BBC BLOGS - The Editors
« Previous | Main | Next »

No mystery

Mike Rudin Mike Rudin | 09:10 UK time, Tuesday, 16 September 2008

"There's no mystery" about the collapse of a third huge skyscraper at the World Trade Center on 9/11, the lead investigator of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, told me last week.

worldtradecentresite.jpgSpeaking at the NIST headquarters just outside Washington DC, Dr Shyam Sunder said it was definitely not a controlled demolition, as many self-styled "9/11 Truthers" maintain.

After three years extensive and exhaustive investigation NIST has published their final report on the World Trade Center and concluded that fire caused Tower 7 to collapse (pdf link). And they deduced from a series of highly complex computer models that the collapse started with the failure of just one column, column 79 on the 13th floor.

Dr Sunder added that the collapse of WTC7 represents the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires.

Why was it the first in the world? NIST scientists say it was because fires were allowed to burn in Tower 7 for nearly seven hours and the mains water had been severed by the collapse of WTC1, meaning that fire fighters were unable to fight the fires. The failure of the mains water supply also cut the sprinkler system to the lower half of the building, where the fires burnt for longer and more fiercely.

NIST specifically looked at whether controlled demolition using conventional explosives could have caused the collapse. But they found that the minimum charge necessary to destroy just one key column would have produced a huge amount of noise - between 130-140 Db even one kilometre away from WTC7 - the equivalent of standing next to a jet plane engine.

Yet NIST found no witnesses who had heard anything like that, nor any such noise on any of the videos of the collapse and none of the shattered windows that would have been expected on the backs of buildings.

Dr Sunder told me that they judged other possible hypotheses, such as the theory that there was a controlled demolition using an incendiary called thermite or thermate, were "not credible enough to justify investigation".

Yesterday was the closing day for comments on that final official report.

We have been filming a new set of interviews for an update of "The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Third Tower" to be broadcast on BBC Two soon. With the publication of the final official report on 9/11, officials think the long process of investigation is at last nearly over.

Comments

Page 1 of 4

  • Comment number 1.

    Mike

    I am afraid you are 'not credible enough to justify' taking seriously anymore.


  • Comment number 2.

    Oh dear, put on your tin-foil hats and get out your green pens.

    This topic always seems to bring out the 'interesting' comentators ;-)

  • Comment number 3.

    The problem is that people who think it is a conspiracy will continue to think that it is a conspiracy because this evidence/report is "what THEY want you to believe".

    But FWIW, I enjoyed the third tower documentary last time it was on...

  • Comment number 4.

    If 9/11 was a conspiracy why the hell would they collapse a tower that HADN'T been hit by a plane? What would that possibly add to the credibility of the plot?

    To be honest I don't why the BBC even has this sort of blog.. it just encourages the 'george bush is a zionist shape shifting lizard' crowd even more. No amount of proof will change their minds even though the huge range of differerent conspiracies they imagine are contradictory.

  • Comment number 5.

    I'll take a scientific study and computer modellings over the
    crack-pot "Government did it for some reason" theories. It does seem
    that America has more than it's fair share of conspiracy theorists,
    perhaps with reason given some of the underhanded things it's
    government has done to it's people. However the fact remains that to
    perpetrate 9/11 and all the associated secondary collapses would have
    taken a monumental amount of organisation between so many people as to
    be effectively impossible to keep quiet. There may be secrets still in
    the case of 9/11 over who knew what when variety but it's a whole
    different scale.

  • Comment number 6.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 7.

    I know you guys are full on coincidence theorists and all that, super heated jet fuel fires causing global collapse and such.
    So, I guess you don't really follow the alternative media and the issues they cover etc, etc.

    The 'truth movement', tin-foil-crowd

    Whatever you wish to call them don't only report on 9/11 you know. They have been reporting on the present banking collapse for the last few years, everything they have reported was being planned to happen, has happened exactly that way they said it would.

    Your media has been very lax at telling you whats going on, drip feeding you causes and extent of what is happening and what is to come.

    Where the alt. media has been doing good old fashioned investigative reporting, honest analysis and have called it spot on.

    As for Building 7, the argument can go on and on eternally. It is just one part of the whole 9/11 question of what happened.

    Your Media and Govt coporate bodies tell you that it was a guy in a cave.

    The alt media say it was head honcho's of the media/industrial/military/governemntal complex that we live in.

    Now if they were right about the banking collaspes maybe they are worth listening to a little bit more than you give them credit for.

    Or you can stick with the guy in a cave theory

  • Comment number 8.

    "The alt media say it was head honcho's of the media/industrial/military/governemntal complex that we live in."

    What? All of them? Is that the best explanation you can come up with?

  • Comment number 9.

    Mike

    The NIST report is a joke.

    It differed completely from the story they had previously told Popular Mechanics.

    British fire resistance tests show steel framing to be far more enduring than NIST's collapse theories maintain.

    NIST assumes much while explaining little--not even how one failing column can pull down the neighboring ones.

    They completely ignore the molten metal found in the basement of all three towers.

    http://www.ae911truth.org/flashmov11.htm

  • Comment number 10.

    @Peter_Sym

    "If 9/11 was a conspiracy why the hell would they collapse a tower that HADN'T been hit by a plane? What would that possibly add to the credibility of the plot?"

    Because it held documents for numerous ongoing Wall Street investigations including Enron and WorldCom.

    @AlexBennee

    "I'll take a scientific study and computer modellings over the crack-pot "Government did it for some reason" theories."

    Here's one scientific study

    http://www.ae911truth.org/flashmov11.htm

    Here's some none crack-pot sources

    http://www.ae911truth.org/
    http://patriotsquestion911.com/
    http://stj911.org/

  • Comment number 11.

    As long as Bush is alive, conspiracy theorists will thrive.

    What next? Ask Oliver Stone.

  • Comment number 12.

    In Russia noone ever believed "19 arabs" did it, that is, on their own, without internal help. For a plane to fly to Pentagon air safety zone you need to know air pass codes changed once a day minimum, and many other incongruencies, how Al Quaeda was announced on US TV as the attacker - literally on the 34th minute ! after the first tower collapsed.
    Plus the very book, the investigation report results when published - who bought and read that book knows it doesn't look like documentary but like a science fiction.
    President Bush though was never "suspected" in all initial Russian voices, never once.

    However overall Russia isn't interested in the cause, it's an American thing, they'd know better at home, internally, what has happened.
    I mean, it's US ground, not our expertise area at all, so here it was simply, like, eye-brows lifted in bewilderment, but then nobody attempted to investigate or mull over the subject in the years that passed.

    Innocent people dead, this is the fact, we remember about 9/11 here only on 9/11 day when memorial service is held in all Russian churches for the souls of "nevinno ubiennukh" - innocent - and murdered! the big churches holdit in 2 languages - Russian and English.
    Awful disaster, one can only sympathise with people, nothing can be changed about it.

  • Comment number 13.

    Peter, i was just giving a very simple understanding of who the alt. media believes to be responsible. Not all of them but some of them.

    I am not trying to convince you of who did what. I was just pointing out that alt. media are being presently proved right about the financial collapse so maybe there is some credibility in what they say about 9/11.

    The explanation I gave is just as valid as 'a man in a cave' i would have thought, but if you like the man in a cave thing, stick with it. If you like the 'who knew this was going to happen' approach to the banking collapse, keep believing it.

    After all, you only have a moral responsibility to yourself.

  • Comment number 14.

    It is virtually certain that NIST got the correct answer. In all likelihood the fire was fed by diesel fuel from a storage tank which continued to pump. Once ignited when the critical air fuel mixture in the fumes came in contact with a source of ignition, the fuel continued to burn. As the temperature of the steel increased, its ability to sustain the weight above it continued to be reduced as it softened and ultimately gave way. The design flaw was that the structure was vulnerable to a single point of failure which resulted in a catastrophic cascade failure of the entire structure. This is why mathematical modeling including failure mode analysis is critical to the survivability of any serious engineering effort. That is much more feasible today than it was in the 1960s when the WTC was designed and built.

  • Comment number 15.

    #10. Wouldn't it have made more sense then to crash a plane into that one too or have it burn more visibly and just incinerate everything?

    In any case as worldcom and enron still went bust and many of their people were done for fraud it doesn't seem to have done much good!

  • Comment number 16.

    "They have been reporting on the present banking collapse for the last few years, everything they have reported was being planned to happen, has happened exactly that way they said it would."

    They are not the only ones. My tutor at university would turn most discussions of international relations to the importance of the global economy and the impending turbulance within. Scholars and researchers have been writing about our current situation for years to the extent that Enron was seen by some to be validation of their observations and this was back in 2001.

    So it's not like the fact that the alternative media reported (and by dint of the implications of grand sinister conspiracies, mis-reported) these developments and predictions in more detail adds to their credibility in any significant fashion. Both the mainstream and alt medias cater to their audiences. The mainstream percieves their audience as being uninterested in or unable to comprehend stories that are mainly couched in technical terms, as any long term forecast of global finance would have to be. Meanwhile, the alt media favours long term predictions that mix the same technical language with dire consequences and implications of conspiracy.

    The key point with the alt media and conspiracies, especially in this case, is that they take complicated, chaotic or unpredictable situations and make them safer, less threatening to the observer by imposing order, simplicity and predictability upon them. So instead of 9/11 being an unpredictable (US intelligence failings not withstanding) and terrifying terror attack launched by a previously unheard of group from a country many Americans couldn't place on a map, it becomes part of a wider conspiracy, controlled by figures who are known to the public, with their motivation being little more complex than to do evil, or to enslave mankind. Likewise, the current economic situation represents the complexity of global markets and the increasing speed at which events can have knock on effects which can exacerbate other situations and snowball into serious problems in ways that even analysts struggle to accurately predict. This chaotic system of estimated value and speculative trade has massive, if somewhat nebulous significance for everyone, as we are now seeing. How much more comforting is it, then, to read that the current "credit crunch" is not the result of a flashpoint between climate change, oil shocks, the energy crisis and a longer term trend of economic turbulence, but in fact the deliberate work of a cabal of evil men bent on destroying freedom or whatever their motives are supposed to be?

  • Comment number 17.

    "Because it held documents for numerous ongoing Wall Street investigations including Enron and WorldCom."

    That's just so funny! So the tinfoil-hat-wearers expect the rest of us to believe that all these super-powerful "head honcho's of the media / industrial / military / governemntal complex that we live in" all working together couldn't work out how to use a shredder so they came up with 9/11 instead?

    Presumably the idea came up over a drink and a game of cards with a few of the Vesuvian guys, I suppose.

  • Comment number 18.

    Skipjack,

    your saying your theory of 'man in a cave' is not a taking a

    'complicated, chaotic or unpredictable situations and make them safer, less threatening to the observer by imposing order, simplicity and predictability upon them'

    Obviosly you believe in coincidence theories and you are welcome to that. All the stuff the alt. media talk about must not exist, Ludlow never happened, Iran-contra was a one off, The gulf of tonkin incident is just a story, PDD51 is classified for our own good and the ruling cabal would have no motive for perpertrating 9/11 what so ever. Not oil, not money, not power no motive at all.

    Maybe the banks aren't collapsing and that is just a conspiricy theory too.

  • Comment number 19.

    @14: even if this scenario occurred (and there are plenty of reasons why this shouldn't be the case) this doesn't explain why building 7 fell at speeds close to that of gravity - the fires that did exist in wtc7 were not distributed evenly throughout the building and there were plenty of floors untouched by fire...the Madrid Windsor Tower skyscraper was fully engulfed in flames for over 17 hours and did not collapse!!

    Google for Barry Jennings' account of being inside building 7.

  • Comment number 20.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 21.

    "Sergei Dudarev, of the UK Atomic Energy Agency, found that steel loses its strength above 500C because its molecules undergo a physical transition from one state to another due to magnetic fluctuations. "

    More coverage on different aspects of 9/11, please. This is the biggest story since WW2, after all.





  • Comment number 22.

    Yes sure, now a question: Who is in charge of those investigations: Scientist independent to the government ?
    Ja ja ja

  • Comment number 23.

    Mike,

    in reality NIST has been studying WTC 7 for much longer than three years. In fact, they published their "Interim Report on WTC 7" in 2004. So, it's not at all the case that they already hadn't spent considerable time on it before they started to exclusively concentrate on it in 2005.

    In 2006, the lead WTC 7 investigator told New York Magazine:

    "But truthfully, I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7."

    Then they suddenly come up with an explanation that is based on a "new phenomenon", for the first time causing a total collapse, at near freefall speed, of a steel-framed highrise building!

    Such pure speculation could, of course, have been avoided in the first place, had the cause and mechanism of the destruction been determined by carefully examining the building's steel debris, instead of destroying it.

    One obvious problem in the NIST draft report is this. In their interim report from 2004, they point out that

    "Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires on Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle of the north face; Floor 12 was burned out by this time."

    Now they blame a raging inferno at and after 5 p.m. on floor 12 for the failure that started the destruction at 5:21 p.m. - the same floor in which the fires had died out long before that, according to their earlier report!

    See the detailed response of scientists, architects, engineers and scholar to NIST's draft report at

    http://www.911blogger.com/node/17794#comment-197609

    Moreover, NIST's computer-generated models of the collapse of WTC 7, such as the models presented at
    http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_videos/wtc_videos.html
    do not at all correspond with the way in which the building can be seen descending on the several videos that captured the collapse.

    In the videos, the perimeter walls, connected to and supported by the large number of perimeter columns, retain their rectangular shape until late in the collapse; the perimeter columns clearly do not almost immediately buckle inwards over the building as they do in NIST's models. In other words, NIST's collapse model does not describe the way in which WTC 7 actually collapsed on September 11th, as anyone can see.

    Here are my own comments to NIST:

    http://www.911blogger.com/node/17785

  • Comment number 24.

    There are plenty of sites available on the www to bolster the conspiracy claims. All in all there are far too many coincidences for it to have just been an accident.

    The likes of the CIA and Tax office were officed in WTC7 and the knock on effect of documentation loss in America was immense.

    One of the best sites ive found for information is whatreallyhappened.com, worth a look to anyone mildly interested in what might have been....

  • Comment number 25.

    18: the "man in a cave" theory is a disingenuous title and certainly not "my theory". If you want to play the trite "c*-theory" game, then you could say I believe in "complexity theories". That is, rather than misleadingly simplifying the causes of 9/11 down to simply a man in a cave, I, along with anyone else who has put in a modicum of serious thought and research, recognise 9/11 as the result of a long and wide process that takes in the widening rich-poor gap globally, more localised issues such as the presence and conduct of US military personnel in Saudi Arabia, the usage and subsequent abandonment of the Taliban by the US to repel the Soviets in Afghanistan, Western attitudes toward the Israel-Palestine conflict and regional issues such as the rise of repressive regimes in the Middle East and the spread of Islamic theocracies. The Power of Nightmares is an excellent documentary which does a fantastic job of displaying the interplay of various actors and situations in leading to 9/11, as well as raising valid and reasonable questions about the role of the media and politicians in shaping how 9/11 and other events are represented in the mainstream.

    Another interesting implication of the "man in a cave" moniker is the shades of racism which is particularly apparent in some of rhetoric employed by American conspiracy theorists. How could these backward, goat herding ARABS possibly manage to slip under the radar of the world's only hyperpower and inflict such spectacular and terrible injury? No, no group of arabs could ever be capable of something so catastrophically effective, it has to have been the white man, turning on his own!

  • Comment number 26.

    'It is virtually certain that NIST got the correct answer. In all likelihood the fire was fed by diesel fuel from a storage tank which continued to pump. Once ignited when the critical air fuel mixture in the fumes came in contact with a source of ignition, the fuel continued to burn.'

    NIST has actually ruled out the diesel from a storage tank scenario.

    WTC7 is not the final mystery of 9/11 by any stretch. There are so many points to this debate on wtc7 but I'll chime in with just one.
    Why have NIST now said, contrary to FEMA, that no steel from wtc7 was retained? Why have they not done what FEMA asked of them which was to analyse the 'highly unusual event' of intergranular melting and sulfidation of steel. If it was the gypsum in wallboards that caused this phenomenon (based on no scientific documentation that I can find whatsoever) does this have implications for the use of gypsum in buildings?

    Also when talking about a seven hour fire it is worth remembering that NIST admit that the combustibles in any given location would have burned out in twenty minutes.

  • Comment number 27.

    Although you may wish to declare 9/11 over-

    Do not be too intimidated to address the question of the three MOSSAD teams who were following the bombers in the USA

    and did not give useful warning to the US authorities

    and their "Urban Moving Systems " team who set up to photograph the falling towers

    and danced and gave themselves "high-fives" when the buildings collapsed

    and then told the police

    "the Palestinians did it".

    Do you need links or ar you just afraid to address the issue?

  • Comment number 28.

    areokes51,

    The best agrument you can come up with is about my punctuation. Well thats me blown out of the water, eh.

    You can deny the alt. media has been reporting on this and mainstream haven't, thats your choice. Just as you can convince yourself 9/11 was done by a man in a cave, again your choice.

    But surely you can dismiss an argument because it is badly punctuated.

    P.s. the syntax in your fourth sentance is a disgrace and 80's should be written 80s

  • Comment number 29.

    "No mystery" according to the governments investigators...hardly an independent investigative source, Mike. Especially considering that NIST didn't bother to even investigate the most obvious hypothetis, explosives.
    What were they afraid they'd find? Why not take the time to prove the conspiracy quacks wrong?
    Barry Jennings is just one witness who can testify that there were explosives going off in WTC7, so it sounds like NIST didn't look very closely for evidence.
    There is video evidence of what looks like explosives rippling up the upper corner of the building, and further video evidence of multiple flashes going off in the smoking hole at the back of WTC7, video which was shown at a talk at Cooper Union. Maybe you can work these videos into your next show Mike?
    Can we get all the evidence into the discussion, and not just what fits in with the BBC's mission, regarding 9-11?
    Are there any engineers or architects reading this who are convinced by the latest NIST report?
    And Mike, why did the BBC refuse to show any video's of the collapse of building 7 for over 5 years? Why the coverup?
    Also, why did you hold of on reporting the release of this latest NIST paper, until just after the closing day for final comments on the paper?? This was news weeks ago.
    I agree with Hanks comment #1, you seem to be a little biased, Mike.

  • Comment number 30.

    I like the comment about the 'security' people find in imposing order upon things they can neither quantify nor control, which leads to a strangely comforting homegrown conspiracy rather than an unanticipated attack from abroad being accepted as the obvious cause for catastrophe.

    However, it's surely an oversimplification. It is, ironically, no secret that governments keep secrets from their populations - but you can't really blame them for that, I'm not convinced I'd sleep well if i was privy to every single piece of intelligence gathered by every government in the world!

    There will almost certainly be more to all of this than we're being told. But that doesn't equate to the mass murder of hundreds of people by the government elected to protect them for no better reason than money, oil and power.

    Sure the twin towers attacks gave George Bush carte blanche to launch his wars against Afgghanistan and subsequently Iraq, but I feel quite sure that if a President of the United States desired to start a war in a middle eastern country (for whatever reasons) he would find a far less self destructive excuse.

    It's also worth remembering that the people supposedly committing these attacks for money, power and oil are the very people already in power, who already control the worlds finances and who introduce legislation on oil.

    In essence I think it's very easy to dismiss conspiracy theorists as crackpots, and it's also very easy to distrust the people who run our nations, but it's almost certainly neither one nor the other that's correct.

    As for Alternative Media... Here we all are discussing this topic on the BBC's website. The BBC being, as we all know, an independant corporation run in accordance with government guidelines and from public funding via compulsory payment by UK residents of a licence fee. I may be naive but I trust the BBC, you can throw accusations of bias at it, naturally, but surely the so called 'alternative media' works to an agenda in a way the BBC does not. The BBC will report facts as they are presented to it, or as its journalists learn them to be, whereas alternative media must by definition distrust the mass media and look for a different spin on stories, distorting simply unexplainable events (which mass media will portray as exactly that) into proof of something which will serve to endear it to its target audience...

    I think it's extremely likely I've managed to meander hugely away from any point I may ever have been in danger of making here, but in a nutshell if you find yourself on an all consuming quest to find out the truth about what's ging on in the world I'd strongly recommend you downgrade it to a more passive curiosity, because even if there is some overarching government conspiracy, they're definitely never going to let you prove it!

    PS, I know I've gone on for ages, but did anyone read the article in the magazine website a few weeks ago about flat-earthers?

    My word that made me chuckle!

  • Comment number 31.

    For a plane to fly to Pentagon air safety zone you need to know air pass codes changed once a day minimum

    ----------

    Actually no, you need code for permission to fly there, but there is no magic wall to stop you doing so.

  • Comment number 32.

    Lets all be honest, whatever "opinions" are expressed, however much they be laden with objective information, the American Govt will always tell the people what they want the people to know.....

  • Comment number 33.

    "Especially considering that NIST didn't bother to even investigate the most obvious hypothetis, explosives."

    Yes they did. This is from the text in the article above:

    "NIST specifically looked at whether controlled demolition using conventional explosives could have caused the collapse. But they found that the minimum charge necessary to destroy just one key column would have produced a huge amount of noise - between 130-140 Db even one kilometre away from WTC7 - the equivalent of standing next to a jet plane engine.

    Yet NIST found no witnesses who had heard anything like that, nor any such noise on any of the videos of the collapse and none of the shattered windows that would have been expected on the backs of buildings."

    With regards to Barry Jennings, he cannot, as you claim, testify that there were explosives in WTC7 because, from what I have heard of his testimony, he did not encounter any. Rather, he witnessed serious damage to the interior of the building and heard explosions. It is a common assumption in 9/11 conspiracy theories that any explosion MUST be caused by a bomb, which is clearly not the case. Explosions can result from other sources, particularly stored fuel or pressurised containers. Similarly, the sound of falling debris within a collapsing structure could reasonably be misinterpreted as an explosion, especially by individuals such as Jennings who are not demolitions experts.

    Consider this. You accuse the NIST and BBC of bias. Yet in your post the evidence for your claims are based around observations from footage taken on the day of the attacks, while the conclusions drawn by the NIST and reported by the BBC come from years of study, research and investigation, which you dismiss out of hand because the conclusions happen to contradict your own assumptions about what had happened.

    Let me run that by you again. You are dismissing years of in depth investigation by trained experts with professional backgrounds relevant to the matter at hand on the basis of what "appears" to be happening on TV footage of the event. And that means the BBC is biased?

  • Comment number 34.

    "hardly an independent investigative source, Mike."

    Just for the record, what would be an independent invesitgative source, by the conspiracy theorists' criteria?

    "head honcho's of the media / industrial / military / governemntal complex that we live in"

    The above sentence is why it remains impossible to take the "alternative media" seriously. Have you ever heard a more vague and non-specific attempt to sum up the "powers that be"?

    Quite how any of the millions of people required for a conspiracy involving the media, industry (all of it?), the military and the governments have managed to keep quiet so far is pretty amazing wouldn't you say?

  • Comment number 35.

    "Obviosly you believe in coincidence theories and you are welcome to that. All the stuff the alt. media talk about must not exist, Ludlow never happened, Iran-contra was a one off, The gulf of tonkin incident is just a story"

    Thats rather my point. These things DID happen and the truth came out quickly. The sailors at the gulf of Tonkin talked. NO-ONE out of the 100's if not 1000's of people involved if 9/11 was a conspiracy have ever come out. The Bush regime is one of the most incompetent ever yet they managed to keep all this secret? Is that REALLY plausible?

  • Comment number 36.

    Hmm lets see... first steel framed buildings to collapse due to fire in history .... any more since?.... nope ... First time of total collapse of tall steel buildings due to fire without planes... any more since .... nope? Independent investigation into the causes by non US government agencies? .... nope. Detailed instructions about how to modify building codes to make all the other steel framed skyscrapers in the world safe? .... nope ....
    Absolutely no mystery here.

  • Comment number 37.

    To the guy claiming that the ALT media "have been reporting on the present banking collapse for the last few years, everything they have reported was being planned to happen, has happened exactly that way they said it would."

    You miss out an important point - the ALT media has been predicting the collapse of the capitalist system since the 1880s, when it was done on pamphlets.

    There are a lot of good independent media organisations, but ALT media offers not an 'alternative view' but a view of an alternate universe, in which we do not reside.

    Also, it's amazing that every Star Trek fan/conspiracy theorist is now an expert in the use of explosives, controlled demolitions and air defence. Seriously guys...

  • Comment number 38.

    Do not be too intimidated to address the question of the three MOSSAD teams who were following the bombers in the USA

    and did not give useful warning to the US authorities

    and their "Urban Moving Systems " team who set up to photograph the falling towers

    and danced and gave themselves "high-fives" when the buildings collapsed

    and then told the police

    "the Palestinians did it".

    Do you need links or ar you just afraid to address the issue?

    ______________________


    hahah are you just making things up now?

    How about the guys with the rocket on the roof, or the fbi agent with the yellow hat who told his wife about the attack the nigth before, or the iranian jeweller who told his family to stay out of new york, or the Israeli policeman who found blueprints and kept them a secret, or the pilot of the plane who left the keys in the ignition.

    See i can make up theorist nonsense as well....


    There were you, see these people did you? involved were you? or did you just read this on some internet site and feel important thinking you had all the insider info that the rest of the world has missed.

    Please.....I'm all for people offering theories but don't tell me I'm "afraid" or not intelligent enough just because I haven't wet myself over another crackpot story!

  • Comment number 39.

    Oh... Just one more thing, about being able to pull the wool over peoples eyes, where do we get our news from?

    How how many reporters lost their jobs because of the comments 'after' the 9/11 events..? For being un-patriotic.

    And how many of those reporters who 'blurted out' comments on air, have they ever repeated them..?

    We receive our reports from companies closely linked to the governments with which they report on.

    Of the 'independent' reports from 'volunteers' on the devastation that occurred after the planes hit the towers, how many of those were already on government contracts worth millions of dollars, and have also won new contract tenders, worth millions more..?

  • Comment number 40.

    NIST discusses the explosions that trapped Barry Jennings and Michael Hess inside WTC 7 for 1.5 hours (the firefighters had to help the men out). The disingenuous strategy of NIST is revealed by the following statement in their
    "Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation":

    "If the two loud booms were due to explosions that were responsible for the collapse of WTC 7, the emergency responder – located somewhere between the 6th and 8th floors in WTC 7 – would not have been able to survive the near immediate collapse and provide this witness account."

    An explosion somewhere inside a skyscraper can obviously weaken the integrity of the building without leading to an immediate collapse; therefore, the above argument is incorrect. The role of such an explosion in a later collapse would, of course, have had to be investigated.

    In the following excerpt from an investigative program by Italian TV, several loud explosions can be heard, one such explosion startling first responders close to WTC 7. In addition, a police officer can be seen and heard stating repeatedly, referring to WTC 7, that "the building is about to blow up".

    "Seven is exploding"

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nu1VLMVv08s

    If the collapse due to fires was unprecedented (as NIST says) and caused by a specific chain reaction that NIST discovered only during the last 1.5 years of their investigation, how did CNN know well in advance that the skyscraper was "poised to collapse" (approximately 15 minutes before actual collapse) and then "on verge of collapse" (approximately 1.5 minutes before actual collapse)?

  • Comment number 41.

    " this doesn't explain why building 7 fell at speeds close to that of gravity"

    Gravity doesn't have a speed. The building fell BECAUSE of gravity, which presumably causes objects to fall at 9.6 metres per second per second in New York too.

  • Comment number 42.

    seamilliman,

    the Bush administration is not at all incomperent: they have managed to get away with everything they have wanted - including every illegal action imaginable, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are producing vast amounts of money for the military-industrial complex.

    And, by the way, operation Gladio in Cold War Europe, in which hundreds of civilians were murdered in false-flag terrorist attacks blamed on the Left, was kept secret for 45 years. How come nobody confessed? O sancta simplicitas!

    And incidentally, Italy's ex-president Francesco Cossiga, who was originally setting up Gladio and had to acknowledge the existence of the secret armies in 1990, has said that 9/11 was also a false-flag operation carried out by intelligence agencies. Could Cossiga know what he is talking about?

    http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

  • Comment number 43.

    Don't mention this organisation in any of your posts... They're censoring any submissions, I don't know why I'm sending this either, it will probably not be listed...

  • Comment number 44.

    how did CNN know well in advance that the skyscraper was "poised to collapse" (approximately 15 minutes before actual collapse) and then "on verge of collapse" (approximately 1.5 minutes before actual collapse)?

    ___________


    This is what is known as conjecture, I'm sure it became obvious the building was on it's way down seeing as it was gutted by fire and things were dropping off it.

    OR do you think CNN and it's reporters were all briefed on the disaster and despite the US government planning every minute detail in the biggest coverup in human history... allowed CNN to give away the ending too early???

    Seriously... open a window and get some fresh air guys

  • Comment number 45.

    Of course it's no mystery. Anybody with working brain matter can see these were all controlled demolitions. I don't give a crap what NIST says. They're a pack of liars helping to cover up this fraud. The BBC is kind of like CNN. Full of lies/spin/half-truths and propaganda.

  • Comment number 46.

    Skipjack451,

    I agree that NIST looked briefly at the idea of explosives, and then decided it was implausible because of the lack of noise or video evidence. However, one possibility worth investigating, thermate, does not make the same noise as demolition charges, so I can't see why NIST wouldn't look into this, for the sake of their own reputations, as professionals.
    Also, there are a lot of witnesses who say they heard and felt huge explosions, and as I mentioned above, there is video evidence of what looks like charges going off.
    And the speed of collapse suggests to me, that WTC7 could only have collapsed with the aid of explosives. I'm amazed you don't agree.
    NIST didn't investigate the possibility of explosives in a professional scientific way, where you test all alternate theories, and not just one specific preapproved theory. Science is about trying to disprove the hypothesis again and again, and see which probabilities stands up to the most scrutiny. In this critical regard, NIST's report is a joke.
    And there is the problem of the mainstream media refusing to show us video of WTC7 collapsing for over 5 years. When did you first hear about it Skipjack?
    What do you think was the BBC's reason for this coverup of a major news event?
    Also, crucially, Jennings makes the statements that the explosions were happening in WTC7 before the twin towers collapsed. Just so we're clear...the man inside WTC7 says there were explosions going off, before debris damaged the back side of the building. What caused these "explosions." Sadly, NIST hasn't been much good at helping us with this mystery.
    Sure, I am relying on video evidence, and written evidence, and witness testimony, and the fact I have studied WTC7 and other anomolies of 9-11 for the last 7 years. You are relying on Sunder's words, even though he didn't bother to test all possible theories for collapse. He doesn't sound like a very thorough investigator to me.
    I think this is a case of, you can fall some of the people, some of the time.

  • Comment number 47.

    Well, CNN and the BBC did not merely report that the building was damaged or that it might collapse; they prematurely *announced* its actual collapse (especially the BBC).

    Another example. Consider the following from the FDNY oral histories:

    Q. "Were you there when building 7 came down in the afternoon?"
    A. "Yes."
    Q. "You were still there?"
    A. "Yes, so basically they measured out how far the building was going to come, so we knew exactly where we could stand."
    Q. "So they just put you in a safe area, safe enough for when that building came down?"
    A. "5 blocks. 5 blocks away. We still could see. Exactly right on point, the cloud stopped right there."

    For more evidence of certainty, see

    http://www.911blogger.com/node/17794#comment-197629

    Window glasses typically fall off from burning buildings. Hardly enough to explain how everyone was waiting for building 7 to come down -- or to be "brought down", as one first responder, Indira Singh, testified to being told.

    About the "speed of gravity": an object in free fall does not crush anything; it does not displace even air. WTC 7 descended in free fall during 2.5 seconds at the beginning of its collapse, which is a proof that all resistance was being removed by other means than gravitational crushing or twisting, which would have taken time and therefore necessarily slowed down the destruction. See the measurements in the above-linked page.

  • Comment number 48.

    Funnily enough, one of the best consipiracy stories relates to this Glorious British organisation for Broadcasting

    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/bbc_wtc7_videos.html

    They told the world WTC7 was going to collapse, the same as CNN, and even if it is known as Conjecture (#44) there was no previous evidence this would happen

  • Comment number 49.

    I'm not sure what the WHOLE truth is about 9\11 but I do know there is some degree of cover up or disinformation involved.

    There are a few things that do bother me about it (whilst trying not to enter into the realms of fantasy) :-

    Why is the hole in the Pentagon so small, Why are so few windows smashed, Where are the engine holes and Where is the debris and WHERE IS ALL THE FOOTAGE CONFISCATED BY THE GOVERNMENT FROM NEARBY CCTV ?

    Why was one of the engines of Flight 93 found MILES away from the crash site ?

    The worst of all is the 'who knew' questions and WHEN they knew ! Shocking - 3000 lives - RIP.

  • Comment number 50.

    I don't need to read any fancy scientific report to see the truth here. Why? Because I'm a card-carrying conspiracy theorist, and I believe in the Conspiracy Creed:
    1) Our explanation of events is correct
    2) All other explanations of events must therefore be wrong
    3) All of our evidence is correct, as it supports our explanation of events (see 1 above)
    4) All other evidence is invalid, as it contradicts our explanation of events (see 2 above)
    5) Any other methods of understanding events must also be wrong if they contradict our explanation e.g. reasoned argument, logic, common sense etc..
    6) Any person or organisation offering such contradictory evidence must by definition be part of the conspiracy and is therefore not to be trusted or believed

    So there you have it. Don't bother trying to argue with our theories, because we follow the Creed and don't need to prove anything, as whatever evidence or argument you may offer is obviously wrong.
    P.S. Check out my blog where after years of research I demonstrate that NASA cannot possibly have actually landed on the moon since it is actually made of gorgonzola

  • Comment number 51.

    So...if there is no conspiracy then why did the BBC report that Building 7 collapsed a whole 20 minutes before it actually did?



    In these times it is best that you all should start using your own brains and not parroting what the official mainstream media ape on about and for that matter the conspiracy theorists but do some thinking for yourselves for a change.

    Look at the big picture, research the Project for the New American Century and take a good close look at the members of this organisation and the agenda they have put on their website.

    Then take a good look of what islamic fundamentalist are about then take a look at the profile of Mohammed Atta and see if this alleged hijacker fits the the profile of an islamic fundamentalist or not?

    Then take a look at who is profiting from the so-called War on Terrorism. Follow the money.

    Ask yourself why Bush and Cheney both gave their statements at the same time and was never made public, think about it.

    Still think a plane hit the Pentagon, even though not a single bit of wreckage from a Boeing 757 was ever found?

    Ever checked the connection between Osama bin-Laden and the CIA?
    Ever checked the connection between the bin-Laden and Bush families?

    Why did building 7 collapse when it wasn't even the nearest tower in the WTC complex?

    Just think for yourselves, the ruling elite are using divide and rule tactics with this and if you don't use your own mind then they will have won and we will all be screwed.

    peace and love

  • Comment number 52.

    "a man hears what he wants to heat and disregards the rest" as the song goes. cuts both ways, mike.
    personally, I think if you believe a 47 storey skyscraper can fall neatly into its own footprint in six seconds WITHOUT THAT BEING THE INTENTION, then you are seriously deluded.

  • Comment number 53.

    You official story coincidence theory guys are great. You brush of every piece of evidence offered, do your best to mock anyone for even questioning the official truth, accuse us of believing alternative theories as a coping stategy because we are confused about the unpredictable world. You even try saying our arguments are baseless because our punctuation is bad.

    Then you say with all seriousness that it was done by a guy with a beard in a cave. He is responsible, no one else. This means we can invade, murder, rape and torture looking for him. All cos of your imaginary guy in a cave.

    And we are the nutty ones.

  • Comment number 54.

    "this doesn't explain why building 7 fell at speeds close to that of gravity"

    The speed of gravity.

    Another reason why these people should, generally speaking, be ignored. They repeat what they read without the slightest qualification or doubt - In fact, they approach the alt. media with precisely the same unthinking credulousness they are so quick to accuse the rest of us of having.

  • Comment number 55.

    The U.S. National Fire Protection Association Manual for fire and explosion investigations, clearly indicates that the possibility of explosives should have been thoroughly investigated by NIST.

    NFPA 921 18.3.2: "High Order Damage"

    "High-order damage is characterized by shattering of the structure, producing small, pulverized debris. Walls, roofs, and structural members are splintered or shattered, with the building completely demolished. Debris is thrown great distances, possibly hundreds of feet. High-order damage is the result of rapid rates of pressure rise."

    See Firefighters for 9/11 Truth,

    http://firefightersfor911truth.org/

    WTC 7 and the Twin Towers seem to fit this description of explosive destruction.

  • Comment number 56.

    Frasay,

    NIST hardly have a need to protect their credibility by investigating claims that thermite was used as there is no reason to suspect it was. There is plenty of evidence pointing toward a collapse caused by fire and structural damage from debris from the main towers. Not to mention that to wire a building for demolition typically takes a matter of weeks or months and would be a procedure likely to be noticed by people working in the WTC.

    By your logic, NIST may as well investigate reports that the WTC was brought down by cruise missiles using holographic technology to disguise themselves as planes. Contrary to your assertation, it is in the interests of NIST's professional credibility not to pander to the absurd speculation of conspiracy theorists.

    You ask where I first heard about WTC7 collapsing. Funny story. I heard about it on 9/11 when various news agencies ran features on the toll of the day's events. Later, I became quite intimately familiar with the various concerns with official story of what had happened by watching Loose Change, and following sources from David Icke to Alex Jones. Like many people here, I suspect, I had a hard time wrapping my head around what had happened. On 9/10, I was politically apathetical, only aware of issues such as terrorism through pop culture like the Tom Clancy books and video games. I felt the response to 9/11 was wrong-headed and counter-productive, not the actions of the capable, qualified people we put into power. I became convinced there was more to this than I was being told and I bought into the truth movement wholesale. And then over the next few years I matured enough to look more even-handedly at both sides and ultimately, as you can see, I've come down on the side of the official theory.

    And here is, broadly, why. You say you've spent 7 years "researching" the WTC collapse. May I ask what else you have researched? What qualifications do you hold? Are you an expert in engineering, demolitions or architecture? How much of your research was conducted through the reading of web blogs and government reports, compared to say, your own, original research?

    The lack of a resounding outcry from the fields I've mentioned regarding the WTC collapse, as well as the failure of the truth movement to produce notable credible testimony from same, would suggest to me that maybe, just maybe, these professionals see nothing spurious about the collapse. Combine this with Popular Mechanics and NIST both producing plausable, compelling and probable explanations for the collapse and you have a situation where it is hard to take alternative theories as anything other than, generously, a very far outside possibility.

    To put a finer point on it, I would rather trust a report compiled by experts than the conjecture of people in the midst of a terrifying catastrophe. They may "think" they heard an "explosion", video footage may "look like" explosions or controlled demolition, but these are all subjective observations in mitigating circumstances and are not remotely conclusive. Their reliablity is further undermined by the failure of anyone to produce more reliable evidence of the use of explosives.

  • Comment number 57.

    Me personally? I'd like an independent comission to take each of the points that the conspiracy theorists take, and in turn prove them wrong. Like 100% quash each of them!

    The one I always remembered was the fact there was a video taken from a hotel of the plane hitting the pentagon, and the FBI arrived and confiscated it immediately after the plane hit. Now, 7 years after that event we still haven't gotten that footage back, even though it would quash so many of the conspiracy theories!

  • Comment number 58.

    North tower collapse.
    Looks riddled with explosives too me.
    But then again, I'm no scientist.

    http://www.livevideo.com/video/6D653044019A4672A097DC923E2782C1/9-11-north-tower-amateur-vide.aspx

  • Comment number 59.

    Why is the hole in the Pentagon so small, Why are so few windows smashed, Where are the engine holes and Where is the debris and WHERE IS ALL THE FOOTAGE CONFISCATED BY THE GOVERNMENT FROM NEARBY CCTV ?

    Why was one of the engines of Flight 93 found MILES away from the crash site ?

    ------------------

    The wing of the Pentagon hit by the plane had recently been reinforced against explosive damage. Contrary to your assertation, windows can be seen to have been broken in the area around the impact site, as can the areas where the engines impacted, but failed to penetrate, the outer wall. Most footage and imagery of the Pentagon following the attack shows an abundance of debris both on the Pentagon lawn and within the building itself.

    As for the engine of Flight 93, it is not uncommon in aircrashes for even reasonably large peices of debris to be violently ejected by both the force of impact and the convection caused by the intense fireball. Additionally, claims about the disribution of wreckage are heavily contested between various sources across both main and alternative media. It is entirely possibly that while pieces of the engine were found some distance away from the main crash site, an entire, intact engine was not.


    Hank Reardon, given that you are currently trying to establish the credibility of a theory and movement widely ridiculed as both immature and irrational, it would perhaps be more constructive if you refrained from using cheap tactics such as putting words in the mouths of those who disagree with you. No one here is saying that a "man in a cave" is soley responsible for 9/11. This is a gross misrepresentation of the official story and akin to claiming that the nuclear bombing of Japan must have been a freak meteor shower because "do you really believe a bunch of guys stood around a table in Washington were responsible for the annhilation of two cities all that way away in Japan? I guess you'll believe anything, heh." I've already outlined the large number of situations and actors in my earlier post which you curiously decline to respond to.

  • Comment number 60.

    "this doesn't explain why building 7 fell at speeds close to that of gravity"

    The speed of gravity.

    Another reason why these people should, generally speaking, be ignored. They repeat what they read without the slightest qualification or doubt - In fact, they approach the alt. media with precisely the same unthinking credulousness they are so quick to accuse the rest of us of having.

    ------------------------

    Exactly.

    Look at post 51:

    "Just think for yourselves, the ruling elite are using divide and rule tactics with this and if you don't use your own mind then they will have won and we will all be screwed."

    If you don't agree with me, then you are NOT THINKING HARD ENOUGH and TERRIBLE THINGS WILL HAPPEN TO ALL OF US QUICK YOU HAVE TO AGREE WITH ME OR THE BAD GUYS WIN CMON HURRY!

    Without wanting to resort to strawman arguments, the assertation that the mainstream media routinely uses fear to manipulate public perception of issues (a claim not entirely without substance) is a common refrain in the alternative media, and yet as we see here, common also is the usage of such fear tactics in the alternative media for exactly the same purpose.

  • Comment number 61.

    Sorry, forgot about Atta's passport being found within hours of the collapse at the wtc site ?

    That one's the most laughable - it must have been one of those new bomb-proof, fire-proof ones !

    Come on US govt, we are not all zipped up the back.

  • Comment number 62.


    I am sorry Skipjack, your telling me the official story does not involve the attacks of 9/11 being
    orchastrated by OBL from caves in afghanistan.

  • Comment number 63.

    @Peter_Sym @aerokes51 etc

    http://www.ae911truth.org/flashmov11.htm

    Seriously, watch it. I dare you.

    At the end of Mike's 9/11 documentaries, he starts to focus on the 9/11 families etc to win over your sympathy vote when that is in fact the exact opposite of the truth. Most of the 9/11 families want a new, full, independent investigation of 9/11.

    These are the same families, in particular the Jersey Girls, who had to campaign for 2 years to even get an official investigation because Bush stone walled any attempts whilst simultaneously, fundamentally changing the U.S. military strategy to one of pre-emptive war.

    Not to mention the initial, virtual media blackout on the estimated 50,000 9/11 heroes who are now coughing up blood and slowly dieing of cancer from breathing in the toxic clouds of asbestos that swept through New York. Many of these heroes are also calling for a new investigation.

  • Comment number 64.

    see

    http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main

    for the unbroken windows and lack of debris. There are other pictures and sites which also show this if you look. If the engines hit the pentagon, did they also 'bounce' miles away so they couldn't be found ?

    I also remember seing the picture of a fan blade from the alleged aircraft which was about half the size it should have been.

  • Comment number 65.

    I find Mr Rudin's complacency about building 7 and 9/11 in general disturbing.

    In any major building disaster, you carefully examine the debris to determine what caused the disaster. You do this first on site and then off site as needed. What you do NOT do is recycle the debris without examination, and then commence a half-decade speculation. The way WTC 7 debris was handled should be a central concern for the BBC.

    If ordinary fires (note that NIST now suddenly says debris damage and diesel had no role) can level a 47-storey steel structure in seconds to its foundations, companies specializing in the time-consuming and expensive activity of controlled demolition will have to start specializing in something else. Lighting an office fire on a few floors will do the trick just fine.

    As regards WTC 7 being the "final" mystery of 9/11, I beg to differ. I still haven't heard a credible answer to the following points, presented at the Finnish Social Forum last May in a seminar entitled "9/11: a terrorist attack by Arabs or a False-Flag Operation Familiar from History?":

    1) When everyone knew the country was under attack, President Bush was not carried into safety from his publicized location in the Sarasota school. [Of course, in a "real" attack the President would have been brought into an undisclosed safe location without delay. The White House's revisionist account was shown to be false by the footage shown in Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11", since then available on the net. After continuing to listen to the children's reading exercise for a good while, Bush continued his photo-op in the classroom, and then gave a press conference at the school.]

    2) Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld continued his breakfast meeting while the towers were burning and didn't do anything until the third target – the Pentagon – had been attacked. [Of course, in a "real" attack the defense secretary would have responded immediately to such a calamity.]

    3) The Pentagon was struck an hour and half after the attacks had started.

    4) The Andrews Air Force Base, where combat units were kept ”in the highest possible state of readiness”, was only 12 miles from the Pentagon.

    5) Three completely different explanations for the failure to reach any of the planes have been given. No one has been charged with lying, and no one has had to resign due to negligence. But when Matias Rust flew onto the Red Square with a small plane, heads rolled in the Soviet army.

    6) Even the FBI acknowledged in 2006 that it has "no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11". Yet Afghanistan was officially invaded in search of Osama, while Saddam was accused of complicity in the attacks in cooperation with Osama.

    7) Many professional pilots have said they could not have performed the required maneuvers. The alleged hijackers, in turn, had only flown small planes, and many poorly at that.

    8) Simultaneously with the attacks, an anti-hijacking exercise was going on.

    9) The Bush administration fought against the establishment of the 9/11 Commission for over 400 days, then manned it with its "trusted persons".

    10) WTC: the total destruction of three skyscrapers in seconds; the numerous (ignored) accounts of explosions; the near-total destruction of the steel debris without investigation.

    11) Qui bono? Who profited? The attacks provided the desired impetus for the military-industrial complex, triggered "a war that will not end in our lifetime" wherever desired, and legitimated increasingly Orwellian laws, a "national security state", repression of citizens' rights, illegal spying, Guantanamo, and torture.

    12) The anthrax letters posted soon after the 9/11 attacks. The bacteria used in the letters were traced to a U.S. military laboratory, after which the investigation came to a halt. Two Senators received a letter. They had delayed the passing of the 342-page Patriot Act legislation, written before the attacks but rushed through under the pretext of the attacks.

  • Comment number 66.

    # 38

    Those interested can get the facts for themselves:

    Google:

    MOSSAD + "Urban Moving Systems" + "Twin Towers" + "white van"

    In fact, there were three identified MOSSAD teams. The "Urban Moving Systems" was arrested and eventually repatriated to Israel

    and Israel apologized.

    It was all in the New York area newspapers and is still available, including a video of the MOSSAD team dancing and doing "high-fives" as the building came down.

    One lawyer spent several months tracing all three MOSSAD groups and supplied his information to all concerned.

    This is easily available public information.

    It is unfortunate, but typical, that an Israeli sympathizer would seek to denigrate such facts.

    If any decent and honest Americans are interested but have trouble finding the facts, speak up.

  • Comment number 67.

    http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Pentagon_debris for a large collection of images showing substantial amounts of debris at the Pentagon including many pieces that are clearly part of an aeroplane. The presence of some unbroken windows around the impact site is remarkable, but hardly a smoking gun given that that area had been hardened against bomb attacks sometime earlier. Additionally, there are a large number of witnesses, the majority of witnesses to the attack, in fact, who report seeing a passenger plane flying into the Pentagon. If Jennings' testimony is enough for the truth movement to conclude that there were bombs in WTC7 then surely the scores of witnesses to the impact of a plane at the Pentagon should put that question to rest also?

    Hank, I am not telling you that OBL was not responsible in some operational capacity for 9/11, a position which I think I made quite clear in my previous post, but I'll bite anyway. To spell it out for you, while OBL is partly responsible, he is not solely responsible. The organisation of Al-Qaeda carries the bulk of the responsibility from a legal standpoint, but in security and analytical terms, the attacks themselves came about at the intersection of a number of other actors and circumstances I have outlined earlier. My point is that to place blame squarely on one evil entity, be it a shadowy conspiracy or a swarthy group of freedom-hating terrorists, is a gross oversimplification of how the world really works and is aimed more at giving simple, reassuring answers to difficult questions than exploring the truth. Perhaps in this way I disagree with the "official story" just as much as I disagree with the alternatives put forward from other sources. In any case, to me it seems that a deep, broad understanding of the causes of 9/11 drawn from across the spectrum of international politics, security, economics and sociology will always been more robust, reliable and useful than the eager acceptance of simplistic hate figures.

  • Comment number 68.

    Can people please stop with the ludicrous defence that any inside job would have to involve hundreds, whereas the official conspiracy only involved 2 dozen.

    When bank robbers knock over a branch with the help of a cashier with a gambling problem, we don't assume that the managers and directors of the bank are up to their necks in it.

    9/11 anomalies are so thick on the ground that clues like the miraculous passport, the left behind baggage etc. have the appearance of a false trail.

    I'm still interested in the identified hijackers who turned up alive. The FBI has never changed its original list of perpetrators.

    The failure to launch a single fighter to defend the Pentagon still awaits coherent explanation.

    The involvement of the Pakistani ISI - original nursemaids of Taliban and al Qaeda is another aspect rarely aired.

    So far the BBC has only addressed the abysmal Loose Change conspiracy rubbish. They have failed completely to address the difficult questions.

  • Comment number 69.

    As to cui bono?

    The leader of the group told the police "the Palestinians did it".

    It was unfortunate that, although the MOSSAD groups had lots of information about what was going on, no useful info was communicated to the US authorities.

    They seemed to enjoy photographing the Towers coming down and danced, giving each other "high-fives"!

    Now, what do you suppose their purpose was?

    Google "Urban Moving Systems" (Weehauken, N.J.) and start finding out.

  • Comment number 70.

    For alternative media:

    Infowars.com

    911blogger.com

    ae911truth.org


    Google:

    911 thermite

    911 molten metal

    Operation Northwoods

    With just a little investigation you will find that the 911 Truth movement has extremely qualified individuals and the evidence is much more than compelling.

    I came to believe that 911 was a 'false flag' operation by our government about 6 months ago due to the evidence shown. This was mainly due to the molten metal flowing out of one of the towers, thermite (incendiary) samples found in several locations, and the video and photos of tons of molten metal found in the basements of all three collapsed buildings.

    As a conservative born-again Christian republican, I had to abandon my support for the current administration, the Iraq war, and the neocon agenda. Our government does not share my values or this would not have happened.





  • Comment number 71.

    Marcus Aurelius 11 wrote:
    'It is virtually certain that NIST got the correct answer. In all likelihood the fire was fed by diesel fuel from a storage tank which continued to pump. Once ignited when the critical air fuel mixture in the fumes came in contact with a source of ignition, the fuel continued to burn.'

    Your chums at NIST have totally discounted this. Why don't you dip into their final report for a few chuckles? They say the collapse wasn't caused by oil ignition nor by debris from other buildings - but purely by office fires which burn for around twenty to thirty minutes maximum. 'Thermal expansion' was the result. I'm surely many a science student will be scratching his/her head.

  • Comment number 72.

    So you now are saying you don't actually believe the official explanation. Your going to back it and attack anyone who questions it, even though you have issues with it yourself.

    well that makes sense

    As i say, we are only morally responsible to ourselves.

  • Comment number 73.

    Re#51: ".if there is no conspiracy then why did the BBC report that Building 7 collapsed a whole 20 minutes before it actually did?"

    They made a mistake. If "incompetence" and "conspiracy" both could provide the answer, vote "incompetence" every time.

    Particularly in this case, when the reporter reported the building had come down when it was on screen behind her... it makes her look stupid, rather than part of a conspiracy...

  • Comment number 74.

    #73
    I agree, it does her look very stupid, that is without a doubt and really doesn't need mentioned, however who gave her the information that it had collapsed and why had they not checked this information before going to air with it?

    You used the word conspiracy not me, but with what we know and what has occured you have to look at the overall big picture and ask questions and find the information out for yourself.

    Whatever happened on 9/11 it was wrong but to use it as a justification for war is also wrong - how can you ever bring peace by the barrel of a gun?

    Fear and hate have only ever brought more fear and hate.

    Just saying, keep an open mind and think for yourself - not like me because you're not me :)

    peace

  • Comment number 75.

    In 1998 29 people ( including children) were killed by a bomb in Omagh Northern Ireland.
    A Panorama program on 14 October 2008 revealed that the government monitoring facility at GCHQ Cheltenham had overheard the bomber's mobile phone calls preparing to and laying the bombs. The information they had could either have saved lives if acted upon at that time or aided the police in their investigations so that critical forensic evidence could have been used to convict these criminals - remember in the UK terrorism is a criminal offence not an act of war. This information was never passed on to the police . This has prevented any satisfactory investigation taking place . I find it totally implausible that the US monitoring facilities failed to notice anything amiss at the relevant time on September 11 ( I refuse to demean the victims of this act by referring to it merely as a number) and no action taken by the security forces . Strangely the culprits were already known by nightfall.

  • Comment number 76.

    What's interesting is that last year Richard Porter wrote in his blog, which you can find on this very site, the following with regard to the early reporting of building 7.

    'Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening.'


    this year we are told the following by Mike Rudin

    "It turns out that the respected news agency Reuters picked up an incorrect report and passed it on. They have issued this statement:

    "On 11 September 2001 Reuters incorrectly reported that one of the buildings at the New York World Trade Center, 7WTC, had collapsed before it actually did. The report was picked up from a local news story and was withdrawn as soon as it emerged that the building had not fallen."


    Mike seems to be implying that Reuters told the BBC. Richard says nobody told them.

    They can't both have been right can they?

    Just as the NIST report has been changed many times and every time is the only logical conclusion. I am sure the BBC will keep changing the story with regards to the early reporting and each and every one will be obviously what happened.

  • Comment number 77.

    It is very simple.
    1. Around 5:00 EST CNN in USA reported that WTC7 was collapsing or was going to collapse. Around 5:00 EST BBC mistakenly reported that WTC7 had collapsed. Of course the intended message of BBC's source was that the building was surely going to fall. Shortly after 5:00 EST CBS in USA announced that WTC7 would collapse soon and kept a camera on the building until it fell. Video from Der Tag can still be seen showing emergency workers warning people that WTC7 is going to collapse. A demolitions expert who was on scene has stated that his own analyst, also on scene, told authorities around 1:00 EST that WTC7 would collapse at about 5:00.
    2. NIST spent several years looking into more than one possible reason for WTC7's collapse. This means that the cause was unknown. NIST has found that the cause was an unprecedented, unpredictable phenomenon.

    (1) and (2) are contradictory. Both cannot be true. (1) is provably true. It is recorded that the collapse was predicted. The predictions were correct. Therefore, (2) cannot be true. Further, NIST's denial by omission of (1) is proof that NIST is lying.

  • Comment number 78.


    I never realised there were so many people with such empty lives that they decided to dedicate there time to proving the unprovable.

    Your preaching and attempts at conversion would make even the Christian church proud.

    Believe what you want, aliens, giants, whatever. Just spare us your preachy rubbish about what we should accept as the truth and keep it in your darkened room where you are obviously typing from.

    You know maybe you should get out more, enhance your life with productivity rather than filling the obviously massive void in your lives with pointless and wasted theories.

    The moon landing theorists, JFK theorists.... have they got anywhere after 40 years??

    No they haven't...... stop wasting your lives!!!

  • Comment number 79.

    I am on the fence about 9/11- the thing I find hardest to buy is all this molten steel under all 3 buildings- I means that just shouldnt be there under any scenario-

    Did the new NIST report explain this?

  • Comment number 80.

    I have no problem listening to conspiracy theories, weighing up the ideas discussed and coming to my own conclusion. The problem here is that people who believe in this theory are being lumped in with those that have genuine concerns about issues normally considered conspiracy theories, such as Bilderberg and The Trilateral Commission. In amongst the madness hides some deeper more worrying truth. If the WTC7 conspiracy has done it's made a lot of you dismissive of things you should be concerned about.

  • Comment number 81.

    Frasay,

    "NIST hardly have a need to protect their credibility by investigating claims that thermite was used as there is no reason to suspect it was. "

    Actually, Skipjack, as "experts"(your words later in your post), and considering the incredibly suspect nature of the collapse, and subsequent mass media coverup, it should have been NIST's duty to investigate and prove/disprove all claims. That's how science works. It seems like you missed the whole point of my last post.

    You say:
    "There is plenty of evidence pointing toward a collapse caused by fire and structural damage from debris from the main towers. "

    Since WTC7 was the first steel frame highrise to collapse from fire, there is actually no prior evidence to support your theory. None, until 9-11. Let's stick to the facts please.

    You say:
    "Not to mention that to wire a building for demolition typically takes a matter of weeks or months and would be a procedure likely to be noticed by people working in the WTC."

    I am fairly sure British soldiers wired large steel bridges over a matter of hours during wartime. It can be done. Regardless, you appear to believe fire melted one column, and a few floors, which lead to total collapse at near free fall speed, and then you switch to the official theory that a whole building would have had to be wired over weeks to initiate collapse? Which is it? A few hours, or weeks?

    You say:
    "By your logic, NIST may as well investigate reports that the WTC was brought down by cruise missiles using holographic technology to disguise themselves as planes. Contrary to your assertation, it is in the interests of NIST's professional credibility not to pander to the absurd speculation of conspiracy theorists."

    Please don't speak for me. I don't believe in holographs or ridiculous theories. But it is in the interests of everyone to get to the truth. Sure, they should have disproved everything. That was NIST's duty. Sadly, they failed in that duty, completely.

    You say:
    "You ask where I first heard about WTC7 collapsing. Funny story."
    I heard about it on 9/11 when various news agencies ran features on the toll of the day's events.

    What's "funny" about mass murder? People died, and are dying. Have some respect.

    You say:
    "Later, I became quite intimately familiar with the various concerns with official story of what had happened by watching Loose Change, and following sources from David Icke to Alex Jones."

    How curious that you mention 2 of the most radical commentators regarding 9-11. Icke comes across pretty badly, and while I think Jones heart is probably in the right place, neither of these guys speak for me.

    You say:
    "Like many people here, I suspect, I had a hard time wrapping my head around what had happened. On 9/10, I was politically apathetical, only aware of issues such as terrorism through pop culture like the Tom Clancy books and video games. I felt the response to 9/11 was wrong-headed and counter-productive, not the actions of the capable, qualified people we put into power. I became convinced there was more to this than I was being told and I bought into the truth movement wholesale. And then over the next few years I matured enough to look more even-handedly at both sides and ultimately, as you can see, I've come down on the side of the official theory."

    I'm not a test audience, and I don't bother with Clancy, and how you felt on 9/10 isn't relevant to this blog. Again, you words really make me wonder about your sincerity.

    You say:
    "And here is, broadly, why. You say you've spent 7 years "researching" the WTC collapse. May I ask what else you have researched? What qualifications do you hold?"

    No, you may not ask, because this is a confidential blog, but I am happy to debate you in person, any time you like. I am am academic, and am confident I would take you to the cleaners.

    You say:
    "...Combine this with Popular Mechanics and NIST both producing plausable, compelling and probable explanations..."

    Curious again, how you mention the Pop Mechanics article, co-written by Michael Chertoff, head of FEMA's cousin, Brian. Oh, and the official Government sponsored NIST report. Personally, I'll believe my own eyes, over a relative of "we dodged the bullit."

    You say:"
    To put a finer point on it, I would rather trust a report compiled by experts than the conjecture of people in the midst of a terrifying catastrophe. They may "think" they heard an "explosion", video footage may "look like" explosions or controlled demolition, but these are all subjective observations in mitigating circumstances and are not remotely conclusive. Their reliablity is further undermined by the failure of anyone to produce more reliable evidence of the use of explosives."

    Ok, so you think you know more then the fire fighters, and reporters, and victims on the scene. Can I ask where this arrogance comes from?
    Maybe you can answer my questions from my earlier post. Why did the media refuse to show us the collapse of WTC7 for over 5 years?

  • Comment number 82.

    NO YOU'RE ALL WRONG!
    It was the 8ft lizardmen fro outer space!
    Just ask David Icke.

    ;)

  • Comment number 83.

    I strongly suspect that some losely connected and barely identifiable group, to achieve their own despicable ends, is propounding multiple conspiracy theories.

  • Comment number 84.

    The commissioner of FDNY in Oct of 2001 commissioned the recording of personal testimonies of the firefighters and personnel involved in the events of the day. That record, known as the Oral Histories, collected over 500 statements. It contains 178 accounts by 118 eyewitnesses of explosions either seen, heard, or felt, some accounts including all three experiences. In many accounts the explosions were synchronous, and regular, in patterns. In several accounts three large explosions were heard just prior to the tower coming down. It is little wonder, the Guiliani administration immediately sequestered that record, not allowing it to be made public until 2005, and then only after a Freedom of Information Act request was agreed to.

    Whether it was WTC 1, WTC 2, or WTC 7, collapse by fire (never mind that NO steel framed building had ever completely collapsed due to fire before) would not produce symmetrical, sudden, complete failure in all three buildings. Nor would common office building fires result in molten iron running in the basements of all three buildings "like lava" for weeks after the event, as several firefighters, among many others, witnessed. The thermodynamics of office building fires has never produced that result.

    NIST explains the "fire induced" collapse of WTC 7 as due to a totally new concept... thermal expansion... and that phenomenon resulted in complete, symmetrical, sudden, free-fall collapse. Laws of physics have been re-written or ignored to achieve such an outcome.

    The Ny Ballot Initiative has collected over 30,000 signatures calling for a new independent, impartial investigation, with subpoena power, to re-evaluate the events of 9/11. Former Senator Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island is involved in the effort, as are other notables. The official conspiracy theory contains so many obvious contradictions, it is entirely reasonable and proper to question it.

    As it has jump-started the war policy of the largest military machine on the planet, resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths, Orwellian security measures, torture as official US policy, from a highly secretive, hyper-militarized, right-wing regime, it is absolutely necessary to understand what actually happened and whether ostensible incompetence in allowing the attacks to occur was in fact willful and deliberate. Such actions are certainly not without precedent by secretive, hyper-militarized, right-wing regimes of the past.

  • Comment number 85.

    Defenders of the official account of 9/11 would have you believe there are no credible critics of the official account. However, consider the following:

    - Raymond McGovern, PhD, former Chairman of the CIA's National Intelligence Estimates (NIE) and 27-year CIA veteran. "I think at simplest terms, there's a cover-up. The 9/11 Report is a joke."
    (According to the CIA, NIE's are "the most authoritative written judgments concerning national security issues")

    - William Christison, former Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis, overseeing 250 CIA analysts. 29-year CIA veteran. "I now think there is persuasive evidence that the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe. ... An airliner almost certainly did not hit The Pentagon. ... The North and South Towers of the World Trade Center almost certainly did not collapse and fall to earth because hijacked aircraft hit them."

    - Melvin Goodman, PhD, former Division Chief of the CIA's Office of Soviet Affairs and Senior Analyst from 1966 - 1990. "The final [9/11 Commission] report is ultimately a coverup. I don't know how else to describe it."

    - General Albert Stubblebine, former commanding general of U.S. Army Intelligence. 32-year U.S. Army veteran. "I look at the hole in the Pentagon and I look at the size of an airplane that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon. And I said,’The plane does not fit in that hole’. So what did hit the Pentagon? What hit it? Where is it? What's going on?"

    For decades, the U.S relied on these individuals to collect information essential to national security and provide critical analysis during which time the U.S. faced far more real and much more serious threats than anything today. We must not now ignore their stunning condemnation of the official account of 9/11.

    Information about 1,000 other credible critics of the official account of 9/11 is available at http://PatriotsQuestion911.com/

  • Comment number 86.

    Frasay, you are running in circles with your logic and beginning to slide toward making personal attacks by accusing me of being insincere, arrogant and lacking respect for the victims of 9/11. You will understand, then, if I only give you a brief response rather than indulge you with a point by point rebuttal.

    The premise you're working from, that NIST should have tested every possible way the towers were brought down, because "that's how science works" and the collapses were "suspect" is flawed. Firstly, yes, scientific research is based upon thorough and rigorous experimentation, but the NIST report isn't scientific research, it's an investigation, and thus works upon different standards and procedures. Secondly, the collapse is only "suspect" if you have already bought into the theory that there was subterfuge involved. From an objective investigation, looking at the facts as they present themselves there is only the question of a building collapse that has no immediately apparent cause. When investigating such a situation it is reasonable that focus will be diverted to likely causes. You say yourself that holographic cruise missiles are out of the question, so I assume you are not too concerned about their omission from the report.

    The wiring of a building for CONTROLLED demolition is very different from wiring a bridge for wartime demolitions.

    The fact you need to be informed of this despite having dedicated so many years to researching this issue is damaging to your position, as are the following sections of your post where you at first implore me not to "speak for you" and then take the phrase "Funny story" out of context to imply that I find the attacks funny. When I ask what professional qualifications you have to back up your research, you decline. While this is your right, again, it harms your position.

    Finally you accuse me of arrogance for preferring a careful investigation by qualified experts with access to the same materials as yourself and more, to the often confused and unreliable accounts of witnesses on the day. Even firemen can be wrong, as can reporters. The premature reports of the WTC7 collapse are a prime example of how chaotic communications and perceptions were on the day. I honestly cannot understand how you can genuinely, with a cool head, believe that this position is arrogance. I can only assume that this, like your eagerness to resort to personal attacks, is due to the fact that you are so devoted to your beliefs that you are unable to think clearly and critically about them. If this is so then there really is no reason for us to communicate further.

  • Comment number 87.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 88.

    and to 85, with regards to your list of "credible" critics, the name Albert Stubblebine immediately jumps out at me as one of the prominent figures behind the US Military's "Stargate" program, which featured, amongst other things, teams of soldiers staring at goats and dogs, attempting to use the power of their minds to stop their hearts from beating.

    Stubblebine himself is notorious for repeatedly startling his secretary with loud bumps as he repeatedly walked into the wall of his office. When asked what he was doing he explained he was trying to align his molecules in such a way as to allow them to pass through the gaps imbetween the molecules in the wall.

    I shit thee not, you can read all about in Jon Ronson's book "The Men Who Stare At Goats."

  • Comment number 89.

    and to 85, with regards to your list of "credible" critics, the name Albert Stubblebine immediately jumps out at me as one of the prominent figures behind the US Military's "Stargate" program, which featured, amongst other things, teams of soldiers staring at goats and dogs, attempting to use the power of their minds to stop their hearts from beating.

    Stubblebine himself is notorious for repeatedly startling his secretary with loud bumps as he repeatedly walked into the wall of his office. When asked what he was doing he explained he was trying to align his molecules in such a way as to allow them to pass through the gaps imbetween the molecules in the wall.

    I kid thee not, you can read all about in Jon Ronson's book "The Men Who Stare At Goats."

  • Comment number 90.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 91.

    zeitgeist

    http://movielab.tv/zeitgeist-the-movie,5709.html


    The rich and powerful have always manipulated the poor and ignorant, Always have, always will...

  • Comment number 92.

    Mike,

    What happened to your even handed approach?

    Even high school maths catches NIST red handed. They say it wasn't a free fall collapse. Plot a graph and you find a straight line of 9.8metre per second per second. That's free fall. (Or 32 feet per second per second if you still want to be imperial).

    QED

  • Comment number 93.

    #75 "Strangely the culprits were already known by nightfall."

    Not really. Each of the 4 planes were half empty. All 4 had 4 or 5 Arab men board as a group. Not hard to read the passenger lists and name the muslims. Premature perhaps to announce them but the prime suspects could have been identified within minutes.

    I LOVE the idea that the greatest false flag operation in history was announced to CNN and the BBC (which just adores Bush...) before the buildings collapsed! Especially as Ted Turners wife was one of the passengers killed that day. You guys need more or less drugs than you're on at present.

  • Comment number 94.

    The US took over 400 days to begin their charade of an investigation into the events of 911.

    Normally a murder case is opened immediately following the discovery of the event, but these 3000 murders were ignored for over a year.

    Normally when a plane crashes, the pieces are collected and carefully reassembled to learn exactly what happened, no matter what the cost, even if the plane crashes in the middle of the ocean.

    The budget for the 911 commission was 15 million dollars.

    The budget for the 911 memorial at the Pentagon, a bunch of concrete benches with little ponds of water underneath, was 22 million dollars.

    There have only ever been three steel framed buildings to collapse in the history of steel framed buildings, all three on the same day.

    The 911 attacks have been the excuse for the US foreign policy of premptive war.

    Appart from anything it has been the apathy of the US government to investigate the events, and their bringing forth of far fetched explanations which has resulted in people starting to investigate for themselves, and if you do start to look at the available facts, there is a lot of evidence that contradicts the official conspiracy theory.

    If the US government is so sure of their story, why haven't they offically charged Bin Laden, if you look on the FBI website, he is indeed most wanted, but there is no mention of 911, apparently the FBI don't have enough evidence to bring charges!

    Let's have an international panel of police experts and scientists from around the world conduct a non government sponsored investigation, and really find out, most of the 911 truthers want another investigation, if the official story is so sound and correct what do the "offical story freaks" have to worry about? Everything will check out and lead us back to Bin laden and the box cutters.

  • Comment number 95.

    Its funny that the things that probably were covered up seem to have been missed by the 'alt media' (whatever that is)

    I personally reckon that the plane that crashed in pennsylvania was shot down and that the shoot-down was 'covered up' to protect the poor fighter pilot from a zillion dollar lawsuit from the victims families. Presumably this is far too simple and not sinister enough for you guys though.

    Equally with JFK have you ever considered that the US government had proof castro and or the russians did it but reckoned revenge for one philandering president wasn't worth WW3 so didn't reveal what fully happened? Again the concept of government REALLY acting for the greater good escapes you.

  • Comment number 96.

    "If the US government is so sure of their story, why haven't they offically charged Bin Laden, if you look on the FBI website, he is indeed most wanted, but there is no mention of 911, apparently the FBI don't have enough evidence to bring charges!"

    There isn't any evidence at all that Hitler knew about the final solution. Why don't you argue a case for his innocence too?

  • Comment number 97.

    Skipjack,

    Yeah, I was at a party last night and wrote back to you a little hammered, sorry about my tone, and bizarre logic.
    You seem to still be ignoring a lot of evidence to make the official version fit.
    Barry Jennings was in WTC7 when explosions were throwing him around. This was before the twin towers fell.
    There are numerous video accounts of rescue workers saying WTC7 is about to come down, even though fire had never brought down a steel building.
    It clearly looks like all structural supports were taken out at the same time, to achieve such fast collapse. There is clearly almost zero resistance from the structure.
    Yes, it's different wiring a bridge to wiring a building, but not necessarially any easier to do without being noticed. My point was, some people are pretty good at covertly planting demolitions without being caught. It's disingenious to say someone would have noticed, because people did notice power downs, and removal of bomb sniffer dogs, and fine dust all over the building.
    The evidence is all there to support controlled demolition. European demolitions professional Danny Jowenko appears to agree that WTC7 is controlled demolition.
    Glad to hear you don't regard the NIST report as scientific. Neither do it. It's pretty flimsy.

  • Comment number 98.

    @ Peter Sym

    I didn't say he was innocent.

    I said lets have a proper investigation.

    Don't you think it strange that the FBI have never charged him? Wouldn't you expect that?

    And it's not me that says they don't have enough evidence, it was Robert Mueller head of the FBI who stated it.

    And how does Bin Laden compare to Hitler anyway, where did that come from?




  • Comment number 99.

    It really doesn't seem to matter which side of the arguement you fall on, I've talked to both sides extensively.

    Official line believers in general don't really want to ask the right questions about the hundreds of descrepencies that day and the 911 truth brigade won't believe a word the government or the BBC come out with at this point in time.

    So it seems we will all have to wait at least 30 years till declassified documents answer some of the more pertinent questions.

  • Comment number 100.

    I can understand that the official story wonks find their ego gets in the way when they are faced with the idea that they have been lied to.

    But when they start just making things up like

    "Ted Turners wife was in one of the planes"

    It all gets quite comical.

    Ted Turners wife was not in any plane and survived 9/11 without any problems.

    Some even go as far to say that they know they were lied to about 9/11 or have 'issues' with areas of the official story but still stick to their 'man in a cave' coincidence or complexity theory.

    Or they make up the most ridiculous counter arguments.

    "No evidence Hitler knew about the final solution" or "albert stubblemine made men stare at goats"

    what these have to do with 9/11 I have not a clue, but you are all coming across a bit desperate if this is your argument against a new investigation.

 

Page 1 of 4

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.