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: 29
101
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vinadetta
Come on?? You are telling everyone on this board that it was a "simple mistake in reporting" Right, I think you need to be posting on the Coincidence Theory Board!! Maybe we should give up, throw in the towel, and write yet another peice of damning evidence as coincidence. I'm not buying that, the video was authentic, and somehow the BBC got word of it's collapse before it happened!!



SO why the quick responce from the BBC and.......the apparent loss of the vid which is readily available.




posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 03:42 PM
link   
From reading all the replies I am thinking that this is NOT the smoking gun that most people seem to think it is.

I don't believe it actually adds weight to either argument (that WTC7 was pulled or fell on it's own accord due to fire and damage)

Most likely explanation;

1) Fireman and Policeman at the scene of WTC7 fear the building MAY collapse

2) Reporters get wind of the story

3) The BBC receive the story but report it accidentally as WTC7 HAS collapsed rather than MAY collapse

4) WTC7 then collapses, but the BBC does not need to correct itself (whereas if WTC7 did not collapse then they would need to correct themselves)

Remember that there are hundreds of news networks all over the world reporting the events of the day. This must add up to 1,000's of news reports. A small minority of these reports are wrong, of which a small minority of these will turn out to be true. (e.g. a news report says that Bush has flown to somewhere before he actually does - at the time it was reported it is wrong but it then turns out to be right).

This is one of those reports, which when looked at on it's own seems to point to prior knowledge but is in fact just a simple mistake that turned out to be true.



[edit on 27-2-2007 by ShadesofGrey]



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 03:42 PM
link   
you people are missing the point there is no way on gods earth that they could predict the building collapsing like that.

its like saying there's going to be a shooting star and one shows up.


it fell in 6.5 seconds , straight down



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by shindigger
Righto.
I just cant get in to the psyche of someone who when they THINK theyve made a funny, or a killer point, when we are discussing the murder of 3000 people, uses a smiley emoticon to round off their contribution.
It doesnt sit well. Thats all.
I dont know if hes joking or not quite honestly.
Read his other posts. Hes convinced himself that all is well. Good for him.
Not.


Don't assume anything. And based on what you are saying, you didn't get me.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
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".


It's a potential problem as long as you asssume that she knew New York passably well but I'm not sure how long she had been stationed there and may simply have had no idea what the Salomon Brothers building looked liked or if it was the same as WTC 7.

Several people have mentioned the loss of the feed but you will notice that the picture pixelated and broke up over a period of some seconds which indicates, (I think), a gradual loss of signal strength. If some dark force had pulled a plug it would have just gone phut.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vinadetta
Come on?? You are telling everyone on this board that it was a "simple mistake in reporting" Right, I think you need to be posting on the Coincidence Theory Board!! Maybe we should give up, throw in the towel, and write yet another peice of damning evidence as coincidence. I'm not buying that, the video was authentic, and somehow the BBC got word of it's collapse before it happened!!


Simple mistake eh? How about the supposed bombing of the State Department on 9/11? Didn't happened eh? Simple mistake it must be. The news organizations are never wrong.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 03:45 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.



If they fail this time, they will fail next time. Human awareness has increased continously, and there is noreason to believe it continue too as time goes by. Also, as information sharing becomes even greater (IMO the meaning of life is "survival through information"....just remember that
) the truth can be shared with even more ease.

I see no reason to believe they are calling it quits. I see the Iran attack and the reshaping of the Middle East (mainly to a flat glass surface) taking place very soon, unless something prevents it.

Something is definatly afoot. Couple of weeks from now, and we will probably be shocked to think what life was like back now.

EDIT: God my writing is bad after a shmoke and a pancake.

[edit on 27-2-2007 by shrunkensimon]



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vinadetta
Come on?? You are telling everyone on this board that it was a "simple mistake in reporting" Right, I think you need to be posting on the Coincidence Theory Board!! Maybe we should give up, throw in the towel, and write yet another peice of damning evidence as coincidence. I'm not buying that, the video was authentic, and somehow the BBC got word of it's collapse before it happened!!


Relax. I'm just trying to get to the truth... either way.
So how do you think BBC got word of it's collapse? Why would someone give them info that it was coming down? How would that be advantagous?

Either way... if someone told them it had collapsed, BBC did make a mistake in reporting because it didn't.

Let's work this out.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by r4758
ia311517.us.archive.org...

The original 1024MB file is still available for download.


When i try to download it, it instantly "completes" but its not working?
Is there a "special trick" to download these files or are they not available anymore?

And yet another thing that only proves "we" are right and all this bull# that happened
on 9/11 is a conspiracy and was orchestrated by the government...

God will definately punish them in time to come, thats for sure.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vinadetta
Come on?? You are telling everyone on this board that it was a "simple mistake in reporting" Right, I think you need to be posting on the Coincidence Theory Board!! Maybe we should give up, throw in the towel, and write yet another peice of damning evidence as coincidence. I'm not buying that, the video was authentic, and somehow the BBC got word of it's collapse before it happened!!


Correct.
Just imagine what would have happened if they hadnt twigged in the BBC newsroom that something wasnt right? Just imagine the feed played on.
Jane diligently continues yammering away to the camera and, and, and, A FOURTH SKYSCRAPER HAS COME DOWN??????????
Jane look behind you!!!
OHMIGOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Crazy world this is. I think we should start facing up to that fact.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 03:48 PM
link   
On the subject of the media getting it very wrong - weren't early reports on 7/7 saying it was a huge explosion on the tube caused by electricity or something? Just saying, the news outlets want to get it out through your TV's ASAP.

[edit on 27/2/2007 by Muppetus Galacticus]



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by tombangelta
you people are missing the point there is no way on gods earth that they could predict the building collapsing like that.

its like saying there's going to be a shooting star and one shows up.


it fell in 6.5 seconds , straight down



True, but after what had happened earlier in the day and with the amount of damage that was done to WTC7, wouldn't you expect firemen to clear the area just in case? I'm not saying they are predicting anything, just being cautious.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Either you accept it was a case of chaotic reporting or that the entire clip was incorrect because clearly President Bush left Nebraska long before 5:00 Eastern yet the BBC is still reporting it as it as "expected" to happen.

They were reporting everything during that 20 minutes that was "expected" to happen. Some of it just happened to be reported as if it had happened when it hadn't yet and others was reported as still yet to happen when it had already happened. It was just chaotic mistaken reporting.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
Simple mistake eh? How about the supposed bombing of the State Department on 9/11? Didn't happened eh? Simple mistake it must be. The news organizations are never wrong.


I remember hearing about a few other attacks and missing planes etc that all wound up being nothing. the media had never before dealt with something of this magnitude in an era of instant reporting, where millions of people were watching everything unfold and they seemed more than willing to report and retract all day and night.

That said, she could have turned around and looked to confirm but hey, in that vid the building doesn't even look like it is on fire so what do I know.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by zren

Originally posted by r4758
ia311517.us.archive.org...

The original 1024MB file is still available for download.


When i try to download it, it instantly "completes" but its not working?
Is there a "special trick" to download these files or are they not available anymore?

And yet another thing that only proves "we" are right and all this bull# that happened
on 9/11 is a conspiracy and was orchestrated by the government...

God will definately punish them in time to come, thats for sure.




They seem to be no longer avaliable. I downloaded all of them, but the part where she is in New York in front of WTC7 has been cut out. Someone went to the trouble to cut out that part of the broadcast and now the files are missing. GONE..as the bbc has stated.

[edit on 27-2-2007 by tator3]



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 03:51 PM
link   
I just find it hard to believe that if it was a simple mistake in reporting. I agree these people are human and they mistakes!!! If it was a mistake, then I would love to have this girl buy me some lottery tickets, because the chances of her making the mistake and the even actually happening within 20 minutes is pretty remarkable



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Saying that it was a mistake is sort of like saying a plane has hit the WTC building and is believed to be terrorist attack by Osama at 7:30 am
on 9/11......just a mistake that' is all.........



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur

Originally posted by deltaboy
Simple mistake eh? How about the supposed bombing of the State Department on 9/11? Didn't happened eh? Simple mistake it must be. The news organizations are never wrong.


I remember hearing about a few other attacks and missing planes etc that all wound up being nothing. the media had never before dealt with something of this magnitude in an era of instant reporting, where millions of people were watching everything unfold and they seemed more than willing to report and retract all day and night.

That said, she could have turned around and looked to confirm but hey, in that vid the building doesn't even look like it is on fire so what do I know.


And yet we are told the building collapsed due to massive fires?



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur
That said, she could have turned around and looked to confirm but hey, in that vid the building doesn't even look like it is on fire so what do I know.


She looks like she wants the audience to see her face instead of looking at the building.

And does not look like it's on fire??? Look at the video again. Look at the time 1:12+. Not to mention its facing the other way, which is why you don't see the fire. See alot of smoke though. Black smoke.




posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by timeless test
It's a potential problem as long as you asssume that she knew New York passably well but I'm not sure how long she had been stationed there and may simply have had no idea what the Salomon Brothers building looked liked or if it was the same as WTC 7.


For me, the "Hmmm factor" isn't whether She knew which buildings were which, more the repeated claims by herself and other newsroom staff that it had in fact fallen prior to actually doing so. Again, just a "Hmmm factor", nothing more.


Several people have mentioned the loss of the feed but you will notice that the picture pixelated and broke up over a period of some seconds which indicates, (I think), a gradual loss of signal strength. If some dark force had pulled a plug it would have just gone phut.


I certainly don't proposethe loss of signal had ANYthing to do with someone "pulling the plug". Lord knows Many communication mediums were overloaded, stressed, or simply failed that day.



new topics

top topics



 
101
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join