big_dave wrote:The idea that sky scrapers might ever fall sideways is hilarious to me and probably the most consistant reason for me opening threads and web-pages like this one.

Skyscrapers didn't fall at all due to fire before 9/11 (or since)

That show was interesting because - as I often find - neither side convinced.

The architect for truth fella who said the smoke coming from the building wasn't coming from the building discredited him somewhat.

However - the show worked along the lines of 'here's some architects saying one thing and here's our architects saying something else'

'it's impossible for all the beams to go at once'

'no it isn't'

the end.

There was some mention of the electrical sub station beneath but it didn't explain why this would make the building go straight down (rather than fall over (or one side collapse first if you want to be pedantic).

Their trump card seemed to be 'hey, here's Richard Clarke - he's worked in government for 30 years and he says there wasn't a conspiracy in government'


The interviewed fella didn't say he saw the bodies - true - but he did say he was told not to look down because he was stepping over them.

At least I didn't think it made out as though all conspiracy theorists are nuts as other shows have done. Even showing Avery saying he didn't think the mention of the pre-empted news report should have gone in his film.
It tried to say they were wrong - yes - but not nuts.

Again though Avery didn't do himself any favours by losing his rag at the end (a tactful choice to conclude the show with that of course but there you go).

Earwicker wrote:These fellas need a PR agent or something. These sound like they're narrated by Harvey Pekar's buddy

I haven't finished the video yet but you nailed it. The second the VO started I knew what you were on about. Revenge of the Nerd etc.

EDIT: I've just watched the two hit-pieces on Chomsky and the Barry Jennings interview. The Chomsky videos convinced me of nothing and had poorly made arguments throughout.
The Barry Jennings interview was interesting but the timeline of events was somewhat unclear. Had the towers collapsed by the time he reached the lobby?

To big_dave, was your earlier comment aimed at me? As Chomsky says, the exact mechanics of a skyscraper falling are not something that can be learned in two hours on the internet. I understand scale enough to know that when a building of that size comes down I don't have the necessary understanding of the lateral, gravitational, material resistance forces at work to make a prediction of how it would fall. Where does your expertise come from?

Tower blocks in an earthquake. Hilarious.

I was also lucky enough to see BBC Conspiracy Files -The Third Tower, the report Rick is talking about. Hopefully, it will be available outside of the UK sometime soon. There are incomplete versions on Google Video, but only about 10 minutes of footage from a what was a 60 minute programme.

Rick Reuben wrote:One of the other major contradictions of the Sunday BBC report, which was so sloppy it will turn out to be one of the greatest gifts to the truth movement to date:

sam cubero wrote:Probably the biggest mistake is the way the documentary argued that the NYFD firefighters could not fight the fires in
the burning WTC 7 because the collapse of the Twin Towers damaged water lines, and the documentary even stated that THERE WAS NO WATER to put out the WTC 7 fires.

But then they argued that Larry Silverstein’s comment: ‘ They decided to pull it ‘ was referring to ‘pulling out firefighting operations’…. but there were no firefighting operations going on in WTC 7, because they previously said that THERE WAS NO WATER !!!

Even the firefighters said that they were not allowed to enter WTC 7 …

They cannot have it both ways… was there a firefighting operation in WTC 7, or not?

There WAS a firefighting operation, using water pumped from a fireboats on the Hudson river. This goes someway to explain the diffuculties they had in fighting the fires in WTC 7 and why the fires raged out of control.
FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro also pointed out that it was his decision to evacuate the remaining firefighters from the building, and in no circumstances would it have been the building owner Larry Silverstein's decision wether to carry on the firefighting operation or not.
If you are looking for contradictions in the BBC report you will find plenty.
This is because the BBC at least attempted to provide a balanced arguement by interviewing both sides, something that I've yet to see in from either the any of the documentaries by debunkers OR by the 9/11 truth movement. They interviewed figures from the 9/11 truth movement as well as official invsestigators and scientists from both sides of the debate.

It was hinted at by Earwicker, but I think it's worth making it clear that Barry Jennings has retracted his statement from the Loose Change film. He explains further in the BBC documentary, that although he was told not to look down, and he said it felt like he was stepping over bodies, he never actually SAW any dead bodies in WTC 7. In the interest of fairness, the BBC allowed Dylan Avery to show the original interview. This information has been in the public domain for a short time, here's Jason Bermas complaining about it on Youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRaKHq2d ... re=related

You want to retract your statement? Well tough, we've got it on film and we are going to show it anyway! What thoroughly nice Guys.

JohnnyDoglands wrote:
This is because the BBC at least attempted to provide a balanced arguement by interviewing both sides, something that I've yet to see in from either the any of the documentaries by debunkers OR by the 9/11 truth movement. They interviewed figures from the 9/11 truth movement as well as official invsestigators and scientists from both sides of the debate.

I agree with the bulk of this but still wouldn't describe it as balanced.

It had a very definite agenda - I conclude this in part for reasons mentioned above.

It showed architects from both opinions but the manner of presentation - it's structure primarily - reveals the film makers intentions.

For example - imagine the interview with the 'truth movement' architect (the one who says all the beams failing simultaneously was impossible) switched with the later official investigating architect (who says once the first few beams went the entire building was instantaneously compromised so it all came down).
The documentary would then seem to be presenting the 'truthers' as superseding the 'officiallers' (or however the hell you could call them).

I didn't think either side's position was fully explained. The audience was left with two apparently informed opinions and left to decide which to believe.
The structuring of the interviews in the documentary's narrative (if nothing else) revealed which the film makers wanted you to believe. Which they sided with.

These things are extremely difficult to avoid of course in the medium but this is an example of a well made documentary.

That is - unlike most, if not all, of the 'truther' docs this is well made and has the convincing gloss of impartiality or fairness about it. This makes folks watch it and think 'hmmm- that's reasonable' - often not realising they are being manipulated.

They are being manipulated - just more skillfully so.

It was part of the programme maker's remit to examine the phenomen of conspiracy theories, as well as the theory itself. I think both sides were allowed made their respective positions abundantly clear, I for one wasn't left wondering which side of the debate any of those interviewed stood on. Pro conspiracy scientists Richard Gage and Steven Jones were not disrespected or ridiculed in any way, and were given plenty of chance to explain their views. Of course, the NIST Investigators were also given a chance to speak, something that surely needs to be included in a balanced discussion of events. This made such a nice change from the usual sound bite and ridicule style of the many other 9/11 documentaries I have seen, from both debunkers (the term i think you are looking for) and 9/11 truthers.
I was happy to be given more of a chance to make up my own mind for a change, rather than have someone try and skew the facts to fit a particular agenda. I didn't see any kind of agenda on the BBC's part to ridicule the truth movement, and they steered well clear of the kid of insults debunkers usually bandy about to try and make the 9/11 truth movement's views less trustworthy.
Short of a two way debate (which would surely have gone on forever) I can't see how the BBC could have been much fairer, except for the question of who gets the final word, which presents the dilemma. If the programme makers had given their 'final thought', then they would have left themselves open to criticism for which ever version of events they had seemed to support. Perhaps something along the lines of 'who is right? you decide!' would have been more fitting....

clocker bob wrote:This is the new first post. It will soon be the new last post.

http://blip.tv/file/1064938/

The full twenty minute interview with Barry Jennings about his experience in WTC7 on the morning of 9/11/01: WTC7 partially evacuated, huge explosions and damage, corpses strewn across parts of the building. All before either Twin Tower was demolished.

Thanks for the post. Serious.

JohnnyDoglands wrote: I think both sides were allowed made their respective positions abundantly clear.

I think short documentary like this never leaves much room for abundance but I agree both sides were represented.

JohnnyDoglands wrote:Pro conspiracy scientists Richard Gage and Steven Jones were not disrespected or ridiculed in any way, and were given plenty of chance to explain their views.

I agree. I did say as much above.

JohnnyDoglands wrote:Of course, the NIST Investigators were also given a chance to speak, something that surely needs to be included in a balanced discussion of events.

Sure.

JohnnyDoglands wrote:I was happy to be given more of a chance to make up my own mind for a change, rather than have someone try and skew the facts to fit a particular agenda. I didn't see any kind of agenda on the BBC's part to ridicule the truth movement, and they steered well clear of the kid of insults debunkers usually bandy about to try and make the 9/11 truth movement's views less trustworthy.

I partially agree. As far as i am aware there was no 'skewing' of facts but the presentation of them was telling for a number of reasons - not least because of their position in the documentary.
I agree it largely steered clear of open ridicule.

JohnnyDoglands wrote: I can't see how the BBC could have been much fairer, except for the question of who gets the final word, which presents the dilemma. If the programme makers had given their 'final thought', then they would have left themselves open to criticism for which ever version of events they had seemed to support. Perhaps something along the lines of 'who is right? you decide!' would have been more fitting....

It would (without it needing to appear trite).

The filmmakers at the end of the documentary did two things which make perfectly clear what their intended message was.
First of all they field Clarke as an authority. Suggesting his years of experience and being with Cheney that morning give his opinion greater validity.

This seems bizarre to me. Given that he (and Cheney) would presumably know what was going on if there was any such inside job.

It would be like fielding Katherine Harris as an authority on the subject of Florida's election being rigged in 2000 cause she was in charge of State Election procedures without mentioning the likelihood of any involvement in any such rigging.

Imagined analogous interview:

KH - 'Of course we didn't deliberately scrub all those names off the list'

BBC to election fraud investigator - 'Katherine Harris says there was no deliberate list scrubbing'

Palast - 'so - she would say that wouldn't she?'

BBC - 'but she was in charge of the votes that day so she knows best'

end.

Secondly they roll out the 'let the families of victims have some rest' line.

They do this very cleverly with a direct quote from a firefighter (or police officer - I forget off the top of my head) and then a narration about the matter being finally laid to rest over images of weeping mourners.

This is very clever manipulation. It doesn't just leave 'the final word' with one side or the other (the show does do that but it doesn't just do that). It influences subtly (if you can't see it) and reveals how they expect the audience to feel.

The 'let the families of victims have some rest line' adds nothing to either side of the argument. Both could use it.
It is an emotive rhetorical technique used (arguably) to try and silence descent for fear of causing imagined offense.

*multiple post due to forum collapse*