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

norm

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

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.

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

that's what sparked the whole "gut you like a fish" extravaganza.

I wish I had been here for that. This place fascinates me.

Abookamongstthemany

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.

Abookamongstthemany

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

Remember all the heated 'looter' debates!! Priceless!

norm

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

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.

DPrival78

farfromglorified wrote:

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.

Abookamongstthemany

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.

El_Kabong

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!

farfromglorified

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.

MakingWaves

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."

farfromglorified

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.

inmytree

farfromglorified wrote:

...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"....?

farfromglorified

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.

inmytree

farfromglorified wrote:

"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..

farfromglorified

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.

inmytree

farfromglorified wrote:

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...

farfromglorified

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.

Specifics

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..

inmytree

farfromglorified wrote:

That depends on how much footage the BBC loses.

yes...

farfromglorified wrote:

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...

farfromglorified wrote:

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

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

farfromglorified wrote:

Sure.

yes I am....

farfromglorified

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.

homeratbat

farfromglorified wrote:

...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!