BBC Conspiracy Files: The Third Tower trailer

[Jack]

don't know how long this has been up but there's a trailer for the new presumable hit piece (though the trailer itself is actually ostensibly most sympathetic to our perspective) here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/c ... 330169.stm

[Shoestring]

Mike Rudin, the producer of "The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Third Tower," has just posted the following new entry on his blog:

Controversy and conspiracies II

Mike Rudin | 27 Jun 08, 04:40 PM

In my last blog earlier this month about the London bombings of 7 July 2005 there was a lot of concern expressed by people who say that when they question such events they're told they're "mad, crazy or in a state of shock". I haven't done this and won't.

What we will do is investigate an issue. For the new series we have looked for key proponents of alternative theories.

So for the new programme about World Trade Center Building 7 ("The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Third Tower" for next Sunday) we have interviewed at length the architect Richard Gage, the former professor of physics Steven Jones and the writer of Loose Change Dylan Avery.

We have then taken their questions and arguments and tested them.

We've looked for new photographic and physical evidence, for key eyewitnesses and spoken to experts and investigators who have been involved in trying to understand what exactly happened to bring down Tower 7.

It does matter that a lot of people think the US Government is "hiding something" about 9/11. According to one American poll more than a third of those questioned thought government officials either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or allowed them to happen.

And it does matter that according to the official explanation Tower 7 was the first skyscraper to collapse because of fire. Smaller buildings have collapsed due to fire but never a 47-storey skyscraper.

The final official report on 9/11 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology is eagerly awaited not just by critics but also by those who want to know how safe skyscrapers are.

I'm happy to debate the issues. In next week's programme we will look at the what some people have said was the neat symmetrical collapse of Tower 7, we will look at the dust found around Ground Zero, we will look at the BBC's alleged involvement in a conspiracy, and many other issues.

But I've seen there's already a campaign for letters of complaint well before the programme has been aired.

Alex Jones' Prison Planet website ended an article headlined BBC Hit Piece by urging readers to comment on this blog. And comments in 911blogger.com urged people to prepare a "counter strike" and to start letter writing and e-mailing. A lot of the later comments on my last blog came soon after those.

It would be good if people watched the programme first. So far we've put out a three minute trailer.

In response to dotconnect: yes I'm interested in investigating a host of issues such as the death of Anna Politkovskaya, the financing of al-Qaeda, British agents in Northern Ireland - and it does not as you suggest hinge on whether "our side" was allegedly "behind it". But the BBC has already covered these stories and is currently investigating many of them.

In response to cyncastical: the original allegation made in the papers was that we had paid Nicholas Kollerstrom to appear in the programme about 7/7. We did not. We reimbursed him for £30 worth of his expenses. The newspapers corrected their original copy.

"The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Third Tower" to be broadcast on BBC 2 at 2100 BST on Sunday 6 July, repeated on BBC 2 at 1120 BST on Tuesday 8 July, and on Signzone at 0130 BST on Wednesday 9 July.

Mike Rudin is series producer, The Conspiracy Files

[QuitTheirClogs]

the neat symmetrical collapse of Tower 7

How to demolish a tower with fire and asymmetrical weakening -- Fred Dibnah’s last chimney:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=945T56ZxFkE[/youtube]


and one from the 1970s

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0L1WOnR2KBY[/youtube]

[paul wright]

Mike Rudin just knows he's going to get hit on with regard to his inevitable OT propaganda piece. He really is an appalling place man.
He's not bothered. He hopes he can trash us all with the 7/7 CF following

[blackcat]

Not very symmetrical and always the way they fell, hence having to move crowds back a long way. Those chimneys were bricks and mortar only. What about buildings without a huge skeleton of steel girders to give greater integrity? If building 7 had been built in Victorian times using mortar that had lost most of its adhesive power by the time it fell it still would have fell asymmetrically in the real world, as opposed to the fantasy world of official "explanations".

[scienceplease]

The whole of Rudin's blog entry hinges on this:

We have then taken their questions and arguments and tested them.

"Tested them". How and by who? By researchers deeply into the the subject using scientific method? Trained engineers, architects, demolition experts? Using proven mathematical models?

Er... I suspect "tested" by politicians and apologists for the official story. Therefore I'm still deeply skeptical of anything close to a fair conclusion. And they will have the last word on the documentary.

[Jack]

This documentary can only be a good thing. Think of the numbers watching this who will have never seen Building 7 falling or heard about it. No matter what the spin is, people will be very surprised. And by the look of the trailer, there is a lot of emphasis that this is an unprecedented phenomenon. Also, we will definitely hear from Steven Jones and Richard Gage.

We just need to flood to net with the appropriate critiques and corrections, if required, after the program airs. Those who do a bit of googling after watching the program will not only be introduced to the credibility of 9/11 truth but realise that auntie beeb is not necessarily to be trusted.

[kbo234]

....... And they will have the last word on the documentary.

Yes and we can safely expect that this programme will be the most sophisticated 'hit piece' yet.......

.......it really is a challenge to contradict what would have been obvious almost instantly (had we been allowed to see it by the mainstream media).....that the collapse of WTC7 was a controlled demolition.

This programme will employ the subtlest psychological techniques.....probably to create reasonable doubt or skepticism against the dominant theory which is (for all those that have actually seen the collapse) the 'controlled demolition' one.

I will make the guess that this programme will leave the question hanging....

....."there's substance in the arguments promoted by both sides"......."it really is a mystery".....

......the primary aim of this programme will be to reassure and rebuild credibility of the BBC itself.

.....i.e. because WTC7 is bound to remain a lost cause as an issue the most important message 'auntie' will be trying to deliver will be:

.....'WE HAVE INTEGRITY. YOU CAN TRUST US.'


Yeah. Like **** we can.

[scienceplease]

Hi kbo234,

I agree with your analysis: "It really is a mystery" - the opening credits has already stated "The Final Mystery" - as if ANYTHING in the official story has been substantiated.

Rudin's blog has mentioned the dust, symmetrical free-fall collapse and the impact on skyscraper safety. But will they mention the molten steel in the bases of WTC 1, 2 and 7? All the anomalies of the twin tower collapses which haven't been resolved? The small body parts blown 600 yards onto the top of surrounding buildings? The researched timeline described in cooperative-research?





Ok that's my main point. There's a further rant below...
========================
How about the fact that there is very poor media coverage of the WTC7 collapse (despite the fact the world's media was focused there and they "knew" it was coming down) yet there are great pictures of BOTH aircraft hitting the twin towers - guys, just sitting around looking up into the clouds with cameras... in exactly the right place to get a good view. For first impact, a camera crew with firemen looking all the way down the road. For the second impact, a guy immediately below the tower obtaining that all important "reaction shot"!

[kbo234]

But will they mention the molten steel in the bases of WTC 1, 2 and 7? All the anomalies of the twin tower collapses which haven't been resolved? The small body parts blown 600 yards onto the top of surrounding buildings? The researched timeline described in cooperative-research?
How about the fact that there is very poor media coverage of the WTC7 collapse

YES.

How come it has taken the media SEVEN years to look at this issue?

....Well, the only reason they are doing it now is because the media ban on the airing of the WTC7 collapse has in itself become evidence of an 'inside job'.

Will Mr Rudin mention the BBC's proven reluctance to engage with this issue?

Whaddya reckon?

[QuitTheirClogs]

Has it ever been established whether Jane Standley and her crew witnessed the collapse? Have they ever commented on the collapse? Did they film it? If they recorded it, what happened to the video?

[truthseeker john]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0L1WOnR2KBY[/youtube]
Did we see that?! They lit a fire and it didn't fall through itself! It fell over! Doh.. well I never...

[Stefan]

This documentary can only be a good thing. Think of the numbers watching this who will have never seen Building 7 falling or heard about it. No matter what the spin is, people will be very surprised. And by the look of the trailer, there is a lot of emphasis that this is an unprecedented phenomenon. Also, we will definitely hear from Steven Jones and Richard Gage.

We just need to flood to net with the appropriate critiques and corrections, if required, after the program airs. Those who do a bit of googling after watching the program will not only be introduced to the credibility of 9/11 truth but realise that auntie beeb is not necessarily to be trusted.

Having seen the trailer I'm inclined to agree. I have no doubt whatsoever the programme will, at the end of the argument, conclude on the flimsiest argument against and wrap up saying its all explained, but people aren't stupid. When we all found out about WTC7 we were exposed to all these strawmen and paper thin arguments trying to convince us there was "nothing to see here" - and we had enough common sense to recognise lies when we saw them.

An example of strawmanising has already been offered up: the vast majority of "truthers" do not claim that the BBC had advance knowledge of WTC7's collapse - we simply ask them to reveal their source as it certainly did. However, they have demonstrated they have gone down the route of "Truthers say the BBC were involved in 9/11 because..." which is pretty easy to refute simply by saying "we took the information from an existing news source" and ignoring the fact that our question is what that source is.

The BBC will put the evidence out there, and people will make their own minds up and most likely do further research themselves. Just like the hutton enquiry, the official conclusion will make little difference to people's perspective.

[chrisc]

Vic's comment on the latest entry in the producers blog is good:

Reading between the lines . . .

Here's what I see him saying:

>>We have then taken their questions and arguments and tested them.

He means "we have debunked them conclusively" and he will show us how in the program.

>>We've looked for new photographic and physical evidence, for key eyewitnesses and spoken to experts and investigators who have been involved in trying to understand what exactly happened to bring down Tower 7.

He means "we will show as many images as they possibly can to make the case that B7 had massive damage on the side we have little information on, and try to use that as a claim for it's destruction" (and then hope that no one notices that asymmetrical damage cannot lead to a symmetrical collapse).

>>It does matter that a lot of people think the US Government is "hiding something" about 9/11. According to one American poll more than a third of those questioned thought government officials either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or allowed them to happen.

He uses the phrases "US government" and "government officials" when in reality what most people mean is insiders -- we are not saying that "government officials", or that the "US government" was involved in 9/11 -- we have no specific evidence to make such a claim and describing it as the "US government" makes us look stupid. We know there are *some* government officials who were in charge that day that should have lost their jobs or should have been seriously questioned, or more, but had no consequences at all. But we don't make broad claims about officials. It's likely that the vast majority of government officials were doing their best job that day.

>>And it does matter that according to the official explanation Tower 7 was the first skyscraper to collapse because of fire. Smaller buildings have collapsed due to fire but never a 47-storey skyscraper.

The phrase "smaller buildings" is problematic here - what kind? built of what? how small? There is a reason that tall buildings are made of steel. When the actual construction or the actual number of stories are not included in such a claim, it mainly serves to misrepresent the history of fire damage by glossing over so much as to be meaningless.

>>The final official report on 9/11 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology is eagerly awaited not just by critics but also by those who want to know how safe skyscrapers are.

What he means here is that the real story is about skyscraper safety . . . since now, skyscrapers can collapse because of fire. Don't worry that no others have before, this is a first and so we need to focus on safety.

>>I'm happy to debate the issues. In next week's programme we will look at the what some people have said was the neat symmetrical collapse of Tower 7, we will look at the dust found around Ground Zero, we will look at the BBC's alleged involvement in a conspiracy, and many other issues.

This looks like:

1) "it was NOT a neat symmetrical collapse and we'll show you how it wasn't" (despite the fact that viewers will see it with their own eyes, we will make them see it as something else, and we have the money and technology and propaganda to do it, by focusing on damage to buildings around it, showing how *no neat* it really was, etc.

2) "the dust that Steven Jones is using is somehow contaminated, not the right dust, or has somehow been analyzed incorrectly", so we can dispose of any of those claims, and

3) "we did NOT say it had collapsed before it fell that day, dammit!" (and the films are all gone anyway).

So there we have it.

[fish5133]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0L1WOnR2KBY[/youtube]
Did we see that?! They lit a fire and it didn't fall through itself! It fell over! Doh.. well I never...

Think the No planers may have a case in this instance

[jonjo]

I agree this documentary can only be a good thing.

The footage of building seven falling speaks volumes in itself and will lead the inquisitive viewer, who may have never seen it before, into research and hopefully an awakening.

I didn't think they'd have Steven Jones on there and his arguments always seemed very calm and reasoned to me. People will be more open to his style of presentation than the more forceful commentators in the truth movement.

Jon