BBC reports WTC7 collapse while its still in the background!

[Derek]

Re: BBC reports WTC7 collapse while its still in the backgro

Very little counter argument to this thread, I notice.

Most people <span style="font-weight: bold">in the world</span> would rather roll their eyes and kiss their teet.

My signature below:

[Gen]

Re: BBC reports WTC7 collapse while its still in the backgro

BOADWL mine yuh buss yuh neck vein


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Derek</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kia</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Derek</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Saloman Brothers Building, WTC7, is clearly visible, still standing and not burning, while BBC reporter Jane Standley and studio anchor Phil Hayton announce live on TV that it has already collapsed.
Here!

I would like someone to explain this anomaly. Just don't tell me that those evil Arabs have even found a way to distort time.



I can only assume the scripts went out to the news media about 20 minutes too early.


Unnu tan deh. </div></div>

considering it says news update and not live update, the update pic they had was not updated the same time they received word the other building had collapsed. </div></div>

It was an update of the LATEST NEWS, live from New York. Did you watch the clip?
And why on earth would they show old footage of an event of such magnitude?
Every dam update I've ever seen in my life features a real-time scenario.
Excuses, excuses.


Happy New Year </div></div>

[Gen]

Re: BBC reports WTC7 collapse while its still in the backgro

maybe the only people who agree with you already posted here


clearly you believed it didn't happen and those with opposing viewpoints believe it did, so any counter argument to what you posted above will be pointless.

what's the point of counter arguing ?





<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Derek</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Very little counter argument to this thread, I notice.

Most people <span style="font-weight: bold">in the world</span> would rather roll their eyes and kiss their teet.



My signature below: </div></div>

[neutral]

Re: BBC reports WTC7 collapse while its still in the backgro

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Derek</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Like H_O said, they take the general population for retards.

</div></div>

But a great deal of the general american population ARE retards.

[R_C]

Re: BBC reports WTC7 collapse while its still in the backgro

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Derek</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Very little counter argument to this thread, I notice. Most people <span style="font-weight: bold">in the world</span> would rather roll their eyes and kiss their teet. </div></div>

I have found that arguing with conspiracy theorists is a waste of time and in short order generally results in anyone who dares to question the basis of their theories being called &quot;retards&quot; or some variation thereof. (In fact, I see in the posts above that this has already occurred <span style="font-style: italic">even in the absence of a response</span> !).

In the past when against my better judgment when I have attempted to introduce facts and asked for heretofore apparently reasonable people to use their common sense and to follow even the most rudimentary rules of logical thinking, my motivation, intentions and IQ invariably become the subject of the discussion.

It is pointless.

[Derek]

Re: BBC reports WTC7 collapse while its still in the backgro

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rollin_Calf</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Derek</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Very little counter argument to this thread, I notice. Most people <span style="font-weight: bold">in the world</span> would rather roll their eyes and kiss their teet. </div></div>

I have found that arguing with conspiracy theorists is a waste of time and in short order generally results in anyone who dares to question the basis of their theories being called &quot;retards&quot; or some variation thereof. (In fact, I see in the posts above that this has already occurred <span style="font-style: italic">even in the absence of a response</span> !).

</div></div>

I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I seek the truth. And I have not called anyone a retard.
Just kindly explain how a man on a terror watch list can board a plane without a passport. Or how the BBC can report news before it happens.




Straight and logically.





'Conspiracy theorist' is the get-out clause used by people to attack anyone who refuses to believe whatever the government/media wants them to believe, no matter how strange or odd the news may be.

[andronian2]

Re: BBC reports WTC7 collapse while its still in the background!

And all the theories presented (including the 'official' ones) as to what happened are conspiracy theories anyway.
It's just different versions of what the conspiracy is.

Now, here is some food for thought.
Have we heard the official report of what caused Flight 331 to crash land in Kingston yet?
Why do you think we haven't heard the conclusion of the investigators yet?
It is because they are still piecing together the evidence, analysing the pieces of the fuselage,
the flight recorders etc do come up with an accurate picture of what happened.

By comparison, how long did it take them to establish the prevailing theory of what occured on 911.
IIRC, this terrorist attack of unprecendented magnitude that nobody saw coming had been figured out by the next day
when we were being told who did it and how and why the buildings came down.

This was the first thing that did not spell sense to me even back then.
It was the first thing that made me want to know on what basis these revelations were coming about.
They didn't seem to NEED to investigate anything which suggested, rather ominously, that it was known about in advance.

[Gen]

Re: BBC reports WTC7 collapse while its still in the backgro

you know, now that I think about it those 2 objects looked like birds

[Derek]

Re: BBC reports WTC7 collapse while its still in the backgro

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: andronian2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And all the theories presented (including the 'official' ones) as to what happened are conspiracy theories anyway.
It's just different versions of what the conspiracy is.

Now, here is some food for thought.
Have we heard the official report of what caused Flight 331 to crash land in Kingston yet?
Why do you think we haven't heard the conclusion of the investigators yet?
It is because they are still piecing together the evidence, analysing the pieces of the fuselage,
the flight recorders etc do come up with an accurate picture of what happened.

By comparison, how long did it take them to establish the prevailing theory of what occured on 911.
IIRC, <span style="font-size: 14pt"><span style="font-weight: bold">this terrorist attack of unprecendented magnitude that nobody saw coming had been figured out by the next day
when we were being told who did it and how and why the buildings came down.</span></span>

This was the first thing that did not spell sense to me even back then.
It was the first thing that made me want to know on what basis these revelations were coming about.
They didn't seem to NEED to investigate anything which suggested, rather ominously, that it was known about in advance. </div></div>

Nice to know you're paying attention.

Every single newscaster was saying, 'looks like the work of Osama Bin Laden,' the minute those planes crashed into towers.
How did they know it wasn't Saddam? Or Gaddaffi? or the North Koreans? Or even me? They were all 'evil' at that time.

Because the scripts were already in hand.

[rudemonk]

Re: BBC reports WTC7 collapse while its still in the backgro

strategically, setting up 9/11 attacks makes little sense from the perspective of the geopolitique of the time. The hawks and neo cons all wanted Iraq, since Clinton was in office they were urging invasion...9/11 was their convenient excuse to eventually force this agenda but there was no choice to invade Afghanistan and topple the Taliban. Everyone with eyes to see saw how they were trying so desperately to tie Iraq to 9/11 but that was way down the line, hence the fabrication of the WMD etc. There were huge risks to an Afghan invasion, mainly a destabilized Pakistan -which we sort of have right now- does nobody any good at all, so that invasion came with a lot of risk and not a lot of certainty. Seems like there isn't much of an advantage there. What was gained that couldn't be gained otherwise- that is the question a conspiracy must answer. The evidence for invading Afghanistan was convincing enough to garner an actual coalition amongst allies to commit troops, unlike the token contributions that were formed for Iraq. You will remember they sent up their most respected member- Colin Powell, to fall on his sword with a rube job if there ever was one. So most of the members of that Iraq coalition were actually bought, like that pack of eastern european countries.

I believe also the case can be stated that they had lots of leads and lots of threads laying around untied that once the attack came, painted the right picture of what the CIA calls &quot;blowback&quot;- and if you read Janes or some of the other security sites, this becomes more and more apparent- Usama stated numerous times his purpose for war against the US and it stemmed from the defense of Saudi Arabia during Gulf One. The Kingdom declined the usage of his US trained Mujahideen fighters in favor of US (infidel) forces. That was that. There was also the memo for example, the presidential daily brief with which the left sought to crucify Bush et al for 'doing nothing'. Although documentation can be found in the national security archives that the CIA had similar plans to use planes as weapons and sway public opinion via concocting a terrorist attack (in regards to generating a public desire to invade Cuba) that is a logical fallacy to point to that and draw the conclusion that such is the case here. I haven't seen a conspiracy theory yet in regards to 9/11 that could really hold up to scrutiny.

This is not to say there wasn't a lot of BS and some stretches and some strained credulity when it comes to 9/11 and the aftermath- I mean Shrub stayed to read a book to kids so as not to frighten them? Come on.

But conspiracy? I dunno. I think you would have more weight to the argument that neocons conspired to get Iraq invaded and Saddam toppled, and bilk the public out of hundreds of billions of dollars in croneyism and outright theft- like the 14 billion in cash that walked out of a Baghdad warehouse. If conspiracy were true, Farenheit 9/11 would have stood on it's own and the public would have rightly called for heads to roll. I'll agree that when something like half the population thinks dinosaurs and man cohabitated you have a dumbed down populace, but there is only so much wool you can pull over the public eye. But conspiracy tends to run to the non sensational- like a real conspiracy that was perpetrated by the members of the Bush admin like Feith and Perle who created the policy, then shifted their roles to 'civilian' pursuits so as to benefit financially from the policy they created. Now if you want to get into conspiracy, there you have one.

The various 9/11 conspiracies to me, smack of the same kind of weight of evidence people use to say we never went to the Moon 15 times.

If the point was to manufacture an excuse to get into Iraq, why divert resources to Afghanistan, why not make all the hijackers Iraqis instead of Saudis, which invasion offered nothing of any substance that could not be gotten without war.

[Derek]

Re: BBC reports WTC7 collapse while its still in the backgro

According to the Project for the New American Century,
(this isn't some crazy conspiracy book - some of the authors are featured on the front. Recognise any?) removing Saddam was planned well in advance. The objective was to put someone more pro-American, more trustworthy perhaps, in charge (of all that oil).
When bush and Blair were told to get rid of him, they had to find a palatable excuse for we the general public. They chose WMD.

The Taliban agreed to allow a pipeline to be built across their country. (Yes I know Afghanistan doesn't have oil). At some point the Taliban changed their mind and that's when we started hearing news about these evil men. Nobody had a problem with the way the Taliban treated their women etc, up until that point.

They had to be removed and a pro-American put in place. The Afghan president Karzai, used to work for Unicol, an oil concern. But then Bush is an oil family and Condi worked for Chevron, while Cheney had a hand in Haliburton, the company that would have made millions from the construction of the pipeline. All idrens together.

The excuse we were given was Afghanistan's involvement in 911. Funny, when most of the so-called hijackers were from Saudi. I saw hijackers alive and well on TV; men who were supposed to have been suicided on 911. Guys who said they had their passports stolen while studying or working in the US and got the shock of their lives(!) when they opened newspapers and saw themselves dead. Of course, you didn't see any of this on Fox News, CNN, BBC etc.

This Osama Bin Laden character. When the Russians invaded Afghanistan OBL was the CIA's contact man. How do you stop being a CIA asset and become the CIA's most dangerous enemy?

[rudemonk]

Re: BBC reports WTC7 collapse while its still in the backgro

yes exactly, sort of.

all of those people were working for saddam's removal and precious few of them were not involved in some way with the administrations of either Clinton or Bush- either with him or in the government somehow, and they were publishing papers and writing letters to Clinton to that effect as well. Perle, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld...Feith. However, this does not tie in 9/11- they USED 9/11, of that there is no doubt. Big difference.

Think about this way- you are a neocon advancing an agenda for war with Iraq. BOOM 9/11 happens. This is like someone handing you a gift. You're not going to use it to further your purpose?

Saddam himself was an ally of the United States when they were at war with Iran- you can see a picture of Rumsfeld shaking his hand and there is plenty of great documentation at the national security archives from all the freedom of information act papers. There is some documentation that the US supplied Saddam with WMDs to fight Iran, including gas. Which is why a lot of people internationally rolled their eyes when Bush started mouthing about WMDs and Saddam killing 'his own people.'

Since 1992 I believe, Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress were working with US neocons to overthrow Saddam and get the US into a war with Iraq, they wanted to duplicate a Hashemite regime, like Jordan's. As you note, all well documented.

The pipeline project you mention was a favorite rallying cry of the left as well, when they were railing against the invasion- but the problem is no war was really necessary to the rumor about that pipeline- the conspiracy 'switched' focus. At first the conspiracy was that the Taliban were being supported. Then not. And it would have had to cross more than Afghanistan if I remember correctly. And there can be no doubt our policy is laced with croneyism and rewards for loyal puppets and players like Kharzai and Chalabi and many many others. And we have to grant that it wouldn't be the first time US business drove US policy- something most Americans don't even realize, which puts them at a massive disservice and makes a lot of their rhetoric ring rather hollow. The simple fact is their personal ideals for which they think their country stands for, are just social constructs without a lot of meaning on the world stage because of the way the US, either through government or corporately, applies it's power. They're blessedly ignorant of it. That's actually one of the root causes of terrorism, which now most people mistake as a kind of person, but it is really a kind of tactic. But then again, this sort of thing makes everyone's rhetoric ring pretty hollow once they start chest beating but don't actively try and make changes. You can't mouth off about racism and this and that and still actively participate or derive the benefits thereof in any society in which the weak and disenfranchised are exploited to the gain of the few. 99% of America wouldn't exist without an enslaved China, without having demolished Mexican farming, for some quick examples, and so too for most of the world. Nobody I've seen who points fingers could ever afford to really clothe themselves or eat food without the severe disenfranchisement of others, if not outright slavery. Well I am generalizing but you see the point I hope.

Again with the pipeline as reason for war we have to be careful- sometimes interests get muddled between business and government- other times not so. I mean Cheney famously subverted all sanctions against Iran to pursue profit, and he got elected VP. People had problems with the Taliban, but it was convenient to ignore them. But these problems came to the surface and it was getting tougher to ignore them. Again I would point out that removing the Taliban presented a <span style="font-style: italic">known</span> risk to Pakistan's stability- without a stable Pakistan, there could be no pipeline. Yet, Pakistan was never invaded.

Concurrent to Bush's oil based courtship- the Taliban sent a delegation to Texas- Clinton was building the case against Usama. Remember that Usama had declared war because of infidel troops being used to secure The Kingdom. Anyway this tracks the development of the Unocal story:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2059487

I'm not disagreeing with a lot of what you have stated, we're almost talking over ourselves a little- BUT, Usama definitely had motive and definitely DID carry out attacks...and so far no conspiracy theory regarding 9/11 has fully adressed that public record.

One of the major problems is that the Military Industrial Complex is in full bloom. So there are literally dozens of convolutions and webs of intrigue that clutter the landscape.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
This Osama Bin Laden character. When the Russians invaded Afghanistan OBL was the CIA's contact man. How do you stop being a CIA asset and become the CIA's most dangerous enemy?
</div></div>

This happens quite a bit actually, to the point the CIA even has a term for it, the term is 'blowback.' Saddam is a great example, but there are many others.

Usama stopped being an asset once the Russian threat of Soviet occupied Afghanistan stopped being an issue. All his fighters were basically slapped in the face when he offered his CIA trained army to defend Saudi Arabia against Saddam's Kuwait aggression, and the Kingdom caved into pressure from the US to allow them to use Saudi Arabia as a base and deny Usama's offer of defense. Once infidels touched sacred land, that's when he switched, and he has stated so.

I don't think there can be any doubt that Islam can breed a particularly virulent breed of ignorance and fanaticism, so a switch hitting Usama is far from implausible. Top that with a rack of US incompetence, and bingo, you got fertile soil from which conspiracy theories can form up.

Also- think about it- you have to ask yourself, WHY would the BBC need a script anyway? Why wouldn't they be expected to simply report what was happening? Hoax or no, they wouldn't need to have any idea at all that it was being faked to report it, there's literally no need for them to know. Giving news media some kind of paper trail is no way to have a conspiracy work. So that right there should point out the obvious fact that there was a simpler explanation for the BBC report.

[Derek]

Re: BBC reports WTC7 collapse while its still in the backgro

I too agree with most of what you have written. But my bone of contention is: <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">WHY would the BBC need a script anyway? Why wouldn't they be expected to simply report what was happening? </div></div>
It hadn't happened yet!

[jah_yout]

Re: BBC reports WTC7 collapse while its still in the backgro

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Derek</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Saloman Brothers Building, WTC7, is clearly visible, still standing and not burning, while BBC reporter Jane Standley and studio anchor Phil Hayton announce live on TV that it has already collapsed.
Here!

I would like someone to explain this anomaly. Just don't tell me that those evil Arabs have even found a way to distort time.



I can only assume the scripts went out to the news media about 20 minutes too early.


Unnu tan deh. </div></div>

did you ever see the clip where the guy admitted they told them to &quot;pull it&quot;?
a term used in building demolition...
there is a persistent theory by some that demolitions &amp; explosives were used to bring ALL the WTC buildings down that day...

[Derek]

Re: BBC reports WTC7 collapse while its still in the backgro

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Derek</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Saloman Brothers Building, WTC7, is clearly visible, still standing and not burning, while BBC reporter Jane Standley and studio anchor Phil Hayton announce live on TV that it has already collapsed.
Here!

I would like someone to explain this anomaly. Just don't tell me that those evil Arabs have even found a way to distort time.



I can only assume the scripts went out to the news media about 20 minutes too early.


Unnu tan deh. </div></div>

did you ever see the clip where the guy admitted they told them to &quot;pull it&quot;?
a term used in building demolition...
there is a persistent theory by some that demolitions &amp; explosives were used to bring ALL the WTC buildings down that day... </div></div>

You have to check this out as well JY.
Do you know how many weeks, sometimes months of preparation it takes - hiring a demolition expert, setting up explosives etc - to pull a building?
WTC7 came down within hours!!!

In addition, Larry Silverstein Properties took out insurance against it being damaged in a terrorist attack SPECIFIED, not too long before it happened. This is fact that can easily be checked out - not conspiracy theory - he and his friends made a cool $500 million.