The collapse of WTC7, as discussed in the film we began in class this week, attracted so much attention that BBC produced a documentary rebuttal to conspiracy theories called The Third Tower.
Watch the documentary below and respond with your comparison of The Third Tower and 9/11: Explosive Evidence, the film we watched in class. Does the BBC provide a convincing response?
The video is describing the grand theory of all the theories of 9/11, the collapsing of World Trade Center 7. The collapse is described as the smoking gun in the entire incident of 9/11 and most of the evidence provided in this video is similar to the video we watched in class 9/11: conspiracy evidence. The first reason that causes a conspiracy is the noises of bombs exploding heard by people present on the site. According to the survivor he heard noises on the 8th floor which sounded like bomb exploding. Another cause of conspiracy theory provided by both the video was the way the building crashed was exactly the way that of a building that was demolished. Many engineers and physicians came together to explain and support this conspiracy theory diagrams and comparison to demolition site. The total time of the collapse explained by one of the physician was described as free fall and also stated that no building with high resistance like that of WTC 7 could fall 8-9 seconds. Even though the investigators had their own reasoning of the collapse the video provides strong evidence to the conspiracy theory that it was a controlled and planned demolition.
ReplyDeleteThis video makes points that are directly related to the points made in 9/11: Explosive Evidence. WTC 7 would mark the first steel framed and resistant building in history to collapse due to office fires alone, and yet rubble from WTCs 1 and 2 sparked a fire that burned for nearly three and a half hours before spontaneously collapsing into its own footprint. Before this collapse took place, however, BBC had the audacity to report about the building's collapse while the burning building stood tall in the background of the shot. This shot would be come to known as "the smoking gun" in the 9/11 conspiracy theories, and propagate a theory that perhaps BBC reporters were insiders on a conspiracy. Luckily, no lives were claimed in this collapse, but unluckily for government officials or reporters who prematurely released information on the collapse, the lack of casualties provided more eye and earwitness accounts on the events that unfolded that day.
ReplyDeleteThe government and the official reports insist that this building collapsed due to these office fires, however, the gentleman interviewed for this documentary insisted that he heard explosions like a bomb going off inside the building right before its collapse. Conversely, Dylan Avery insisted that the government was lying about the way that the building came down. As shown in the comparison videos, the collapse of WTC 7 and the collapse of other buildings show a shocking resemblance and similarity in the manner of their collapses.
This is where 9/11: Explosive Evidence and BBC The Third Tower differ. The engineers and professionals in 9/11 indefinitely stated that it was absolutely possible to destroy a building with a plane, or with a multi-floor office fire. However, int BBC, engineers are adamant that there is no possible way to demolish a building of that scale by simply setting it on fire. My question is this: In a profession as definite and scientific as engineering, how can two opinions on the same manner be so different, yet be held as trustworthy?
BBC, while releasing this documentary to explain their views on controlled demolition, did little to no work to answer the question that people are asking. Viewers want to know why it was reported that the building collapsed, yet BBC offers no explanation to this in their documentary. This documentary only reinforces any conspiracy theories that anybody has about the spontaneous collapse of WTC 7.
In my opinion the movie in class was better than this one. In the movie in class they got input from engineers, demolitions specialists, and architects. It’s nice to see that not all conspiracy theorist are radical people. In the BBCs movie they show both sides of the argument but I don’t think it’s equal. The conspiracy theorist seem to draw a shorter stick in this movie. To me the Twin towers falling so quickly after being struck seems odd. A fire has never brought down a high rise structure but we are supposed to believe that it happened not once but three times on sept 11? Especially when the twin towers were engineered to withstand multiple air planes crashing into it. The thing that bugs me the most is probably how fast the towers fell. It seems as if all the building structural style simply turned into liquid. I think if the top of the towers fell down leaving most of them in tacked there would be no one looking for a conspiracy. I think it’s fishy that BBC knew about WTC 7 collapse before it even happened.
ReplyDeleteI found this film fairly interesting especially the part where they introduce the man that actually escaped and survived the building collapses. we've seen a lot of witnesses and reports but its nice to see an actual first hand internal perspective on the situation as well. The whole concept of building 7 falling without being hit or anything seems very unreasonable to me ,these buildings were designed to withstand incidents like these without having there integrity compromised ,that being said i do believe it is somewhat believable that the twin towers could have gave way after being hit by planes but the 7th building going down without any direct single impact seems almost to superficial and unrealistic. As far as the BBC goes i think they did make a fairly convincing response they had a lot of individuals that believed it was a conspiracy and some that believe it wasn't which is always a good idea because it leaves an almost non-bias opinion on the topic and allows the viewer to come to their own conclusion.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching 9/11: Explosive Evidence in class, the idea that the building seven was a controlled demolition and not caused by the office fires, became firmly entrenched in my mind. Watching the The Third Tower didn’t open up my mind to the possibility of building seven collapsing because of office fires. The building was fire proofed and was built to withstand strong raging fires and for it to fully collapse in such a short of time is rather impossible to accomplish. The arguments held against controlled demolition were inadequate compared to evidence suggesting it was a controlled demolition. The voice of reason that BBC showcased was the head of a demolition company, whose argument was that people would notice if a controlled demolition was being set up. Taking a personal standpoint, I hardly question construction happening around buildings or places I work in because they pose no significance if I’m able to go where I want to go. The fact that wiring could of been happening and no one cared to notice is also a factor that wasn’t considered. The BBC documentary didn’t provided a convincing response since it actually gave more support to the demolition theory than against it. For example it would reference the government investigations of 9/11 to counteract the demolition theory when in fact in the beginning of the video it clearly states that the government reports were not completed or comprehensive enough to find a clear answer to building seven collapse. It would also state that “new evidence shows” that office fires could bring down the buildings but doesn’t mention the source where that evidence emerged from. Overall, The Third Tower didn’t feel convincing enough and only heightened my acceptance of some of the information showed in 9/11: Explosive Evidence.
ReplyDeleteThis video is comparing and contrasting theories of the reasons behind the collapse of 7 WTC. Although it makes some compelling arguments in favour of non-conspiracists, i found its conspiratorial backing to be largely undermined by its choice of advocates. Some of the conspiracy advocates came across 'ranty' and misguided. I find Dylan Avery very hard to side with as his arguments have a theme of being at times irrational and uneducated. This lack more rational spokesmen attacked the integrity of the conspiratorial arguments. I highly prefer 9/11 explosive evidence in comparison with this documentary. Its use of highly educated and professional individuals provides conspiracy theories with a more stable foundation. I found this documentary just touched on some of the more predominant theories and instead focused on the thoughts of individuals concerned with denouncing ideas of conspiracy.
ReplyDeletePersonally, the documentary 9/11: Explosive Evidence blew my mind. I had never really thought about the Collapse of the World Trade Centre 7 building. The evidence they present in that film seems credible and logical. I was completely convinced by the end of it. I’m not an expert by any means but honestly why would a skyscraper fall because of a few fires; they were built to withstand this. When I watched this week’s blog video by BBC, I ended up feeling less convinced. Which really had me questioning if it was just the way the information was presented to me. They did make some good points that seemed similar to the first video, however; they just didn’t back it up with enough credible evidence. The most interesting thing to me in both of the videos was the comparison between the collapse of WTC 7 and a controlled demolition; you do not need to be an expert to see the resemblance in those.
ReplyDeleteIn the video they talk about the collapse of world trade center 7, which is described as “the smoking gun”. Of course the film does not favor the conspiracy theorist and we see this when they interview former employees and professionals on bringing down buildings. One of the conspiracy theorist makes a good point, he says that these former employees are going to support their boss and will not release information that could harm their old bosses. The professional also shared his opinion and says that unless you are batman you cannot put those explosives in that building without anyone noticing. He makes a good point because we are talking about a building that had a lot of agents and security that it would require a lot of planning and people on your side. What I have learned from this course and what I believe is motivating the conspiracy theorist is the fact that the government is keeping information away from the public and leaving questions unanswered.
ReplyDeleteAlthough this movie made some interesting points regarding how unlikely and improbable a scenario would be in which a controlled demolition brought down tower, the documentary '9/11 explosive truth' was enough to solidify my opinion regarding tower 7. 9/11 explosive truth had more scientific and statistical evidence than this documentary, which relied heavily on anecdotal and witness accounts and opinions. It's always good to be presented with two sides of an argument, however 9/11 explosive truth provided a superior argument.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting on how The Third Tower video said that the collapsed of the tower 7 of the world trade center is the smoking gun of the 9/11 attacks. It's also interesting on how on The Third Tower video they point out that there was no plane that crashed into the tower 7. Just based on this argument, it came to my mind that the progressive collapsed of the tower 7, without impact from the plane, might be the result of a controlled demolition. However, while watching this BBC video I found out that the video is biased in an indirect way. I guess it does not really favor the conspiracy theory although it shows both sides of the arguments, the official story vs. the conspiracy theory, because the people that this BBC film interviewed are the people that worked in the World Trade Center before the 9/11 attack happened. And these people does not believed in conspiracy theory that the Tower 7 was brought down by controlled demolition and not because of the impact of the plane. But before watching this video, after watching the movie in class, It's already planted in my mind that the 9/11 attacks was a conspiracy theory and the collapsed of the World Trade Center buildings are controlled demolition.
ReplyDeleteI guess that the video that we watched in class is more convincing than this video since the video that we watched in class has lots of scientific evidences from the experts of the 9/11 attacks truth while this video only provides opinions from the public, specifically former workers in the World Trade Center, without scientific evidences.
Building 7 was the smoking gun of 9/11. It did not get hit by a plane and would be the first steel frame building to collapse due to office fire if that is what actually happened. It is explained how basically impossible that is to happen. It seems like an awfully big coincidence for the first ever steel frame building to collapse due to office fires just happened to be on 9/11. Furthermore, those buildings were built to withstand a plane crash and definitely an office fire.
ReplyDeleteEach building collapsed the same way. straight down with dust and debris mushrooming from the buildings. However, the film that was watched in class was more convincing and I enjoyed/thought it was valuable to have experts commenting on the attacks. It was commented that the time it took for the building to collapse would only be achieved if it was free falling which would be pretty much impossible if the cause was office fire. The building would have to meet no resistance from the each of the floors and reinforcement that was built to prevent the whole building from collapsing. The way and timing of which it collapsed was very similar to a controlled demolition. It is all very suspicious.
This movie was definitely better produced than the one we watched in class. It is crazy hearing the first hand account of Barry Jennings; its a miracle he made it out. Mark the demolition guy brought up great points originally, however he acted pretty smug throughout and than I began to think about how his business is most likely partnered with the government. I am glad they brought that up in the movie. Even after the evidence they presented about WTC 7 collapsing because of the fire, I still do not buy it. The guy barely gave an explanation for why the building fell so perfectly he just said things can fall fast when their not supported... After watching these two movies I no longer know what to think. There is clear evidence that something sinister outside of the official story happened, but also there is evidence saying that some of the official story could be correct to. So, I am taking a middle ground and saying both sides are correct for certain things.
ReplyDeleteThe video we watched in class was more convincing towards a conspiracy theory than The Third Tower video by BBC. It was interesting to watching and had different theories and points of view. The other video, however, gave more convincing points from more experts based on more solid evidence. The story of Barry Jennings who was trapped inside building seven was a good piece of evidence I hadn’t heard of yet. The fact that he heard multiple explosions sounds while being trapped inside the building gives further advance to the conspiracy theories. A good point towards The Third Tower video was theory of Larry Silverstein who was the owner of the Trade Centre Buildings. His key phrase of “pull it” is sketchy and makes me wonder if part of World Trade Centre Seven had some sort of conspiracy linked with it. Along with this is the insurance policy he took out only two months before the attacks that awarded him over 3 billion dollars from the two towers falling. Both of these were interesting points to have included in the documentary. Over all they didn’t supply much scientific evidence like the other video. Also the other video had more opinions from experts in different areas such as psychologists and physicist. The Third Tower video also had a few radical ideas that undermined the other evidence presented. One of those was the idea that the government, police, firefighters and the media were all in on a conspiracy theory. If they were all in on it then who is left that doesn’t know? That is way too many people in one conspiracy; word would’ve gotten out somehow. Over all I believe the other video posed a better case for the conspiracy theorists.
ReplyDeleteThe film “BBC The Third Tower” focuses on the collapse of the World Trade Center 7. The first part of the film gave the impression that their ideas were consistent with those of the film 9/11: Explosive Evidence that we watched in class, however, as the film continued, it became clear that the purpose was to try to prove that it can’t be true. For example, in regard to Barry Jennings, the fact that he states that nobody was present in the emergency command center during the time makes the viewer question as to why this was so. Secondly, the film presented footage of Barry stating that he heard explosions which also steers the viewer in the direction that a controlled demolition was responsible; yet as the film progressed, it shows footage of Barry saying he heard sounds of explosions but it doesn’t mean that it is explosives. Furthermore, he explains that he didn’t like the way conspiracists theorists such as Dylan Avery made him look and that the government was not responsible for the collapse of the WTC 7 in any way.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, this film was not very convincing in comparison to the film we watched in class as I found that the arguments of the anti-conspiracists were not very explanatory at all, and were rather biased. I say this because the voices trying to be heard in this film were those who either had an emotional impact from 9/11 or specifically worked for the government so a conflict of interest is clearly present. Another reason I find 9/11: Explosive Evidence more convincing is that the support they provided for their arguments were much stronger reason being that it contained expert views and explained the physical portion of the collapse in a more successful manner. Regardless of the fact that I personally do believe that explosives were placed in the WTC 7, if I were to base my opinion solely on the two films with absolutely no prior knowledge on this topic, I would definitely agree with 9/11: Explosive Evidence compared to BBC The Third Tower.
This film was actually pretty interesting in many aspects. I found it a bit mind boggling that building 7 had fallen without being hit. The Twin Towers had planes fly right into them and it would make sense as to why they would collapse, but building 7 doesn’t make any sense to just fall. Building 7 was made to withstand powerful fires and was actually fire proof itself. It’s mind boggling because it makes you re-think about the actual event, and what might have actually happened or caused the collapsing of all the buildings. Personally I found that the the video 911 Conspiracies; Fact or Fiction was a little more convincing compared to and what the government has to say about it. How does a building collapse by itself? It kind of seems as if someone had schemingly done something. I found it interesting that a man named Barry was present in the building at the time of the incident. He claims he heard a few explosions and that was a bit surprising as it makes you wonder.
ReplyDelete