Banned
WTC7 again.
I was just wondering what the 9/11 sceptics made of the new footage which has surfaced of a BBC reporter describing the collapse of WTC7 in a live broadcast at 4:57pm EST when the building didn't collapse till 5:20pm EST and with WTC7 clearly still visible behind her.
1K.Orger
Excuse my ignorance Fred, but someone who is not that familiar with the NYC skyline (although I’ve been there a couple fo times) cannot deduce much from this. I watched the report (all 7 mins 15 secs of it) and there were no times quoted or shown on the screen so I can’t ascertain when they are meant to be saying anything fell. They also refer to the Sallaman Brothers building (??) Is that WTC7?
For a mere mortal like myself, I must admit to finding the footage boring in the extreme and hardly worthy of watching.
'Cause if my eyes don't deceive me,
There's something going wrong around here
Banned
Yes the Sallaman Brothers building was WTC7.Originally Posted by scotsboy
When she moves aside the big oblong building with a few puffs of smoke rising from it right behind the ruins of the two towers is WTC7. If the transmission hadn't been conveniently lost it would have collapsed in around 10 minutes.
The time is taken from the timestamp of the original mpeg which is available if you want to check it for yourself, it's more than a one gig download though, it covers from 4:54 PM to 5:36 PM.
1K.Orger
Something has been bugging me about that clip of film.
1. The anchorman is instantly recognisable but his looks are quite contemporary.
2. I can't find Jane Stanley in any contemporary BBC news reports ~2001 on Google.
3. The logo 'BBC World' is unknown to me, BBC News 24 would be a different matter.
4. The tone, mood, pace and language of reporting is different to that what I remember on 9/11.
Could this be a facsimile of real events?
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.
1K.Orger
Been counting the days now in anticipation of Fred and his self thinking cronies bringing this back to the fore front.
Thanks Fred, I think I can now go into hibernation safely, with no need for any sedative.
Yawnnnn its working already
Once the original Grumpy Owld Man but alas no more
1K.Orger
I would think the clock is wrong
Banned
I don't think the clock matters. The reporter is clearly describing the collapse of the building when the building was clearly visible in the background behind her. The only way that could happen is if someone somewhere knew for definite that that building was going to collapse.I would think the clock is wrong
It's like the two business men talking and one says "sorry to hear about your warehouse burning down" and the other one says "Shhhh...that's next week".
.Orger
BBC World is, and has been for years, the BBC TV news service available abroad on satellite. Watched by many an expat and holidaymaker alike!
Banned
A conspiracy you mean?Something has been bugging me about that clip of film.
1. The anchorman is instantly recognisable but his looks are quite contemporary.
2. I can't find Jane Stanley in any contemporary BBC news reports ~2001 on Google.
3. The logo 'BBC World' is unknown to me, BBC News 24 would be a different matter.
4. The tone, mood, pace and language of reporting is different to that what I remember on 9/11.
Could this be a facsimile of real events?
1K.Orger
All of this 9/11 bunkum was poo pooed the other week on the conspiracy programme on the TV.
All explained away but still the conspiracy theorists refuse to believe the facts - they are so desparate for a hidden government plot to explain 9/11.
That kid (Dylan Avery, director of the hugely popular internet film Loose Change) who made the film looked a little lost for words as the reporter put some salient points to him about his allegations of conspiracy. Guess holes in his theory are starting to appear.
Was WTC7 deliberately demolished by explosives?
In the afternoon of 11 September 2001, World Trade Centre Building 7, a 47 storey office block close by the Twin Towers collapsed without even being hit by the planes.
The building had been evacuated and there were no casualties and with so much else happening that day, its collapse was barely reported.
WTC 7 was home to local offices of the CIA, Department of Defense, the United States Secret Service and the city's Office of Emergency Management, among others.
Sceptics of the official account, including those at Scholars for 9/11 Truth argue that the building was deliberately destroyed in a controlled demolition, perhaps in order to conceal important information about a pre-9/11 plot by the authorities.
The collapse of WTC has been investigated by FEMA. Their interim report found that when the North Tower collapsed, debris crashed into Building 7.
This was the likely cause of fires which quickly took hold. The sprinkler system did not work effectively because the water main in Vesey Street had been knocked out when the Twin Towers came down.
With the intense fires burning unabated, the steel structure supporting the building was fatally weakened. But the FEMA investigators conceded that this hypothesis had a low probability of occurring.
In their final report, due to be published later in 2007, FEMA is expected to back its original hypothesis substantially - the collapse of WTC7 was accidental, not deliberate.
And if you didn't watch it - tough. I'm not getting dragged into another fredthread......
Last edited by MadPict; 28-Feb-07 at 12:53.
Member
Too many holes in the official speil to be adequately 'explained away'.
There is no doubt whatsoever that something seriously dodgy was going on that day what with big insurance claims being paid out.
1K.Orger
So the US government slaughtered 3000 of it's own citizens just so that some rich tycoon could make an insurance claim on a building.......
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA........ ..
Banned
Just wondered if someone could explain to me how the BBC could report that something had happened 20 minutes before it happened that's all.
.Orger
Is the presenter standing in front of a window, or is she in front of a blue screen with footage being played behind her? The obvious explanation would be that the footage shown is delayed...maybe because the BBC didnt want anything being shown live as happened when the 2nd tower was hit. As another poster mentioned, the BBC Conspiracy programme answered a lot of the questions the some people seem to have about the events of that day.
Hard work never killed anyone, but why take the risk
Suspended
If you substitute the word 'conspiracy' for hoax, then I think it becomes far more believable, especially when you consider how sophisticated image manipulation has become in the last 5 or 10 years, even giving the general public the ability to skew perceptions any way they wish.
I'm not saying if the clip is genuine or not, just that the days of 'the camera never lies' are far far behind us.
'Conspiracy' sounds so sinister, the definition from the dictionary is: an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons....where as hoax has a definition of: something intended to deceive or defraud.
Both words mean the same thing in broad terms, but each conjours up a very different image in the mind.
It's tough for conspiracy theorists not to go to town over 9/11 though, after the US authorities gave them so much ammunition by handling the entire episode with such incompetence. Add to that George W Gump as president, and you have theories coming from everyone and their brother!
Mind you, when you still have people claiming that 95 years ago the sinking of the Titanic was an elaborate conspiracy, then you realise that any distaster will have people willing to read far more into events than that's actually there.
Even supposing the theorists are correct.....have ANY of these major events ever been proven to be true conspiracy's?
I'm not talking about the joke stuff like the alien autopsy or Hitler's diaries, or even The Piltdown Man....But any of the BIG events??
Given the greedy nature of the global media at the moment, I would have thought that any scrap of REAL proof that would increase readership or boost ratings on TV would have been beamed around the world by now.
The best two at giving the public new possibilities to think about in recent years has to be Oliver Stone and Michael Moore.
Pehaps that's the good things about conspiracy theorists...They make us look at things in a different way, even if only to point out how wrong we think they are.
Last edited by Kaishowing; 28-Feb-07 at 14:58. Reason: (sp)
1K.Orger
roy,Quite uncalled for I would've thought... especially from a moderator?
Here we go again - the old (and tired) issue of "you're not allowed to post because you have the word Moderator under your name" raises it's head again.
Last time I looked I was still a member of these forums and therefore free to post within the forum rules.
If I see a post which breaks forum rules or needs moderating then I will put my Mod hat on and deal.
I am entitled to my opinion and I will continue to post that opinion to whichever thread I wish. Be it adding to the thread about chloramine or the proliferation of wind farms. I have as much right to contribute to the discussion of topics as you or fred or anyone.
As long as I don't directly insult or abuse a member I cannot see the problem with my posts - I was the one being called "imature"(sic)...
Banned
Well the hoax would have to involve a lot of people, the firm who owns the archive server that the footage has been sitting on would have to be involved, then the people who found the footage and the people who authenticated it and verified the timestamp. Starting to sound like a conspiracy to me.
1K.Orger
Mad Pict,
I go along with your theory, more than the conspiracy theory of Fred and his cronies.
And keep posting MP, you have every right to express your sensible opinions (no matter if you are a Moderator), as well as the IMO crackpots in here
The Collapse of World Trade Center 7
Allegation: 9/11 Revealed suggests that the 47-story World Trade Center 7 building, which collapsed at 5:20 pm on September 11, was intentionally demolished. The primary piece of evidence for this is a comment that Mr. Larry Silverstein, who owned the World Trade Center complex, made on the September 2002 television documentary American Rebuilds. Mr. Silverstein said:
I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said, you know, “We've had such terrible loss of life that the smartest thing to do is just pull it.” And they made that decision to pull it and we watched the [World Trade Center 7] building collapse.
9/11 Revealed and other conspiracy theorists put forward the notion that Mr. Silverstein’s suggestion to “pull it” is slang for intentionally demolishing the WTC 7 building.
Facts: On September 9, 2005, Mr. Dara McQuillan, a spokesman for Silverstein Properties, issued the following statement on this issue:
Seven World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001, after burning for seven hours. There were no casualties, thanks to the heroism of the Fire Department and the work of Silverstein Properties employees who evacuated tenants from the building.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) conducted a thorough investigation of the collapse of all the World Trade Center buildings. The FEMA report concluded that the collapse of Seven World Trade Center was a direct result of fires triggered by debris from the collapse of WTC Tower 1.
In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.
Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.
As noted above, when Mr. Silverstein was recounting these events for a television documentary he stated, “I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.” Mr. McQuillan has stated that by “it,” Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology has stated unequivocally, “NIST has seen so evidence that the collapse of WTC 7 was caused by bombs, missiles, or controlled demolition,” in its Collapse of WTC 7 report (p. 6). NIST’s working hypothesis for the collapse of WTC 7 is that it was caused by the collapse of a critical column due to “fire and/or debris induced structural damage.” There was substantial damage to WTC 7 when the nearby WTC 1 tower collapsed and fires began shortly afterwards. Also, WTC 7 was a very unusual building because it was built over an existing Con-Edison power generation substation, which contained two large 6,000 gallon fuel tanks for the emergency generation of power. The fuel from these tanks could have contributed to the intense heat that apparently weakened the supporting columns in WTC 7.
Once the original Grumpy Owld Man but alas no more
.Orger
Yes, BBC World is the international BBC on satellite as someone else has said.Something has been bugging me about that clip of film.
1. The anchorman is instantly recognisable but his looks are quite contemporary.
2. I can't find Jane Stanley in any contemporary BBC news reports ~2001 on Google.
3. The logo 'BBC World' is unknown to me, BBC News 24 would be a different matter.
4. The tone, mood, pace and language of reporting is different to that what I remember on 9/11.
Could this be a facsimile of real events?
Then consider how the likes of the weather forecast is transmitted:
The presenter is not in front of the forecast - you will often have seen them outside. They are just superimposed electronically.
You could even do it on a PC with the likes of Ulead's Visual Studio 10 program, which costs about 50 quid.
JimBews
Member
WTC was a demolition job
Part of the reason i stay up here, is because of the 9/11 attacks. I have
worked jobs in 2 of the towers that collapsed, in software engineering, at
salomon brothers on the 40th floor of 7wtc in 1991, and at 1wtc at Sybase
on floor 79. in sept 2001, our london-based company for which i was the
engineering director, had developed a spreadsheet-integrated plugin
that allowed a pension fund manager to trade directly using the FIX
portion of the GSTPA protocols in global finance. These protocols were
holding a public tradeshow at windows on the world that morning, above
where the first plane hit, from where nobody survived. The attacks destroyed
the business, by killing our sales pipeline at a critical point in
the business's development.
I believe that Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush helped to organize the attacks
through their connections to saudi secret services, as part of a global
coup, partly outlined in a plan they published in advance called "Project for
the New American Century". In it, they specify the need
for a pearl harbor-like event to sponsor a call for their crusade to take
over the middle east oil (as determined by cheney's unpublic energy
consultations). Then a few thousand lives is a small price to pay,
like churchhill letting the nazis bomb coventry, a few lives lost to achieve
staggering political objectives. Their domestic adgenda includes massive
imprisonment: (about that) http://dunwalke.com/
They represent the business interest of big war and big oil, and houston
slavery culture that does not respect a middle class is it does not see the
need for one. They have ruthlessly set about social engineering with mass
imprisonment, race-based adgenda:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarti...0&ItemID=12253
Any person with any engineering background knows that fossil fuels fires
burning for less than an hour haven't a prayer at melting steel, and even
more suspicously, that the 47 core steel beams, 36 inches 16 inch box
beams 5 inches thick all had to fail simultaeously down the building, falling
at the speed of a free-falling object through the path of most resistance.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...restry9111.jpg
The conference they attacked that morning was in financial globalisation
and transparency, something that would expose their hienous criminality.
The fact that it was the largest robbery in history, is left out of too many
accounts of 9/11, and the benefactors were (suprise!) the bush cheney
clan. Trillions missing in the pentagon finance office were conveniently
forgotten by bombing it, the dot com pending lawsuits, the gold in the
basements, the records of all the drugs trafficing of the bush clan.
Those people are really evil, evil beyond the wildest dreams of most
people, and it is well within their modus operendii to execute thousands for
the political imperium they represent. Subsequent years have turned this
to 'obvous', but some people are still slow on the uptake.
The evidence of the demolitions is clear in the richter scale videos that anyone
who's researched can observe.
There are photos of cars all around the ground zero site, where the metal
has been melted, and the plastic untouched, where the front half of the
car is missing, and the petrol tank is unfired: This car was a kilometer away,
what avaition fuel does that?
http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...ARG/Image9.jpg
Any person with a physics background can observe that no normal event causes this.
You can see the bomb craters in the roof from the military demolition.
http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...G/Image141.jpg
The world trade demolitions' primary political objective was to overturn
the american civil war, and to disenfranchise and enslave, like they have
to millions of americans since they took power, as well as millions around
the earth. What was 3000 lives, but a small price to pay in amoral men
who's wars cost hundreds of thousands of lives.
Because britain is on the side of the nazis in this war, the BBC won't expose
the causus belli reichstag fire if it burned them.
Last edited by sweetheart; 12-Mar-07 at 11:40.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks