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: 33
101
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by mecheng
Does that still implicate Silverstein or anyone else? After all, we still are saying that a reporter made a mistake, right?


Silverstein implicated himself with his lying. How do you suppose the NYFD demo unit managed to get inside building 7 if the fires were as bad as is claimed.

It doesn't add up, either the fires weakend the building, in which case it would have been downright irresponsible of their captain to send them in, or it was safe enough to go in, in which they would have waited to plan the job properly.

Rigging that building in a manner that would ensure a symetrical implosion would have taken alot of planning and studying of blue prints to make sure they got the charges placed and timed correctly. Therefore the only answer is that building seven was rigged long before the planes evern took off.

Why did it take Silverstein until 2002 to admit the buiding had been pulled with explosives?

He realised that eventually, experts would study the footage and realise it was a controlled demo.

He stood to gain BILLIONS from losing all of the WTC's in insurance. It was purely financial for him.

You don't need to be an expert in body language to tell that he was lying through his teeth on the CBS 2002 interview.




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

Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 o' clock, that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, we've got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there...

This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you couldnít see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and that ís when 7 collapsed.


www.nytimes.com...


Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out?
Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then.


www.firehouse.com...

That pretty much sums it up.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by mecheng
Does that still implicate Silverstein or anyone else? After all, we still are saying that a reporter made a mistake, right?


Silverstein was implicated a long time ago. One or more of the films implicated him big time. He doubled his insurance and included "Terrorism" on his policy.

What Really Happened has some good info about it, too.

[edit on 27-2-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by shindigger

And collapse it in 6 seconds flat, straight in to a tidy heap.

\

Tidy heap? Depends on what you call tidy. News video will show that one side of the building was left laying over the opposite side suggesting that either a crew got out and dug up one side of the building and neatly placed it over the opposite side before any photographers could get there OR ( I tend to think this is the most logical explanation) the building collapse dalong one side first and the opposite side fell down on top of the rubble. In fact pictures show that there was much damage prior to it even collapsing.

Demolition crews with explosives don't tend to demolish one side of a building. Let it sit there for a few hours and then go back and demolish the other half.





[edit: Big Quote]
Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

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



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 05:21 PM
link   
I can't imagine the report of the building having COLLAPSED (note my past tense) came from a reporter on the scene. I'm guessing if a reporter was close enough to be relaying eyewitness reports about what was going on he/she would damn sure know if a building close to them had collapsed.

IMHO this leaves two options

1. Someone who had advance knowledge of the day's events (presuming they were all orchestrated by the Government or the Govt had prior knowledge) had let slip the wrong press release at the wrong time.

2. Between on the spot reporter hearing and relaying a message that the building was potentially going the same way of the Twin Towers, the Chinese whisper effect happened and the receiving party(ies) became under the impression that the building had collapsed.

Also, are we forgetting the BBC's editorial policy of gathering stories from at least 2 different sources before going live with them? This says to me that if the BBC didn't breach policy, two separate people confirmed the WTC7 had collapsed 10 minutes prior to it happening.

A lot of this just doesn't add up.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Identified
\

Tidy heap? Depends on what you call tidy. News video will show that one side of the building was left laying over the opposite side suggesting that either a crew got out and dug up one side of the building and neatly placed it over the opposite side before any photographers could get there OR ( I tend to think this is the most logical explanation) the building collapse dalong one side first and the opposite side fell down on top of the rubble. In fact pictures show that there was much damage prior to it even collapsing.

Demolition crews with explosives don't tend to demolish one side of a building. Let it sit there for a few hours and then go back and demolish the other half.


Isuspect your intentions ...MIKE


[quote edit]

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



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by kuhl

Originally posted by Identified
\

Tidy heap? Depends on what you call tidy. News video will show that one side of the building was left laying over the opposite side suggesting that either a crew got out and dug up one side of the building and neatly placed it over the opposite side before any photographers could get there OR ( I tend to think this is the most logical explanation) the building collapse dalong one side first and the opposite side fell down on top of the rubble. In fact pictures show that there was much damage prior to it even collapsing.

Demolition crews with explosives don't tend to demolish one side of a building. Let it sit there for a few hours and then go back and demolish the other half.


Isuspect your intentions ...MIKE


[quote edit]

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


Not understanding what you mean.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Identified

Originally posted by kuhl

Originally posted by Identified
\

Tidy heap? Depends on what you call tidy. News video will show that one side of the building was left laying over the opposite side suggesting that either a crew got out and dug up one side of the building and neatly placed it over the opposite side before any photographers could get there OR ( I tend to think this is the most logical explanation) the building collapse dalong one side first and the opposite side fell down on top of the rubble. In fact pictures show that there was much damage prior to it even collapsing.

Demolition crews with explosives don't tend to demolish one side of a building. Let it sit there for a few hours and then go back and demolish the other half.


Isuspect your intentions ...MIKE


[quote edit]

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


Not understanding what you mean.


get a higher IQ



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Identified
My husband periodically had meetings in the WTC in the same office everytime and on 9/11 (he was not there that day) he couldn't even tell me what building his meetings were in. Whether North or South building. WTC1 or WTC2. I bet many people had no idea what WTC7 was.



Then how did he know where to go? If you dont know what building the meetings are in how did he make it to the meetings?



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by kuhl

Originally posted by Identified

Originally posted by kuhl

Originally posted by Identified
\

Tidy heap? Depends on what you call tidy. News video will show that one side of the building was left laying over the opposite side suggesting that either a crew got out and dug up one side of the building and neatly placed it over the opposite side before any photographers could get there OR ( I tend to think this is the most logical explanation) the building collapse dalong one side first and the opposite side fell down on top of the rubble. In fact pictures show that there was much damage prior to it even collapsing.

Demolition crews with explosives don't tend to demolish one side of a building. Let it sit there for a few hours and then go back and demolish the other half.


Isuspect your intentions ...MIKE


[quote edit]

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


Not understanding what you mean.


get a higher IQ


I will let the mods sort that for you.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Identified

Originally posted by kuhl

Originally posted by Identified

Originally posted by kuhl

Originally posted by Identified
\

Tidy heap? Depends on what you call tidy. News video will show that one side of the building was left laying over the opposite side suggesting that either a crew got out and dug up one side of the building and neatly placed it over the opposite side before any photographers could get there OR ( I tend to think this is the most logical explanation) the building collapse dalong one side first and the opposite side fell down on top of the rubble. In fact pictures show that there was much damage prior to it even collapsing.

Demolition crews with explosives don't tend to demolish one side of a building. Let it sit there for a few hours and then go back and demolish the other half.


Isuspect your intentions ...MIKE


[quote edit]

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


Not understanding what you mean.


get a higher IQ


I will let the mods sort that for you.


ok let the mods sort it



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by kuhl
get a higher IQ


Now, now...



I suspect Identified joined today to come in and throw a wrench in the works here. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and to voice it.

Have some tea.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by etshrtslr

Originally posted by Identified
My husband periodically had meetings in the WTC in the same office everytime and on 9/11 (he was not there that day) he couldn't even tell me what building his meetings were in. Whether North or South building. WTC1 or WTC2. I bet many people had no idea what WTC7 was.



Then how did he know where to go? If you dont know what building the meetings are in how did he make it to the meetings?


My husband is often chauffeured to his meetings in NYC but he just knew where to go from being there so often I suppose. Sort of like I know where some of my friends or family live but I don't know their actual address.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Identified

Originally posted by shindigger

And collapse it in 6 seconds flat, straight in to a tidy heap.

\

Tidy heap? Depends on what you call tidy. News video will show that one side of the building was left laying over the opposite side suggesting that either a crew got out and dug up one side of the building and neatly placed it over the opposite side before any photographers could get there OR ( I tend to think this is the most logical explanation) the building collapse dalong one side first and the opposite side fell down on top of the rubble. In fact pictures show that there was much damage prior to it even collapsing.

Demolition crews with explosives don't tend to demolish one side of a building. Let it sit there for a few hours and then go back and demolish the other half.





[edit: Big Quote]
Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

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



Tidy enough for a 74 storey building id say.
No plane, no fireball. Down in 6 seconds.
All the unique reasons given for 1 and 2 collpasing dont apply to 7.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Identified
News video will show that one side of the building was left laying over the opposite side


I have never seen this. Do you have a link?



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by kuhl
get a higher IQ


Now, now...



I suspect Identified joined today to come in and throw a wrench in the works here. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and to voice it.

Have some tea.


Thank you. But don't worry I don't pay much attention to those who prefer argumentum ad hominems to actual logical debates.

I read this forum quite often and thought that this particular thread was interesting simply because only one part of the BBC reporting was being singled out when there was another part that screamed to me that the BBC had their facts all wrong at that time. I just wanted to point it out is all.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by shindigger

Originally posted by Identified

Originally posted by shindigger

And collapse it in 6 seconds flat, straight in to a tidy heap.

\

Tidy heap? Depends on what you call tidy. News video will show that one side of the building was left laying over the opposite side suggesting that either a crew got out and dug up one side of the building and neatly placed it over the opposite side before any photographers could get there OR ( I tend to think this is the most logical explanation) the building collapse dalong one side first and the opposite side fell down on top of the rubble. In fact pictures show that there was much damage prior to it even collapsing.

Demolition crews with explosives don't tend to demolish one side of a building. Let it sit there for a few hours and then go back and demolish the other half.





[edit: Big Quote]
Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

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



Tidy enough for a 74 storey building id say.
No plane, no fireball. Down in 6 seconds.
All the unique reasons given for 1 and 2 collpasing dont apply to 7.



Looks like any other 47 storey building who has suffered structural damage to one side, buckles and collapses.

And a building can only fall as quickly as gravity and friction allows. It isn't as if explosives allow it to go quicker than other reasons would.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Identified
News video will show that one side of the building was left laying over the opposite side


I have never seen this. Do you have a link?


Let me have a quick Google Search. I haven't visited this particular "investigation" in some time.

I will get back to you.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 05:47 PM
link   
you read the forum alot and yet you only just join....oh and thanks for the tea.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Hey people back again! I'm reading through from page 13 where i left it at 6:30 this morning uk time. Can anyone give me a quick summary/review of where were upto with this?

When i left this morning we had it pretty solid that this vid isn't a hoax and the only way the gov. could spin it is if they said it was a reporting mistake (which is a bunch of bull obviously) but they'd probably get away with that spin anyway!




top topics



 
101
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join