BBC Claims WTC7 Collapse 'Solved'
911=PNAC, CIA, Mossad | 05.07.2008 19:23 | History | Terror War | World
Note that the BBC has recently claimed that it "lost" the tapes in which they were caught reporting on the collapse of Tower 7 BEFORE it actually fell.
Sorry, but you simply don't lose tapes of major events, and they are always backed up in the event of damage or loss.
(Note to the BBC: It's already been solved. It was brought down in a controlled demolition, and the evidence proves this. The only questions remaining now are, was it the CIA or the Mossad, and why was an investigation blocked by the Fascists who used this 'useful crisis' to start multiple, illegal wars ... ?)
Sorry, but you simply don't lose tapes of major events, and they are always backed up in the event of damage or loss.
(Note to the BBC: It's already been solved. It was brought down in a controlled demolition, and the evidence proves this. The only questions remaining now are, was it the CIA or the Mossad, and why was an investigation blocked by the Fascists who used this 'useful crisis' to start multiple, illegal wars ... ?)
9/11 third tower mystery 'solved'
By Mike Rudin
BBC, Conspiracy Files
The final mystery of 9/11 will soon be solved, according to US experts investigating the collapse of the third tower at the World Trade Center.
(What qualifies these men to be called 'experts'? People who are given this label by the MSM usually are part of some official, politically-motivated group.)
The 47-storey third tower, known as Tower Seven, collapsed seven hours after the twin towers.
(But the BBC reported on its collapse BEFORE it actually occured. Their TelePrompter must have been set at too high a speed ...)
Investigators are expected to say ordinary fires on several different floors caused the collapse.
(I expect them to say this, because really, what else would an 'investigation' funded by Bush/PNAC say? But why would this reporter say this?)
Conspiracy theorists have argued that the third tower was brought down in a controlled demolition.
(By 'conspiracy theorists' the reporter means the millions upon millions of ordinary people, and various experts in a myriad of fields, who have questioned the Government/Media's Conspiracy Theory, based on the lack of evidence that supports it, and the vast amount which directly contradicts it. These childish labels are shameful from a media outlet claiming to be a credible voice ...)
Unlike the twin towers, Tower Seven was not hit by a plane.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology, based near Washington DC, is expected to conclude in its long-awaited report this month that ordinary fires caused the building to collapse.
('Expected' by whom, exactly? A leaked NIST report claimed an 'unusual occurence' shortly before the collapse, a 'wall of flame' belching from several floors, after the fires had been brough under control.)
That would make it the first and only steel skyscraper in the world to collapse because of fire.
(No, according to the Official Conspiracy Theory, it would be the third. All three just happened to have occured on this one day ...)
The National Institute of Standards and Technology's lead investigator, Dr Shyam Sunder, spoke to BBC Two's "The Conspiracy Files":
"Our working hypothesis now actually suggests that it was normal building fires that were growing and spreading throughout the multiple floors that may have caused the ultimate collapse of the buildings."
(His HYPOTHESIS, or THEORY ... Starting with a foregone conclusion, and 'fixing the facts' to fit is not the same thing as an investigation which bases its findings on the evidence ...)
'Smoking gun'
However, a group of architects, engineers and scientists say the official explanation that fires caused the collapse is impossible. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth argue there must have been a controlled demolition.
The BBC and the 'missing' tape
The founder of the group, Richard Gage, says the collapse of the third tower is an obvious example of a controlled demolition using explosives.
"Building Seven is the smoking gun of 9/11… A sixth grader can look at this building falling at virtually freefall speed, symmetrically and smoothly, and see that it is not a natural process.
"Buildings that fall in natural processes fall to the path of least resistance", says Gage, "they don't go straight down through themselves."
Conspiracy theories
There are a number of facts that have encouraged conspiracy theories about Tower Seven.
(Technically, this is not a conspiracy theory. It's an investigation, an analysis of the evidence. No theory about the culprits is mentioned.)
Although its collapse potentially made architectural history (or defied logic and science), all of the thousands of tonnes of steel from the skyscraper were taken away to be melted down.
(Indeed. Before any proper investigation could be carried out. Most of the steel from all three buildings was shipped out of the country within weeks of the False Flag.)
The third tower was occupied by the Secret Service, the CIA, the Department of Defence and the Office of Emergency Management, which would co-ordinate any response to a disaster or a terrorist attack.
(Or an attack itself ...)
The destruction of the third tower was never mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report. The first official inquiry into Tower Seven by the Federal Emergency Management Agency was unable to be definitive about what caused its collapse.
In May 2002 FEMA concluded that the building collapsed because intense fires had burned for hours, fed by thousands of gallons of diesel stored in the building. But it said this had "only a low probability of occurrence" and more work was needed.
But now nearly seven years after 9/11 the definitive official explanation of what happened to Tower Seven is finally about to be published in America.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology has spent more than two years investigating Tower Seven but lead investigator Dr Shyam Sunder rejects criticism that it has been slow.
The collapse of Tower 7
"We've been at this for a little over two years and doing a two or two and a half year investigation is not at all unusual. That's the same kind of time frame that takes place when we do aeroplane crash investigations, it takes a few years."
(What is 'unusual' is that they've ONLY been investigating this for two years, since this happened nearly SEVEN years ago ...)
With no steel from Tower 7 to study, investigators have instead made four extremely complex computer models worked out to the finest detail. They're confident their approach can now provide the answers. Dr Sunder says the investigation is moving as fast as possible.
("With no steel from Tower 7 to study", "With no steel from Tower 7 to study", "With no steel from Tower 7 to study", "With no steel from Tower 7 to study" ... Are you F-in' SERIOUS?!)
"It's a very complex problem. It requires a level of fidelity in the modelling and rigour in the analysis that has never been done before."
Other skyscrapers haven't fully collapsed before because of fire. But NIST argues that what happened on 9/11 was unique.
(Unique - but just happened to have occured three times within hours of each other ... Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.)
Steel structure weakened
It says Tower Seven had an unusual design, built over an electricity substation and a subway; there were many fires that burnt for hours; and crucially, fire fighters could not fight the fires in Tower 7, because they didn't have enough water and focused on saving lives.
Investigators have focused on the east side where the long floor spans were under most stress.
They think fires burnt long enough to weaken and break many of the connections that held the steel structure together.
(Allegedly,) Most susceptible were the thinner floor beams which required less fireproofing, and the connections between the beams and the columns. As they heated up the connections failed and the beams sagged and failed, investigators say.
The collapse of the first of the Twin Towers does not seem to have caused any serious damage to Tower Seven, but the second collapse of the 1,368ft (417m) North Tower threw debris at Tower Seven, just 350ft (106m) away.
Tower Seven came down at 5.21pm. Until now most of the photographs have been of the three sides of the building that did not show much obvious physical damage. Now new photos of the south side of the building, which crucially faced the North Tower, show that whole side damaged and engulfed in smoke.
(Yes, the same type of smoke which identifies relatively small fires, which would not have created sufficient heat to weaken solid, structural steel ...)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7485331.stm
By Mike Rudin
BBC, Conspiracy Files
The final mystery of 9/11 will soon be solved, according to US experts investigating the collapse of the third tower at the World Trade Center.
(What qualifies these men to be called 'experts'? People who are given this label by the MSM usually are part of some official, politically-motivated group.)
The 47-storey third tower, known as Tower Seven, collapsed seven hours after the twin towers.
(But the BBC reported on its collapse BEFORE it actually occured. Their TelePrompter must have been set at too high a speed ...)
Investigators are expected to say ordinary fires on several different floors caused the collapse.
(I expect them to say this, because really, what else would an 'investigation' funded by Bush/PNAC say? But why would this reporter say this?)
Conspiracy theorists have argued that the third tower was brought down in a controlled demolition.
(By 'conspiracy theorists' the reporter means the millions upon millions of ordinary people, and various experts in a myriad of fields, who have questioned the Government/Media's Conspiracy Theory, based on the lack of evidence that supports it, and the vast amount which directly contradicts it. These childish labels are shameful from a media outlet claiming to be a credible voice ...)
Unlike the twin towers, Tower Seven was not hit by a plane.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology, based near Washington DC, is expected to conclude in its long-awaited report this month that ordinary fires caused the building to collapse.
('Expected' by whom, exactly? A leaked NIST report claimed an 'unusual occurence' shortly before the collapse, a 'wall of flame' belching from several floors, after the fires had been brough under control.)
That would make it the first and only steel skyscraper in the world to collapse because of fire.
(No, according to the Official Conspiracy Theory, it would be the third. All three just happened to have occured on this one day ...)
The National Institute of Standards and Technology's lead investigator, Dr Shyam Sunder, spoke to BBC Two's "The Conspiracy Files":
"Our working hypothesis now actually suggests that it was normal building fires that were growing and spreading throughout the multiple floors that may have caused the ultimate collapse of the buildings."
(His HYPOTHESIS, or THEORY ... Starting with a foregone conclusion, and 'fixing the facts' to fit is not the same thing as an investigation which bases its findings on the evidence ...)
'Smoking gun'
However, a group of architects, engineers and scientists say the official explanation that fires caused the collapse is impossible. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth argue there must have been a controlled demolition.
The BBC and the 'missing' tape
The founder of the group, Richard Gage, says the collapse of the third tower is an obvious example of a controlled demolition using explosives.
"Building Seven is the smoking gun of 9/11… A sixth grader can look at this building falling at virtually freefall speed, symmetrically and smoothly, and see that it is not a natural process.
"Buildings that fall in natural processes fall to the path of least resistance", says Gage, "they don't go straight down through themselves."
Conspiracy theories
There are a number of facts that have encouraged conspiracy theories about Tower Seven.
(Technically, this is not a conspiracy theory. It's an investigation, an analysis of the evidence. No theory about the culprits is mentioned.)
Although its collapse potentially made architectural history (or defied logic and science), all of the thousands of tonnes of steel from the skyscraper were taken away to be melted down.
(Indeed. Before any proper investigation could be carried out. Most of the steel from all three buildings was shipped out of the country within weeks of the False Flag.)
The third tower was occupied by the Secret Service, the CIA, the Department of Defence and the Office of Emergency Management, which would co-ordinate any response to a disaster or a terrorist attack.
(Or an attack itself ...)
The destruction of the third tower was never mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report. The first official inquiry into Tower Seven by the Federal Emergency Management Agency was unable to be definitive about what caused its collapse.
In May 2002 FEMA concluded that the building collapsed because intense fires had burned for hours, fed by thousands of gallons of diesel stored in the building. But it said this had "only a low probability of occurrence" and more work was needed.
But now nearly seven years after 9/11 the definitive official explanation of what happened to Tower Seven is finally about to be published in America.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology has spent more than two years investigating Tower Seven but lead investigator Dr Shyam Sunder rejects criticism that it has been slow.
The collapse of Tower 7
"We've been at this for a little over two years and doing a two or two and a half year investigation is not at all unusual. That's the same kind of time frame that takes place when we do aeroplane crash investigations, it takes a few years."
(What is 'unusual' is that they've ONLY been investigating this for two years, since this happened nearly SEVEN years ago ...)
With no steel from Tower 7 to study, investigators have instead made four extremely complex computer models worked out to the finest detail. They're confident their approach can now provide the answers. Dr Sunder says the investigation is moving as fast as possible.
("With no steel from Tower 7 to study", "With no steel from Tower 7 to study", "With no steel from Tower 7 to study", "With no steel from Tower 7 to study" ... Are you F-in' SERIOUS?!)
"It's a very complex problem. It requires a level of fidelity in the modelling and rigour in the analysis that has never been done before."
Other skyscrapers haven't fully collapsed before because of fire. But NIST argues that what happened on 9/11 was unique.
(Unique - but just happened to have occured three times within hours of each other ... Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.)
Steel structure weakened
It says Tower Seven had an unusual design, built over an electricity substation and a subway; there were many fires that burnt for hours; and crucially, fire fighters could not fight the fires in Tower 7, because they didn't have enough water and focused on saving lives.
Investigators have focused on the east side where the long floor spans were under most stress.
They think fires burnt long enough to weaken and break many of the connections that held the steel structure together.
(Allegedly,) Most susceptible were the thinner floor beams which required less fireproofing, and the connections between the beams and the columns. As they heated up the connections failed and the beams sagged and failed, investigators say.
The collapse of the first of the Twin Towers does not seem to have caused any serious damage to Tower Seven, but the second collapse of the 1,368ft (417m) North Tower threw debris at Tower Seven, just 350ft (106m) away.
Tower Seven came down at 5.21pm. Until now most of the photographs have been of the three sides of the building that did not show much obvious physical damage. Now new photos of the south side of the building, which crucially faced the North Tower, show that whole side damaged and engulfed in smoke.
(Yes, the same type of smoke which identifies relatively small fires, which would not have created sufficient heat to weaken solid, structural steel ...)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7485331.stm
911=PNAC, CIA, Mossad
Additions
Of course this is not the "final mystery"...
05.07.2008 20:30
"didn't have enough water"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSsgr5-CRW0 And it's not only questions, there is enough 9/11 related evidence for the impeachment of Bush according to Dennis Kucinich [2]:
* Article II — Falsely, Systematically, and with Criminal Intent Conflating the Attacks of September 11, 2001, With Misrepresentation of Iraq as a Security Threat as Part of Fraudulent Justification for a War of Aggression
* Article XXXIII — Repeatedly Ignored and Failed to Respond to High Level Intelligence Warnings of Planned Terrorist Attacks in the US, Prior to 911
* Article XXXIV — Obstruction of the Investigation into the Attacks of September 11, 2001
* Article XXXV — Endangering the Health of 911 First Responders
The article from the BBC above has serious problems, like for example that claim that "fire fighters could not fight the fires in Tower 7, because they didn't have enough water and focused on saving lives" -- Shoestring at 911 Blogger [3] has pointed out that:
-----------------------------------------------------
There were in fact fireboats that had been moored near the WTC the morning of 9/11, to provide water to the site. See:
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/17_Pharvey.html One of the boats, the John J. Harvey, could reportedly "pump 16,000 to 20,000 gallons of water a minute. 'That's the equivalent of 15 [fire] engines drafting water,' explained 65-year-old FDNY retiree Bob Lenney, who spent 25 years piloting Harvey." See:
http://www.fireboat.org/press/time_out_092701.asp In fact, one of NIST's earlier reports stated, "According to the FDNY first-person interviews, water was never an issue at WTC 7 since firefighting was never started in the building." See:
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-8.pdf (p. 110). -----------------------------------------------------
There are also photos of the fire boats and photos of buildings other than WTC7 having fire fought with water... [4]
The structural failure of WTC7, which has for years had a media-blackout, was considered in a 2006 Sheffield Indymedia feature article:
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/sheffield/2006/09/350617.html#wtc7 And when it was discovered that BBC World announced that WTC7 has collapsed 20 mins before it did that was also on this site (they have since found the tapes, they say they were put away on the wrong shelf...):
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/sheffield/2007/02/363848.html The best work on the structural failure of the buildings is probably Jim Hoffman's, see his three sites:
http://wtc7.net/ http://911research.wtc7.net/ http://911review.com/ [1]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/7433017.stm [2]
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/06/402169.html?c=on#c198703 [3]
http://911blogger.com/node/16478 [4]
http://img364.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img1497ur3.jpg 
http://img352.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img1502fm2.jpg 
http://img355.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img1503oi3.jpg 
Chris
Comments
Hide the following 5 comments
Why didnt BBC include barry Jennings account...he was there
06.07.2008 03:53
As usual,if you dont know, you wont learn it from the BBC! What have they left out? The most important bits!Altho its already been mentioned above, lest repeat it that Barry Jennings, Deputy Director, Emergency Services Department, New York City Housing Authority, was in WTC7 and claims before the first tower fell, he heard and ffelt explosion and saw dead bodies.
NOW the BBC has reported that there were no dead bodies resulting from WTC7 collapse....this is wrong. Since Jennings was interviewed by the authorities:
'What makes all this information even more explosive is the fact that this individual [now revealed to be Barry Jennings] was interviewed by the 9/11 Commission as they conducted their so called investigation.'
SO, they are aware that dead bodies were present....They just chose to ignore Jennings testimony, as has BBC.
Australias SBS ran the BBC story on saturday night news...This means they have deliberatly misinformed the public on this issue
brian
actually....
07.07.2008 15:36
Yet more fodder for the conspiracy obsessives, no doubt
Why is all this speculative 9/11 nonsense re-appearing on Indymedia anyway?
Skeptic
Real Question
08.07.2008 04:45
911=PNAC, CIA, Mossad
because.....
08.07.2008 07:01
At the end of the day, you are entitled to believe what you want, as am I.
Skeptic
'Skeptic' = Plant
09.07.2008 02:28
I'd love nothing more than to be proven wrong, Plant, as the alternative, the reality confronting us, is much more terrifying than if some small, localized group was responsible. But therein lies the rub; The War Criminals who LIED about Iraq (and Afghanistan, and Iran), and most likely carried out 9/11 in order to start this Madness, haven't - in nearly seven years - been able to prove their own Conspiracy Theory, and instead, repeatedly peddle ridiculous and transparent nonsense like this non-investigation.
"It has not been 'proved' at all"
Yes. It has, through analyses of the evidence which wasn't shipped out of the country in a matter of weeks, and even some that was. The fact that the various neo-conservative Regimes worldwide refuse to recognize this proven fact is immaterial.
911=PNAC, CIA, Mossad