WTC7 again.

[fred]

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.

[scotsboy]

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.

[fred]

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.

Yes the Sallaman Brothers building was WTC7.

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.

[Moby]

Apologies now if this has been posted before - attached is a link to a film which highlights some of the "conspiracy theories" regarding 911. It is one and a half hours long but boy I was transfixed!!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...e+change+recut

[Rheghead]

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.

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?

[golach]

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

[squidge]

I would think the clock is wrong

[fred]

I would think the clock is wrong

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.

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".

[PhilR]

3. The logo 'BBC World' is unknown to me, BBC News 24 would be a different matter.

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!

[fred]

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?

A conspiracy you mean?

[MadPict]

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.

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.

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.

And if you didn't watch it - tough. I'm not getting dragged into another fredthread......

[darkman]

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.

And if you didn't watch it - tough. I'm not getting dragged into another fredthread......

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.

[MadPict]

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........ ..

[darkman]

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........ ..

Exactly where in my statement did I suggest such a thing, Mmmm, nowhere.
The hahaha's are pretty imature by the way.
There is no doubt that money was made on the back of that tragedy, strong evidence suggests that wtc7 was pulled and the situation used to the advantage of larry silverstien.

[fred]

And if you didn't watch it - tough. I'm not getting dragged into another fredthread......

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.

[fred]

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........ ..

No, a small but powerful section of the US government allowed 3000 of it's own citizens to be slaughtered so that America could take control of the Middle East and form a Global American Empire, "Pax Americana" they called it when they were planning it in the 1990s. Some rich tycoons with very close connections to those people took advantage of the situation to make a lot of money.

[Rheghead]

Could the confusion over the time be on account that BBC World might be using EST instead of British Summer time? Or something like that??

[MadPict]

Exactly where in my statement did I suggest such a thing, Mmmm, nowhere.

Mmmmm, maybe here:

There is no doubt whatsoever that something seriously dodgy was going on that day what with big insurance claims being paid out.

No doubt whatsoever? Where do you get that degree of certainty from?

The hahaha's are pretty imature by the way.

No more or less immature than the mindset of the conspiracy theorists...

here is no doubt that money was made on the back of that tragedy, strong evidence suggests that wtc7 was pulled and the situation used to the advantage of larry silverstien.

Strong evidence WTC 7 was pulled?
You mean this evidence?

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.

Just as every court has a jester, every circus a clown, every village an idiot it is reasonable to expect that every forum has it's conspiracy theorist(s)....

[jimbews]

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?

Yes, BBC World is the international BBC on satellite as someone else has said.

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

[chimo]

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.

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.