En complément, pour ceux qui tiennent à se taper la daube de la BBC, c’est là :
http://video.google.fr/videoplay?docid=-4576154575407650292

Et puis aussi, une petite review trouvable ici (911blogger, pour ceux qui veulent vraiment de l’info autour du 11/9) :
http://www.911blogger.com/node/16564

Je la joins pour les feignants (faut parler l’anglish pour tout ça)
Sorry pour la taille du comment...

The Third Tower
A Critical Examination

On July 6, 2008, BBC released a documentary examining the collapse of World Trade Center 7, on September 11, 2001. The film purported to "solve the final mystery" of 9/11 in regards to whether the collapse of the building was due to fire or controlled demolition. The film used interviews of people from both sides of the argument, as well as stock footage and reconstructions to show the viewer the cases to be made for each theory. This is the second film the BBC has created on the subject of alternative theories of 9/11.

The film is highly charged and controversial, with emotions running deep. In this review I will attempt to remove the emotional side of the film and simply look at the facts and opinions offered, their validity, and the BBC’s attempt to make a "balanced" film.

Act I

The film opens with a quick introduction that thrusts the viewer into the chaos of 9/11 - the plane impacts and subsequent destruction of the World Trade Center towers that we are all familiar with. But in a rare event, the BBC finally choose to now focus their attention on the little known collapse of World Trade Center 7, almost a decade after the fact. Up until this point in time, WTC7 has largely been ignored in the media - with very small clips here and there, but never telling the whole story. In fact in its previous film, the BBC discussed WTC7 as a small side event and dismissed the controlled demolition claim purely on the word of a Popular Mechanics researcher. Now the BBC has returned and vows to do justice to the subject.

After a fast introduction in which we are introduced to various commentators on the subject, the film opens with a discussion of Loose Change and a government conspiracy. The film then goes on to a brief description of WTC7 as a government building, with the Office of Emergency Management, CIA, Secret Service, and others. The film then goes on to its first use of the term "some say" in reference to the use of WTC7 as a command post for the attacks on the WTC. I say this because the producers are fond of using the term "some say" to inject speculative, spurious and emotionally charged rhetoric into the film, often in a way that paints "conspiracy theorists" as irrational and vitriolic people. The term is used constantly in the film to make it sound like the 9/11 truth movement believes that the FDNY, NYPD, CDI, and others are all engaged in a massive conspiracy to destroy WTC and cover it up. To this of course the producers then turn to members of these institutions for their response, which of course are angry rebuttals to these depraved conspiracy theorists. These attacks serve to victimize those members and engender sympathy from the viewer. It is quite telling that NONE of the guests offering an alternative theory of 9/11 ever use this language themselves or make these charges. Instead the BBC is reduced to citing totally anonymous sources for the accusations. As many in the 9/11 truth movement know, no serious proponent of alternative theories believes that the firefighters or police officers were involved that day. In fact many in the movement support these rescuers attempt to get proper medical treatment and admission of guilt by the government for the EPA air scandal (a fact which BBC is loathe to mention at all) The only place you’ll find that charge is from nameless posters on forums who are looking to be flamed. It is also interesting that these ’some say’ attacks are only portrayed as coming from the conspiracy camp, and not supporters of the official story. If they had included that we may have heard something along the lines that "Some say Steven Jones’ research is a sham since he is a Mormon with odd religious beliefs" or that "Some say Dylan Avery is a stupid kid" to accurately reflect some of the random forum postings that supporters of the official story have made over the years. Instead the BBC paints only ’conspiracy theorists’ as making such remarks.

Continuing, the film correctly discusses the fact that WTC7 was omitted from the 9/11 Commission report and that the initial FEMA team was unable to come up with a conclusive hypothesis on its destruction. The film then shows a side by side comparison of WTC7’s collapse and a standard commercial demolition which is very informative for the viewer to compare and contrast. We are then introduced to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, people "who understand buildings". This a remarkable statement for the BBC to make, who along with most media up until this point, have largely ignored or denigrated those with credentials who speak supporting alternative theories.

The film then mentions the fact that all of the steel evidence from this unique event was totally destroyed, an explosive fact that the film treats as almost a mundane triviality. No discussion is ever made in the film as to the who, what, where, when, and why of the steel’s destruction. This would have been a very good opportunity for the filmmakers to exercise some investigative journalism. Surely after talking to Gene Corely, Shyam Sunder, and Mark Loizeaux the filmmakers could have simply asked each of them why the steel was destroyed so quickly and what their opinion is on the legality/methodology of destroying crime scene evidence. Instead the question is ignored - and later the producers will claim that no evidence was found for controlled demolition - even though they are admitting that much of it was destroyed.

The single corroded steel member from WTC7 is then shown, and is presented as a mysterious piece of evidence to entice the viewer. The piece will be forgotten for almost the entire film, until it makes a reappearance in the film’s final act as merely an example of natural corrosion (more on this later).

Act II

The film’s next act opens with the BBC correctly mentioning that the fire suppression system in WTC7 was disabled for testing on the morning of 9/11, with judgment left to the viewer as to whether it was routine or malicious. Barry Jennings is introduced and he begins to tell the story of his experience in WTC7. Barry talks of how he went up to the OEM, the still hot coffee, and the phone call he received to get out. He then talks of an explosion on the 6th floor that destroys the landing and traps him in building 7. Unfortunately at this point, the film becomes very loose with it timelines. Barry’s interview is interspersed with a chronology of the day, misleading the viewer into believing that the two are linked. I do not know if this is intentional, but at the very least it seems designed to suggest to the audience that the explosion that Barry witnessed was the South Tower collapsing - even though in his interview with Dylan Avery he claims that both towers were still standing at this point. The fact that the coffee was still hot also suggests that Barry was in the OEM center shortly after 9am, since the order came down to evacuate it after WTC2 was hit. It collapsed almost an hour later at 9:59 am, so what was Barry doing hanging around in an abandoned center for a whole hour ? The whole timeline is nonsensical. It is also telling that the film never explicitly says that the explosion was WTC2’s collapse - instead it is left to slick editing to create this illusion. This reeks of playing fast and loose with the facts. Interestingly the BBC also makes no mention of Michael Hess, who was with Barry Jennings that day - even though in his interview to the BBC he mentions ’we’ several times when talking about being trapped.

Next, Richard Gage is introduced and the severity of fires in other skyscrapers over the years is shown. Interestingly the film also shows the results of the Cardington tests performed in the mid 1990’s on steel framed structures and correctly explains that very little sagging was observed and that steel structures were more robust than commonly believed at the time. As an aside, have engineers forgotten these results when formulating WTC collapse theories ?

Next the film talks to Fire Chief Peter Hayden about the events surrounding WTC7’s imminent collapse that day. Interestingly he talks about a ’specific engineer’ who accurately predicted the collapse down to a T. By the way he says it, it sure sounds like a whole team of engineers was consulted that day and he was the only one who predicted the collapse ! It would have been nice for the BBC to identify and interview this engineer, since he seems to have a better understanding of the building’s collapse mechanisms than all the engineers at NIST ! He single handedly predicted the collapse, in advance, and with limited understanding of the situation. NIST in a multi-million dollar, multi year investigation has yet to come to a definitive collapse hypothesis ! It would have been very informative for the public to know the specific evidence and reasons this engineer had for making his prediction. Alas, he remains unnamed and forgotten by the filmmakers.

Next Silverstein is introduced, but interestingly the BBC makes no mention of the fact that he only acquired the buildings in July, 2001. They mention the insurance policy, but try to explain it away as a normal action for him to take. Unfortunately they do not mention that since 9/11 Silverstein tried to collect twice on the policy and was subsequently awarded 1.5 times instead. They also mention his "pull-it" statement but thankfully little is made of it and Richard Gage correctly leaves it to the audience to decide.

Daniel Nigro is then introduced and discusses his experiences that day. He mentions that he cordoned off building 7 at about 3 pm that day and that he did not need to consult with Silverstein on whether or not to do this, which is or course logical. Nigro then injects himself into the fray by claiming that there is no conspiracy since it would imply that he was part of it, which would be "obscene". However, very few people have suggested that Nigro was involved. It is very unlikely that the FDNY or any other rescue services were involved that day, but it is a constant source of delight by debunker’s to promote the idea that 9/11 Truthers believe the fire fighters were involved.

Then the BBC turns to its own reporting that day and the anomalous report of WTC7’s collapse before the fact. However the BBC leaves the simple question of what its source was in favor of dramatic license. As will be seen later, the film is carefully and deliberately structured to present an overload of mysteries in the first half - and then in the second to have official experts weigh in and solve all the mysteries in one fell swoop, leaving the viewer satisfied that the mystery is solved.

Act III

Next the actual collapse of WTC7 is discussed, but not before the BBC injects the statement that at "5:21 pm Tower 7 finally collapses", clearly biased in support of the fire theory. Richard Gage then goes on to explain that the collapse is not produced by a natural process since buildings typically fail by following the path of least resistance. At this point it would have behooved the BBC to simply show pictures and videos of other buildings destroyed in earthquakes or in failed controlled demolitions. It would have clearly shown the viewer that indeed buildings often have enormous reserve strength are very rigid - even when toppling.

Instead, the BBC goes into a technical description of WTC7 and various A&E 9/11 engineers’ opinion on the impossibility of total complete, symmetrical collapse. Next, Danny Jowenko, a CD expert is presented with his opinion that WTC7 was demolished. The BBC rebuts him by saying it is "not a view shared by other demolition experts", and introduces Mark Loizeaux of CDI. Interestingly, the BBC makes no mention of these "other" experts and Loizeaux is the only one presented.

Loizeaux mentions the fact that it takes months of design and preparation to bring a building down, and that usually you gut all the walls where the explosives are placed. There are also the hundreds of charges and miles of cable needed. This is all true for a standard commercial demolition, where the goal is to bring the building down safely, with little environmental impact, and for the cheapest cost, but not when safety and cost are irrelevant. Additionally only one floor would need to be rigged low down in the building so most tenants are not likely to notice. Also remember that Jowenko himself hypothesized that it would not have been too difficult to bring WTC7 down quickly : Only a single floor of explosives plus some quick cutting in the upper floors. Therefore we have a debate of experts, but as will be seen shortly, Loizeaux appears to let his emotions cloud his judgment.

Next Steven Jones is introduced as well as the thermite and super thermite hypothesis. Jones’ dust analysis is discussed including the microspheres. It is also mentioned that one of the samples was taken only 20 minutes after the collapse, yet this does not stop the filmmakers from trying to suggest only seconds later that the spheres could have come from cleanup operations ! Do the filmmakers even pay attention or do they just parrot any explanation ? They also try to explain the spheres away as a natural product of the collapse or even as a result of other construction in the city ! Of course no data, or even expert opinion is provided on these points, so the filmmakers simply grasp at straws to try to "balance" Jones.

Next Loizeaux rebuts thermite by claiming quite condescendingly that he saw it as a kid and that "I’ve never seen anyone use a material which melts steel for demolition purposes. I don’t see how you could possibly get all of the columns to melt through at the same time." This is an AMAZING statement from Loizeaux. He is trying to say on one hand that engineered thermite cutter charges would be unable to melt all the columns with the correct timing to properly implode the building, but on the other hand that random office fires disbursed on multiple floors had enough precision to do just that - BY CHANCE. The contradiction in logic is simply laughably, and yet this kind of double-think is passed off without second thought. Think for a second : Loizeaux’s claim that the building fell due to fire is contradicted by his later statement that thermite charges would be unable to fell the building ! But it gets worse for Loizeaux. Jones next brings up the fact that no one ever discusses nano-thermite and its cutting abilities - they instead choose to be ignorant of it and only consider standard incendiary thermite. What does Loizeaux do in rebuttal ? He DENIES the existence of nano-thermite ! In fact he calls it "fantasy land" because he would have clearly heard about it ! It is quite likely that nano-thermite would not be in used in commercial demolitions, but it is in active R&D by Lawrence Livermore labs since the late 1990’s at the earliest. Thus his statement is provably false - nano-thermite exists and has been molded into sol-gels capable of cutting large steel members. Conspirators with access to these materials would have been able to use them in the destruction of the buildings for the very reason that they are more silent and do not leave tell tale physical and chemical signatures of standard RDX.

fin part 1