BBC Conspiracy Files: "The Third Tower"

What do explosions sound like?

First broadcast in 2008, this is another in the BBC series “Conspiracy Files”. It sets out to debunk alleged myths and misconceptions about the seemingly inexplicable collapse of the Saloman Brothers Building (aka Building 7, WTC7, or 7 World Trade Center), on the afternoon of 9/11.

Unlike WTC 1 and 2, Building 7 had not been hit by a plane, and its free-fall collapse into its own footprint was seen by many observers, both professional demolition experts and members of the public, to be all but indistinguishable from a controlled demolition. This program offers a perspective that these perceptions are mistaken.

For a critical analysis of this film see “The Third Tower”: a critical review


If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.

For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

oldest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Sep 10, 2016 2:55 PM

I would never waste time watching a BBC interview. I read somewhere that they target their news and documentaries at a 6th grade reading level and intellect. What’s more, you can always, always count on them to obediently parrot the official Washington party line as they have since at least the Persian Gulf War up to now.

Gregory De Wode
Gregory De Wode
Sep 10, 2016 2:04 PM

Tony Rooke brilliantly exposed this fake documentary for the propaganda that it is, in his video evidence submitted for his court case against the BBC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5UzMjzk8bo

Sep 10, 2016 9:30 AM

Whistle-blower Kevin Ryan wrote a review of the BBC’s “Third Tower”, including his correspondence with the producer.
read it here: “The BBC takes another shot at 911 truth”

Sep 10, 2016 1:02 AM

Were the twins hit by planes? No. The thin aluminum tubes would have bounced off like a mosquito off a net. A plane flying nearby, probably created a hologram but forgot to put engine sound on the approaching planes..
Here’s the Twins other conspiracy theories. OBL, the Arab in a cave in Afghan. shuts down the 1/2 trillion$ US air defenses with his laptop, this when OBL is reported dying in a Kuwait hospital with kidney failure. OBL then sends 22 L pilots to do an easy job. The pilots are named within 48 hours after the attacks, BBC stated many to be still alive later, CNN stated none were on the passenger lists. The pilots pass through security, get on board, are counted for takeoff.. without boarding passes or tickets.
After takeoff they go through locked cockpit doors, overcome burly ex-military pilots with box cutters, fly to remote areas near the Canadian border with no radar coverage, switch off their transponders, turn back, carry out perfect full speed descents, their first time in 150 ton jets, without the necessary continuous radar talk-down to arrive at their destinations at the correct height, to carry out the attacks.
NY City removes the remains of WTC 1 & 2 in 4 hours overnight.. that should have taken up to 4 years. That being 2 piles of rubble each 100 meters high, (20% of the original height of a collapsed building, according to the laws of physics), consisting of millions of tons of twisted heavy steel girders, reinforced concrete, glass, plumbing and fixtures, electrics and wiring, aircons and ducting, office equipment and furniture.
NOT forgetting the 2X 500 meters high central cores with their lifts and lift shafts. These should have stood proud, as the floors apparently pancaked. Where are they? 3000+ humans, ‘vaporized’, (like in Bali) but not a bone recovered yet.. in the Bangladesh factory collapse all corpses were recovered, and even some survivors. All this happened ‘after’ the NYFD in the Tower said fires were ‘under control’.

Sep 10, 2016 12:08 AM

By such productions the BBC reveal themselves and their true nature. War-mongering liars are war-mongering liars.
From 2001 to today they continue to lie. Recent Chlorine attacks in Syria were reported as having been carried out by Assad’s government.
UN sources (no less) contradicted this by reporting that rebels created these events as propaganda for distribution on social media. No matter. The propaganda is ever repeated without contradictory evidence by the BBC.
Liars are liars. War-mongers are war-mongers. THE TRUTH IS OUT!
Give yourselves a chance at understanding what is being done to you.

Sep 9, 2016 11:45 PM

Reblogged this on TheFlippinTruth.

Sep 9, 2016 11:25 PM

So how did the BBC report the collapse of B7 before the event as recorded and available to a simple search on YT?

Brian Harry, Australia
Brian Harry, Australia
Sep 9, 2016 10:39 PM

Anyone interested should Google Search: “Global Research. Seismic Evidence implies Controlled Demolition on 9/11″(dated December 1st 2012.)
The evidence(as compared to the NIST Report) is undeniable. Those buildings came down by controlled demolition. Time’s up for the criminals behind it.

Sep 9, 2016 10:37 PM

A good documentary in fairness, even if it is the imperialist BBC. Gives balance to both sides. And well done to Offguardian for (having the temerity to post, lol) posting it. Cos 9/11 truthers get very precious when you give both sides, just look at the comments from them on Offguardian. In fact, I expect to get fried alive for submitting this post. I’ve always believed myself that WTC 7’s collapse was not a conspiracy, for any amount of reasons. Many respectable debunkers out there say it better than I do. In my opinion there are real conspiracies out there, eg, the USA, Sweden and the UK conspiring to bring down Julian Assange with a phony rape charge. Concentrate on them instead. Norman Finklestein puts it brilliantly

But with respect, I am interested to know what admins like Kit or Catte, whose opinions I really respect, think aboout 9/11 – do they believe WTC was brought down by controlled demolition? the pentagon was hit by a missile, etc? If opinions are convincing enough, I’m always willing to change my mind of course. Cos at the end of the day, I have serious respect for Offguardian – there’s nothing out there like it!

Sep 9, 2016 11:35 PM
Reply to  Andrew

Why worry what anyone else believes? What are opinions worth?
The government conspiracy theory is no more able to stand than WTC.
That one is being lied to and that there is a very heavy investment in the lie illuminates something of the nature of a split mind.
Lets see what happens with the bill to allow Americans to sue Saudi Arabia that has huge support since the release of some of the redacted report.
“Too big to fail” is applied to so much of our entanglement in lies and corruption – but where is any hope of success without a core integrity from which to live?

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Sep 10, 2016 1:45 AM
Reply to  Andrew

Hi Andrew,
With all due respect, Finklestein does not make the case that you imagine he does. His position, as he enunciates it in the video, is not that “WTC 7’s collapse was not a conspiracy,” but rather that the means of resistance that we, the average citizens, individually or collectively, can deploy against the wrongs perpetrated against us by the criminal ruling elites are scant and therefore can be easily squandered.
It is therefore paramount, according to Finklestein, to choose our battles very carefully in terms of the means that we have at hand and that we can deploy in our deference.
In his opinion, proving the “conspiracy” that 9/11 may in fact have been is a monumental task that will squander precious time and energy that would be better spent on matters that are every bit as egregious as 9/11, but more incontrovertibly the responsibility of our ruling cliques, such as, for example, the decision to bomb or to invade a country or to impose sanctions on a country, and therefore more easily impacted in terms of mobilizing popular resistance.
Thus, for example, without knowing who might have been behind 9/11, regardless of whether it was an inside job or not, we know incontrovertibly that it was used as a pretext to launch a war against Afghanistan and then to destroy Iraq, and to justify the everlasting war on terror, more generally.
Of this, there can be no doubt, and Finklestein’s position is that the aggression against the Middle East or the American sanctioned barbarity inflicted without end on Palestinians by Israel, decontextuallized or not from 9/11, should be the paramount focus of our outrage, denunciations and activism.
Perhaps he is right. But then it is for him to decide where his energy will be better spent in the fight against imperialism, as it is for anyone else.
Personally, I see the battle against the criminals in power as one that presents many fronts and that should be engaged from as many sides as possible and in any manner that people are willing and able to engage.
The effort to expose 9/11 for what it now appears to have been in light of all the work that has already been done to that end — that it was, among other things, a false flag to incite war fever — is to my mind all of a peace with anything else that educates people about the true nature of Western capitalist society and that thereby helps to break both their moral and material complicity in the crimes of that society.
So Finklestein does not do what Chomsky does and discredit wholesale the efforts of the 9/11 truthers; rather, he thinks that his efforts, and by implication, those of others, are better spent on other equally important issues, but primarily because they are more manageable and thus more likely to yield more solid and lasting gains to groups of activists objectively hamstrung by a paucity of resources, both human and material.
Finklestein, then , does not put it brilliantly that WTC7 was not a conspiracy. He has, instead, brilliantly and succinctly stated something altogether different.

Sep 10, 2016 4:44 AM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

Well spoken! And in deed we have to battle at many fronts. Surely the analysis of Nine Eleven´s consequences is as important as the analysis of the event as such.
“Nine Eleven a Dozen Years ago – Stirred it the Third World War?” http://wipokuli.wordpress.com/2013/09/11/nine-eleven-a-dozen-years-ago-stirred-it-the-third-world-war/
And there are the possible small hits against us, the People struggling for more justice and peace, which we have to counter:
Wordpress, WiPoKuLi: Back on Air: Strange Things Happen – „Incidentally“?! https://wipokuli.wordpress.com/2016/09/09/back-on-air-strange-things-happen-incidentally-zurueck-auf-sendungzufaelle-gibts/

Sep 10, 2016 3:33 PM
Reply to  Schlüter

While the words, images and meanings used may seem froth to the action – they in fact frame and define the narrative re-action. The principle deceit operates to divide and rule… from the shadow or behind the mask – while the deceived fragmented or polarised identification battles to regain an authority or position it believes it has lost or been denied.
Narrative identities are strongly defended against exposure of their foundation – but it is such an exposure or illumination that reveals the false as unworthy and futile or self-destructive to persist in AS a foundation.
Every kind of decoy or strategy will be brought out to protect the perceived and believed (narrative) ‘truths’ pertaining to their respective identity, including of course the attack, denial, invalidation and sowing of doubt and division in the mind of anything deemed rival or threat. Thus insanity propagates itself as an ever more fragmented ‘personae’ under an ever more consolidated mask over an ever increasing unconsciousness.
The use of psy-ops is not new – but has technological extension – and whatever the devices, props or actual events utilized, the intent is the undermining or triggering of consciousness in support of a narrative dictate – a kind of mind-control or indeed mind-fog. We think that our own minds do not work that way and so do not anticipate or be vigilant against deceits that can involve many layers of diversive obfuscation around a core shock tactic. Such that to even bring a steady and sane attention to discern the nature of the event demands a high degree of freedom from reactive identity. However, such freedom is worth uncovering and growing – in place of being defined by reaction and thus conditioned to be triggered into choices that in our right mind would not be accepted.
Therefore checking in and testing our reality is necessary to ensure we are not operating a fear and hate agenda whilst under the illusion of self righteous power – because the evils we seek to deny are so sickening that it seems anything ‘against them’ is therefore good – and hence the blank cheque for vengeance that is in fact directed without any real established connection but of guilt by an often insinuated or implied association.
Evil incites evil. Hate, hate and fear, fear. But under the guise of power and protection – and while the audacity and extremity of the false flag events may not be something we would ourselves countenance doing – in our right mind – we all share in a mind that puts power and protection first in its fight or flight binary ‘thinking’.
Consciousness is a vastly greater spectrum of information and perspective – and freedom within the life more abundant – but one has to identify and act on the recognition that one is NOT in one’s right mind to then withhold from significant acts until a calmer clearer and more connected perspective reveals itself to the desire FOR it. Which is different from asserting narrative identity in opposing attempt to control oneself and others.
This is my offering to the conversation – not a competing idea. Tuning in for what is relevant and resonant with who you are currently defining and accepting yourself to be – is YOUR freedom and your life. Tricks and ruses to use you to support or feed another’s sense of power at expense of your own are also and educative process by which to awaken and align in self-awareness and responsibility for thought – from which perceptions, feeling and reactions follow automatically. To desire to uncover and stand in integrity of being – and live or communicate or perceive from there – is not really a battle – but a growing determination of conscious purpose – and a releasing of conflicted ‘unconsciousness’.

Sep 10, 2016 10:30 AM
Reply to  Andrew

I respect your opinion that differs from mine, and I support your comment that people who are convinced that 911 needs further investigation, or that it is a high crime involving US insiders, can get very defensive. I think this is understandable, however unhelpful. It is something I see on the other side, on the side of defenders of the official narrative also. We all have a lot at stake in the truth about 911.
This last point is why I disagree with Normal Finkelstein. He makes a powerful argument about the preciousness of resources able to be deployed in combatting KNOWN evil in the world. I do though think that it is simplistic and flawed.
It is based on an assumption that the generally accepted account, that of Zelikow and the 911 Commission has a factual basis that might or might not be legitimately challenged by ‘conspiracy theories’. Why make this assumption though? If the Commission could be shown to have been independent of the Executive, if it hadn’t been run by Neocons, if it had been properly funded and given full subpoena powers, if the Report wasn’t based largely on torture testimony, then that might be a logical stance. If we take Finkelstein’s argument to its conclusion, why hold an inquiry in the first place? The argument made by the Bush administration was that such a process ‘would valuable divert resources’ away from the war on terror, why not just accept the pronouncements of the Federal government as fact and quit all doubt about statements of power completely?
Of course that is not what Finkelstein means, but where is the dividing line between reasonable critical enquiry and the testing of the account given by power elites through an adversarial process; and being diverted from dealing with crimes that are ‘known’?
If our world view and our understanding of how the mechanisms of power achieve their goals, then we need a full account of major events like 911, otherwise we are fumbling in the dark and chasing our own tails. If you are convinced that the evidence (the totality of the evidence) has been accounted for in the official story, then I wonder if you have really studied the evidence. If you have then we just disagree.
Fundamentally it is about evidence, not theories; this is the false accusation that is constantly made toward 911 sceptics, that they are concocting theories, then wasting time chasing evidence to try and back up their fantasies. The way I have experienced it is the opposite: that evidence has emerged that contradicts the official account, and that people inevitably have made theories based upon that evidence.

Sep 10, 2016 11:49 AM
Reply to  Andrew

Agreed. In order for WTC7 to have been a controlled demolition would have required a conspiracy of such mind boggling complexity it just defies credibility, to say nothing of the even more incredible theories like it having been a missile that hit the Pentagon. (If it was a missile what happened to the plane and all the people on board it?)
Now the question of did the US government know that a spectacular attack was in the works, and either fail to stop it, or allow it to happen is worth asking.
I found this article by Robert Parry convincing. robert-parry-911-truth-parlor-game
There are plenty of real government conspiracies out there such as the use of Jihadists to implement regime change in Syria without having to invent bonkers theories.

Sep 10, 2016 12:08 PM
Reply to  Derek_J

For a light hearted take on conspiracy theories try Mitchell and Webb

Moriarty's Left Sock
Moriarty's Left Sock
Sep 10, 2016 1:12 PM
Reply to  Derek_J

Did you read the scholarly piece on here that traces the term “conspiracy theory” to the CIA? They coined it in the early 60s to deter people from asking questions about the JFK assassination.
Censorship by ridicule no less.

Sep 10, 2016 12:12 PM
Reply to  Derek_J

You cannot just ignore the physical facts that PROVE controlled demolition with empty bluster such as “ridiculous to imagine conspiracy, too many people, impossible etc…”
The building was DEMOLISHED. Only fools try to deny it.
The question then arises. Who organised it? The Secret Intelligence services of the Deep International State … (all fingers point at Mossad, which maximises the keeping of US citizens out of the loop.) … or a guy in cave in Afghanistan.
A recent survey in the USA found that 50% of the public no longer accept the official narrative of 9/11.
Great news, don’t you think?
Blimey! What is this anyway, A Hasbara trolls’ tea party?

Sep 10, 2016 1:09 PM
Reply to  Derek_J

I think it is easier to say that the attack on the Pentagon was categorically NOT a 767 flown by an amateur Jihadist.
The technical precision required to make the moves necessary to bring that plane to hit at exactly ground level require one of the top aviation experts in history, not just in 2001. The chances of an inexperienced pilot carrying out that manoeuvre on manual is flat zero.
So: you have the more logical alternative that it was flown remotely using computer programmes, directed by person or persons unknown.
In either scenario that a plane flew in, you then ask whether the forensic evidence is consistent with a commercial jetliner with dozens of passengers on board. Were there body parts? Bones? Were the metallic remnants of the jet airliner consistent with an impact into the Pentagon? Were the effects of impact on the Pentagon structure consistent with being hit by a 767 Airliner??
You can’t prove that something did happen, what you can prove is that something DIDN’T. So you look for the evidence which proves that this was not an airliner impact, as common sense has already ruled out an airliner flown by a Jihadist.
In the scenario that it were a missile, there would be tell-tale signs at the impact site. Forensic experts will know what a missile strike hitting a solid building will produce.
AS for covering everything up, it’s very easy to cover things up if you are prepared to murder anyone who opens their mouth. If it’s true that the SEAL team that purportedly executed bin Laden mostly miraculously died in a helicopter accident, you have the conditions that say that the US State will murder its own military personnel……that means they will murder civilians, Government officials as well.

Moriarty's Left Sock
Moriarty's Left Sock
Sep 10, 2016 1:10 PM
Reply to  Derek_J

You can’t ignore physical scientific evidence that points one way just because you find it incredible. If there were provably explosives in the WTC then someone put them there somehow didn’t they. We can’t just sweep that fact away.

Sep 10, 2016 2:27 PM
Reply to  Derek_J

@Derek_J above:
“In order for WTC7 to have been a controlled demolition would have required a conspiracy of such mind boggling complexity it just defies credibility …”
Before deciding what is and whet is not ‘credible’ it is necessary to look at all the known facts of WHAT actually happened. Then, and only then, can one proceed with an analisys of HOW it happened.
“Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” – As Sherlock Holmes famously said.
It has been repeatedly shown by professional and highly experienced engineering experts that the official narrative regarding the collapse of all three of the WTC building is not only seriously flawed, but is impossible, and the ONLY hypothesis which fits all the known facts is controlled demolition.
The details of the actual conspiracy (there is no question that there was some kind of conspiracy – the official narrative is itself all about a conspiracy) which led to the explosive demolition of the WTC buildings is another question. The fact that some people find it ‘mind-boggling’ to imagine the possibility that this could be deliberately organised by powerful actors and their agents to fulfill their own warped agenda, reflects a failure of imagination on their part, and an ignorance of human history.

Sep 10, 2016 3:39 PM
Reply to  Derek_J

“I found this article by Robert Parry convincing. robert-parry-911-truth-parlor-game”
Parry’s article is full of distortions, halftruths, and total inaccuracies, and prejorative references to ‘Truthers’.
Please see Kevin Ryan’s reply to Parry’s article for a detailed analysis of what is wrong with it: “Why Robert Parry is Right About 9/11 Truth” –
Kevin Ryan is an independent investigator and former lab manger and scientist at Underwriter Labs, who has found significant discrepancies in the USA’s official 9/11 World Trade Center report. He has explained in detail why the report is not accurate and in many cases is misleading. He has shown the official investigation was unscientific and deceptive throughout the investigation.

Gregory De Wode
Gregory De Wode
Sep 10, 2016 2:07 PM
Reply to  Andrew

Sorry but no, this is a terrible documentary which goes to great lengths to avoid and distort the facts. Watch Tony Rooke’s submitted video evidence for his court case against the BBC & you will see this “documentary” pulled to bits. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5UzMjzk8bo

Sep 9, 2016 8:13 PM

At least this Video allows skeptics to talk, but in a way leaves the last word to the defenders of the official narrative. It´s interesting to hear Clarke state that the government doesn´t have the competence to organize something like this. Wow, but 14 men armed with boxcutters – totally incompetent “pilots” – directect by a man on dialysis in a cave in Afghanistan have to comptence?! Does Clarke know what he says?!
„Recommendation: The Corbett Report! & Nine Eleven in Five Minutes!“ https://wipokuli.wordpress.com/2016/06/28/recommendation-the-corbett-report/
Andreas Schlüter
Berlin, Germany

Sep 9, 2016 5:25 PM

Reblogged this on Worldtruth.