Do you find the arguments here compelling, in comparison with the film by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, which we will watch in class this week?
Sunday, March 24, 2013
The Third Tower
This week's film is from the perspective of the official narrative. BBC has produced two films that try to refute 9/11 conspiracy theories. The following film is about the collapse of WTC7:
Do you find the arguments here compelling, in comparison with the film by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, which we will watch in class this week?
Do you find the arguments here compelling, in comparison with the film by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, which we will watch in class this week?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
After watching this film and the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth film in class, one thing is clear; both of these films are describing the same thing. Both the twin towers and building 7 were destroyed by controlled demolition, not by a regular office fire. In order for those steel structures to be taken down by fire, it would have to burning at over 2700 degrees F, the melting temperature of steel. The fires recorded that day were well below that critical temperature; they were measured around 600 degrees F, the temperature of a normal office fire.
ReplyDeleteWhat is first interesting about the film, is the groups involved in this building including CIA and many other government agencies all who of which would have reacted to a disaster. So was WTC7 where the plans for 9/11 were created for the attacks, if they were even involved with the attack?
ReplyDeleteSomething different from The Third Tower and Architects and Engineers, is how The Third Tower goes into detail on Barry Jennings experience. This is interesting because he essentially witnessed what happened in WTC7, as he explains as explosions that were going on.
Also discussed in this film is the fact that if this building did fall due to fire it is a serious problem for the standards that are set when sky scrapers are built because they are all based on these standards. I find this compelling information because it almost seems impossible, since they have evidence of other sky scrapers in history burning for many hours and never collapsing. The third tower talks about the opposing side of the conspiracy in the voice of the department of firefighters regarding how they decided to pull away from building seven and to stop rescuing the people still stuck in the building. As said, it would be disgusting to think they would let all those people die without just cause and to be involved in a conspiracy.
Another interesting opposing to conspiracy view point is, how controlled demolition takes a lot of time to plan as well as set up with many explosives. It is also very noisy because a lot of work has to be done to set it up, an expert in demolition stated that usually the gut the walls right out of the building before demolishing it, clearly not done on 9/11 in WTC7.
The third tower in comparison to Architects and Engineers shows many of the same expert opinions, although it does show an opposing view. It is difficult to determine whether this is credible to refuse many of the statements by the scientists and other experts because there is only one opposing voice to all conspirator speculation in this documentary. Mark is often discredited because it is believed he is part of the conspiracy himself. Although this film does reveal some possible answers to the evidence conspirators often seek as evidence of secrets on 9/11, including a remark from NIST along with Richard Clarke, making this film different from Architects and Engineers. This is because it makes you evaluate why they happened more than just being told they did happen with no response from the people involved.
In this documentary, I was shocked to find out that the media had reported the collapse of WTC 7 while it was still visibly standing in the background of the news report. This documentary sheds light upon other possible conspiracies such as the possible involvement of the police, government, fire department, and media. It raises the question of whether these organizations were a part of the 9/11 attacks.
ReplyDeleteIt was interesting to note that Larry Silverstein may be considered as having insider knowledge of these attacks. The fact that he had purchased a $3.5 billion dollar insurance policy two months prior to 9/11 raises some suspicion. Furthermore it was stated that the insurance policy would pay out in the event of a terrorist attack. It is possible that this was just a coincidence but the timing factor might suggest otherwise.
The in-class film focused solely on the infrastructure of the towers and how it is not possible to have come down the way the buildings did without having a controlled demolition in place. The fact that the crime scene was not sealed off and contained seems a bit odd. By disposing of all the material and evidence, one cannot help but question whether the intent was to cover up the real cause behind 9/11.
I feel both of these films clearly show how probable it is that all 3 buildings were taken down by controlled demolition. They put much more emphasis on the collapse of building 7 because of the fact that it was never hit by a plane but still collapsed. Both films describe the impossibility of a building falling perfectly symmetrical and with no resistance at all. the building fell almost if not at free-fall. The only thing that makes sense is a controlled demolition.
ReplyDeleteIn The Third Tower i found it was kinda just a collection of all the other movies and documentaries done on the 9/11 attacks. This one brought forward the controversial bbc report that building 7 had collapsed while the building clearly is standing right behind her. This report provides some evidence toward a conspiracy because how did they get this information. To support the controlled demolition theory the film describes that explosions were herd after the collapse of the twin towers but before the collapse of building 7. Compared to the other film i felt that this one provided a mixture of opinion on the legitimacy of a controlled demolition.
In Architects and Engineers it was more about the specific design of the towers to prevent something like this happening. It is based purely on professional opinion. It compares the collapses of the towers to collapses of proven demolitions which clearly displays obvious similarities. When NIST investigated the collapses they didn't even look into the possibility of explosions. They didn't look for any evidence of explosives within the wreckage. The most clear example of how this was controlled demolition was the fact that there was absolutely no resistance as the building fell.
I found both “The Third Tower” and “Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth” to be well done films that examine all the interesting details for the collapse of the three towers. Both films focused heavily on the third tower because its collapse was most suspicious. After the collapse of the twin towers the chance that another building would collapse seemed very unlikely. However, the first steel reinforced building, that was not hit by a plane, brought down by fire also seems to perfectly fall within it’s footprint at nearly free-fall speeds seems very far fetched. Both films pointed out various details that had strong arguments supporting a controlled demolition theory.
ReplyDeleteThe Third Tower documentary was interesting because it addressed the possible involvement of groups such as the fire department, police, media and government. It also focused on the suspicious BBC report on the collapse of WTC 7 with it clearly in the background still standing. The media, then seemed that they could have possible involvement because how did they know the tower was going to collapse or who gave them this information. The Third Tower also addressed interesting insider trading conclusions and possibilities on who exactly could have made money on 9/11.
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth documentary seemed to focus much more heavily on the structural aspects of the collapse which was expected. Its remarkable how many professional engineers and architects strongly believe the collapse was due to controlled demolition. The documentary gave very in depth information as to why the towers would not have collapsed and in the time that they did.
Anytime you watch a conspiracy film, it is important to take the information with a grain of salt and identify bias within the film. In saying that, it appears that both films seem to exude very strong evidence to contradict the official report. Both films use several engineers and architects to refute the original report and that must be taken into account. It is not to say that their opinion is the truth, but it should at the least be considered. In the film the Third Tower, they talk about the what was in World Trade Center, which was not mentioned in the Explosive Evidence film. It is very interesting to think that federal offices and more importantly federal documents were lost in the collapse of the World Trade Center 7.
ReplyDeleteThe explosive evidence film was very bias in the sense that they depicted a picture that would force the viewers to think without doubt that there was a conspiracy. In the Third Tower, they provide a much more well rounded report of the collapse.
In any account, this is perhaps one of the most controversial arguments that conspiracists could use to refute the government's account of 9/11. People can argue about whether or not the first two towers fell from the impact or from controlled demolition, but the fact of the matter is that if it could ever be proved that World Trade Center fell from controlled demolition, it would provide very strong evidence that the events of that day happened in a very different way from the report.
In my opinion, this is just another piece of the puzzle that further points to a conspiracy. I feel that the accumulation of unanswered questions and misinformation cannot be deemed as coincidence, and must be investigated further.
After watching both of the films I found that there was convincing evidence for both sides of the argument that WTC 7 was taken down by explosives.
ReplyDeleteArchitects and Engineers provided a lot of scientific evidence to back up that there was a controlled demolition. With that many experts in their respective fields it is hard not to look at the evidence and believe that controlled demolition took down WTC 7.
In "The Third Tower" I felt that there was a lot of eyewitness and more expert testimony to say that the tower was not taken down from explosives.
What I find interesting is the parts of the "Third Tower" video that were not shown in "Architects and Engineers", mainly the footage of the WTC 7 fire and Steve Jones walking away from his job due to his beliefs. I find it interested that no other video, or at least that I recall, really showed the smoke billowing out of the south side of building 7, this really does show evidence of fires. What I also found interesting is that "Architects and Engineers" never discloses that Steve Jones left his job, I think this could be due to it affecting his credibility. It seems slightly questionable that he left his job because of this.
I think if someone were to watch "The Third Tower" first they might be more inclined to believe it was not controlled demolition whereas watching "Architects and Engineers" first sways the controlled demolition approach.
In general I find British, and especially BBC programs, to be far more sophisticated and truthful than American television. There are no "laugh tracks" or fear tactics used to inform the viewer how they are supposed to feel or repsond. When it comes to addressing American issues, the self-bias and false bravado Americans front prevents truth in journalism. The Third Tower is a perfect example of legitimate evidence completely overlooked and censored in American broadcasts.
ReplyDeleteThe overwhelming evidence against the twin towers collapsing due to the planes crashing into them is so astonishing that to believe a THIRD tower collapsed later that day is simply beyond comprehension. The comparison to a controlled implosion is so strong makes you wonder how an adjacent building could collapse as a result. In no other controlled demolition in history has another sky scraper failed as a result.
One thing that made this film superior to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth is the unbiased nature presentation of evidence. They show what happened and let you draw your own conclusion. Although I don't doubt they have opinions on what really occurred, they do a better job of disguising it and possibly subtly hinting at it. In order to make a convincing argument you have to represent both sides and let the stronger case prevail in the eyes of the jury, if you only present you view and are completely biased towards your opinion, it almost forces you to lean towards the other side. It is human nature to want to think for themselves and cheer for the underdog, so you need to cunningly present the evidence in such a way to have people draw conclusions that they think are genuinely their own.
Just as Luke Rudkowski a well spoken young man deeply involved in the "conspiracy scene" stated, they don't know what happened and they aren't trying to feed you their theory. They are simply trying to inform you and get you thinking about and investigating for yourself. The biggest problems in the world today are ignorance, indifference, and inaction, and being informed and involved is the only way to solve the problems facing our world today.
The BBC also unlike American networks doesn't carry on shows far past their peak point just because they are making money. There is full circle view and account of what happened found in this documentary that lacks in Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth which only presented their side. Both were well executed films based on forensic evidence, but BBC was more convincing because it allowed you to believe you drew your own conclusion.
The film by Architects and Engineers and "The Third Tower' are both holding similar arguments and trying to prove the control demolition theory. I feel that this film did a better job because it was way less bias than the Architects and Engineers. This film focused more on providing accurate evidence and information through eye witnesses to prove that building 7 collapsed due to control demolition rather than a fire. Whereas the other film was a lot more scientific and involved looking at the scientific flaws in the report. It looked at how an office fire cannot cause a building to collapse in the way that the report said it did. Unlike the twin towers, it was not even hit by a plane. In "The Third Tower" it is said that "buildings that fall to the path of least resistance, they don't just come straight down." This film looks at other sides of the story such as the blame the media is given for reporting the collapse of the building when it was still standing. Although all these pieces of information are relevant, what it really comes down is whether or not this was controlled definition or not. In order to prove this theory, it is important to prove that WTC 7 fell due to controlled demolition, and many people already believe with because the official story is not believable due to the unnatural process described. There are also questions such as if there is even a possibility of doing a controlled demolition on building 7 while it is occupied in this movie.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, "The Third Tower" portrays the WTC 7 conspiracy theory in a less bias and more accurate way than the film by Architects and Engineers.
I found the arguments presented in this film to be surprisingly quite compelling in comparison with AE911. Although there was some reenactments and narration typical of a TV show, the majority of it was focused on the facts, based on interviews from people who were at WTC7 and even an extensive interview with the founder of AE911 himself, Richard Gage. Overall it didn't feel as analytical as AE911 was, but more of a journalistic approach, but I would rate it as very good journalism. They even at one point investigated themselves (BBC) which I thought showed some very good integrity.
ReplyDeleteThere also were some counters to the conspiracy theory of WTC 7 that were presented by the show including interviewing the President of Mark Loizeaux, the president of Controlled Demolition Inc., the company responsible for cleaning up the rubble. He does have a lot of expertise in the field of demolition, and obviously is someone who would be knowledgable on this subject. Although he had some good counters to the controlled demolition theory, I believe some aspects he was focused on such as loud noises which would be heard are discounted by the thermite theory, because it wouldn’t make the same level of noise as a typical explosive, as Steven Jones points out. The film clipped a back and forth between Mark Loizeaux and Richard Gage, two experts in their own fields, going at it, which was interesting to see. The presentation of the other side of the argument regarding controlled demolition was something that was pretty much completely missing from AE911.
The interviews with firefighters and those that were directly on the scene (such as Barry Jennings) testifying what they saw, and getting their opinion of whether the whole event was a conspiracy and a controlled demolition was quite interesting. A lot of the people interviewed were asked that question and it was interesting to get their reaction and opinion. The end of the film really took a side though towards a non conspiracy, which caught me a bit off guard, because up to that point they seemed to be pretty neutral showing both sides of the argument. They did end on the NIST investigation and also showed some other convincing evidence to support it though.
In both of the films we watch talked about many different things that occurred that day. In the film Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, looks at how all the evidence show that the three builds that day did not fall due to a common office fire. In this other film it talks about the same information but in a different manner. The truth is that both of the videos came to the same conclusion and that was that the twin towers and building 7 fell due to a controlled demolition. The main reason all the evidence points to that conclusion is that the builds fell at free fall. Also they talk about the different temperatures at which steel melts at and how hot jet fuel burn and neither of the temperatures turned out to be hot enough to cause the buildings to collapse.
ReplyDeleteBoth movies are convincing in their own way. They both have convincing arguments and give good evidence. But they're both saying basically the same thing: the building could NOT have collapsed because of the fire. But in this one they bring in the owner of the building and suggest that he might be behind the attack and the destruction of building 7. Now I'm really confused but I still believe it was some kind of controlled demolition and somehow the plane "hijacking" was used as a cover-up of what really caused the twin towers to be destroyed and bring down building 7 with it.
ReplyDeleteBut, honestly they seem like they're just going round and round in circles, getting eye-witness testimonies and then having others ridicule the whole idea, only to have architects and experts say something entirely new and different. I'm not sure of I agree with the man who said the Government can't be involved in the conspiracy; I don't know much about the American government to say what I think about that. But I do believe it was some kind of inside job and whoever it was knew exactly what they were doing, planning it for months (years maybe) planted something in the WTC buildings to bring them down on 9/11.
One thing I found really interesting and I never pay attention to it is how important building 7 is, and it was support to be the place people who could potentially prevent the happening of 9/11 worked at. WTC building 7 is the building had a lot of securities, and there were always a lot of police offers up the front, and it was really heavily guarded. It was where the secret services, the CIA, the defense department, and the office of emergency management which would coordinate any terrorist attacks. From conspiracy point of view, it is kind of making sense that somehow that the place where the criminals made the plan of 9/11 must be destroyed and cleaned up as well.
ReplyDeleteBoth The Third Tower and Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth had pointed out that the official explanations about how the building 7 collapsed could not be examined scientifically by some professional in the field, and it looked exactly like that the building had been brought down by controlled demolition. If the official explanations are valid, and the collapse of building 7 was due to office fire, and this would contradict with architectural industry standards as well. Obviously, the government owes the public a clear answer for that.
From the Third Tower, I also noticed that the people who were support to respond to the 9/11 event had been evacuated just before the north tower collapsed, and it seems like that they know when the tower would collapse.
These films both highlighted a building that me, and most other people never knew collapsed, WTC7. I was interested to see how both The Third Tower, and the film by Architects and Engineers used some of the exact same footage but managed to portray it in a unique way. I felt the third tower presented a slightly less biased standpoint while still raising questions in regard to the official report of 9/11. The third tower was refreshing, after watching a multitude of conspiracy films that are completely one sided it's beneficial to see an alternative more rational viewpoint.
ReplyDeleteWTC7 is such a mystery, I was surprised to see Barry Jennings retracting his statement about 'stepping over bodies' which was the clip we saw in Loose Change. The Third Tower was effective in showing the biased nature of documentaries regarding conspiracy and was therefore more effective in persuading the viewer on certain inquiries that were at hand.
The film posted above talks more about the reasoning behind destroying building 7 while the film we watched in class discusses how building 7 collapsed. Both arguments are very compelling, but they often repeat the same thing, not in the sense that this video talks about reasoning why it was destroyed and the other talks about how it was destroyed, but every eye witness says pretty much the same thing. It gets very repetitive. Both videos however do a good job of making it hard to fight the evidence. With the testimonials from architects and engineers, it makes it hard to go against the evidence presented. The film is tough to argue with because of the specific evidence. Barry Jennings testimonials, just like in previous videos, he does a good job of establishing his position on the 9/11 talks.
ReplyDeleteThis film is a little less %60in your face%60 than the film that we watched in class. This film presents the information more but the film in class tries to convince the viewers to think in the way that they do. Both films provide strong evidence and once again further my knowledge of the 9/11 attacks.
Michael Richard Walls
This film definitely raises some valid arguments in favour of the conspiracy theorists. I find it very strange that although WTC 7 was a major phenomenon that occurred on that day, it was never officially reported in the 9/11 Commission Report. It seems like a big deal and it doesn't really make sense that they didn't even bother to explain it. Barry Jennings was the only testimony that was released from the perspective of inside the actual building at the time of the fires. Strangely enough, Barry Jennings ends up dying a few years after his testimony is released. I don't believe that this is just a coincidence. It seems very odd that the only person that can completely verify what was going on inside WTC 7 mysteriously ends up dying after he tells the public his story.
ReplyDeleteI also find it very interesting that the official reports claim that fires are solely the cause of the collapse. It would make it the ONLY case in history that this happened. That seems pretty impossible. This film also makes a valid observation of how the building collapsed. There is no way that it fell naturally. Principles of physics prove that the building could not fall, virtually at free fall, on its own. Architects have even verified this assumption. Controlled demolition specialists have verified that the way the building fell is almost identical to how it would fall due to explosive demolition processes. I do find it interesting though that the windows of the buildings were only shattered on the front side, not the back.
The two films differ a little bit. I found that the "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth" focused more on the conspiracy side of it. This film kind of showed parts from both side, especially regarding the controlled demolition theory.
Compared to the documentary we watched in class, “The Third Tower” is a documentary that isn't really based on an architect’s point of view. Both documentaries support the idea of controlled demolition, but this documentary goes more in depth with what happened to WTC 7 on the day of 9/11 and the events that revolved around it. For example, they go into depth with Barry Jenning’s testimony. The documentary we watched in class just talked about certain aspects (thermite, free fall, etc…) that would support the idea of controlled demolition, and then they would give reasons as to why that certain reason contributed to the demolition.
ReplyDeleteOne of the conspiracy theories they brought up in this film that I found rather interesting though was the fact that they thought that the plan for the WTC attacks may have been made in WTC 7, so they felt that WTC 7 needed to be destroyed too. I think that this could be a possible explanation because the NIST report (a government investigation), did not want the explanation of the attack to revolve around controlled demolition. This possibly could have meant that the attack could have been an inside job, but of course, that would lead to much more questions than the ones we already have.
I’d have to say that the documentary in class is much more convincing than this documentary, because they have architects, and engineers (and any other experts) who are experienced with how buildings work. Before each person in the documentary would explain their point of view, they would give a quick introduction on how experienced they are in their field of study, and how long they have been working with it. The documentary provides a good amount of people to give their own opinions about what happened to the towers. All of them agreed with controlled demolition, and they provide good explanations as to how the tower was destroyed.
The main question revolving around WTC 7 is “What caused the collapse?” and the documentary we watched in class provided a better explanation on what could have caused it.