At the end of the show, Lieutenant Frank Papalia said
"I think they have no respect for all the friends of mine that I lost, for all the people that died that day, it's like a slap in their face."
However, I don't believe any firemen were lost in WTC 7, so this quote seems to be cherry-picked in order to cast aspersions on WTC7 conspiracy claimants. (To be sure, all of these will be 911 Conspiracy claimants, but the show's focus is about WTC 7.) I don't think that's showing respect for Lieutenant Papalia, even if he feels that way, personally. Besides the cherry-picking aspect, I can't help wonder about the placement of this segment at the very end of the show. Is that because this is what we are supposed to remember, above all else? Is this simply a propaganda ploy?
Furthermore, although I thought the program was balanced, if I was an honest investigative journalist I would have certainly re-interviewed Jowenko, showed him the clips of Loizeaux, and then asked for a response. An EXPERT response. Why didn't BBC do this?
The question of the sound and window-shattering effects of CD explosives is raised. But, unfortunately, the question of the sound associated with various formulations of nano-thermite detonations, of different intensities, is not discussed in the program. This is a technical question, but one which the BBC, which obviously had some kind of budget, could have pursued. Apparently, they either didn't think of it, didn't try, or tried and failed. I can't tell from watching the program, can you?
I also have questions as how many firemen were even in the building, since, as the program showed, the collapses caused failures in the water system. Are firemen in the habit of rambling through a building, with either no water-supplied firehoses, or else an insufficient amount of them? I should think not. Therefore, a serious investigative reporter would have asked such rather obvious questions, and tried to quantifiy the amount of water that was applied to the building, especially from the inside, vs. what was necessary. That would have provided some type of cross-check as to how many firemen were inside the building, or at least how many would have made sense to be inside the building. The question of how many firemen were inside the building is non-trivial, since if the building was jury-rigged quickly on 9/11 for CD, large numbers of them might well have seen CD artifacts. The NIST guy, Dr. Shyam Sunder, gave what I thought was a rather disingenous argument, when he pointed out that a column which has lost structural integrity can fail quickly.
Duh.
The question is, how could ENOUGH of the columns fail so quickly that a symmetrical collapse is produced. There's a large time span, so perhaps some kind of argument could be made that sequential losses of columns' structural integrity occurred relatively slowly, but that a critical number was attained only over a brief time span. Why was the BBC not astute enough to ask a rather obvious question of Dr. Sunder? Especially since they interview ae911truth's Kamal Obeid, a structural engineer, who expresses doubt that simultaneous collapse of all columns is possible, even if local failures of one or two are not. Instead, they have incorporated a non-explanation explanation into their show.
If we had wanted that, we could have just asked the government - they're just full of non-explanations!
Perhaps the best example of how non-critical the BBC program was is when they showed Dr. Gene Corley. Dr. Gene Corley tells us that evidence for controlled demolition was looked for, but no details are provided. Oh, heck, why would the BBC want to bother Dr. Corley for such details, just because they're doing a show on WTC 7 CD claims?
In sum, the BBC program was balanced, but of questionable fairness, as it was unquestionably non-critical. (In fairness, I note that it could have been more critical of the CD proponents, also.)
