When there are three others from Zogby over a 4 year period?

http://www.zogby.com/search/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855
http://www.911truth.org/page.php?page=zogby_2006
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1354

Or these from CNN?

Or even the Showbiz Tonight poll?

I wish people wouldn't say that WTC7 is the "smoking gun" of 9/11. I also wish "news" organizations like the BBC would stop trying to portray WTC7 as "the final mystery of 9/11" because it is NOT.

---

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Here's what I see him saying:

>>We have then taken their questions and arguments and tested them.

He means "we have debunked them conclusively" and he will show us how in the program.

>>We've looked for new photographic and physical evidence, for key eyewitnesses and spoken to experts and investigators who have been involved in trying to understand what exactly happened to bring down Tower 7.

He means "we will show as many images as they possibly can to make the case that B7 had massive damage on the side we have little information on, and try to use that as a claim for it's destruction" (and then hope that no one notices that asymmetrical damage cannot lead to a symmetrical collapse).

>>It does matter that a lot of people think the US Government is "hiding something" about 9/11. According to one American poll more than a third of those questioned thought government officials either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or allowed them to happen.

He uses the phrases "US government" and "government officials" when in reality what most people mean is insiders -- we are not saying that "government officials", or that the "US government" was involved in 9/11 -- we have no specific evidence to make such a claim and describing it as the "US government" makes us look stupid. We know there are *some* government officials who were in charge that day that should have lost their jobs or should have been seriously questioned, or more, but had no consequences at all. But we don't make broad claims about officials. It's likely that the vast majority of government officials were doing their best job that day.

>>And it does matter that according to the official explanation Tower 7 was the first skyscraper to collapse because of fire. Smaller buildings have collapsed due to fire but never a 47-storey skyscraper.

The phrase "smaller buildings" is problematic here - what kind? built of what? how small? There is a reason that tall buildings are made of steel. When the actual construction or the actual number of stories are not included in such a claim, it mainly serves to misrepresent the history of fire damage by glossing over so much as to be meaningless.

>>The final official report on 9/11 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology is eagerly awaited not just by critics but also by those who want to know how safe skyscrapers are.

What he means here is that the real story is about skyscraper safety . . . since now, skyscrapers can collapse because of fire. Don't worry that no others have before, this is a first and so we need to focus on safety.

>>I'm happy to debate the issues. In next week's programme we will look at the what some people have said was the neat symmetrical collapse of Tower 7, we will look at the dust found around Ground Zero, we will look at the BBC's alleged involvement in a conspiracy, and many other issues.

This looks like:

1) "it was NOT a neat symmetrical collapse and we'll show you how it wasn't" (despite the fact that viewers will see it with their own eyes, we will make them see it as something else, and we have the money and technology and propaganda to do it, by focusing on damage to buildings around it, showing how *no neat* it really was, etc.

2) "the dust that Steven Jones is using is somehow contaminated, not the right dust, or has somehow been analyzed incorrectly", so we can dispose of any of those claims, and

3) "we did NOT say it had collapsed before it fell that day, dammit!" (and the films are all gone anyway).

So there we have it.

Victronix has prefect pitch, a pitch-perfect ear for NewSpeak translation. What Victronix wrote is precisely the correct interpretation of that message from the Outer Party cadre (producer Mike Rudin), and yes I can assert that without even seeing the BBC piece. Just as, if you'd grown up in North Korea or been through the Chinese Cultural Revolution or the Stalinist show trials, you'd know the key phrases and what they imply without any official weatherman to tell you. You'd know which way the wind blows without even looking up at the sky.

Thank you Victronix. We'll revisit this thread when the program airs and your analysis will be entirely validated.

Going on the BBC's last program, which I must admit I never saw but heard described by DRG as something along the lines of 'dreadful propaganda' I think people are justified to be cautious.

"We've looked for new photographic and physical evidence, for key eyewitnesses and spoken to experts and investigators who have been involved in trying to understand what exactly happened to bring down Tower 7. It does matter that a lot of people think the US Government is "hiding something" about 9/11"

I'm not sure how much it mattered a lot when I emailed the BBC some time ago, and was told by a senior correspondent that 'eyewitnesses are notoriously flakey'

"the original allegation made in the papers was that we had paid Nicholas Kollerstrom to appear in the programme about 7/7. We did not. We reimbursed him for £30 worth of his expenses. The newspapers corrected their original copy"

But you have to ask the question what has Nicholas Kollerstrom got to do with 7/7 ?

For me '7/7 Truth' was very much defined at the time and in the following year by Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson, not Nicholas Kollerstrom who I'd never even heard of until a couple of weeks ago.

This seems to be fairly clear attempt to establish an association in the eye of the public and does make you wonder about the BBC's judgment on these issues.

That being the case, I don't know why the BBC don't just be honest, they should put a disclaimer: "We don't like the alternative news because by and large, it represents a flat out rejection of the stream of often statist, cultural Marxist, government worshiping crap we pump out to the public"

Notice Mr. Rudin says of people like Jones and Gage: "We have then taken their questions and arguments and tested them." Why is it that "alternative" theories are the ones needing to be "tested" and the "official" theories are immune to the same scrutiny? Is this show about the collapse of WTC7 or is it a test of only the alternative explanations? If it were truly an examination of what really happened to that building, then all of the theories would be "tested." But he's not saying, nor will be doing that. He's throwing us a bone, as an earlier contributor to this thread alluded. All he's really saying is that we're now "worthy" to be debunked.

Blah!

An honest presentation explaining things like "what happened to WTC7?," will happen when someone or some group is able to present ALL the facts, even the limited amount we have to date, as ONE body of information and not two or more different camps....and that's not going to happen this Sunday.

Making the new BBC trailer about WTC-7 look "promising" and relatively "truthful" is simply a trick to attract more viewers. They did the same thing with the last BBC trailer for the 9/11 Conspiracy Files, which then turned out to be a 100% hitpiece.
BBC is part of the British intelligence community. It always has been. (The BBC's role is that of the British government's "soft power". British armed forces are governmental "hard power".) Every intel-professional knows this.
I therefor expect that the BBC programme about WTC-7 will be a 100% hitpiece, again.