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: 41
101
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 10:37 AM
link   
Giordano,

Give a few to try to find the penthouse info. I would suggest you get a head start on me.

I am answering questions as quickly as I can while still trying to do things not related to this forum. Pleaes be patient.

Why was I interested in this topic? Where to start.
I read this forum from time to time. I enjoy the debates. Sometimes they are intellegent and make you think. Sometimes they are totally off-base, degrade into name calling and personal attacks and are built on nothing but what someone thinks they understand regarding science or facts etc...

When I read this thread I was intrigued. The BBC actually had pre-knowledge this collapse was going to happen right before it happened? This proves it wasn't structural failure? The BBC had to be on it since the BBC makes no mistakes? I doubted it but I was interested to see what the BBC was saying. So I downloaded the video. Which didn't come from BBC so had me wondering. Anyway.... I posted anonymously regarding what I saw as another Glaring mistake on the same video in the hopes it would show that the BBC does make mistakes and because at that time the thread hadn't degraded into what it is now. When that didn't go thru I figured I would just sign in and post it.

Why am I interested now? This thread no longer is interesting because no one is discussing facts. they are all discussing what they think they know the BBC does or what happened down at Ground Zero when they weren't there. or they are discussing each other.




posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 10:38 AM
link   
ID'd,

Don't worry about the rambling, we're all guilty from time to time!

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.



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.


Collapsed penthouse and floors? Damage to the front entrance? The groaning sounds of imminent collapse? These would all help clear this issue up and show that the building had been falling apart all day.

Can you provide some links or indication of where you got this info from? Pictures would be nice.

On another note, do you not find the recent behaviour of the BBC very strange, regarding their response?
One of the major world news organisations losing their tapes of the most historic day this century? The reporters convenient memory loss about the day? Their statement that they hadn't been told the building was going to collapse (also stated in their conspiracy files debunk), when they obviously had, or at least thought they had?

Sorry to swamp you with so many questions, guess I'm just surprised that you can be interested and knowledgeable yet dismiss what to me is a highly intriguing and revealing new twist to the tale.

Glad you're interested, theres a lot of interesting debate goes on here, sometimes you've got to wade through the mire to find it!



[edit on 28-2-2007 by Giordano Bruno]



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 10:41 AM
link   

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.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Identified
Nowthenlookhere,

Without more evidence this is all too much conjecture...


Now that we CAN agree on. That we don't have enough information to go on, yet..

I think we can both agree this is getting a little heated.. I'm guilty too of allowing myself to get into arguements.

What we really neeed at this stage is more research. I notice you've recently registered, but of course I can't assume you're not a long time reader of ATS and familiar with it's culture..

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.

To say this is an undeniable smoking gun is wrong, IMHO. However, to discount the whole theory on the assumtion that someone must have just got their stories garbled, is EQUALLY wrong.

There are questions still to be answered, before one can come to a fair conclusion.


I am answering questions as quickly as I can while still trying to do things not related to this forum. Pleaes be patient.


don't sweat it.. it happens to all of us.
welcome to the dark world of the ATS addict.



[edit on 28-2-2007 by nowthenlookhere]



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 10:45 AM
link   

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]



Can you point out the phrase they used to say why it collapsed?

I just want to know where you are coming from.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 10:46 AM
link   
30-40% of my post was just something that was bothering me,
whilst the other 60% of the post was trying to summarize the basic facts that have been established so far.
So i would say no, I wasn't trying to derail..

I won't be replying to this more, and will steer back on topic from now on.

[edit on 28-2-2007 by T0by]



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 10:52 AM
link   

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.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 10:56 AM
link   
:shk:

It is peculiar because according to most, it would take days, months, to set up building "7" with detonations.
Of course, if we were to beleive it was all set up long ago, then there's no real surprise here.
It stinks just as it always had.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 10:57 AM
link   
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...



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 10:58 AM
link   
Giordano Bruno,

As to the BBC response. I do find it a bit stange for a couple of reasons. I don't understand why the BBC wouldn't have these tapes in their possession. I suspect they do but that maybe this reporter doesn't have access??? I also find it strange because they did just do a big report on debunking the conspiracy theorists and this just highlights it. so I wonder if they are trying to get more mileage out of that story by being coy.

But I do think the BBC doesn't understand what the hoopla is all about and so won't waste their time in explaining it when really it being is a mistake in reporting makes sense to them.

As for them not remembering what caused them to report this that doesn't suprrise me. That was a confusing day many years ago.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 10:58 AM
link   

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...


Double post,sorry.

[edit on 28-2-2007 by Black_Fox]



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 11:00 AM
link   
I've quoted this from the other news 24 thread, but it's more relevant here I think.


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.


Good point.

I fact the first time it's mentioned, just prior to the hourly headlines, the presenter says the building had collapsed and speculates that it may have been another attack.

By the time he mentions the story again, a few minutes later, he obviously has new information, from a second source, confirming it's collapse.. and giving fire and damage as the reason.



Clear evidence of at least two sources.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 11:01 AM
link   

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.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 11:02 AM
link   
RIGHT..........

Larry silverstein says in the video clip , " i remember getting a call from the fire department commander , and he says they don't know if they can contain the fire. So they made the decision to pull it and we watched it fall."

there is no mention that the fire commander thinks the building is going to collapse. just that he cant contain the fire.

and you ( Iden ) say they new all day the building would go down.

If he was intending the words PULL IT to mean get the fire fighters out of the building, don't you think he would have said , "we had experts looking at the structure of the building and they came to the conclusion it was going to fall so we pulled the fire fighters out." If only to cover his own back !!!!

Larry made a huge mistake , and so did the BBC , they ran the story to early because like so many others they were told it was going to come down.

what argument do you have that both BBC world and BBC news 24 and CNN all got it wrong ?

or are they just all making mistakes.

[edit on 28-2-2007 by tombangelta]



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 11:04 AM
link   
Didn't mean to be facetious re the newswire comment, it just appeared that you were trying to say there wasnt a source. Somebody at some point said collapse. Not fire damage etc, but collapse. And whoever said it not only got their quote on the news, they were also right, as it did indeed collapse. So that source would seem to know more than most.

Looked through the NIST article you linked, I think you may have misread it. On page 24 they show damage to the east penthouse, but this is the first part of the collapse sequence, not prior to it. I couldn't find any evidence of collapsed floors prior to the collapse. There is a significant chunk taken out of the south west corner (page 17), this would have been enough to warrant the evacuation of the building, but it looks far too superficial to cause the rapid symmetrical collapse that occured.

So we are left with the more well known story, that moderate fires on a few of the floors, a chunk out of the south west corner, and superficial damage from debris caused a rapid symmetrical collapse in 8.2 seconds (page 26). I can see how someone may have said that this building may have been potentially unstable and unsafe to operate in, but not how they could have predicted a total collapse. Many other buildings in the vicinity were damaged as badly as WTC7, it seems a very unlikely coincidence that out of all these possible candidates for collapse, the BBC's mistake was to report on the only one that did, 20 minutes before it actually happened. If it is just a mistake, some crossed wires and a huge coincidence, then the BBC should have no problem clearing it up.

[edit on 28-2-2007 by Giordano Bruno]



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 11:06 AM
link   

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.


Use this video as reference.

www.liveleak.com...

Go to 14:50.

The news anchor reports that "indeed it has collapsed...and it seems that this was not a result of a new attack but because the building had been weakened..."

[edit on 28-2-2007 by r4758]



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 11:09 AM
link   
have you people seen this clip





posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 11:11 AM
link   
tombangelta,

The issue isn't what I think someone else would have said to another person on that day. The point is what was said.

And what was said is that WTC7 was on fire and that they had evacuated the area and that the water pressure was down and they could not fight the fire.

As for why the BBC and CNN and so on all got it wrong could be very simple. We see it all the time with big stories. CNN notices BBC is reporting something. They scramble to get to the news too. Oops news is wrong!

I pointed this out yesterday with another story. Arafat was dead. This was reported from some small newspaper in France. The AP picked it up and sent it out. CNN and FOX at the same time (I was watching that day) both reported that Arafat was dead based on the AP report who was basing their report on what some French Newspaper reporter had said.

Was CNN and FOX getting their information from the same source? Yes, Was that source reliable. Well the AP is usually pretty good with this sort of thing. Did CNN and FOX confirm any of this ahead of time? I guess not or they wouldn't be reporting him dead days before he was. Does that mean they knew days in advanced of the exact time and nature of his death. No!

I am just using this a real world example of how this might have happened regarding the collapse. Without evidence to prove otherwise it is a point that news agencies do report things prematurely at the same time based on sketchy facts. Such as the building is on fire.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Tombangelta, do we know when this video was released?



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 11:16 AM
link   
its funny how the bbc world editor can be so sure of the events that bbc world broadcast live that day.

whats interesting though is his biography. he didn't join bbc world until 2004 and in 2005 "he became the channel's Head of News, taking responsibility for expanding and modernising its live news output. "




new topics




 
101
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join