BBC reports WTC7 collapse while its still in the background!

[Hugo]

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

<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>

I would post this from the center of American hate as well were I in your shoes. It is only reasonable to expect that if they were monitoring every keystroke that I make, I would post something that makes me acceptable in their eyes. Lack of freedom on the internet and censorship is not an easy pill to swallow. I feel your pain.

[Gen]

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

[Derek]

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

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


Hilarious.

[Gen]

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

dats why mi deading wid laff

[rudemonk]

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">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!

</div></div>

right- <span style="font-style: italic">yet</span> being the operative word- however many people, including people interviewed on CNN et al, that did know the building could not be saved were saying as much. one fire fighter was interviewed and he was simply overwhelmed, the building was standing, but they knew they couldn't save it. it's more than probably, a lot more probable, that the BBC was simply making a mistake, rather than following a script given them to perpetuate a global conspiracy. Point being that a lot of people knew the building was about to come down. Not a far leap for a news agency to screw up about to to has come down.

Think about it Derek- the BBC would have covered the hoax attack same way as a real attack wouldn't they. To set them up, all you would have to do is carry out the hoax attack and you'd have them eating out of your hand, and they wouldn't know any different. To create a script for networks would be unnecessary...the press is easy to manipulate like that, they constantly bias to the sensational anyway.

mis-reporting in disasters like 9/11 is nothing out of the ordinary.

IF there was indeed a script, then you would expect uniformity over the information that was coming through. yet that is far from the case, because not every media outlet made that gaffe. were there different scripts for different outlets? to what purpose?

as to the term 'pull', that is a term that is used to refer to a specific kind of demolition, when the building must be brought down in such a way as to not damage surrounding structures. So that makes little sense for them to apply it the way conspiracy theorists say it is being used.

[Derek]

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

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

</div></div>

right- <span style="font-style: italic">yet</span> being the operative word- however many people, including people interviewed on CNN et al, that did know the building could not be saved were saying as much. one fire fighter was interviewed and he was simply overwhelmed, the building was standing, but they knew they couldn't save it. it's more than probably, a lot more probable, that the BBC was simply making a mistake, rather than following a script given them to perpetuate a global conspiracy. Point being that a lot of people knew the building was about to come down. Not a far leap for a news agency to screw up about to to has come down.

Think about it Derek- the BBC would have covered the hoax attack same way as a real attack wouldn't they. To set them up, all you would have to do is carry out the hoax attack and you'd have them eating out of your hand, and they wouldn't know any different. To create a script for networks would be unnecessary...the press is easy to manipulate like that, they constantly bias to the sensational anyway.

mis-reporting in disasters like 9/11 is nothing out of the ordinary.

IF there was indeed a script, then you would expect uniformity over the information that was coming through. yet that is far from the case, because not every media outlet made that gaffe. were there different scripts for different outlets? to what purpose?

as to the term 'pull', that is a term that is used to refer to a specific kind of demolition, when the building must be brought down in such a way as to not damage surrounding structures. So that makes little sense for them to apply it the way conspiracy theorists say it is being used. </div></div>

I repeat:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">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!!!</div></div>

The detonators MUST have already been in place. Let's be logical eh?

[rudemonk]

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">
I repeat:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">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!!!</div></div>

The detonators MUST have already been in place. Let's be logical eh? </div></div>

yes let's be logical my friend. I'll be the first to say I am not an expert in demolition, and google won't make anyone one either. but I can't imagine for the life of me how they could set up all these buildings to blow and not have anyone find out about it. i mean it's a simple argument of scale, we're talking major explosives.

so while I don't know demolition- maybe dr dudd can chime in lol- I do know logic...I think I've already shown how the BBC footage gaff which opened this thread is actually more than plausibly explained by the facts of the matter.

surely you see that the claim that the BBC and other media outlets were given some kind of blow by blow script from which to dispense information is not very plausible any more...I mean why would they need a script to report what they would already be reporting?

to save time and the shifting of goal posts in favor of conspiracy, I'll simply submit this:

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7___silverstein.html

it pretty much goes through all the various claims and counterclaims, and settles them.

[Derek]

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

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Derek</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I repeat:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">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!!!</div></div>

The detonators MUST have already been in place. Let's be logical eh? </div></div>

yes let's be logical my friend. I'll be the first to say I am not an expert in demolition, and google won't make anyone one either. but I can't imagine for the life of me how they could set up all these buildings to blow and not have anyone find out about it. i mean it's a simple argument of scale, we're talking major explosives.

so while I don't know demolition- maybe dr dudd can chime in lol- I do know logic...I think I've already shown how the BBC footage gaff which opened this thread is actually more than plausibly explained by the facts of the matter.

surely you see that the claim that the BBC and other media outlets were given some kind of blow by blow script from which to dispense information is not very plausible any more...I mean why would they need a script to report what they would already be reporting?

to save time and the shifting of goal posts in favor of conspiracy, I'll simply submit this:

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7___silverstein.html

it pretty much goes through all the various claims and counterclaims, and settles them. </div></div>
OK I'll ad this:

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wrh_9-11_index.html

I've seen plenty of documentaries on the Discovery Channel featuring the time, effort, man-hours and preparation that goes into bringing down a tall building (47 floors in this case) at freefall speed and in a straight line.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-weight: bold">I mean why would they need a script to report what they would already be reporting?</span></div></div>
Again, my friend, what they were reporting hadn't happened yet.
The BBC isn't saying WTC7 is about to be pulled. They're saying it already has been.

And let's not forget the script when the planes hit the towers. Every single broadcaster was talking about Osama Bin Laden, before any investigation had taken place.
How did they know it wasn't Saddam? (Although they did try to pin the blame on him later.)

[rudemonk]

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

so then, the suggestion is that the conspirators were able to spend all that time and effort, all that equipment, the months and months of planning and preparation...and everyone they were working around just thought they were HVAC workers, in all these different buildings? and the planes actually flying into the buildings were just to cover it up?

what about the conspiracy that it really was planes that did the job and the planes were landed somewhere, the passengers removed and replaced with explosives, and then flown remote into the buildings and the CIA killed everyone to hush them.

we've already shown that the BBC could easily have made a mistake- because of the facts that WTC was being reported as unsaveable and unstable. Small jump from it can come down to it has come down.

Lots and lots of precedent of there being bad reporting in disasters- that happens all the time so we shouldn't be so quick to have a conspirational GOTCHA!

There isn't any need to tell media what is going to happen before hand in order to get them to participate in the conspiracy. If they are going to report it anyway, why let them in on the secret. The suggestion that is implied, is that because the BBC reported something that did not happen yet, they KNEW it was going to happen, and made a timing error rather than a far easier and more simple mistake- is absurd. Occam's razor aside, I can't think of one good reason- and haven't seen one presented- as to *why* the BBC or any media would be brought into the fold and know about the conspiracy. That is to no benefit to the conspirators, at all, and in fact opens them up to discovery. For this conspiracy to work Derek, you are requiring the complicity of literally tens of thousands of people.

Has anyone close to the conspiracy ever come forward? Has anyone of the people responsible for the demolition ever come out of the black closet with a set of plans?

I mean Hollywood can't even keep a movie script secret and they lose gazillions of dollars because of that- the music industry can't stop new releases from being bootlegged...and not one shred of physical evidence has been leaked yet.

There isn't even any uniformity of the conspiracy either. That's because, all the allegations are hearsay.

Have you ever read any of Osama's statements, or saw the videos he released where he basically goes through the 9/11 hijackers, his interviews...

The difference between the two websites are clear. The one I linked you to provides full quotes, and tracks the generation of the conspiracies as they evolve. Your site presents the evolved cherry picked conspiracy. It's different.

[Dyoll_73]

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

Monk,
I'm for the truth wherever it leads, and as unpalatable as it may be, and even if it challenges my own cherished positions. I may never know in entirety what happened on that fateful day, and while I'm not persuaded by the &quot;inside job theory&quot;, I still have some questions about the official version of events - namely the attacks were carried out by 19 Arabs under the direction of a Saudi exile living in a cave somewhere in Afghanistan.

I would love to see exactly how those 19 names were compiled. The list was assembled by Wednesday, as I recall.

I would love to hear the contents on those black boxes - all four of them.

A satisfactory response to the fact that on the very morning of 9-11, NORAD (the North American Regional Air Defense) was carrying out drills having to do with planes commandeered by terrorists and flown into certain targets, including those hit that very morning. According to the 9-11 Commission Report (not my opinion), the officer receiving the call that morning regarding the request to scramble some F-16s in response to said hijacked planes, asked if it was a drill or &quot;for real&quot;. A strange coincidence indeed. I'm not making any leaps from this, but I haven't heard a satisfactory response.

Also, I would love to see the tapes from the surveillance cameras mounted unto the sides of the Pentagon, plus cameras from nearby buildings all of which captured the attack on the Pentagon. We could get to see exactly the aircraft that struck the building. The size of the hole I saw on CNN that morning seems inconsistent with the impact I would imagine from that of a Boeing 737. As far as I'm aware, nothing convincing, by way of photographs and video footage, has been released showing the impact. What the Pentagon has released has shown nothing really and only feeds the speculation.

[jah_yout]

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

monk there are several reports of mysterious highly secretive weekend construction going on in the towers in the weeks prior to 9/11

[rudemonk]

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

well, I'm not suggesting that there aren't any anomalies or strange occurrences which warrant questions being asked, nor would I be the kind of person to suggest one must trust the powers that be, far from it.

but the case against Usama Bin Laden strikes me as pretty solid- I mean there are lots and lots of various security- let's call them factions- who are at odds with one another more than enough times to make any kind of collusion on this matter be one that is responding to actual facts rather than by shadowy manipulations of illuminati and devil worshippers. The fact is a lot of these factions compete against one another. By that I mean, it's not just the United States which has evidence of Usama Bin Laden. And fabrications, when they are shoddily implemented, can be shown up. As evidence look at the case for Iraq the admin tried to build. They went ahead with it anyway, but the case was seriously shoddy and everyone knew it.

Also I'd like to point out that this kind of attack is something UBL could easily have produced. When you say Saudi exile living in a cave somewhere, that sort of belies a degree of ignorance as to his actual, strategic condition. I mean that has been the commonly employed rhetorical device, but the reality is something else. It's a clear case of caricaturizing an enemy. Usama is filthy rich, first of all. CIA trained. Second, all that is needed to perpetrate 9/11 is will and money...and his will to inflict damage is well documented. All he needed was volunteers. And we all know those are not so hard to come by once people become radicalized and brainwashed. The world suffers attacks from these kinds of people all the time.

I don't think the case has yet been made as to *why* an invasion of Afghanistan is in any way shape or form beneficial to the United States, or any cabal of Military-Industrialists who are in some parallel shadow government calling all the shots and sending out scripts to major media outlets to follow.

The military industrial complex did not make billions and billions of dollars in Afghanistan, but in Iraq. The pipeline? We've already seen that Afghanistan is not enough- and a destablized Pakistan -which war in Afghanistan would automatically cause and has- precludes that as a reasonable justification as to why we went to war there. Just look at the money. Afghanistan? nobody wanted to hear about it. Iraq? Feeding Frenzy. Neocons making policy then cashing in on that policy. What is the agenda.

I think the picture is clear, on solid evidence- that 9/11 happened as an aspect of the war declared against the US by Usama when the Kingdom adopted our (infidel) troops to defend it against Saddam's Kuwaiti aggression- on top of all the US/Israeli issues. I'll readily grant, I mean it is obvious, that factions within the US government immediately began working to use 9/11 as their means to foment and bring their documented desire to engage Iraq in conflict and supplant Saddam.

But the two things are not the same as far as their justifications.

I doubt you will see any black boxes. I doubt you will ever see any footage of the Pentagon being attacked. I can't comment on the size or damage to the building or anything like that because I have no way to compare- I've never seen planes crash into buildings nor the results of such a crash before. If you have some images of planes used as weapons or something upon which to base an opinion I would love to see them. The only thing I can think of are kamikaze attacks in WWII.

That is a strange coincidence regarding the specific nature of the drill, but if you were a member of this cabal responsible for hoaxing the attack, don't you think you would have created a much different scenario rather than one that would tip your hand to conspiracy theorists...and Canada, unless Canada too is a puppet regime. I think the drill, by it's very nature, actually makes the scenario that this was an attack executed by UBL more plausible.

I mean it's like, the thing with the BBC making the wrong statement. It's there, but the way the conspiracy theorists back track...to explain it they have to suggest there is a script and that the BBC made an error in timing. And that makes no sense, you would agree? I mean not a single person who works for the BBC has come forward with the evidence of the script? Really? So why is that more believable than suggesting that hey guess what, the BBC made an error in the middle of a disaster the scale and type of which the world had never seen? Especially when other networks already had reported that the building was going to fall and couldn't be saved. There are way more questions to be asked that need to have sense made of them if you start with the idea this was a conspiracy.

If there is one thing that is true, if you want to keep a secret you tell no one. The sheer scale of this conspiracy that would be required to actually make it happen is boggling to the mind- and yet there is not one email, not one planning document, not one former gov official, not one former intelligence agent, not one person who is an actual forensic or criminal investigator, not one shred of solid admissable evidence, not even one deep throat has come forward not even on Art Bell to blow the whistle. Not even conspiracy theorists can agree, because there is little solid evidence but a lot of conjecture that is developed along what you want to believe.

that's why I say it is similar to the moon hoax loonies. they begin with a belief, and fill in from there.

[rudemonk]

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">monk there are several reports of mysterious highly secretive weekend construction going on in the towers in the weeks prior to 9/11 </div></div>

any evidence of this, or just reports? nobody took any pictures of the piles of explosives that would be needed? I mean from Derek said this would take months and months of planning, materials...and this was not just the towers now JY. The claim is all the buildings that came down were brought down.

So this wasn't like, a few air conditioner repair men kind of work on the weekends right? This would have to be an operation of scale.

And for that, there is no evidence. That's a lot of suspicious activity that nobody really saw. Tons and tons of explosives are not the kinds of things you carry into the WTC in some tool boxes and brief cases. Or are they?

[Derek]

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

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I can't comment on the size or damage to the building or anything like that because I have no way to compare- I've never seen planes crash into buildings nor the results of such a crash before. </div></div>

This is something of what it looks like after a plane crashes into a building.








You have things such as wreckage, bits of plane and fusilage lying around.



Pentagon Was that a missile?


Monk, Pentagon aside, <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-size: 14pt">in the history of the world</span></span> only two steel framed buildings have been brought down by planes crashing into them.
No prizes for guessing which American city this happened in.





I'll post this for you:

This interesting image appeared about four years after the event. Er, any more bits of plane lying around? Seats, wings, engines etc?

[Dyoll_73]

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

Monk,
I don't think I need to see photos or footage of airliners attacking buildings prior to 9-11 (assuming there are any) in order to make an intelligent estimate. I know the size of a Boeing 737; I have flown in that type of aircraft, or ones of a similar size, many times over. And while I may not have been at the scene in Washington that morning, I can make a reasonable assessment of the size of the hole I saw in the side of the Pentagon building. It would require that I suspend logic to believe that a plane almost as high as the building itself with a body bigger that the size of the hole, would disappear into said hole without leaving anything behind - wheels, tail, wings - the engines completely vaporized.

It don't find it persuasive to say that a secret of that scale and magnitude could not be kept for long without someone coming forward at some point. This may be true, but hardly sufficient, and I find that it the card most played by those who hold steadfast to the official story. It would have to take more than that for me.

With regard to NORAD, OBL must have been incredibly lucky to time his attack to coincide with the very morning or week that drills were being conducted over North America so as to confuse NORAD air traffic personnel. This kind of information (about drills) I imagine is not something advertised. I don't think Richard Ben-Veniste, of the 9-11 Commission, got a satisfactory response from Condi Rice or Rumsfeld when he had both of them before the commission to answer questions.