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: 30
101
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vinadetta
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.........


Then lay out your theory please.




posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 04:00 PM
link   
The chances of a building on fire; in an area where other building have collapsed, after the fire department has already called for evacation because it was showing signs of deterioration; actually collapsing 20 minutes, 2 hours or 2 days later is not at all shocking or lucky or miraculous.

The building was already tagged as likely to collapse. The same reporter is reporting about the partial collapse of the Marriot Hotel and she and the News Desk Anchor are discussing how likely it is that more buildings will collapse.

I find it very logical that they got word that WTC7 was evacuated under fears of collapse and instead of reporting that they reported that the building had collapse all the while she is standing in front of the very erect WTC7.

I guess BBC also got a heads-up on when the president was "expected" to leave Nebraska and we just all thought he had left 30 minutes prior?

[edit on 27-2-2007 by Identified]



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy

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.


Listen, i find it offensive that you put smileys on posts. I dont have any more to "get" do i?
And by the way, im glad to see that you are now as mistrustful of the newsmedia as the truth seekers have been for the last few years.
Which way do you want it?



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by shindigger


Listen, i find it offensive that you put smileys on posts. I dont have any more to "get" do i?
And by the way, im glad to see that you are now as mistrustful of the newsmedia as the truth seekers have been for the last few years.
Which way do you want it?


If you find it offensive, either report it, or just put me on the ignore list. It ain't that hard is it?



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Identified
The chances of a building on fire; in an area where other building have collapsed, after the fire department has already called for evacation because it was showing signs of deteriation; actually collapsing 20 minutes, 2 hours or 2 days later is not at all shocking or lucky or miraculous.

The building was already tagged as likely to collapse. The same reporter is reporting about the partial collapse of the Marriot Hotel and she and the News Desk Anchor are discussing how likely it is that more buildings will collapse.

I find it very logical that they got word that WTC7 was evacuated under fears of collapse and instead of reporting that they reported that the building had collapse all the while she is standing in front of the very erect WTC7.

I guess BBC also got a heads-up on when the president was "expected" to leave Nebraska and we just all thought he had left 30 minutes prior?


"We decided to pull it".



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Identified
The chances of a building on fire; in an area where other building have collapsed, after the fire department has already called for evacation because it was showing signs of deteriation; actually collapsing 20 minutes, 2 hours or 2 days later is not at all shocking or lucky or miraculous.

The building was already tagged as likely to collapse. The same reporter is reporting about the partial collapse of the Marriot Hotel and she and the News Desk Anchor are discussing how likely it is that more buildings will collapse.

I find it very logical that they got word that WTC7 was evacuated under fears of collapse and instead of reporting that they reported that the building had collapse all the while she is standing in front of the very erect WTC7.

I guess BBC also got a heads-up on when the president was "expected" to leave Nebraska and we just all thought he had left 30 minutes prior?



OK, this is the last time i'm asking this.
if it was just a mistake (it was a chaotic day), a miscommunication then why did google and the BBC go through so much trouble to cover it up? Why heavily censor this piece of "innocent" footage?



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 04:04 PM
link   
I don't think this thread is about how WTC7 Collapsed but Popular Mechanics has a very good, highschool science level explanation of how WTC7 came down and it clearly wasn't brought down by explosives.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Discuss the Topic, NOT each other, Folks!



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



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 04:07 PM
link   
The topic is bound to spin off,although it shouldn't .



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 04:09 PM
link   
What is covered up? I have seen no proof of where anything is being pulled of the net. Some of these links could be dead for all I know since I didn't try every single one of them in this thread. But the ones I did try seem to be working since I was able to download and watch some of them.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by mister Jones
OK, this is the last time i'm asking this.
if it was just a mistake (it was a chaotic day), a miscommunication then why did google and the BBC go through so much trouble to cover it up? Why heavily censor this piece of "innocent" footage?


Can't answer that. But does it matter?
If it wasn't a mistake, then either someone told the BBC it was coming down (in which case it was still mis-reported because it hadn't) or someone told them it already had come down which doesn't make sense.

If someone told the BBC it was coming down, why would they (like a silverstein) tell them? What would they gain from it?

Please explain how it could be anything but a mistake in reporting.

[edit on 27-2-2007 by mecheng]



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by mecheng

Originally posted by mister Jones
OK, this is the last time i'm asking this.
if it was just a mistake (it was a chaotic day), a miscommunication then why did google and the BBC go through so much trouble to cover it up? Why heavily censor this piece of "innocent" footage?


Can't answer that. But does it matter?
If it wasn't a mistake, then either someone told the BBC it was coming down (in which case it was still mis-reported because it hadn't) or someone told them it already had come down which doesn't make sense. Please explain how it could be anything but a mistake in reporting.


Mechong theres the door leave



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Identified
What is covered up? I have seen no proof of where anything is being pulled of the net. Some of these links could be dead for all I know since I didn't try every single one of them in this thread.


There were 5 or 6 1Gb Mpeg files from the BBC on Archive.org, most if not All have been removed from their archives. Today.

Hope this helps.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by mister Jones
OK, this is the last time i'm asking this.
if it was just a mistake (it was a chaotic day), a miscommunication then why did google and the BBC go through so much trouble to cover it up? Why heavily censor this piece of "innocent" footage?


If that is actually what has happened then I can't give you a good answer to that question. However, I don't see youtube blocking it now, it's all over the place and as I understand it the original video was not on a BBC source but an independent archive which is now available again in full.

I'm not a technical whizz but is it possible that a relatively low key (?) archive site simply got overwhelmed by traffic and pulled the video to protect its bandwidth?



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 04:14 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.


Consider how the media started sayin Bin Laden, Bin Laden, Bin Laden, almost immediately after the attacks.

Perhaps those behind the scene want to get their version of events out to the media quickly before any other interpretation is allowed.

Then, repeat this version ad infinium, and allow no other interpretations.

Don't allow anyone to think. Tell people what they are seeing, why it happened and then tell people how they are reacting.

Repeat, repeat, repeat.

Building 7 collapsed. It was weakened by falling debris. Big burly men are in tears.

This is just a guess.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 04:14 PM
link   
"We decided to pull it."

All that man meant was that they had sustained a loss of many firemen during the collapse of the twin towers, were having a hard time containing the fire in WTC7 and felt it was just best to stop fighting it and get the men out. Assuming that the phrase "Pull it" means to bring it down by means of explosives or whatnot is just a sweeping assumption. The men having that discussion that day are not demolition men and to assume they would be using demolition terms is again a sweeping assumption.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by kuhl
Mechong theres the door leave


Just give me the truth. I'm a logical guy. If we're going to come up with a CT we shoud at least be able to answer the who, what, where, when an why's... no?



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Hey kids... This is a quote I snipped from CNN.com

"Stocks tumbled across the board Tuesday, with the Dow industrials sinking about 500 points at one point. It closed 415 points down -- the biggest one-day drop since the stock market reopened after the September 11th attacks. The New York Stock Exchange tried to limit declines by imposing trading curbs. The selloff is on the back of a nearly eight-month rally."

Maybe nothing but, maybe not.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 04:17 PM
link   
Archive.org isn't low key or low capacity. They have bandwidth, amount of servers and total storage capacity to rival and surpass google and they've been in existence for over a decade now.

EDIT: and to the people who are talking about the stockmarkets, I'm thinking it has more to do with the market adjustment done in China last night then this having any impact on it.

[edit on 27/2/07 by thematrix]



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by JacKatMtn
I found the BBC timeline of events from OCT 2001 which includes a couple of video links to reports from that day. It appears that they had at least one additional reporter in the area, Steven Evans and another report which shows the skyline of the towers, I wonder if this shot is from the same vantage point as Ms. Standley's report later in the day.

here's the link to the page: America's day of terror: Timeline



Anyone look at the shot referenced above to see if it was taken from the same building as Jane's.

Steven Evans was a BBC economics correspondent who was in the WTC when the first plane hit. I haven't found any other BBC reporters in the area on 9/11.

My question is "who gave BBC the info that WTC7 collapsed, I didn't think they were involved at first, but they stated that they don't have the original tapes (which sound shady), the whole statement is an attempt to whitewash the story.



new topics

top topics



 
101
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join