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

24

Comments

  • MakingWavesMakingWaves Posts: 1,271
    I don't know who could have told them or even if anyone did tell them the building had collapsed before it actually had. But with all the other things that don't add up, this just adds to the pile. I'm not going to give you a theory of how they got this info and reported it as collapsed just to fit into what I already think and I don't think you guys should either. All I'm pointing out is, things that day were definitely not as they seemed or were reported to us.

    Fair enough and I can't argue with your point of things not being as they were reported to us that day. Again, I think that was because of all the chaos and uncertainty as to what was happening.
    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
    New Orleans '16 - Jazzfest
    Fenway Park '18
  • hippiemomhippiemom Posts: 3,326
    All I'm pointing out is, things that day were definitely not as they seemed or were reported to us.
    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.
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • gue_bariumgue_barium Posts: 5,515
    ...this is a response to this from BBC World Editor Richard Potter:

    "Part of the conspiracy: Richard Porter 27 Feb 07, 05:12 PM

    The 9/11 conspiracy theories are pretty well known by now. The BBC addressed them earlier this month with a documentary, The Conspiracy Files, shown within the UK.

    Until now, I don't think we've been accused of being part of the conspiracy. But now some websites are using news footage from BBC World on September 11th 2001 to suggest we were actively participating in some sort of attempt to manipulate the audience. As a result, we're now getting lots of emails asking us to clarify our position. So here goes:

    1. We're not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening.

    2. In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had. We did what we always did - sourced our reports, used qualifying words like "apparently" or "it's reported" or "we're hearing" and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving.

    3. Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I've spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn't remember minute-by-minute what she said or did - like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services.

    4. We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another.

    5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today "so the guy in the studio didn't quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy... ""

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/

    That's a mighty lame reply.

    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.
  • MakingWavesMakingWaves Posts: 1,271
    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.

    Off topic, but I bet there were some good debates in here about Katrina before I started visiting the Train.
    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
    New Orleans '16 - Jazzfest
    Fenway Park '18
  • 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.
    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
  • gue_barium wrote:
    That's a mighty lame reply.

    Just curious...what were you expecting? Why is it "lame"?
  • DPrival78DPrival78 CTPosts: 2,250
    1. ...We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down.

    ok, but somebody told you that wtc7 came down, and you ran with it for 23 minutes while the building stood behind your reporter.
    2. In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had. We did what we always did - sourced our reports...

    ok, so who was the source for that report?
    3. Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks... like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services.

    ok, so who was telling her what? what news wires were reporting that wtc7 was on the ground?
    5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that.

    that's kind of an interesting coincidence that your error described an unexpected event, that had not happened yet.
    i'm more a fan of popular bands.. like the bee-gees, pearl jam
  • Off topic, but I bet there were some good debates in here about Katrina before I started visiting the Train.

    that's what sparked the whole "gut you like a fish" extravaganza.
    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
  • hippiemomhippiemom Posts: 3,326
    that's what sparked the whole "gut you like a fish" extravaganza.
    Hahaha ... I was just about to say "As I recall, there have been more than a few bannings over Katrina debates."

    Best thread ever :D
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • DPrival78 wrote:
    ok, but somebody told you that wtc7 came down, and you ran with it for 23 minutes while the building stood behind your reporter.

    We had no idea which building we were talking about.
    ok, so who was the source for that report?

    We don't know.
    ok, so who was telling her what? what news wires were reporting that wtc7 was on the ground?

    We don't know.
    that's kind of an interesting coincidence that your error described an unexpected event, that had not happened yet.

    It wasn't unexpected. The building and grounds were evacuated. Firefighters told CNN et al that the building was going to collapse.


    How unsexy.....
  • normnorm I'm always home. I'm uncool.Posts: 31,147
    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 hate this administration as much as you but those two comments will keep me from believing this was a full fledged conspiracy.
    that's what sparked the whole "gut you like a fish" extravaganza.

    I wish I had been here for that. This place fascinates me. :)
  • cutback wrote:
    I hate this administration as much as you but those two comments will keep me from believing this was a full fledged conspiracy.

    I think it could be possible...not the govt as a whole, of course, but as I stated in the reply you quoted. Especially with how our public buys into whatever the media tell them...there are people that will still argue that we went to war because of wmds.

    cutback wrote:
    I wish I had been here for that. This place fascinates me. :)

    Ahhh, the good ol' days. We just don't get that kind of quality meltdown around here anymore...sigh.
    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
  • hippiemom wrote:
    Hahaha ... I was just about to say "As I recall, there have been more than a few bannings over Katrina debates."

    Best thread ever :D


    Remember all the heated 'looter' debates!! Priceless!
    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
  • normnorm I'm always home. I'm uncool.Posts: 31,147
    there are people that will still argue that we went to war because of wmds.

    Those are people with their heads firmly up their asses. ;)
  • DPrival78DPrival78 CTPosts: 2,250

    It wasn't unexpected. The building and grounds were evacuated. Firefighters told CNN et al that the building was going to collapse.

    does NIST mention that it was expected that WTC7 was going to come down?

    as has been repeated a million times, the buildings that took the brunt of the WTC towers collapses - which do not include WTC7 - were half destroyed and engulfed in flames. yet they didn't collapse. building 7 -after standing for 7 hours after sustaining the so-called extensive damage from the collapses of bldgs 1 and 2 - comes straight down in 6 seconds. it doesn't topple towards a weakened side.. it doesn't come down progressively.. it just implodes on top of itself.

    and still, NIST hasn't issued a final report on it.

    add all of that together with this new bbc footage, and things seem a little out of wack.
    i'm more a fan of popular bands.. like the bee-gees, pearl jam
  • DPrival78 wrote:
    does NIST mention that it was expected that WTC7 was going to come down?

    as has been repeated a million times, the buildings that took the brunt of the WTC towers collapses - which do not include WTC7 - were half destroyed and engulfed in flames. yet they didn't collapse. building 7 -after standing for 7 hours after sustaining the so-called extensive damage from the collapses of bldgs 1 and 2 - comes straight down in 6 seconds. it doesn't topple towards a weakened side.. it doesn't come down progressively.. it just implodes on top of itself.

    and still, NIST hasn't issued a final report on it.

    add all of that together with this new bbc footage, and things seem a little out of wack.

    It doesn't make any sense at all to say that that building just collapsed due to damage but they're gonna stick with it no matter what.
    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
  • El_KabongEl_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    DPrival78 wrote:
    does NIST mention that it was expected that WTC7 was going to come down?

    as has been repeated a million times, the buildings that took the brunt of the WTC towers collapses - which do not include WTC7 - were half destroyed and engulfed in flames. yet they didn't collapse. building 7 -after standing for 7 hours after sustaining the so-called extensive damage from the collapses of bldgs 1 and 2 - comes straight down in 6 seconds. it doesn't topple towards a weakened side.. it doesn't come down progressively.. it just implodes on top of itself.

    and still, NIST hasn't issued a final report on it.

    add all of that together with this new bbc footage, and things seem a little out of wack.


    the head nist guy on the wtc7 report said in an interview he had no idea why it fell! still, 5 1/2 years later they still have no idea why it fell

    soooooo everyone knew it was gonna fall but after 5 1/2 years they can't figure out WHY it fell? yeeeeeeeaaaaaah that makes sense!
    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
  • DPrival78 wrote:
    does NIST mention that it was expected that WTC7 was going to come down?

    I don't remember. NIST doesn't understand why WTC7 came down. They only speculated on the low-probability event of diesel fuel explosions causing the collapse.

    But it was widely reported the WTC7 was likely to collapse before it did. All major outlets were reporting that and I know both NBC & CBS effectively covered the collapse live and had cameras trained on it.
    as has been repeated a million times, the buildings that took the brunt of the WTC towers collapses - which do not include WTC7 - were half destroyed and engulfed in flames. yet they didn't collapse. building 7 -after standing for 7 hours after sustaining the so-called extensive damage from the collapses of bldgs 1 and 2 - comes straight down in 6 seconds. it doesn't topple towards a weakened side.. it doesn't come down progressively.. it just implodes on top of itself.

    and still, NIST hasn't issued a final report on it.

    add all of that together with this new bbc footage, and things seem a little out of wack.

    :rolleyes:

    The whole event is out of whack, man. All this stuff has been discussed before, aside from this video. And this video is just as easily construed as evidence of imcompetence or chaos as it is conspiracy.
  • MakingWavesMakingWaves Posts: 1,271
    El_Kabong wrote:
    the head nist guy on the wtc7 report said in an interview he had no idea why it fell! still, 5 1/2 years later they still have no idea why it fell

    soooooo everyone knew it was gonna fall but after 5 1/2 years they can't figure out WHY it fell? yeeeeeeeaaaaaah that makes sense!

    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."
    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
    New Orleans '16 - Jazzfest
    Fenway Park '18
  • El_Kabong wrote:
    the head nist guy on the wtc7 report said in an interview he had no idea why it fell! still, 5 1/2 years later they still have no idea why it fell

    soooooo everyone knew it was gonna fall but after 5 1/2 years they can't figure out WHY it fell? yeeeeeeeaaaaaah that makes sense!

    It makes plenty of sense. Determining that a building is structurally weak and in trouble is not that hard. Determining the exact cause of the collapse is much more difficult.

    Conspiracy theories aside, structural engineers who believe the official explanation still can't completely agree on why any of the buildings collapsed. There are numerous possible explanations revolving around what structural elements failed first and what sequences contributed to what failures. The fact remains that there simply is a lot of stuff we'll never know about the exact conditions and events that happened, and there's no way to determine precisely because we can't go back in time.
  • inmytreeinmytree Posts: 4,741
    ...snip...

    4. We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another.

    ...snip...

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/

    what's a "cock-up"....?
  • inmytree wrote:
    what's a "cock-up"....?

    "Cock-up" is British for "fuck-up" or, more commonly, "mistake".

    I believe its origin comes from gun-related errors during war-time.
  • inmytreeinmytree Posts: 4,741
    "Cock-up" is British for "fuck-up" or, more commonly, "mistake".

    I believe its origin comes from gun-related errors during war-time.

    thanks...

    well, it's interesting they happened to cock-up this particular footage...one has to admit, it does smell a bit fishy..
  • inmytree wrote:
    thanks...

    well, it's interesting they happened to cock-up this particular footage...one has to admit, it does smell a bit fishy..

    Sure. It could smell fishy, if you wanted it to.
  • inmytreeinmytree Posts: 4,741
    Sure. It could smell fishy, if you wanted it to.

    so, you don't find it odd that the BBC just happened to lose this particular footage...?

    then again, I guess it could both ways, i.e., plugging ones nose to keep the stink away...
  • inmytree wrote:
    so, you don't find it odd that the BBC just happened to lose this particular footage...?

    That depends on how much footage the BBC loses. I mean, if this the only footage loss in BBC history, then hell yes it stinks. But if this happens occassionally, I don't really think it's all that odd.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murphy's_law

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor
    then again, I guess it could both ways, i.e., plugging ones nose to keep the stink away...

    Sure.
  • Maybe the beeb planted the bombs in wtc7 by mistake....thinking them enemies because they mistook the country all around them to be nazi germany or iraq instead of the US...."friendly fire"....a little far fetched but u know mistakes happen.....bright orange tac patches are even mistaken for rocket launchers in some countries!!...no i know that is unbelievable..
  • inmytreeinmytree Posts: 4,741
    That depends on how much footage the BBC loses.

    yes...
    I mean, if this the only footage loss in BBC history, then hell yes it stinks. But if this happens occassionally, I don't really think it's all that odd.

    of course...

    thanks for the link, but it doesn't mention anything about the BBC falsely reporting tower 7 falling..
    Sure.

    yes I am....
  • inmytree wrote:
    thanks for the link, but it doesn't mention anything about the BBC falsely reporting tower 7 falling..

    Of course it does. Murphy's Law states that the more complex a situation, the more likely an error. The more things that can go wrong, the more likely something will go wrong.

    From it, grows Finagle's Law: "Anything that can go wrong, will—at the worst possible moment" and Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

    All three can certainly apply.
    yes I am....

    I didn't mean that "sure" as a question, I meant it as an agreement to your earlier statement.
  • ...this is a response to this from BBC World Editor Richard Potter:

    "Part of the conspiracy: Richard Porter 27 Feb 07, 05:12 PM

    The 9/11 conspiracy theories are pretty well known by now. The BBC addressed them earlier this month with a documentary, The Conspiracy Files, shown within the UK.

    Until now, I don't think we've been accused of being part of the conspiracy. But now some websites are using news footage from BBC World on September 11th 2001 to suggest we were actively participating in some sort of attempt to manipulate the audience. As a result, we're now getting lots of emails asking us to clarify our position. So here goes:

    1. We're not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening.

    2. In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had. We did what we always did - sourced our reports, used qualifying words like "apparently" or "it's reported" or "we're hearing" and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving.

    3. Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I've spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn't remember minute-by-minute what she said or did - like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services.

    4. We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another.

    5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today "so the guy in the studio didn't quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy... ""

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/


    watching the tape on youtube i thought it may have been edited...however the response here causes some odd ?'s

    "4. We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another."

    what network as big as the BBC doesnt have tape of things in todays day and age? and we arent talking tape of a weather storm we are talking about Arguably the most important day in TV news history! if its true its just gone then heads would have rolled!

    and then
    "5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today "so the guy in the studio didn't quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy... "

    he says he wants a copy of the broadcast sent to him BUT he mentions watching it on youtube! so clearly he is talking out the both sides of his mouth!
Sign In or Register to comment.