Tuesday, July 8, 2008

Building 7 Controlled Demolution 'debunked' in new BBC documentary

Haven't seen (not really looked either) much on the new BBC documentary yet about building 7 supposedly collapsing - and thereby being the first fireproofed steel building ever - by regular fire.
[update: Prisonplanet.com has an article up, and includes something I missed, they edited the Silverstein quote and removed the last part. By deliberately removing “and then we watched the building collapse,” the BBC has performed a hatchet job on the whole context of the statement by censoring the fact that the collapse of WTC 7 was a consequence of the decision to “pull” the building.]

I saw the documentary on BBC by chance (or what seems to be chance :p, whatever hehe), their explanation is... maybe possible though they only use witnesses, experts and computer simulations, along with one convincing picture of structural damage of building 7. However, all those things are able to be twisted and can not be considered conclusive proof. This explanation would mean that this is the first steel building to collapse because of fire, and supposedly building 5 now had a collapsed column because of fire too, with a photograph being used for evidence. This still is rather unlikely and I am not entirely convinced by the documentary and remain agnostic and still think (not the same as believe) the government let it happen/was in on it: the wargames on the same day, and the same case on 7/7 too.

A quote from one of the pages on that link says "The official investigators are confident they will be able to solve the final mystery of 9/11."
Final mystery? There are mysteries at every site of 9/11 and the official explanation seems like the funniest, farfetched (muslim) conspiracy theory there is.

(Let's do this again to be as clear as possible) Though it's not because I 'believe the conspiracy theories', I am interested in the conspiracy research which raises valid questions to loads of anomalies. I only have lateral (many, as apposed to linear: one) catmaS (flexible possible opinions, not rigid dogmatic beliefs) from the evidence gathered, the theories don't really matter, if they get debunked. As long as there aren't any convincing explanations for the long list of 9/11 inconsistencies (and for that matter most major events of this and the last century), people should be encouraged to keep researching and being open to many interpretations.
When you say Building 7 seems to have been brought down by a controlled demolition, this is not the same as saying Building 7 was brought down by a controlled demolition. (See e-prime if you wanna learn more about english without "to be", it makes language a lot more intelligent and open minded.)

Here are some more remarks about the documentary:
* the black witness clearly means he was stepping over bodies in the interview with dylan avery, again this shows the official story has holes in it. he also tried to demonize avery for twisting his words, while avery had the proof of the recording. I wonder what people who buy the official version thought of this.
* unnecessary expressions of anger & ridicule towards the conspiracy researchers by the people interviewed
* why interview all the conspiracy researchers about most stances before the official version is explained, and not interview the researchers after they had time as well to evaluate the new official story?
* I'm not sure but I think there's no clear mention of military exercises on 9/11 (and 7/7), except for the soundbyte of the air traffic controllers saying "is this real time or exercise"
* there is no attempt to debunk Jones his thermite residue theory
* they forget to mention there were many unusual evacuations and power-downs in the WTC in the days just prior to 9/11. Marvin Bush, George W. Bush's brother, was one of the owners of Securacom (now called Stratasec) which was the company in charge of security for the WTC.
* nice setup of first saying the conspiracy theorists will believe what they want (which is partially true, this phenomenon is called "confirmation bias" and means everybody has dogmas in their belief system where they take beliefs, assumptions or generalizations for truth - however, this is quite an overgeneralization too and doesn't apply to all 9/11 researchers), and then shortly after show Dylan Avery discarding Richard Clarke, who wouldn't discard Clarke? :p
* so we have the first ever collapse due to fires, even building 5 supposedly had collapsed steel, while I'm willing to accept this with proof, it's rather unlikely.
* the demolition expert has ties to the government, and claims it's impossible or he would have known about it. Let's face it that the US government is quite able to have superior tech than a private contracter, especially considering they are explosives, military and black budgets are just two possible sources.
* claims of the government (a more understandable use of language I find to be: people who happen to be working for the government) being too inept, research the other major conspiracy events like the world wars, let's not forget even pearl harbor was allowed to happen.
* also "the controlled demolition of the twin towers and/or building 7" does not necessarily have to be a part of a 9/11 conspiracy theory, the pentagon and the pennsylvania site have their own serious inconsistencies. What should be and remain central in the 9/11 conspiracy truth movement is research and not theory. Students of a dutch university have supposedly debunked the controlled demolition theory of the twin towers, saying it is possible that the towers collapsed in on themselves because of jet fuel, and the debris and cloud doesn't look like it came from explosions. I haven't seen their work but remain (very) skeptical.
* claims of the necessary secrecy unable to be kept, I raise you secret freaking societies throughout history :p Secrecy can be kept
* this documentary also only touches on building 7, it doesn't touch the 5 frames pentagon, the twin towers and the explosions witnessed there, the little evidence of an airplane crash in pennsylvania. Nor does it touch the london 7/7 or 3/11 madrid bombings inconsistencies.
* the documentary seems to be just another example of mainstream media documentaries, showing both sides first causing a little chaos, then shaping order by using experts who subtly ridicule the other party. These documentaries seem to be purely geared towards the average joe, and make very little effort to come across as genuine to a true researching, questioning, observant and aware viewer.
* there is a subliminal where they show a clip of the early report on the building 7 collapse by the bbc where they cut off the clip right after he says "farfetched"
* still it is possible this new official explanation may be true, though this documentary wasn't convincing enough for me. Using witnesses, experts, computer simulations isn't proof. I'd rather too a few terrorists did this instead of people working for the freaking US government (& possibly others), however the US & British governments & media have acted the exact opposite concerning civil liberties, terrorism and the mainstream media reporting there of (world wide no mention of most inconsistencies with only a few exceptions in Japan and The Netherlands for instance). More like powergrabbing while the common folk get increasing trouble with rising prices of oil and food. (funny tidbit, in the west-flemish dialect of flemish (the belgian dutch), the translation of prices sounds like priezen (general flemish: prijzen) which sounds like prison :p.)
* the guy in the confession video of 9/11 of "Osama Bin Laden" still doesn't look like the real Osama.

No comments: