It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

BBC News Reports Building 7 collapse 23 Minutes before it collapses.

page: 27
101
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 03:00 PM
link   
very convincing! i honestly feel as many peiople as possible should see the video and experience first hand how this clip apparently keeps being chased, by someone desperately trying to pull it.

i wonder though, why they don't just deactivate the internet altogether and blame it on dDoS attacks, i mean if this was really considered 'hot', why not.

dunno, but 'they' want us to see it for some odd reason, see if it creates ripples, symbolic link chasing included (otherwise everyone would think we're being used). besides, they'he had more than five years to concoct anything they wanted, so the question is if there's some other info currently being buried by this stampede? just a thought.

PS: i believe to this day that the pentagon attack had some time discrepanies like this as well, namely that a well defined smoke plume was emanating from the middle rings only minutes after the alledged time of attack...




posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance

PS: i believe to this day that the pentagon attack had some time discrepanies like this as well, namely that a well defined smoke plume was emanating from the middle rings only minutes after the alledged time of attack...


Not to mention I remember watching on live where some news organization said that the State Department was bombed. Did that mean it was preplanned?



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fjtruth
I don't think you can read anything into the spelling of "Centre". It's unlikely the screen caption would have been copied directly from the original source........


Agreed, just like to cover all bases, as someone else will point it out later and we may aswell cover it now whilst the graphic was local to that post.

[edit on 27-2-2007 by Koka]



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Quote:Soylent Green Is People
"So why is it so preposterous to think this was nothing more than a misquote or reporting of bad information. Either that or the shadow government allowed this reporter and her camera crew to be in on this conspiracy for inexplicable reasons."



Thats just it though,it wasnt bad information or a misquote.
In fact it was great information.Just roughly a half hour to soon.
So if there the new future network,that would explain it.
And im not exactly ssaying the BBC is in on some conspiracy.
But they ot caught in the middle of a conspiracy.They were given the info by someone.And its that someone thats the important part.Who knew,how,and why?BBC is only guilty of jumping the gun,and looking like 3rd grade journalists,as the building stood throught all the bullocks they reported,

[edit on 27-2-2007 by Black_Fox]



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 03:05 PM
link   


Generally the newsreader will read whatever is put on the autocue. They're sight-reading and not taking in what is actually in the report. If the script has been prepared and sent to her then she'll read it. It happens more often than you think.


I think most agree they were just reading what was scripted. However the question is who wrote it and why?

Was it not obvious to all with the dozens if not hundreds of cameras trained on the WTC site that the building was still standing?

As far as everyone knowing WTC 7 was going to collapse. I ask how was it known?

Never before in the history of the world had a steal frame skyscraper collapsed from fire. So what lead them to believe it was going to collapse?



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
Not to mention I remember watching on live where some news organization said that the State Department was bombed. Did that mean it was preplanned?


Ok... I'll take your bait this time.

No, and since the State Department was NOT bombed, your point is moot.

Where is the ignore feature on this site again?



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 03:05 PM
link   
I would assume with all the experts out there that have raised concerns about 9/11 that we could find someone in the field of demolition to comment on the WTC7 building.

To me, and I'm no expert, it appears to be just another demolition video when you watch it fall. I've seen tons of these because they are cool to watch. I've also seen tons of videos of burning buildings, tornado and hurricane damage, terrorist bombings etc, just like you all have simply by sitting in front of your TV or computer.

I'd like to get a demolition experts take on the chances of WTC7 perfectly collapsing. What are the odds and could it even happen under perfect circumstances? Obviously from this tape and other testimonies "someone" issued a report that WTC7 had collapsed prior to it actually falling. News agencies are not perfect and you can only throw this piece of the already crazy puzzle into the 9/11 "strange things that don't add up" file. But I'd say if there ever was a smoking gun, this is looking like it. Links going down, video being edited, etc.

Who knows where this will go, but anyone with friends or family in the demolition industry needs to reach out and touch someone ;-)



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 03:06 PM
link   
I had to login to post this as well. Seems the Anonymous Posting System isn't working correctly.

I am not sure where everyone is getting the timestamps from since all the video I have seen only has time stamps from editors who have uploaded the video. However, I do know that the BBC does the timestamp tone at the top of the hour. So we can assume it was the top of some hour was just two minutes before the following is mentioned.

The News Desk Anchorman says that just moments before he was told that President Bush “expected to be leaving Nebraska to return to Washington.”

We know that it was already reported that Bush was going to leave Offutt AFB in Nebraska before 4:30 Eastern Time. We also know that Air Force One was seen leaving Offutt at roughly 4:33 Eastern.

We also know that many news agencies were reporting a fire and evacuation of WTC7 at 4:10 Eastern.

In my estimation the reporter was mistaken by the news that WTC7 was on fire, being evacuated and was likely to collapse and reported it instead as news that it already collapsed and did so after the 4:30 news that the president was about to leave Nebraska. And that is exactly 20 minutes after the first news was reported that WTC7 was on fire.

Otherwise it makes no sense why they would report something that is about to happen and then be mistaken about something that has already happened such as the presidents plane leaving Nebraska. The entire news cast is off timeline in that case.

[edit on 27-2-2007 by Identified]



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Early in the day WTC 1 and 2 collapsed. As the day went on, many other buildings around the site collapsed, including WTC5 and the Marriot Hotel.

I used to live in the village (Greenwich Village), prior to 9/11, and frequented the lower Mahattan area around the towers. The World Trade Center Plaza had 6 buildings. I LIVED AND WORKED in lower Manhattan and never new which building was which in that complex. Do you expect a reporter from the BBC to have the layout of WTC plaza memorized? I don't. Don't you think a simple explanation is the woman got her building numbers mixed up. Maybe she was talling about WTC 3-6 or maybe the Marriott. There was a lot going on that day and I'm sure a lot of good and bad information was flowing. She's just a news reporter...very capable of making a mistake or getting information from an unreliable source. That's a much more plausible than anything else I read here.

News people make mistakes all the time. Remember when Reagan was shot? ABC news reported that Press Secretary James Baker had died, when in fact he hadn't.

So why is it so preposterous to think this was nothing more than a misquote or reporting of bad information. Either that or the shadow government allowed this reporter and her camera crew to be in on this conspiracy for inexplicable reasons.


I think youve missed the point.
Her possible lack of geography is not at question, nor is the BBC's connivance. They are mouthpieces, and thats all.
Seymour Hersh is a journalist, she on that day was a reporter. Theres a difference.
The reporter, the anchor and the strap line, all said the building had collapsed. While it still stood. It took another 23 mins athe outside to fall (in 6 seconds) There was foreknowledge.
You dont need to be an expert on any towns geography to tell the time.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Koka

Originally posted by Fjtruth
I don't think you can read anything into the spelling of "Centre". It's unlikely the screen caption would have been copied directly from the original source........


Agreed, just like to cover all bases, as someone else will point it out later and we may aswell cover it now whilst the graphic was local to that post.

[edit on 27-2-2007 by Koka]


It suggest to me it was phoned in. No?



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Black_Fox
Why would anyone anticipate a steel building collapsing due to fire?
Afterall,WTC 1 & 2 collapsed due to a plane impact,jet fuel and fire(supposedly).None of which was present in WTC,but the fire.So why would anyone think 7 would go?


If it were me, and I saw the damage done to WTC7 and after both WTC1 & 2 came down earlier that day (without the hindsight we have today) I wouldn't be standing around WTC7 either. I would expect, as a natural reaction, firefighters and policemen to err on the side of caution and clear the area.

I would then expect them to announce to everyone that htey intended to clear the area. I'm also begining to think that it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to think that a reporter on the scene got it wrong or miscommunicated and a news agency reported the building had come down. We are all human and make mistakes.

Sorry, I'm flip flopping... I think the debunkers got to me.

[edit on 27-2-2007 by mecheng]


[edit on 27-2-2007 by mecheng]



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pootie


Ok... I'll take your bait this time.

No, and since the State Department was NOT bombed, your point is moot.

Where is the ignore feature on this site again?


Go a. and put me on the ignore list. You can't counter what I put out and no explanation for the fact that a news organization made a mistake about the State Department being bombed when it fact it was never bombed, even though they get reports that it was bombed. Hmmm........conspiracy maybe?



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Recent testimony by Zbigniew Brazinski infront of congress that stated that if any other 9/11 type events happened you could be sure the goverment was behind it, has led me to believe that we might be seeing now that the orchestrators or NWO guys are calling it quits for now (to try another decade?) and are actualy setting Cheney and Bush up for the fall.

The official story surrounding 9/11 and the support for the Middle Eastern agenda is crumbling around them more rapidly every day and for some strange reason, more and more smoking gun type evidence is apearing out of frigin nowhere all of the sudden.

You also got the Scooter Libby trial that, if Libby is found guilty of deliberatly lying to the grand jury, will directly result in impeachement and a trial surrounding Cheney.

The obvious hitpiece the BBC did on Conspiracy's last week might not have been part of a coverup imho, but more a piece to spark massive controversy because of its obvious and glaring errors and even more ferocious and public activity by the 9/11 Truth movement.

This might be wishfull thinking from my part, but it doesn't really matter. The movement should step it up a notch none the less, there is actualy hope that we've actualy stopped the agenda for now.

[edit on 27/2/07 by thematrix]



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 03:12 PM
link   
anyone know where the woman was filmed from because, looking at a map of the wtc makes it kind of hard to figure out which angle this was taken from.

take a look at the map here and see if you can tell where she might have been. If she was north of the buildings, shooting south, the building is on the wrong side. The only angle that would make sense would be if she was south shooting north but from what I recall, everyone was forced to set up shop north of the towers so they could cordone off the entire downtown area. when you look at the map, note that Vescey street runs east west with a slight north to south slant as you . east.





posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 03:13 PM
link   
OK ask yourselves this how much experience did the NYC police and fire department have in predicting the moment when fire would bring down a building. NONE......3rd building in history to collapse because of fire. first 2 twin towers.

my father was a fireman for 25 years based in london he said buildings constructed in the 1800's havent even collapsed because of fires. its BS



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 03:14 PM
link   
The only thing that troubles me is.. why?

I mean, if you were the government, you wouldnt NEED to tell anyone PRIOR...

its meaningless.. the towers are coming down, and the surprise and shock is what your aiming for... why spoil it and take the risk of someone being to eager?

There was no need to inform anyone, ESPECIALLY the media.

I think it will be a logical explanation for this.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Don't you think a simple explanation is the woman got her building numbers mixed up. Maybe she was talling about WTC 3-6 or maybe the Marriott.


But, she Never refers to it as WTC "7", or Any "number" for that matter, only as the 47-story Salaomin building.


News people make mistakes all the time.

Certainly, no argument there.


So why is it so preposterous to think this was nothing more than a misquote or reporting of bad information.


It's not, at all. They simply read the feeds place in front of them. I think the main interest and/or concern here is, " Who was doing the feed-ing?"

Personally, what piques my interest is the fact that they repeatedly make the assertion that the 47-story Salaomin building had collpased over quite an extended period of time, prior to the event actually occuring.

Once or twice? M'kay, but repeatedly over an extended timeframe and by several reporters and newsroom staff. (?) Over and over. (?)

No assertions, here, other than it being "things that make you go Hmmm".



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by shindigger
It suggest to me it was phoned in. No?


Probably, unfortunately we can only speculate until we get the auditors in place.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by thematrix
Recent testimony by Zbigniew Brazinski infront of congress that stated that if any other 9/11 type events happened you could be sure the goverment was behind it, has led me to believe that we might be seeing now that the orchestrators or NWO guys are calling it quits for now (to try another decade?) and are actualy setting Cheney and Bush up for the fall.



i would give my right ball to see bush and cheney up for war crimes

even if it didnt stop the NWO, god that would be sweet



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
The only thing that troubles me is.. why?

I mean, if you were the government, you wouldnt NEED to tell anyone PRIOR...

its meaningless.. the towers are coming down, and the surprise and shock is what your aiming for... why spoil it and take the risk of someone being to eager?

There was no need to inform anyone, ESPECIALLY the media.

I think it will be a logical explanation for this.


I agree. If "they" didn't care about the people in the first two towers before they went down, why would they bother clearing everyone away from this tower?



new topics

top topics



 
101
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join