Support 911Blogger


BBC - 9/11 - The Third Tower

(See also arie's blog on this. -rep.)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/

I'm trying to post the video player, but it won't work for some reason.

Get ready...

http://www.911blogger.com/node/14841

'Cuz here it comes.

The best and the brightest proponents of CD at WTC7 had better get ready for the BBC/NIST assault. It won't be pretty. The BBC has no vested interest in promoting 9/11 Truth in a positive manner, no matter how benign some of the clips in the above trailer appear.

Gear up!

You said it Rep: "...It's won't be pretty...."

"The BBC has no vested interest in promoting 9/11 Truth in a positive manner, no matter how benign some of the clips in the above trailer appear."
"...won't be pretty."

Someday, I hope those in the media responsible for distortions and lies find themselves in prison. If the citizens of the world take back their governments, indictments are bound to occur.

+++
+++
If one does not thoroughly LOOK, the TRUTH is not visible.

This is so true. If the last

This is so true. If the last BBC attempt at whitewashing the Towers and the Pentagon is any indicator, this will be no different - and conveniently coming out just prior to the new release date (?) of NIST's WTC7 report (that is, of course, unless they extend it even further). I suspect their 'equal time' will amount to the same old, here are the crazy CTers, and here are the logical, sound people you can really trust - you decide!' who always got a great deal more time to develop the 'sit down and shut up' sheeple version of events. I have no optimism with respect to this being any different than all the other mainstream garbage about the 9/11 movement.

They stole the title of my

They stole the title of my short on WTC7!

NIST got their damage estimate of the south side completely wrong:

___________________________________________________________
Please watch my movie: The Third Tower

They DID steal your title,

They DID steal your title, the bastards - but maybe it was a knowlegeable insider . . . : ) . . . and maybe it'll be a good thing in the end, including when people google "Third Tower" in the future . . . ??

Hope it's okay, but I've linked this (your) platinum video The Third Tower 1/2 to all the BlogAds I have running . . . It's accessible when "Read more" is clicked on.

Op Ed News
Blue Jersey
Tim Worstall Tabloid
Classically Liberal
Argue With Everyone
Philadelphia Will Do
The Daily Gotham
UtterlyBoring.com
SUBWAYblogger.com
Room Eight
Consortiumnews
Raw Story
9/11 Blogger

Betsy
Summer of Truth, 2008 (shall rock.)

Cheer up guys!

I'm actually pretty optimistic about this. I certainly hope the BBC has done a much better job this time than with it's previous episode of the Conspiracy Files on 9/11. But, even if it hasn't, this could be the first time that a lot of British people learn that a third tower collapsed on 9/11. They will also see for the first time several video clips of the collapse, which--on their own--make it clear that WTC 7 was brought down in a controlled demolition. Even many people who don't watch the episode will see the videos of the collapse in the promotional adverts for it.

You just need to have to have some faith in the intelligence of viewers and their ability to think for themselves. At the end of the day, it will be what they think that matters, not what the program makers say. (Though, of course, I hope the BBC has done at least a reasonably unbiased job this time.)

------------------------------------------------------
http://www.shoestring911.blogspot.com

BBC Strike Out?

I feel optimistic about the show too, but let's wait and see the whole thing in all its context. We filmed the entire BBC interview as a back up for AE911Truth, in case they distorted or misrepresented anything Richard Gage said.
Richard Clark sold his soul to the dark lord ages ago, Mark Loizeaux apparently hasn't kept up with exotic explosives, nano explosives, Battelle Memorial Institute's work on thermite cutters and military explosives.

Fair and Balanced

I'll tell you, the trailer looked fair and balanced. I think this is mainly to get people to watch...put the argument out there. Then they come in and omit/distort and have the final word...you can pretty much predict this.

Well here's the last advert

Well here's the last advert they had, this seemed relatively fair but the actual program was a totally bias bunch of junk. It's a strategy of making something appear "as if there's something to it" so that the audience becomes interested and then comfortable with the false conclusions they feed them. They’re sick manipulative, Machiavellian scumbag propagandists:

BBC advert for 9/11 "Conspiracy Files"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEQ6NFls0lU

That is what I'm saying.

That is what I'm saying. The trailer is "F&B" as a teaser but the actual show will be a hit piece.

Blatant incoming slick

Blatant incoming slick hit-peice! You can be almost GUARANTEED that by the end of this thing after faking to um and arr and be curious about the issue they'll say: "it wasn't suspect at all, go back to sleep".

Prepare our out counter strike....

What we need to do is prepare our counter strike- Find the best 10 min youtube video about WTC7 and get it ready to email everyone in the world.

Also prepare a interview with Steven Jones and Richard Gage with a detailed critique of the program and debunking the counter arguments- obviously after we have seen the BBC program and if necessary. ( but after the last BBC program I wont hold my breath)

Then we need to get this as wide spread as we can- while WTC7 is still in the public arena. Remember no publicity is bad publicity as we already know the NIST/ BBC argument is gonna be paper thin as 7 years later they have not been able to produce an even slightly plausable senario for the collapse. This is gonna be a big opportunity to publicly take on the NIST report and win!

Exactly

The point of the trailer is to create a mystery to lure in viewers, but as we know, the film itself will be quite the opposite. (Some on here have already been lured in! But we're all human.)

This documentary will likely be no different than a Bigfoot or Moon Hoax documentary, the kind we've all seen, where they show all the "mysteries" that seem so compelling -- "wow, even I was fooled by that one!" -- and then carefully dismantle each point with a series of "experts" that have solved everything, because they are so expert at everything.

The point will be to take the wind out of the "third tower" claim, once and for all since it is timed to coincide (approximately) with the NIST final report on Building 7 in the next month.

But the good thing about this is that now we have a date and a title and a sense of some of it.

Now is the time to start your response on a blog or a website, if you have one, and get it online. Make sure to use "The Third Tower" and "BBC" in your title.

Start your letter to editor.

Start your letter to the BBC, put it in your draft file and be ready to send it.

Start planning a YouTube reponse.

And yes, exactly, don't just email the BBC, email everyone. Let's use this as a launch pad for a campaign to expose the truth of Building 7. The majority, still, have likely never heard of it.

The important thing is to fight the bogus explanation they provide in a massive wave, all at the same time.

Let them do our work for us in reaching the world with this. The explanation will have to be extremely convoluted and the public will get that, no matter how they try to support it.

If they present false evidence or evidence that we cannot see, we need to be prepared. If they do, we need to also be ready with our calls to "stop hiding the evidence from the public" and from scientists and engineers -- AQ never even targeted that building so there should be no "national security" reason to hide evidence.

I think we can turn this against them and in our favor . . .

$20 Bucks

Great Piece!

Spread it around. Mark Loizeaux is hiding something. Hiding something big.

Of course it's a hit piece...

The very title ridicules questions about the collapse with the title "conspiracy files". Presumably because it's crazy to question how a building fell down when the government can't give us a convincing explanation (or rather none at all) 7 years later. This is ad-hominem propaganda journalism.

... but the promo video looks promising at giving some airtime to the counter arguments. I am not particularly worried about the NIST report. For some strange reason, they did not want to look at certain floors in the building. Give me a break--that's a tip-off to an obvious cover-up.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/7433017.stm

They'll have to come up with more convincing arguments than Richard Clarke simply saying, "No, it was not a controlled demolition".
_______________
Arabesque: 911 Truth

Good points. I was thinking

Good points. I was thinking the same thing about Richard Clarke.

The final mystery of 911?

The title says it all doesn't it ? I mean this is it, the last question answered, we can all go back to sleep.
Well it can still backfire on them because no matter how many times they showed the JFK assassination footage and told us it was Oswald shooting from the school book depository behind the President , it never quite sold the public did it. No matter what trick they have up their sleeves this time lots of folks won't buy it and at least the subject will be out in the open. We can debate the naysayers when we know what their case is based on. Pancakes? Sledgehammers? Unique Construction designs? Bring it ON!

Truth will grow

because people generally do have a sense of reason and logic

OK

So did anyone else notice the presence of Barry Jennings in there? Dylan, do you know if he is testifying for OUR side or theirs? Why would he agree to be in their documentary but not yours?
_______________________________________
9/18 was an inside job! So maybe 9/11 was too...

Very good point- does anyone

Very good point- does anyone know?

You'll see in the finished

You'll see in the finished cut.

Essentially, Barry was upset that we made a big deal about the "stepping over people" line. He thought we took him out of context, bla bla bla, asked us to pull his interview.

I set the record straight, though. You'll get to see the actual clip.

Bottom line, Barry said to us, "the firefighter kept saying to us, do not look down, and he said that because ... we were stepping over people. and you can feel when you're stepping over people." We made a fuss about that, and he thought we mis-represented him somehow.

Well Dylan

Is it a hit piece?? Have you seen the final cut??

I also saw no mention of the

I also saw no mention of the molten steel in the trailer- although one person was examining the steel and showing some kind of chemical reaction?

And also the speed at which it collapsed needs to be shouted out!

and show some of the other long burning fires in high rise steel frame buildings.

But hey that was only a 2 min trailer....

Richard Clarke: Building Demo Expert?

In my opinion, all Richard Clarke ever did was create the public perception that an honest government failed to protect Americans from a genuine foreign terrorist enemy, when in fact it seems that elements WITHIN our "protective" government ARE the terrorists.

Secret Keepers

Aidan, I'd start looking at the cells within cells within the government. Think Doug Coe's "Family", Opus Dei's Eric Prince and Joseph Schmidt and their crusader octopus otherwise known as Blackwater. Secrets, big secrets are best kept by expert secret keepers.....like those mentioned here....

I'm not gonna lie ...

I got a little upset once the conversation turned into "Well, Richard Clarke says the gov't couldn't have pulled it off. Is he wrong?", and that footage will be in there. So, I apologize in advance for getting frustrated.

Clarke Is An Odd Addition To A WTC 7 Analysis

Perhaps Clarke can shed some light on the Challenger disaster too.

; )

Richard Clarke and 9/11 = very suspicious

I think there are numerous significant reasons to be highly suspicious of Richard Clarke and his role in 9/11. Here are just a few examples:

1) Along with Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, Clarke was a key player in the top-secret Continuity of Government (COG) program throughout the 1980s and 1990s. Clarke was responsible for implementing COG for the first time ever during the 9/11 attacks. Be sure to read my blog entry "Richard Clarke, 9/11, and the Continuity of Government Plan" for more information on this. I also cite evidence that Clarke--despite his more recent criticisms of the Bush administration--is widely regarded as an aggressive, hawkish conservative by those who have known him.

2) Clarke's account of 9/11 in his book Against All Enemies makes the Bush administration and the US military leaders sound like a bunch of superheroes, desperately trying to protect their country. Even Franklin Miller, who was in the White House Situation Room the morning of 9/11, has claimed that much of Clarke's account is incorrect. See this article from the New York Times.

3) By about 9:05 on 9/11, immediately after second tower was hit, Clarke had concluded that al-Qaeda was behind the attacks, telling Dick Cheney at that time: "It's an al-Qaeda attack and they like simultaneous attacks. This may not be over." Yet how could Clarke figure it out so quickly, with no hard evidence to base his conclusions upon and without any investigation having been conducted?

4) In February 2007, Clarke told an online discussion at Boston.com that the Popular Mechanics book Debunking 9/11 Myths was "a great book," and that people who think 9/11 was an inside job "should all be forced to read it." So this guy is not, nor has ever been, a friend of the 9/11 truth movement.

5) Clarke has profited financially from the "war on terror." Since 2003, he has been the chairman of homeland-security private consulting firm Good Harbor Consulting LLC. This company is described as advising "large corporations, industry associations, and start-ups on homeland security, cybersecurity, critical infrastructure protection and counterterrorism."

------------------------------------------------------
http://www.shoestring911.blogspot.com

The whole idea

of simultaneous attacks is a fake signature.

I want to add another mystery point Clark involved

On a Sunday in February 1995, the day before John O'Neills work at the NY FBI counterterrorism job begun, he calls the FBI with infos regarding Ramzi Yousef. How odd it that, regardless what that means?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_P._O'Neill
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/john/timeline.html

And: Ramzi Yousef came late into the WTC93 plotter group, after some calls into iraq were monitored.

BBC trailer

well the trailer looks promising.The BBC however are not to be trusted at all.Remember the BBC is in reality a branch of the UK government,the psyops /propaganda ministry.
However the Sept11th lie is now so blatantly obvious that this may be an attempt to cover their asses before the lynch mobs arrive.The BBC I think have realized that no one believes the official fairytale anymore.This may be an attempt to salvage what is left of their pathetic reputation.

The BBC is strange

While they pretend that the fell of a 47 storey skyscraper in about 7 sec. wasn't controlled demolition, they tell us that 23 storeys fell in 10 seconds is...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/7427886.stm

Two tower blocks in Glasgow's Gorbals area have been demolished in a controlled explosion.

The buildings at Stirlingfaulds Place were razed to the ground at 0950 BST as part of an ongoing revamp.

The demolition, carried out by Dundee-based firm Safedem, took just 10 seconds to bring down the 23-storey blocks, using 120kg of explosives.

Demonstration outside BBC 7 july

If anyone fancies joining us, unless of course it isn't a hit piece which I very much doubt. We Are Change UK will be releasing another couple of vids re Building 7 and the BBC over the next couple of weeks. ;-)

Shoestring; I agree, this

Shoestring; I agree, this program looks promising. It has Barry Jennings, Richard Gage, Steven Jones, and Dylan Avery. It has partially evaporated steel, the premature BBC report, new unknown footage from inside WTC 7, and lots of demolition videos. It could be a breakthrough!

Not To Mention Unusually Eroded WTC Steel

And all they can come back with is Clarke.

At worst we may wind up with a draw, only if the BBC badly slants its presentation.

Yes, definitely a possible breakthrough

Yes, I agree that this could be a breakthrough. At least viewers will see what Richard Gage, Steve Jones, and Dylan Avery have to say, and these three all come across as thoughtful and credible individuals. Then there is Barry Jennings' eyewitness testimony, which I'm looking forward to hearing in full. And then, of course, there will be all the videos of WTC 7 collapsing, looking precisely like a controlled demolition.

It would certainly be better if the BBC has tried to remain objective. But, regardless, this is still an important step forward, in my opinion. For starters, it will be the first time that Gage and Jones have ever been shown on British television. And I'm sure the program will get people talking about WTC 7, which can only be a good thing.

------------------------------------------------------
http://www.shoestring911.blogspot.com

I predict that eventually,

I predict that eventually, the official story will changed to "WTC 7 was a contolled demolition engineered for safety reasons, but WTC 1 & 2 fell from damage and fire. Whether people will buy that, I don't know.

Mike Rudin of the BBC has Blogged a response...

Just spotted this over at the BBC website (props to Shoestring for the tip)...

More at : http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/06/controversy_and_conspiracies_2.html

Please add some great comments if you can !!!

--

He specifically mentions 911Blogger and Prisonplanet !!!

Personally I cannot see how the BBC or anyone else could not come to the conclusion that WTC7 was imploded at 5:20pm on 9/11... But... I'm personally gunna take his advice and watch the program before commenting.

Good luck and best wishes

Hello Mr. Rudin

>>But... I'm personally gunna take his advice and watch the program before commenting.

I don't advise that. The name of the game is reaching the public. Whomever reaches them first, in the right way, wins. When you do what Mr. Rudin tells you to do, you lose. The public will not see an "investigation," they will see a carefully choreographed hit-piece by a huge media conglomerate. Real "investigations" are done by bodies that are charged with taking a neutral stance. By locating this story in the shroud of "Conspiracy Files" they have already told us what's up. There is nothing neutral about this and so it is not a real investigation, but a propaganda hitpiece that lures the public in by claiming to be neutral.

Once the public hears him -- with his millions in resources to film, to fly around and interview, to access photographs and video that we cannot, and to literally deliver that message to the livingrooms of millions of people all over the world -- he wins and we lose. Almost in an instant.

His goal will be to debunk our points. He will even claim the collapse was not "neat" or "symmetrical, just as the Pop Mech attackers do. He likes to call it an "investigation." But ultimately, they will use every tool they have to protect their position that B7 collapsed from fire so the building codes need to be rewritten.

Interestingly, what happened with their last hit-piece was that we got a wave of EU members joining our orgs.

I guess he doesn't realize that. The EU truth groups are growing and organizing.

But the way we get new members is to make use of these opportunities, to spread our points on the internet far and wide and debunk THEM before they can debunk US. That means, Mr. Rudin, that yes, we do start our campaigns before you even air your show, because we understand that you have far far more resources at your disposal than we do, and as it turns out, we do have at least half a brain afterall.

Real investigations *can* be done by media organizations, but usually they aren't called "The conspiracy files," and usually their goals are to actually uncover facts and implicate those responsible if facts point to questions that cannot be answered. Usually the findings of real investigations come out on a newswire and are picked up all over the world and run as actual news stories that are important for the public to hear right away, not as entertainment hour programming, or propaganda puff pieces, pretending to be "an investigation". When real investigations come out, officials responsible often get into trouble and sometimes even lose their jobs in the aftermath. Investigations are usually done when the public has questions and the answers have been blocked by officials, information has not been released, or someone is covering up. Real investigations are not usually done to "debunk" the nutty conspiracy theorists. And when they are, we all know what ends up happening. The moon-landing hoax finally gets "explained." The "Bigfoot Hoax" finally is put to rest. "Lochness" is finally understood. Etc. Those are not real investigations. Those are family viewing and entertainment, little more.