It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Counter-Conspiracy: World Trade Center 7

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on May, 2 2014 @ 09:34 AM

originally posted by: Fylgje
a reply to: cestrup

Very good post!

The big whigs at BBC, like all major news medias, were in the know about 911. This was a planned event so that TPTB could destabilize muslim countries while using the USA to do the dirty work. This was a trick, a scheme. A building collapsing from a fire is laughable. There's nothing in that building that would burn hot enough to cause this reaction. Larry Silverstein & friends got away with murder and crimes against humanity. Israel basked in joy.

I agree. Those big meetings probably plan events years ahead and they're all in total cooperation because they believe these events are needed to acheive some paradise that the puppeteers envision. I wouldn't be suprised that they were scripted news events. The reporter wouldn't have a clue as they're just reading off a screen. Then again, I have no proof of this. But, covert operations and proposed false flags are very deep. Considering the media is just an extension of TPTB via Operation Mockingbird - they can convince the masses of pretty much anything. including me! It takes a second look at things sometimes to see the forest through the trees.

posted on May, 2 2014 @ 09:36 AM
a reply to: cestrup

You asked for photos of the fire, i gave you photos and photage of the fire incl. a link explaining the photos and photage, and you start talking about "being me" and bonfires

I am done with you, have a good one

posted on May, 2 2014 @ 09:43 AM

originally posted by: Mianeye
a reply to: cestrup

You asked for photos of the fire, i gave you photos and photage of the fire incl. a link explaining the photos and photage, and you start talking about "being me" and bonfires

I am done with you, have a good one

OMG, burning uncontrollably!! There must be photos of this horrible fire, right?? I mean it actually caused "free fall" for a portion of the collapse so it must have burnt the builiding to a crisp inside to the point that there was actually, no resistence from the pesky steel-framed building. Thanks for clearing that up!

I asked for pictures of a horrible fire. Why are you confused that I'm disappointed with your post? I want to see a fire that would gut a building's entireity and lead to a global collapse. What you posted is either a joke or you're just trying to be persnickety and act like I didn't know there were photos of the fire at WTC 7. I know there were fires, I also know that fire didn't bring that building down in an observed controlled manner. Here's the type of fire I'd expect to see what I say "horrible" or "burnt the building to a crisp" - just to clear that up for you.

posted on May, 3 2014 @ 12:31 PM

originally posted by: OFFTHEGRID
Just before 5PM on September 11, 2001, the British Broadcast Corporation reported that World Trade Center 7 had collapsed... but the building didn't fall until 26 minutes later! BBC Anchor Jane Standley made the report, while WTC7 stood INTACT behind her. How did this happen? In this #OffTheGrid clip, Jesse Ventura gives his own "Counter-Conspiracy" analysis. What do you think? Was it a controlled demolition? Or did fires bring it down like the 9/11 Commission Report alleges?

Jesse's full analysis of WTC 7 is available now on Ora.TV!

My thoughts to Off the Grid,
In regard to Tower 7:
I think it was a controlled demolition - and meticulously setup and executed.

In relation to the news stream:
I also believe that there was rumour prior to the collapse that building 7 would come down - possibly not Officially to the Main Stream Media, but I do think preparations were in the works by the media to preempted the collapse and they were preparing to report it by a scripted scenario that was put to air earlier than designed.
I have my doubts if it was also a LIVE face to face broadcast.

As for the BBC report by Jane Standley, I have a few questions and comments on that...
Why was it that in this interview (below) with Richard Porter - Head BBC World News - that he read a statement on behalf of the BBC explaining the Live News Coverage with Jane Standley - was issued by Reuters?
It seems the 'incorrect' news source came from a department of Reuters - not the BBC.

(I don't know how to post the screencapture of the email page - sorry)

This video (link below) shows a small clip (2secs long) of the paper email correspondence which was read from as the Official response regarding the live broadcast which aired before the Tower 7 collapse'
You can see a portion of the Official email In this Video clip titled: WTC 7 BBC
at link:
(at 0:32 sec)

Richard Porter - Head BBC World News - reads from the email...
0:19 - RP: "I think you have to put it in the context of what was an incredibly chaotic day for everybody involved trying to cover the story." The investigators we have carried out suggest very strongly that [um] we were working on the basis of an incorrect news agency report. We had this statement from Reuters - its came out sometime after our original inquiry actually, but what it says is:

"On September 11th 2001 Reuters incorrectly reported that one of the buildings at the New York Trade Centre 7WTC had collapsed before it actually did.
The report was picked up from a local news story and was withdrawn as soon as it emerged that the building had not fallen."

What you don't hear regarding the email is some other portions written but not spoken..

It is dated 10th May 2007 09:48
It is from Gary Williams at Reuters - Gary Williams, head of media sales at Reuters - video news clips etc
It is also cc'd to Dominic Evans (reporter/journalist) and one other - Madhur ____ (?)
The title of the email is: Odd Help Question

some portions of the email:
... which is Reuters official line...
... I hope this puts the matter to rest (-----

You may use the following quotation attributed to Reuters...


Just to add: The Video News Clips are the short bites of footage used to integrate and illustrate a news story.
I'd cringe to ever assume that a green screen was used in the background at some point to get this clip made prior to the event.

I'd be possibly asking Reuters - Gary Williams or anyone else in the loop regarding that email about the footage which went to air via the BBC - as I said above, I think it was a pre-recorded and scenario based due to rumour.
To me it sounds like Big media trying to win ratings with pre-scripted anticipated first coverage reports.
But what the airing of the report did do inadvertently (and possibly unintentionally) was uncovered the suspected 'controlled demolition' of another Tower.

I am suspicious also at the response from Porter who read the official statement above - and the BBC article regarding what happened, along with the email.

Part of the conspiracy?
Richard Porter | 17:12 UK time, Tuesday, 27 February 2007

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.

edit on 3-5-2014 by planchette because: clarify and edit text

posted on May, 5 2014 @ 09:27 AM
Now to add to this - if not already known, WTCT7 broadcast by the The BBC - Tony Rooke Court win against the BBC.

I have transcribed almost all the video, but for better context, here's the link to watch it - or read below:

Tony Rooke (Documentary Maker) refused to pay his TV License - he went to court to defend himself, armed with his evidence and won.
His reasons -

Transcript: From interview...
(*=my inclusion)
(0:31) Tony Rooke:
"...I said I'm not paying your license under Section 15 Article 3 of The Terrorism Act, and they went through the procedure, and I got the Court Summons - went to Court - asked if I was guilty, I said 'No' I'm not guilty of having an inappropriate Licence, because the License is inappropriate because I'll be funding terrorism, because I know the BBC has covered up the true events of the day -

And eventually we arrived here today, and the result has been (and I have to say a fair Judge in my opinion) - I have not been convicted, I have no fine, Court costs 200Pounds (which you've very generously donated to) and I have to behave myself and get a TV Licence which I'll be running down tomorrow to the Post Office to buy, but hopefully we have set a little precedent which might encourage people to do the same thing - and go to their Police, tell them about today, give them the evidence.

West Sussex Police said they are investigating it - which they're obliged to do because...
BBC had prior knowledge of a Terrorist Event ...
which I think under Section 38 of the Terrorism Act , they (*BBC) should have reported it - which they didn't - and they've since given this impossible (flannel?) about The World Trade Center collapsing due to an office fire, which even in the NIST Report said 'fell at freefall speed for 8 floors at 2.5 seconds. Now that is absolutely impossible without controlled demolition being involved. Absolutely impossible.
There's no arguments around it. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise because they're saying Issac Newton is wrong."

Tony Farrell - Former Principal Intelligence Analyst, South Yorkshire Police...
"... (why it has to do) with the TV License with BBC is because primarily Jane Standley - 9/11 - was seen reporting 23 minutes before World Trade Center Building 7 collapsed - before it had actually fallen and that in itself is some Prior Knowledge that the BBC had, of the Events of 9/11. And we never had a satisfactory explanation as to how they had that prior knowledge how they made a mistake of announcing the fallen Tower before they actually did."

(2:43sec) Peter Drew Representative AE 9/11 Truth - UK Action Group Facilitator ...
"Im Peter Drew representing Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth as their UK Facilitator - I was going to give evidence today as; myself and two other individuals, back in 2011, lodged some official complaints with the BBC about 2 of the documentaries they showed in 2011 as part of the 10th Anniversary of 9/11. And the BBC as (* described) have strict requirements through their Royal Charter and their Agreement and their Editorial Guidelines have to present information that is impartial and accurate, and they are required to correct the mistakes that they make. And one of the very important pieces of evidence that we were going to present today was that in 2007 we see in one of their documentaries suggested that Tower 7 did not come down at free-fall speed and said that the Scientists and Architects who suggested it had come down at free-fall speed were wrong. But then in 2008 when the official investigations came out and said then 'well, no, Building 7 did come down at free-fall speed' - which is a huge statement to make because we know it can only come down at free-fall speed through controlled demolition.
So the BBC have made a very very big mistake in 2007 by saying that that free-fall had not occurred."

Ian Henshall - Leading UK Author on 9/11 - Founder of the UK based Group Re-investigate 9/11...
"The BBC was incompetent verging on dishonest - let me rephrase that - Dishonest.
I was the leading author on 9/11 when they did their Conspiracy Files programs. I never had a phone call from them. Now you know, they might have disagreed with me, they might have disliked me, but as they're paid by the public to investigate impartially and give a full account of what happened. And if they're doing a film about so called Conspiracy Theories then that obliges them to talk to anybody who's in the position I was. I've been serialized in the Daily Mail, instead they got some guys from America who had some pretty kooky ideas and presented them to the public, as the face of 9/11 investigators who they called Conspiracy Theorists.
cont (5:39sec)
...The BBC have a lot of resources - they don't want to know. The BBC were grossly dishonest in their investigations of the 9/11 attacks, and that's what I was here to say in Court today."

Tony Rooke:
"Unfortunately in Court today the Judge didn't let us demonstrate all the evidence. We had some very good witnesses - Tony Farrell Former Intelligence Officer for South Yorkshire Police, Professor Niels Harritt - Evidence Scientist from Copenhagen, Ray Savage - Former Counter Terrorism Officer, who else am I looking at... Peter Drew (wonderful chap) who coordinated the campaign against the BBC trying to find out about building 7 which they refused to talk about, Adrian Mallet - Former Fire Fighter Engineer. There were loads of witness' lined up that we weren't allowed to present them.

That said, the Judge has seen the evidence, he said he had seen the evidence, so we now know for a fact that one Judge in this country is very aware of what happened on 9/11, and I have no conviction."

Interviewer - to Tony Rooke: "Do you know what the Judges name is?"
Tony Rooke: "Judge Stephen Nicolls, I believe.
(6:51sec)... TR: "towards the end of the case, for anyone who wasn't in the room, I did kick off a little bit because it does come down to a question of morality; (*snip), and do we fund an organization that tells us the impossible - that Building 7 fell because of an Office fire. Its utter crap."

(snipped and end at 8:26sec)

The Court Case was held:
February 25th, 2013 at 10.00am
Horsham Magistrates’ Court [Court 3]
West Sussex, England

Other links:

Its an interesting point that Tony Rooke makes regarding the broadcast 23 minutes prior to the actual fall of WTCT7 in relation to the BBC - that if they knew the Tower was going to fall, and the BBC or any news reporting affiliate or agency were forwarned or foreinformed, and they didnt say anything about it - (but as I suggested post earlier: pre-filmed a scenario news broadcast in advance of the event) - they can be charged under Terrorist Act Laws for knowing and not telling LE/Goverment/Officials.

edit on 5-5-2014 by planchette because: re edit - take off italics

top topics
<< 1  2   >>

log in