 |
 |
Glaring and damning errors already apparent in new BBC WTC 7 hit piece
Prison Planet Forum
Sunday, July 6, 2008
I just read the article Evolution of a Conspiracy Theory written by the producer of the new wtc hitpiece Mike Rudin. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/7434230.stm
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.
(Article continues below)
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).
Get your ad SEEN by
our millions of monthly visitors AND
support the Infowar. CLICK
HERE for our advertising rates.
CANCER CONSPIRACY? Are
"they" suppressing the cure? Will YOU
be the next victim? Learn
the Secret Truth! - READ FULL STORY
-
- Social bookmarks
- Email this article
-
- Print this page
51 Responses to “Glaring and damning errors already apparent in new BBC WTC 7 hit piece”
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | |||||||
| By N2H | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
July 6th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Mr Philip Ridley
Via email: philridley@hotmail.com
23 June 2008
Dear Mr Ridley
Freedom of Information request – RFI20080672
Thank you for your email of 21 June requesting: documentation between the BBC and its sources that led to it reporting the fall of World Trade Centre 7, more than 20mins before it actually fell. The reference number for your request is RFI20080672. The information you requested is not covered by the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the Act”).
Your request falls outside the scope of the Act because the BBC and the other public service broadcasters are covered by the Act only in respect of information held for purposes “other than those of journalism, art or literature” (see Schedule I, Part VI of the Act). We are not therefore obliged to supply information held for the purposes of creating the BBC’s output or information that supports and is closely associated with these creative activities. Information which is not subject to disclosure under the Act because of Schedule I might otherwise be exempt from disclosure because of the application of other provisions of the Act.
We have received several similar requests relating to this and the notion that the BBC has been part of any conspiracy is patently ludicrous. We reported the situation as accurately as we could,
based on the best information available. We cannot be categorical about the exact timing of events that day – this is the first time it has been brought to our attention and it was more than six years ago. If in the chaos and confusion of that day our correspondent reported that the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been a genuine error. We have published an editor’s blog, written by Richard Porter (Head of News, BBC World) which is available at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/the…..rd_porter/
For more information about how the Act applies to the BBC please see http://www.bbc.co.uk/foi. Please note that this guidance is not intended to be a comprehensive legal interpretation of how the Act applies to the BBC.
The BBC makes a huge range of information available about our programmes and content on bbc.co.uk. We also proactively publish information covered by the Act on our publication scheme and regularly handle requests for information under the Act.
The BBC does not offer an internal review when the information requested is not covered by the Act. If you disagree with our decision you can appeal to the Information Commissioner. Contact details are: Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF telephone 01625 545 700. http://www.ico.gov.uk
Yours sincerely,
Fern Kersey
Adviser, Information Policy & Compliance
July 6th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
bbc said wtc 7 collapsed before it did because variuous american stations said “wtc 7 has collapsed or is expected to collapse soon”. bbc simply jumped the gun.
but in the minds of truthers, the simplist explenation, is always the wrong one. the most complex, insane, and rediculous one, is the correct explanation….right?
losers.
July 6th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Dear Mr Kersey,
Your company is complicit in the commiting of multiple criminal acts. To avoid damnation, hellfire and eternal suffering, I would strongly suggest to you and all accomplices to do the following:
1. You must repent of your heinous sins against God.
2. You must confess your sins publicly, and privately, if you can find a valid priest.
3. You must do a severe penance as quickly as possible while you are still free men and women.
Considering the nature and number of crimes against the holiness of God, it would appear that the execution of all conspirators would be the only act approaching temporal justice that the State could render
All the ignited thermite in the world would not equal the heat and fire of one moment in hell. And your pain will last for ETERNITY.
For the sake of your eternal souls, I implore you to consider these truths before it’s too late.
July 6th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Well, I would suggest that we submit Mr. Loizeaux’s name to The Guiness Book of World Records as holding the record for not only bringing down an even larger structure than he did before, but also for holding the record for the greatest number of people being killed in a single act of controlled demolition. That being the WTC buildings of course. Perhaps Mr. Rudin might like to write a sensation piece on that one. Another example of maggot grease being employed by the Biggest Bullshit Corporation.
July 6th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Can we all just imagine what would have happened if the shoe were on the other foot! If all this what happened on 911 happened in Iraq or Afghanistan and the government in that county said the same thing that the US and UK say happened and blamed it on the US or UK! Just think about that for one minute……………………….You would probably come up with the same answer as me, and that is they would first start off by pulling the hair off it, then they would pull the nails off it, then they would pull the skin off it and so on. They would pull this so far apart so much it would be in a billion of pieces and the funny thing is you would get documentaries on the TV supporting our version the “unofficial version” of events and we would all be sitting there agreeing with one another. Do you honestly think that they would be in agreement with them or with us! Its simple to work out!
July 6th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
oh Saul. Are you visiting this site to read some real news, or are you checking up for Mr. Silverstein to see if we bought the bullshit piece from the B.B.C.? After all, like most souless swine in the financial sector he stands to gain big time from his very timely purchase and double-indemnity terrorist insurance on that purchase.
July 6th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
saul attempting to sound intelligent except he can’t even spell correctly.
July 6th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Who the fuck is Saul? Look let’s have it right, you people had better stop placating these fools that think the government’s version of events is the correct one. There is no more time for that now. As soon as Geroge Bush’s time as President is over so is your time to bring him and his administration to account. If you think you will have a chance to bring this up when the next administration comes to power, you are extrememly sorely mistaken. The time is now. Right now. Do not placate fools any longer. It’s time to step up to the plate now. It’s time to get this shit done. You can talk nicely about it for the next ten years. You will not get anymore people to believe the truth than you have today before George Bush leaves office. Once that man is put out to pasture you will have lost your moment. You have one real chance at this. Your support is substantial. Inspire, organise and get with defeating them already. We need more invention. We need more people at every event that any politician is speaking at. You need to aggressively push for change and quick because time is running out.
July 6th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Who cares about this BBC BS? It is very apparent that the MSM is not telling the truth even to those who have been refusing to believe what Alex Jones, We Are Change and others have been trying to tell them for so long.
I’ve had three older (50s & 60s) family members finally admit that we have a serious problem, one of which is on board after watching TRUTH RISING just minutes ago! He wants me to order him a copy.
Alex, you’ve outdone yourself. Truth Rising is a masterpiece and after watching it I couldn’t care less about what the MSM is putting out there as 911 reality.
They are having to address the issue because they are losing. The field has been mowed, the chalk lines set and the game is about to begin.
WE WILL WIN THIS ONE!
July 6th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
If this is the best NIST and the BBC can do, even the least informed person could have seen the difference. They have no credibility as far as I am concerned. I mean, OH, what an accident that the CIA, FBI, NYC command center, and the SEC (with all the Enron evidence) all went down in pulverized concrete. Just more BS intended to keep those asleep still snoring.
July 6th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
[However, seeing how manipulative and anti-reason these “documentaries” are, they have pushed me over the edge.]
Thanks for bringing this up. Was I the only one that had this “momentary panic” or “feeling of horror” when watching the History Channel’s recent attempt at refuting the truth? It was so awful, so poorly done, I was left asking “Would this experience have been much different if I had actually witnessed a perp plant the bombs in the towers?”
It’s one thing to accept that 9/11 was an inside job but to actually catch a glimpse at such obvious deception reinforces something that many of us would rather be wrong about.
July 6th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
The people who publish these NIST reports will eventually be arrested for complicity and conspiracy once our republic is taken back.
July 6th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
saul you must be a loser too, as you are hanging out here with all of us.
July 6th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
World Trade Center Building No. 7’s ’smoking gun’ collapse and the tortured efforts of the BBC types to explain away why it fell the way it did will, if anything, create an even
greater momentum toward doubting the received establishment version of what really
happened on 9/11. IOW, they’ll become part of the judo-effect as its own deadweight of deception contributes to the propulsion of the cause of 9/11 Truth.
July 6th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
It is pretty likely that CDI carried out the controlled deomolition of the three WTC buildings, so they should know what they are talking about. An investigation should be done to determine where CDI was the two weeks prior to 9/11.
July 6th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
It is truly sad that this atrocity has gone unpunished for this long, sadly the only people that are really able to look into this fully(the government) are the same ones who are responsible for it in the first place. Kinda like letting a person accused of murder being allowed to judge and prosucute at his own trial.
WE NEED A FULLY INDEPENDANT INVESTIGATION NOW!!!!!!!!
July 6th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
I think it is very likely that Controlled Demolition brought down all three buildings.
As a leading building demolition company, they would be the one to call on for such a job.
Imagine if this had been done legitimately… if New York City had allowed the buildings to be demolished. Who would be called upon to do such an innovative demolition?
Imagine how Mark Loizeaux must feel, not being able to brag about the highly successful demolition of buildings that were unique in their construction and could not be demolished in a traditional fashion.
July 6th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
I was so brainwashed i actually voted for that criminal Bush twice. I am former military. I woke up in 2005 after taking a closer look at the collapses on 9/11 and especially WTC7, that’s what convinced me. There’s no way in hell WTC 7 collapsed because of some small fires, NO EFFIN WAY!
July 6th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
This is absolutely no surprise, as a British person myself i watched the “documentary” and i use that term loosely, that went with this, and I had to switch it of, after a while all the glaring errors just render the whole piece pointless. This is no surprise as BBC would never dare to put out anything that went against the official story.
July 7th, 2008 at 12:16 am
Uhh Saul,if the BBC was just repeating what American stations said…Why did American stations say that building 7 had fallen , well before it actually had?
July 7th, 2008 at 12:37 am
I never watched this filth, no reason to, I know what they were going to do and how they would do it: start by asking questions with lots of spooky music, and then about half way through start to supply the bullshit answers, rounding up with a nice little dig at the truth movement. Throw in a nutter or two to discredit the whole truth movement, and job done, the sheeple suppressed for a few more years until the next big event comes along which makes 911 look trivial, which it will, only a matter of time.
We in the UK need someone with money and legal knowledge to challenge the BBC license fee and win, so that we can all then tell them to stick their propaganda fee up their ass. We should be able to choose who we pay to lie to us, not be forced.
NO MORE BBC LICENSE FEE
July 7th, 2008 at 12:42 am
What was the explanation for molten metal in all thee basements?
I dont’t recall there being one, though I may have missed it.
From what I understand the explanation goes something like this:
The horizontal girders broke away from the main support columns, leaving long sections of unsupported beams (imagine pushing down on a drinking straw). IMO this still does not explain the symmetry of the collapse nor does it explain what (other than fire) caused the horizontal sections to fail. It was made to appear as if Barry Jennings (sp?) was alone in building 7 when in earlier interviews he was with someone. Remind me who that was please and why was this other person omitted from the film?
Thanks.
July 7th, 2008 at 2:51 am
Rudin, Rudin, Rudin what an exemplar performance for investigative journalism! – I’m joking of course. I managed to watch the majority of the documentary but it was hard work!
I just wanted to touch upon a few of the subject areas discussed in the film in a rather ad hoc manner. Firstly i would like to mention that i certainly don’t remember seeing either Dylan Avery or Alex Jones or Professor Steven jones being able to have the time to explain their reasoning and conclusions on controlled demolition and on the residues of thermate found at Ground Zero or any of the other anomilies of 911. Carefully editied, i would suggest, to make the 911 truth movement seem irrational and biased in their reasoning. When the subject turned to Building 7, NIST says that it was the steel girders weakened by fire that gave way and caused the building to collaspe in a symeterical fashion? (from asymetrical damage) at near free fall speed?. They then have the cheek to say (that being the NIST guy) when steel is weakened it offers no structural integrity and hence the near freefall speed collaspe. Not once does Rudin ask the offical conspiracy folks for them to justify and elaborate further for what is an amazing conclusion and would surely cause tremors across the engineering world for how we construct our building of the future. The BBC says that it got its warning (20 minutes prior) to the collapse of Buidling 7 from Reuters; So why didn’t Rudin do what an investigative journalist does and go and speak to Reuters and ask where they got their information prior to the collapse?
They then (selectively) bring on a lone firefighter who is amazed by people saying that the buildings where brought down by controlled demolition and that he has never heard anyone mention this?. Yet we all know that there are hundreds of firefighters and police officers who have stated in as many words that they heard explosions and bombs going off. The frustrating thing is, is that there are a plethora of issues, lies, coverups and blatant anomalies both on the day of 911 and subsequently afterwards (i could list hundreds) that you are almost at a lost on where to start and explain to the mass herd who are still sleep walkng along. We must remember to stick to our most pertinent facts (in the 911 truth movement) and keep on repeating it and drilling it home into the minds of the masses until they are forced to reason with it. The most annoying thing is that i am forced to pay a BBC licence fee for what is to me blatant propaganda. I stand shoulder to shoulder with my American brothers for 911 truth. For myself, I know that within the compartmentalised pyramid I operate within that we truly are at a folk in the road. I would say that the 911 truth movement has had many unknown victories through having caused them to fluster and not be decisive on carrying out further attacks. In october of 2006 i listened to Alex Jones warn of ‘bone shattering’ attacks either in Europe or America. The next day i went to work and was told that the emergency services were going to run a drill in London to test cross departmental co-operation in the event of a terrosist attack. This was going to be done under the guise of ‘operation safer cities’. Having closely following the 911 truth movement for 6 years now, i certainly knew what a terror drill can be a cover for. Nothing became of it and the drill didn’t go ahead but i always wonder!
I am disgusted with the leadership of my country (Britain) as we allow ourselves to get truly trampeled upon but i know that America is going to be the first to fall and with that i only hope that the sleeping giant truly awakes from its slumber and takes action on a grand scale. It really will need to take a 2nd American revolution!
July 7th, 2008 at 3:02 am
The BBC is a privately financed corporation, there is no bbc license fee. I found this out from the BBC themselves when legally challenging them.
July 7th, 2008 at 3:27 am
The BBC is a fraud. Why bother even watching it any more.
July 7th, 2008 at 3:47 am
Well orwell did call them “the ministry of truth” and after the first one they filmed which was full of, i won’t say errors i’ll call them deceptions because nobody could make that many errors in their research. The thing about this program in my view is that anyone who may have been waking up to the lies, after seeing their only expert who was involved in the clean-up and made hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars will only now be more suspcious. That’s the classic case putting the fox in charge of the chicken coup.
July 7th, 2008 at 4:11 am
Just watched the BBC “documentary?” I say do not condemn without at least having seen the evidence. I got one thing from this piece. It taught me how to spot bullshit without having to smell or taste it. It also acted like a very strong cuppa’ java to keep me from falling back to sleep. Thanks BEEB, I know we’re on the right track. And Mike Rudin is willing to throw his credibility away on crap like this. It was painful to watch, thank God that’s over.
July 7th, 2008 at 4:14 am
I didn’t bother to watch the BBC film either. Actually i missed it because i was busy on the computer reading about other things. There’s no need to watch these blatant pieces of missinformation anymore, i know it’s carefully concocted to misslead the public. Mike Rudin, you are a sad little man. The truth is already out and they are trying desperately to keep the lid on it but it’s too late now. The high and mighty want to put their police state in to shut down human consciousness. Keep spreading this information far and wide. The New World Order must fail.
July 7th, 2008 at 4:31 am
Don’t the BBC realise that they are making things even worse for themselves by putting such blatant bullshit out. Are these people so far out of touch with reality?
July 7th, 2008 at 5:13 am
Is it a coincidence the ‘documentary’ was broadcast on the eve of the anniversary of the 7/7 bombings?
July 7th, 2008 at 5:32 am
Myself and my wife can not believe the lies that the beeb are willing to go to for the sake of covering up the mass murder of thousands of civilians. The science alone tells everyone that the BBC are covering up. The periodic element of iron has a melting point of around 1,500C way hotter than a hydrocarbon fire burns to. Then theres the freefall speed, come on BBC gravity would have been resisted on floors not affected by fire. If it WAS fire it would have collapsed progressively and probably tipped over to one side and took out other buildings. Come on sheeple, its time to stop drinking asparatame, fluoride and wake up to the fact the goverment and corporate media are criminal.
July 7th, 2008 at 8:00 am
What I loved about this programme was the typical way they tried to make “Conspiracy Theorists” look like loons. I was waiting all the way through the programme for the tide to turn and start on the people putting these issues forward. They said towards the end that conspiracy theorists were like some kind of cult and would not accept anything you told them anyway. Then cut to Dylan Avery swearing. He stated that of course a Former US president advisor is not going to admit to a coverup. JUst loved the way it was edited to make him seem aggressive and brainwashed. CLASSIC. Come on BBC who you trying to fool. Oh Yes the Sheeple!!!
July 7th, 2008 at 8:24 am
isn’t it funny how they have to resort to provable baised methods, to even stand a chance of making their case. i really hope someone takes that part of the film and add a caption clarifying the fact that they asked the probable demolition expert who carried out the demolition to explain why and how he could not possibly be guilty roflmao. that’s proof for sure eh? lets ask this guy with the gun in his hand and the blood all over him who’s standing over a corpse. why it was not possible for him to be guilty of murder. it’s so totally absurd that only government puppet media would even dare such an obvious ruse.
with something so vitally important, why not ask maybe 2 or better 5 different demolition experts, why not ask structural engineers and scientists. no no, lets ask the one who got rid of the evidence.
it makes you sick to see the bbc who had such a good reputation in the old days become nothing more then the governments propaganda apparatus. not even bothering to hide that fact it seems. what about the firemen who talked about bombs going off? what about the money trail, why wasn’t ground zero treated like a crime scene? whats being done about all those who profited from the put options scam? how could the building just disintegrate into themselves at free fall speed? why were 20 exercises about hijacked planes flying into different targets including buildings going on at the exact same time as the events took place? why did norad stand down? why was there pools of molten metal at the base of the towers weeks after the event?
why is it so easy to find all these and many more gaps and inconsistencies in the official version, but the bbc apparently found none? under the circumstances that says it all, nothing suspicious? you have to be kidding, the put option thing alone is worth a whole report and investigation of its own. normal procedure is; follow the money, but not in this case for some reason.
July 7th, 2008 at 9:20 am
I feel kinda sorry for people like Mike Rudin and the rest of the lapdog media shills, as they will never be allowed to work in their chosen professions again, they’ll be put into jail for complicity.
July 7th, 2008 at 9:33 am
There should be a bank of all those reports produced by the MSM. They will be needed later for evidence in a Court of Justice for Truth and hold those againt the true consirators.
July 7th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
David Shayler is just acting crazy on purpose. Probably cut a deal to save his life.
July 7th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
As the telly audience in the movie “V For Vendetta” would say when they knew they were being given propaganda hogwash…
“Bullocks!”
I really liked that little girl with the glasses. She may have been only 10 or 11 or so, but she was no dummy when it came to seeing through government propaganda lies.
July 7th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
The central bankers have several new blue chip investments in their more recent portfolio. The BBC, the History Channel, US News & World Report, McCain and Obama to name a few.
Oh well, they have always had a lot of money to spend.
July 7th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
I forgot to add one of my favorite problems, I have hundreds of points/probelms with the official story.
If they release videos of a jumbo jet striking the Pentagon, many of us would say “Thank you, I’ll be more quiet now.” But no, they confiscated dozens and prefer to simply redicule those who care enough to explore and ask ‘Where is the video that got confiscated so quickly?”
July 7th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
We need to know where Mr. Loizeaux and his CDI coworkers were on the days prior to 9-11-01. That could be the smoking gun. I know they were at ground zero shortly after, because they put together the overall plan for the clean up.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
The BBC documentary was absolutely terrible, we all knew it would be, so why all the fuss over who said what, when? Forget the content of this red herring for a moment and look at the timing of its broadcast? Prime Time MainStream British TV 9.00 on Sunday Evening – 6th July, right after the Nadal/Federer tennis final – which was amazing by the way!
The whole point of it has been to totally distract the British people and try to stop truthers everywhere remembering and speculating about the London Bombings on the anniversary of 7/7/05. AND IT HAS WORKED LIKE A DREAM!
You have to hand it to the BBC, they really are very good.
http://theangrycheese.blogspot.....ve-on.html
July 7th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Why are the BBC and Popular Mechanics explaining an event that the U.S. government should be explaining? Why has the 9/11 Commission not been held accountable for not even mentioning the destruction of building 7 in there “official” account of what happened on 9/11? The BBC can shove their hoakey documentary. NIST already stated that there was a low probability of the building coming down as a result of fire, yet that is the same tired excuse they all keep coming back to.
July 8th, 2008 at 12:04 am
Barry Jennings said he was alone but kept saying “we” when reffering to his escape. Very odd
July 8th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
the building would not have toppled if it had indeed come down from fire..why? because conventional,jet fuel,kerosene,or diesel fire never would have brought this building down..not even a remote chance..not ever..not in this world,with absolute proven laws of motion and gravity..its 1st grade basic physics..the building could have been completely engulfed in fire from floor 1 to floor 47 and it WOULD NOT HAVE COLLAPSED..thats exactly why huge 6 inch thick structual steel is used as the main building framing for Christs sake..so it remains standing upright when and if they catch on fire! DUH! Gosh dern..the media must think the sheep are either stupid,stupider,stupidest or just dead dumb AAAAAAAAAHHHHH!!!!!!
July 8th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Fire bringing down WTC7 is the only excuse they have before officially admitting that they were brought down with controlled demolition. Its quite obvious to anyone with a brain that fire did not bring down this building. Even in the most intense fire imaginable, the building would have still just been burnt to a crisp, NOT collapse. Its impossible and they need to accept the science and no the fantasy. Thank you.
July 8th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Gotta love how far the “Arabs did it!” crowd will go to deny the obvious. In that article they first claim that the absolutely symmetrical and simultaneous collapse is to be expected from a series of small fires scattered throughout the building. In other words, a symmetrical simultaneous collapse does not require special instantaneous detonation of carefully place explosives.
“It turns out that when you have connections that essentially don’t have strength for the loads that they are being subjected to. And you have this massive failure of a column it does not take time. The structure has lost all integrity at that point in time.”
So even though the theorised weakening was localised, the sudden loss of structural integrity in one corner of the building led to a total simultaneous collapse.
Ok, fine I can accept that possibility. But wait! Then Jones is mentioned as having suggested thermite cutting charges were used, and how does the BBC counter that argument?
“The demolition contractor, Mark Loizeaux says the timing of when the explosions on the columns are set off is critical. He cannot see how thermite or any derivative of thermite could have been used to deliberately demolish Tower 7.
“I’ve never seen anyone use a material, which melts steel for demolition purposes. I don’t see how you could possibly get all of the columns to melt through at the same time.”
So apparently if you use explosives or thermite the timing is CRITICAL; if you don’t get it exactly right you do not get an implosion. Yes, that we have all heard many times before… but wait, weren’t we just told that such perfect timing is NOT needed to gain the results seen?
If the symmetry etc of the collapse is NOT evidence against scattered fires, how can it be evidence against controlled demolition? Either it requires precisely timed and placed detonations, or any kind of scattered fire can do it. You can’t have it both ways.
If it’s the latter, why does it take “months to design and months to prepare the structure for the placement of charges” Why not just set fire to buildings and let “nature” take its course?
Also, according to Loizeaux no one would even try to bring down a building using thermite because it would be impossible to get the simultaneous ignition required to cause an implosion. OK, but who said the people who rigged the building were TRYING to make it implode? Maybe they WANTED it to collapse asymmetrically (thus looking more natural) maybe they intended for only a partial collapse or maybe they intended the building to fall on another building. There are a whole lot of reasons someone may decide to use a method other than that used in controlled demolition. So the fact that thermite is not used commercially for the job in no way proves that thermite could not have been used – this was not a commercial controlled demolition – it was an attack that did not care one bit about possible collateral damage.
In fact it seems to me that the ultimate result was a mistake – something went wrong with both the timing and placement of the charges, and rather than an seemingly natural collapse soon after the first two, they ended up with a long delayed collapse that in the end screamed “DEMOLITION!”
July 8th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Those in power just cannot accept the fact we will not believe their lies anymore.
July 8th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
I haven’t watched the whole BBC shit piece, just the Silverstein clip.
Do they even show the building collapse even once?
July 9th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
It´s not to be an expert to see that any building can´t fall down in one piece because of fire. It will fall by pieces during more or less time, as we can see in the past.
July 14th, 2008 at 1:27 am
“The demolition contractor, Mark Loizeaux says the timing of when the explosions on the columns are set off is critical. He cannot see how thermite or any derivative of thermite could have been used to deliberately demolish Tower 7.”
This is a gross misrepresentation of the hypothesis of Dr. Jones et. al. The well-supported belief is that Thermite was used to cut the core columns, not to implode the rest of the building. Separate explosive charges would have been required to produce the effect we witnessed. This is misdirection plain and simple.
Anyone who’d spent more than 14.7 minutes on YouTube watching anything Stephen Jones said could have figured this one out!
February 16th, 2009 at 8:19 am
I woke up in 2006 with a few other members of my family who followed.
My god these people think we are all idiots, the food and water treatment is just not working on me. From 06 on I see everything in a different way. They feed us shit, they tell us shit so that must make them shits.
As for the BBC, they are just government aided bully boys. Even if you pay up your license fee they can still come to your house [when it's dark] and suggest that you don’t really have a license [even though you have it in your hand] and then go on to block the end of your drive sitting in their car while talking on a mobile. Then over a period of months bombard you with threatening letters calling you a criminal – all within the law.
Alex and the like are doing a great job, we just need more like them.