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

Impossible conspiracies

Mike Rudin Mike Rudin | 15:27 UK time, Tuesday, 8 July 2008

President Bush's chief counter-terrorism adviser on 9/11, Richard Clarke, told The Conspiracy Files that there are two key reasons he thought the conspiracy theories about 9/11 are not possible - first competency, the alternative theories suggested are hugely complex and would have required a huge number of people; secondly, the difficulty of keeping secrets.

World Trade Center site.The more high profile and outrageous the act the more difficult to keep it secret. Richard Clarke added that in all the 30 years he'd had top level intelligence clearance nearly all the key secrets he'd seen had become public.

The former counter-terrorism adviser is adamant that the theories that a third tower, called World Trade Center Building 7, was brought down by a controlled demolition is not possible:

"Hundreds of people thousands of people would have had to have been involved and know about it and it most surely would have leaked out."

One of the comments on the blog raised the Iran Contra conspiracy as evidence that in fact you don't need hundreds or thousands of people to carry out a very complex conspiracy. Iran Contra is a good example because it shows clearly that conspiracies do happen. They can be complex.

But the Iran Contra conspiracy was exposed. And what's more, as it went on it necessarily began to drag in more and more people.

Richard Clarke also made the point that any conspiracy on 9/11 would have been unbelievably risky for Bush or Cheney:

"The risk to them would be personally, that they would go to jail for the rest of their lives. That they would have their name blackened throughout history, and that their political party would be destroyed. Everything that they had ever worked for their party for their family, for themselves, would be utterly smashed."

Other comments have suggested that it is wrong to mention that critics have suggested that the BBC and other sections of the media were allegedly involved in a conspiracy. If you read the many comments on this blog it is clear that people are suggesting just that.

Yet once again those suggestions draw in hundreds and thousands more people. Every time more people are drawn in it makes the chances of keeping anything secret even more difficult.

The long awaited final report on Tower 7 at the World Trade Center is due later this month and the American government hopes it will provide the answers to the questions that have been raised about that building.

This is likely to be the government's last word on 9/11. Those who continue to question the official explanation have still to set out what exactly the grand conspiracy was, how it was carried out, who carried it out and why they would do so.

The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Third Tower repeated on Tuesday 8 July at 2320 BST BBC Two

Comments

Page 1 of 3

  • Comment number 1.

    I love the tautology, he says

    "... it most surely would have leaked out."

    and then says that for THIS reason all the conspiracy theories can't be true.

    So it's a leak if it's leaked and acknowledged and a conspiracy theory if it leaks and isn't...

  • Comment number 2.

    Mike

    Great programme...I thought that it captured the key concerns of both sides of the debate. I am an anti-conspiracist, for all the reasons that you outline above, so I am probably pleased that reason seemed to get the better of the argument on the programme. Conversely, I can imagine that the "truthers" are less pleased with the outcome and I can imagine that this blog will be filled with pedantic rebuttals of just about everything, plus the usual array of "physicists" spouting forth on the immutable laws of physics and free-falling buildings. Based on previous experience I imagine that the attacks will be ugly and personal.

    There seems to be a plausible explanantion for most things. The nature of the collapse still seems strange, but the demolition of the building on the day could hardly have gone unnoticed and the "pre-positioning" of explosives well in advance doesn't square with either the difficulty of placing the charges undetected or the shelf-life of the explosives themselves.

    As with previous blogs on this subject and with your notes above, I find it inconceiveable that such a monstrous conspiracy could have a) existed and b) been executed undetected and remained secret for seven years. As one of the contributors on the programme pointed out...Truthers live on flagging up numerous anomalies in personal accounts, the behaviour of individuals and officials without ever thinking of all the natural human foibles that create such anomalies. The fact that there are anomalies at all is taken as prima-facie evidence of conspiracy, without any further thought on the motives, the execution and the beneficiaries of such a plot. The only motives advanced revolve around very dumb manipulations of foreign policy, or the existence of a "political elite" cashing in on increaed oil prices, in the touching belief that even if such a thing existed that it would be in some way homogeneous enough to pull this off.

    It may just be the editing but I think that it was telling that the Truther-in-Chief was reduced to swearing at the end and deployed the the Emperor's Clothes defence. "If you can't see it then you must just be stupid!"

  • Comment number 3.

    Dear Sir,

    Your quote 'Those who continue to question the official explanation have still to set out what exactly the grand conspiracy was' is I'm afraid total nonsense. Whilst I admit there are a few nutty ideas out there, the general consensus of conspiracy theorists has been very clearly and publically defined in various blogs, books and films - namely that 9/11 served to justify a war in the middle east to secure oil amongst other things along with a raft of political and global changes that had been mooted by the Bush administration in the previous months and years. There is literally libraries worth of information documenting this as well as many other aspects of the conspiracy theorists agendas.

    I was a bit saddened by the programme to see that many new facts which have come to light recently surrounding 9/11 were summarily dismissed and made a mockery of or went totally unreported. I've already seen footage of dozens of eye witness testimonies to explosions taking place in the basement, lobby, subway and ground floor elevators of the twin towers before and after the planes hit yet the BBC didnt seem to be interested in this despite it now being well documented, - nor in reminding the world that the BBC itself reported in late September 2001 that 6 of the hijackers had been found alive and well leading normal lives.

    This was not investigative reporting but an agenda driven piece of tabloid journalism. Some of the things you reported simply raised more questions such as 'how come United 93 - a very large plane packed with fuel and travelling at hundreds of miles an hour managed to crash creating a very small shallow crater with no visible debris, no smoke or fire damage to the surrounding grass (except a couple of treetops in the background), completely vapourisng everyone and everything on board except remarkably leaving intact one of the hijackers passports, unsinged bandana and various other significant documents? I've already seen footage and evidence in other programmes of the extensive debris field miles away including live on the spot reports on the day despite your programme saying this was nonsense.

    I'd love to hear back from you on these points if you have the time.

  • Comment number 4.

    Mike,
    It is a fact that the mainstream media covered up the collapse of WTC building 7 for over 5 years, refusing to show video of the collapse on television, or websites, since the day it happened. Everyone knows this to be true.

    Why were you and your coworkers unable to broadcast this major event? Is it because you too thought it looked like a controlled demolition, and indeed are complicit in the coverup? Or was there an order from government/military preventing you from doing your jobs, (which became a pointless order due to the more noble work of bloggers and websites exposing for the evidence about WTC7).
    Dylblack is correct above. Credible theories are clearly laid out in books like Crossing the Rubicon, and PNAC documents, and in movies like Press for Truth, and 9-11 Mysteries.

    Sadly, I see the BBC as little more than a propaganda station.

    The fact that you slant your programs to support the official story, and carefully edit segments to detract from alternate theories, or only show partial facts, shows just how aware you really are of the facts, and the problems with the official account about 9-11.

    I would like to hear your answer on why mainstream media channels were unable to show us video footage of building 7 collapsing until so recently.

  • Comment number 5.

    You write: "Those who continue to question the official explanation have still to set out what exactly the grand conspiracy was, how it was carried out, who carried it out and why they would do so."

    WHY? part 1
    Foreign policy changes were badly needed (secure energy supplies, increase military spending, secure the petrodollar cycle, etc). But these changes would take a long time, "...absent of a new Pearl Harbour".

    WHY? part 2
    Get the public opinion to support an invasion and vast spending on military.

    HOW?
    You don't need thousands of people to be in the know for a consipracy, even a vast one. It's called compartementalisation. People only need to know what they need to know and never get a glimpse at the full picture. Only a few truly know what's going on.

    WHO?
    Neo conservatives who believe that the end justify the means.

    But instead of trying to debunk 9/11 conspiracy theories, why not focus on the hard questions that remain unanswered?

    Even you can hardly deny the ommissions in all official explanations like:
    - the thermate residues,
    - the eye witnesses ("...boom boom boom"),
    - mother nature (free fall speed collapse),
    - buildings that collapse in their own footprint without controlled demolition,
    - lack of scientific research of the crime scene, - etc. etc etc.

    I don't need to be a conspiracy theorist to know that the official story is covering something up. But what? That's the question you should be interested in as a journalist...

  • Comment number 6.

    I would agree with Richard Clarke. You could not keep such a large operation secret. Noam Chomsky, one of the most vocal critics of US policy, concurs with this.


    That's not to say that the US government hasn't considered smaller scale false flag operations in the past. Operation Northwoods is a good example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

    Northwoods was a plan to stage terrorist attacks in the US and blame it on Cuba as a justification for war. It was declassified in 2001. Fortunately for the US government, such damning documents are rarely discussed by the mainstream media.

  • Comment number 7.

    Your documentary actually started out very balanced and you listed most of the important facts. By the end however, it completely fell apart. You played the sympathy card basically saying that all these conspiracy theories are hurting people who lost friends and family on 9/11. What you failed to mention was that most of the 9/11 families want a new investigation. They believe that the government has lied to them.

    How about next time you do a documentary on 9/11 you interview some people from the Feal Good Foundation (http://www.fealgoodfoundation.com/%29, the 50,000+ 9/11 heroes who are dieing RIGHT NOW from breathing in the toxic dust from the twin towers. The White House LIED and told them that the air was safe to breathe. Many of these heroes only have months to live and spend their days coughing up blood without any health care, benefits or compensation.

    As for Building 7, it cannot be fire.

    "The downward acceleration of the roof was very close to free fall right from the start, 30 feet per second per second, and continued at that rate until out of sight. There is no hint of a slow start. This tells us that the steel supports went from adequate strength to virtually no strength in an instant. For reasons stated above this is absolutely impossible if the loss of strength is due to the application of heat."

    Read the full 2 page article here: http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/f/LeggeLastTry4.pdf

    You failed to cover the facts in this article in your documentary.

  • Comment number 8.

    Mike,

    I am sure you have noticed that you and richard porter contradict each other, You say the reporting of WTC7 was due to a result of a Press release by reuters, You even went as far as to show us the e-mail.

    but Richard Porter has already told us that this information that what was broadcast on 9/11 came from no such source.

    So you say reuters told you about Early collapse and richard says nobody told you.

    Both of you say you have extensivly researched this early reporting anomoly and both of you you give different reasons.

    Now only one can be the truth.

    So are you lying, is Richard lying, what's going on?

    The incompetence is comical

  • Comment number 9.

    In the dear dead days of long ago, the beloved Beeb stood tall for truth in the matter of David Kelly and Andrew Gilligan.

    Then it got its lovely head handed to it, and lost Greg Dyke (PBUH).

    Now, it is much more obedient. Have you noticed?

  • Comment number 10.

    Mr Rudin, you state “Those who continue to question the official explanation have still to set out what exactly the grand conspiracy was, how it was carried out, who carried it out and why they would do so.”

    Actually, no they don’t. As I said on another posting of yours, if a man is imprisoned for murder, and I held evidence that it just could not have been him who committed the act, would the police say to me “Before we release him we want to know how it was carried out, who carried it out and why they would do so.” It would not be my job to do the investigation for the police. They police would have to either continue with their investigation or reopen it. And this is why your statement is so wrong.

    The official conspiracy theory has been shown, by a mass of forensic, witness testimonial, photographic and video evidence (despite the comments by those who cling to its myth) to be completely riddled with holes and inconsistencies. And it is for this reason why a new, independent, non-political, thorough and far reaching criminal investigation should be carried out. Remember, the largest crime of the century has never be properly investigated.

    This is what people like me (belittlingly referred to as a truther), together with the families of the victims of 911 are calling for. If it was two little girls murdered in cold blood, and the police were refusing to investigate who killed them, I would guarantee that every employee in the mainstream media, including you, would be baying for that criminal investigation.

    And whether or not you feel it will be the American Government’s last word shortly, it will most certainly not be the last word of the many millions of people around the world who are questioning the official conspiracy theory. Remember, that same war mongering Government (together with Blair and others this side of the Atlantic) lied to the world about Iraq’s links with Al Qaeda and WMDs to get the population to back them with their illegal invasions of natgions, their oil wars and the murder of over one million innocent Iraqi civilians.

    Thank God that Galileo stuck with his arguments that the earth was round, rather than listen to the unquestioning masses.

  • Comment number 11.

    You know what the true conspiracy is? That we all know 9/11 was used as an excuse to start a horrible chain of events and yet keep on living our lives as if nothing changed.

    We can comfort ourselves by thinking that "they" did it. The faceless bankers and international puppeteers that benefit of war and the geopolitical chess game that followed.

    But make no mistake. We über-consumers are just as complicit. Poor countries need to stay poor if we want to keep our privileged way of life, right? We are entitled to a disproportionate amount of natural resources, right? Survival of the fittest.

    We refuse to look in the mirror and point the finger to ourselves. We don't hold our leaders responsible for what they have done, simply because we don't want to know.

    Instead we allow them to continue the propaganda, the wars, the neglect of human rights and the rape of mother earth.

    Everything is allowed to keep us in our bubble.

    But ultimately that bubble will pop. And the ones who will hold us accountable are not the peoples of third world countries we raped, killed and enslaved.

    It will be our own children.

  • Comment number 12.

    Anglophone #2

    I fully agree with your excellent post rebutting the so called "truthers".

    As you said "There seems to be a plausible explanantion for most things. The nature of the collapse still seems strange, but the demolition of the building on the day could hardly have gone unnoticed and the "pre-positioning" of explosives well in advance doesn't square with either the difficulty of placing the charges undetected or the shelf-life of the explosives themselves".

    I would have also added the impossibility of setting off the explosives (which the truthers claim were used) once the building was severely damaged and on fire. The so called explosives would have been damaged or destroyed as well as the means of setting them off.

    Another fact completely ignored by the truthers is that their theory depends on the certainty that WTC7 would have been seriously damaged by the attacks on the twin towers, so allowing the controlled explosion they claim to have happened to bring the building down.

    I thought the evidence of the demolition expert compelling. Wiring up a building for a controlled explosion is an extremely complicated and time consuming business, and clear evidence would remain. The theories put forward by the truthers completely lacked any credibility and were farcical.

    The pictures of controlled explosions showed on the film were not like the collapse of WTC7. We saw the explosive charges go off and the buildings collapsed in a ripple or wave motion which was visible on the top floors. However WTC7 went straight down, immediately after the penthouse collapsed, and the building collapsed just like both the twin towers.

    Another piece of compelling evidence against the truthers was the extensive structural damage to another smaller building in the area that has been severely damaged and burnt following the attacks. They showed one in which large numbers of the supporting beams had collapsed leaving a gaping hole. They did not expect to see that.

    Grakkor in his posting claimed
    "The downward acceleration of the roof was very close to free fall right from the start, 30 feet per second per second, and continued at that rate until out of sight. There is no hint of a slow start. This tells us that the steel supports went from adequate strength to virtually no strength in an instant. For reasons stated above this is absolutely impossible if the loss of strength is due to the application of heat."

    And yet of course both the Twin Towers collapsed in that manner.... Are the truthers also claiming that were also wired for demolition?

    The Twin Towers went down like a pack of cards because the steel supports were so damaged and weakened by the fire that they could no longer support the weight of the building above them. Once that stage is reached collapse is very sudden. The second tower to be hit collapsed first because it was hit lower down.

    If the truthers want the truth they should consider the obvious. WTC7 was severely damaged and burnt uncontrolled for many hours before collapsing.

    The answer undoubtedly lies in the way it was constructed, the strength of the foundations and the strength of the building. These factors resulted in it not being able to cope with the extensive damage from the fires and from the collapse of the twin tower.

  • Comment number 13.

    Dear Mike,

    By now, you must know an awful lot about 9/11 - I for one have sent information to you in good faith, and you are very clever. I am very sorry to say that I do not believe that the piece you have written above could possibly represent your true views on this subject. You seem altogether too anxious to draw a line under 9/11, when, as you must know, it would all ring truer if you were to call for the proper investigation which is obviously required. And, you argue disingenuously. Why? The American government (as you refer to it) is not to be trusted, and you know it. So, why do you go out of your way to defend it?

    Anyway, the truth will eventually come out, and then the search will start for collaborators.

  • Comment number 14.

    Mike

    I'd like to answer your points about "the large numbers of people who would need to be involved etc..."

    In the case of Princess Diana's tragic death it was suggested how difficult it would have been to orchestrate a car crash. I subscribe to that point. However, what if there was a plot, and this "accident" simply made it possible for the "forces of darkness" to do their bidding?

    Hence in the case of 9/11 what was the conspiracy? Was it to engineer a situation where the USA could invade Iraq? Taken at face value there were many possibilities, some based of the actions of Saddam Hussein, some based on his neighbours, and a whole heap that could be engineered via US insurgency.

    So your program, in attempting to pick through the detail, actually neatly misses the point. Who was behind 9/11 and what is the evidence upon which the "facts" are based. I am not convinced by anything I have seen from official sources, not because it is outrageous, but simply because I have learned that you cannot trust the US administration. People who work for governments are increasingly pressured under threat of their jobs, to do what they are told and nobody appears to know where the orders originate from and part of the dumbing down process has been to fix promotion to people who are mindless enough to carry out dishonest orders. This happens right now in the UK. Now every person who has a guilty secret is under pressure not to admit to their guilt and they rely on their seniors for protection. In such an atmosphere how long is it before the truth comes out.

    The BBC has covered many tragic events from our distant past and found our press and media coverage to have been less than honest at the time in several cases. So why should 9/11 be any different?

  • Comment number 15.

    Hello all,
    On the 26/11/2007 I asked under the Freedom of Information Act copies of all broadcasts world wide etc for 911 to be supplied to me I was denied by some unofficial regulatory body that I could not get them and sent me a huge PDF FILE as to the reason I could not as a British taxpayer was not receive such information.Tonight

  • Comment number 16.

    So Richard Clarke says that keeping secrets are difficult...

    Fair enough, but not for an authoritarian governement. The easiest way for them to keep a secret is for them to 'bump off' those who have factual knowledge of the event. The rest can then be debunked and ridiculed.

    Governments, politicians, and those involved with both cannot be trusted. We know this. They are simply looking after their own interests. Information or reports will be 'leaked' if it is convenient and helpful for them to do so, if it isn't, then you'll never find the real truth.

  • Comment number 17.

    The 'engineers' and 'scientists' in the programme of providing TV evidence, seem not to have taken into account the effects of the ground shockwave that occurred with the falling of the previous towers.

    That would be equivalent to a blast at ground or even basement level.

    A controlled explosion starts from shockwaves at ground or foundation level and then one sees the usual vertical collapse. Odd they missed this in their calculations?

    *shrugs*.. immense expense and nothing will come of it.

    MOVE AHEAD... NOTHING IS GOING TO HAPPEN NOW.... JUST GET BIN LADEN AND PUNISH HIM BIG!

  • Comment number 18.

    Mike, you cite Richard Clark's testimony of the two key reasons that go against the idea of a 9/11 conspiracy theory, as:

    (a) COMPETENCY, the alternative theories suggested are hugely complex and would have required a huge number of people;

    (b) SECRETS, the difficulty of keeping them.

    I agree that both of those work heavily against the idea of a conspiracy involving controlled demolition which - let's face it - is suspected or believed by many within the Truth movement, and many who have and will comment here.

    However not everyone with an uneasy feeling about what really happened that day necessarily signs up to such theories.

    You (and he) are presumably aware that both of those reasons cited above are largely negated if we consider the possibility that the level of insider involvement was restricted to conceiving and funding the plan. Essentially we may then just be talking about spooks, whether a division of the CIA* or the ISI - and the possibly murky roots and alliances of al Qaeda. Being party to such a plan would have carried considerably less risk given the far far smaller chance of incriminating evidence turning up, not to mention the benefit of extra distance between the originators and the White House.

    ( *It's interesting that people have little problem entertaining the idea that the KGB/FSB or ISI could plot such things - but 'our side'? Gosh, that's taboo isn't it?)

    The execution of the plan is then watertight, carried out as per the official story. BBC/Reuters foreknowledge, the sound of explosives, the Pentagon hole, thermite, the argument about free fall speed, and all the rest - red herrings, either deliberate, or incidental.

    As someone correctly pointed out elsewhere, possibility does not equal plausibility, so is there really any reason to speculate about such a thing in the first place, even just the planning? I'd say - yes, given (a) the case of Omar Saeed Sheikh, (b) the stock market transactions shortly before 9/11, (c) the bizarre stand-down orders, and (d) the larger picture of the aggressive foreign policy that 9/11 enabled America to initiate that it simply wouldn't have been able to without 9/11. As we are constantly reminded, "everything changed on 9/11".

    None of those are necessarily incriminating individually, not every suspicion leads to proof. But taken together, I'd say they present a compelling reason to at least investigate further.

    So while I'm reasonably satisfied that the theories of controlled demolition are false, and while I realise that will annoy many people here who cling to it as fact (sorry, "FACT!" ;) ), I do think that the very idea of it having been an insider job is still not something that can be or should be ruled out entirely.

  • Comment number 19.

    Hi there, i think one point that people miss is that for big organisations to side with the conspiracy theorists is not an easy thing to do. It is tantamount to declaring war on the US government.

    That is why I feel any documentaries cannot be truely unbiased because fear, i think , would play a big factor. But if you are just an individual its not big deal so its easier to investigate it and say what you like.

    For those who support the official line. I am not sure why they would be so adamant unless they have good evidence to support their views. But most if not all the evidence i have seen in my research so far points to the official line being wrong.

    But here again it is hard to accept for an american that his or her own government is happy to kill them. So its the last thing one would want to accept or believe. That is why there would be a lot of resistance in accepting the conspiracy theory and one would not normally accept it until they have really researched around. But if they do reach that point and accept it, it would be like a new awakening , a new dawning , that would make the individual view life in a different way from all before.

    This i think is the psychology of it and it is important to know as it plays a role in when a person believes in such a theory and also how big organisations would take to it.

    My view is that the issues addressed here are significant and very serious. And so if one cares about whether the conspiracy theory is true or not, they should devote time to research it rather than just keep hoping that it would be found to be false.
    We owe this to the innocents who have died because of these events.

    Best regards

  • Comment number 20.

    Re: busby2

    Did you actually read the 2 page document I linked to? Here's the link again.

    http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/f/LeggeLastTry4.pdf

    And here's some of the important information from it, although I strongly recommend that you read the full 2 page document.

    "This argument depends on an understanding of the behaviour of steel. Ordinary fires cannot raise the temperature of steel anywhere near its melting point, which is well above white heat, but can certainly cause it to lose strength."

    "If a source of heat is applied to steel it increases in temperature slowly and loses strength slowly. It does not pass from strong to weak in an instant or at a particular temperature, provided the temperature remains below the melting point."

    "The downward acceleration of the roof was very close to free fall right from the start, 30 feet per second per second, and continued at that rate until out of sight. There is no hint of a slow start. This tells us that the steel supports went from adequate strength to virtually no strength in an instant. For reasons stated above this is absolutely impossible if the loss of strength is due to the application of heat."

    When faced with proof that fires cannot explain how WTC7 collapsed at free fall speed right from the start, you immediately switched the argument to the collapse of the twin towers. When you do return WTC7 you fail to explain how it collapsed at free fall speed and simply restate the official story. You side stepped the hard science rather than attempting to debunk it. Nice try.

    You also said: "Another piece of compelling evidence against the truthers was the extensive structural damage to another smaller building in the area that has been severely damaged and burnt following the attacks. They showed one in which large numbers of the supporting beams had collapsed leaving a gaping hole. They did not expect to see that."

    The building to which you are referring is presumably Building 6, which sat between the north tower and WTC7. It took massive damage when the north tower collapsed and it appears fires raged throughout the building. Despite this WTC6 still did not collapse and had to be destroyed in a controlled demolition during the clean up of ground zero.

    The official story has many, many holes, but only one bit needs to be proven wrong and the whole story falls apart. Then we'll hopefully get a new, full, independent investigation.

    There's also lots more information here: http://www.journalof911studies.com/

  • Comment number 21.

    I think people need to understand that it is not arrogance or ignorance which prevents Mike Rubin and many others dealing with 9/11 in a rational way, but rather natural psychological mechanisms that are both understandable and predictable.

    Rubin has now heard a number of scientist tell him that that is impossible - impossible - for local fires to have caused all the columns to fail at the same time; the offical explanation is in direct contradiction to the known laws of nature which those scientists are experienced in dealing with.

    However, he cannot accept this and, instead, favours Richard Clarke's two point rebutal - neither of which address the substantive issue: the physical evidence.

    Yes, Rudin may be a clever man - but I know many clever Christians who refuse to acknowledge the weight of evolutionary theory as doing so would simply jeapordise too much of what they value in life and possibly lead them into some form of crisis.

    Analogously, Rudin is like the priest who brings finds himself defending the theory of evolution because at some level he cannot bring himself to abandon his faith; realising that the world of science and reason offers no comfort to him, he seeks solice by turning to the very institutions which really on such faith: Cardinal Richard Clarke has the answers, he can dismiss the scientists, he can let Rudin get back to his sermonizing.

    In Rudin's case his faith is in the ultimate benevolence of The State and he is not alone in this: faith in The State is the theism of our time.

    Like others working in the mainsteam media, Rudin will be endowed with a stronger faith than many of us for two good reasons: 1. It legitimises what he does, and 2. he would not have got to be where he was are were they not so endowed (that is not a 'conspiracy' its a structural analysis; the BBC doesn't seem to employ many self-confessed anarchists)

    Rubin isn't bad, he is just impervious to reason. Getting frustrated with him (or anyone else) because of this is unhealthy, counter-productive, and, ultimately, a distraction from the much more important task of informing other people (for whom reality is not such an Rubicon) about the questions of 9/11.

  • Comment number 22.

    haha - just realised I called Rudin 'Rubin' twice above - must be because I was thinking about that psychological Rubi-con of his!

  • Comment number 23.

    Two very obvious facts were totally ignored by teh BBC in this programme - namely the temperature of the fire and the melting point of steel.

    The simple facts of temperatures:

    * 1535ºC - melting point of iron
    * 1510ºC - melting point of typical structural steel
    * 825ºC - maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires burning in the atmosphere without pressurization or pre-heating (premixed fuel and air - blue flame)

    Diffuse flames burn far cooler.
    Oxygen-starved diffuse flames are cooler yet.

    Go figure. What happened to the missing 700 degrees of heat sufficient to melt steel?


  • Comment number 24.

    One reason for the conspiracy theories is that it is all just too convenient for the US NeoCons. For example, it came out that prior to 9/11, shortly after Bush coming to power, the US oil company executives had a meeting with the US Government to discuss the break up of Iraqi oil. At the time they did not have the Iraqi oil and they needed a justification to go get it.

    Then there is the fact that they lie to us. For example, Bush and Blair stood up and cited the Woodgreen Ricin plot as an example of terrorism active in the UK. However, when they stood up and said this, they must have surely have know that absolutely no trace of ricin was found in the flat. Furthermore, the President and Prime Minister should also have know that the tip-off came from someone who was tortured.

    Then there are Saddam's famous WMDs. The only "evidence" for this was a single-source, "Curveball", an Iraqi defector that was paid for his story. Again, they knew this, but they still stood up and used it as justification for war.

    The government loves to harp on about top secret information of the terrorist threat, but were it not top secret, we could scrutinise it, and my guess is that it would be found equally lacking in credibility.

    In summary, the US and UK governments, lie to us and deceive us. Therefore, when events happen that are convenient for their NeoCon agenda, we naturally suspect that there is more to it than meets the eye.

  • Comment number 25.

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

  • Comment number 26.

    24 Simonmw3

    I'm surprised that you have the minutes of a meeting held between US oil companies and the incoming administration. Sounds like a very poor conspiracy to me...after all, the oilco execs and neocons are supposed to put together the most complicated false-flag operation in history...then give you access to the minutes of commercially confidential discussions.

    I have no doubt in my mind that the UK government "upped" the public mood as a means of gaining support for intervention in Iraq...a few tanks outside Heathrow does wonders. But are you suggesting that the Woodgreen ricin "plot" was false? The police found the production equipment and the necessary castor beans. If it was bogus, surely they would have "found" some ricin too! You might have to implicate the HSE Executive in the plot to explain that one.

    Are you suggesting Saddam had no WMD? If you are proposing that by 2003 these had been secretly destroyed then I would agree. The fact that he fooled numerous intelligence agencies around the world points to the fallible nature of intelligence and to what Hans Blik described as "it being cheaper to buy a sign saying Beware of the Dog! than it is to actually buy and keep a dog". But your post seems to suggest that Saddam never had any interests in nuclear, biological or chemical weapons? Try telling that to the Iranians or the Kurds!

    Altogether though it remains (to me)inconceiveable that anyone would, or could put this together and expect it to remain secret. As I have mentioned before, given the trillions of dollars spent, the economic damage done by spiralling oil prices, the loss of life and above all, the very public demonstration of the limits of US power, it has to rank as one of the least succesful conspiracies of all time!

  • Comment number 27.

    why are posts on this board pre-moderated?

    "Pre-moderation - every single message is checked before it appears on the board. All of the BBC's children's message boards are supervised in this way. "

  • Comment number 28.

    in the end the balance of evidence both supports the demolition theory and counts against the fire theory. Although it is clear the BBC attempted at the end to put a pro fire spin on its documentary, it is interesting to note that by the numbers, the film actually supports the demolition theory! "Overall this film was much better than the BBC’s first film, which was completely laden with straw men, personal attacks, and charged emotions. Unfortunately, this film also suffers from this disease in parts, and the filmmakers appear to try to magnify its effect. Overall the film is educational for those who have not seen the evidence on WTC7, although the clear bias is designed to assuage the average viewer’s curiosity and imply that the mystery is solved. What is clear though is this: When viewed on the balance of evidence, the logical hypothesis is that WTC7 did not collapse due to fire, and that it is likely, just like the 9/11 attacks themselves, that the hand of man was actively involved."

    http://www.infowars.com/?p=3209

  • Comment number 29.

    Anglophone wrote "Altogether though it remains (to me)inconceiveable that anyone would, or could put this together and expect it to remain secret. As I have mentioned before, given the trillions of dollars spent, the economic damage done by spiralling oil prices, the loss of life and above all, the very public demonstration of the limits of US power, it has to rank as one of the least succesful conspiracies of all time!"

    Your completely correct. It hasn't remained secret and is the most widely believed "conspiracy theory" ever , thus making it the least successful. I think you'll find the banks, the oil companies, the arms contractors and the building contractors are making a complete mint off this situation. Isn't it funny that they are the exact same people who give the largest shares of capital to the political parties in America. CRAZY!

  • Comment number 30.

    You know what the depressing thing about this is. Although the conspiracy theorists are fair to ask questions and complain that there are logical difficulties in the issue, they are in reality all rather complacent. To quote Ben Harper, what use is a cynic without a plan? Its all well and good shouting that it was just a cover up to start a war, but are the protesting against the wars? Clearly not. Not one person has actually commented on here on the number of people that have died as the result of the wars. Nor has anyone thought about the fact that many many people even died in the event itself. Before we start to cynically call it a conspiracy, we should probably stop the war. You don't try and find the source of a fire, if the house is still burning.

  • Comment number 31.

    29 Flyattic

    But surely it has remained secret which is why lots of angy men in basements are writing blogs with lots of CAPITILISATION to EMPHASISE their FACTS about the CONSPIRACY. The 911 "conspiracy" is in the open in the same way that the Princess Diana conspiracy is in the open, lots of unspecified accusations, patchy evidence, difficulty in proving a genuine motive and modus operandi, plus the need to create an ever swelling pool of individuals and agencies "in on the deal".

    If the banks were in on 911, as part of a hugely sophisticated plot. Why did they subsequently lend all the money to people who had no chance of paying it back. Doesn't sound very sophisticated to me.

    Arms companies?...well I imagine that they have done reasonably well in some of the hi-tech areas but the bulk of weaponry that I see on TV appears to be old Soviet stuff, purchased from old Warsaw Pact countries to re-equip Iraqui and Afghan security forces. Doesn't look like McDonnel Douglas or BAe are making a mint out of this?

    Oil companies?...everyone's favourite bogeyman. Well if you're so sure and can defend yourself in a libel action, how about naming some names? It is possible that some small oil companies can do well out of the price hike but for the big companies (try to believe me here) it makes life very arkward. National governments want a greater share of the profit, construction companies can treble their costs to construct new projects etc. Oil majors are judged in the market by their ability to a) deliver cash now and b) maintain production levels into the future. The turbulence in the Middle East and elsewhere has delivered cash but has very effectively sabotaged the ability of companies to develop and declare new reserves. Disastrous for for executives share option schemes.

    You will also find that the vast bulk of global oil and gas reserves are held by national oil companies and/or OPEC members, rather than by the wicked men of Exxon etc. If the conspiracy was to hike oil prices, then you will have to drag OPEC and quite possibly the Russians into the plot as well.

    Which to sum up brings me back to old theme. Sure, there are plenty of AMBIGUITIES and misinformation that is peddled as FACT! But when you really try to find the MOTIVE and find EVIDENCE that stands scrutiny by people who actually KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT... the whole thing sounds like a load of ill-considered paranoia.

  • Comment number 32.

    30 Kingale101

    I'm with you there!

  • Comment number 33.

    Still confused here.

    So two years ago Richard Porter Stated that the early reporting of Tower 7 collapsing was not prompted by any press release or information given by an external source.

    Then on Sunday he was stating that it was all the fault of Reuters and here is the e-mail to prove it.


    So which is right?


  • Comment number 34.

    Anglophone:

    I actually I do not have the minute of the meeting ... but Greg Palast of the BBC Newsnight team does! Google "Secret U.S. Plans For Iraq's Oil" and go to his site.

    Yes, I am suggesting that the Wood Green Ricin Plot was completely false. Watch "Taking Liberties" next time it is shown on More4, or look up "Ricin Plot" on Wikipedia. They did not find castor bean - they found cherry stones! Initially, they did not really know what they had found, but they made speculative announcements to the press. Then, worst of all, reporting restrictions were put in place by the government, which prevented what they actually found (once they knew from lab analysis) being reported until we had gone to war in Iraq. (Again, this was kind of convenient.) Hence, many people, like yourself are still under the wrong impression. By the time the reporting restrictions was lifted, it was so yesterdays news that few people bothered about it.

    I am saying that Saddam did not have the WMDs that we were told he had in the run up to the war, and they should have known there was considerable doubt over their "evidence". Thus far, no evidence of them has been found, despite the fact that certain people in government would love to publicly tout such evidence to justify their actions. Indeed, Saddam did use chemical weapons on the Kurds in Halabja in 1988. However, the US/UK was happy to turn a blind eye to this because at the time Saddam was our friend.
    [Interestingly, Saddam was not tried on the Halabja gas attacks, despite the fact that this was a Crime Against Humanity and could have been tried in an international court. Instead, he was tried on the killing of people who had tried to assassinate him. One can only wonder why he was tried on a seemingly lesser crime, and what would have come out had he been tried on the Halabja gas attacks!?]

    Personally, I do not believe that any western government would deliberately kill 3000+ of its own people in a false-flag operation. However, my point is that they do deliberately deceive us, and this is what ferments the conspiracies.

    [They also do a pretty good job of manipulating the press to make you believe what they want too!]

  • Comment number 35.

    Anglophone,

    Banks lend money to folks who can't pay it back in order to seize any securities placed against the loan.

    It means they can exchange paper money for real assets.

    and kingale 'conspiracy nuts' like me will be happy if 'official story nuts' would even accept the house is on fire.

  • Comment number 36.

    "Two very obvious facts were totally ignored by teh BBC in this programme - namely the temperature of the fire and the melting point of steel.

    The simple facts of temperatures:

    * 1535?C - melting point of iron
    * 1510?C - melting point of typical structural steel
    * 825?C - maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires burning in the atmosphere without pressurization or pre-heating (premixed fuel and air - blue flame)


    Go figure. What happened to the missing 700 degrees of heat sufficient to melt steel?"


    Two things you forget- Steel heated to a cherry red colour (600'C) is far softer than room temperature steel. It doesn't have to melt to lose structural integrity (and the wind several dozen floors up if far more than street level and would fan the flames intensely).

    Steel heated to 6 or 700 degrees would expand quite significantly, which would have disastrous effects on rivets and welded joints. The expansion of the steel within concrete would be like a damaged brain swelling within the skull. Not good news.

    #24 An Al Que'da terror cell was arrested in Leicester and its members jailed in 1998. At that time most Brits had never heard of Al Que'da. They were caught because they were idiots- they'd heard leicester was full of Asians and presumed they could blend in nicely. In fact they choose a neighbourhood that was 100% Hindu and they were reported to the police within weeks.

  • Comment number 37.

    Hey Mike,

    If you are a reporter, your tone and composition of reporting shows biased direction. I am sorry to observe this but that's how I felt when I read your article.

    Anyhow, so the observations on the events of 911 which you and many others, termed as "Conspiracy Theories", are to be ignored due to couple of prejudices namely: Competence and Complication to keep it Secret.

    Let me ask you the following:

    - Have dark secrets never been successfully guarded by Powerful People and Organizations? Do you conclusively believe this?

    - Do you believe that the planing and implementation by White House, Pentagon, FBI, CIA, NSA and others demand information sharing with all the involved? There is something called "Need to Know Basis". Only a few masterminds in these sinister agencies know the overall plan. The others just have island information and do tasks which seem innocent and disconnected.

    - Why do you think these agencies have protocols which enables them to hold information for decades and in most cases like this, either destroy or distort the information to suit their views?

    There are battery of facts and scientific impossibilities surrounding the events of 911 as it has been projected to the people. Since you have seen the documentary and have been "researching" on the subject, I do not feel the need to repeat the point, but are you ready to support the above mentioned reasons against the Observations (or Conspiracy as you term it) while ignoring some powerful observations which points otherwise.

    When I take a rational and technical view on the events of 911 and subsequent policies of Bush administration in terms of Foreign Affairs, Internal Affairs, Energy and Economy (although they messed up most of it and I am sure the Neo Cons are angry about it), I would rather see the possibility that the master mind agencies of USA knew about the plot used it fully to give a direction as they wanted. This is called turning "Problem into Opportunity" as many knowledgable people call it. They just needed to do guided work to create the impact and emotions surrounding the events.

    It would take decades before few facts would come out and shade some more light on what actually happened on 911.

  • Comment number 38.

    34 simon

    I have no illusions about the UK Governments selective use of media spin to get what it wants. Which gets to the real point i.e.

    "They also do a pretty good job of manipulating the press to make you believe what they want too!"

    Please don't take this as a personal attack as I'm generalising...I wonder if this simple statement is at the heart of so much conspiracy theorising. ie "I'm much too smart to be taken in by something like this! Look at those schmucks who believe what they're fed. Not me! I'm a free-thinking free spirit and no matter what they (who?) say I'll never believe a word etc etc etc. Because errr....I'm too clever for that!"

    So much conspiracy theory revolves around a shadowy "elite" that is never specifically named or exposed. Well maybe conspiracy theorists are the other side of the same coin...a self-proclaimed elite and guardian of a truth that is too awesome for the little people to believe or understand?

    I don't think that these people realise just how patronising they are when they suggest that, if someone has trouble swallowing the 911 conspiracy, then they are credulous dupes of everything that they see, read or hear in the media.

    Here's a tip Conspiritoratti. You're not recipients of the true faith...you're just a snobby little club, just like any other!

  • Comment number 39.

    Kingdale101, ref your comments at #30, please read my comments at #10 above.

    Indeed, many people I know who are questioning the official conspiracy theory regarding 911 are also involved in decrying and protesting the illegal wars which have come about as a result of 911, see www.makewarshistory.org.uk for starters.

    Last March I went to an international 911 European activists meeting held in Amsterdam, which was attended by people from virtually every European country, together with an MEP and a leading member of the Japanese opposition party, and we endorsed a European wide opposition to these wars.

    So please don’t accuse those of us who question 911 as ignoring the illegal invasions, the murders of innocent civilians, not to mention the needless slaughter of those of our fellow countrymen and women in the armed forces who have been ordered to go to these illegal wars on nations which have never threatened our shores (the supreme war crime according to the Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal after the Second World War)

  • Comment number 40.

    35 Hank-Reardon

    What another great conspiracy. Banks lend money to people in order to foreclose and acquire an "asset" (we're talking houses here) which they then have to pay to dispose of into a market where that asset has lost value, creating a loss. These financial whizz-kids are well ahead of me!

    Collateralised Debt Obligations were an ingenious but highly flawed concept. The whole point was that debtors didn't default (in large numbers), otherwise the CDI becomes effectively worthless. The banks that dreamed these things up were in the business of selling-on the CDIs, not acquiring a portfolio of low-rent residential accommodation.

    If you are worried that everyone in any area of modern business is trying to defraud the common Joe all the time, either by selling them a toxic mortgage or by flying a plane into a building then I think that you should try examining the darker depths of your own soul.

  • Comment number 41.

    Och Anglophobe, you sound almost bitter.

    The shadowy elite are the trilateral commission, the Bilderberg group, the CFR, the bohemian grove, etc etc etc,

    If you want individuals its Gary Hart, Dick Cheney, Josette Sheerin, etc etc etc

    The point being that this 'shadowy elite' are often named and often exposed. Their organisations are well known. If you want I am sure i could point you in the direction of folks who have done much more research into this.

    There is nothing really secret about them, They happily publish their plans (PNAC, Codex Alimentarius) well in advance and they are not too hard to find.

    Just Look at all the major economic/political and military think tanks and policy makers and NGO's and you will soon see the same names crop up across the board.

    Please stop pretending that the 'NWO' remains unnamed and doesn't exist.

    I haven't been to 'club conspiritoratti', but I am only to aware that the truth movement has its cliques,(trying being a no-planer in amongst all this) hence why i am for, make a decision yourself, do your research and come to your own conclusion.

    i have no authority on what did happen, but I am very sure of what didn't happen and that i have been lied to (see comment 33 for an example)


  • Comment number 42.

    Anglophone,

    You have written a lot here but you haven't actually provided any hard evidence. Instead you've talked about how you don't believe there's a conspiracy and how conspiracy theorists have "patchy evidence" and are "just a snobby little club". Here's a piece of evidence that shatters the official story.

    http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/f/LeggeLastTry4.pdf

    That 2 page document proves that the official story for the collapse of WTC7 is wrong. Need more proof?

    http://www.journalof911studies.com/

    There are loads of articles on that website written by real scientists that destroy the official story. Where's your hard evidence? Your opinions are welcome and interesting, but without any hard evidence, that's all they are.

  • Comment number 43.

    38 Anglophone.

    I do not claim to have the truth, but I do have enough facts to know that what politicians tell us in not the truth. It is not a case of "I'm too clever", but if you know a person has lied and mislead you about one thing, then do you really trust them about anything else they say?

    I believe that politicians work for the people, and we have a right to scrutinise what they say and do. The penalty for not taking an interest in politics is to be ruled by tyrants!

    P.S. I don't take is personally. I believe arguments are based on facts and evidence rather than insults!

  • Comment number 44.

    Regarding the topic of collapsing buildings:

    It was comparable to a 1/2 kilotonne explosion without any explosives. Here is the science...

    You can work out how much gravitational potential energy was released by the collapse of the World Trade Center.

    (For non-physics people: gravitational potential energy is what you have if you lift something up higher. E.g. if you lift a brick up off the floor and put it on a shelf, then that requires energy. The heavier the brick or the higher the shelf, the more energy required. If the brick falls from the shelf the energy is released.)

    The formula for the energy is, E = g x h x m.
    where "g" is the gravitational field strength, 10N/kg, "h" is the height in metres, and "m"is the mass in kg.

    Each tower weighed 450 000 000 kg and was 417m high. If we take the center of gravity to be half way up, say 200m then this give the total gravitational potential energy of each tower to be 900 billion Joules of energy.

    To put this in perspective, one tonne of TNT when detonated releases 4 billion Joules of energy. In other words, the energy released by the gravitational collapse of each tower was about the same as 225 tonnes of TNT being detonated!

    Note: this energy does not come from explosives. It comes from the falling mass of the towers. I just compared it to TNT to put it in perspective.

  • Comment number 45.

    "This is likely to be the government's last word on 9/11. Those who continue to question the official explanation have still to set out what exactly the grand conspiracy was, how it was carried out, who carried it out and why they would do so".
    911 was an inside job. It was carried out to get the backing of people to go to the Middle East, to introduce measures of control over US citizens, to have geostrategic control over the globe and remain the world’s only super power. Their official storey does not add up.
    Check out the book Grand Chessboard. It’s written by a US security adviser
    As for whether the media are also perpetrators! They are... Until the media starts reporting this fairly then they are contributing to the murders carried out that day. Hundreds of thousands of people believe it was an inside job and thousands demonstrate it each day yet the media gives it no coverage.
    As a reporter, you know that you are restricted on this topic. If you did just a little research and had a conscience then you would not try to debunk this as just a conspiracy.


  • Comment number 46.

    Grakkor (re #20)

    I have noticed yet again that the truthers fail to mention that at 800 C., steel loses 90% of its strength. And it starts to lose much of its strength at temperatures way below this. (See post 35).

    Another fact ignored by the truthers is that the Cardington experiments on the strength of steel framed buildings tested one 8 floors high and not buildings 48 floors high as in the case of WTC7 or much higher as in the case of the Twin Towers. Most of WTC 4 collapsed when impacted by the exterior column debris from WTC 2; the remaining section had a complete burnout but the building did not totally collapse. WTC4, 5 and 6 were each 8 and 9 floors, the same height as the buildings in the Cardington experiment. As you see the similarity is the height. But if the WTC6 had been as high as WTC 7 (48 floors) and had suffered the same massive strutural damage and uncontrolled fires, then I would have expected WTC6 to have collapsed in just the same way that WTC7 collapsed. The difference is the weight of the building although other factors like the strength of the foundations and the strength of the building itself would also need to be taken into account. It may be that when we fully understand the chain of events that the important point is not that WTC7 collapsed but that it remained standing so long!

    I don't know if you have ever played Jenga but this is a game involving slim wooden blocks erected in a tower. The object of the game is for each player to remove a wooden block in turn and place it on top of the tower, so making it higher each time. The removal of each block makes the tower less structurally sound until the tower collapses in a massive pile of wooden blocks. The collapses always seems instantaneous. I suggest that the collapse of WTC7 followed the same principle. The structural damage and the fierce fires progressively weakened the building until it collapsed suddenly, just like a wooden tower collapses when playing Jenga.

    The truthers base their case on the assertion that steel framed buildings have never collapsed in this way before so therefore they must have been blown up by controlled explosions. That is flawed logic which just doesn't stand up to close examination.

    Ask yourself:

    1. How would the explosives have been planted without anyone noticing at the time they were planted or after the event?

    2. The programme showed conclusively that the building could not have been wired for demolition after it was occupied. The process would have taken weeks and huge numbers of people would have known. It could not have been kept quiet. The maintenance staff would have noticed and they would hardly be prepared to work in a building primed for demolition, would they?

    3. If the building had been built and wired for demolition before occupation, again the story would have been bound to get out as others not party to planting the explosives like maintenance engineers would have seen the signs.

    4. The programme conclusively showed that explosives deteriorate over time. If explosives had been planted at the time that WTC7 was built, they would not have been in an operational state on 9/11.

    5. What would have been the motive for wiring the building for demolition years before the attacks on 9/11?

    6. Once WTC7 was severely damaged and set on fire, how could the building have been blown up deliberately? The structural damage and fires would have destroyed much of the explosives and circuits required to detonate any explosives in the building. If the plan had been to blow up the building shortly after it was damaged on 9/11 (and there was no guarantee that it would have even been damaged even if the authorities had a hand in the attacks), it was a very silly and unworkable one!!!

    7. There was no evidence of demolition among the debris.

    Simply because steel framed buildings have never collapsed in this way does not constitute evidence that they must have been blown up by controlled explosions!

    All the evidence proves convincingly that the controlled explosion theory is a complete fantasy and that natural reasons to do with the strength of the building, the massive structural damage and fires
    were responsible for the sudden collapse.

  • Comment number 47.

    Hello Mike

    Heres a challenge for you, why don't you knock off debunking crazy theories about controlled demolition and do a investigation about the Israeli "art student" "movers", the so called dancing Israelis, ... haha who am i kidding, the BBC wouldn't dare touch this issue for fear of being branded anti Semitic, this is one part of the 9/11 attacks that has really intrigued me and to this day has never been fully explained, ironically fox news of all news outlets is the only news organization to touch upon this, and of course, they were ordered to stop reporting on this and the video archives of the investigation have been removed from Fox news' website, luckily someone has re-uploaded them to the net

    http://100777.com/node/180

    Go on, do a show on this, i dare you : ), .... i won't hold my breath.

    If you need any help from the real journalists, antiwar.com has a archive of all things related to the "art students" here-

    http://www.antiwar.com/israeli-files.php


    Why has the BBC completely blacked this news out ?.

  • Comment number 48.

    Mike ,

    You refer to my comment on your previous Blog where you say that the Iran Contra affair was of course uncovered. Which of course it was.

    But you do not really tell the full story here.

    It was exposed by a lebanese newspaper initially, not the BBC or CNN or ABC. Only after they reported the arrangement was the conspiracy revealed.

    That was 20 years ago, These days foreign media often report 9/11 as being very suspicious, foreign mp's openly talk of it being an inside Job, Parliaments across the globe discuss it openly. If a lebanese newspaper printed that 9/11 was an arrangement between the US Govt and Mossad, would anyone in western media follow it up, or be allowed to.

    It is also of interest that some of the guys who were found Guilty during the iran-contra investigations have subsequently worked for, none other than, George W Bush. Include in this John Poindexter who was found guilty of multiple felony counts for obstruction of justice, lying to Congress, defrauding the government, the alteration and destruction of evidence and best of all conspiracy.

    You couldn't make it up.

    Also nice to hear Richard Clarkes voice in all this. Richard Clarke who lied under oath that it wasn't him who allowed the Bin-Ladens to fly out of the US post 9/11 then later admitted it was.

  • Comment number 49.

    Well, I went through the registration process, so here goes.
    It must be obvious that there needs to be a independent re-investigation of the 911 murders, there are too many valid questions and scientific opinions that raise issues with the "US Government Official Conspiracy Theory", other than N0 7 which would represent about 5% of the mystery.
    Besides all the other aspects one point that tiringly keeps being put up against the posibility of explosives being planted is; when and how would that have been done?
    There is evidence from two witnesses who were interviewd and appear in the video "911 Mysteries" from 2006 (maybe it is in Loose Change?)
    Anyway, one person states that there was notice of a power down in the week/s before 911 and there was no security etc. Workman were seen trundling wires through the building and they were told it was for a net upgrade. He also said that each morning there was dust that had settled over the office and that it came from the air conditioning. Mr Rodriguez, the building overseer/janitor said one floor was closed down and he could hear large machinery/dumpsters being moved around. he also speaks of explosion on that day in the basement before the planes hit. Also the dog squad was removed just before 911. So Mr. Rudin and BBC, when are you going to do as good a job of reporting as exemplified in those videos and in the latest European video; "Zero". Is it that the BBC does not have the capacity or lacks the will maybe? Either way, the facts are coming out and you will have to wear the egg. By the way, it was great for the populace to eventually see a video of No 7 coming down after all these years Now why did that take so long, hardly anyone new of poor of 7 prior?

  • Comment number 50.

    "he also speaks of explosion on that day in the basement before the planes hit."

    Have you seen a building brought down by a controlled dem? Boom-boom-boom as all the charges fire within milliseconds. Whatever this guy or the firefighters claim to have heard it wasn't demolition charges firing... if they were they'd have been dead before they even had a chance to think about reaching for a radio.

    and as for #48 "If a lebanese newspaper printed that 9/11 was an arrangement between the US Govt and Mossad, would anyone in western media follow it up, or be allowed to."

    Iran alleged that a failure of tehrans traffic lights causing a 20 car pile up was the work of mossad. Why waste breath following it up?

  • Comment number 51.

    Peter,

    Love the way you say 'as for 48' like you answered or deflected my point, you haven't and you offered a very weak rubuttle, in fact you make a really bad point.

    So i will explain why for you

    you would waste breathe following it up if Tehrans traffic light failure had resulted in the immediate death of around 3,000 people and was then used as a pretext for war(s) where the list of dead approaches the millions and the cost spirals into the trillions.

    Then imagine a global movement appears where they collectively research and study all the information available and then produce a massive body of evidence that at least proves the traffic lights didn't fail dues to the given reason and also offers many a hypothesis for what could have happened as an alternative.

    I would imagine it is at this point you 'waste your breathe'. Please don't waste your energy offering a response unless your going to do it properly.


  • Comment number 52.

    Hi Busby

    "46. At 6:27pm on 09 Jul 2008, busby2 wrote: Grakkor (re #20)

    I have noticed yet again that the truthers fail to mention that at 800 C., steel loses 90% of its strength. And it starts to lose much of its strength at temperatures way below this. (See post 35)."

    Temperature of office fires do not usually get that hot. NIST reports evidence of 300-400 degrees C for WTC 1 and 2 fires. People seen at the gash in north tower where the aircraft hit, indicating it could not be as hot as 800degress. Firemen reach the fires in the south tower and radioed back that the fires could be controlled with "one or two lines".

    "Another fact ignored by the truthers is that the Cardington experiments on the strength of steel framed buildings tested one 8 floors high and not buildings 48 floors high as in the case of WTC7 or much higher as in the case of the Twin Towers. Most of WTC 4 collapsed when impacted by the exterior column debris from WTC 2; the remaining section had a complete burnout but the building did not totally collapse. WTC4, 5 and 6 were each 8 and 9 floors, the same height as the buildings in the Cardington experiment. As you see the similarity is the height. But if the WTC6 had been as high as WTC 7 (48 floors) and had suffered the same massive strutural damage and uncontrolled fires, then I would have expected WTC6 to have collapsed in just the same way that WTC7 collapsed. The difference is the weight of the building although other factors like the strength of the foundations and the strength of the building itself would also need to be taken into account. It may be that when we fully understand the chain of events that the important point is not that WTC7 collapsed but that it remained standing so long!"

    Hmm. Maybe when we "fully understand".

    "I don't know if you have ever played Jenga but this is a game involving slim wooden blocks erected in a tower. The object of the game is for each player to remove a wooden block in turn and place it on top of the tower, so making it higher each time. The removal of each block makes the tower less structurally sound until the tower collapses in a massive pile of wooden blocks. The collapses always seems instantaneous. I suggest that the collapse of WTC7 followed the same principle. The structural damage and the fierce fires progressively weakened the building until it collapsed suddenly, just like a wooden tower collapses when playing Jenga. "

    Jenga analogy - I like that. Have you ever played Jenga when each wooden blocked has been taped together? (The building topples over and does not fall through itself). This is simple to test.

    "The truthers base their case on the assertion that steel framed buildings have never collapsed in this way before so therefore they must have been blown up by controlled explosions. That is flawed logic which just doesn't stand up to close examination."

    Sorry, but neither does yours. Steel framed building are really very strong. If they weren't why do we keep building them if they are inherently unsafe. The argument that both the twin tower design and WTC7 deisgn were both faulty jsut doesn't stack up. The twin towers were built to withinstand multiple aircraft impacts due to its outer mesh and inner core. If the fires brought the towers down, then you expect much more asymmetric and chaotic behaviour then the jenga (disconnected blocks) effect we saw.

    "Ask yourself:

    1. How would the explosives have been planted without anyone noticing at the time they were planted or after the event?"

    Yes. Tell me: who was in charge of security?
    Lots of empty floors in WTC towers btw... it was not fully occupied.

    "2. The programme showed conclusively that the building could not have been wired for demolition after it was occupied. The process would have taken weeks and huge numbers of people would have known. It could not have been kept quiet. The maintenance staff would have noticed and they would hardly be prepared to work in a building primed for demolition, would they?"

    Elevators were recently refurbished. Who said it had to be wired? Were mobile phones now invented in 2001? Mobile phones were used as detonators in Madrid bombings.

    "3. If the building had been built and wired for demolition before occupation, again the story would have been bound to get out as others not party to planting the explosives like maintenance engineers would have seen the signs."

    True. I agree.

    "4. The programme conclusively showed that explosives deteriorate over time. If explosives had been planted at the time that WTC7 was built, they would not have been in an operational state on 9/11. "

    True. I agree.

    "5. What would have been the motive for wiring the building for demolition years before the attacks on 9/11?"

    Actually following a "Through Life Cost" model it might make some sense to build in a mechanism for easy dismantling of tall buildings. But otherwise, I agree.

    "6. Once WTC7 was severely damaged and set on fire, how could the building have been blown up deliberately? The structural damage and fires would have destroyed much of the explosives and circuits required to detonate any explosives in the building. If the plan had been to blow up the building shortly after it was damaged on 9/11 (and there was no guarantee that it would have even been damaged even if the authorities had a hand in the attacks), it was a very silly and unworkable one!!!"

    Installing explosives deep inside a building would unlikely to go off until they are properly detonated. It is perfectly possible to do this.

    "7. There was no evidence of demolition among the debris. "

    Yes there was: angled cut joints can be seen, metal melting, microfine dust, chemical traces of explosives, reports of secondary device explosions and er... video evidence of three buildings all looking like CD. None of this expected by a normal fire. The fact that Controlled Demolition Inc were used to clear the place were not "looking" for evidence explains the lack of evidence.

    "Simply because steel framed buildings have never collapsed in this way does not constitute evidence that they must have been blown up by controlled explosions!"

    No as discussed above: it looked like CD, there is evidence of CD and it has never happened before should be enough for investigators to look at a CD hyposthesis don't you think?

    "All the evidence proves convincingly that the controlled explosion theory is a complete fantasy and that natural reasons to do with the strength of the building, the massive structural damage and fires
    were responsible for the sudden collapse."

    If you are being deceived by hijackers, terrorists or anybody that wants to do you harm, then you need to look a little deeper. Prove who really behind the event. Conduct forsenic investigation. Do air crash investigation. Properly investigate and then see. Occam's razor only applies when you have all the indepentantly verifiable facts at your disposal.


  • Comment number 53.

    Peter_Sym, you may like to take a look at these first responders discussing what they heard:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2A8VMg_B64

    Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom - like detonators.

    They are discussing WTCs 1 and 2, but nevertheless, why is testimony like this being ignored by those who cling on to the official conspiracy theory.

    And there are many many more witnesses testifying to similar matters, just take a look at many of the clips available on YouTube. All these witnesses seemingly ignored by the 911 Commission (and the BBC)

  • Comment number 54.

    Dear Mike,

    Here is a comprehensive review (with comments on the review at the bottom) of your programme:

    http://911blogger.com/node/16564

    Do you have any comments on the review?

  • Comment number 55.

    #53. Detonators make a barely audible pop. If you hold one in your hand, you'll lose fingers but thats it. If you were close enough to hear them detonate main charges you'd be dead. Equally if you WERE close enough to hear them you wouldn't have time to radio anything. To take down a building like the WTC the explosions would be milliseconds apart.

    I'm sure they think they heard something but whatever that was it doesn't sound like dem charges. If I had to suggest anything I'd say the joints on some of the load bearing structures snapping under the strain of a sagging tower block would make bangs and the timing would be right.

    #51. Hi Hank, So let me get this right: if you accept the media's version of events (as on 9/11) when they say no cover up, then you should investigate a cover up.

    When the media says there IS a cover up (as in your example), then we should also investigate a cover up.

    It would appear that you believe everything is a cover up, and further that this cover up is always the result of one of the worlds smallest intelligence organisations.

  • Comment number 56.

    Just watched the whole Barry Jennings interview with Loose Change. SO BUSTED!!


    Barry says there were definately explosions in WTC 7 before the twin towers fell because after the explosion on the 6th floor he saw the twin towers were still standing! So this was before the tower 7 was hit with debris!

    So what exactly cause those explosions?

    Also, there's a first responder saying he heard a countdown over a radio.


    YouTube:- WTC 7 DEMOLITION COUNTDOWN WITNESS

  • Comment number 57.

    No peter,

    That still does nothing to help me understand things.

    But you have the answers So how about you help me.

    Last year the Richard Porter said that no press release or outside information was given to the BBC regarding the early collapse

    Then this year he has an e-mail from reuters and says they told him.

    Can you tell me which is true and why the need for the lie.


  • Comment number 58.

    Hi ynda20

    Thank you very much for your full reply at post 52 to my posting.

    The collapse of the Twin Towers and WTC7 raise many interesting questions but i just don't see that there is any evidence for supporting the controlled demolition conspiracy theory.

    You may remember the Kings Cross station fire of 1987. This started in the escalator area and killed 31 people.

    The large number of casualties in the fire was an indirect consequence of a combustion phenomenon known as the trench effect, though this phenomenon was completely unknown prior to the fire. Note these words "the phenomenon was unknown prior to the fire", words which may well be paraphrased in the final report!

    This trench effect meant that in the early stages of the fire the flames lay down in the escalator rather than burning vertically, so that they heated the steps higher up. In these early stages of the fire, the flames visible to anyone not standing on the burning escalator were a small part of the full story. The majority of the flames were lying down in the escalator trench; only a few flames protruded above the balustrade and were visible to observers.

    However, once enough treads had been heated, a flashover happened on the escalator. When the treads of the escalator flashed over, the size of the fire increased exponentially and a sustained jet of flame was discharged from the escalator tunnel into the ticket hall, setting combustibles in the hall alight. The arrangement of underground hall and escalators functioned all too effectively as an incinerator due to heat driven convection added to the usual ventilation system, with temperatures reaching 600 °C.

    Please note that the temperatures reached 600 °C in an underground station where (a) the amount of combustibles is limited compared to an office building and (b) the fires were NOT started by very large amounts of highly inflammable aviation fuel.

    Despite this you seem to believe that the fires in WTC1 and 2 could not have reached more than 300 °C ! This does not seem credible, does it? The temperatures reached in the Twin Tower fires must have been far higher than you claim. Very high temperatures are reached in flashover fires. Can you say this didn't happen in WTC 1, 2 and 7 as the fires spread within the buildings?

    And when you add in the massive structural damage to all 3 buildings, it doesn't seem the least bit surprising that the buildings collapsed as a result of massive structural damage and massive fires which reached temperatures hot enough to for the steel supports to lose their structural strength to hold the weight of the building above them. When that reached a critical point, the buildings collapsed in just a very few seconds.

    You wrote "Steel framed building are really very strong. If they weren't why do we keep building them if they are inherently unsafe. The argument that both the twin tower design and WTC7 deisgn were both faulty jsut doesn't stack up. The twin towers were built to withinstand multiple aircraft impacts due to its outer mesh and inner core. If the fires brought the towers down, then you expect much more asymmetric and chaotic behaviour then the jenga (disconnected blocks) effect we saw".

    I don't think modern steel framed buildings are built to withstand multiple aircraft impacts the size of large modern airliners fully laden with fuel. If that was the claim when WTC1 and 2 were built, it was clearly untrue except in the sense that they did not collapse immediately!

    Furthermore I would question the strength of the Twin Towers compared to the much older Empire State Building whose greater strength was equally distributed rather than concentrated on an inner core as in the WTC buildings. Take a look at pictures of the construction when that was built. http://www.nypl.org/research/chss/spe/art/photo/hinex/empire/empire.html

    The Empire State withstood a liberator bomber which crashed into the 79th and 80th floors in fog in 1945. The structural integrity of the building was undamaged.

    http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=179

    I'm glad you liked my jenga analogy! Using the analogy, the initial impact removed many of the bricks and the intense fire sufficiently weakened the structural strength of the supporting beams which put more strain on the remaining beams until the time was reached when they could no longer support the weight of the building and collapsed.

    I note you agreed that if explosives had been planted at the time the building was built, they would not have been in an operational state at the time of 9/11. And yet you wrote "Installing explosives deep inside a building would unlikely to go off until they are properly detonated. It is perfectly possible to do this". The practical time to do this would be the construction stage so this does not add up. Furthermore, to be certain of bringing a building down you need to do far more than simply place explosives deep within a building. Wiring up and setting off a controlled explosion is far, far more complex than you suggest. If you have ever seen a film of a failed controlled explosion that leaves a building upright or tilted, you will know what I mean!

    Finally check out this link which debunks the controlled demolition theory for WTC1, 2 and 7 and compares film of controlled demolitions with the collapse of these buildings.

    http://skepticalaaron.blogspot.com/2007/11/three-wtc-building-collapses-do-not.html


    I found the evidence compelling and if you look at them with an open mind, I’m sure that you too will agree that there is absolutely no photographic evidence supporting the view that any of these buildings were brought down by controlled explosions.




  • Comment number 59.

    With all due respect to Richard Clarke, but the competence argument and the large contingent argument do not prove one way or the other that people associated with the US government were complicit in aspects of the attack on September 11. Those are reasons, perhaps, to doubt, but prove nothing by themselves.

    The Bush admin HAS been competent at many things post-9/11. Domestic surveillance, preventing a thorough Congressional inquiry into the attacks, delaying the 9/11Commission inquiry for 18 months, and then installing a Bush insider, Philip Zelikow, as executive director once the Commission was agreed to. Zelikow allowed spurious witnesses to appear before the commission with the highly controversial "testimony" that Iraq and Al Qeada had contacts. He was in contact with the White House chief political officer four times, and tried to hide that fact, through the investigation.
    Regarding a large contingent: demolitions expert, Danny Jowenko, has speculated that with unhindered access a team of twenty or thirty hard working workers could have set charges in WTC7 during the day of Sept 11. He said this not knowing the building was on fire in places. However, the same team could have plausibly set charges prior to the 11th in anticipation of the event. Hundreds, or thousands would not be needed to perform this operation. There was opportunity in the Twin Towers for this size team to pre-set charges. There was a very plausible mode of entry to the superstructure through the elevator shafts, and work had been ongoing in the shafts prior to 9/11.

    A stand-down order for jet interceptors would require little more than an order from a high authority, the deniability provided by the fog created by war games ongoing, and the non-questioning of the chain of command. The young man in the bunker that questioned Cheney's order was never questioned. His identity, like so many other questions, remains a total mystery.

    In the event the attacks were learned of prior to 9/11, and indications are they were known in much greater detail than admitted to, the military mindset works in favor of keeping operations secret. Saying hundreds or thousands to pull off this type of operation does not prove in any way an operation was pulled off with many fewer. In fact, it distracts from investigating whether it could have been accomplished with fewer participants. Clarke knows this.

    As far as those of us wanting more answers to those questions that have been actively avoided, we do not "have still to set out what exactly the grand conspiracy was, how it was carried out, who carried it out and why they would do so." That is what an honest investigation is for. I have my personal opinions about those things, but my personal opinion means nothing. The bald-face, hard physical evidence points directly to controlled demolition. The official investigations boldly state they have NOT investigated evidence of controlled demolition. Evaporated steel, melted molybdenum, extremely high temperatures completely unaccounted for, un-investigated, not even questioned, is glaring evidence of a coverup at worst, an incompetent investigation at best. Following the evidence is likely to lead to what the conspiracy was, how it was carried out, and why. The BBC is has done the world a significant disservice by dismissing the evidence. Is the media complicit? Active accomplices, in on the planning, maybe not. Incurious, kowtowed, self-interested entities unable to confront power with truth at this level... definitely. The Martin Luther King conspiracy trial in 1999 proved hundreds of millions of US dollars are spent manipulating and distorting public opinion through media control and manipulation by government. It is naive to think otherwise.

    The twin towers accelerated to the ground providing NO resistance AT ANY TIME as they were pulverized into dust. That is physically impossible without a massive energy source destroying the buildings as they dropped. Follow the evidence.

  • Comment number 60.

    sdemetri

    You wrote "The twin towers accelerated to the ground providing NO resistance AT ANY TIME as they were pulverized into dust. That is physically impossible without a massive energy source destroying the buildings as they dropped. Follow the evidence".

    It is you who haven't followed the evidence!

    If you would check out the link I provided, you will see that there is no evidence whatsoever to back your claim that the buildings were destroyed by controlled demolitions. The buildings did not collapse in the same way that buildings do when brought down by controlled explosions. The idea that they were brought down by controlled demolition is ridiculous but I expect that you will never accept that because the idea of a big Govt conspiracy is altogether more satisfying than the more mundane truth.

    http://skepticalaaron.blogspot.com/2007/11/three-wtc-building-collapses-do-not.html


    I don't dislike conspiracy theories. They can be fun and some are even true but the starting point always has to be whether the conspiracy is credible and plausible, which this one clearly isn't. And even if a conspiracy theory looks credible and plausible and you want to believe it, that doesn't make it true does it?

    The truth is that there is no way any of the WTC buildings could have been wired for demolition. But if we assume for one moment that sufficient explosive charges had been placed (you will need to tell where they had to be placed, how much would have been needed and where they were hidden etc, etc) there is still no way that the charges could have been set off after the buildings were struck by the airliners even if the explosives themselves had managed to survive the initial impact and intense fires.

    Still not convinced? Then check out the link I provided above.

  • Comment number 61.

    Your link presents the argument that there is no direct comparison between the WTC destruction and typical controlled demolition. The demolition of the WTC towers was certainly not typical. In fact, no other building has ever come apart in that manner, let alone two buildings, on the same day, after being damaged in two distinct, very different patterns. None. The closest comparison we have to make sense of the manner in which these buildings came down is in fact CD.

    The physical evidence of molten metal in the basements of all three buildings that persisted for months after the event is unexplained, indeed unexamined in the official reports by FEMA and NIST. The USGS, RJ Lee's environmental study for the Deutsche Bank, and Worcester Polytechnic Institute all discovered evidence of extreme temperatures well in excess of what is generated by hydrocarbon fires, ie, those caused by jet fuel or in typical office building fires.

    WTC7 does, in fact, strongly resemble CD, so says demolitions expert Jowenko, several other CD experts, as well as those journalists on September 11 that described WTC7 coming down as looking very much like CD.

    Skeptical Aaron's site is one of many poorly researched blog sites that proves absolutely nothing.

    Dr. Graeme McQueen provides a very concise analysis in this presentation at Waterloo University of why CD is the most likely explanation:
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8244438572422398880

    McQueen's academic analysis of the Oral Histories collected by the New York City Fire Commissioner in Oct 2001 through Jan 2002 before a "collective memory" set in as to what the fire department officials and members experienced on that day reveals 178 accounts from 118 eyewitnesses to seeing, hearing, experiencing massive explosions throughout the buildings prior to their pulverization. In account after account there is a massive explosion just prior to the building being pulverized. In some accounts, people are picked up and thrown by massive fire balls, pelted with scrapnel and debris, witnesses to synchronized, orderly detonations. All of this was COMPLETELY ignored by ANY and ALL US government investigation.

    Please, busby, don't presume to know what I find satisfying or not.

  • Comment number 62.

    Official explanation says 19 people were responsible for 9/11. This is a ridiculous conspiracy theory. It would have taken hundreds or thousands of people to pull this off. Get real.
    ;)

  • Comment number 63.

    Hi Busby

    "58. At 7:16pm on 10 Jul 2008, busby2 wrote:
    Thank you very much for your full reply at post 52 to my posting."

    No problem.

    "The collapse of the Twin Towers and WTC7 raise many interesting questions but i just don't see that there is any evidence for supporting the controlled demolition conspiracy theory."

    No evidence? I did give a long list. At the very least the skyscrapers falling into themselves is very worrying, don't you think?

    "You may remember the Kings Cross station fire of 1987. This started in the escalator area and killed 31 people.

    The large number of casualties in the fire was an indirect consequence of a combustion phenomenon known as the trench effect, though this phenomenon was completely unknown prior to the fire. " (edited down)


    Sure and the fire and its effect was studied intensely. Not left for 7 years...

    "...temperatures reaching 600 ?C.

    Please note that the temperatures reached 600 ?C in an underground station where (a) the amount of combustibles is limited compared to an office building and (b) the fires were NOT started by very large amounts of highly inflammable aviation fuel."


    Yes, very high temperatures for a fire. They are not 800 degrees. I can find the quote from the NIST report that gives the evidence of 300-400 - this is not the temperature used within their models.

    "Despite this you seem to believe that the fires in WTC1 and 2 could not have reached more than 300 ?C ! This does not seem credible, does it? "

    The temperature of the metal parts, yes. This is what I read in the NIST report. I will try to find the observation.

    In the meantime, try this
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center
    ===
    As in the theory which is currently accepted, the fires were taken to be the key to the collapses. Thomas Eagar, an MIT materials professor, had described the fires as "the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse".[46] This is because the fires were originally said to have "melted" the floors and columns. As Eagar said, "The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel." Jet fuel is essentially kerosene and would have served mainly to ignite very large, but not unusually hot, hydrocarbon fires. This led Eagar, FEMA and others to focus on what appeared to be the weakest point of the structures, namely, the points at which the floors were attached to the building frame. Once these connections failed, the pancake collapse could initiate.[48][49] The NIST report, however, would ultimately vindicate the floor connections; indeed, the collapse mechanism depends on the strength of these connections as the floors pulled the outer walls in.
    ===

    This seems to be counter to your point.


    "And when you add in the massive structural damage to all 3 buildings, it doesn't seem the least bit surprising that the buildings collapsed as a result of massive structural damage and massive fires which reached temperatures hot enough to for the steel supports to lose their structural strength to hold the weight of the building above them. When that reached a critical point, the buildings collapsed in just a very few seconds."

    I refer to models of the aircraft impact
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aK3JxxagOgo

    Damage? yes. But the building was designed to absorb it.

    Fires would start knocking sections and the building should not have collapse catastrophically. Why hasn't NIST studied this?

    "I don't think modern steel framed buildings are built to withstand multiple aircraft impacts the size of large modern airliners fully laden with fuel. If that was the claim when WTC1 and 2 were built, it was clearly untrue except in the sense that they did not collapse immediately!"

    WTC towers were designed to handle the impact of 707 fully laden with fuel. The designer said it could handle multiple impacts. It was designed to "the same standard as nuclear power stations" - so we my have something to worry about! :-) A 707 is about the same weight as a 757

    "Furthermore I would question the strength of the Twin Towers compared to the much older Empire State Building whose greater strength was equally distributed rather than concentrated on an inner core as in the WTC buildings. Take a look at pictures of the construction when that was built. http://www.nypl.org/research/chss/spe/art/photo/hinex/empire/empire.html"

    So you are saying the WTC tower design was faulty?

    "The Empire State withstood a liberator bomber which crashed into the 79th and 80th floors in fog in 1945. The structural integrity of the building was undamaged.

    http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=179"

    I think you'll find it was B.25 Mitchell bomber rather than a B.24 Liberator.

    "I'm glad you liked my jenga analogy! Using the analogy, the initial impact removed many of the bricks and the intense fire sufficiently weakened the structural strength of the supporting beams which put more strain on the remaining beams until the time was reached when they could no longer support the weight of the building and collapsed."

    Yes - try Jenga with tape attached - the building topples completely differently.

    "I note you agreed that if explosives had been planted at the time the building was built, they would not have been in an operational state at the time of 9/11. And yet you wrote "Installing explosives deep inside a building would unlikely to go off until they are properly detonated. It is perfectly possible to do this". The practical time to do this would be the construction stage so this does not add up. Furthermore, to be certain of bringing a building down you need to do far more than simply place explosives deep within a building. Wiring up and setting off a controlled explosion is far, far more complex than you suggest. If you have ever seen a film of a failed controlled explosion that leaves a building upright or tilted, you will know what I mean!"

    I didn't suggest anything. However you are pre-supposing that wires had to be in the building and the building had to be gutted to manage this. I was just pointing out that where there is a will there is a way. There is technology that could be used to minimize disruption. There was plenty of building work being carried in the twin towers - it is on record: elevators, "fire proofing", cabling etc etc - all you need was to insert conspirators to mix with these legitimate activities.

    "Finally check out this link which debunks the controlled demolition theory for WTC1, 2 and 7 and compares film of controlled demolitions with the collapse of these buildings.

    http://skepticalaaron.blogspot.com/2007/11/three-wtc-building-collapses-do-not.html"

    Yes I checked it out. Do you want me to point out the many omissions and distortions within the article? Really, this is so much ping-pong. I shouldn't have to go to "Skeptic Inc" to get my info. Or Truther websites either! The point is, this is a serious issue of great concern to many people including the 9/11 families and it has not been adequately investigated by independent researchers. Where is the forensic examinations? The air crash investigations? etc etc

  • Comment number 64.

    There are also a couple of key reasons that allow us to challenge Richard Clarke.

    Firstly, in a 2004 interview with CBS News Correspondent Lesley Stahl, Clarke states "In the aftermath of Sept. 11, President Bush ordered his then top anti-terrorism adviser to look for a link between Iraq and the attacks, despite being told there didn't seem to be one".
    He goes on to say, "that White House officials were tepid in their response when he urged them months before Sept. 11 to meet to discuss what he saw as a severe threat from al Qaeda".

    Secondly:


    Clarke was the president's chief adviser on terrorism, yet it wasn't until Sept. 11 that he ever got to brief Mr. Bush on the subject. Clarke says that prior to Sept. 11, the administration didn't take the threat seriously.

    "We had a terrorist organization that was going after us! Al Qaeda. That should have been the first item on the agenda. And it was pushed back and back and back for months.

    Clarke also criticizes President Bush for not going to battle stations when the CIA warned him of a threat in the months before Sept. 11: "He never thought it was important enough for him to hold a meeting on the subject, or for him to order his National Security Adviser to hold a Cabinet-level meeting on the subject."

    Finally, says Clarke, "The cabinet meeting I asked for right after the inauguration took place-- one week prior to 9/11."

    So, if I could only ask one question, I would ask Mr Clarke; `Why was President Bush so obviously reluctant to discuss the threat of a terrorist attack on American soil if his Chief Advisors were warning him of the possiblity?.


  • Comment number 65.

    Hi ynda20

    Agreed, this exchange is very much like a game of ping-pong with each side exchanging contrary views and not making any progress.

    I cannot however leave this without commenting on what you wrote with regard to placing explosives for a controlled explosion.

    You wrote "I was just pointing out that where there is a will there is a way. There is technology that could be used to minimize disruption".

    In these exchanges the truthers have all failed to prove

    (a) Why the buildings were wired for demolition.

    (b) When the explosives were put in place and how this was kept quiet

    (c) What exactly they did and how exactly were the explosives detonated in the middle of a raging fire etc without any photographic evidence of charges going off. Another how question is how could they be sure that the explosives would detonate as required in the midst of raging fires and structural damage.

    Saying where there is a will there is a way as you claim simply does not constitute an answer!

    The What, Why, How and When questions are the very basic ones the truthers cannot answer. If they could provide satisfactory answers to these basic questions, they would then have to prove that is exactly what happened.

    This debate will run and run. That is the one point on which both sides can agree!



  • Comment number 66.

    Dear Mike,

    Was anyone by the name of Guy Smith involved in the making of last Sunday's programme?

    I was just wondering ...!

  • Comment number 67.

    Mr. Rudin and BBC.
    It would be nice if you started paying for all the great research that is being placed before you by those who seek justice. If you take any notice, your next documentary should get a prize!
    Just In: Paul Joseph Watson over at Alex Jones' 'Prison Planet" has provided some info on The former NY chief emergency manager, Jerome Hauer.
    Here is a tit bit;
    There is a reference to a 27.1999 NY Times article entitled; "What Could go wrong? It's his job to know., referring to Hauer and No 7 the building is described Watson comments; "The article describes Building No 7 for what it was, a structural reinforced immovable object built for the express purpose of standing strong in a crisis situation, not the weakling tinderbox that allegedly became the first building in history to collapse from fire damage alone according to debunkers like the BBC, the History Channel. Popular mechanics and others".

    He also refers to Larry who was quoted in the NY Times in 1989 by Roberts; "WTC designers 'Built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the buildings' structural integrity', a solid structure of steal that was again improved upon that year with 'More than 275 tons of steel - requiring 12 miles of welding'".
    The full article is worth a read Mike and BBC there might be a story, you never know.

  • Comment number 68.

    Dear Mike,

    There are four videos on YouTube of Alex Jones talking about the Barry Jennings (uncut) interview.

    Who is telling the truth?

  • Comment number 69.

    busby, it is not for "truthers" to answer the what, why, how and when. Mr. Rudin makes this same false assumption.

    The family members who pressed and succeeded in getting the legislation that mandated the 9/11 Commission said, after it was all said and done, they were left with more questions than answers. And they still to this day don't know how and why their loved ones died. It is for an honest, well-funded investigation to provide those answers. I have my personal opinions about it, but my personal opinions do not matter in a court of law. Hard, cold facts matter. There is not the political will to re-open an investigation of this because the government has no incentive, and the media is disinterested in an honest investigation, the BBC included. They are more interested in discussing if conspiracy theories are relevant or not, unable to see that there is virtually NOTHING about the September 11 attacks that is known for sure.

    Bin Laden is not wanted by the FBI for 9/11 because they publicly state they do not have the evidence to convict him.

    The identities of the aircraft the crashed into the Pentagon and into a field in Pennsylvania have not EVER been positively identified by investigators in the National Transportation Safety Board, or FAA. The identifying serial numbers on the recovered Black Boxes are missing for three aircraft crashes in the past 20 or so years. Two of those three missing serial numbers are from the aircraft that struck the Pentagon and that crashed in Shanksville. Those serial numbers are what is matched with the manufacturers database of component serial numbers and provides absolute proof of what the aircraft were. That information is readily available to the public on the NTSB website. A court case relating to a Freedom of Information Act request for the identifying documentation is in play, with a judge telling the FBI that there is no reason why they should not provide the documentation. The FBI refuses to do so. Cover up?

    Billions of dollars in transactions, put options, illegal Treasury bond sales took place prior to the attack, with millions in illegal transactions flowing through WTC computers as the attack was happening. From an article by Kyle Hence:
    "'Last hours' surge of financial activity at WTC According to a Reuters report of December 16, German data retrieval experts, hired by WTC tenant firms, were mining data off damaged hard disks recovered from the ground zero. The goal is to discover who was responsible for the movement of unusually large sums of money through the computers of the WTC in the hours before the attack. Peter Henschel, director of Convar, the firm responsible, said, "not only the volume, but the size of the transactions was far higher than usual for a day like that." Richard Wagner, a data retrieval expert estimated that more than $100 million in illegal transactions appeared to have rushed through the WTC computers before and during the disaster." http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/HEN204B.html

    The BBC has done the world a great disservice perpetuating the lies and cover up associated with the September 11 attacks. To dismiss all of this as simply the fevered imaginations of "conspiracy theorists" is ludicrous. Poor form.

  • Comment number 70.

    Re: busby2 "And when you add in the massive structural damage to all 3 buildings" Wrong. There was not "massive structural damage" to WTC7. WTC7 was damaged, but as far NIST can determine this was localized to an exterior column running the length of the building and the south west corner - the building purportedly failed in the east side. (http://www.911blogger.com/node/16564%29 "and massive fires" Wrong. While WTC7 was on fire, there is little evidence to suggest that the entire building was engulfed. (http://www.911blogger.com/node/16564%29 Additionally, firefighters who reached the fires in one of the twin towers said over the radio that the fires could be put out with just two lines. Also of note is the fact that these transmissions were made seconds before WTC 2's collapse. There were supposedly massive structural failings occurring in this section of the building at this time. (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc2_firefighters.html%29 "...it doesn't seem the least bit surprising that the buildings collapsed as a result of massive structural damage and massive fires which reached temperatures hot enough to for the steel supports to lose their structural strength to hold the weight of the building above them. When that reached a critical point, the buildings collapsed in just a very few seconds." You still have not read the 2 page article I have linked to several times. [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator] If you do read it you will learn that steel does not fail instantly due to the application of heat, in this case ordinary fire. If a source of heat is applied to steel it increases in temperature slowly and loses strength slowly. It does not pass from strong to weak in an instant. WTC7 collapsed at free fall speed from the very start. This tells us that the steel supports went from adequate strength to virtually no strength in an instant. For reasons stated above this is absolutely impossible if the loss of strength is due to the application of heat. Then you link to some guys random blog, which contains countless errors and distortions including the absolutely classic line "The collapse of all the WTC buildings are in direct contradiction to what we do indeed see in C.D in all points.". This line is so utter wrong it's mind boggling. The BBC documentary and the BBC 10 o'clock news both showed comparisons between a controlled demolition and the collapse of WTC7. People on both sides of the argument are in general agreement that the collapse of WTC7 does resemble a controlled demolition. And yet this blogger sees no comparison at all. My evidence on the other hand consists of a link to a series of papers written by real scientists, engineers and physicists. (http://www.journalof911studies.com/%29 Once again I strongly recommend that you read the papers on that website as they completely shatter the official story.

  • Comment number 71.

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

  • Comment number 72.

    Hi Busby,

    I am saying there is evidence for CD which needs to be fully investigated. The how and who follow from that. I can speculate how and who - it doesn't require much imagination to do that but it would be just that without a detailed Forensic examination: this is we both agree a crime scene. It hasn't been done. I will now try to answer your points...

    "65. At 00:03am on 11 Jul 2008, busby2 wrote:

    Agreed, this exchange is very much like a game of ping-pong with each side exchanging contrary views and not making any progress."

    AGREED. We need a full, independent investigation.

    "I cannot however leave this without commenting on what you wrote with regard to placing explosives for a controlled explosion.

    You wrote "I was just pointing out that where there is a will there is a way. There is technology that could be used to minimize disruption".

    In these exchanges the truthers have all failed to prove

    (a) Why the buildings were wired for demolition."

    Not too sure what you are saying here! Wired? It could be wireless as I've already mentioned.

    "(b) When the explosives were put in place and how this was kept quiet"

    During normal maintenance. As I've already mentioned.

    "(c) What exactly they did and how exactly were the explosives detonated in the middle of a raging fire etc without any photographic evidence of charges going off."

    Radio control. The explosives must have been in the core and not easily visible. There are lots and lots of reports of secondary devices and explosions: some seemingly timed. Others occuring in areas where there were no fires etc. Have you seen the firemen's reports which were kept away from the public for several years?

    "Another how question is how could they be sure that the explosives would detonate as required in the midst of raging fires and structural damage."

    You think that the explosives could not be wrapped and detonated by radio control?

    "Saying where there is a will there is a way as you claim simply does not constitute an answer!"

    If I had ALL the answers I wouldn't be asking for a new investigation...

    "The What, Why, How and When questions are the very basic ones the truthers cannot answer. If they could provide satisfactory answers to these basic questions, they would then have to prove that is exactly what happened."

    I don't think anybody is a position to "prove" anything. The official story doesn't stack up. If it did they would release the evidence that proves Osama Bin Laden did it. (They haven't). The 9/11 Commission Report is disowned by its authors. Other evicen extracted by torture is somewhat unrelaible, don't you think? Where is the forensic evidence? You can't expect government building engineers to uncover a murder plot? No air crash investigation.

    "This debate will run and run. That is the one point on which both sides can agree!"

    I agree. I'm not saying You Are Wrong I Am Right. Neither of us can agree until there is a full independent investigation as requested by the 9/11 families.

  • Comment number 73.

    More Americans have been killed in the Iraq war than have been killed in 9/11.
    The Iraq war was based on the conspiracy that Iraq had WMD (and was ready to use them in 45 minutes according to Blair), and that Iraq was involved in 9/11 and was working with Al-Qaeda. In all the years since the Iraq war, not once has anyone from the government or CIA "leaked" that this evidence was fabricated, (even though the whole world and their dog knows that it was.)
    The suggestion that "The more high profile and outrageous the act the more difficult to keep it secret" doesn't hold water. When people blindly believe anything and everything they are repeatedly told by their leaders, it is easy to discredit the truth.
    It was outrageously easy to convince the American public of the lies that Iraq had WMD and was linked to 9/11. But it was even easier to convince the American (and world) public that Al-Qaeda was behind 9/11. It only took a few hours after the planes crashed to have "all the evidence needed" to point to Al-Qaeda. Maybe they did it, maybe they didnt. The point is, the public are lied to, the public believe the lies, the public don't need evidence to believe the lies. The closer the lies are to their pre-held prejudices, the easier it is to believe the lie.
    That applies equally to the believers of the "official" story as well as the "Conspiracy" story.

  • Comment number 74.

    I found the BBC programme quite poor. It didn't do enough work on examining the conspiracies to properly qush them.

    I have spent the last couple of days searching and reading several sites on the WTC7 subject and there is much out there that is good information that the BBC should have presented.

    A good example being the claim that the building would be the first steel framed building to fall due to fire weekening. At least 2 sites I saw listed several examples of this being false. Even mentioning the building example that the BBC used in the programme, which burned for a long time and still stood. The key issue with that building is it was differantly constructed and the steel did in fact fail, it was the concrete that kept it up.

    Anyway, having much more about the WTC7 issue its plain it could not have been CD (yes I did read the two page PDF that someone posted up there ^^^ ).

    Failed buildings don't just fall over, they collapse in a heap, they have a lot of air space inside them and its not until all that space is filled that the rest of the building has nowhere to go but sideways.

    Looking at the face of WTC7 that was damaged it is clear there is very significant damage and that the fire was also very significant.

    The valume of smoke coming from the building so clearly indicates a highly fire, its a shame it also blocked the true extent of the damage to the building.

    Its also interesting that the BBC programme did not mention that vast amount of diesel fuel stored in the basement of the building and one site I read drew a parallel between the fuel distribution system and the damage. So maybe there was more fuel for the building fire than many appreciated.

    It is also clear, looking at the after pictures, that the building did not actually fall in a neat pile on itself. There was a lean during the fall and debris damaged a building over the road, hardly a controlled demolition I'd say.

    Of course given the damage and the fire, no charges layed out for demolition would have been reliable, amazing how that fact is overlooked so much.

    And as for the Thermite suggestion, its just not as reliable as a charge, when it come to cutting through steel, Thermite melts the steel, this take time. To perform a controlled demolition you need split second accuracy in timeing. A charge gives this, Thermite does not.

    When you get to the detail of how it could be done, nothing stands up. Its a shame the conspiracy theorists can't see that.

  • Comment number 75.

    vteclimey

    You wrote "When you get to the detail of how it could be done, nothing stands up. Its a shame the conspiracy theorists can't see that".

    I have been saying exactly that on this blog.

    The conspiracy theorists really should check out the link below. And, as you pointed out, they should be aware that other steel framed buildings have collapsed in fires before.

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5

  • Comment number 76.

    Hi Busby,


    We're back to square one. So let's talk about Pop-Mechanics (as sponsored by the neo-cons)

    Warning worry about anything that starts "FACT" when the facts have not been estbalished - as noted by NIST.

    "FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more "compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "

    So let's start with re-revisionism. Not a good start for a FACT.


    "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner."

    "Previously undocumented." Also not good as a FACT.

    "NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. "

    "Intense fire" - not seen from the outside. Fire yes, but it isn't really up to Madrid standards. And more research required - doesn't sound like a FACT to me.


    "But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down."

    Completely symmetrically? This is unexpalined and rather important observation - seems to be missing from their FACT.

    "Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse."


    Hmm. Yes?

    "According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design"

    Ah. The unusual design argument. Wasn't that the same argument as for the WTC towers collapse. So in both the twin towers and WTC7 there was unusual designs and the architects were both equally inept at designing buildings?

    "...the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor."

    So not free space then? As other people claim.

    "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

    Symmetrically? Again the an important FACT missing.

    "There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities."

    So how can this be a FACT if still under investigation?

    "Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. "

    Because the sprinkler system was turned off in the morning! (And the firefighters ordered out - this latter bit I can believe but the excuse of lack of water is clearly untrue - fireboats were docked close by and could provide more than enough water if wanted).


    "Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time.""

    Again not a FACT and in fact refuted by the latest NIST report. This is clearly just disinformation.

    "WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors — along with the building's unusual construction — were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse."

    So factual omissions: sudden symmetrical collapse, micro-fine dust and no mention of the molten steel at the base. Also no mention of reports of sounds of explosions and suspicion of secondary devices.

    CD explains all the omissions and yet has not been thoroughly investigated. Don't you think we should have something close to 100% certainty about what actually happened? Rather than "popular mechanics" saying things are FACT when clearly they are not...

  • Comment number 77.

    Oh my god, please never ever try and use anything from Popular Mechanics again. They are outright liars! They actually tried to claim that "pull it" was not used in the demolition business.

  • Comment number 78.

    Worcester Polytechnic fire researchers also examined steel removed from WTC7 and found silver dollar sized holes in one inch thick flanges, the edges of which thinned down to a sharp edge. Steel had been evaporated! The temperatures required to do this are no where near what diesel fuel, a hydrocarbon fuel, like jet fuel, like the plastics, nylon, synthetics in an office building fire, are able to produce, even under blast furnace conditions. Where did this energy come from? Not the gravity which brought the dismembered building down, not the diesel fuel or office materials that burned. What could supply the energy to vaporize steel? The Worcester Polytech researchers were baffled to find this. What caused the molten metals that persisted for months under the rubble?

    Why has this never been investigated? The current NIST investigation doesn't even acknowledge any of this. How is that to be explained?

    Popular Mechanics has shown itself to not be a credible source of information.

  • Comment number 79.

    Hi ynda20

    But your case fails to answer the most important question of all: how EXACTLY, given the damage and the fire, would any charges laid out for demolition been reliable?

    And there again, what EXACTLY do you say was the point in blowing up WTC7 anyway? The building was incapable of being saved when it collapsed and would have had to be demolished if it hadn't collapsed.

    The case for controlled demolition is simply not possible and absolutely impractical. I really can't see why you are wasting your time on this pointless exercise!

    But perhaps the real conspiracy theory is that the US administration is encouraging the truthers as the Govt likes the time being wasted by those who believe in such nonsense because it diverts these people away from tackling the real areas where the US Govt can be criticised! Now I think my conspiracy theory has far more credibility than any one suggesting the WTC buildings were brought down by controlled demolitions.

  • Comment number 80.

    Hi Busby,

    Your conspiracy theory does have great credibility. I need to consider it further.

    Why do I bother with this demolition marlarky? Well I feel that if the building fell down but natural causes then clearly skyscrapers are unsafe and we should evacuate New York. (Which would be a shame. I go there a lot and its a nice place, full of nice people). Skyscrapers should not fall down and explode after an hour's worth of fire (as in case of the WTC2) - ok so it also had 757 plough into it - but even so the half M V squared energy of that should not blow up a building into dust within an hour.

    So that leaves alternative theories, since NIST does not want to fully investigate the collapse mechanism. CD explains all the observed effects and that means... if CD was used. Serious inside collaboration. So combine that info with the obvious pre-knowledge of 9/11...

    Have you found who ran the company that ran the security at WTC yet?

    So all this could be complete coincidence? Everything: the building blowing up the way they did, the impossible aircraft 360 dive into the pentagon, the aircraft crashes with no debris, no fighter jet interceptions, the PNAC's desire for a new Pearl Harbor, the magic passports, the fake bin laden videos, the hijackers that were still alive, the patriot act being ready to enacted at the same time as the anthrax scare, etc etc.

    It could all be coincidence. But statistically each coincidence divides the probability of the truth of the official story...

    Have you ever read up on the history of the CIA - what is "officially" acknowledged?

    "Exactly" ?

    Hmm. Exactly how do countries go to war? First they have to have a "cause"...

  • Comment number 81.

    I have been observing, with interest, the discussions around WTC7 for a while now but the interview (below) with Barry Jennings is the most revealing to date:
    http://www.prisonplanet.com/barry-jennings-uncut.html
    I urge you all to watch it!

  • Comment number 82.

    "78. At 9:14pm on 11 Jul 2008, sdemetri wrote:

    Worcester Polytechnic fire researchers also examined steel removed from WTC7 and found silver dollar sized holes in one inch thick flanges, the edges of which thinned down to a sharp edge. Steel had been evaporated! The temperatures required to do this are no where near what diesel fuel, a hydrocarbon fuel, like jet fuel, like the plastics, nylon, synthetics in an office building fire, are able to produce, even under blast furnace conditions. Where did this energy come from? Not the gravity which brought the dismembered building down, not the diesel fuel or office materials that burned. What could supply the energy to vaporize steel? The Worcester Polytech researchers were baffled to find this. What caused the molten metals that persisted for months under the rubble?

    Why has this never been investigated? The current NIST investigation doesn't even acknowledge any of this. How is that to be explained?"

    Interesting stuff. Where has this research by
    Worcester Polytechnic been documented? Is that in the US or UK ?

  • Comment number 83.

    ynda20: That is mainly from an article published at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute's own website: http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html And this site has a wealth of information: http://nasathermalimages.com/ And of course there is all of the work found at: http://journalof911studies.com/ There is this study done for the Deutsche Bank by the firm RJ Lee. Microspheres of iron, aluminosilicates, vaporized lead are all discussed: [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator] Steven Jones and others published the paper "Extremely High Temperatures" which is on the Journal of 911 Studies site, and goes into other studies, such as the USGS findings that microspheres of molybdenum have been found in dust samples. Molybdenum melts at over 2500C, well over a thousand degrees C hotter than hydrocarbon (office building) fires can produce. What caused that? Interesting indeed. And thank you for your well stated, fervent calls for a new investigation.

  • Comment number 84.

    My analysis of Richard Clark's (President Bushe's chief counter terrorism expert)comments who said that a) it would be too complicated to do, and b) the secret would be leeked and could not be contained.

    My view is that they, the US government are relying on the fact that for a US citizen to believe that his or her democratically elected government would :
    1) Turn out to be an Evil government, and
    2) Be Evil enough to happliy kill its own citizens.

    would be extremely hard to beilieve. Especially when it talks about spreading freedom and democracy and upholding human rights etc.

    The knowledge of these two points by the US government means that they know that their citizens would never believe that thier government did or was complicit in doing 911. This is the last thing that people would accept. So what they do is to come out with any excuse why it could not have been the government who did this: eg they could say:
    a) Its too complicated,
    b) the secret would never be contained and it would have to have leeked. etc
    They can also say, like Bill Clinton said, 'How dare you?' etc in order to give the people an excuse for why the conspiracy theory is wrong. And they know that the people would much rather believe an excuse (which tranlsates to a lie), rather than a big unthinkable plot that only a truely evil person would do.

    This way US gov. would believe that they allways would have the upper hand over the 911 truthers as no one would want to believe an Unthinkable. And so they believe that they would Win. And that the truthers would allways be a sad minority. That they could allways dismiss them, one way or the other. Laughter may be the general method of dismissal.

    And so those evil persons would see themselves completely immune from any worry.

    So when a report or anyone goes to those evil persons and asks them if they did 911 , they would respond with a smile in their face and hand out an excuse or two and Bob is your Uncle! Problem solved. The only thing is that the evidence points strongly against them. But maybe the evidence may not be important here. Why? Because the belief that is held nowadays is that Might is Right, not Right is Might.

    thankyou

  • Comment number 85.

    alex1alex1

    See my post 79.

    I think your reply is further support for my suggestion that the real conspiracy theory is that the US administration is encouraging the truthers as the Govt likes the time being wasted by those who believe in such nonsense because it diverts these people away from tackling the real areas where the US Govt can be criticised!

    Now I think my conspiracy theory has far more credibility than any one suggesting the WTC buildings were brought down by controlled demolitions.

  • Comment number 86.

    Hi Busby2,

    Re 79 and 85

    Sorry, when I said your conspiracy theory had "great credibility" in reply 80, I was actually joking.

    I have pointed to you to plenty of evidence why controlled demolition actually does explain the evidence better than the official story and hence why it does need serious consideration and investigated properly, rather than being dismissed by the likes of Richard Clarke with a smile, saying "it would be too complicated".

    Follow the money! And then see whether it then makes no sense.

  • Comment number 87.

    ynda20,

    My earlier post hasn't made it past the moderator yet, but Worcester Polytechnic has an online publication called WPI Transformations. The article that mentions what I wrote above is called, "The "Deep Mystery" of melted steel." It is an active link, but for some reason the moderator hasn't released the posting.

    I also mentioned a site called nasathermalimages.com. If you google that term you should find it. The site contains a wealth of excellent information. One entry has a list of quotes from roughly forty people, highly qualified and credible, that talk about the molten steel in the basements of the three buildings.

    I hope you have seen the Dr. Graeme McQueen presentation I linked to above. It is very good. Presenting physical, mechanical, and eyewitness evidence for controlled demolition, he is very convincing and thought provoking.

    I think people would not be able to handle the fact that the US government would be capable of sacrificing some of its own for what the government might think are larger purposes. Such apparent lawlessness by the arbiter of law may result in a very disheartened, rebellious citizenry. But google Operation Northwoods to read about a false flag operation the Joint Chiefs of Staff presented to McNamara and Kennedy that included plans to possibly injure or kill US citizens in Miami and Washington DC, blame it on the Cubans, and start a war with Castro based on the operation. Read also about the USS Liberty, which the BBC did a very good documentary about. It was called "Dead in the Water" if I recall correctly.

  • Comment number 88.

    Over the past couple of years it's been gnawing at me how otherwise legitimate media sources such as the BBC and the New York Times seemed to have taken an increasingly active role in squashing any inquiry into the questions that surround 9-11. Not that they have or haven't taken a stand either way, mind you. Rather that in both their hard news and commentary they have actually discouraged inquiry into issues they admit do not have satisfying explanations, or any explanation at all.

    Yet rather than digging deeper, or even reporting the contradictions or unsatisfying answers themselves, the response has been to instead attack the questioners for not having their own theories. Since when are we the republic responsible for such things? Is it all about making sense? By this logic, why is the BBC so comfortable agreeing with every last thing my government tells them? Are they that comfortable with the veracity of all prior statements by the Bush administration and our congress?

    Yet right here in this latest blog post, Mike Rudin is trying to explain away any legitimate criticism of the official explanations with the idea that the topmost levels of the United States government are incapable of undertaking grossly illegal and immoral acts. Why? Because they're afraid of the consequences. This is ludicrous, as recent history is full of such actions. The Watergate break-in, for instance. Did it make sense for Nixon to do what he did, given the consequences balanced against the possible gains? God no, yet Clarke and Mike Rudin by extension are dismissing the skeptical for even questioning why Nixon would do such a thing.

    Watching multiple episodes of The Conspiracy Files makes me believe it's yet another attempt to shut the discussion down, coinciding with the release of the final reports. Perhaps the BBC is tired of the story, or have been frustrated into inaction by delays and stonewalling. In some respects I don't blame them. People are dying right here in New York city of unexplained lung ailments and the same politicians who called them heroes in 2001 are now calling them frauds and actively denying their medical care. We Jews call this chutzpah, and its power is in that others simply cannot believe that people are capable of such actions, so they simply can't be happening.

    The nature of the graphics and the title itself, are meant to evoke The X-Files. Okay, so they're poking fun at Truthers, fine. There's endless material, piling up daily. But they're not. This is a serious documentary series about a deadly serious subject. And you will find no other serious inquiry by the BBC into the 9-11 official explanation outside this series. Perhaps so that viewers will take one look at the titling and make up their mind that they're dealing with science fiction? That will color anything they read or see within the series itself. And though Mike Rudin doesn't seem to want to admit it, even within his own reporting there is a lot of stuff that raises more questions than it answers.

  • Comment number 89.

    Hi there, just wanted to say that the best evidence I have seen presented about 911 is that of Mr Richard Gage, head of Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth (www.ae911truth.org). His 2 hour video on thier website was the most convincing I have seen so far. Better than loose change i think.

    I think this is becuase he is approaching it from the point of view of his own expertise and so speaks as an expert on buildings and how they are designed to cope with fire and so can show very clearly how fire is not the cause of the collapse.

    I encourage everyone to see it and then make thier own mind up.

    But despite all this sadness I believe and feel there is good news. That now at least we have uncovered the existence of the real evil that was once very well hidden from view behind the mask of freedom and democracy.

    The mask is slowly falling and showing the true face of its wearer. So the next big question is what we , the people alive on this earth, should replace this evil system of capitalism/secularism with? We know that communism is a failure. And we are now clearly seeing what capitalism/secularism is (ie lies and deceit). So what is to replace them? What or which is the system that is tuely good and fit for humanity?

    If we think this way we can think positively about the present and go beyond the shell shock of the evil that we are slowly uncovering.

    Take care

  • Comment number 90.

    Hi ynda20 re 86

    I know you were joking when you said my conspiracy theory had credibility!

    I made up my conspiracy theory in the minute before I wrote it to show up the 9/11 conspiracy theorists as barking up the wrong tree in saying it was controlled demolitions. Anybody who wants to believe a conspiracy theory never wants to believe anything else and that is what makes my conspiracy theory so amusing. And it could even be true. The facts fit. It has credibility and would be very easy indeed for the US administration to keep it going, knowing the depth of conviction of the truthers in the face of all the evidence to the contrary.

    The stark truth is that all the truthers succeed in doing is to distract attention from the real issues where the US Govt can rightly be criticised.

  • Comment number 91.

    I've read that the Home Secretary has absolute control over the content of broadcast media in Britain though I haven't managed to locate the relevant part of broadcasting law. The BBC is clearly under duress if you can call it that but this sort of programme making is indefensible. Staff could always refuse to cooperate or resign. I'm assuming they're not under threat of death (remember Nuremberg BBC).

  • Comment number 92.

    Dear busby2,

    Firstly, I admire your tenacity.

    That being said, I am interested in your reasoning. You said...

    'Anybody who wants to believe a conspiracy theory never wants to believe anything else...'

    By definition, one could argue that the 'official version' is in itself, a conspiracy theory - having never being properly tested. Because of that lack of being properly tested, I - and others - find it very hard to give it too much credit. This is because a lot of the details don't fit. Hence we don't agree with this theory and are open to reason.

    Others, on the other hand, do believe the official conspiracy theory, regardless of those annoying details. And this falls in with my personal experience when trying to discuss this topic with others.

    I find generally, people seem to fall into a few different categories.

    First, there are the: 'Our Government 'would' never do such a thing'. Faithful people.
    Second, there are the: "The Government 'could' never do such a thing due to incompetence'. Dismissive people.
    Third, there are the: 'I wouldn't put it past them... but I don't want to talk about it.' Scared people.
    Fourth, there a those willing to listen to the questions.

    In addition, I - and others - desperately want a plausible explanation where all those details do fit. And we want calm, non-emotive and rational explanations for the many, many unanswered questions we have.
    Instead we get ridicule, aggression, fear because these people believe the official conspiracy theory and 'never want to believe anything else'.

    Which is exactly what you said.

    So, in-conclusion, I call for a new, proper, independent investigation that opens itself to peer-review because I want an official version I can believe.

  • Comment number 93.

    Hi Busby2,

    Re 90. I'm afraid I agree with LaunieLad, 92, this is not a "belief" thing. It is just performing basic fact finding. Something that currently has not been done. I think this is such an important topic that I should =not= have to wade through skeptic and truther web sites for basic investigation. Why is the mainstream media not discussing the many anomalies that have been pointed out by the 9/11 families?

    I have respected your viewpoint and waded through websites you have pointed me to such as "popular mechanics" and shown fault in them. But I do feel that you have given the same respect to the 9/11 families who have legitimate, and so far unanswered, questions.

  • Comment number 94.

    I have watched The Third Tower with great care and concentration. I used to believe the official story, now I am convinced that it was an inside job.

  • Comment number 95.

    I have just been perusing a website recommended by a friend of mine - http://patriotsquestion911.com/ - in which hundreds of qualified people including senior military officers, senior members of intelligence services, law enforcement officials, government officials, engineers, architects, pilots and aviation professionals, professors, 9/11 survivors and family members, artists, entertainers and media professionals, all question the official 9/11 conspiracy theory. These people are mature, intelligent and balanced people, highly qualified and knowledgeable people. Their opinions are reinforcing my newly acquired conviction that 9/11 was indeed an inside job.

  • Comment number 96.

    In a discussion I am having with friends about 9/11, one of them pointed out that explosive charges in WTC 1, 2 and 7 did not necessarily need miles and miles of wiring - remote-control via cell-phone or radio is just as efficient, if not more so. Furthermore, using remote control to detonate explosives takes away weeks of work when rigging a building for demolition. Wires are used in ordinary demolitions because they are far less costly than the apparatus used in remote control.

  • Comment number 97.

    Mike Rudin ended his blog entry with "Those who continue to question the official explanation have still to set out what exactly the grand conspiracy was, how it was carried out, who carried it out and why they would do so."

    This is absolute nonsense, it is logically incorrect. The burden of proof is on the official conspiracy theory backers to prove that their conspiracy theory is the truth - which none of them have succeeded in doing. It is not the job of the critics of the official conspiracy theory to offer alternative theories, that is not the point. What critics are doing is exposing the numerous huge inconsistencies and impossibilities proffered in the official conspiracy theory.

  • Comment number 98.

    Hi sdemetri,

    I see your message was finally posted. Was that a broken link in the original message? It looks rather interesting.

    "83. At 1:23pm on 12 Jul 2008, sdemetri wrote:

    ynda20: That is mainly from an article published at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute's own website: http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html And this site has a wealth of information: http://nasathermalimages.com/ And of course there is all of the work found at: http://journalof911studies.com/ There is this study done for the Deutsche Bank by the firm RJ Lee. Microspheres of iron, aluminosilicates, vaporized lead are all discussed: [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator] Steven Jones and others published the paper "Extremely High Temperatures" which is on the Journal of 911 Studies site, and goes into other studies, such as the USGS findings that microspheres of molybdenum have been found in dust samples. Molybdenum melts at over 2500C, well over a thousand degrees C hotter than hydrocarbon (office building) fires can produce. What caused that? Interesting indeed. And thank you for your well stated, fervent calls for a new investigation. "

    Thanks for the comment. It makes a change from the other less scientific responses on the blogs. Lets keep pressing for an independent investigation. One day, the media will take some serious interest in this subject, don't you think?

  • Comment number 99.

    1/3 WTC7 explosions Barry Jennings FULL INTERVIEW UNCUT- July 2008 release

    Youtube

  • Comment number 100.

    The link that held it all up was a pdf link to the RJ Lee environmental study done for the Deutsche Bank.

    Maybe the media will eventually pick up on it. I recently appeared on a local cable public access show hosted by one my Senators to the State Legislature (State, not Federal). He asked great questions, heard my point of view pointing to the evidence for controlled demolition, and allowed me to show images to demonstrate my points. He told me the show went very well. There is a lot more movement and understanding about the questions surrounding the attacks outside of the US. Within this country there is an active effort to quash any discussion about it. Very few with real power are interested enough to publicly talking about it.

 

Page 1 of 3

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.