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: 35
101
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Anyway lets get back on track here. It doesn't mater in this thread whether the wtc7 was brought down by demolitions, or it came down by its self. What matters is, we now know the BBC or the holder of these archives have released this footage due to public pressure, and someone found this video, and now we all know bout it!

We've identified in this thread, that its an unlikely hoax. So... is it a misreported satatement, or is it evidence of fore-knowledge of the event?

What we need right now is to know the name of the TWO sources that gave the BBC the information to report this had happened when it hadn't!
(As the BBC nearly always uses two reliable sources about events there about to show happened on a LIVE broadcast!)




posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by timeless test
Well, we've kicked it around a fair bit, everyones's been really nice to each other and we've come to the conclusion that it was a really silly reporting error after all.

Hope this helps.


No one is disputing that this was a reporting error.
They reported that the building 'has indeed collapsed' instead of saying 'is about to be demolished'.

Hope this helps.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Argos

Originally posted by freakyty

Originally posted by Identified
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.


This is just plain incorrect. When a building is demolished using explosives, the explosive force actually creates a vaccuum within the building, thus actually pulling down the building.

Why are you working so hard to spread your silly dis-information?


Have to agree with freakyty why are you posting Identified in such a mis-imformative, way look at the evidence. Building colapses prior to 9/11 show that what your saying isnt true. And if you dont believe this then do your own research and come back here and prove were wrong about this!

Its been made almost crystal clear that the building was brought down with explosives and now we have pretty strong evidence that someone had prior knowledge it was gonna be pulled.

The evidence about 9/11 and even the london bombings is becoming so strong now that the so called truthers might actually have a chance now to stop this world turning to crap!

Sorry ranting everyone have been thinking and talking bout this all day and the sheeple just dont seem to get it!!!!!


If you believe your crystal clear evidence that explosives brought down WTC7 and that the BBC had prior knowledge then what I or anyone else says to the contrary isn't important.

Just as I am not interested in what has been previously posted on other theads or this one as proof of the controlled demolition. It isn't in my interest to prove anything to you in regards to that. I happen to believe that proof isn't exactly what most people are looking for anyway when it comes to this particular debate.

As I stated this thread isn't about how WTC7 came down.

I said my part and now I suspect you will say yours regarding me or anyone else who doesn't agree with your version.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by freakyty

Originally posted by timeless test
Well, we've kicked it around a fair bit, everyones's been really nice to each other and we've come to the conclusion that it was a really silly reporting error after all.

Hope this helps.


No one is disputing that this was a reporting error.
They reported that the building 'has indeed collapsed' instead of saying 'is about to be demolished'.

Hope this helps.


LOL Oh that was a reporting error. Clearly it was demolished and they were told that prior to it happening and failed to read the promptor correctly.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by freakyty

Originally posted by timeless test
Well, we've kicked it around a fair bit, everyones's been really nice to each other and we've come to the conclusion that it was a really silly reporting error after all.

Hope this helps.


No one is disputing that this was a reporting error.
They reported that the building 'has indeed collapsed' instead of saying 'is about to be demolished'.

Hope this helps.


It was a reporting error oh know it wasn't oh yes it is! Is getting us no where - please start thinking bout the facts instead of arguing with eachother!

Its probably a real clip so lets insted try with our collective intellect here on ATS where the source(s) of there bad reporting came from!



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Erm, this thread wasn't about it being a reporting error by the BBC or not.

Its about the BBC aparantly receiving a message over the newswire 20 minutes to early, that the WTC7 collapsed.

It doesn't matter imho if they are complicit in any way, the fact remains that they received a pressrelease that the building collapsed 20 minutes before it actualy happend, showing that someone feeding the newswire jumped the gun.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 06:18 PM
link   
I'll explain. The BBC are either liars, puppets, fakers or very easily duped.
It does not reflect well on their recent programme in the UK.
Anyone who chooses to explain this anomaly as poor reporting/ bad journalism has no option but to question the validity of the Conspiracy Files programme recently aired in the UK.

Their integrity is damaged by this, whatever your stance.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Identified
Have you asked BBC to explain it?


No, you've seen Richard Porters response.


Would they be able to even remember what prompted that report that day?


Not the BBC temselves, as if they keep alog of who handled what, maybe they do, but at some point that message went from somebody in the know to someone that didn't and they are individuals that know something,

1. who the source was

and

2. that it may have been demolished.


Would the evidence if they had any mean anything to you?


I would decide that when I heard it.

You argue as if "ifs and buts" hold the theories together, yet your opposing arguments often rely on those very same "ifs and buts".

You can understand people quering your motives can you not?



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Identified

Originally posted by Argos


If you believe your crystal clear evidence that explosives brought down WTC7 and that the BBC had prior knowledge then what I or anyone else says to the contrary isn't important.

Just as I am not interested in what has been previously posted on other theads or this one as proof of the controlled demolition. It isn't in my interest to prove anything to you in regards to that. I happen to believe that proof isn't exactly what most people are looking for anyway when it comes to this particular debate.

As I stated this thread isn't about how WTC7 came down.

I said my part and now I suspect you will say yours regarding me or anyone else who doesn't agree with your version.





I'm sorry identified i lost it a bit with that post got my straight head on now, for this thread we just need to try and find out the relevance of this new evidence we've been presented one way or the other lets just try and stick to that rather than how wtc7 came down! Sorry again!



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by timeless test

Originally posted by Argos
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?


Well, we've kicked it around a fair bit, everyones's been really nice to each other and we've come to the conclusion that it was a really silly reporting error after all.

Hope this helps.


Yup, you summed it up well.
Nothing to see here folks, move along smartly.

What about that Britney Spears? Have you seen her haircut?

Does anyone here remember the film JFK where the informant, Mr. X I believe, said that news reports of the death of JFK were released overseas even before he was dead?
This reminds me of that.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by shindigger
Their integrity is damaged by this, whatever your stance.


Awesome, i never liked the BBC anyway...apart from the old skool 80/90's cartoons in the mornings and the odd wildlife program.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 06:25 PM
link   
Guys! 35 pages of commentary in... what, to days? Pleae check this thread with ONE response so far before going off here any more. Then decide where to go from there.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 06:26 PM
link   
@ anyone taking part in this thread for the reason its here!

Have we got any clue as to who the BBC sources for this mistake/misreporting are?
If not has anyone got any good ideas of how to find out?



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

Originally posted by Identified
Just as I am not interested in what has been previously posted on other theads or this one as proof of the controlled demolition.


If you are not interested in what the other side has to say, then why are you stating your own opinion? (In regards to the collapse/demolition debate)


Originally posted by Identified
I happen to believe that proof isn't exactly what most people are looking for anyway when it comes to this particular debate.


But then what is the purpose of debate, if not to prove one's own hypothesis?



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Koka

Originally posted by Identified
Have you asked BBC to explain it?


No, you've seen Richard Porters response.


Would they be able to even remember what prompted that report that day?


Not the BBC temselves, as if they keep alog of who handled what, maybe they do, but at some point that message went from somebody in the know to someone that didn't and they are individuals that know something,

1. who the source was

and

2. that it may have been demolished.


Would the evidence if they had any mean anything to you?


I would decide that when I heard it.

You argue as if "ifs and buts" hold the theories together, yet your opposing arguments often rely on those very same "ifs and buts".

You can understand people quering your motives can you not?


No, I can't understand people quering my "motives". Unless I am now suspect of being assigned here by some government agency to stop this rumor by pointing out something else on the same video and having you turn the discussion to me.

Ah where will the government stop?



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 06:34 PM
link   

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

The original 1024MB file is still available for download.


I get this message when trying to download:




Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /2/items/bbc200109111654-1736/V08591-16.mpg on this server.

Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur
I'm sure it's in the monster thread but I'm lazy as can be so, is there a clip of the BBC after the collapse? How did they respond once they realized they'd been reporting for close to a half hour that a building collapsed that had not yet collapsed?

Not in the LiveLeak video nor the 1Gb MPEG file.

After the loss of signal, there's no recant nor correction.



I do recall the local reporters, especially the guy on ABC who was there for what seemed like a month, saying they were expecting #7 to come down, that they were moving back to avoid the collapse etc but I don't remember how far before the actual collapse this started.

The BBC clip is odd as hell for sure.



9-12-01, though, held quite a bit of corrections.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Video: CNN News Reports WTC Building 7 collapse Minutes before it collapses

You can clearly see WTC7 sitting in the background. A freak one of a kind incident, never to be repeated? NO! The BBC did [almost]the same thing. Did the both get the same newswire at the same time?

www.youtube.com...

Bumbling fools, those American slaves. HALF of them can't tell the difference between EST and EDT. Nearly boogered the whole bloody thing!



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Identified

Originally posted by Koka

Originally posted by Identified
Have you asked BBC to explain it?


No, you've seen Richard Porters response.


Would they be able to even remember what prompted that report that day?


Not the BBC temselves, as if they keep alog of who handled what, maybe they do, but at some point that message went from somebody in the know to someone that didn't and they are individuals that know something,

1. who the source was

and

2. that it may have been demolished.


Would the evidence if they had any mean anything to you?


I would decide that when I heard it.

You argue as if "ifs and buts" hold the theories together, yet your opposing arguments often rely on those very same "ifs and buts".

You can understand people quering your motives can you not?


No, I can't understand people quering my "motives". Unless I am now suspect of being assigned here by some government agency to stop this rumor by pointing out something else on the same video and having you turn the discussion to me.

Ah where will the government stop?



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Identified
No, I can't understand people quering my "motives". Unless I am now suspect of being assigned here by some government agency to stop this rumor by pointing out something else on the same video and having you turn the discussion to me.

Ah where will the government stop?


The discussion of "collapse v demolition" is a much debated subject, people have drawn conclusions, people are now in search of any information that would corroborate their theory.

If you want to debate that, please take it to one of those threads.

We will continue to speculate and draw conclusions on the source.



new topics

top topics



 
101
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join