BBC's "The Third Tower"

Here is my rebuttal.

Damn good Jon !

WAIT !.... Maybe someone slammed a door too hard? Or maybe it was built on a earthquake fault, and the ground opened up and let it drop at free fall speed?
Hell that sounds better the a few small fires. Come on NIST ! Do you really think were that f**king dumb?

Bush Worshippers Are.

I guess they (NIST) didn't get the Memo from the Department of Common Sense.

Stating Patriots love their Country and the President who is meant to be a Servant of the People.

They pulled a Bait and Swich with a "dumb" CINC and a snake cunning Vice-POTUS.

The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it


"snake cunning Vice-POTUS."
That's an insult to snakes.

How stupid do they think we are?? Oh never mind.

BBC is the Conspiracy

BBC has underestimated and insulted their audience. MSM is in decline and BBC is just more proof.


Not A Bad Documentary Actually

Most of our best cards were played. The first 30 minutes reflected very well on our side of the argument.

The alternative explanations for the iron spheres were very uncoordinated (torches for example, were not utilized 20 minutes after the tower collapses, when one dust sample was collected.)

The NIST explanations about WTC 7 are based on pure speculation. They allege structural failure without producing one piece of evidence. Other arguments were simply emotional in nature. The eroded steel may not be the smoking gun once thought. However, the molten metal and microspheres are.

FACT: Certain energetic materials (thermite, thermate) will destroy steel in seconds.

FACT: Destroyed structural steel is why buildings can fall in seconds.

FACT: Thermitic reactions do not necessarily involve the massive, window shattering explosions cited by Mr. Lezeaux.

Barry Jenning's LTW interview presents a major problem for the official story. (People being stepped over are generally dead or unconcious. Are there any accounts of the removal of unconcious casualties from WTC 7?)

And Dylan Avery was right: All of this ultimately boils down to money, control and power.

Fire Safety Systems

I used to operate a Simplex fire safety system in a 52 story high-rise building years ago. If I'm not mistaken, the BBC doc alleged that any alarm activations during the WTC 7 system "hold" or bypass condition did not provide the location of such an activation. This seems unlikely. In the case of the fire safety system I operated, locations of activations were indicated in order to allow personnel to investigate. The "hold" condition simply did not provide automatic notifications of the fire department. "Hold" conditions were routine and generally occurred during construction periods when dust would activate the sensors.

RE: Not A Bad Documentary, Actually

To a trained truther's eye, BBC presented substantial evidence to reinforce the facts. But the evidence was smothered by half-truths and innuendo where, for example, "conspiracy theories" was blabbed about as if it were a racial epithet. We know that BBC is capable of better journalism. Their tainted presentation reveals they were under regal pressure to bias the documentary - not only against the hard evidence - but against the character of the 9/11 truth movers.

BBC's Third Tower is just another "INSIDE JOB"


I Was Surprised At How Much Was Presented

- Iron spheres.
- NASA thermal images.
- Jones' thermite analysis.
- Dylan Avery's video device playback of BJ.
- Comments from AE911 specialists.
- Previous building fires not resulting in collapses.

The "official story" arguments were speculative, emotional and provided by people with obvious conflicts of interest.


I was surprised how little ammunition the OCTs brought. On one or two questions I thought BBC suckered Richard Gage into baseless speculation (which he identified as such), and that probably led to their strongest retorts. But on the matters of substance the OCTs had little to say.

The only way the general public could see this as a win for OCT is if they take speculative arguments on faith. The part where they admitted no steel from WTC7 remained to be tested, and a computer model was necessary, should have convinced the attentive viewer that NIST has nothing.

No steel from 7 was tested is a lie

expose that, please!

Sample 1 (WTC 7)


Although no steel was recovered from WTC 7...

Here are additions to my rebuttal...

1) The archives to my site which contains information on the following:

Pakistan And 9/11, Sibel Edmonds, The Project For The New American Century, Professor Steven E. Jones, Dr. David Ray Griffin, The Moussaoui Trial, The Iraq War, Halliburton, The 9/11 Families, Iran, Able Danger, The National Energy Policy Development Group - Energy Task Force, Family Steering Committee Testimony, Israel, Afghanistan, Dick Cheney, Cynthia McKinney, Military Exercises, Or Wargames, Related To 9/11, 9/11 Truth C-SPAN Appearances, What Qualifies As Suspicious Behavior?, A Section On Who Was Blocked From Doing Their Job, And Who Was Promoted, The Warnings, The Environmental Impact Of 9/11, July 10th, 2001, More About The Environmental Impact Of 9/11, The Destruction Of CIA Interrogation Tapes, More About The Environmental Impact Of 9/11, and The Guantanamo 9/11 Detainee Military Tribunals.

2) A link to my extensive "Who Is? Archives" which is based on the information at 9/11 Family Member Lorie Van Auken, 9/11 First Responder John Feal, and contributor, Kevin Fenton have contributed to this collection.

3) Here is a documentary entitled, "9/11: Press For Truth."

4) Here is a documentary entitled, "In Their Own Words, The Untold Stories Of The 9/11 Families."

Here's what I have to say about the ending of "The Third Tower."

Now that you've created a documentary concerning one problem with regards to the 9/11 attacks, why don't you do your job, and force a new investigation for the 1000's of other problems with the 9/11 attacks?

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Not bloody likely.

"Now that you've created a documentary concerning one problem with regards to the 9/11 attacks, why don't you do your job, and force a new investigation for the 1000's of other problems with the 9/11 attacks?"

Their next stop is 7/7, where they will continue in the same trajectory.

I know...

And you know what else? The information posted above is a FRACTION of the information that I have. I'm sure it's a FRACTION of the total information that exists concerning the 9/11 attacks... but noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo... the media wants to paint us as the movement that think the buildings were brought down by Controlled Demolition, and a missile hit the Pentagon, and the "debunkers" are MORE THAN HAPPY to help them out. Where was the media before Loose Change? Where? The movement existed LONG BEFORE the inception of Loose Change. No offense to Dylan & Co.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

I have always said

WTC 7 isn't just a smoking gun, it is absolute proof that 9/11 was an inside job. It was a controlled demolition. There is no way to debunk it. That is why the 911 Commission didn't mention it in their report. Personally, I didn't even know about that building coming down until two years after the fact. They never showed it on TV except when it happened and that was it. I happened to stumble across it two years later on the internet. Quite a few people still don't know about it. Amazing!

The lid on WTC 7 has been

The lid on WTC 7 has been blown off.


...........You know what? Maybe they said they were going to skin you're family alive in front of you? You know what happened Barry.
If i knew the truth i would go down swinging ! The truth is coming Barry. MAN UP!

Barry Jennings Uncut

The earlier unedited interview with Louder than Words was released:

Linked here for posterity - I'm sure most of you have already seen this. But I had to look it up after hearing Barry Jennings has a completely new and different story in this documentary. I'd give the earlier, unedited version of his story much more weight.

My favorite comment: "I'd

My favorite comment:

"I'd make a good terrorist."

Mark Loizeaux

Sounds like a story ?

..............Let's cut through the Bullsh**t ,and lay the cards on the table !

Off-topic, but did anyone

Off-topic, but did anyone notice there is a pro-McCain ad running on the blogads column to the left? That's pretty awful to see on here.

It's auto-generated by a text bot

that scans content on the blog.

McCain's a twat.

Glad the site is making some revenue from him

its not like he's going to find any converts here . . . this is a Cynthia McKinney supporting blog!

Not terrible, could be much better

At the end of the show, Lieutenant Frank Papalia said

"I think they have no respect for all the friends of mine that I lost, for all the people that died that day, it's like a slap in their face."

However, I don't believe any firemen were lost in WTC 7, so this quote seems to be cherry-picked in order to cast aspersions on WTC7 conspiracy claimants. (To be sure, all of these will be 911 Conspiracy claimants, but the show's focus is about WTC 7.) I don't think that's showing respect for Lieutenant Papalia, even if he feels that way, personally. Besides the cherry-picking aspect, I can't help wonder about the placement of this segment at the very end of the show. Is that because this is what we are supposed to remember, above all else? Is this simply a propaganda ploy?

Furthermore, although I thought the program was balanced, if I was an honest investigative journalist I would have certainly re-interviewed Jowenko, showed him the clips of Loizeaux, and then asked for a response. An EXPERT response. Why didn't BBC do this?

The question of the sound and window-shattering effects of CD explosives is raised. But, unfortunately, the question of the sound associated with various formulations of nano-thermite detonations, of different intensities, is not discussed in the program. This is a technical question, but one which the BBC, which obviously had some kind of budget, could have pursued. Apparently, they either didn't think of it, didn't try, or tried and failed. I can't tell from watching the program, can you?

I also have questions as how many firemen were even in the building, since, as the program showed, the collapses caused failures in the water system. Are firemen in the habit of rambling through a building, with either no water-supplied firehoses, or else an insufficient amount of them? I should think not. Therefore, a serious investigative reporter would have asked such rather obvious questions, and tried to quantifiy the amount of water that was applied to the building, especially from the inside, vs. what was necessary. That would have provided some type of cross-check as to how many firemen were inside the building, or at least how many would have made sense to be inside the building. The question of how many firemen were inside the building is non-trivial, since if the building was jury-rigged quickly on 9/11 for CD, large numbers of them might well have seen CD artifacts. The NIST guy, Dr. Shyam Sunder, gave what I thought was a rather disingenous argument, when he pointed out that a column which has lost structural integrity can fail quickly.


The question is, how could ENOUGH of the columns fail so quickly that a symmetrical collapse is produced. There's a large time span, so perhaps some kind of argument could be made that sequential losses of columns' structural integrity occurred relatively slowly, but that a critical number was attained only over a brief time span. Why was the BBC not astute enough to ask a rather obvious question of Dr. Sunder? Especially since they interview ae911truth's Kamal Obeid, a structural engineer, who expresses doubt that simultaneous collapse of all columns is possible, even if local failures of one or two are not. Instead, they have incorporated a non-explanation explanation into their show.

If we had wanted that, we could have just asked the government - they're just full of non-explanations!

Perhaps the best example of how non-critical the BBC program was is when they showed Dr. Gene Corley. Dr. Gene Corley tells us that evidence for controlled demolition was looked for, but no details are provided. Oh, heck, why would the BBC want to bother Dr. Corley for such details, just because they're doing a show on WTC 7 CD claims?

In sum, the BBC program was balanced, but of questionable fairness, as it was unquestionably non-critical. (In fairness, I note that it could have been more critical of the CD proponents, also.)


Could have been better, but it was far better than the last one they did on 9/11. In this one, the BBC reported most of the CD evidence that I wanted to see reported.

I only had to take one break to go throw up when they interviewed Mark Roberts as some kind of expert on the issue. Instead of putting "WTC7 LIES" in the caption under his name, they should have said "Tour Guide". Other than that, though, it was pretty balanced. We could not expect them to favor (sorry, favour) our side. All I expected was that most of the CD evidence was presented, and it was.

Always remember that they can never take people away from our side. That is impossible. The only possible impact they can have is to add to our numbers. How many remains to be seen.


"I think they have no respect for all the friends of mine that I lost, for all the people that died that day, it's like a slap in their face."

It's the built-up of an emotional resictance to think- or propaganda
No matter if one firefighter does think so, they'll never tell us about the other 300 who casts doubts on the events and the thousands who'll die due to "the air is safe to breathe."

My play by play...

But how pissed is this video going to make me???

Should I go empty my stomach and bowels first??


Edit #1--- ok 6 minutes in... and I am not upset yet...

Edit #2-- 12:33 --- Direct hit my ass!!... What a LOAD... Ok I am getting my barf bucket..

Edit #3--- Who told Barry Jennings family that he was dead???? --- And who in the fuck has ever said that the NYC FIRE DEPARTMENT "planned the destruction of Building 7" as the narrator smoothly implies????

Edit #4--- Uh .. who has ever implied that the peons in the fire dept were involved in the conspiracy??-- I am 25 minutes in.. and the disinformation chaff is flying thick now..

Edit #5--- I was puking ... so I must of missed the coherent explanation regarding BBC reporting BLDG 7 falling 20 mins before hand..

Edit #6--- Oh yeah .. good source.. Control Demo Inc.. .. ..

Edit #7--- What does an Explosion sound like??... Obviously not like an explosion... probably more like a butterfly fart...

Edit #8--- Thermite would not blow out windows... or leave det cord or blast caps ... but it would certainly leave molten pits at 700C 16 weeks later...

Edit #9--- the spheres are from cutting torches... you think a Ceramic housing could contain thermite to cut beams??.. naturally.. yes I have puked again #3... 36 min in..

Edit #10--- CDI did the demo job on 911??... yeah I am so sure he is the only one that could.. ... and oh goody.. now getting into the fire bringing it down..

Edit #11--- Ahh... Reuters did it... to the BBC..

Edit #12--- .... ... "I stepped on the bodies... but I did not SEE them"...

Ok the bullshit gets really thick at the end...

Edit #13--- Ok so now NORMAL building fires caused it... because it burned for SOOOO long... ......I need dialysis to clean the filth out of my bloodstream now...

Edit # 14--- Mark Price... you expect me to take you seriously that you can see reality? You can't even see the gigantic WART on your cheek... so we already know you delude yourself.. get that crap snipped.

Edit #15--- Yeah Government is incompetent... and they can't keep any secrets...

Excellent Play By Play

I am with you all the way through. Thanks tryptamine! Great job! And Hilarious!!!

Tryptamine 2.0

The original tryptamine died in his sleep last night due to his body getting septic from viewing said documentary... hence the cessation of updates.

This is the new and improved version wishes to rely the thanks of the first one posthumously, spreading laughter was and is the primary goal to this abomination we are in.

Due to what happened to the original .. I will not be able to view it again... I is too scared!


Let's build a JUGGERNAUT. [Build]

JUGGERNAUT: "a force regarded as unstoppable, that will crush all in its path."

Can you imagine 1,000 architects and engineers supporting the fact that explosives were used? Come on...Who can fight that?...what is the opposition gonna say?...Are debunkers and the media gonna say that one thousand architects and engineers are liers?

One thousand architects is a JUGGERNAUT. One thousand architects and engineers is a JUGGERNAUT that will roll right over the few dozen government sponsored experts and make them squashed baloney.

Less than 2 minutes.

If WTC-7 collapsed due to fires, how come I don't see any flames

venting from any of the thousands of windows AS THE BUILDING FELL DOWN!?

If there were an inferno inside Building 7, I'd expect to see an abundance of flames/fireballs shooting out as it caves in! Yet, I don't see any flames/fireballs being expelled in the videos of WTC-7 during its collapse!?

Seems to me that Dr. Steven Jones is correct--thermate was used as a powerful incendiary to melt/cut the beams.

Consider mass emailing truth messages. More info here:

This is slick mind control for the masses

Like the Zapruder film and the JFK assassination they show you the footage but keep telling you a different story leaving doubt in people's minds. That's all they have to do to put people back to sleep. Here the BBC keeps playing the video of WTC 7 and the collapse on the screen until the viewer becomes desensitized. At the same time the objections to the official position are neatly lined up like bowling pins giving the appearance of balanced reporting only to be knocked down in a single strike at the end with no rebuttal from any expert authority. This results in the illusion that at last the mystery has been solved. Then they end with footage of a "conspiracy theorist" using foul language making him appear unstable and unreliable. The bright side is that the overall mystery and the credibility of people like Jones and Gage are given some exposure which will have an effect on the more critical thinkers who haven't given the entire matter any significant thought as of yet. These are the people we will need to recruit to the truth with more details than the BBC wanted to inform viewers about.. I think we need to thank the BBC for starting the story but ask nicely when they think they might want to finish the story because we still have questions and concerns about the conclusions of their "analysis".

Yes, lots of convoluted propaganda & double-talk throughout

this crafty hit piece. We do need a part 2 to address all the truth that was omitted.

Consider mass emailing truth messages. More info here:

(No subject)

I totally agree.

This hit piece, disguised as a "Current Affair" type documentary was carefully constructed. After viewing it a third time, I believe that the answers from interviewees like the Fire Chief Nigro, and the guy from CDI were carefully prepared and rehearsed. The parsing of words into the nebulous gaps was just too perfect. This was much more than what it appears. This was a full on effort with likely assistance from legal and psyops experts. This wasn't put together by mere investigative journalists. No doubt, their agenda was just what peacfulwarrior explains in the above comment.

No doubt it was a hit piece that didn't convince me of anything, but I am not the casual viewer. I would like to see what a casual viewer would think.

Thanks for posting that Jon..

I missed it the other night, so thanks a lot for presenting it here Jon.

Well it could have been worse.

My 2c fwiw on this:

I think more time could have been given to Professor Jones to respond. I thought the CD guy Louseux (sp?) looked rather uncomfortable in places and I'm sorry to hear if he has been egregiously hounded.

I thought Richard Gage gave a pretty good account of this.

I think the NIST findings will be heavily poured over in the coming months and rightly so. I don't know about anyone else, but I found some of their observations and conclusions in this BBC documentary as not at all overwhelmingly persuasive, and I don't see any strong compelling reason for the jury not to still be very much out on what exactly happened to WTC 7.

Actually I'm sure many people noticed, trivial thing perhaps, but the BBC cut the last bit of what Silverstein said, "...and we watched the building collapse" which actually was quite significant to what he said in that context.

The impression I get is that from the BBC's POV it is all about expressing a concern about this, and there is some inference that the 9/11 movement could be an 'extremist' movement. Years ago the political classes were very concerned about the 'anti-globalization' movement. I perhaps don't have a huge empathy with all the threads in the AG movement, but I think it was pretty clear that there was a lot of concern about it, and I see the BBC hinting at the same kind of concern.

What the BBC don't understand though is perhaps the most important role of the 9/11 Movement: aside from pushing for more information and so on to get to the full truth and getting a new investigation, is if just any bit of what the movement is saying could be true, then it's vitally important that is in the public eye and that people are aware of that.

from the dossier site:

glad to see 911blogger removed the dossier.ukonline from linked sites on left hand of homepage.
from the dossier/uk site:
" Pre-planted explosives?
Some people have suggested that explosives were used to bring down the towers and building seven. Having extensive knowledge of building construction, theDossier does NOT believe that this is the case. The people who support this demolition theory have no understanding of the basic principles of structural engineering. They fail to grasp the relevance of the buildings' unique designs, the damage caused by the impacts and the resulting fires. It's quite possible that this theory is disinformation, and one would do well to steer clear of this ridiculous notion. "

Good to know what side their bread is buttered on...

Most of the important things in the world have been accomplished by people who have kept on trying when there seemed to be no hope at all.
- Dale Carnegie

I loved the film

I loved it because it's one of the most manipulative television programs I've ever seen, and if this is all they can come up with to address the serious anomalies surrounding the collapse of Building 7, we're golden. I've only watched it once, but here are some glaring manipulations by the producers:

1: Jennings time line on when he entered the OEM bunker was changed from his original statement by the narrator and NOT by Jennings, himself. But then they use Jennings change of heart about stepping over bodies to discredit all of the claims "Dylan Avery" (hence, the conspiracy nuts) makes about what Jennings actually said. They are basically trying to dicredit him completely, which means there is something about what he said that's very incriminating to someone. Old trick (-4pts)

2: The Silverstein quote was missing the punch line - ".....and then we watched the building collapse." Come on BBC, do you think we're really that stupid not to notice. And they have to jumble up all of the shots of him saying it. They can't just run the quote straight and complete. Why? Because it will never sound the way they need it to sound if they ran it straight (-8pts)

3: Why is Richard Clarke in this film anyway? He adds NOTHING to reconcile the anomalies and questions about the collapse of WTC7. He's not a scientist, architect, engineer, fire expert, demolition expert, etc. He's there for one reason only, to remind the audience about " the evil Muslim terrorists hiding in caves waiting to strike again at any moment, just like they did on 9/11." And he's called in to refute who? Dylan Avery, a twenty-something filmmaker from upstate New York? Did they really need to call upon a former US Presidential Cabinet member to refute a kid with a laptop? I guess so. (-4pts)

4: They use the old "it's a disgrace to the victims" trick. This ones getting really old - somebody should tell them. The victims and victim families are split 50/50 on believing the 9/11 story , as are the firefighters, police and everyone else. The sacredness of the victim and victim family sentiments demands that all of their opinions be presented fairly and completely. Whether it's truthers or debunkers, ALL of the sentiments of the victims need to be respected, even if we don't agree with them. (We're guilty of this a lot, ourselves, in the other direction) (-20 pts.)

5) As I said in another post before the film came out, they claim that the film is about solving the mysteries about why building 7 collapsed, when it's actually about testing a certain configuration of different theories the BBC feels is representative of the objections to the official claims, especially the political ones, which don't belong in this film. This is one of those "in plain sight" Bush moments, folks. They claim they are going to do one thing, then they do something else, and then claim they did what they originally said they would do. And they told us they were going to do this even before they released the film. (-3 pts.)

There are plenty more problems with this film that will be illuminated in the coming weeks. The good news for all of the YouTube filmmakers is that there is some great stuff in this film you can use to catch these guys in the their web of deceit.

You guys can fill in the rest. This film will be antiquated in six months.

Once again

some mysterious engineer predicts the collapse of a skyscraper due to fire. At one point in this film, we are told someone predicted WTC7 would collapse in 5 hours, and he was right!

(1) How could anyone make such a prognosis during the chaos of 9/11?

(2) What historical precedent made this engineer so sure? It's never happened before!

(3) What's his name?! They never identify the Nostradamuses who predict these things.

good points

good points

BBC Cheap Shots makes it "The Turd Tower"

Good Homework. You found more than I did.

Clarke and every "official" who responds with "9/11 was NOT an inside job" reveals they are lying by being too cock-sure in their answers. Bill Clinton did the same. No room for doubt is ever expressed....just a flat denial with the hope that someone will ask a completely different question...very soon.


my favorite part

"while no steel from the building remains..."

Ah, the computer model.

I expect this doc. will boost the 9/11 movement.

I liked the documentary. Despite the fact there were some slimy distortions by the BBC, for the most part, the arguments of defenders for the official story were not very compelling and even non-explanations. Occasionally, there was some weak representation for our side, but overall, I was glad to see the airtime given to people like Jones and Gage.

Hundreds of architects is not something that you can easily dismiss. That should raise a few eyebrows by itself. At the end of the day there is NO explanation yet for WTC 7, since we are still waiting for the final report. The video of the collapse will get exposure, and this is great.

I expect this will boost the 9/11 movement.
Arabesque: 911 Truth

I agree. This will boost the 9/11 Truth Movement!

I agree. This will boost the 9/11 Truth Movement. The airtime to Gage and Jones and Dylan, plus shots of WTC 7 falling are going to draw attention to the Movement. Another point, with the lies of the Iraq War and all the government coverups in the past decades, people have much less faith in "official stories". In fact, the "official stories" in the BBC hit piece were full of confusion.

What happened to Sunder

What happened to Sunder saying it was normal fires and no diesel fuel lines came into play, internal criminal pressure?

The source of this was the Dec. 07 NIST conference call.

the link to the full conference was dead, so uploaded it here:


Shyam Sunder, the lead investigators said that the airplane fuel came into play ONLY in the first few minutes, for the two trade center.

Also, for WTC7, he said it was a normal fire & no diesel fuel lines came into play. Guess the pressure got to them to adhere to the story of day 1.

Noteworthy is NIST only looks up until collapse initiation, yet there are examples in the following link that a building collapses can be stopped when the collapse goes through the path of the greatest resistance.


...this, I believe, is the second stage in their development of what's known as an "open" conspiracy...

Let us remember that too much was given away on 9/11 --that the procedure could have been far simpler yet have still produced the desired effects, albeit less immediately. They planned extravagantly, and executed accordingly. And to assume that not a single member of the development committee foresaw the potentially uncontrollable variables in executing such a plan......Right. A better way of thinking about it is from the perspective of a viral marketer who possesses the most advanced tools of the age, has access highest grade of intellect and has an unlimited budget... Some interesting ideas surely would come out!

The classical understanding of cause and effect does not hold at this stage; and, like another time in history, I don't think the perpetrators care much about that --they've decided to innovate.

Thank god

Thank god for things like human error and personal conscience or there would be no hope. Whether they abide by or try to manipulate/circumvent "the classical understanding of cause and effect," they have to deal with it, and so it is there we might find them, if we ever do.

The hit piece will hit them...

From my view, this is great. There is not one "expert" or interview-ee that stands equal to our gang. not underestimate the "savvy" of the average citizen [who distrusts their governments] to be able to tell who the TRUTHERS are, versus who the LIARS are.

I must make a point about being civil...its just the best way to go because it takes the BIGGEST BULLET right out of their gun.

Now for me and my governmental experiences, I would not trust ONE THING that Richard Clark says about anything. He is a perfect example of a "bracketeer"...a person who gets out front and states that its true, he is guilty of the robbery, and folks say, well alright, he's an honest guy so lets go with his pleading. But the REAL crime is murder in the robbery which is never again talked about because we have taken the bait about the robbery! Another example: Patrick Fitzgerald...this operative took treason in the White House and morphed it into Scooter getting a reprieve...and most folks think that this republican tool is a hero. Just take an objective look!...he is just another part of the plan...

I believe that Richard Clark was engaged with Cheney and the PNAC neocons in the meetings of the terrorism task force that "didn't meet until September 6th???", or something like that. NYET!!!

Its my position that Cheney had them meet starting on January 21st, 2001 in their special "treehouse" under some mountains in Virginia well before September. They met NOT to design plans to counteract terrorism, but instead, to PLAN the September 11th attacks themselves. When Cheney says turn right, turn left!...when Cheney speaks, "psy-ops" comes out.

Commoners will "get this" BBC effort as being simply another cover-up. And because we are regular folks who are sayng: "NO MORE LIES", soon the majority of these folks will see things exactly the way we do.

This BBC show will win more believers in the 9/11 Truth Movement than it will reinforce our opponenets. Their thin position of defending the "Official Story" while protecting the criminal thugs who are responsible for all of it will backfire.

This docu creates WAY more credibilty for us than would a docu that we made by ourselves...

A commendation to Dylan.

Dylan, your real person and straight faced rebuttals to the crap that they were spewing at the end may actually end up debunking the entire criminal clan that pulled this off more than all of your previous works combined...which are HUGE! Our messaging is to "the people", and you are one of us and that resonates very, very well with PEOPLE. You simply said bullshit to the bullshit which is EXACTLY what the average person is all about right now. SWEEEET! Sometimes less is more, and you drilled these fokkers straight on! Thanks, you closed this broadcast really, really well!

Its only a matter ot time, lets be respectful of others with our "force" as we welcome them on board.

Love, Peace and Progress with:


Robin Hordon

Thanks Robin. I shouldn't

Thanks Robin.

I shouldn't have let my emotions get the best of me, though.

Emotions are important...

We are human beings...and we have emotions...and its a complex balance.

I have been associated with quite a few "groups and movements" over the years, and few of them have ever had more collective emotions, dedication, determination, patriotism and the desire for justice within its membership than WE have in the 9/11TM.

But please hear this...

NONE of the groups that I have been involved with are as collectively bright, intelligent, curious and as appropriately skeptical as this whacky gang of 9/11 Truther souls.

I couldn't be prouder, and I couldn't be more aware that the higher the stakes, the edgier we all are...after all...

We are taking on the world's top corporations, the top corporate news media, and the top police force [the Pentagon], so, what can anyone expect.

And you know what, they are ALL in trouble...and they DO know it!

No problem here with me...none at all...because I get it...

Love, Peace and Progress with:


Robin Hordon


Apparently, according to the CD expert, you could never get thermite to go off in a timely manner to allow a building to fall in a controlled fashion, but according to the NIST guy, all the joints weakened at the same time allowing it to fall as if in a CD. Which is it?

Overall that was a much more subtle attack on the 9/11 truth movement - subtle, but still very clear. I was disappointed that they didn't give Richard Gage more time to give his list of reasons of why the collapse resembled a CD, and I was very disappointed with the strawman arguments (e.g. the police and fire brigade were part of the conspiracy according to the truth movement) which only goes to prove that they are devious.

At the end of that show, we are still none-the-wiser about why the building collapsed in the manner it did. If NIST are going to insist on the fact that all joints weakened simultaneously then we are not going to believe them!

Shame on BBC

for skewing Barry Jennings' timeline and omitting all the videos of first responders saying the building was "about to blow up".

BBC salvo may backfire?.

It is a concerted disinfo campaign by the BBC. You may underestimate the distortions propagated and the perception management they attempt to massage firmly into place in the public's mind!

In the end, I believe, the BBC helps 9/11 Truth. They show the Third Tower imploding while many are still unaware of Building 7 at all!

Barry Jennings' revised remarks can be considered separately.

On balance, the show falls firmly in the plus column! Gage and Jones perform like Superstars!

It makes my blood boil, everytime I see these 3-D mash-ups that attempt to sell you on a substantial majority of the joints failed within tenths of a second of one another to produce a symmetrical collapse! You don't have to be an engineer to gage on such garbage!

Again, it's a testimony to the staying power of 9/11 Truth. It's over six years later, the oligarchs are still trying to explain it away miserably and unsuccessfully.

Did anyone see Jane Standley's BBC career ends in 2007?

BBC's Conspiracy Files Third Tower
...don't believe it!

I still haven't seen any

I still haven't seen any debunking.

Conservation of Momentum?

This is the highest quality hit piece we have seen so far and it appears fair, except it fails to ask the unanswerable questions and miss states and leaves out many things!

NOTHING IS CERTAIN and it is prudent for us all to remeber that.

I am impressed with our opposition for the first time and I would have doubts if I was a new to this, after viewing the collapse of building 7 that it was a contolled demolition! It is clear that we need to keep it simple and concetrate on the speed of collapse and the temperatures found in the pile.

The dust is not as easy to explain as conservation of momentum and other physical priciples that have been broken by the official explanation.

Regards John

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!

Baffle 'em with BS....

This hit piece seems to be aimed at the undecided element, the methodology
seems to have been to acknowledge much of the questions and evidence the truth movement
has put forward, but then to attempt to baffle the viewer with BS by completely ridiculing and dismissing
it all with false claims and emotive rhetoric.

It's a huge gamble though, and reflects a level of desperation, they must be worried about the forthcoming NIST report. Much of our strongest evidence
has now been put out over the major media airwaves for the first time, this may backfire and raise the curiosity of many
particularly as there are seemingly so many inaccuracies in the piece that can so easily be rebutted.



Has anyone here a simple link to the BBC documentary ?

Herblay FRANCE

bonjour ,

now back in service for the 911 truth. Have been looking for weeks for a direct link to the BBC's "TheThird tower" but have not yet found one. Did find torrent links but I am scared that I will bring down my computer again with it.

Has anyone here a simple link to the documentary ?

### update 13h43 french time. During my lunch break I have read in depth this entry and I think that the video on the top is in fact the BBC documentary shown the 6 July 2008.

### update 22h01 french time. Looked at the video. Great we must show it around family and friends and ask everyone what do they think temselves about this. Has the BBC dug a bigger hole to bury themselves in ?

Tried to make a make a copy inorder to burn on a CDROM but my latest and other programs do not save this google video.

Havce taken some notes but will be doing more BBC reveing in the days to come. Saw an excellent critique by a young man on the BBC manipulation
on Larry's Pull it. Will refind the link to it. Will try and see Jon's critque before I fall asleep. How hard it is to be a good citizen !

""" update 14tth August 2008. Have not managed yet to download à copy to pass around me. Anyone any link to a copy which we can easily be downloaded ?

Thanks Jon.