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

Caught up in a conspiracy theory

Mike Rudin Mike Rudin | 11:54 UK time, Tuesday, 21 October 2008

I've just been sent a video on the net which accuses me of being "Eurotrash" and of producing a "hit piece" about 9/11.

World Trade CenterAlmost inevitably I've been enmeshed in the ever growing net of the conspiracy theory. They've added my name to a long list of imagined conspirators - the secret services, police, people who worked in the building, first responders, the fire service, city officials...and also those who they think have deliberately set out to cover up this huge conspiracy - the official investigators, the world's media...

Last month we were in New York to film the seventh anniversary of 9/11 at Ground Zero for a new programme about the allegation of a conspiracy to deliberately destroy the three skyscrapers at the World Trade Centre. "The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Truth Behind The Third Tower" is to be broadcast at 9pm on BBC Two on Sunday 26th October 2008.

In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.

We also filmed self-styled truthers who think 9/11 was an inside job, either carried out or allowed by the US government; and they needed to destroy a third tower at the World Trade Center, Tower 7, which they think contained the plans for the plot.

It is a fact that Tower 7 had some interesting tenants - the CIA, the Secret Service, the Department of Defense and the Office of Emergency Management - the very office which was intended to co-ordinate a response to a disaster or terrorist attack.

When we were filming we were surprised that some of the truthers seemed particularly keen to interview us on camera about the last programme we made about this third tower at 9/11. They think we have deliberately set out to conceal the truth. As one said to me "You already know the truth."

The group who made the video are called "We are change". They claim we misrepresented the chronology involving one important witness who we interviewed in our last programme about 9/11.

The first responder Barry Jennings was trapped inside the building for several hours along with another New York City official. They were crucial witnesses to what was going on inside Tower 7 after everyone had been evacuated shortly after the Twin Towers were hit by the two planes.

As I tried to explain to them at the time, we recorded a long interview with Barry Jennings. We also carefully considered other information and came to our own view based on all of that.

As the two men tried to get out of the skyscraper they were suddenly thrown into darkness. Barry Jennings said he heard explosions. We think it is likely that this was when Tower 1 collapsed, showering debris onto Tower 7.

We have also recently recorded an interview with the other man there, Michael Hess.

Michael Hess was Mayor Rudolf Giuliani's chief lawyer, in charge of 800 New York City lawyers. In his first interview since 9/11 he confirms our timeline. Hess says all the lights went out and he felt the building shake like an earthquake and he adds that he did not hear explosions.

In his mind he thought there might have been an explosion. In the only interview he did on 9/11 he told a reporter he had "walked down to the eighth floor where there was an explosion."

But as our interview with him shows, he is now certain that he did not hear an explosion. He just assumed on the day it could have been an explosion because he had witnessed the lights going out, the staircase filling with smoke and the building shaking vigorously.

In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.

We now know, courtesy of the final official report on 9/11 [pdf link] by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, that the official investigators think that two areas of Tower 7 were badly hit when the 1,350 foot Tower 1 collapsed. Seven columns were severed on the southwest corner and they suggest debris also hit the top centre face of Tower 7.

The lead investigator of NIST told me that "it's likely that all of those huge failures and damage really caused noises that were incredibly loud."

If our timeline is wrong then why didn't Barry Jennings and Michael Hess see and hear the moment of impact when Tower 1 fell. It must have been very loud.

The group also criticizes us for not including one sentence from an interview with the owner Larry Silverstein. Apologies now because this gets very complicated. However, some people think hidden in this is a vital clue that can unravel the biggest conspiracy in modern times.

The theory is that the owner Larry Silverstein is meant to have implicated himself in a conspiracy to destroy the buildings he owned and leased at the World Trade Center. And what exactly did he say that supposedly gave it all away?

He said "pull it" which some people interpret as an order to demolish the building.

The interview was conducted the year after 9/11 and Larry Silverstein said:

"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it."

"We are change" activists think there is something sinister in the fact that we did not include an extra sentence when Larry Silverstein said:

"And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

I don't have a problem talking about it. And just for the avoidance of any doubt we included it in the Worldwide version and we will include it in the new programme for BBC Two.

However, I do not understand how that implicates the owner in any wrongdoing. Interestingly one prominent website, 9/11 Research which is highly critical of the official explanation, is not convinced either and thinks it might even be "bait" to discredit the truth movement.

The crucial words seem to be "pull it" and Larry Silverstein's spokesman provides an explanation:

"Mr Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those fire fighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."

I talked to the man who assumed command of the New York Fire Department that day. Chief Daniel Nigro told me that it was his decision to decide what to do about Tower 7.

In other words there is no way Larry Silverstein could have ordered the fire department to leave the building and wait for it to be demolished. As Chief Nigro told me the fire service was not part of conspiracy, they were doing their job:

"When we are in charge of a building, we are in charge and that decision will be the fire chiefs and his alone...That's why I know there is no conspiracy, because for me to be part of that would be obscene and it disgusts me to even think of it."

For good measure the truthers at Ground Zero added one final criticism, saying that the BBC is funded by General Electric. I'm not sure what that's based on, but I can say with absolute, yes absolute certainty, it isn't...nor have I ever been part of a conspiracy to cover up what really went on 9/11.


Page 1 of 57

  • Comment number 1.

    The BBC is funded by general electric ????

    Makes you wonder who is behnd these 'truth' campaigners.

    It's seems very convenient that this campaign of theirs is coming to a head just at the time of the US elections.

    How are these people funded?

  • Comment number 2.

    I've throughly enjoyed watching these conspiracy programmes, as they treat the theories with the respect they deserve - the sensible, well-thought out theories get treated with respect (even if you don't agree with them).

    But you have one major problem. You say that you have never been part of a conspiracy to cover up 9/11. However - and I'm sure if I don't point this out, someone else will - if you WERE involved with a conspiracy, that's what you would say too.

    Unless you were a particularly bad conspiracist, of course!

    "Was there a conspiracy to cover up 9/11?"
    "What makes you so sure?"
    "Well I was a member of"

    General Electric? Where does that come from? And more importantly, if you're getting your funding from there, can I have a TV licence refund?

  • Comment number 3.

    I find the 9/11 conspiracy very intriguing, I saw this free for profit film which has some very interesting insight into what happened on that awful day.
    Enter ‘zeitgeist’ into your browser and see for your self.

  • Comment number 4.

    I can't understand how anyone can just blindly accept the version of events resulting from any official enquiry.
    I'm not a rabid conspiracist but there are so many holes in the official line to make anyone question the validity of it.
    Why for example can we not be shown video footage of the plane crashing into the pentagon when so many cameras captured that moment? It's almost as if the us administration wants to perpetuate the conspiracy theories.

  • Comment number 5.

    I think these conspiracy theories are part of human nature. Look what we went through, and still do, with the Kennedy conspiracy. Agatha Christie couldn't have done it better.

  • Comment number 6.

    Oh mike, poor you.

    you don't quite get it do you.

    Us, "self style truthers", dont believe you, "state sponsored journalists".

    You couldn't answer a straight question asked of you in your confrontation with 'we are change'. It was your Michael Howard moment. you avoided it and danced around it but couldn't give a straight answer.

    I think it was the smirk on your face that most of us, self styled truthers, found really offensive. when one considers the net effect of 9/11 and then sees your smiling disdain to any questions about it, It's not pleasant. I can only speak for myself here.

    There is no single conspiricy theory but there is a general acceptance amongst us, "self styled truthers", that the report made by the Kean Commission doesn't add up. (including members of the Kean Commission). "the order still stands", and such.

    Many names are theorised about who are responsible, Guilliani, Hess and Silverstiens names are often mentioned. So you back up your claims by saying they told you how it is all ok, there is nothing sinister to worry about and please believe our 'man in a cave' coincidence theory, and you take this at face value. That was some great investigative journalism you did there.

    You asked the accused if they did it, they said no, case closed no mystery here.

    If you spent the same amount of time trying to disprove the 'man in a cave' theory as you have done the 'inside job' theory maybe folks like me would have more faith in your words.

    But you don't. The only interest you have in is disproving any other theory other than the official theory.

    I also notice that you didn't mention that Barry Jennings can no longer add to his testimony as he is now dead. As if we needed more fuel for our doubting minds.

    Your coverage and misdirection just gets worse and worse. Tower 7 is only one piece of the case against the 'man in a cave' theory. The list of smoking guns is well into the hundreds.

    The more you avoid a straight investigation or a striaght open debate about 9/11, and 7/7 for that matter (I see the 7/7 documentary has been shelved) then the more, I for one, will doubt what you say.

    Oh then again you have lost so much credibility in the eyes of us 'self styled truthers' that they/we/I don't need your endorsement.

    I think you lost any trust with Dr. Kelly for most of us

  • Comment number 7.

    I watched the program when broadcast. My thoughts at the time were:
    Ever heard a slab of concrete dropped onto another slab of concrete, particularly where there are enclosed spaces. It sounds like a very loud explosion and causes vibrations etc. As part of the third tower was being hit with debris and partially collapsed, it was both being struck with considerable force and having internal collapses of its own. That would account for the loud bangs.
    If you want to do a small experiment drop a paving slab down a stairwell. (I had a misspent youth.)

    Silverstein said: `And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.
    ` I`d interpert that as meaning `pull out` or `pull back to safety`. If he wanted to blow it up then he`d have said `blow it` or `hit it`. He didn`t. This also makes sense when following a statement such as `We`ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.` As in `pull the resuce operation` until we think things are safer etc.

    Blowing up a building won`t destroy documents? It`ll bury them or scatter them; making it even harder to ensure they won`t be discovered.

    Bin Laden was interviewed on October 20, 2001 by Al-Jazeera Bureaux chief Taysir Alluni in Kabul. In his first interview after 9/11 Osama bin Laden said `that the events that happened on Tuesday September 11 in New York and Washington are truly great events by any measure. ` They were `successful and blessed attacks… We implore God to accept those brothers (who carried them out) within the ranks of the martyrs, and to admit them to the highest levels of Paradise.`
    Bin Laden has many times since claimed responsibility for 9/11 the attacks.

    I`m not naive. Not all conspiracy theories are without foundation: I myself believe, based on the evidence, that the CIA assassinated Luther King and allowed crack cocaine to be introduced in the USA by contras to fund wars in S. America. But this one is frankly implausible.

  • Comment number 8.

    If our timeline is wrong.
    Why did nt Barry Jennings and Micheal Hess see and hear the moment of impact when Tower 1 fell.

    Your timeline is wrong and i will tell you why Mike,by the way i dont think you are part of a cover up just too much in your box.

    Barry Jennings R.I.P quite clearly states in his interview with Loose Change which i doubt you have seen that Hess and himself were back on the 19th floor coordinating there rescue with fireman out of a window when the first tower collapsed.The fireman left the area for safety reasons returning when it was deemed safe only to leave again when the second tower collapsed this is crystal clear.

    So it is without any doubt there were explosions in Tower 7 prior to either towers collapsing.Go check it out yourself.

  • Comment number 9.

    You've missed the point with the Larry Silverstein quote.

    It's not whether or not he said "pull it" that's the problem, it's the fact that it was originally reported that the building collapsed on it's own. If it later transpires that it was deliberately pulled down (even if it was done to preempt a collapse), it looks like they were trying to hide their actions.

    If someone just came out and said "we got it wrong in all the confusion" then half the conspiracy theories would never have started.

    It also doesn't help that the official story is itself a conspiracy theory. Of the 19 people that the FBI claim were the hijackers, half a dozen have come forward protesting their innocence. The fact that they are still alive to do so lends their story a certain credence.

  • Comment number 10.


    Thanks for including the extended Larry Silverstein quote.

    Since Chief Daniel Nigro didn't tell you he was in communication with Larry Silverstein on 9-11 (or I assume you'd have highlighted that by now?), and as the Chief says, he doesn't need anyone's permission to direct his team, isn't it unlikely Silverstein was referring to the fire crew?
    If Silverstein was referring to the fire crew, then why hasn't Chief Nigro confirmed that they spoke together about this?

    And according to Rudy's lawyer, on the day, when it was still fresh in his mind, he recalls explosions. Now, 7 years later, he's sure it wasn't explosions...maybe his statements have changed because the other guy who was with him, who says he heard explosions has recently turned up dead? Anyway, I'm pretty sure that witness testimony on the day of the event, is more generally more credible than recollections 7 years later.

    You claim you are not part of the why did the BBC refuse to air video footage of the collapse of WTC7 for over 5 years?
    Why did your organisation, and all other mainstream media, cover up this news event?

    And you reported the collapse of the building about 20 minutes before it happened. By your own admission.

    You want people to think your timeline of events is accurate, but you haven't bothered to report on 9-11 hero William Rodriguez saying there was a huge explosion in the basement of the twin towers, BEFORE the first plane hit.

    For those who still haven't seen video of WTC7 collapsing, have a look for yourself, and then make your own conclusions. Don't dismiss the "conspiracy theorists" until you've had a look at the facts.

  • Comment number 11.

    7. At 2:11pm on 21 Oct 2008, SheffTim wrote:
    "Bin Laden has many times since claimed responsibility for 9/11 the attacks."

    Out of curiosity, which OBL are we talking about here? Is it the thin, left-handed guy who doesn't wear jewelry and sends his taped messages to news agencies or is it the chubbier, sovreign-wearing, right-handed guy who accidently leaves tapes lying around Afghanistan for the CIA to find?

  • Comment number 12.

    with all the conspiricies they cloud the truth, well just to simplify matters firstly there is no puzzle to solve over 9/11.
    the basic facts are these,
    1) jet liners hit the twin towers, fact as well reported.
    2) the towers fell, yet again fact.
    3) other events like a jet hitting the pentagon and tower 3 falling, again well reported facts.
    but the truth is rather stranger,
    the planes that hit the twin towers were infact under alien control.
    the aliens were and are in league with the government.
    the same government is also behind the fake moon landings,the loss of the titanic, several killings inclouding the kennedy ones and recent financial problems.
    this government having sold out to aliens expects other governments to join them in there alien run wars of conquest.
    but if this truth is believable then i am not as mad as i thought i was.

  • Comment number 13.

    Oh noes, truthers not getting their own way again? Quick, to the blogs and forums!

    Journalists never learn that unless you say what conspiracy theorists want to hear then you're "part of the system".

    After 9/11, demolition crews spent a lot of time knocking over buildings that were heavily damaged in full view of the public. One wonders why there was a need to knock over an obscure building in secret, thus increasing the risk of exposing the "plot" to knock over the twin towers. It would have been far easier and less attention-grabbing to have taken it down the next day (giving a chance for goverment agents to clear the area of any conspiracy information) ;)

    I should have planned this, I could have done it better than Bush!

  • Comment number 14.

    deryk pooley, you can watch video of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon (the BBC have it here:

    Why can't you see the plane clearly, simple mathematics:

    A 757 at cruising speed covers roughly 236 metres every second; this plane, as it was diving, would probably have been travelling faster.

    A 757 is approximately 50m long.

    At 30 frames per second, a 757 at cruising speed would cover 8m per frame. The Pentagon CCTV system appears to use time-lapse cameras (in common with lots of CCTV systems) running slower than 30fps.

    If the video showed anything more than a blurred image of part of the plane, it would be more likely to be faked than real.

    Of course nothing will satisfy the conspiracy theorists except official acceptance of their version of "the truth"; although I doubt they would be convinced even then.

  • Comment number 15.


    Reading over your blog again, I've just grasped that Nigro is the guys who apparently called Silverstein and said they weren't sure they were going to be able to save the building.
    Does Nigro corroborate this statement by Silverstein?
    What efforts was Nigro making to save the building at this stage?
    Why, given that the building looks to be structurally sound, aside from fires on a handful of floors, would Nigro have the feeling the building was going to be totalled?
    Can Nigro confirm damage to the rear side of WTC7?
    Was Nigro interviewed by NIST, or the 9-11 commission? His names does not appear in either final report?

    Is there any chance of you posting a pdf of the full interview you did with Chief Nigro, (and all the other interviews done for your program) so readers can see how thoroughly and professionally you conducted the interviews?

  • Comment number 16.

    I don't normally pay attention to conspiracy theorists - after reading some of the comments in here I can see I have missed out on hours of fun!!

  • Comment number 17.

    #5. The problem with the Kennedy shooting was that the congressional report & warren report fundamentally disagreed.

    Personally I think there WAS a cover up there: Lee Harvey Oswald, possibly with someone else probably shot Kennedy on the orders of Castro (which is self defence given how many times JFK tried to kill Castro). Johnson wisely covered this up because it would be WW3 if revealed.

    Not all cover ups are evil.

  • Comment number 18.

    Mr. Rudin, I am curious why you haven't interviewed David Ray Griffin. It appears you have passed over his research on Hess and Jennings.

    And not to imply that Hess is lying, but his initial interview, when the events were fresh in memory, might be more reliable than an opinion he has arrived at potentially from a political motive as much as anything else. I'm sure (or hope) you took that into account. He must still operate in the NYC political environment, and given his connection to Guiliani, and all that that relationship could entail, it comes as no surprise to me that he would change his story from what he originally said when the politics of his statement were arguably less in play.

    I am also concerned on your reliance on NIST and its NCSTAR 1 report. It was a massive effort, but as James Quintiere, former Director of NIST's Fire research division, said to the 2007 World Fire Safety symposium, he has problems with NIST not allowing independent evaluation of the data, methods, and parameters NIST used to generate its report. He publicly called for that data to be released for independent evaluation.

    Particularly troubling are the "black box" computer simulations that when fed empirical data from actual experiments, the simulations failed to produce the collapse. Data was then entered to create more extreme conditions, with no factual basis for doing so other than to force a simulated collapse. That method is highly suspect, especially if the data and parameters are not transparent.

    Personally, I have looked carefully at the blueprints for WTC 1, and find no logical basis for the claim NIST makes that jet fuel fireballs collapsed walls, and created extreme heat in subbasement levels in the first 5 to 8 minutes after the plane struck the building. There was only ONE elevator shaft that ran from the strike zone to subbasement level 6 where this damage was reported by at least one of those 225 that NIST interviewed. NO utility shafts directly connected the strike zone with this level. That shaft contained Car 50, and Car 50 held two occupants that survived and did not describe a destructive fireball after the plane impact.

    I have found NO explanation in any part of the NCSTAR 1 report -- diagrammatic, computer simulated, schematic -- that hypothesizes how this could have happened. The occupants of Car 50 were injured after the car fell several floors, were rescued, and lay in the vicinity of that shaft for up to 40 minutes before being evacuated. Neither they, nor their rescuers reported a destructive fireball. With the car stuck in the shaft around subbasement level 2 or 3, a fireball descending the shaft could not have reached sublevels 4, 5, or 6 where extensive damage has been reported by several eyewitnesses. Something else took place which NIST left completely unexplained.

    Deaths and injuries appeared in front of the elevator banks that ran to the thirtieth floors in the West Street lobby, with the doors blown off and the shafts exposed. The express elevators in the lobby to the fortieth floors, on the south side of the lobby, and those to the 78th floor, on the north side of the lobby were reported by Lt. William Walsh as undamaged. Elevators further into the building to the twentieth floors were still operative. None of this is explained with a plausible route jet fuel fireballs may have taken through shafts for elevators or utilities.

    And the fact that jet fuel must be aerosolized to a relatively high range of concentrations for it to explode, as opposed to simply burning on ignition, leaves me wondering why NIST failed to make any sort of conjecture as to the route fuel might have taken, the concentrations evaporating fuel could have reached in the first ten minutes 1000 feet below the strike zone.

    Observations of building damage after initial awareness but before beginning evacuation of WTC 1, in the first 5 to 8 minutes showed:
    Smoke observed on floors: sub-level 6, floors 9-10, 12-14, 16-17, 19-35, 37-40, 43-47, 50-54, 58, 61-69, 71-72, 74, 77-95, 97, 100, 102-106
    Fatally injured people: 24-25, 29, 38-40, 43-44, 51, 53,60, 62, 67, 72, 77, 81, 83, 88, 91, 100
    Jet fuel: 10, 12-14, 17, 19-20, 22-27, 29-31, 35-36, 38-40, 44, 46-47, 50-53, 57, 62-63, 65, 67, 69, 72, 74, 78, 81-82, 85, 87-90
    Collapsed walls: sub-level 6, floors 17, 19-20, 22-23, 25-26, 28, 32, 34,37, 43, 50,54, 64, 71-73, 77-92,
    Extreme Heat: sub-level 6, floors 31, 43-45, 68, 77-78, 80-83, 85, 87-91, 95, 103-106
    Fireballs: sub-level 6, floors 44, 78, 81-83, 88

    And NO explanation for these reports other than to say "it is plausible" jet fuel fireballs were the cause. Within the first 5 to 8 minutes...

    Your reliance on NIST's report is understandable, but if there is in fact a coverup, by not considering alternatives you support that effort. In some of your documentary work on this you allow contrary opinions to be heard, but not in great depth, while placing great weight on those backing the official conspiracy theory.

  • Comment number 19.

    Mike - while it's useful to get all these theories involving physical evidence 'out the way' so to speak (I can see Hank rolling his eyes at me already), I do wish you'd hurry up and do a programme on Omar Saeed Sheikh.

    Specifically, to explore the 'alleged' connections between him and the ISI, his 'alleged' funding of the 9/11 attacks, and his 'alleged' involvement in the awful capture and beheading of journalist Daniel Pearl.

    If I honestly believed 9/11 was an inside job, then this is where I'd be looking - the top level funding and planning of what actually took place.

  • Comment number 20.

    Another voice, #14.

    According to the press reports about the Pentagon, and my own research, the Pentagons cameras recorded at a frame rate of 100 FPS, not 30FPS . This is over 3 times slower motion than a normal video camera.
    Many of the original press links have been removed, but the Latimes link above is still working (at 21st Oct 2008).

  • Comment number 21.

    As Bill Maher pointed out, the proof it wasn't an inside job by the Bush administration is this: It worked!

  • Comment number 22.

    Conspiracy theorists often cite inconsistencies in witness accounts as evidence of foul-play or a cover-up, but memory is fallible, witnesses change their minds for a whole variety of reasons, official reports always contain errors and forensic scientists have differences of opinion. The truth is often ragged, with loose ends that never get tied. Only conspiracy theories are neat.

  • Comment number 23.

    If you still haven't seen the video of the third tower coming down, watch the link below. It will take 9 seconds.

    This is what we're talking about. Does this look like a building destroyed by fire to you?

    This is the news event that the 9-11 commission did not mention once in it's report.

    This is the event the BBC refused to air video of for over 5 years.

    This is the event most people never knew happened on 9-11, and millions have still never heard of.

    #22. Only the collapse of WTC7 looks neat.

  • Comment number 24.

    As a Climate Change scientist, I find ths blog very refreshing.

    The vast majority of people in the world undersand that man made climate change is real, and that here isn't vast, worldwide conspiricy of scientists (?) who made it all up to [delete as appropriate : promote socialism/starve Africa/raise taxes].

    Yet, if you looked at the blogs, you would come to the conclusion that it was a conspiricy.

    Basically conspiricy people are very loud. But I /saw/ the 2nd plane hit the WTO, so I don't need an alternative explanation.

    Likewise, climate change is real, no matter what a few loud shrill deniers would have you believe.

  • Comment number 25.

    #22, true enough, but one doesn't throw out eyewitness testimony ad hoc. You look for ways to analyze it, verify it and determine its validity or shortcomings. If it is thrown out wholesale, the courts that rely heavily on human testimony could get nowhere.

    And there is nothing neat about the events of 9/11, or attempts to understand the sanitized, and very "neat" official conspiracy that 19 rank amateurs flew the some of the most sophisticated aviation technology in existence with the precision of highly trained professionals.

    Hani Hanjour was said to have dropped from 7000 ft in a tight 270 degree spiral at speeds around 400 to 500 mph, pulling 4, 5, 6 G's in doing so, and yet his flight instructor refused to fly in a single engine Cessna because he was so bad a pilot. And the Kean Report, the 9/11 Commission report, said he was "one of the best pilots they had." What is "neat" about that?

  • Comment number 26.

    Whether it was Islamic fundamentalists seeking to strike at the heart of Western Capitalism, covert US Governmental agencies conspiring to control the world's oil supplies, covert Israeli operatives using a group of Islamic patsies to turn the West against the Arab World, or little green spacemen from Planet Chug-A-Lug 5 seeking to take over the planet - it remains the case, one way or another, there WAS a conspiracy.

    It'd be nice, though, if the tone of the debate could be raised a little on all sides: yes, their shrieks against you are on the shrill side, but you're hardly better referring to them as 'truthers' - as derogatory and provocative a term as one can get, from someone supposedly a journalist on the lookout for cool-headed truth.

    At least you didn't call them deniers, a seemingly deliberately planted term which some people now understand as meaning that such individuals claim the whole 9-11 episode never happened at all.

  • Comment number 27.

    I watched the Youtube clip. The tower collapsed vertically on to its own footprint. That proves nothing, one way or the other. What were you expecting? A pirouette?

  • Comment number 28.

    And Mr. Rudin, We Are Change NY, does not speak for the entire "truth" community. Please don't conflate their opinions with those of everyone else who question the official conspiracy theory as to what happened on 9/11.

  • Comment number 29.

    Good to see the usual level of debate here.

    Delminster provides the usual mocking, Peter talks about the Kennedy killing. Glasgow gooner pitches in with more derision, Silk seems to think the environmental debate has something to add to the issues involved. Others rattle on about Bush being an idiot as all the proof they need.

    All very interesting but none of it anything to do with 9/11.

    Silk even tells us he saw the 2nd plane hit, so he must know who was behind it. Don't quite follow his logic unless he could see attwa and co through the cockpit window.

    Poor old sdemetri writes a massive amount on the technicalities of the nist collapse theories, best ignored by those who don't believe. Call him an alien or tell him you once built a sandcastle and it fell over. But whatever you do never actually argue about the facts or treat the subject with anything approaching logic.

    Bring on the mockery, I feel it says more about those who say it, than those it is directed at.

    The 'Trumans', who no doubt also believe that WWE Wrestling is a real sport along with the 'man in a cave' coincidence theory, will believe whatever they are told as long as they don't have to give up there I-pods or have it intefere with their safe lifes. You can even steal their savings and they will say thank-you without even investigating what went/is going on.

    So when bombers attack the london underground and have to pass by hundreds of CCTV cameras, they only need 1 dodgy old picture from luton station and they are happy. When the pentagon, possible the most heavily defended building in the world gets hit by a plane, they just have to say, "we didn't see that coming" and they will believe them. Ignore the photos of Condi and pals standing round a model of the pentagon with a crashed plane in it from a few years before. Ignore the Kean Commission testimony of stand down orders, Ignore anything that means you might have to take the ego hit that you have been lied to.

    As long as you get your x-factor or your cricket to watch then you will let our governments go ahead and murder by the millions based on some distinctly dodgy terrorist attacks.

  • Comment number 30.

    #26 Thanks for watching the clip.

    Yes, the tower does appear to collapse vertically. I agree.
    Onto it's own footprint, pretty much. Agreed.

    I expected the steel frame to offer more resistance than is shown.

    I expected the collapse to happen more gradually, if at all.

    Frankly, I wouldn't expect it to collapse at all, considering a steel frame highrise has never fallen from fire in the history of steel framed buildings, until building 7.

    It looks like someone has pulled the rug out from under it. Just like a controlled demolition.

    Why did the media and the 9-11 commission not want people to know about this?

  • Comment number 31.

    Mike, If I turn on BBC 2 at 9pm on Sunday and watch "The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Truth Behind The Third Tower" will I get the truth or the truth according to the BBC?

    Does the documentary give a satisfactory explanation as to why BBC News 24 reported live the collapse of Building 7, I quote "The 47 storey Salomon Brothers building close to the World Trade Centre has also collapsed", yet there it is was in shot for several minutes before the 'line' went down?

  • Comment number 32.

    NIST omitted from the Report information relating to foreknowledge by several groups of people that WTC 7 was going to collapse.

    What we mean by foreknowledge is a quality of detail and a strength of conviction that allow us to say, in light of the building’s collapse at approximately 5:21 p.m., that they knew in advance that it was coming down.

    Such knowledge is highly significant in light of the facts that (a) no steel framed skyscraper in history (indeed, NIST says, “no tall building” in history) had ever before collapsed from fire alone; and (b) the collapse, according to NIST, was the result of a series of accidental and unpredictable factors, which did not come together in such a way as to determine the fate of the building until minutes, or possibly even seconds, before the collapse took place.

    In any situation where someone demonstrates foreknowledge of an extremely unusual event, the possibility must be considered that the knowledge derived from those who had control over the event. In other words, foreknowledge of WTC 7’s collapse greatly strengthens our suspicions that the building was subjected to controlled demolition and that the knowledge of its demise derived ultimately from those who intended to bring it down.

  • Comment number 33.

    Re: Mike Rudin and the 9/11 third tower documentary -

    That documentary, being titled "The Conspiracy Files" suggested from the outset that we already have a credible explanation and some others, less credible, were about to be presented. What I'd rather see though, is a police style investigation that looks for evidence and assesses it, from a starting point of no assumption.

    It did cover quite a lot, but since it started with a very strong suggestion in the title not to take the whole thing seriously, it wasn't an impartial investigation.

    It's interesting to note that these programmes often end with something like " don't rake over this, it is upsetting and insulting to the families of those who died", which is pretty strong emotional suggestion.

    What they don't say is that many of those families do not believe the official line either and want further investigation.

    So, we have the suggestion in the title - "don't take this seriously" and at the end we have "think no more about this, you are insulting the dead". Like I said, hardly balanced.

    If it was a true investigation it would have been called something like "Panorama". Imagine the difference. It may still have concluded the alternative viewpoints don't add up (or maybe some do), but it wouldn't have been biased from the outset.

    Anyway, whether terrorism or inside job, 9/11 has certainly been used to galvanise support for unjust wars and to remove personal freedoms - both here and in America - to a shocking extent.

  • Comment number 34.

    I think there is something very worrying about the lengths people go to in order to argue that this series of tragedies was some form of consipiracy.

    Many of these theorists seem to be based on denying every major fact that is presented to them, boiling down to the fact that anything less than eye witness accounts of the terrorists boarding the plane and carrying out their atrocities is suspect evidence - "that's the official line, that evidence could have been easily forged by the authorities." Merely denying the official line and raising speculative questions is a country mile away from actually coming up with any kind of alternative theory.

    In instances such as these, whilst people agonise over the details (did people in Tower 7 hear explosions, or was it falling debris? - impossible to ever know for certain), why not take a step back to consider the motivation. Was this committed by international terrorists who have declared war on America, or it was it done by the American Government for, well, unspecified reasons?

    I'm sure the main motivation for the conspiracists is a keenness to be "one step ahead" of everyone else, show how they're cleverer than the rest of us who just taking up the official line. The other motivation is of course the instinctive and extremist anti-Government position - "not only do I not like the Government, I'm going to accuse them of actively trying to kill their own citizens."

    But in reality, people putting around theories like this are providing further pain to those involved. Implying that building owners, elected officials, and politicians are actively murdering innocent citizens is in such poor taste I really have to wonder why such people persist in putting this kind of view across in public.

    Finally, maybe some of the conspiracy theorists could remind me who was behind the Kennedy assassination? Cubans, the FBI, the mafia, combinations of these? This was over 40 years ago, and still the conspiracy theorists have yet to even unite around a common theory, let alone come up with any proof. The scale of the operation needed to achieve this would have been vast, yet not one single person has come forward, even on their death bed, to confess or shed any light on it.

    The victims of these events deserve the truth. And until any of these fantasists can come up with any substantive proof, they should keep their views to themselves.

  • Comment number 35.

    Mmmm....a fair and biased press is necessary for a true democracy eh? A message for all you people passing by rather than the author of this blog.
    First ask yourself this- do you think this man may have made his mind up already?
    Then consider whether this programme will be fair and unbiased, or not.
    Then think that if what is being debated (irrelevant of how extreme it is considered to be), is important (think initial 3000 dead, then think about the leverage for iraq and afghanistan, the creation of an existence based around fear and terror, amongst other things), then ask yourself, do you think this has a right to be pushed forward and actively promoted as 'the answers' to questions that many millions are asking and acting upon despite the blanket oppression and propaganda against facts that contradict this tv producers point of view.
    Don't think that there are only two points of evidence that point towards a cover up regarding this issue (as he implies). There are hundreds of documented cases provided by valid (read mainstream) sources that imply that there was not one, but several explosions in all the buildings, amongst many thousands of bits of evidence that point towards this being one of the biggest manipulations of peoples of all time.
    To wit- something which is not just not mentioned, but has been hidden/ removed from the internet, and hidden by co. hidding behind. co. is the fact that this program was originally produced by in Germany. The head of this co.? Alexander coridass. Who? Good question because over the past 18 months since the original 911 conspiracy files program was made, all trace of the fact that this man was employed and worked very high up for fox broadcasting as a consultant on legal affairs ( information that was freely available via a quick google search before) has disappeared. Why? Hey I dunno. Maybe it has something to do with the fact the man has ties to a certain Mr Murdoch- someone who influences via their information channels some est. 4.5 billion people everyday. Why deny the connection? Well, a program selling itself as factual regarding something very controversial, no longer seems quite so non-biased as it seems, despite how 'intelligent' they dress it up as (read:this next program, even though i've not yet seen it!)
    As for the comment about General Electrical. Hey- why don't I find a stupid quote to discredit a bunch of people I don't like or believe in, or who threaten me....mmmm...
    I know- what about the possible next vice president thinks the earth is only 12,000 years old and dinosaurs didn't exist!!!!!
    See it's easy really. you don't have to go very far which sort of makes it lazzzyy really.
    To all of you who read this. There are now other sources of information. They don't want you to utilise them, but if you want to know what is as close to a truth as possible about what happens everyday, then arm yourself with as much information and different views as possible. This is the internet. And this is only the bbc. Use everything, but above all use your mind.

  • Comment number 36.

    I'm more concerned about the space aliens who are lurking under area 51.

    I find it very suspicious that the 'truth' campaigners are making so much fuss about 9/11 but never mention the aliens.

    Why are the 'truth' campaigners trying to keep the aliens secret?

    Is it coincidence that this is all coming up just at the same time as the US presidential elections? Certain special interests would pay big money to discredit the republicans on 9/11.

    Who is funding these 'truth' campaigns and why?

    (Hey - everyone else is throwing about random and ill defined allegations so I thought I would join in)

  • Comment number 37.

    OK hands up who believes OBL was behind 9/11? The FBI respectfully disagree.
    The FBI website has OBL listed under their 'most wanted terrorists' section , but NOT for 9/11! that's right NOT FOR 9/11 why? they say: "we simply don't have the evidence.."
    So the FBI are now 'truthers'. don't believe it? look:
    so now we know the official story has holes. all 'truthers' want is the truth. is that too much to ask?
    i think we all deserve it. Especially those more directly affected.
    Also, who said what about pulling WTC 7 is largely irrelevant, to be pulled the building AT ALL it had to have had the explosives to do the job installed prior to the event, obviously. these types of demolitions take 3-4 weeks to set up. So, no matter what, we know that the building was ready for pulling the day before sept 11 2001 as it cannot be done in a day, especially THAT day.
    therefore those who planned WTC 7 to be fitted with the explosives had prior knowledge of that days events. or do they have these explosives fitted just in case the building might need a tug one day? PS: anyone who still insists it was not a demolition needs to use the WWW to look up physics for 1st year high school. in particular 'the path of least resistance',and 'gravity' (22mph per sec).

    First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up,
    because I wasn’t a Communist.....

  • Comment number 38.

    A while back a friend of mine said he had seen one of the key conspiracy films, "Loose Change", and found it very convincing. Since I hadn't seen it, and as a scientist, I decided to watch the whole thing. I remember laughing hard and in a little disbelief through the whole thing. What makes me laugh the most about the 9/11 conspiracy theory nuts is that they look for tiny inconsistencies and then try to explain them with a story that has hundreds or thousands of major inconsistencies. They then wonder why no sane person actually believes a word they say. Having watched the film and assured myself it was a load of bunk, I then searched for one of the main rebuttals to the film and directed my friend to it. He watched it and agreed that he had been suckered by "Loose Change".

    Let me give a brief example of some of the rubbish the conspiracy theorists push out. They spend a fair amount of time in the "Loose Change" film trying to say that the towers fell faster than gravity alone and that they therefore had to be the result of explosives. What they miss is twofold. Firstly, the huge dust cloud that was generated by the collapse makes the margin of error in measuring the speed of collapse so wide as to allow gravity to be anywhere between about 8 and 12 ms-2. Secondly, even under the action of explosives, a building will still fall at the same rate. The top of the building will accelerate at just the same speed regardless of where the damage to the building is, and how that damage was caused.

    Another example I recall concerned the type of aero-engine components found at the Pentagon. They claimed that it was the wrong type of component, but compared it to an engine type that wasn't even fitted to the jet that crashed.

    Routinely in the conspiracy theory movies and blogs basic laws of physics are adjusted to support their views, and basic facts manipulated and evidence selectively chosen to try and support far-fetched theories.

  • Comment number 39.

    The trouble with people like Chris W78 is that they do not do any research before pronouncing on things like 9/11. I was personally completely accepting of the solution as presented by the media, even before the 9/11 commission had supposedly investigated. But the problem with the shall we say "accepted" theory is that it is a conspiracy theory. There is no more proof of it than of any other theory. If you really do your research what you actually find is that there are more holes in it than a colander. Somebody murdered nearly 3000 people, and we need a proper investigation to find out who. Even the FBI admit there is no evidence to convict Bin Laden. Does this not make you even wonder? If there is no proof for Bin Laden being responsible, don't you even feel a bit bothered, given the fact that the US administration were the main beneficiaries? How did it benefit Bin Laden? He is either dead or holed up somewhere in a cave, and muslims are hated across the world. Go and do the research, then come back and tell me what you think. Oh, and on JFK, try googling E Howard Hunt and deathbed confession. But you won't hear anything about it on your BBC.

    Mr Rudin, I'm surprised you have the nerve to hang onto your conspiracy theories, but I suppose it's your job.

  • Comment number 40.

    I do believe, regrettably, that not including the second statement by Mr. Silverstein was misleading. I can see little reason that you chose to omit it, unless to support your own conviction that Mr. Silverstein was not using the term 'pull it' to refer to the demolition of the building. Within the dialogue of the PBS documentary it does appear to infer that he was.

  • Comment number 41.

    One question that remains unanswered is why, if Mr. Silverstein had no jurisdiction over the towers, and the responsibility for any alleged demolition would rest with the fire chief alone, he would say on a documentary video that he ordered anything to be 'pulled', whether the building or the firefighters.

    He would have to be something of a fantastist to do that.

    I do NOT believe the BBC is especially interested in digging up any untoward truths. They are not programmed that way.

    Except you, Mr. moderator. You're a grand chap.

  • Comment number 42.

    Hi Mike,

    If you ever look at your blog comments, you may have noticed I didn't really like the exchange between you and WeAreChange on the street.

    This is such a serious matter.

    Anyhow, Mike, the discussion was about what Barry Jennings did and did not say in various interviews. The strange thing is that Barry Jennings is now DEAD! He mysteriously died a few days before the release of the NIST report. Compare this to all the Anthrax specialists dying mysteriously too, and there is a pattern of people dying in very funny circumstances where 9/11 is concerned.

    By the way I hope you also have reported on the criticisms of NIST's WTC7 report not only from 9/11 Truth but also from "The Journal of Engineering Mechanics" and the CTBHU.

    And every day, as I describe in comments to your blogs, there is another 9/11 official story anomaly or new coincidence...

  • Comment number 43.

    At 34, ChrisW78 said

    "The victims of these events deserve the truth. And until any of these fantasists can come up with any substantive proof, they should keep their views to themselves."

    I agree. The 9/11 families are calling for a new investigation into 9/11. They deserve the truth.

    Bush almost immediately announced it was 19 hijackers and where is the substantive proof for that? Barbara Olsen never made a telephone call so how do we know about the hijackers? Why those 19? Where is the proof of that. The BBC noted that some the supposed hijackers may be still alive. There was not a proper fire investigation and still no air crash investigation for any of the 4 flights. The Bush Administration should have said nothing until a proper, independent investigation had been conducted and concluded.

  • Comment number 44.

    If you do have a mind to actually hear what Jennings said in the midst of all the hubbub, then go do it. I can assure you that the unedited interview with Dylan Avery is very specific indeed. Jennings states and reiterates the point after urging from Avery to clarify.

    Here is a link to the unedited footage:

    It is 20 minutes long but the critical conversation points are throughout, bear with it.

    Jennings specifically states (twice) that both towers were standing when he climbed back up from the 6th floor after explosions blew him from his feet and prevented him from descending further.

    This of course renders the "timeline" faux argument irrelevant. Those are certainly less credibile than a man who can clearly remember being trapped in building seven and seeing fire-fighters run from his location towards the collapse of the first tower.
    Jennings said they told him not to use the firehose to descend the side of the building and that they would be back.

    They (fire-fighters) returned some time later to help affect Jennings' escape only to be pulled away yet again at the collapse of the second tower. This is incontrovertible eye-witness evidence from a man who has no motive for deception.

    Sadly of course we will never be 100% sure by way of any kind of criminal or lawful testimony as he died in August 2008 and we still await information regarding the cause of his death.

    For those with the sorely misguided impression of Mass Media impartiality with regard to, well, anything of newsworthy proportions where corporate or government issues get too close to the bone; I refer you to another splendid article involving the late Dr. Martin Luther King.

    Posted on the 4th April 2008 according to the header, I quote:
    "The official line, never tested in court, remains that Ray was solely responsible for the murder - and initially Ray admitted to that. "

    The "Journalist" (if we are to believe that is what he is and not a blogger who has somehow infiltrated the BBC) Vincent Dowd, is apparently unaware that James Earl Ray was completely exonerated in 1999 following a lawsuit by members of the King family led by the distinguished William Pepper in a Memphis Court. Pepper is a practicing UK barrister aswell as a US lawyer for several decades. He has also represented governments in the Middle East, Africa, South America, and Asia.

    In November of 1999. 70 witnesses testified under oath, 4,000 pages of transcripts described that evidence, much of it new. It took the jury 59 minutes to come back with their decision that exonerated James Earl Ray, who had already died in prison the previous year. The jury found that Lloyd Jowers, owner of Jim’s Grill, had participated in a conspiracy to kill King. The evidence showed that the conspiracy included J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI, Richard Helms and the CIA, the military, the Memphis police department, and organized crime."

    The King family have a website, the appropriately named where you should direct any further inquiry.

    Mr Dowd apparently is unable to view this information. Perhaps he is kept in a cupboard in the BBC offices. Perhaps he is unable to travel to Memphis due to air sickness of some kind? Perhaps he could at least have made a phonecall to the King family on the 40th anniversary of the crime perpetrated on their family by the mafia, clivillian law enforcement, along with myriad alphabet agencies and not least of which a United States President?

    Mr Dowd was only NINE years out of touch with a development in one of the most important historical assassinations of the last century which has direct and obvious implications on our lives today. Of course this is merely information deemed unsuitable for the collective consciousness and is simply but effectively ignored. If this is news to you dear comments reader, ask yourself why, then start digging. You may feel a slight twinge in your cerebrum as you pass beyond the "safe zone" of accredited news sites and publications. Fear not, this is simply a part of your brain that you have never used before called critical thinking. This is where you will take your first shocking and frowned-on step towards finding, disseminating and analysing news information for yourself.

    Look at it this way, you cant possibly do any worse than "ABCNNBBCBS".

    Or just maybe, it isn't newsworthy? Who am I to judge?! Lowly pedestrian commentator that I am, screaming up at a gigantic black hole of public apathy and daring to rant and rave at the feet of such unrivalled journalistic integrity.

  • Comment number 45.

    This is great dave_h,

    Your another who has put forth the great line, 'as a scientist', the last guy who did that went on to say that ted turners wife was amongst the victims of 9/11. He turned out to be a cancer scientist, a very noble cause but not one that really adds any weight to the whole 9/11 debate. He even misunderstood the concept of occams razor.

    So excuse me if i am not impressed by your 'as a scientist' claim.

    And then you have the genius to claim that the basic laws of physics have to be fiddled with.


    Please explain the whole, newtons third law, aluminium plane vs steel building conundrum for us non scientists.

    If the extent of your research into 9/11 was watching 'loose change' before you decided to give your 'scientific' opinion on it, then i am genuinely worried about whatever branch of science you practise in.

    Its a bit like these guys who play Champ manager on their computer then apply for real manager jobs. I would suggest you do a few extra hours of research beyond 'loose change'

    And ChrisW78, (another who seems to randomly type things without actually checking whaty he is saying) regarding Kennedy, your notion that nobody came forward, even on their deathbed is not entirely true. E. Howard Hunt confessed. on his deathbed, you can listen to an extract of it on youtube, or read about it in Rolling Stone. He names names and yes before you ask, it is the very same E. Howard Hunt who was involved in Watergate.

    It doesnt prove that kennedy was assassinated by anyone other than LHO and it also doesn't prove that 9/11 was an inside job, but it does prove that you don't check out what you are saying before you say it.

    You 'Trumans' with your coincidence theories will have to do much better than this.

  • Comment number 46.

    ChrisW78, it took nearly thirty years for the evidence that Martin Luther King was assassinated with cooperation of military sharpshooters, and the Memphis police. Those facts are no longer in any dispute. That a conspiracy involving murder is well covered, does not make it any less a crime. The 9/11 crime, in fact, is not particularly well covered. It simply is not palatable to a lot of people, especially in the midst of two wars (both of which resulted from the attacks), a highly polarized public in both the US and the UK, and the conservative drumbeat for Bush's war on terror.

    In Sept 2000, neo-conservatives at the American Enterprise Institute published a report for the Project for a New American Century called, Rebuilding America's Defenses. This neo-conservative think tank described in quite startling detail then the course the Bush admin has taken these past 8 yrs: greatly increased military spending, creation of long term lily pad bases in strategic locations for constabulary troops that would "keep the peace," changes in nuclear weapons policy, movements toward greater weaponization of space, pre-emptive war policy, a doctrinal position that no country would be allowed to challenge the military might of the US. It hasn't all been a bed of roses for Bush attempting to implement this but this plan existed among his chief foreign policy advisors, some of whom advise him to this day. This same group urged Clinton to invade Iraq, and remove Saddam Hussein in 1998.

    It said in this report that the changes it proposed would be difficult to implement absent a galvanizing event, an event it termed "a new Pearl Harbor." One year later, after a year of multiple warnings that a major terrorist attack was about to occur, the new Pearl Harbor event DID occur. Co-incidence? Maybe, but maybe not. Especially when you start looking at the specificity of some of the warnings, and the actions that were taken at the time of those warnings.

    Around 1962, in the midst of the communist scare and communist Cuba 90 miles from the US coast, the Joint Chiefs of Staff formulated a plan called Operation Northwoods. It envisioned terror attacks in Miami and DC, with possible injuries or deaths, blowing up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay, shooting down an aircraft... all blamed on Castro, with the intention of gaining support for military action against Cuba. This is documented history. Pres. Kennedy declined.

    Governments do this. It is possible, even likely the Cheney/Rumsfeld cabal which Lawrence Wilkerson, Collin Powell's former chief of staff, so aptly described, had some hand in taking advantage of a terrorist plan they knew was coming. All that has followed from the increased military budget that has made many, many contractors extremely wealthy, to domestic surveillance with unchecked ability to monitor your opponents, to wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is eminently arguable that without 9/11, the public simply wouldn't have supported much if any of this.

    They had motive, means, and opportunity. The cover up investigations that have followed have done nothing but exonerate those who should have been taken to task for their actions, several of whom were promoted for their roles in not preventing the attacks.

    The victims of these attacks do deserve the truth. That is why many of the 9/11 families are supporting the NY Ballot initiative that is seeking to establish a new, independent investigation. Former Senator Lincoln Chaffee is reported to have been interested in being a commissioner on this panel.

  • Comment number 47.

    Caught in conspiracy Mike?

    Yes you are and on so many levels.

  • Comment number 48.

    NOIDCHIP, very well said.

  • Comment number 49.

    This is a first for me. I have never posted to a blog b4 so if i get anything wrong in regards to manners i apoligise.
    I will never forget sitting in front of my TV ater coming home from a great round of golf and seeing that plane hitting that building. I think if i live till im a 100 it will be with me.
    The thing i find hard to understand, and maybe its because im more lower class than some, is why people will not accept that islamic fundamentalists hate the western world so much that they will anything they can to hurt it.
    Osmara and his croonies DID this terrible deed.
    Maybe thats the prob with americans that they just dont realise that there is a whole chunk of the world who wish them gone.
    Untill they do they will be fodder for nutcases all around the world.
    Please let the dead rest in peace and make those who carried out this atriocity pay

  • Comment number 50.

    People who may be just introduced to this debate should note that it has been going on here since at least February 2007. Many threads have been created and the record of debate fractured with many sensible observations sent into the BBC abyss.
    Would the BBC please index the topics/threads in a noticeable place on the web page rather than just under the "being discussed" section.
    Many of us really do not have the time to repeat everything for the benefit of the seemingly unitiated, such as the; "as a scientist.." (dave h) person. If that person had done a little reserach he/she would have not stuck their chin out so much and enabled Hank at 45 to do the obvious. Regretebly, Mr/Ms 'scientist', you appear to have merely observed the 'front cover' of the 9/11 conspircay book/record. Mr Scientist:; may I suggest that you go to and look at the first group referenced down the left of the web page. There you will find the scholars for 9/11 truth and also the architects. I am sure that your examination of the reports of the "scientists" such as the physicist, (prof)Dr Steven Jones, rather illuminating. He aslo turns up on the comments section of the bloggers site. We look forward to your discussion with him and his comments.
    You should also track down Dr David Liefer form the University of Sydney, perhaps, "as a scienist" you could do a critique on his paper, that concludes that a gravitational free fall of concrete alone, cannot pulverise concrete into dust as shown with the 2 towers collapse. So much work involved in being a SCIENTIST, is there not? I suggest you get cracking on it.
    For the other unitiated, have a look at the Patriots question site and in one section note all those "crazy conspircay types," who also happen (or must be) 'crazy professors'. Dam, I thought a PHD meant something!
    Mike: I love your hole, just keep digging, soon you will be just an echo.
    (have a heart Mr/Ms moderator)

  • Comment number 51.


    At the end of your documentary you try to get the sympathy vote by showing clips of people who have been emotionally hurt by conspiracy theories/theorists. Since when has the BBC been so blatantly biased?

    I hope you realise Mike that the majority of the 9/11 families do not believe the official story and want a full, independent investigation in order to determine who murdered their loved ones. By propping up the official story and hiding the opinion of the majority of the victims' families you are being incredibly biased, disrespectful and highly dishonourable.

    I suspect that your new documentary will employ the same tactics in order to win over the hearts of your audience.

  • Comment number 52.

    49 becksdrinker

    "Osmara and his croonies DID this terrible deed."

    Interesting claim. Perhaps you should mention this 'fact' of yours to Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI who has stated on the record that "the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11".

    It would probably be a great service if you presented the FBI with the dossier of evidence that you must have compiled in order to make your unequivocal assertion.

    Well, either that or you're just parroting what the mainsteam news have told you and you don't actually have a clue...

  • Comment number 53.

    Poor deluded little "truthers". You seem to think that Mr. Rudin and the rest of us actually care what goes on in your little fantasy world.

    Mr. Rudin has created some mildly interesting documentaries with the intention of filling some airtime and entertaining some viewers. Sadly you lot are so up yourselves that you think this is proof that he, or anyone else, cares about your fruitcake theories.

    Hey guys, just because you read something on a website doesn't make it true. Get a life.

  • Comment number 54.

    21. "As Bill Maher pointed out, the proof it wasn't an inside job by the Bush administration is this: It worked! "

    Precisely. We're meant to believe the Bush administartion pulled this off almost perfectly but then 'forgot' to take some of the 40,000 tons of chemical weapons awaiting destruction in the US and plant some in Iraq? Please.

    Equally why would General Electric be involved in this too? They make aircraft engines and were badly hit by the airline slump post 9/11.

  • Comment number 55.

    53. "just because you read something on a website doesn't make it true."

    I rest my case!

  • Comment number 56.

    Orc, you have wounded my feelings. You really have! Where are the moderators when you want them.

    Ok, Mike...

    What about the holes in your documentary? Are you going to correct any of them?

    "Can't be explosives because someone would have heard them" - this can be thoroughly debunked. Thermite ignition in any case is practically silent anyway.

    "Dr Jones dust samples contaminated by cutting tools" - highly localised and also would not have occured on the day cf Jones' samples were taken on the day and were widespread. Shows weakness of official story.

    Mention of the molten steel pools under WTC 1, 2 and 7?

    Freefall speed: NIST didn't even apply high school maths to show rate of accleration of building collapse really was Free Fall!!! (9.81mss)

    Mention of Richard Gage's ae911truth: thousands of NAMED professionals registering distrust of official explanation vs un-named debunkers (or people with vested interests (such as Whitehouse insiders or CO of Controlled Demolition Inc)).

    Barry Jennings timeline: Please mention Jennings has since mysteriously died (just like the Anthrax suspects!!!). Cf weaponised thermite and weaponised anthrax.

    Context of WTC7 with other yet-to-be-cleared-up coincidences and anomalies. Lack of investigation and follow-up, unexplained M1 money surge in August 2001, indeed any financial analysis of who paid what to whom, Hijacker identities, No Barbara Olsen call, Lee Hamiltion's "super heated jet fuel" nonsense, 9/11 families part in 9/11 commission, fake evidence, PyOps, no jet intercepts, concurrent war games and PRE-KNOWLEDGE of the event. etc etc etc (There's loads of coincidences).

    It would be oh so easy to explain any or all of this with some simple investigations. Instead we get the NIST WTC7 report which invents new mechanisms for building collapses (never seen before (oh except at WTC1 and 2) or since)! And doesn't even apply high school maths to determine rate of acceleration of the fall!

  • Comment number 57.

    Would this respected physics professor Stephen E Jones be the same guy who is still publishing on cold fusion? Enough said!

  • Comment number 58.

    56. ynda20

    "Freefall speed: NIST didn't even apply high school maths to show rate of accleration of building collapse really was Free Fall!!! (9.81mss)"

    Lets just look at that one specific 'fact'

    9.8 m/s/s is an object accelerating freely in a vacuum.

    Not the acceleration of a building collapsing like a pack of cards in an atmosphere.

    Thats the difference between high school physics (not maths) and real world physics - real world physics has to include multiple factors.

    This is a lovely example of quality of the 'truth' campaign. They give a fact that 'proves' something (not exactly stated what it proves) then every 'fact' anyone looks at closely crumbles, one by one.

    No problem - just invent another 'fact'

  • Comment number 59.

    The 9/11 "truth" movement came to the conclusion that I might be an artificial intelligence bot posting on their forum, because I disagreed with them.

  • Comment number 60.

    At #58 Jon112uk states “9.8 m/s/s is an object accelerating freely in a vacuum. Not the acceleration of a building collapsing like a pack of cards in an atmosphere”

    Well, precisely, I couldn’t agree with you more. So time yourself this collapse of a building

    47 stories high, around 174 metres tall, collapsed in around 6.5 seconds? As you state “not the acceleration of a building collapsing like a pack of cards in an atmosphere”, so what is it.

    I couldn’t explain it better than this link [Unsuitable URL to PDF file removed by Moderator]

  • Comment number 61.

    #56 "Can't be explosives because someone would have heard them" - this can be thoroughly debunked. Thermite ignition in any case is practically silent anyway."

    However the workmen spending weeks smashing down the walls to get to the supporting girders to plant enough thermite to bring down the building would have made just a little noise! You don't just plant the stuff in a filing cabinet with an alarm clock running

    Neither has Jennings 'mysteriously died'. He had a heart attack. I rather think that if he had anything to say that would have worried the death squads he'd have vanished long ago. All this shows is that 'truthists' are just as mortal as the rest of us.

  • Comment number 62.

    @jon112uk, Peter_Sym etc

    Let's look at the molten metal found under WTC 1, 2 and 7.

    Sources for the molten metal mystery include eyewitnesses, mainstream newspaper articles, NASA thermal images, videos and even the first official report into WTC7 by FEMA.

    Sources ignoring the molten metal are the 9/11 commission report and the NIST investigation into WTC7.

    So which do you believe?

    For those of you who so desperately cling to the official story this means that you agree with the NIST investigation, an investigation so thorough that it totally ignores the molten metal found in the basement and offers no explanation for it.

  • Comment number 63.


    as far as i can see your the only one who thinks Old GWB was the man behind 9/11.

    What us truthers really point out is that the official story is not correct, many a hypothesis maybe made about what did happen, but that is of little relevance. We first have to get others to read the Kean commission report. If you would only apply the same critical thinking to that as you attempt to do to any random alternative theory then maybe we would get somewhere.

    I can't find one comment that says "it was GWB that orchestrated the whole thing", But your wonderful rebuttle to any notion that the 'man in a cave" theory is to say that bush couldn't organise the WMD in Iraq so how could he have pulled off 9/11.

    It is a great way top avoid having to actually analyse the kean commission report and the official story.

    Your logic seems to be that your going to believe the official story without checking it and your not going to believe any other theory but will pick and mix only the most far out ones to attack. (maybe you should go for a job with Mike, he has a similar tactic.

    Orc, i am guessing you care enough to register, read and then comment on these blogs, so thats confusing saying that you don't care what we think or say. You clearly do. For example I could care less about the english cricket selection process so i never read about it or comment on it. You poor little fella.

    Good to see jon112 still doing his best to hold his own with the physics argument.
    Best you stick to the whole speed of collapse argument as it is one that neither side will ever win. Just make sure you avoid any of the ones you can't argue with. The salvage contracts signed before 9/11, the lack of anti-aircraft missile defense at the pentagon, the black boxes that have planes flying underground, the fireproof passports, the barry jennings testimony (i suppose you can argue about that one seeing as he is now dead), the william rodriguez testimony, the firefighters, the aluminium through steel conundrum, the barbara olsen phonecall that was then wasn't etc, etc, etc.

    And becksdrinker, You seem so far behind in this whole debate, best you go back to your golf and your beer.

    I have to say i am very disappointed at the poor attempts to prove any of the official theory is true. C'mon guys you can do a lot better.

  • Comment number 64.


  • Comment number 65.

    Don't worry johnny pixels, many here think i wear a tin foil hat, Sadly you have to put up with idiots on both sides

  • Comment number 66.

    55. "I rest my case"

    The difference between those in the "truth community" (how sad is that?) and those of us who have a life is this:

    We don't need to believe a thousand trashy websites. We saw the news footage of planes crashing into buildings, and the many, many eyewitness accounts. Nothing else is needed. Or, as someone mentioned above, Occam's Razor.

  • Comment number 67.

    Has no-one read or seen The Winslow Boy? You can only be sure that the truth is being told if there are ambiguities, inconsistencies, even incoherency in the story. These are what conspiracy theorists thrive on, thereby demonstrating that their understanding of human nature is risible. If they want things neat they should spend their time reading crime novels. The real world's a mess.

  • Comment number 68.


    If i recall i have already pointed you in the direction of testimony from wtc workers who worked both above and below a closed off floor who said they heard and felt heavy work going on on one floor. Can't remember which floor it was off the top of my head. But the workers told that the work was loud and to a level that their office would shake and dust would come through their air-vents. The janitor even said that he was told not to go to that floor, but he had a look anyway and saw that the whole level had been stripped of every fixture and fitting and was down to the basics of the building.

    I have already mentioned this to you yet you bring up the same point. As a scientist i would have thought you would have done some research, or are you the kind of scientist who needs others to hold your hand through your research.

    I expect more from you Peter

    Here i will help you start, the work was going on on the 34th floor.

  • Comment number 69.

    Orc your another who has missunderstood the concept of occams razor.

    Occams razor does not apply to human affairs, all things being equal is the important part, it is good for understanding things in nature but not so good when dealing with human affairs. but again this is 14th centuary concept that has been argued about for the last 600 years by very clever people who have both agreed and disagreed with it. I think einstien was one of the many who disagreed with it. All in all though it has nothing to do with 9/11 though.

    and again if you don't care, why are you here reading and commenting like the bad debunker you are. The BBC told you was Osama, your happy with that. Go back to your life.

  • Comment number 70.







  • Comment number 71.

    How can any conspiracy exist unless you believe that the thousands of Americans who would have to be involved were

    1; Murderers without conscience

    2; not decent people with families and


    3 (and this is the most unbelievable for Americans) Able to keep their mouths shut.

    The truth about most government agencies worldwide is that they have a large chunk of incompetents among their staff.
    Not so much conspiracy theory as cock - up theory.

    The real theory is SNAFU

  • Comment number 72.

    There's an episode by Penn & Teller online on 9/11 which seems to sum up the 'conspiracy theorists' quite well. Those who say "nobody can convince me" aren't sceptics.

  • Comment number 73.

    Hi Jon112uk

    thanks for the reply. sorry my message was a short of shorthand for a discussion that has come up previously.

    we were discussing:

    ""Freefall speed: NIST didn't even apply high school maths to show rate of accleration of building collapse really was Free Fall!!! (9.81mss)"

    Lets just look at that one specific 'fact'

    9.8 m/s/s is an object accelerating freely in a vacuum.

    Not the acceleration of a building collapsing like a pack of cards in an atmosphere. "

    Indeed exactly my point. If you check out 911blogger there is a diagram with a simple graph of the collapse speed of WTC7 and the acceleration for the majority of the duration of the collapse was calculated at near enough 9.8 m/s/s or 32feet/s/s - free fall. This is high school applied mathematics. If you apply physics to this, it shows that there was no internal resistance within the structure as it fell. This is seen within Controlled Demolition but not within usual building collpases due to fire.

    This about as factual as you can get.

    The NIST WTC7 report does not explain the collapse acceleration at all. Nor the molten steel, melting on steel beams, dust analysis. The only explosion simulation assumes dynamite-like explosives and not, for example nano-thermite, an explosive which appears to fit the dust analysis samples and upon which NIST themselves have expertise.

    Providing you have no axe to grind in supporting the official 9/11 story, I am happy to discuss this further with you.

  • Comment number 74.

    The wimslow boy.

    thats a great reference virginia.

    A boy steals a postal order, is found guilty after a quick internal inquiry then after months of fighting for the the truth, and with detrimental effect to allthose concerned, eventually they get there day in court and the boy is found innocent.

    your right that more should be aware of this it amlost mirrors what is happening with the debate of 9/11. A dodgy inquiry says it was a 'man in a cave' yet some us fight fo the truth, suffering abuse and detriment for even daring to question. I wonder if we will get our day in court.

    Both stories even have a solicitor general in them, Although one fought for truth and the other lied about recieving a phonecall from his wife.

    but all the same thanks for the encouraging words virginia

  • Comment number 75.

    hi virginiatroy,

    "67. At 10:24am on 22 Oct 2008, virginiatroy wrote:
    Has no-one read or seen The Winslow Boy? You can only be sure that the truth is being told if there are ambiguities, inconsistencies, even incoherency in the story. These are what conspiracy theorists thrive on, thereby demonstrating that their understanding of human nature is risible. If they want things neat they should spend their time reading crime novels. The real world's a mess."

    I can stand for a certain level of coincidence and ambiguity. But for 9/11 there is just sooooo much. And what's worse, there has been NO attempt to clear up.

    No standard forsenic analysis of the fires.
    No air crash investigations.
    and NIST's explantions of the WTC collapses has been wordy, but woefully inadequate. All three collapses basically say fires hotter than anything previously seen before in an office fire, poor design of buildings and unique, spontaneously collapses.

    If you get a magician to conjure this event you would believe fakery but somehow if politicans do, then that is all right for some reason? Sorry does not compute.

  • Comment number 76.

    56. ynda2

    "Thermite ignition in any case is practically silent anyway."

    Another 'fact' for us to look at - the building was brought down by thermite.

    Thermite is a high temperature incendiary which produces molten iron at extreme temperature

    To reliably cut steel girders the molten iron it produces has to be (a) directly against the metal (b) in significant quantity (c) contained or controlled in some way to ensure it reliably cuts through rather than just flows away.

    As Peter_Sym notes how could this possibly be prepared on all the (vertical?) steel supports on even one floor of a large building without anyone in an occupied office block noticing?

    How does anyone ignite multiple thermite charges all round a building and have them melt through all the steel supports at exaclty the same time? Controlled demolitions topple buildings to one side using delays of a second or so on one side, vertical collapse needs coordination to a fraction of a second using things like detonating cord - how do you time thermite to that precision???

    Frankly the idea of a covert, controlled demolition using thermite is ludicrous.

    Once again we look at a 'fact' and it all comes tumbling down.

  • Comment number 77.

    Hi brianab, 71,

    The SNAFU argument would almost work except for:
    a) why standard procedures for hijacked jets were not followed (and so they would get intercepted)
    b) why so much fake evidence turned up (and no investigated)
    c) No proper forsenics of the fires or deaths. Those building collapses sure look like explosions to me!
    d) no air crash investigations - the only 4 crashes on the US mainland that have not been investigated!!!
    e) 9/11 Commission "set up to fail"
    f) Instant finger pointing and policies ready to follow from a "New Pearl Harbour" such as the patriot act
    g) The Anthrax attacks immediately afterwards - sourced from a US lab.
    h) The pre-knowledge of the event: shares, intelligence, M1 money supply, individuals, low occupancy on those 4 aircraft.

    This is not right. And if anybody asks a question about any of this we are branded a loon!!!

    Indeed how could anybody do it!!?

    However, remote controlled aircraft and explosives are not exotic technology and does not require that many people to set up. We are only talking about a hundred people or so. The huge PyOps thereafter to suppress investigation? Now that does require huge effort... I suggest you google "The Department of Homeland Security" and see what they get up to...

  • Comment number 78.


    as far as i can see your the only one who thinks Old GWB was the man behind 9/11."

    No I think that 20 muslims were behind it.

    As for 'someone remembers some heavy work going on on a floor that you can't quite remember'

    Prove it. Photos, receipts, CCTV footage.

    Its the same for these 'puddles of molten steel' (which oddly seem to have remained puddles as a million tons of building and concrete dust fell down around them). Show me a photo of them.

    The 'truthers' entire case seems to revolve about some apocraphal eye witness testimony. As for me being a scientist. I'm a biochemist. Do you seriously think I'm going to fly to New York and conduct my own meterlugrical tests on the ruins? THAT is what 'investigating properly' is. Not reading alt news sites.

    #76 is spot on. Thermite does not cut in the split second way that explosive charges do. There would be a better than 50:50 chance of toppling the tower across manhattan. Thats why no controlled dem EVER uses thermite.

  • Comment number 79.

    "However, remote controlled aircraft and explosives are not exotic technology"

    AHHH! Remote controlled aircraft. Controlled from where exactly? Presumably another plane as the radio signal would be line of sight and the aircraft would have to be steered visually into the towers.

    Perhaps you can show me some video or radar footage of the 'chase' plane or some eyewitness accounts from ground crew at JFK who towed pilotless planes to the runway.

    Its precisely for these reasons people like you get branded a loony. There are more holes in the theory than theory itself. If you wanted to bring down the WTC wouldn't a huge truck bomb (coupled with thermite or whatever if you thought it was needed) just be SO much simpler to pull off?

  • Comment number 80.

    While conspiracy theories are fun, in the case of WTC-7 they are pure fiction. Not only was the timing absurd on the face of it, (WTC-7 would have been destroyed much earlier in the day had it been the result of a conspiracy because the conspirators would have wanted take advantage of the confusion during the attacks on WTC-1 and WTC-2 and to vacate the area ASAP) but the fact of damage resulting from the collapse of WTC-1 severing seven columns of WTC-7 only adds further plausibility to the theory that ultimately fire caused a cascade failure of the structural steel supporting the building.

    Steel melts at around 2950 degrees F but is actually hot rolled at around 1400 degrees F. A sustained fire from burning diesel fuel would have been sufficient to raise the temperature of the steel columns on the lower floors to the point where they could no longer sustain the weight of the entire structure above them. The massive steel failures along with many events during the collapse would have reverberated throughout the building creating explosion-like sounds. However they are not evidence of any deliberate detonations.

    The forensic scientists and engineers who studied the problem are in a far better position to know what likely happened than armchair spy novel enthusiasts or those with political agendas are to guess about failure of technology they do not understand. BTW, having worked in both the steel and construction industry and seen probably about a million tons of structural steel made from iron ore, coal, and limestone through to fabricated steel construction shipped to building sites, I find the official explanation entirely plausible in light of the facts, the conspiracy theory entirely implausible.

  • Comment number 81.

    #80 RE nytimes article - quote:-

    "A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said. "

  • Comment number 82.

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

  • Comment number 83.


    "Its the same for these 'puddles of molten steel' (which oddly seem to have remained puddles as a million tons of building and concrete dust fell down around them). Show me a photo of them."[World%20Trade%20Center%20Hot%20Spots]]


  • Comment number 84.


    "A sustained fire from burning diesel fuel would have been sufficient to raise the temperature of the steel columns on the lower floors to the point where they could no longer sustain the weight of the entire structure above them."

    You think it was diesel Fuel?

    The following is from NIST's website.

    "Q: Did fuel oil systems in WTC 7 contribute to its collapse?

    A: No. The building had three separate emergency power systems, all of which ran on diesel fuel. The worst-case scenarios associated with fires being fed by ruptured fuel lines—or from fuel stored in day tanks on the lower floors—could not have been sustained long enough, could not have generated sufficient heat to weaken critical interior columns, and/or would have produced large amounts of visible smoke from the lower floors, which were not observed."

    Nice try.

  • Comment number 85.


    There are many possible explanations for some of the steel being vaporized. One of the most likely IMO is the possibility that during the collapse, live medium and high voltage electrical feeders short circuited to ground through the collapsing steel on top of them before protective overcurrent circuits upstream de-energized them. This is entirely plausible in such a failure scenario and while I didn't see an example of one myself, I had direct reports of those who witnessed it and the aftermath in an industrial accident nearly 35 years ago. The current flow would be so high, the temperature rise so rapid, that substantial steel could vaporize literally in seconds. Again, people who do not know anything about the technologies involved have wildly speculated trying to make facts fit their fancy. BTW, it is not clear to me that in a controlled explosion detonation to destroy a building, such high temperatures would be achieved. The damage is invariably due to shock waves, not heat. I don't know where you got the information about the vaporized steel from but I would be surprised if the possiblity of electrical failure had not been raised and investigated.

  • Comment number 86.

    A look at the blueprints for the core of WTC 1, available through the download page of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth, shows at a quick count 27 of the 47 core columns were open to elevator shafts. Placing devices on these columns could have been done privately and with little disruption to enclosures around the columns. I think it is plain that there was OPPORTUNITY for, say, a military team to access the core columns relatively easily, and to place devices powerful enough to disrupt couplings and joints.

    Given the documented damage in the first 5 to 8 minutes after the plane strike, and the eyewitness accounts of occupants, firefighters referring to secondary devices, and building workers much more was happening in the building immediately after the plane strike that has not been explained rationally or plausibly.

    And as it has been pointed out above, unusual noises and workers were seen in the months before the event.

    Photos of column ends from the rubble pile show concave and convex surfaces on otherwise straight box columns, as well as discoloration indicative of high temperature exposures. The concave and convex surfaces would be consistent with a charge pushing a face inward from one side, with the column resisting that pressure on the other face, pulling that opposite side in.

    As pointed out in comments on an earlier blog in this feature, NIST has had long experience with military and government contractors and agencies, and even has its own research unit, investigating highly energetic nano-thermite, or nano-composite materials. Simply because Jack Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition says conventional explosives were not found, would have produced extremely loud explosions, and that he knows of no other explosive technology is not proof that military applications of high energy composites could not have been used. What a perfect testing ground for technologies the military has a vested interest in keeping under wraps. And the fact that multiple firefighters in the Oral History accounts talk about three very large explosions just prior to collapse, a cause and effect inference can be drawn at least to the degree that it should be investigated further.

  • Comment number 87.

    "Its precisely for these reasons people like you get branded a loony."

    Thanks, Peter. I guess it doesn't seem very coherent. But then again, neither is the official story which you seem so happy to accept.

    The US governemnt plan called Project Northwood suggested using remote controlled planes and that was in the early 1960s - I would have thought it was even easier to fly remote controlled aircraft nowadays.

    You believe it was 20 hijackers. Not 19? Why 20 hijackers? Not 21? And why those 20? What proof do you have?

  • Comment number 88.

    You can fool some of the people all of the time I guess. This blog is a testiment to that.

    The BBC finally allowed the public to see video footage of WTC7 collapsing, after refusing to air this major event for over 5 years.

    Mike Rudin's been given the task of showing us the footage of what looks like a demolition, and trying to convince us that it's not a demolition.
    Some of you have apparently been fooled.

    It's the Emperors New Clothes for the 21st century.

    One thing I've noticed over the last couple of years, is that the people supporting the official story will often change their minds, as the official story changes.
    First, the official story people claimed that WTC7 was fake, or that the collapse didn't happen on 9-11, because it wasn't in the 9-11 commission report, and our media hadn't told us about it.

    Then they claimed that the substation and fuel tanks were to blame, as these theories were postulated on tv and in the news.

    Now their opinion has changed to support the fire initiated collapse. Even though this would be the first time in history anything like this has happened, and judging by the (formerly suppressed) video evidence, fire seems very very unlikely.

    I wouldn't waste too much time arguing with people who can't see WTC7 for what it is. A controlled demolition. It's obvious why our media refused to show the public the video footage of collapse for over 5 years.
    Isn't it Mike, or can you offer an explanation for this coverup?

    Maybe Mike Rudin can set up a poll. Have a link showing full video clips of all known footage of WTC7 collapsing, and then ask readers whether they think this is a controlled demolition or not.

  • Comment number 89.

    #85 "I don't know where you got the information about the vaporized steel from "

    It was on the second page of the article from nytimes you linked to.

    "I would be surprised if the possiblity of electrical failure had not been raised and investigated."

    The molton steel etc seems to be ignored in the official reports so it appears not to of been.

  • Comment number 90.

    Marcus, the information about vaporized steel comes from a couple of places. Worcester Polytechnic Institute examined the steel, has published photos of one inch thick steel flanges thinned down to a curled, nearly razor edge hole the size of a silver dollar. They said at the time this was a great mystery, although since they have largely taken the official line.

    Your explanation is one of the more plausible I have heard, but those that examined it -- the fire researchers at WPI -- probably would have recognized other tell tale signs of that type of energy source.

    Another study performed by RJ Lee for an environmental assessment of the Deutsche Bank building directly across the street from WTC and heavily damaged by debris, found vaporized alumino-silicates, vaporized lead, as well as microspheres of iron. The USGS study of particulates found microspheres of molybdenum, requiring over 2700C to form, as well as iron microspheres. Jones, et al, found microspheres of iron in multiple dust samples from around ground zero, indicating wide dispersion of molten iron.

    Firefighters, as well as a rather long list of others, including engineers, recovery workers, reported molten metal, as firefighters reported, "flowing like lava" down channel rails. Extremely high temperature conditions persisted under the pile for months after the event. NIST's FAQ states:

    "13. Why did the NIST investigation not consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage from the WTC towers?

    NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY) - who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards - found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse. The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.

    NIST considered the damage to the steel structure and its fireproofing caused by the aircraft impact and the subsequent fires when the buildings were still standing since that damage was responsible for initiating the collapse of the WTC towers.

    Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing."

    How's that for a non-answer answer? What is the likelihood of molten steel forming in the wreckage due to combustion of office materials?

    Is it purely coincidental that a by-product of a thermite/thermate reaction is molten iron, more specifically, spherical molten iron if aerosolized?

  • Comment number 91.

    83. Grakkor

    I just looked at the 'proof' of the thermite theory.

    The photo is labelled 'Seeming molten material recorded by Alan Chin'

    Even the 'truth' people aren't saying it is definitely material from thermite - let alone proving it. Melted girders are steel, thermite makes iron - not hard to prove, but no evidence is offered.

    The thermite I personally saw demonstrated in real life remained a glowing liquid for seconds - certainly less than a minute - then scabbed over with a dirty looking crust. It didn't stay there glowing like mount etna for 20 minutes.

    The picture is described as 'recorded 20 minutes after the collapse of WTC 2' How come this 'thermite' is allegedly a glowing liquid 20 minutes after the collapse?

    If these are the girders that were sabotaged to CAUSE the collapse, why aren't they under the rubble? How do girders at the bottom of the collapse end up out in the open?

    This clandestine, controlled demolition by thermite 'fact' is so full of holes it's just not credible.

  • Comment number 92.

    ok, i have been following these blogs for a while now, and i am no 'scientist' just an ordinary citizen. in 2001 when the towers were first hit i was in my late teens, and shocked and scared at the images and warnings that were being projected from my tv screen and had no reason to doubt what i was being told. I am now in my mid 20's and have a very different view to how the world works, i wouldn't call myself a conspiracy nut nor do i believe all the crap that the government feed you. The first time i was shocked was when i read about Clinton (Clinton's public apology for the government killing families in the 60's by intentionally giving them syphillis and studying the effects) if you'd have been told before then that the government were giving their own people diseases to study the effects would you believe them? probably not. 9/11 doesn't add up by any stretch of the imagination, and it doesn't just involve arguments regarding tower 7 (which, may i add, i never even knew fell until a couple of months ago! i thought it was maybe just me but no, not a lot of people i know had any idea that 3 towers collapsed that day, weird!) but every single thing that happened before during and after the attacks. Maybe if people opened their eyes and realised the world is run by money, power and greed instead of living in their own goldfish bowl maybe then would we get some answers. People are too scared to believe their own government would commit such atrocities, but it happens!

  • Comment number 93.

    Grakkor #84

    I did not read the report. Even if I had, I might not necessarily agree entirely with it. I've participated in engineering peer reviews and dissented from other peoples' designs and analysis on numerous occasions based on my training and experience. The temperature of the steel would not have had to reach 2950 or even 1400 degrees. Even just the girders softening enough to buckle under the structural loading of the concrete deck above and cause lateral stability they provided to fail could have been sufficient to cause the collapse. Under the weight of evidence, a conspiracy theory is the least plausible explanation no matter how hard those who want to find one argue for it. The more I think about it, at least the evidence for the melted and/or vaporized steel having resulted from an electrical short circuit seems almost certain. I hope some consideration of this was given in the analysis and report. Only a high temperature incendiary such as thermite could have caused that effect from sabotage and that is not the material of choice for controlled demolition of a building. They also would have left a residue that would reveal their presence.

  • Comment number 94.

    From the FAA website:

    "WAAS (Wide Area Augmentation System) is an extremely accurate navigation system developed for civil aviation. Before WAAS, the U.S. National Airspace System (NAS) did not have the potential to provide horizontal and vertical navigation for approach operations for all users at all locations. With WAAS, this capability is a reality ... WAAS provides service for all classes of aircraft in all phases of flight - including en route navigation"

    From an FAA news release in Aug 2000:

    "WASHINGTON, DC — After a successful 21-day stability test of the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) signal in space, the U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) declared that it is now available for some aviation and all non-aviation uses ... The system demonstrated one to two meters horizontal accuracy and two to three meters vertical accuracy throughout the contiguous United States ... Raytheon will operate the system for the FAA on a continuous basis"

    From a 1995 news release:

    "The Honeywell team participated in Boeing’s Category III-b flight test evaluation program in July and August of 1995. NASA supplied the 757 aircraft and flight test facility. Boeing supplied the pilots, ground crew, maintenance, flight test personnel and performed the aircraft modifications for the flight tests. The flight tests were accomplished at NASA’s Wallops Island, Virginia, flight test facility. A total of 75 Category III-b automatic landings were accomplished during this phase of flight testing. The autopilot used the DGPS to guide the aircraft to a landing and ... performance data of these flight tests showed that the Honeywell DGPS landing system achieved the predicted system accuracy of one to two meters."

    From a NASA news release:

    "A high-performance navigation system used primarily for automatic aircraft touchdowns promises centimeter-level landing accuracy.During a four-day period in October 1994, the idea was put to the test on Runway 35 at NASA's Crows Landing Flight Facility in California. Using signals from orbiting GPS satellites and the ground-generated pseudolite signals, 110 autopilot-in-the-loop landings of a United Airlines Boeing 737 were completed."

    From Honeywell:

    "A flight management system or FMS is a computerized avionics component found on most commercial and business aircraft to assist pilots in navigation, flight planning, and aircraft control functions. It is considered to be composed of three major components: FMC (Flight Management Computer), AFS (Auto Flight System), and Navigation System including IRS (Inertial Reference System) and GPS."

    I wonder if this could in the slightest way at all explain how otherwise amateur, but not only amateur, incompetent pilots could perform highly professional flying techniques, such as a high speed descending spiral into a target, or high speed banking turns into relatively narrow buildings?

  • Comment number 95.

    86. sdemetri

    "What a perfect testing ground for technologies the military has a vested interest in keeping under wraps. And the fact that multiple firefighters in the Oral History accounts talk about three very large explosions just prior to collapse"

    I thought you guys were saying it was thermite - hence the pools of molten metal?

    I thought it had to be thermite because that explained the absence of explosions, but now you say there were explosions.

    If it's 'nano-thermite' (a novel material demonstrated in laboratory quantities) that would be an explosion, with a bang. It's not ordinary thermite with a (pretty impressive) splutter.

    Whats the point of using an untested explosive that makes a bang when something like C4 or semtex is incredibly effective on steel, has a massive test history, has proven technology for simultaneous detonations and could easily be passed off as something in possession of the islamists if the CIA got rumbled?

    Where did the alleged pools of molten metal come from if it was high explosive or explosive 'nano-thermite'?

    None of this clandestine, controlled demolition using thermite stuff stands up to scrutiny.

  • Comment number 96.

    So if the aim of the sinister shadowy figures was to bring down the towers, and then blame it on Osama Bin Laden/Al Qaeda/Generic Arab Terrorists, why didn't they repeat the MO of the 1993 World Trade Centre bombing, in which a truck full of explosives was detonated in the underground car park and which almost caused the collapse of one of the towers, which would have then crashed into the second. This wouldn't have required any crazy thermite/demolition charges/planes, and would require about 99% less planning and preparation. Instead, the truth movement would have you believe that three whole towers were rigged with demolition charges while not a single one of the 6000 or so people that worked in them noticed a thing.

    And to put things in perspective, the top floors of the WTC were 400metres up. That's a lot of detonation cable to reach up there. I think someone might have noticed a few miles of extra cable being brought in.

  • Comment number 97.

    #87. You don't have to justify the fact that remote controlled planes exist- I own one myself. It cost £20 from eBay. The US use big ones called predators over Afghanistan.

    What you DO however have to prove is why american airlines allowed 4 of their planes to be so equipped given that it would damn near bankrupt them afterwards. You would also have to prove that all 4 of those planes were taken out of service for 'maintenance' for about a week before hand to actually fit the gear. You would also then have to explain why none of the ground crew saw pilotless planes taxing about. I presume you've been to an airport and you've seen that tractors are used to shunt the planes away from the gate and to the taxiways.

    I agree the official story isn't very coherent which is precisely why I'm inclined to more or less believe it. For instance it makes no sense to frame 19 Saudis and a Saudi mastermin if you are planning a war in Iraq. The whole plot would have been vastly over elaborate, required far too many people in on it and would have been highly likely to go wrong. A false flag op a fraction as elaborate (like a big truck bomb under the WTC planted by 4 'iraqi's' would have done fine)

    #91 Agreed. Being a very bad (but scientifically rather competent) teenager I made thermite myself and burnt through a paving slab. It glowed for a second before rapidly cooling. Those 'hot spots' could have been burning photocopiers for all that rather dubious video shows

  • Comment number 98.

    jon112uk, the point of a new investigation would be to investigate the evidence of explosives of several types. If controlled demo was used, why would they limit themselves to only one type of charge? There is nothing predicating that more than one type of explosive would not be used. If in fact visual, physical, and audio evidence exists, which is surely does, that explosions occurred it is certainly encumbent on researchers to investigate what they were. If eyewitnesses saw, heard, experienced explosions, that evidence should be evaluated, corroborated with other eyewitnesses and with the physical evidence. Your "scrutiny" is pretty lacking IMHO.

    This link provides useful information on the implementation of satellite based navigation systems for major commercial aircraft a full 13 months prior to 9/11:

    if the moderators will kindly let it through.

  • Comment number 99.

    If you want to know why buildings fall down, sometimes it's best to ask someone who puts them up.....


  • Comment number 100.

    It's clear this producer is biased in his view already. Therefore this program is not impartial, though it will do it's best to look like it is.

    The first program was made by zdf enterprises. The head of zdf.ent, Mr A Caridass has worked for and has very close ties to Fox broadcasting. This is elitist propaganda masquarading as fact, promoted by government agency.

    Use the internet.


Page 1 of 57

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.