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: 36
101
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 06:39 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?


Just because you're not getting paid, doesn't mean you are not working for the government. Appealing to authority is a sign of personal insecurity; it is also a logical fallacy.

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory." -Leonardo Da Vinci




posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by freakyty

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?


Perhaps I like to hear myself type? My reasoning isn't for debate here. I didn't say I wasn't interested in what others have to say regarding the subject of this BBC video. I said I wasn't interested in the demolition debate. It doesn't matter to me. It doesn't matter to this video. Whether smurfs brought down WTC7 with birthday candles has nothing to do with what I was discussing. I Only mentioned the demolition theory in direct response and so that I could set my stance and nothing more. If I am asked a direct question and I can easily answer it I will try to accomodate. I will not however get into a long winded debate on something that is neither here nor there regarding my hypothesis regarding this video. Which hasn't even really been touched on. It is now lost on why I decided to log in today. Or why my physics works differently. Or my IQ.

Not that it matters. For those who wish to read my hypothesis or anyone elses they may do so. Believe it or not.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Was looking around mainstream news sites,like CNN,FOX, and MSNBC,to see if this was being discussed.I found this discussion on the MSNBC message board regaurding this topic.
Here boards.msn.com...

I thought if everyone wanted to help spread there views to mainstream news sites,might wanna go there and continue to voice your opinions as well.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by freakyty

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?


Just because you're not getting paid, doesn't mean you are not working for the government. Appealing to authority is a sign of personal insecurity; it is also a logical fallacy.

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory." -Leonardo Da Vinci


Who said I wasn't paid by the government?
And when did I appeal to authority? This is ridiculous.

Another example of an out of control thread where the real discussion is now lost. Good job!

*pats my government paid self on the back and exits*



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 06:43 PM
link   
and also guys, now that we're already on page 36, check this thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The evidence is expanding... there is a shocking cover up the BBC seems to be involved in here...



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 06:54 PM
link   
I Came across this yesterday and have been following it for the last 32 pages. We're going round in circles guys, covering the same thing over and over.

The only solid argument is that the BBC made a mistake. The counter to that, is quite rightly, who or where did they get this info and why wasn't it corrected in at the 27mins that past? Done!

Until yesterday i hadn't posted on ATS or infact lurked for about 5 months and from what i remember, people read the thread, thought for at least a second and posted. Has it really gone down hill so quickly?

Despite how interesting the subject matter is, I'm getting tired of this thread. So unless you have a question which hasnt already been answered or you haven't read the entire thread, for the sake of my sanity, please don't bother.

[edit on 27/2/07 by theBman]



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop

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!


Perhaps the various major media outlets (Fox, CBS, ABC, NBC, BBC,. CBC...) are all more or less joined at the top, and only a very small group of people at the top are aware of this.

Perhaps the days news coverage was carefully scripted from the top, but somewhere down the line information was miscommunicated with the BBC, and they were too early with a story. The female reporter at the scene and the male reporter in Britain (I assume) probably had no idea of any conspiracy and were just doing their job.

What this screw up says to me is that we definately live in a world of INFORMATION CONTROL.


Or, it could be that the BBC heard all the rumours about building 7 and that it was going to be 'taken down' and they wanted to be the first to scoop the story and so they jumped the gun

Either way, it solidifies the argument that building 7 was a controlled demolition, not that we didn't have enough evidence of that already.

[edit on 27-2-2007 by r4758]



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c

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.



As I said back on p.26:



In response to someone asking whether the collapse of WTC7 was mentioned by the BBC again AFTER its collapse: I've just skipped through to the end of the 1GB tape and it's mentioned briefly at about 5:31 EDT, but no more or less that they said earlier, merely that the Salomon building has collapsed. No, they do not return to Jane Standley again during that tape.




posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Identified
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.


Demolition crews often make mistakes even under the best of circumstances.

Look at the Murrah building in Oklahoma City. 2 explosive devices inside the building failed to detonate and half the building was left standing.

But let's not get off topic.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jessicamsa

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.


Links are coming from this blog:
www.911blogger.com...

This is the second time the files were taken down.

I assume the author still have the files, and is alive and well. Hopefully they will again be uploaded, this time out of reach of them.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 07:17 PM
link   
1. Has the archive copy of the BBC film been altered since this story broke? No!
I downloaded the whole 1GB film yesterday (about 24 h ago - around midnight GMT - I'm in the UK); then this morning it didn't seem to be available; this afternoon it was available again; I've downloaded it again. The critical section with Jane Standley is still there untouched.

2. Have some people been actively taking the film off the net? YES!
The original video put up by 911veritas was repeatedly taken down by Google yesterday. This is discussed on www.911blogger.com... (which even includes a copy of a message from Google saying that it had been taken down (p.2 of the discussion)) and also on prisonplanet.com... :



This amazing clip was on Google Video (now back again here), but was removed within hours of the story breaking. However, hundreds of people had already managed to download the clip and it has gone viral on the Internet and the censors won't be able to shut the lid this time. A You Tube upload is available here but we fully expect this to be removed soon. ...

I personally tried several of those links yesterday and, while some were simply not responding, others actually gave a message that the vieo was no longer available.
So, yes, someone somewhere thought there is something to hide.

3. Was Jane Standley (or whoever wrote/ gave her the piece) confused between WTC7 & other WTC buildings? No!
They referred to it as the "Salomon (Brothers) Building" - not as a WTC numbered building.

4. Was she confusing it with the Marriott Hotel having collapsed? No!
She specifically mentions that collapse as well as the Salomon Building collapsing.

5. Has the time at which the piece was originally broadcast been mixed up? No!
Not unless the archive catalogue has the wrong timing for this film AND for the films on either side of it. Also, the timing is confirmed by the news anchor's reference to the original hit of the North Tower as "about 8 hours ago".


So:

a. The BBC (somehow) knew in advance that it was going to come down - they just reported it prematurely!

Actually, is that so surprising now:

i. Silverstein has admitted he gave the OK to "pull it" - i.e. to demolish the building (see youtube.com...). (And note he said "pull it" - not "pull them", i.e. the firefighters, etc. out of or away from the building.

ii. There is evidence (I can't locate it now) from several people at the scene that they knew in advance that the building was going to come down.

So, the BBC knew (from hearsay, from people at the scene?) that the building was going to come down. But maybe the message got garbled or misunderstood on the way to London and those feeding the news anchor thought that it has already come down.

But - one thing I don't recall seeing commented on:

b. The BBC also knew why WTC7 would collapse!
The news anchor specifically states that the building collapsed:


"because the building had been weakened during the morning's attacks"

That I find more difficult to explain - but it could again have been hearsay or similar for the reason that it was going to be "pulled".

So, my personal conclusion:

This helps to corroborate the idea that WTC7 was intentionally demolished, since its "collapse" was known in advance.

Although this differs from the 'official' reason that WTC7 collapsed because it had been weakened by fire, it's not a smoking gun, because there is already evidence that it was deliberately demolished

As to why it was demolished, that's a separate issue???
As is how they managed to rig it for a relatively clean demolition while it was on fire???



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 07:39 PM
link   

www.911blogger.com...

Reply from IA

"Thank you for contacting us about this. The files that were pulled were not designed for download, and were not available for that purpose.
They were in streaming format for a reason. Until we can figure out how to plug those holes, we have to take the information off-line.

Our TV Archive is a project that is currently for testing purposes only.
We have pulled the footage because it was not yet ready for public viewing.

Paul Forrest Hickman
Office Manager
Internet Archive
www.archive.org"



Sounds reasonable enough.....



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Black_Fox
Was looking around mainstream news sites,like CNN,FOX, and MSNBC,to see if this was being discussed.I found this discussion on the MSNBC message board regaurding this topic.
Here boards.msn.com...

I thought if everyone wanted to help spread there views to mainstream news sites,might wanna go there and continue to voice your opinions as well.



Thx BlackFox first decent on topic post in a while! I'm going there right as we speak!



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Argos
Thx BlackFox first decent on topic post in a while! I'm going there right as we speak!


I'm finding it hard to get past the 2nd page, man they are abusive, thank the 3 Amigos for ATS, the outside world sucks.

[edit on 27-2-2007 by Koka]



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 08:07 PM
link   
WTC 7 Collapse on FOX News

I had not seen this video of the actual collapse before.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 08:08 PM
link   
"We have pulled the footage because it was not yet ready for public viewing. "

Or "We have pulled the footage because it was not yet editted for public viewing." ?

...
Things like this man, they really get you to think twice lol. I really did pinch
myself in the arm when i read on BBC they not lost just that piece of footage, no, they lost ALL their footage of the most important event happened in this century... "We lost our footage". Get the f. out lol.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 08:17 PM
link   
have they closed the thread.?



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 08:35 PM
link   
is everybody dead. did they come and get you all ?



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 08:40 PM
link   
I just got sick of the off topic posts.
People throwing nasty comments. It's no fun after that, you know?

And I've pretty much said what I had to say. Life goes on. The government is corrupt and behind 9/11. But I've known that for quite some time now.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 08:47 PM
link   
The CIA was unsuccessful at supressing this video and will need to weigh the consequences of further exposure. You can now consider yourself an endangered species. You can come clean soon or forever hold your peace when they come to get you.


Good luck & goodnght. As$#@les

[edit on 27-2-2007 by simonmagus]



new topics

top topics



 
101
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join