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: 42
101
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 11:18 AM
link   
im not sure but as you can see its not from BBC world its from BBC news 24 also it has the time stamp.




posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Giordano Bruno

I don't want to debate the collapse on this thread if I can help it. I think enough video that day was coming out to show that WTC 7 was in trouble.

No one thought the towers would collapse either and they had far less lower level damage than did WTC 7. With the news at 4:10 that it was indeed on fire and there was no firefighters working the fire and the area was cleared I would have naturally assumed (and yes it would have been an assumption) that this building was likely to structurally fail as well. Add in that the owner was told pretty much the same thing and I think it is likely this info got out to the press.

News agencies speculate all the time when in the middle of the story. For all I know the 4:10 press release did say "WTC7 on fire and will likely collapse at any time."

I agree that the BBC should just tell us it was a mistake if it was. Them not telling us tho doesn't mean they had pre-knowledge.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 11:21 AM
link   
man........i wish i could join a company like that, and become the head of something so fast
He's special.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Identified
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.


I see what you're saying, but you're not providing evidence, you're putting forward a theory that attempts to explain the evidence we can all see.

Of course the BBC is fallible, but one has to look at the degree and circumstances. the only "mistake" the BBC we can be sure about at this stage, is that the presenter, the reporter, and the tv crew all failed to realized that the building on the horizon was the same one they were reporting as having collapsed... which is entirely reasonable since they wouldn't have known one building from another.

Such a mistake is reasonable, if they were relaying the story given to them by the their sources, and they had no reason to doubt those sources. If they had any reason to doubt the source(s), they would not have run the story, unless qualified with the "unconfirmed reports suggest" type phraseology I mentioned earlier.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 11:26 AM
link   
r4758,

Okay that doesn't mean they had knowledge of the exact reason it collapsed. You can extrapolate that if it didn't come down from as a result of a new attack that it must have come down from the 4:10 report that the building was on fire. And how does a building from a fire usually fail? From structural weakening.

They knew it wasn't another "new attack" because they had no other reports of an attack to base that on because there were none. The only report regarding that building was the 4:10 fire report.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Identified
Giordano Bruno

I agree that the BBC should just tell us it was a mistake if it was. Them not telling us tho doesn't mean they had pre-knowledge.


i dont think anybody at the BBC has prior knowledge but the person that told them obviously did.

maybe after the phone call was made to larry silverstein and they decided to pull the bulding maybe they were told then.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 11:32 AM
link   
nowthenlookhere,

Not exactly. They ran with a story that didn't exist. we know that. It is evident on the tape. How they got to that point is unknown. We still don't know if there was any source at all other than some wire feed that may or may not have suggested anything other than WTC7 was on fire and evactuated.

How they got to collapse is pure conjecture. We will never have proof of what went on inside the head of that news team on that day. All we know is the end result was they claimed a collapse that didn't happen and the building did later collapse. Nothing else has been proven and without that proof I can't get to anything other than it was a mistake.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Identified
r4758,

Okay that doesn't mean they had knowledge of the exact reason it collapsed.


Which begs the question: why are they trying to tell us the cause of the collapse?



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by tombangelta

Originally posted by Identified
Giordano Bruno

I agree that the BBC should just tell us it was a mistake if it was. Them not telling us tho doesn't mean they had pre-knowledge.


i dont think anybody at the BBC has prior knowledge but the person that told them obviously did.

maybe after the phone call was made to larry silverstein and they decided to pull the bulding maybe they were told then.


Maybe. But I need proof. We can play maybe's all day but it doesn't amount to facts and won't prove the truth.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by r4758

Originally posted by Identified
r4758,

Okay that doesn't mean they had knowledge of the exact reason it collapsed.


Which begs the question: why are they trying to tell us the cause of the collapse?


Why did they tell us the thing collapsed when it hadn't?

Why were they saying the President hadn't left when he had?

Conjecture based on bad reporting is all I can see.



[edit on 28-2-2007 by Identified]



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by r4758

Which begs the question: why are they trying to tell us the cause of the collapse?


Have to have an explanation. Would you just say the White House has been blown? But never say why? "We are getting reports that the White House has been blown." The end. Can't give anymore information on that because we don't like to explain. Yeah right.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 11:39 AM
link   
head of the BBC news says

First he says in his blog ...A) "We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening."

Then he says .. B) "We did what we always did - sourced our reports, used qualifying words like "apparently" or "it's reported" or "we're hearing" and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving."

we didnt get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down.

but iden didnt they know for hours that wtc7 was going to collapse


if i was head of the BBC news the first thing i would have said is we were being told all day that WTC 7 was unstable and was going to collapse.



[edit on 28-2-2007 by tombangelta]



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by r4758

Which begs the question: why are they trying to tell us the cause of the collapse?


Have to have an explanation. Would you just say the White House has been blown? But never say why? "We are getting reports that the White House has been blown." The end. Can't give anymore information on that because we don't like to explain. Yeah right.


Exactly! from my experience the news has never been shy to add their theories when doing a live report.

This in for the entire board:

And before anyone else says they were right about how it collapsed. Well were they? Some people claim it was pulled down. Wouldn't the BBC have said this as the reason if it were and they knew ahead of time? Or maybe they are covering it.

Okay lets go with really the only other two options open to them that day. It was hit by another attack and collapsed.
It was weakened by fire and damage and collapsed.

They had a 50/50 chance of being right. Why not go with the fire report from 40 minutes earlier since no signs of a new attack were evident?



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 11:46 AM
link   
tombangelta

It was known for at least 40 minutes prior to the BBC report that WTC7 was on fire and not in a good way.

I have no idea why the head of BBC would say anything he is saying.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Identified

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by r4758

Which begs the question: why are they trying to tell us the cause of the collapse?


Have to have an explanation. Would you just say the White House has been blown? But never say why? "We are getting reports that the White House has been blown." The end. Can't give anymore information on that because we don't like to explain. Yeah right.


Exactly! from my experience the news has never been shy to add their theories when doing a live report.

This in for the entire board:

And before anyone else says they were right about how it collapsed. Well were they? Some people claim it was pulled down. Wouldn't the BBC have said this as the reason if it were and they knew ahead of time? Or maybe they are covering it.

Okay lets go with really the only other two options open to them that day. It was hit by another attack and collapsed.
It was weakened by fire and damage and collapsed.

They had a 50/50 chance of being right. Why not go with the fire report from 40 minutes earlier since no signs of a new attack were evident?





Your a Dissinfo agent,

and the fact that you registered yesterday isn’t obvious enough!!

Do they pay you well?? just wondering??

GO AWAY Your tactics will not work here, not where LOGIC RULES AND IS KING!!!!!!



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 11:50 AM
link   


I have no idea why the head of BBC would say anything he is saying.



why dont you walk down the corridor and ask him

[edit on 28-2-2007 by tombangelta]



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by tombangelta
why dont you walk down the corridor and ask him


And now this thread has gotten stupid again.

Seems to be par for the course when things aren't working out the way you want them to.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 11:53 AM
link   
your whole argument is based on the fact that the BBC are stupid , this just wont cut it.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 11:54 AM
link   
This thread is going in circles and off on wild tangents.

The only evidence here is the tape. We have all seen it. We can assume whatever we like but until someone can come up with some facts to back their conspiracy theory then there is nothing left to say.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by tombangelta
your whole argument is based on the fact that the BBC are stupid , this just wont cut it.



I never said the BBC was stupid and if you think that is my basis for facts then so be it. You haven't provided any facts of your own that I have seen.



new topics

top topics



 
101
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join