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.
As to why no one had told the NIST why they suspected the collapse I do believe there was many people in the report who told about the gash in building, the amount of rubble around the front entrance and damage there. The collapses floors, the collapsed penthouse. The lack of water to fight the fire and the sounds the structure was making.
Originally posted by Giordano Bruno
ID'd,
If you're not going to respond to my previous statement could you at least provide a link to your 'penthouse collapse' statement please? I have not heard that before.
The NIST has a downloadable PDF that has pictures of the Penthouse on WTC7.
wtc.nist.gov...
The report points to the CNN video which you can also download on the site.
Originally posted by Identified
Nowthenlookhere,
Without more evidence this is all too much conjecture...
I am answering questions as quickly as I can while still trying to do things not related to this forum. Pleaes be patient.
Originally posted by r4758
A lot of good replies and insight here.
But, I still think that a lot of people are missing the BIG smoking gun and that is that the BBC not only told us that the building had collapsed but they ALSO RELEASED THE OFFICIAL REASON FOR THE COLLAPSE.
THEY RELEASED THEIR VERSION OF EVENTS.
Building 7 had yet to collapse and they are telling us WHY it collapsed.
[edit on 28-2-2007 by r4758]
Originally posted by Giordano Bruno
Firstly, a 'newswire' is not a robot that guesses at information, the message originated from a human being at some point. That, by definition, is the source.
I understand that a machine didn't just pluck this info out of thin air and send it over the wire. But I gather, without having other evidence, that at 4:10 Eastern when the information came out that WTC7 was indeed on fire; information that came from the ground, that some time after that the BBC picked up that news, combined it with the Foreign Office speculation and in a hurry to run with it reported incorrectly that it had already happened. When clearly it hadn't.
Their timing means little to me since it was wrong all around. It could have been wrong by 47 minutes or wrong by 7 hours. The only thing that stands out to me is that their report was indeed AFTER the news report that the building was evacuated and was on fire and that the area had little to no water pressure to fight fires.
(PrisonPlanet)- Time Stamp Confirms BBC Reported WTC 7 Collapse 26 Minutes In Advance
If there was any remaining doubt that the BBC reported the collapse of Building 7 over 20 minutes before it fell then it has now evaporated with the discovery of footage from the BBC's News 24 channel that shows the time stamp at 21:54 (4:54PM EST) when news of the Salomon Brothers Building is first broadcast, a full 26 minutes in advance of its collapse.
Originally posted by Black_Fox
Apparently there was a timestamp on the BBC footage.
(PrisonPlanet)- Time Stamp Confirms BBC Reported WTC 7 Collapse 26 Minutes In Advance
www.prisonplanet.com...
If there was any remaining doubt that the BBC reported the collapse of Building 7 over 20 minutes before it fell then it has now evaporated with the discovery of footage from the BBC's News 24 channel that shows the time stamp at 21:54 (4:54PM EST) when news of the Salomon Brothers Building is first broadcast, a full 26 minutes in advance of its collapse.
www.prisonplanet.com...
Full article and pics of time stamp can be found here
www.prisonplanet.com...
Originally posted by nick7261
Not only did the source say the building fell, but the source said *WHY* the building fell -from fire and damage.
How could anybody have *KNOWN* on the afternoon of 9/11, in the middle of a day filled with terror attacks, that the building didn't collapse from another terrorist attack, e.g., bombs in the building? So this is more than a mistake -it's a mistake that includes a conclusion as to the cause of the collapse.
Originally posted by nowthenlookhere
Originally posted by Identified
Nowthenlookhere,
Without more evidence this is all too much conjecture...
What we really neeed at this stage is more research.
From my experience though, whats works best here is cold, hard research, and analytical thinking. We can't make assumtions EITHER way, be it the "official" story, or the "conspiracy". The burden of proof in this case, seems to be on BOTH sides.
That is all I was trying to do by providing some evidence that the BBC was getting mixed up on that tape. That doesn't prove that the BBC was mixed up on the collapse. I think the fact that the building was still standing proves that. But it does go to show that the BBC is fallible. So I for one can't use that they never make mistake or that they have two sources as a reason to say they had to have gotten a credible one here.
There still hasn't been really any facts other than the tape itself. We don't know why they reported it. We don't know when they first heard of the building at all. We don't know why they don't know what building they are talking about.
Originally posted by Identified
Can you point out the phrase they used to say why it collapsed?
I just want to know where you are coming from.