BBC Reports Tower 7 Fell Before it Fell

[Will]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Epropagandamatrix%2Ecom%2Fa rticles%2Ffebruary2007%2F270207trustanything%2Ehtm

Will someone please explain to me how the BBC, on September 11th 2001, could report that WTC 7 had collapsed, due to damage sustained earlier in the morning, when not only had it not collapsed yet, but was actually pictured in the background as still standing?

http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/7761/270207bbc2pt4.jpg

Watch the video, WTC 7 is pictured just to the right of the "journalist's" head as she talks of how it has already come down. Google video has removed this video (odd that they would remove a clip of BBC coverage).

I offer no theory for this, I would like to hear yours.

[Perant]

BBC DID IT, I KNEW IT

[Archaos]

Lies.

Everyone knows the BBC like its country can do no wrong !

only America fucks shit up.

[Will]

BBC DID IT, I KNEW IT

LoL. I don't know if this means they did it, but they sure must have had some kind of psychic episode in order to predict (rather then report) both WTC7's collapse and the reason for said collapse.

[Will]

Lies.

Everyone knows the BBC like its country can do no wrong !

only America fucks shit up.

I actually used to put a lot more stock into what the BBC reported (as opposed to American MSM). Sadly, that is at an end.

[genji]

hoho

[Will]

L O

[Grindrolas]

god, I'm so tired of this conspiracy shit...

[Will]

god, I'm so tired of this conspiracy shit...

What conspiracy shit?

[Brei]

wait so the BBC happened to have a reporter in NY? :s! are you sure they're not standing in front of video footage? (earlier video footage)

*shrug*

[Grindrolas]

What conspiracy shit?
Your conspiracy shit. You're too late, we had Demon posting all this shit so long ago, and we were sick of it then. You're allowed to have your own opinion, but fucking hell, stop bringing it up in an attempt to "open" peoples eyes and change their opinions.

Great, BBC got some information wrong, who fucking cares. This happens on days where there wasn't a ton of chaos, so their stating that a tower fell that hadn't on a day that was filled with chaos is quite understandable.

And yes, since you posted it, I put two and two together and decided that in some way it was conspiracy related. Try posting something that ISN'T and then we'll start taking you seriously.

[Talorth]

LOL CONSPRIARIIARAICY!

[Will]

wait so the BBC happened to have a reporter in NY? :s! are you sure they're not standing in front of video footage? (earlier video footage)

*shrug*

The BBC generally maintains reporters all over the world. I guess you might have a point though, we don't actually know if she was really on location. According to the BBC she was. I dunno what reason they would have to lie.

[Will]

LOL CONSPRIARIIARAICY!

Where?

[Talorth]

The BBC generally maintains reporters all over the world. I guess you might have a point though, we don't actually know if she was really on location. According to the BBC she was. I dunno what reason they would have to lie.

Let's think back to 9/11 for one moment. Do you remember how chaotic the whole situation was around the world? Alot of misinformation was gathered by the news across the entire world. I don't think one mistake regarding whether a building collapsed or not at the specific time it did is something to be worried about.

[Will]

Your conspiracy shit. You're too late, we had Demon posting all this shit so long ago, and we were sick of it then. You're allowed to have your own opinion, but fucking hell, stop bringing it up in an attempt to "open" peoples eyes and change their opinions.

Great, BBC got some information wrong, who fucking cares. This happens on days where there wasn't a ton of chaos, so their stating that a tower fell that hadn't on a day that was filled with chaos is quite understandable.

And yes, since you posted it, I put two and two together and decided that in some way it was conspiracy related. Try posting something that ISN'T and then we'll start taking you seriously.

Dude, if you feel this strongly, why enter the thread. I would have hoped it's description would have saved folks like you from all this grief. I certainly don't want to spam this info at everyone as I understand how uncomfortable it makes some people.

The BBC didn't just get some information wrong (that is a theory of yours). They reported something that hadn't happened, as though it had already happened. They further reported exactly HOW it happened before it happened. What part of this is unclear?

And why the personal attack on me Are you the official spokesperson for the Mondrated community? I'm not sure I care whether you, Grindrolas, take me seriously or not. Truthfully, many will have their eyes closed no matter what you show them. You would seem to be of that order, now go put your wizard hat on.

All I did was post a video clip of BBC news coverage and you immediately label it a conspiracy. This label is of course meant to brush it aside as nonsense. I understand this tactic as it is the primary weapon against facts from the day actually getting out. But seriously, if you don't want to discuss it, stay out of the thread. If you do, I would love to hear your theory as to how this can be reasonably explained as anything other then foreknowledge of events yet to occur.

[Will]

Let's think back to 9/11 for one moment. Do you remember how chaotic the whole situation was around the world? Alot of misinformation was gathered by the news across the entire world. I don't think one mistake regarding whether a building collapsed or not at the specific time it did is something to be worried about.

I remember exactly how chaotic it was...I was in NY on September 11th. If you actually watch the clip, the BBC isn't just reporting this like it recently happened, they are reporting it like it had happened hours prior (which would explain why they already knew what caused the collapse). Keep in mind, the collapse hadn't happened yet. That is the fine point of this: knowledge of the cause of the collapse prior to the actual collapse. Then, 5 minutes before the ACTUAL collapse, they lose the reporters feed and the building collapses for the exact same reason (officially) that was reported by the BBC (before it actually happened).

[Grindrolas]

Dude, if you feel this strongly, why enter the thread. I would have hoped it's description would have saved folks like you from all this grief. I certainly don't want to spam this info at everyone as I understand how uncomfortable it makes some people.

The BBC didn't just get some information wrong (that is a theory of yours). They reported something that hadn't happened, as though it had already happened. They further reported exactly HOW it happened before it happened. What part of this is unclear?
So they predicted that a building which had had a 747 fly into it was going to fall? HOLY FUCK, SERIOUSLY, THEN YOU MUST BE RIGHT, THEY MUST HAVE BEEN INVOLVED, OR THE GOVERNMENT MUST HAVE BEEN...MAYBE THE GOVERNMENT TOLD THEM.

And why the personal attack on me Are you the official spokesperson for the Mondrated community? I'm not sure I care whether you, Grindrolas, take me seriously or not. Truthfully, many will have their eyes closed no matter what you show them. You would seem to be of that order, now go put your wizard hat on.
I'm the spokesperson for people who are tired of hearing about the 9/11 conspiracy theories. It's tiring. One person posting about them a YEAR AGO was enough. There are plenty of great conspiracy theory communities out there, stop flooding our forum with your crazy bullshit.

All I did was post a video clip of BBC news coverage and you immediately label it a conspiracy. This label is of course meant to brush it aside as nonsense. I understand this tactic as it is the primary weapon against facts from the day actually getting out. But seriously, if you don't want to discuss it, stay out of the thread. If you do, I would love to hear your theory as to how this can be reasonably explained as anything other then foreknowledge of events yet to occur.
BECAUSE THATS ALL YOU POST! You are one of those kids whos at a party, and everyone is having a good time, and you say something that brings everyone down. Do you see the light theme that comes along with these boards? Stop ruining it. Go post your shit where it belongs, a conspiracy theory board.

Honestly, if it was something as retarded as that, you'd think the people you believe are responsible would have been caught. Do you even understand the sheer number of people who would be involved in a conspiracy as large as the one you're discussing? You talk about me having closed eyes, but I've considered the idea that the government was involved, and I've come to the LOGICAL conclusion that thats pretty fucking retarded. I hate Bush, and his administration, just as much as the next person, but I don't sincerely believe that they had anything to do with it.

Now fuck off with your retarded dribble. If you couldn't tell from all the replies here and on blah, we're all tired of your posts.

[Will]

So they predicted that a building which had had a 747 fly into it was going to fall? HOLY FUCK, SERIOUSLY, THEN YOU MUST BE RIGHT, THEY MUST HAVE BEEN INVOLVED, OR THE GOVERNMENT MUST HAVE BEEN...MAYBE THE GOVERNMENT TOLD THEM.

This is good rhetorical bullshit, rather then dispute facts, offer sarcastic explanations.


I'm the spokesperson for people who are tired of hearing about the 9/11 conspiracy theories. It's tiring. One person posting about them a YEAR AGO was enough. There are plenty of great conspiracy theory communities out there, stop flooding our forum with your crazy bullshit.

And so you have spoken. And so I say unto you, o you beleaguered flock, those of you who lament "conspiracy theories" or truth (whichever you prefer), those who would sooner march over a cliff then admit that what you know as the truth may not be correct, I say dominus ominus, you never have to enter my thread again. I will annotate threads clearly so as to inform you well in advance of inadvertent entry into the abyssal of my mind :p Wait, I thought I did that.


BECAUSE THATS ALL YOU POST! You are one of those kids whos at a party, and everyone is having a good time, and you say something that brings everyone down. Do you see the light theme that comes along with these boards? Stop ruining it. Go post your shit where it belongs, a conspiracy theory board.

Not true. I have posted on other issues, illegal immigration, the Federal Reserve (to name a few). I'm not a kid (3o+ yrs old) but I do go to parties. When I am there, or any other place that can be considered polite company, I refrain from bringing this stuff up. I do that because people around might not appreciate what I have to say. I am not on the street with a bullhorn.....I am posting an OT topic on an OT forum. If you don't like the topic, don't go away mad, just go away.

Honestly, if it was something as retarded as that, you'd think the people you believe are responsible would have been caught. Do you even understand the sheer number of people who would be involved in a conspiracy as large as the one you're discussing? You talk about me having closed eyes, but I've considered the idea that the government was involved, and I've come to the LOGICAL conclusion that thats pretty fucking retarded. I hate Bush, and his administration, just as much as the next person, but I don't sincerely believe that they had anything to do with it.

There are a lot of retarded things from that day. This is another one. That's why I posted it (it just became viral on the internet today). The sheer number of people required defense doesn't wash. It is an assumption (or theory) on your part, that it would require a "massive" amount of people to perpetrate this and keep it relatively under wraps. People don't always know exactly why they do the things they do. Besides, I was only discussing this sliver of the events of 9/11.

Now fuck off with your retarded dribble. If you couldn't tell from all the replies here and on blah, we're all tired of your posts.

Well, I sincerely appreciate your advice but have decided not to take it. You youngster, are the only one who is dribbling. Since you are now the spokesman of the blah community as well (wow, you must be reeeeeeeeely cool), I say again, avoid my threads like the plague when they depict information you would prefer never to have, lest it wake you from your coma.

[Grindrolas]

Hey, I have an idea, lets all start talking about religion too cause that isn't a volatile topic either.

Not true. I have posted on other issues, illegal immigration, the Federal Reserve (to name a few). I'm not a kid (3o+ yrs old) but I do go to parties. When I am there, or any other place that can be considered polite company, I refrain from bringing this stuff up. I do that because people around might not appreciate what I have to say. I am not on the street with a bullhorn.....I am posting an OT topic on an OT forum. If you don't like the topic, don't go away mad, just go away.
Consider this "polite" company. There are few things that it generally isn't accepted to discuss, those being politics and religion.

There are a lot of retarded things from that day. This is another one. That's why I posted it (it just became viral on the internet today). The sheer number of people required defense doesn't wash. It is an assumption (or theory) on your part, that it would require a "massive" amount of people to perpetrate this and keep it relatively under wraps. People don't always know exactly why they do the things they do. Besides, I was only discussing this sliver of the events of 9/11.
So the fact that a reporter, someone who would be pretty low on the "secret" ladder, is apparently reporting on this, with "prior knowledge" (although, when falling, its pretty easy to predict the direction its going to take...DOWN) of how it was going to happen doesn't make you go "wow, maybe she just made a mistake?" The logical part of your brain must be nonexistent.

I am by no means a "youngster." You might be 30+, but you're posting the same shit I watch 15 year olds post on other communities.

[Will]

Hey, I have an idea, lets all start talking about religion too cause that isn't a volatile topic either.

Personally, I think all topics should be discussed, this is the way to understanding. I choose this medium because people can selectively participate in the discussion. I'm sorry if that isn't good enough for you but too fucking bad.


Consider this "polite" company. There are few things that it generally isn't accepted to discuss, those being politics and religion.

I don't consider an OT forum polite company. If you do, that's your business.


So the fact that a reporter, someone who would be pretty low on the "secret" ladder, is apparently reporting on this, with "prior knowledge" (although, when falling, its pretty easy to predict the direction its going to take...DOWN) of how it was going to happen doesn't make you go "wow, maybe she just made a mistake?" The logical part of your brain must be nonexistent.

What it shows is that reporters have become mindless purveyors of information (or disinformation). What this shows is that an anchor in the studio looking at the skyline is also, equally mindless (because the NY skyline is pretty famous it the tower that was supposed to be missing was right in front of him.) It also shows you didn't actually watch the clip because they (the reporter and the anchor) are discussing this like it is relatively old information. You fail to mention the fact that the feed is lost 5 minutes prior to the building actually "collapsing". My brain is calculating all these facts and yours is ignoring them. I think it's your brain that is lacking, not mine.

I am by no means a "youngster." You might be 30+, but you're posting the same shit I watch 15 year olds post on other communities.

To me, you are; and not because of your age, because of your attitude. You are at that age where you think you have everything figured out (or maybe you don't want to figure anything out at all). Either way, you are as mindless as the BBC reporters in the clip. If there are 15yr olds out there posting this kind of information, then I would keep it to myself if I were you, for it shows that they are more aware of their surroundings then you are. Have a nice day.

[Digita1]

Will, if Grindrolas doesn't speak for the entire Mondrated community alone, I'll join him in saying that you're almost as annoying as Monroe, Drew, Zelandra, and Sanche.

No one on these boards cares about your conspiracy dribble. Every topic you've ever made is a conspiracy of some sort or another.

I had you blocked for the sole purpose that your posts are completely one-sided (yours), arrogant and quite often some of the most ignorant pieces of trash I've ever laid my eyes on. You tell one side of the story, and you always pick the side that is against everyone elses. If there was a conspiracy behind Hitler leading the Holocaust, you'd be the chump arguing it was a different Government body, when everyone clearly and logically knows it isn't.

You're an attention whore with this conspiracy shit.

And btw, it doesn't make you look deep and mysterious and a "outside the box thinker", it makes you unsociable and irritating.

[Grindrolas]

Personally, I think all topics should be discussed, this is the way to understanding. I choose this medium because people can selectively participate in the discussion. I'm sorry if that isn't good enough for you but too fucking bad.
No, there are many topics which shouldn't be discussed, this is one of them.

What it shows is that reporters have become mindless purveyors of information (or disinformation). What this shows is that an anchor in the studio looking at the skyline is also, equally mindless (because the NY skyline is pretty famous it the tower that was supposed to be missing was right in front of him.) It also shows you didn't actually watch the clip because they (the reporter and the anchor) are discussing this like it is relatively old information. You fail to mention the fact that the feed is lost 5 minutes prior to the building actually "collapsing". My brain is calculating all these facts and yours is ignoring them. I think it's your brain that is lacking, not mine.
So, some British anchor should just KNOW the NY skyline? Sorry, if they were AMERICAN reporters, I'd be ok with that statement, but since they aren't from here...

You're right though, I haven't watched it, I'm at school so I really can't.



To me, you are; and not because of your age, because of your attitude. You are at that age where you think you have everything figured out (or maybe you don't want to figure anything out at all). Either way, you are as mindless as the BBC reporters in the clip. If there are 15yr olds out there posting this kind of information, then I would keep it to myself if I were you, for it shows that they are more aware of their surroundings then you are. Have a nice day.
Hi, please read a previous post where I stated I'd given this thought, but dismissed it as crazy. I am nowhere near mindless, infact I'm part of the minority, because it seems to be the in-thing these days, posting about 9/11 conspiracies. I'm fine with you having your opinion, but stop posting it on here. I don't feel compelled to post about MY beliefs, instead I stick to light topics, because thats the kind of forum this is. You don't have a grasp on that.

Let me direct you to http://www.neowin.net. They have an entire forum dedicated to posting things like this in their member metropolis. This way, you don't pollute our fun forum with your shit.

[Will]

Will, if Grindrolas doesn't speak for the entire Mondrated community alone, I'll join him in saying that you're almost as annoying as Monroe, Drew, Zelandra, and Sanche.

No one on these boards cares about your conspiracy dribble. Every topic you've ever made is a conspiracy of some sort or another.

I had you blocked for the sole purpose that your posts are completely one-sided (yours), arrogant and quite often some of the most ignorant pieces of trash I've ever laid my eyes on. You tell one side of the story, and you always pick the side that is against everyone elses. If there was a conspiracy behind Hitler leading the Holocaust, you'd be the chump arguing it was a different Government body, when everyone clearly and logically knows it isn't.

You're an attention whore with this conspiracy shit.

And btw, it doesn't make you look deep and mysterious and a "outside the box thinker", it makes you unsociable and irritating.

Thank you for your opinions, they are appreciated. Somehow, I will try to live with them.

Comment: I ROFLD cause I am currently arguing this with Monroe on Blah. I guess his stock just went up :p

[Will]

No, there are many topics which shouldn't be discussed, this is one of them.

You are clearly for censorship then. I am not, this is where we differ.


So, some British anchor should just KNOW the NY skyline? Sorry, if they were AMERICAN reporters, I'd be ok with that statement, but since they aren't from here...


You're right though, I haven't watched it, I'm at school so I really can't.

You are grossly mis-contextualizing this, they reported not only something that hadn't happened yet, but how it happened (including a detailed explanation of how it absolutely wasn't a separate attack....watch the clip and then comment....unless of course you are just right no matter what...in which case don't).


Hi, please read a previous post where I stated I'd given this thought, but dismissed it as crazy. I am nowhere near mindless, infact I'm part of the minority, because it seems to be the in-thing these days, posting about 9/11 conspiracies. I'm fine with you having your opinion, but stop posting it on here. I don't feel compelled to post about MY beliefs, instead I stick to light topics, because thats the kind of forum this is. You don't have a grasp on that.

Hi, please explain how you have given this thought without actually watching the clip. Mindless. Also, I have seen other people post topics on Religion and such (before yours actually), I guess it isn't just me. You are in the minority, so stop acting like the majority :p

Let me direct you to http://www.neowin.net. They have an entire forum dedicated to posting things like this in their member metropolis. This way, you don't pollute our fun forum with your shit.

Thanks for the link!

[Grindrolas]

I've given PLENTY of thought to the idea that the government was involved in 9/11! I believe they might have covered up a few details to limit the hysteria, but nothing as major as you've suggested previously, or are suggesting now...

and, I am NOT for censorship, I'm for discussing these things in an appropriate forum, this isn't one of them.

ps, I love how I'M mindless because I don't accept your opinion as truth...

[Farshots]

Lets discuss religion.
Ahmen.

[Will]

I've given PLENTY of thought to the idea that the government was involved in 9/11! I believe they might have covered up a few details to limit the hysteria, but nothing as major as you've suggested previously, or are suggesting now...

and, I am NOT for censorship, I'm for discussing these things in an appropriate forum, this isn't one of them.

ps, I love how I'M mindless because I don't accept your opinion as truth...

You are mindless because you didn't watch the clip but you scoffed at it nonetheless. This is new information unless you were watching BBC coverage on Sept 11th. How could you have formed an opinion on it without watching it? Mindless.

As for the appropriate forum, I will let the Mondrators decide that. If they deem it is not post worthy then they will remove it. If that happens, you win. If not, you lose.

[Will]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html

Check out this link for the BBC's explanation. Notice how they don't even discuss how they knew the cause of the collapse. This should get pretty interesting.

Comment: They lost the original footage, how fucking typical is that.

[Digita1]

I'm going to give this worthless thread the direction it needs.

PENIS.

[Archaos]

i din't see this as a conspiracy.

I just thought the BBC fucked up.

chill out foos

[Digita1]

i din't see this as a conspiracy.

I just thought the BBC fucked up.

chill out foos

The BBC might have fucked up.

But Will is trying to make it a conspiracy theory. Just like everything else he posts about.

PENIS

[Archaos]

I dint see it this way this time, I don't post in his conspiracy theory threads.

[Digita1]

Neither do I, but I read a few of them and pretty much made up my mind about him. Kinda of shallow, but so far I've been correct in my assumptions.

Oh, I need to re-ignore him.

[Digita1]

And done. Awesomeness.

So, I just ate some awesome sushi? Who wants to touch me?








I SAID WHO WANTS TO TOUCH ME!? D:

[Will]

The BBC might have fucked up.

But Will is trying to make it a conspiracy theory. Just like everything else he posts about.

PENIS

Saying the BBC "might have fucked up" is completely dismissive. In reality, they didn't fuck up. They didn't misreport anything per say, they just reported it early. I really don't need to make a conspiracy out of it....it speaks for itself. That is why the head of the BBC is already trying to jump through hoops to explain (quoting a You Tube comment as part of the explanation lol).

I say again, if you don't like what I post about, don't visit the threads I start. Why is this so difficult to understand. Example: I am a man but I don't like Penis (well, I like my penis but no one else's). So, when I see a thread about Penis, I don't go in. I don't post about how I don't want to hear about penis in threads where people talk about Penis because that would be imposing my beliefs on others. That's not me. I like it when people talk about what they want to talk about. So, hear I am. I start a thread that is clearly marked as something you wouldn't want to discuss. Yet here you are. I'm confused?

[Will]

Neither do I, but I read a few of them and pretty much made up my mind about him. Kinda of shallow, but so far I've been correct in my assumptions.

Oh, I need to re-ignore him.

I hope your assumptions keep you warm at night, I will continue to search for the truth.

[Archaos]

I hope your assumptions keep you warm at night, I will continue to search for the truth.
Ok that is some conspiracy shit. I'm out yo.

[Will]

And done. Awesomeness.

So, I just ate some awesome sushi? Who wants to touch me?








I SAID WHO WANTS TO TOUCH ME!? D:

Cartman is definitely more your speed then this thread. Bye.

[Will]

Ok that is some conspiracy shit. I'm out yo.

Search for truth = conspiracy...ok.

[Talorth]

lol search for truth

NOW I WANNA WATCH STAR TREK.

BLAST THOSE EVIL BORG JANEWAY! IN YOUR SEXY BUN!

[Will]

lol search for truth

NOW I WANNA WATCH STAR TREK.

BLAST THOSE EVIL BORG JANEWAY! IN YOUR SEXY BUN!

The Borg always was my favorite of the many enemies of the federation. You will be assimilated...resistance is futile :p

[Archaos]

So it was the BORG ALL ALONG !

I knew we could come to the truth.

[Will]

So it was the BORG ALL ALONG !

I knew we could come to the truth.

And there you have it :p

[Extarian]

Simple, because your media are cheap and pay corporations to design backdrops and sound effects to look like your media are on location, when they actually aren't. Obviously they used an older backdrop to report a new story.

[Grindrolas]

Simple, because your media are cheap and pay corporations to design backdrops and sound effects to look like your media are on location, when they actually aren't. Obviously they used an older backdrop to report a new story.
Shhhh Aff, no logic allowed in this thread apparently. George Bush is an evil genius.

[Will]

Simple, because your media are cheap and pay corporations to design backdrops and sound effects to look like your media are on location, when they actually aren't. Obviously they used an older backdrop to report a new story.

My media? The BBC is hardly my media. Why would they use a backdrop when the reporter was in NY at the time? BBC confirmed this today.

[Will]

Shhhh Aff, no logic allowed in this thread apparently. George Bush is an evil genius.

George Bush couldn't order a ham sandwich.

[Hetzle]

My media? The BBC is hardly my media. Why would they use a backdrop when the reporter was in NY at the time? BBC confirmed this today.
Why would they tell the truth and lose all credibility for "live" broadcasts?

[Extarian]

It's fairly common practice because it's cheaper and easier to use filming crews on studio locations rather then moving them out.

[Talorth]

My media? The BBC is hardly my media. Why would they use a backdrop when the reporter was in NY at the time? BBC confirmed this today.

If you had actually watched the video she states that the entire sector where WTC is has been evacuated, i'm guessing that would include her as well.

[Damarus]

Wait what? I thought there were two world trade centre towers not 7 o.O

[Grindrolas]

Posted it over on blah, but gonna post it here too. Will = the new Quaythescus. He's riding a high horse, and talking down to all those who don't buy into his conspiracy theories.

I say we flood Mondrated until he's banned, hmmmmmm?

[Archaos]

Too much work Imo.

[AnnabelChong]

grandma says george bush is the devil.

[Will]

Posted it over on blah, but gonna post it here too. Will = the new Quaythescus. He's riding a high horse, and talking down to all those who don't buy into his conspiracy theories.

I say we flood Mondrated until he's banned, hmmmmmm?

I'm sorry if your position is untenable. The fact that this subject matter bothers you so much is enough of a reason, imo, for you to stay away. You don't seem to be able to. Why is that may I ask? Outside of this thread I don't think I have ever spoken to you. And what high horse? I treat people the way they treat me.....if they are nice, I am nice; if they flame, I flame back. I challenge anyone to find a thread where I flamed someone before they flamed me (or my clan) You didn't even watch the clip, and rather then discuss it's merits (or abstain from the discussion) you instead wish to attack me. I am glad I have given you something to do.

[Will]

Wait what? I thought there were two world trade centre towers not 7 o.O

There were 3 buildings that fell that day. WTC7 also known as the Solomon Bros building fell approximately 8hrs after the second of the two towers fell. That is the subject.

[Will]

good news Brits, it wasn't just the BBC who bollocksed (not sure if I spelled that right) it up... http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/270207_bbc_lost_response.html Also, a time stamp has verified the time of the BBC report as accurate.

[Grog]

i'd respond, but will would triple post in response. oh woops

[Will]

i'd respond, but will would triple post in response. oh woops

:p triple Post

[Perant]

i guess it must mean that we're all part of a tyrannical, oppressive government that's limiting our freedoms daily without us really knowing about it, unless we're intellectual and observant and spend all day reading between the lines of obscure news articles on the internet

[Digita1]

i guess it must mean that we're all part of a tyrannical, oppressive government that's limiting our freedoms daily without us really knowing about it, unless we're intellectual and observant and spend all day reading between the lines of obscure news articles on the internet


...That means we're mindless, right?

Okay, got it.

[Will]

i guess it must mean that we're all part of a tyrannical, oppressive government that's limiting our freedoms daily without us really knowing about it, unless we're intellectual and observant and spend all day reading between the lines of obscure news articles on the internet

I'm picking up your sarcasm :p

[Will]

...That means we're mindless, right?

Okay, got it.

IMO, you are only mindless, if you dismiss something as untrue without examining it first.

[Grog]

or they just don't care D:

[Talorth]

IMO, you are only mindless, if you dismiss something as untrue without examining it first.

Ever consider that a person's bias may cloud their perception of truth?

[Grindrolas]

Ever consider that a person's bias may cloud their perception of truth?
logic isn't allowed Talorth, stop it.

[Alrus]

I'm sorry I didn't read all the posts, but... what's the point of this? What is it supposed to prove? That BBC made an error or that they didn't really send a journalist there and it was a "fake", which happens a lot? I still don't really see why there's a need to make a big fuss out of it.

[Digita1]

I'm sorry I didn't read all the posts, but... what's the point of this? What is it supposed to prove? That BBC made an error or that they didn't really send a journalist there and it was a "fake", which happens a lot? I still don't really see why there's a need to make a big fuss out of it.

You're trying to make sense out of something that is already clear.

This is just Will's way of feeling special.

Hey Will, did you take the red or the blue pill today?

[Grog]

off topic is serios business

[Grindrolas]

off topic is serios business
quite the opposite...it becomes serious business when people continually try to ruin the atmosphere of that sillyness.

[Will]

Ever consider that a person's bias may cloud their perception of truth?

Of course.

[Will]

"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."-Richard Porter, Editor, BBC News

[Talorth]

In other words they probably have the tapes but are too damn lazy to look for them on such a minuscule issue. But, if this blows up to large proportions they probably will actually clarify.
Lol, not a big deal.

[Will]

In other words they probably have the tapes but are too damn lazy to look for them on such a minuscule issue. But, if this blows up to large proportions they probably will actually clarify.
Lol, not a big deal.

Keep the faith brother.

[Archaos]

This topic sucks ass.

[Talorth]

Keep the faith brother.

I don't see how my disagreement in BBC having some insider knowledge about what was going to happen to a building on 9/11 makes me faithful.

[Grindrolas]

I don't see how my disagreement in BBC having some insider knowledge about what was going to happen to a building on 9/11 makes me faithful.
you're wrong because your opinion is different than his

[Inxile]

jesus did it

[LordChowder]

im glad the billions of dollars we spend on national security are going to good use. even though apparently 1 man on the internet has unraveled the truth simply by viewing pictures on the internet. the jews did it, they were trying to expand their empire from hollywood to the east coast. the bastards. the british fell right into their hands... poor osama is just a pawn.

[Will]

I don't see how my disagreement in BBC having some insider knowledge about what was going to happen to a building on 9/11 makes me faithful.

For the record, I never said or inferred the BBC had inside knowledge or was part of any cover-up (although the fact that they have "lost" multiple copies of an original feed from the most newsworthy story in 40 yrs is alarming).

What I have said is the BBC reported the collapse (AND THE REASON FOR THE COLLAPSE) of WTC7 23 minutes before it actually happened. How come that doesn't strike you as strange? And when things don't seem right, do we ask questions or do we just say fuck it?

All I am doing is simply highlighting the extreme improbability that a news organization as reputable (snicker) as the BBC would somehow clairvoyantly predict (because thats what they did) that WTC7 would fall 23 minutes before it fell. I also highlight that it is more then a little strange that they were able to articulate, with apparent certainty, the reason for the collapse (which is still the official reason). Finally, I highlight that 5 minutes before the building collapsed, the feed to the on scene reporter was "lost".

If you guys watched the clip and listened to the reporting you would see what I am talking about. There was a timestamped video on Google video (from BBC 24). It has been removed. In the past couple of days the Main Stream Media has completely ignored this revelation and Google and You Tube have repeatedly pulled the videos.....I ask why if they have nothing to hide.

[Will]

logic isn't allowed Talorth, stop it.

Sure it is, matter of fact, I prefer logic and other people's opinions to "don't talk about this stuff" any day of the week.

[Will]

im glad the billions of dollars we spend on national security are going to good use. even though apparently 1 man on the internet has unraveled the truth simply by viewing pictures on the internet. the jews did it, they were trying to expand their empire from hollywood to the east coast. the bastards. the british fell right into their hands... poor osama is just a pawn.

Chowder, I know you are a smart guy, but this sarcastic rant doesn't change the facts. Look at the facts and use your intelligence for something other then making bad jokes.

[Will]

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/3894/010307censoredpo3.jpg

[Damarus]

How come that doesn't strike you as strange? And when things don't seem right, do we ask questions or do we just say fuck it?Being both a civil and mechanical draftsman, I can tell you it's not hard to know if a building is going to collapse... Commercial structures such as skyscrapers are built on precision frames. You can't just go and put massive amounts of reinforcement beams, steel bracing and structural RHS/SHS or concrete columns throughout such a massive building - you would rack up millions of dollars worth of wasted costs. Therefore if the buildings core structural support is damage in an event like the falling of two big fuck off towers, it's fairly easy to predict that the loss of structural integrity will cause an eventual collapse.

The fact that people are watching the video/s over and over to find the smallest chance of a conspiracy theory is stupid when you can draw multiple conclusions just from glancing at the video.

[Will]

Being both a civil and mechanical draftsman, I can tell you it's not hard to know if a building is going to collapse... Commercial structures such as skyscrapers are built on precision frames. You can't just go and put massive amounts of reinforcement beams, steel bracing and structural RHS/SHS or concrete columns throughout such a massive building - you would rack up millions of dollars worth of wasted costs. Therefore if the buildings core structural support is damage in an event like the falling of two big fuck off towers, it's fairly easy to predict that the loss of structural integrity will cause an eventual collapse.

The fact that people are watching the video/s over and over to find the smallest chance of a conspiracy theory is stupid when you can draw multiple conclusions just from glancing at the video.

How often, in recorded history, have steel skyscrapers completely collapsed due to fire damage?

[Grindrolas]

How often, in recorded history, have steel skyscrapers completely collapsed due to fire damage?
how often, in recorded history, have two 747's crashed into buildings close to said skyscrapper?

[Damarus]

How often have steel skyscrapers been hit by planes? :p

An engineer designs building loads basically on two things - dead loads and live loads. Dead loads being the forces your structure applies on the earth and live loads being things inside that are not permanent - ie people and furniture. You also factor in dynamic loads such as wind but yeah, not as important in this case. Basically you design a building to exist in a certain form under certain conditions.

What you will generally find, is you don't design a building to withstand jumbo jet collisions, or carry the imposed loads and energy of such an event...

[Will]

WTC 7 was NOT hit by a plane.

[Grindrolas]

WTC 7 was NOT hit by a plane.
re-read my post...if you think the surrounding buildings weren't affected by it, you're an idiot and need a lesson in physics...

[Damarus]

What grindy said, coz I misinterpretted what you said to refer to the WTC 1+2 collapses, since you'd be stupid to believe all that would happen to a building adjacent to thousands of tonnes of crashing steel is a bit of fire. You are disregarding all the forces transferred...

[Will]

re-read my post...if you think the surrounding buildings weren't affected by it, you're an idiot and need a lesson in physics...

WTC 7 was 300 yards away from any impact from planes (that is 3 football fields btw). If you watched the planes hit the other two towers, you would have noticed that the buildings practically swallowed the planes. I don't recall seeing any pieces of plane flying out at other buildings. However, I know thats what hey said happened.

[Talorth]

WTC 7 was NOT hit by a plane.

Isn't the entire block that housed WTC built on concrete? I'm certain that a plane hitting a nearby building would not be good on the foundation of another skyscraper.

[Grindrolas]

Isn't the entire block that housed WTC built on concrete? I'm certain that a plane hitting a nearby building would not be good on the foundation of another skyscraper.
just stop, he's sitting here, telling us we all have closed eyes, when its him...

[Talorth]

WTC 7 was 300 yards away from any impact from planes. If you watched the planes hit the other two towers, you would have noticed that the buildings practically swallowed the planes. I don't recall seeing any pieces of plane flying out at other buildings. However, I know thats what hey said happened.

Okay, you mean to tell me that you don't think the two biggest buildings in new york collapsing after being hit by 747s would not affect a building so close?

[Will]

Isn't the entire block that housed WTC built on concrete? I'm certain that a plane hitting a nearby building would not be good on the foundation of another skyscraper.

The planes hit the other buildings pretty high up, sorta far away from the foundation.

[Talorth]

just stop, he's sitting here, telling us we all have closed eyes, when its him...

Yes I'm going to give up in this thread now.

[Damarus]

If you watched the planes hit the other two towers, you would have noticed that the buildings practically swallowed the planes.This makes you stupider imo, for not realising that 2 buildings of such obvious enormous stature (as pointed out by you) would not effect a large surrounding area when collapsing...

EDIT:
The planes hit the other buildings pretty high up, sorta far away from the foundation.Oh wow, are you completely ignoring the fact that the two towers ACTUALLY COLLAPSED? Who cares about the effect of the planes alone, even though it would still have an effect (the forces on a building are ALL transferred down into the foundations through the structural members, force doesnt just dissapear into the wilderness because it happens high up on a building).

[Will]

Yes I'm going to give up in this thread now.

I lose :/

[Will]

This makes you stupider imo, for not realising that 2 buildings of such obvious enormous stature (as pointed out by you) would not effect a large surrounding area when collapsing...

C'mon, you're above the insults....affect maybe, cause to collapse in its own footprint in 6.5 seconds....no.

[Talorth]

C'mon, you're above the insults....affect maybe, cause to collapse in its own footprint in 6.5 seconds....no.

The fire caused the rapid collapse. It was close to free fall because the steel had lost most of its structural integrity. I think the rapid amount of sheer mass of the twin towers caused the foundation from which wtc7 sat to collapse too. (Although I haven't actually seen the way wtc7 collapsed... Was it much the same as the twin towers?)

[Damarus]

What was the 6.5 seconds? o.O The fall time? Because I thought the tower actually collapsed hours after the occurance of the Twin towers falling... You do realise this period should be included in your 6.5 seconds right?

[Damarus]

The fire caused the rapid collapse. It was close to free fall because the steel had lost most of its structural integrity.True. buildings and materials are built and chosen to maintain structural integrity for only a certain period of time, based on the estimated time it would take to evacuate the building. For a building 40ish stories tall, you would probly find that building will only hold its structural integrity for a couple of hours, which is about how long until the building collapsed right? (this is an actual question, not a rhetorical I cbf checking).

[Victis]

It was controlled demolition.. after seeing the way the towers fell.. how could you not come to that conclusion?

All that destruction.. and they find the pilots wallet and the terrorists passport on the NY streets below? LOL

[Damarus]

I don't even know what the story of what happened is after reading that it was controlled demolition on like two sources... Im fucked if I know what is actually argued to have happened and what's a conspiracy and what's not. All I know is that it was going to collapse regardless (and if it was infact controlled demolition and this isn't another one of the conspiracy theories, then that basically proves my point about the structural engineers realising it was going to happen anyway), and this BBC conspiracy is grasping at straws since the conspiracy barrel is running low as of late...

[Victis]

It was demo'd man.. but what are you going to do.. sweet fuck all, thats what, live your life until it knocks on your front door.

[Will]

I don't even know what the story of what happened is after reading that it was controlled demolition on like two sources... Im fucked if I know what is actually argued to have happened and what's a conspiracy and what's not. All I know is that it was going to collapse regardless (and if it was infact controlled demolition and this isn't another one of the conspiracy theories, then that basically proves my point about the structural engineers realising it was going to happen anyway), and this BBC conspiracy is grasping at straws since the conspiracy barrel is running low as of late...

If it was a controlled demolition, then how long do you think it took to plan and setup? Also, I have alleged no BBC conspiracy...all I am saying is that the BBC received word of a surprise collapse and the cause, prior to the collapse. As to the barrel running low regarding the 9/11 truth movement and it's advances 'twords the truth, you may be off on your assessment. From what I can tell, the establishment is terrified of this movement. That's why, for example, the mainstream media is uniformly pretending this "cockup" at the BBC never happened. That is why Google video and You Tube have pulled these clips (no doubt at the behest of the BBC). The speed at which the clips came down is proof enough that they are trying to avoid scrutiny. Now, according to our govt, when people try to avoid scrutiny, they have something to hide no?

[Will]

The fire caused the rapid collapse. It was close to free fall because the steel had lost most of its structural integrity. I think the rapid amount of sheer mass of the twin towers caused the foundation from which wtc7 sat to collapse too. (Although I haven't actually seen the way wtc7 collapsed... Was it much the same as the twin towers?)

It collapsed almost perfectly on itself, reminiscent of a controlled demolition. Take a look: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html

[Talorth]

It collapsed almost perfectly on itself, reminiscent of a controlled demolition. Take a look: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html

Of course, the twin towers design is what led to the collapse. The time between the first plane hitting the first tower and the time that it collapsed was almost identical to the amount of time it took for the second tower to collapse after being hit. Granted you could time it in an explosion, however.

But those towers were built to be cheap and cost effective and to never handle a 747 flying into them. It wasn't the actual impact itself that caused the collapse, it was the fire. The massive amounts of heat, combined with the fact that the towers had a central chamber for the elevators and etc, was what led to the failure of the steel.

And really, whatreallyhappened.com is just as dishonest as any government. Look you can buy t-shirts! If the bush administration was as dishonest as you believe they'd have no trouble taking these websites down. But frankly, I think he's busy choking on pretzels.

Now, according to our govt, when people try to avoid scrutiny, they have something to hide no?

Not necessarily, I don't think BBC wants bad press. It much more of a concern to them that they actually report on factual information than heresay. I think thats why it was taken down. BBC is a corporation just like any other corporation, they don't want their reputation destroyed. It has nothing to do with a conspiracy.


mainstream media is uniformly pretending this "cockup" at the BBC never happened.

Give me your source, and please don't let it be a "conspiracy" website. The fact that you and I and many many other people know that this happened proves that that is a bunch of bullcrap in my opinion. So what, the video was taken down. That proves nothing.