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: 37
101
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 08:50 PM
link   
After seeing the Twin Towers fall into their basements fear of the same thing happening to other buildings is more than reasonable, especially considering all the stresses operating that day.

But what about this?

Prison Planet: 20 second demolition countdown preceded WTC building 7 collapse




posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 09:14 PM
link   
The reason this story is particularly interesting is that whoever the BBC’s original source of this information was, they knew that WTC7 was going to collapse.

Only 2 possibilities:

1) An expert on the scene diagnosed imminent collapse, the message was put out, the media caught on, BBC misread ‘about to’ as ‘already has’ and the building later collapsed. Who is this expert and how did they know such an unprecedented event was going to take place? If this is the case, naming the source would clear up the confusion.

2) The building was intentionally demolished, whoever (intentionally or otherwise) put the message out knew because they were involved. If this is the case, naming the original source would take you straight to the door of the people who are responsible for 911.

If (2) is the case (and due to the uncertainty principle I’ll never be 100%), then either the BBC/CNN are unaware they are sitting on the story of the century while everybody points it out to them, and are therefore pretty rubbish at their job…

…Or the perps of 911 hold sway over those organisations.

If that really is the case, and there is a group of people who can carry out 911 and get public and private institutions around the world to help them get away with it, then what is the limit of their application of that power?

In my personal life I try and stay out of trouble. If there was a gangster walking down the street who was known to have killed 3000 people, had goons on every corner, and the police would never arrest him because they were in his pocket, I wouldn’t want to be the one to start a fight with him on moral grounds. Call me a wimp, but I think there’s a call for choosing your fights wisely. If (2) is the case, then this entire 911 Truth thing rests on one simple question, does it actually have the power to challenge these people. If the media, the police, the politicians, a significant chunk of the population etc. is told the identity of one of the members of the conspiracy, do they have the power to act against these people? If not, can that power be turned on the 'truthers' in defence of their ‘getting away with it’? Is more being bitten off than can be chewed?

Is this fledgling 911Truth movement fighting a spectre of its own creation?

Are they throwing weak punches at the gangster while he wryly smiles, finger on the trigger, waiting to see if there’s a way out that doesnt involve killing the cute kid trying to be brave?

Or... is that kid landing brave, stinging blows on a gangster who the neighbourhood is about to turn on?

If this rabbit hole is real, how deep is it?

[edit on 27-2-2007 by Giordano Bruno]

[edit on 27-2-2007 by Giordano Bruno]

[edit on 27-2-2007 by Giordano Bruno]

[edit on 27-2-2007 by Giordano Bruno]



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Giordano Bruno
The reason this story is particularly interesting is that whoever the BBC’s original source of this information was, they knew that WTC7 was going to collapse.

Only 2 possibilities:

1) An expert on the scene diagnosed imminent collapse, the message was put out, the media caught on, BBC misread ‘about to’ as ‘already has’ and the building later collapsed. Who is this expert and how did they know such an unprecedented event was going to take place? If this is the case, naming the source would clear up the confusion.

2) The building was intentionally demolished, whoever (intentionally or otherwise) put the message out knew because they were involved. If this is the case, naming the original source would take you straight to the door of the people who are responsible for 911.

If (2) is the case (and due to the uncertainty principle I’ll never be 100%), then either the BBC/CNN are unaware they are sitting on the story of the century while everybody points it out to them, and are therefore pretty rubbish at their job…

…Or the perps of 911 hold sway over those organisations.

If that really is the case, and there is a group of people who can carry out 911 and get public and private institutions around the world to help them get away with it, then what is the limit of their application of that power?

In my personal life I try and stay out of trouble. If there was a gangster walking down the street who was known to have killed 3000 people, had goons on every corner, and the police would never arrest him because they were in his pocket, I wouldn’t want to be the one to start a fight with him on moral grounds. Call me a wimp, but I think there’s a call for choosing your fights wisely. If (2) is the case, then this entire 911 Truth thing rests on one simple question, does it actually have the power to challenge these people. If the media, the police, the politicians, a significant chunk of the population etc. is told the identity of one of the members of the conspiracy, do they have the power to act against these people? If not, can that power be turned on the 'truthers' in defence of their ‘getting away with it’? Is more being bitten off than can be chewed?

Is the 911Truth movement throwing weak punches at the gangster while he wryly smiles, finger on the trigger, waiting to see if there’s a way out that doesnt involve killing the cute kid trying to be brave? Or is that kid landing brave, stinging blows on a gangster who the neighbourhood is about to turn on?

How deep is this rabbit hole?




I seem to recall something in history about some guy named David,beating another guy named Goliath.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 09:35 PM
link   
them

local authorities
government first tier
high government , ie Bush Cheney.
banks
money masters, rothchild's etc
Illuminati societies
black pope
aliens lol

and then you have ours

Me and you
Alex Jones etc.


its like david vs galactus

[edit on 27-2-2007 by tombangelta]



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 09:44 PM
link   
I admire your hopefulness!

However the main point of my post is the source. They can either put this thing to bed or let the whole cat out of the bag.

Notice how the BBC are already suggesting they dont have the evidence to find out who it was - the reporter's hazy memory of the day, and the missing archive tapes.

At least one person, who spoke to the BBC and CNN on 9/11, has the explanation about their foreknowledge on that day. I wonder if that person will come/be brought forward.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 09:51 PM
link   
To add to my previous long post, there is one other possibility. That the video is either a hoax, or shot on a recorded background scene with the '8 hours' quote being somewhat wrong, or some similar simple explanation for its existence. Everyone who ran with it will be shown with egg on their gullible faces, ha ha ha etc.

Wouldn't surprise me either. We live in an uncertain world.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 10:47 PM
link   
#1) Larry Silverstine said they told him they were going to "PULL IT".
We need to find out who told him that it was going to be pulled.

#2) Who told the BBC reporters that the building had collapsed?

Addendum: I Believe we need to start questioning the Demo company that helped in the clean up effort of the twin towers. (I believe the name of the company = CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, INC. ) It would be interesting to see their scheduling sheet : Where were they on and before that day? What jobs were they working on? Were they slow as far as work at that time? Or were they busy working on other jobs? If verified that their activities can not be explained in the months leading up to 911 then I would be looking at them as the ones who were hired to bring it down.

It would also be interesting to look at where the explosives were purchased, meaning Does Controlled Demo Services, INC. have suppliers and are their any invoices they may have on record for large amount of explosives?

There are only a few families in the U.S. who do these kinds of demo's lets start asking questions in the small circles of contacts these demo companies have? Maybe we can find out some more facts.

It would also be interesting if we could devise a Cash Reward System for people to come forward with information. Some people might not want to come forward due to their job situation or financial situation they are in. (This is just my Idea.)



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 11:00 PM
link   
the bbc has a habit to "fake" its backgrounds, or to say in a better sense, put people in front of the green screen(saves on the money rather then to send the people their cough* cheap Jewish media cough*). If you don't believe me google it. In any case, very intresting.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 11:05 PM
link   
The BBC Editors blog has a response up:

www.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by shindigger
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.




This post got lost in the shuffle, and I think it's important. Any credibility I gave the BBC prior to this has all been lost. I mean saying Arafat's dead before he is is one thing. Standing next to him in a video frame while he's alive. And THEN saying he's dead. For 23 minutes straight. Is a totally different situation.

My own stance has flip-flopped quite a bit since last night, but right now I can easily see how it was an error in reporting. Someone passed along some bad info. I don't know about the BBC's requirement of 2 independent sources but I can see that even being covered. So possibly no conspiracy there.

But ...

BBC loses the footage to a cock-up (I'm American and I can only assume that means screw-up)? Google starts deleting copies of the video? No explanation or recant or apology was given on-air when the actual building DID collapse for their previous error? No apology now for their error?

Something just isn't quite right ... I can't put my finger on it. I hate to get all "grand unifying" on everybody ... but:

UFO rash -> cover-up? -> video leak -> Cheney nearly killed (don't see that report around anymore) -> markets tumble all over the world

I don't have a connection but all these things seem wierd ... like ... someone purposely leaked this to divert attention away from the UFO situation?

Maybe I'm just paranoid ... that or damn tired from a 14 hour day.

Keep pluggin' along ladies and gents ... maybe some new light will be shed with the rising sun.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 11:31 PM
link   
Fiverz

It isn't right any which way. I thought about it all last night. The fact that the BBC got the report out 8 hours after the towers were attacked tells me that the time of the BBC's report was around 5 in the afternoon.

In fact if one were to listen to the broadcast again, you can hear the BBC anchor plainly state "Some Eight Hours after the Attack on the WTC", speaking of WTC-7's demise.

So we know the report is coming out around 5. Isn't it a little too close to the actual collapse?

I too flipped and flopped on this, but after looking at the whole thing, the fact that someone must have known and the fact that the someone who knew just so happened to pass along the INFO very close to the collapse of the Building!

Why are the reports on CNN and the BBC so close to the actual collapse? It really looks planned.

I can't see any way around this. It is the timing of the event. I mean, a modern steel building has never ever done something like this in history, and on the day it does, people know about its demise within the hour??

NO, only the hardened de-bunkers I think are thinking this because it is too much for them to admit at this point that there is more to this then meets the eye.

And like you mentioned, the Google Reaction to this is highly suspicious.

It is now no longer for myself even a debate, it is what can be done at this point to effect positive change and to get a new investigation going.

I know there are those who are looking for a logic way around this, but I have come to the firm conclusion there isn't any.

With the Pentagon there was, the skeptics came up with some *REAL* answers.

Here though, it just isn't happening.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 11:58 PM
link   
This is all so interesting, It's actually very difficult to take everything in at once.
I've read almost every page so far ; ) You do have to stay on top if you're going to be able to comment properly.

Can i just make some observations? I hope i don't offend anyone. ( Much )
This is just how it seems to me.

- I see basic points being derailed and confused, this is not about demolition. Why are people bringing it up. There are other threads for that.

- I see new members feeling the sudden urge to come out of nowhere and derail, distort and make uninformed comments on this situation. 'Identified', your comments are hardly contributing, demolition is not the issue, have you read much about these things before. I find it interesting that you keep mentioning your husband. Who would suspect the wife? If you are one.

From identified - "I think this entire video is a classic example of how chaotic the information coming in was and how networks clamour to be the first to report something and many times get the facts wrong."

"Either you accept it was a case of chaotic reporting or that the entire clip was incorrect because clearly President Bush left Nebraska long before 5:00 Eastern yet the BBC is still reporting it as it as "expected" to happen."

"They were reporting everything during that 20 minutes that was "expected" to happen. Some of it just happened to be reported as if it had happened when it hadn't yet and others was reported as still yet to happen when it had already happened. It was just chaotic mistaken reporting."

Chaotic reporting, chaotic reporting, chaotic reporting.

'you're either with us or against us'

'axis of evil'

'chaotic reporting'

..... get my point?

I'm not going to pick on every dubunker here, but I felt the need to make a point. I guess Identified was the easiest example



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- I see the facts:

* Timing in question is not an issue, timing is water tight.
* There is no blue screen, it's water tight.
* Building in question is water tight. Does it really matter that much if she knew which one is WT7 or not?
* Various sites are removing this video. I've never seen that done before.
* Fast responses and white washing by BBC. How many more details will they give? Will they allow any form of investigation? Unlikely.

- Conflicting reports

* Editing of the video on bbc website.
* Some people say it's there, some say it's not. Server overload mostly likely. If not, then removal is strong evidence for CT.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In their own words " We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it. "
Yeah lets just lose the most important news footage of the decade.

She said what she said, The only things we need to talk about here are:

* Where did she get her information.
* What is the likelyhood of her making this mistake.

I don't think we should be discussing BBC as being implicated in this, it's not logical for them to be and it is all conjucture and can't be proven at this point of time, until we find sources for their information. That is a question for further down the track.

Someone made a good point of why would they release information to the media before it happened. Just let it unfold as it's happening. I agree, i don't really see much reason for scripts like that.

This new piece of info only does one thing - it brings further into question forknowledge of the event. It is not a smoking gun as of yet. It is a new piece of the puzzle to research.
Good luck to all who want to try and follow the trail with this one.

STAY LOGICAL AND STAY ON TRACK.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 01:30 AM
link   
"I see new members feeling the sudden urge to come out of nowhere and derail, distort and make uninformed comments on this situation."

Disinfo at work lol.

Does anyone know a torrentsite or something where the full videos can be obtained still ?



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 01:35 AM
link   
I have a hard time believing that people would actually be hired to go to forums to spread disinfo...

but man......with the one track minded, derailing and truth distorting statements from people it sometimes suure seems that way.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nerdling
The BBC Editors blog has a response up:

www.bbc.co.uk...



Wow thanks for this i encourage everyone to visit this blog and leave a comment - i just have - lets really pressure them for some information before they get there story straight!!!!



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 02:04 AM
link   
"The serious Cters aren't blaming BBC, as theres no direct evidence of that.

All we do ask however, is that we are given explanations as to where this information came from, and where your sources for that particular day were coming from.

But ideally, where that specific piece of information came from.

Why has the newscaster avoided the topic of that building since.

Why are the videos being removed from the internet.

Why did the video feed have problems just at the right time.

I believe you probably know as much as we do, and if you are curious at all then perhaps you should do some investigating yourself. As you're in a much better position to do so than us."

Posted that on the site previously mentioned.
Hope i got all my facts straight


Edit: I'm reading the comments on that site
wow they're getting some uber extreme pwnage hammering over there..
The posts are coming in thick and fast.

[edit on 28-2-2007 by T0by]



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 02:52 AM
link   
I think talking about people derailing the thread might derail the thread


This is a complex topic and its easy to go off. The heat of the moment, I think a lot of people are just shooting off a lot of info.

One thing is clear. The BBC and CNN were told in advance. However there is NO PROOF to LINK CNN and its report to the BBC.

People and especially the de-bunkers are jumping on that. But to play the de-bunker role for a moment.

There is NO evidence the two reports came from the same source. The BBC was very definitive in their report, CNN ambiguous.

It could be the source that told CNN was aware of the demolition soon to happen, with the BBC it could be the source just got confused.

Either way there is prior knowledge and it is prior knowledge just at the time the building was about to collapse!!

What more can anyone say?

That is damning and it is highly suspicious.

Its one thing to say 'they thought it was going to collapse' cause of the fire, however did these people also KNOW THE APPROX TIME as well?????

I mean this is just ludicrous.

The case has been sealed with this, WTC-7 and its demise was planned, as proven by the foreknowledge displayed.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 02:54 AM
link   
Well the BBC editors response page is a joke - they stopped allowing comments on there response blog to be inputted at 7:30pm last night uk time.

Which is kinda funny because the comments were coming in thick and fast every 5 minutes for the two hours they allowed comments to be inputted. And on some of there other blogs on the same site they were still allowing comments on some blogs upto 10:30pm.

To be fair they were getting flamed by every comment i dont think there was one pro bbc comment out of the 25 comments that were allowed to be input.

Anyway i have made a comment lets see if it gets through!

I emplore people to leave there own comments on this blog:
www.bbc.co.uk...

And make the same comment to there complaints section aswell here:
www.bbc.co.uk...

That way they cant ignore us if thats what there planning to do, lets get some answers people!



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 02:54 AM
link   
Just one more thing.

Who got this? The timing is strange. The BBC did a HIT PIECE on 9/11 just a week ago.

So, anyone know how this was dug up? Why it was dug up? Does anyone know the original source who dug this up??



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 03:00 AM
link   
I think it's been proved before that the white house writes it's own press releases. The whole days events were probably scripted and all press releases ready before 9-11...

Maybe building 7 was supposed to down earlier, and a problem of some kind delayed it half an hour or so. The BBC report was pre-scheduled to be aired at the time it did. There wasn't time, or someone forgot, to tell the BBC to change the schedule or delay that report. Well at least not until it got cut...
A little slow on the ball in all that confusion.

They probably hoped, like the 'Pull it' comment, it would go unnoticed.



new topics

top topics



 
101
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join