http://www.truthforum.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=135&p=466#p466

I've just finished watching and recording the BBC Conspiracy Files programme about the Tower Seven collapse. Here are my initial reactions:

What the BBC does with programmes like this is basically first to confuse the average listener with myriad detail and then get an 'expert' or 'authority' to make the final summing-up. They are using the psychological ploy that a confused or destabilised mind will look for an authority figure to guide it out of the confusion. That is precisely what the BBC tries with this programme.

Secondly, by losing everyone in the minutiae of the Tower Seven Collapse the BBC distracts the viewer from the basic, unanswered questions on the main event which Rab on Medialens has put rather well:

"1 - How could Al Qaeda (AQ) arrange for the visas for the 19 alleged hijackers if some of them were on a watch list (and that's before discussing identity theft as some of the 19 are still alive and were never in the U.S.) and how could they get them safely through immigration?

2 - How could AQ get the FBI to pull back many of their investigations into AQ in the U.S. before 9-11, investigations that could have stopped the events from happening?

3 - How could AQ have ensured the numerous war games held on 9-11 would actually be held (and how could they have found out these were going to be held as these ensured resources were stretched on that day?) and ensured they were not cancelled when their 9-11 events started?

4 - How could AQ have ensured that none of all the fighter / interceptors the U.S. possesses would be scrambled to stop 9-11 and when eventually scrambled how could they ensure they were sent the wrong way out to sea or to provide air cover over the wrong cities when exactly those kind of intercept missions had been successfully and quickly conducted 91 times in the previous year?

5 - How could AQ ensure their 'pilots' who could barely fly in some cases would actually be able to stay on course and not miss the targets?

6 - How could AQ ensure that none of the surface to air missiles that protect the pentagon would be launched when the alleged airliner that hit the pentagon approached (see here the stuff about Cheney being asked if the orders still stood as a plane was 30 miles out - he said yes according to Norman Mineta and defensive measures were never taken even though any plane approaching without a valid U.S. military transponder is targetted, a system that lead to a UK plane being shot down in the ME by the U.S.)?

7 - How could AQ ensure the Bush regime would ignore the many warnings about an attack on 9-11 given to them by many security agences around the world including many from the U.S.'s own sources?

8 - How, given that no fire had ever caused a steel framed building to collapse into its own footprint despite there being many bigger and longer lasting fires in much smaller, weaker buildings; given that the first firemen on the scene said they only needed two hoses as the fire was small; given the huge plumes of smoke meaning less flames and heat; given the fact that airline fuels burns at a much lower temperature than that needed to melt or weaken steel yet molten steel was found in the ruins in the basement; given that video evidence shows white smoke coming from the base of the WTC before the collapse and many eyewitnesses spoke of explosions in the basement; given that hundreds of structural engineers and demolition experts from around the world have said it was a controlled demolition; taking all this into consideration to reach the only conclusion scientifically possible - that of explosives in the building, how could AQ have gotten access to the building for the time necessary to plant explosives and without any prying eyes around to see what they were doing?

9 - How, given the fact that there was a two day power down in the weeks prior to 9-11 when all security cameras were switched off, the building emptied and bomb sniffer dogs taken away never to return just for a so-called internet rewiring organised by the firm in charge of security, a firm run by Bush's younger brother and cousin, could AQ have infiltrated this firm enough to organise all this without triggering any suspicions?"

During the 'seventies, in the days when I was active in the UK Anti-Nuclear Campaign, we soon found out not to allow ourselves to be drawn down the never-ending path of discussing the minutiae of the argument about nuclear power technology which the pro-nuclear groups, particularly the UKAEA, would invariably try to take us. Even if a few activists were technically au fait with a lot of the technical detail such a ploy was deliberately aimed at confusing and losing the greater part of the audience. It was always best to stick with the core essentials of the argument.

I have every reason to believe that we would do best to adhere to such a policy here as well. Having said that, various apparent glaring inconsistencies about tonight's programme --eg. why were Larry Silverstein's comments about his decision to pull the building not taken at face value to mean exactly what was meant when he made them?-- are already surfacing ...