9/11: BBC reports WTC7 collapse 25 minutes before it happened

13

Comments

  • hippiemom wrote:
    I absolutely agree with that. I don't think that the government has been anything close to forthcoming or honest in regards to 9/11. I don't buy into most of the conspiracy theories, but that it no way means that I believe the "official" version. I do think things have been covered up, not because the government plotted the whole thing, but to cover up their bumbling incompetence. That was my hunch a few years ago ... seeing their performance during Katrina reinforced that hunch to the point where it's now a pretty firm belief.
    I think it goes deeper than that but to each their own. The government couldn't keep this kinda thing covered but I believe a few powerful people inside the government with ties elsewhere could. It could go either way, no one knows for sure. There's just so much that seems convenient, fishy and just straight up doesn't make sense about that day.

    I agree with these comments. There are various red flags here. Perhaps the biggest one would be the fact that this administration didn't want any part of having an "investigation" on the calamity and once they gave in, would only testify behind closed doors, without taking an oath.

    Pretty damning, I gotta tell ya.
  • jeffbrjeffbr SeattlePosts: 6,063
    Ten Dude wrote:
    Perhaps the biggest one would be the fact that this administration didn't want any part of having an "investigation" on the calamity and once they gave in, would only testify behind closed doors, without taking an oath.

    I find this the least damning. How many Presidents/VPs have testified in open session, under oath, while in office, in front of a panel of investigators?
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • DPrival78DPrival78 CTPosts: 2,243
    the dude from the BBC said they "lost" their orignal 9/11 tapes.. interesting

    here is the BBC's "media management policy":
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/foi/docs/historical_information/archive_policies/media_management_policy_overview.htm#top

    "Components to be Retained

    The following components to be retained:-

    Two broadcast standard copies of all transmitted/published TV, Radio and BBCi output – one to be stored on a separate site as a master

    One browse-quality version for research purposes, to protect the broadcast material "


    so.. according to the BBC, they violated their own media archiving policies, regarding the tapes containing their footage from the most important day in a generation.

    ok.. everyone.. "bullshit" on three..

    1... 2... 3.. bullshit!
    i'm more a fan of popular bands.. like the bee-gees, pearl jam
  • scpjfanscpjfan Posts: 131
    BBC reported the building had collapsed before 5 pm. It didn't actually fall until 5:20. Later they go to this lady in NYC for live coverage of the event and there's the building, still standing, right behind her head! Just watch the clip.

    It's so obvious! The American government tipped off the BBC that they were going to detonate the charges they had planted on Building 7 at 5. Hoping to beat the other news stations that had also been informed of this to the punch, they reported this just a tad early.
    Hail, hail the lucky ones, I refer to those in love.
  • AbuskedtiAbuskedti Posts: 1,915
    they just ran an old video behind her...
  • Abuskedti wrote:
    they just ran an old video behind her...

    BBC reported that building 7 had collapsed before 5 pm. Building 7 didn't fall until 5:20pm.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • jeffbr wrote:
    I find this the least damning. How many Presidents/VPs have testified in open session, under oath, while in office, in front of a panel of investigators?


    Far too many of our nation's leaders have skirted testimony, under oath, while in office, in front of panel of investigators. That's one of the fundamental problems with the current arrangement. And after 9.11, the Bush admin. didn't want any part of having an "investigation."

    What kind of message does that send?
  • DPrival78 wrote:
    if this has been discussed already, i apologize..

    if it hasn't..

    go here:

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/260207building7.htm

    and watch the video. a BBC journalist in NYC is reporting live on the collapse of building 7. the only problem is... you can see the building standing behind her - it didn't collapse until almost a half hour later.

    huh??
    I knew the goddamn Brits were in on it all somehow.
  • jeffbrjeffbr SeattlePosts: 6,063
    Ten Dude wrote:
    Far too many of our nation's leaders have skirted testimony, under oath, while in office, in front of panel of investigators. That's one of the fundamental problems with the current arrangement. And after 9.11, the Bush admin. didn't want any part of having an "investigation."

    What kind of message does that send?

    A sitting President has testified only once in an open session of a congressional hearing under oath as far as I know. In 1975 Ford did, when a congressional committee quizzed him about his pardon of Nixon. Have there been others?

    Since this has happened only once in our 250 year history, I tend to see this as an extremely rare exception. It may not send the right message - I'm not arguing that point; but my point was that I don't see how it is damning evidence of foul play, since there is simply no real precedence for this to happen.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • AbuskedtiAbuskedti Posts: 1,915
    BBC reported that building 7 had collapsed before 5 pm. Building 7 didn't fall until 5:20pm.

    Oh... :) I didn't read much.. that is freaky. We don't even need things like this to know we are being lied to about many many things. I have grown weary of detective work because there are already far too many unanswered questions. We don't need new questions.. we need answers and accountability on the old ones.
  • That was totally freaky. I’m kind of surprised that this type of news doesn’t surprise me anymore…

    I don’t really consider myself a conspiracy type, but every time I step back, I cannot help but see the move where a chess player sacrifices an asbestos laden rook to get a pawn queened in the middle east.

    Just an insane scenario all the way around…
  • jeffbr wrote:
    A sitting President has testified only once in an open session of a congressional hearing under oath as far as I know. In 1975 Ford did, when a congressional committee quizzed him about his pardon of Nixon. Have there been others?

    Since this has happened only once in our 250 year history, I tend to see this as an extremely rare exception. It may not send the right message - I'm not arguing that point; but my point was that I don't see how it is damning evidence of foul play, since there is simply no real precedence for this to happen.

    I think 9/11 trumps the Watergate scandal, no? And for an administration to initially NOT want to cooperate with an investigation speaks volumes. What do they have to hide? Why would these people not want to embrace and support an investigation?

    I find it damning because they were against having any kind of investigation following the worst attack in this country's history. It sure as hell would have been good precedence for taking a lead and actually showing some sort of leadership and accountability by way of government investigation.
  • jeffbrjeffbr SeattlePosts: 6,063
    Ten Dude wrote:
    I think 9/11 trumps the Watergate scandal, no? And for an administration to initially NOT want to cooperate with an investigation speaks volumes. What do they have to hide? Why would these people not want to embrace and support an investigation?

    I find it damning because they were against having any kind of investigation following the worst attack in this country's history. It sure as hell would have been good precedence for taking a lead and actually showing some sort of leadership and accountability by way of government investigation.

    I know what you're saying. I was just pointing out that sitting presidents don't agree to open sessions, under oath, before partisan bodies. Just the way it has been/is/always will be.

    I completely agree with your last sentence. I am no fan of government in general, and would love to see more accountability.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • jeffbr wrote:
    I know what you're saying. I was just pointing out that sitting presidents don't agree to open sessions, under oath, before partisan bodies. Just the way it has been/is/always will be.

    I completely agree with your last sentence. I am no fan of government in general, and would love to see more accountability.

    Fair enough. It just pisses me off to no end that the Executive Br. isn't critiqued by way of the methods we discussed. Of course, it helps to have had a GOP-controlled Congress in your back pocket as well.
  • El_KabongEl_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    They do know why it fell. I don't care who the editor or owner of Popular Mechanics is but this is from their article debunking 9/11 conspiracy with science.

    "Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

    NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTC7#Collapse

    In a New York magazine interview in March 2006, Dr S. Shyam Sunder, NIST's lead WTC disaster investigator, said, of 7 World Trade Center, "We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floors”; he added "But truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7".[10]


    as for the 10 story gash...
    The NIST interim report on 7 WTC details a 10-story gash that existed on the south façade, extending a third of the way across the face of the building and approximately a quarter of the way into the interior, but does not provide any photographs of the damage to the south façade.[1]

    no pics or evidence of this? guess we'll just have to take them at their word, eh?
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • MakingWavesMakingWaves Posts: 1,205
    El_Kabong wrote:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTC7#Collapse

    In a New York magazine interview in March 2006, Dr S. Shyam Sunder, NIST's lead WTC disaster investigator, said, of 7 World Trade Center, "We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floors”; he added "But truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7".[10]


    as for the 10 story gash...
    The NIST interim report on 7 WTC details a 10-story gash that existed on the south façade, extending a third of the way across the face of the building and approximately a quarter of the way into the interior, but does not provide any photographs of the damage to the south façade.[1]

    no pics or evidence of this? guess we'll just have to take them at their word, eh?

    Yeah, that is what makes this worth debating is you are only able to take people at their word.
    Seeing visions of falling up somehow.

    Pensacola '94
    New Orleans '95
    Birmingham '98
    New Orleans '00
    New Orleans '03
    Tampa '08
    New Orleans '10 - Jazzfest
  • I don’t really consider myself a conspiracy type, but every time I step back, I cannot help but see the move where a chess player sacrifices an asbestos laden rook to get a pawn queened in the middle east.

    Pretty spot on analysis IMO, more people should allow themselves to step back and take it all in.

    Crazy enough, I can't really disparage their methods since it worked pretty masterfully.
    hate was just a legend
  • jeffbrjeffbr SeattlePosts: 6,063
    Crazy enough, I can't really disparage their methods since it worked pretty masterfully.

    Whose methods?
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 4,309
    The most reasonable explanation would have to be that the government obviously issued the BBC with a time machine........with which they used to travel 40 minutes into the future in order to get a lead on the story and be the first network to report the incident (a desperate attempt to boost ratings, no doubt). After returning, one of the stoned interns that failed college algebra 1 forgot that they had traveled 40 minutes into the future and instead had in his mind that they had only traveled 20 minutes into the future..............From there, a domino effect happened which eventually led to the reporter reporting the event 20 minutes early. Someone was obviously fired for this.........
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • DPrival78DPrival78 CTPosts: 2,243
    here's another interesting tidbit about building 7. in 1989, the new york times published an article the solomon brothers brokerage firm's move into the building. they needed major renovations to fit their needs, which included removing floors. according to owner larry silverstein, the building was built with enough redundancy to handle these kind of drastic changes to the infrastructure.

    from, "COMMERCIAL PROPERTY: The Salomon Solution; A Building Within a Building, at a Cost of $200 Million" (NYT, feb. 89)


    BEFORE it moves into a new office tower in downtown Manhattan, Salomon Brothers, the brokerage firm, intends to spend nearly two years and more than $200 million cutting out floors, adding elevators, reinforcing steel girders, upgrading power supplies and making other improvements in its million square feet of space...

    In some office buildings, that alteration would be impossible, but Silverstein Properties tried to second-guess the needs of potential tenants when it designed Seven World Trade Center as a speculative project.

    ''We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors,'' said Larry Silverstein, president of the company. ''Sure enough, Salomon had that need...

    MORE than 375 tons of steel - requiring 12 miles of welding - will be installed to reinforce floors for Salomon's extra equipment. Sections of the existing stone facade and steel bracing will be temporarily removed so that workers using a roof crane can hoist nine diesel generators onto the tower's fifth floor, where they will become the core of a back-up power station.
    i'm more a fan of popular bands.. like the bee-gees, pearl jam
  • MilestoneMilestone Posts: 1,097
    Very similar to how Australian news had reported Kennedy's shooting before it actually happened.
    11-2-2000 Portland. 12-8-2002 Seattle. 4-18-2003 Nashville. 5-30-2003 Vancouver. 10-25-2003 Bridge School. 9-2-2005 Vancouver.
    7-6-2006 Las Vegas. 7-20-2006 Portland. 7-22-2006 Gorge. 9-21-2009 Seattle. 9-22-2009 Seattle. 9-26-2009 Ridgefield. 9-25-2011 Vancouver.
    11-29-2013 Portland. 10-16-2014 Detroit. 8-8-2018 Seattle. 8-10-2018 Seattle. 8-13-2018 Missoula.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Milestone wrote:
    Very similar to how Australian news had reported Kennedy's shooting before it actually happened.


    wow is that true? that is not at all similar btw.

    an engineer can look at wtc7 and suspect it might collapse. and then someone can confuse or exaggerate that a collapse is near or happened.

    someone taking a wild guess that the president would be shot is a whole other ballpark.
    www.chicagophotoshop.com
    www.chicagophotoshop.com/forums
  • gue_bariumgue_barium Posts: 5,515
    jlew24asu wrote:
    wow is that true? that is not at all similar btw.

    an engineer can look at wtc7 and suspect it might collapse. and then someone can confuse or exaggerate that a collapse is near or happened.

    someone taking a wild guess that the president would be shot is a whole other ballpark.

    Well, a 47-story building falling down...is a pretty big thing. The shots fired in Dallas on November 22, on the motorcade, with all the speculation the President had been shot...the media kept their mouths shut until the official word came out.
    The towers had fallen. The big ones. To pretend that a building as large as WT7 falling at that point in the day was somehow less than important than anything else that had happened that day is a bit of a stretch.

    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • gue_bariumgue_barium Posts: 5,515
    gue_barium wrote:
    Well, a 47-story building falling down...is a pretty big thing. The shots fired in Dallas on November 22, on the motorcade, with all the speculation the President had been shot...the media kept their mouths shut until the official word came out.
    The towers had fallen. The big ones. To pretend that a building as large as WT7 falling at that point in the day was somehow less than important than anything else that had happened that day is a bit of a stretch.

    Yet, that's how's its been played, treated.

    That's why I think it was being played, even on that day.

    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    jlew24asu wrote:
    ok so this tells me she is a idiot. what else am I supposed to ascertain from it?

    I believe you're personally involved Jlew. What did you say you did for a living again? Covert demolition incorporated or something, wasn't it? :confused: :eek:
    "It's not the daily increase but daily decrease. Hack away at the unessential." - Bruce Lee

    "Don't ride on me man, ride with me" - Byrnzie on LSD

    "Ed Vedder? He sounds like the song of the North West sung by Chief Broom in the body of R.P McMurphy." - Byrnzie
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Byrnzie wrote:
    I believe you're are personally involved Jlew. What did you say you did for a living again? Covert demolition incorporated or something, wasn't it? :confused: :eek:


    shhhhhhh !!!!




    damn they're on to me
    www.chicagophotoshop.com
    www.chicagophotoshop.com/forums
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    gue_barium wrote:
    Yet, that's how's its been played, treated.

    That's why I think it was being played, even on that day.

    o yea I remember. your the guy who talks to himself.
    www.chicagophotoshop.com
    www.chicagophotoshop.com/forums
  • gue_bariumgue_barium Posts: 5,515
    jlew24asu wrote:
    o yea I remember. your the guy who talks to himself.

    and you're the one-sentence wonder. no offense, i've seen you make a good post or two, but i can tell by the replies you've made on this subjuect that you're not altogether certain what this is all about, either.

    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    gue_barium wrote:
    and you're the one-sentence wonder. no offense, i've seen you make a good post or two, but i can tell by the replies you've made on this subjuect that you're not altogether certain what this is all about, either.

    nor do I claim to know. I believe that bush or any other top US government official had no involvement in the planning or execution of the events on 9/11.

    as for wtc7. I think it is possible that the building was brought down on purpose but my gut tells me that it wasnt.

    IF it was however, I do not see it as some huge conspiracy. not one person was killed or injured and a building that would have had to be taken down at some point was destroyed. should there be a cover up? or does that make it ok ? absolutely not.
    www.chicagophotoshop.com
    www.chicagophotoshop.com/forums
  • MakingWavesMakingWaves Posts: 1,205
    gue_barium wrote:
    and you're the one-sentence wonder. no offense, i've seen you make a good post or two, but i can tell by the replies you've made on this subjuect that you're not altogether certain what this is all about, either.

    Well what did happen then besides just someone reporting a building had collapsed before it actually fell. Even though the explanation that they knew it might fall at anytime and someone just misspoke is a very good explanation to me, it obviously isn't to you. So what did happen? Do you really think someone set off explosives in the building?
    Seeing visions of falling up somehow.

    Pensacola '94
    New Orleans '95
    Birmingham '98
    New Orleans '00
    New Orleans '03
    Tampa '08
    New Orleans '10 - Jazzfest
Sign In or Register to comment.