the majority of people who were totally unaware of building 7. Will start to wonder why they weren't told about it in the first place.

Regards

Martin



His Reply:

As you say -- I think we'll have to disagree... What you think is evidence of conspiracy I think is evidence of muddle and confusion.

Best Wishes

Tom Sutcliffe

------------------------
P.S Tom's E-mail address is at the start of this thread.

[scienceplease]

[Dallas]

[blackcat]

Even if the temperature was over a thousand degrees Centigrade the action of the steel frame would be like a giant heatsink transferring heat around the frame. There is no way steel could have been so hot it melted.

[scubadiver]

[Disco_Destroyer]

Maybe jumping the gun somewhat but maybe this is something we should all be looking into? Just had this reply in my in box. How does one calculate surface and mean temperatures of articles in contact with flames?

[Disco_Destroyer]

Another prompt reply:-

[Disco_Destroyer]

[Busker]

I showed a youtube video of the fall of WTC7 to an architect the other day.

It didn't have any TV station branding on, or sound that mentioned 9/11.

I simply asked the question, "please describe what you are seeing?"

His response?

"A building being demolished in a controlled manner".

When I told him fire was the cause of the collapse he told me I was talking out of my rear end.

I then told him it was the third tower on 9/11 to collapse. There was then an uncomfortable silence.

Enough said I think.

[SHERITON HOTEL]

Can anyone more computer literate than me explain how that contact Sutcliffe e-mail thing works? you have to 'jump through several hoops' and then give them your hotmail secret password FGS! then when you've completed your letter to this official 911 story zealot Independent (yeah right) hackand click on 'send'...it gets rejected!Can't I just take that address and send a hotmail message in the normal way?

Reference Sutcliffe...have these people had some sort of genetic human suspicion modification done? their suspicion gene flipped, a bit like those , now banned, 'flavour saver' tomatoes (their decomposition info gene in that case)? things that are REALLY suspicious register on their transem as really UN-suspicious and this makes them aggressive and insulting toward people questioning really suspicious happenings?

[Graham]

[kbo234]

[kbo234]

[simplesimon]

I hope folks won't mind me suggesting, or reminding them, that anyone who uses the phrase "conspiracy theorist" pejoratively is just too programmed (or dishonest) to have any meaningful discussion with.

Conspiracy - two or more plan something
Theory - Idea about the above

The OCT is a CT, etc., etc..

I respectfully suggest that emailing this guy is an utter waste of time.

[SHERITON HOTEL]

I think the chap above has a point, I was going to write and challenge Sutcliffe with that old chestnut...so was a new cost effective form of controlled demolition discovered with WTC7 on September 11 2001? a few strategically placed smokey office contents, in air, seven hour fires, some limited structural damage and... whoosh! the whole thing comes down universal collapse controlled demolition style, plus a new low temperature metal smelter in the basement YES OR NO? but at the end of the day, Sutcliffe is just a TV critic, down the pecking order to film (and 9/11 truth)critic Mark Kermode, spending his days watching the likes of 'loose women' and Big Brother'! His views on the 9/11 truth carry very little currency.

[kbo234]

[Reflecter]

Scuba diver wrote: