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: 31
101
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by r4758

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.


Absolutely, it worked for the first election too.




posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by mecheng

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?


Thank you.

Can we please stick to the topic of discussion and refrain from responses addressing fellow member's characters or viewpoints. (?)

Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 27-2-2007 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Thanks for that Matrix, like I said, I'm no techie...



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Am I mistaken here or is Archive.org not related to BBC in anyway other than they archive websites?

Ask them why they pulled something they had previously archived. They had to have gotten the footage from somewhere. The BBC would have covered-up this sort of "evidence" by not allowing it out on the web to begin with where Archive.org could archive it.

I still see no evidence of a cover-up.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by shindigger


Absolutely, it worked for the first election too.


O yeah I remember. It was so funny.
News media couldn't tell if Bush or Gore won. They say Bush wins but then retracts.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by mecheng

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?



100% agree.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by r4758
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.


Thanks. I was hoping someone would come up with another theory besides "reporting mistake". However, it still doesn't make sense as to why release the news prior to it happening. The f'n thing is right there for everyone to see. The building was going to come down in another 25 minutes so why not just wait awhile? I think you'd get the same effect without exposing yourself to scrutiny later.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by timeless test

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?


Thank you! I hadn't realized that it was thought that these videos were disappearing from the web. I had no problem viewing any of this.

I see no conspiracy in regards to the video itself nor what the video shows.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 04:26 PM
link   
Full coverage of the attacks.





First part of video says WTC7 has collapsed. Time is 5:05 on the video where it says.

[edit on 27-2-2007 by deltaboy]



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

Originally posted by Identified
Am I mistaken here or is Archive.org not related to BBC in anyway other than they archive websites?

Ask them why they pulled something they had previously archived. They had to have gotten the footage from somewhere. The BBC would have covered-up this sort of "evidence" by not allowing it out on the web to begin with where Archive.org could archive it.

I still see no evidence of a cover-up.


Archive.org's "Wayback Machine" is a timelaps system for websites, but its only the best known part of Archive.org which actualy is quite a bit more then just the wayback machine.

The footage we're talking about here is RAW(mpeg) footage they normaly requested and received from BBC World directly (because I don't see any other reason why or how they would get the footage in the format and timecuts they are formated in).

Archive.org also received footage from many other news stations.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Identified
"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.



Except that there were no firefighters in building 7 when Larry Silverstein made the famous "pull it" statement. They had left WTC 7 several hours earlier.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
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?


This is a very important point. Jane Standley wouldn't know building 7 from Shinola.


Originally posted by Muppetus Galacticus
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?


Of course, we can only speculate, but here's what I think.

There was a core group who knew about the towers, including Larry Silverman, owner of the buildings, collector of the insurance. This group would include a very small number of people who knew about the attack and were complicit in making the towers fall. The gov't needed a large loss of life to start the war, so only the slimiest of people were in the know about the towers.

At some point during the day, Silverman was approached and told that it's possible WTC7 might collapse. Fortunately, unbeknownst to him, they inform him that they had had the foresight to load it with explosives, too (in addition to the towers, which he knew about) in case they needed to bring it down, too, to save further lives. He then gave them permission to "pull it".

There was a scramble of excitement as people were made aware that building 7 was "coming down". Police were told to clear the area (after all, we already got the spectacular show and loss of life we needed, there was no reason to kill more people if it could be helped.) These guys DO have a heart, you know... It's shriveled and brown and atrophied from disuse, but it's there...

In the confusion of clearing the building using radio communications, somebody heard that it was "coming down". An affirmative Press Release was issued. "Building 7 IS collapsing or has collapsed". And that went out over the wire.

BBC read it as fact before the detonation could take place.

Of course I could be in fantasy land, too.
But that's really what I think.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 04:30 PM
link   
That is my point. How is what unrelated sites do with their videos a sign that this is a coverup?

If BBC was scrambling to hide this in some way then I might question it. But the video seems to be out there ready to be viewed anyway.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by r4758

Originally posted by Identified
"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.



Except that there were no firefighters in building 7 when Larry Silverstein made the famous "pull it" statement. They had left WTC 7 several hours earlier.


I thought this thread was about the video? Anyway.... I don't know where you got info that WTC7 was cleared hours earlier. And by cleared I mean a wide area around it where people were safe from collapse.



[edit on 27-2-2007 by Identified]



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by r4758

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.


that still doesnt explain why they would TELL the media...
It was going to fall regardless of WHO KNEW.
and youd rather people be in shock, and report what they are SEEING, without them knowing the REALITY.

reporters looking at a building collapse, just after the wtc have collapsed are much more certain to say '' and that building, has just collapsed ''
if they knew it was demo, it would throw the entire event off.

To me, it makes no sense for the BBC to of been FOREWARNED that building 7 was primed and going to come down.

If you were doing such an elaborate con on the world, you wouldnt inform the MEDIA!



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by timeless test
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?



archive.org is hardly a "low-key archive site". Try backing out of the URLs, I think you'll find it's quite expansive and thorough.
www.google.com...

Internet Archive
Nonprofit organisation established to preserve Web sites by taking regular "snapshots". The Wayback Machine provides links to older versions of a webpage.
www.archive.org/ - 35k - Feb 26, 2007 - Cached - Similar pages

Wayback Machine - www.archive.org/web/web.php
Search - www.archive.org/search.php
Live Music Archive - www.archive.org/details/etree
Audio - www.archive.org/details/audio
More results from www.archive.org »

Internet Archive: Wayback Machine
JasonStone, 0, 614, January 16, 2007 05:47:44pm. does archive.org support chinese site? maketop, 0, 2404, October 11, 2006 07:18:30pm. View more forum posts ...
www.archive.org/web/web.php - 54k - Feb 26, 2007 - Cached - Similar pages

september11.archive.org
Collection of web content from around the globe, including international news, national news, government/military and charitable organizations.
september11.archive.org/ - 1k - Cached - Similar pages

Internet Archive - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It was brought to my attention that all of the Grateful Dead shows were taken down from Archive.org right before Thanksgiving. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Archive - 50k - Cached - Similar pages


On a side note:
The removal of the folders/files could easily be due to the afore-mentioned bandwidth/server concerns or issues, this did get quite "hot" ... fast.


[edit on 27-2-2007 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by r4758

Except that there were no firefighters in building 7 when Larry Silverstein made the famous "pull it" statement. They had left WTC 7 several hours earlier.


Based on the interviews of the firefighters. They all abandoned at about 3:00 p.m.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic...In the confusion of clearing the building using radio communications, somebody heard that it was "coming down". An affirmative Press Release was issued. "Building 7 IS collapsing or has collapsed". And that went out over the wire.

BBC read it as fact before the detonation could take place.


Very good BH. I was thinking the same thing from the CT side. But, if an AP release was made wouldn't you think someone at BBC with half a brain would have said "hey, wait a minute... the building is right there!... this report is bogus!"?



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 04:35 PM
link   
But what about the area around WTC7?



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 04:36 PM
link   
I said it before that imho its more likely that the IA links went down because a single file was pulling much more traffic then average all of the sudden.
Considering the files are a gig per piece, from a systems admin standpoint, this is a logical thing to automate into your systems, to assure that no single file can bring down the collective.



new topics

top topics



 
101
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join