Sun06Jul - BBC reports 9/11 WTC7 mystery 'solved'

[onetruevoice]

On the subject of the Barry Jennings testimony, can somebody answer this for me ?

If the emergency command centre in WTC7 was evacuated when Jennings arrived, why would that be so inexplicable ?

Wouldn't we expect the people inside the centre not have left after the first plane strike in order to retreat to another location at a safer distance from the WTC complex ?

After all, the command centre was not put there to deal with a crisis in the very next tower block, but for the whole of New York.

Wouldn't it have been obvious to move to a secondary location in the event of a disaster in very close proximity ?

[agent orange]

[onetruevoice]

It's always worth exploring other possibilities.

And if what the 911 truthers are alleging is true, we should perhaps ask why Mr Jennings and Mr Hesse were indeed left out of the loop, and why the rest of the elite crisis management team vacated WTC7 without informing two of its key members.

[blackcat]

http://aotearoaawiderperspective.wordpress.com/2008/07/10/the-wtc-7-co llapse-series-meet-mark-loiseaux/

[Stefan]

Can we end the disinformation now that thermite is an explosive please?

As I understand it, nano thermite, which Jones is now positing may have been used, is explosive in nature - thermite itself is an incendiary and certainly couldn't facilitate the huge pieces of metal being flung hundreds of feet and impaling into buildings neary.

Every time someone refers to thermite as an explosive it is an affront to the credibility of this movement.

[astro3]

Possible photoshopped forgery used in BBC WTC-7 Program

A suggestion is being made, that the BBC used a multiply-photoshopped image of fire coming out of WTC-7 windows in this program. Remember that image it showed, more than once, of fierce fires emerging from a whole lot of adjacent widows? And they all looked more or less identical? Whereas before, we had always heard, that only one or two small and insignificant fires had been burning that morning in WTC-7. If anyone has captured an image from this sequence, of a whole lot of very identical-looking fires emerging from adjacent WTC-7 windows, it would be really good if they could post it up here. Perhaps those with expertise in software graphics packages would want to comment.

Or, if perchance we are supposed to believe it is genuine, then we the public are entitled to an audit trail and account, of how such sensational and relevant film remained hidden from everyone for seven years.

[Possible comparison: 'They' took the steam out of the Kennedy investigation by 'discovering' the Zapruder footage, subsequently shown to be video fakery]

[TonyGosling]

General state of the BBC is paramedic/pyramidic and getting more so...

BBC staff aren't laughing
New Statesman - Jeremy Dear - Published 10 July 2008
Huge pay hikes for BBC executives, rewarded even when they mess up, below inflation rises for staff and guess who's being asked to take on ever more responsibility?...............................

http://www.newstatesman.com/media/2008/07/huge-pay-bbc-executives-staf f

see also
Untouchables: dirty cops, bent justice and racism in Scotland Yard

[IanFantom]

I've just found the BBC WTC7 programme on Google video. Do we have a photoshop expert who can advise on whether the window fires look genuine or could have been photoshopped?

See: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9072062020229593250

[truthseeker john]

[truthseeker john]

[TonyGosling]

The terminology is crucial and it's what the NWO want to muddle.
An explosive is different to an incendiary.
Remember bombs which set fire to fur shops back in the 1980s? Referred to on the news as explosives not incendiaries.
Thanks for pointing this out.

[astro3]

photo by 'Steve Spak' 39 minutes into program
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9072062020229593250

OK, ignore my above comment, so maybe its genuine.

[truthseeker john]

[truthseeker john]

Perhaps we should invite a representative of the BBC to join our forum but if they should refuse, it would suggest that they are not being objective but are biased towards the official story. If (as I suspect) that is the case, we can broadcast the unwillingness of the BBC to discuss the events of 9/11 in an objective way.

[truthseeker john]

Well, I just sent them a message but let's not hold our breath because I do suspect it will be ignored (as is often the case), which will only go towards further showing that the BBC are not really interested in finding the truth about 9/11. So what about it, BBC? Or will your silence be telling us that you are not bothered over all the excuses made for murdering millions of people?

[truthseeker john]

[Linda]

The Conspiracy Files

BBC2 9PM SUNDAY 26th October.

9/11 The TRUTH Behind the Third Tower

The circumstances surrounding the destruction of a 47- storey tower, adjacent to the World Trade Centre, that also fell during the terror attacks of September 11 2001.....

The above is quoted from my TV Book about Sunday's program.

The Truth it won't be told as it should be told.

[TonyGosling]

WTC 7 is, it seems to me, the key event of 9/11. It gives one of the clearest indications of 9/11 being a 'Made It Happen On Purpose' (MIHOP) attack. Particularly with the death of Barry Jennings too.

[TonyGosling]

How dare the BBC pontificate on the 'truth' of building 7!
Go back to bed, Britain.

Your government has figured out how it all transpired. Go back to bed, Britain. Your government is in control again. Here. Here's Big Brother. Watch this, shut up. Go back to bed, Britain. Here is Big Brother. Here is 56 channels of it! Watch these pituitary retards bang their * skulls together and congratulate yourself on living in the land of freedom. Here you go, Britain! You are free to do what we tell you! You are free to do what we tell you!

[TonyGosling]

Am I right in thinking this is the third version of this documentary to have been transmitted? At last this is the definitive one eh Mike?

[TonyGosling]

On right now. Let's see what Mike Rudin's crew have to say tonight about Barry Jennings' death.


Link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giXFIS6bNEI

Barry Jennings, key witness to wtc7 explosions, dead at 53

UPDATED SEPT 17 4:05 PM CST
http://mediamonarchy.blogspot.com/2008/09/barry-jennings-key-witness-t o-wtc7.html

NYC Housing Authority spokesman Howard Marder has now officially confirmed that Barry Jennings indeed passed away approximately a month ago after several days in the hospital, matching confirmations from several other employees at the Housing Authority. Marder commented that Jennings was a great man, well liked by everyone at the Housing Authority, and that he would be missed. No other details were available.

barry jennings, key witness to wtc7 explosions, dead at 53from aaron dykes: Barry Jennings, a key 9/11 eyewitness who was an emergency coordinator for the New York Housing Authority, has passed away at age 53 from circumstances not yet disclosed. A spokesperson for the Housing Authority has now confirmed his death, after weeks of rumors circulating online, but refused to give any further details.

This office has not yet been able to contact anyone in the Jennings family and the official cause of death is not yet known, but online comments have reported the date of death as August 19, 2008.

It is very unusual that a prominent — and controversial– 9/11 witness would die only days before the release of NIST’s report on WTC7 and shortly after a firestorm erupted over his testimony that he heard explosions inside the building prior to collapse of either tower and that there were dead bodies in the building’s blown-out lobby.

The BBC aired The Third Tower in July in attempt to debunk Barry Jennings’ account– which is both contradictory and damaging to the official 9/11 story– by making issue over whether or not he said he “saw” dead bodies in the lobby.

Yet Jennings own statement in an exclusive interview with Dylan Avery and Jason Bermas– which has not been denied– was: “The fire fighter who took us down kept saying, ‘Don’t look down.’ And I said, ‘Why.’ And we were stepping over people– you know, you can feel when you’re stepping over people.”

Now the release of Jason Bermas’ Fabled Enemies is giving further exposure to Jennings’ controversial account. The film features a full interview with Barry Jennings, as well as the statements he and Michael Hess, who was also trapped with him inside WTC7, made to news media on the day of the attacks.

Barry Jennings reiterated in the exclusive interview his confusion over the explanation for WTC7’s collapse– given that he clearly heard explosions inside the building:

“I’m just confused about one thing, and one thing only– why World Trade Center 7 went down in the first place. I’m very confused about that. I know what I heard– I heard explosions. The explanation I got was it was the fuel-oil tank. I’m an old boiler guy– if it was a fuel-oil tank, it would have been one side of the building.”

That interview was not released until June 2008 at the request of Mr. Jennings, who had received numerous threats to his job and asked that it be left out of Loose Change: Final Cut because of those threats.

Jennings statements have lit fire to questions about what really caused the sudden collapse of WTC7 just as NIST had hoped the release of their report would quash widespread beliefs that the building was brought down by controlled demolition.

News of Jennings’ death comes on the heels of losing another 9/11 hero and eyewitness– Kenny Johannemann, who reportedly committed suicide 12 days before the seventh anniversary of 9/11. Johannemann is credited with saving at least one man’s life on 9/11 and was also a witness to explosions in the towers.

NIST’s report, as well as that of the 9/11 Commission (which did not even mention WTC7), completely ignored statements from the building leaseholder Larry Silverstein as well as numerous police, fire fighters and other eyewitnesses who have testified that they were warned about the building’s collapse and told to get back. One rescue worker even heard a countdown for the building’s implosion.

Unfortunately, Barry Jennings, whose testimony was ignored by the 9/11 Commission, can no longer raise questions personally about his experience inside WTC7, but his account will remain on the record and available in-full on the Fabled Enemies DVD so that what he witnessed about 9/11 cannot be ignored.

[QuitTheirClogs]

In the We Are Change video (above) Mike Rudin says that Hess confirmed the BBC timeline; Rudin:

“We’ve just interviewed Michael Hess who was with him [Barry Jennings] at the time, who confirms the timeline we used”

So where did the BBC get the timeline they used?

It’s not Barry Jennings’ timeline!

[TonyGosling]

Ian Neal, one of the present national 9/11 Truth committee, had a meeting at the BBC with Mike Rudin six months or so ago. It would be very interesting to hear his take on this whole episode. And on the exchange in the WAC film.

This brilliant WAC video shows Mike Rudin to be rather a robotic chap who has no idea of the seriousness of the job he is in. He sounds patronising and looks particularly uncomfortable. One wonders why he didn't use any of the footage he was clearly shooting there in the documentaries he's made.

God only knows what's going on inside his head and heart. I suppose his job is to 'hold the lie' rather than 'hold the line'. He is going out of his way to give the crumbling, rotting, offical story legs.

No explanation about poor Barry Jennings apart from confirmation at the end that he really is dead. Obviously the man was living in fear of his job, and possibly his life. His killers are no doubt hoping he will be forgotten, they can dream on.

The key eyewitness from WTC7 dies and the fatuous Mr Rudin doesn't even bat an eyelid.

[xmasdale]

[Linda]

Nice Idea Noel, always thoughtful towards others.

[TonyGosling]

[Disco_Destroyer]

Did you get the mysterious explosion at that Government Office?

p.s. what is this?

[Alan Firminger]

I got the impression from all three BBC Conspiracy Files programmes on 911 that the makers did not believe their own conclusions. I can understand that.
The programme on the Pentagon showed and mentioned that the wall and windows were all intact, and there was little fire. Finally in triumph they showed a computer simulation that demonstrated how the fuel flooded into the building. In the crash of a large aircraft there is either no fire or a very bad fire. All viewers can compare in their minds the fireball of 2 WTC .
In programme two the lasting impression was of the Dutch demolition expert. Then the conclusion that 7 WTC fell because of a fuel store explosion, which is ridiculous as the building would have collapsed from the bottom.
Now we have falling floors from high up where the fire was described as intense. But no fire on the north side, the windows remained intact. And they described the structure of the building, clearly falling floors have to pass their collapse across the building, this is possible but it would take time. The collapse has to cross from the south, though the middle pans to the north.
And they kept the Dutch expert, and spent good time playing Larry Silverstein's "Let's pull it."
The conclusion, if true, nulifies all architectural standards.
And somewhere in the official record there is a list of 911 casualties. One person, a staff member of the CIA is listed as losing his life. This is not in the 911 Report, if I find the link I will put it here.

[xmasdale]

I'm really frustrated that I have promised not to publicise the 9/11 conspriracy files blog that I have been working on for the past few months with John Yeates - promised because it is not yet finished although there is already a huge amount of information on it which shows the BBC conspiracy files programme to have been mendacious and in flagrant breach of the BBC's Royal Charter.

We have analysed every word which was broadcast in the first 9/11 programme and traced the evidence of lies and distortions back to reports in the mainstream media.

I am, however, allowed to offer a private view to trusted friends who would like to give constructive feedback.

Noel

[scienceplease]

http://www.911blogger.com/node/17354

Interview with Sunder where he seems to suggest that buildings are only designed to withstand vertical forces (the weight of the building itself) as well as earthquakes. He stated that the "simple connections" used are not to meant to handle lateral forces meaning those produced from fires and "thermal expansion". But doesn't an earthquake generate a lateral force? If this is true then he contradicted himself. He on one hand admitted that buildings are designed to withstand earthquakes but then claimed that they're not designed to handle lateral forces. The problem is that earthquakes DO produce lateral forces which would be very similar to that of what he described as thermal expansion and designers apparently DO prepare for this type of phenomenon.

http://www.arch.ubc.ca/courses/build_tech_structures.html

"Utilizing the basic principles established in Architectural Structures 1, this course expands the agenda from single-span structures into multi-span systems. Quantitative investigation and comparison of wood, steel and concrete elements and structural systems characterize the studies, with emphasis on horizontally spanning elements. Qualitative study of various reinforced and precast concrete framing systems and other structural elements such as walls, columns, foundations etc. Introduction to earthquakes and lateral force resisting systems."

Article from 1994, detailing NY response to earthquakes. Earthquakes are known in New York. A 1988 city conference on Earthquake Hazards and the Design of Constructed Facilities in the Eastern United States pointed out that history shows a moderate pattern of seismic disturbances in the New York City area.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3601/is_/ai_14802558

In summary: "Modern Skyscrapers comply with the earthquake code"

Indeed studies of earthquakes of 6.0, 11 miles from New York City Hall indicate that the skyscrapers would survive, smaller buildings would be destroyed.

Probably more significant is this:

http://blip.tv/file/1374266

Where Sunder mentions that evidence they use to support their version of events is confidential- and therefore not verifiable by independent researchers.

So... not adhering to any form of science method that I know about...