BBC News Reports Building 7 collapse 23 Minutes before it collapses.

how about larry silverstein PULL IT

how about the fire fighters and police officers saying they listened to a countdown over the radio

how about 8.5 seconds to collapse

how about 3rd steel building to collapse due to fire

how about the 15 million $$$$ floor with its own water supply and air supply with windows built to with stand 160 MPh winds

how about the building housed the CIA

there is more




[edit on 28-2-2007 by tombangelta]

[edit on 28-2-2007 by tombangelta]

Originally posted by Identified
If they had two sources why not just state it. Why claim the details are sketchy. What is sketchy about a standing building while claiming it has already collapsed?

Forgive me, but I do not understand your point. Will you please clarify?

Here is my transcript of what was said during the first few minutes of the broadcast. Note that the correspondent does not counter the anchorman's statement that the Salomon Brothers building had collapsed. She merely says that she does not have any new information to add and acknowledges that the Salomon building has suffered as a result of the Twin Towers collapsing.

Anchorman: Now, more on the latest building collapse in New York. You might have heard a few moments ago, I was talking about the Salomon Brothers building collapsing. And indeed it has. Apparently, that's only a few hundred yards away from where the World Trade Center Towers were. And it seems that this was not the result of a new attack. It was because the building had been weakened during this morning's attacks. You'll probably find out more about that from our correspondent Jane Standley. Jane, what more can you tell about the Salomon Brothers building and its collapse?"

Correspondent: Well, only really what you already know. Details are very, very sketchy. There's almost a sense downtown in New York behind me, down by the World Trade Centers, of just an area completely closed off as rescue workers try to do their job. But this isn't the first building that has suffered as a result. We know that part of the Marriott Hotel next to the World Trade Center also collapsed as a result of this huge amount of falling debris from a hundred and ten floors of two, the two twin towers of the World Trade Center. As you can see behind me, the Trade Center appears to be still burning. We see these huge clouds of smoke and ash and we know that behind that, there's an empty piece of what was a very familiar New York skyline, a symbol of the financial prosperity of this city but completely disappeared now and New York is still unable to take onboard what has happened to them today.

Anchorman: Presumably there were very few people in the Salomon building when it collapsed. I mean, there were, I suppose, fears of possible further collapses around the area.

Correspondent: That's what you would hope because this whole downtown area behind me has been completely sealed off and evacuated apart from the emergency workers. That was done by the mayor, Rudy Giuliani, much earlier today because of course the dreadful collapse of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center.

Originally posted by Identified
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.

WHO THE FUC&^ are you!!!!!!! This thread is alive and kicking!!!!! your

A DISS INFO AGENT ITS OBVIOUS!!!!


YOUR LOOSING!!!! your "infowar"



TRUTH IN LOGIC!!!!!!!! PEOLPE COME TO YOUR OWN CONCLUSION USE ONLY THE FACTS RESEARCH THE FACTS!!!!


AND seriously I will DESTROY YOU IN A DEBATE!!!!!!!!!

GO AWAY THIS IS THE HOUSE OF LOGIC, SMART PEOPLE INTELLIGENT PEOPLE RULE THIS FORUM!!!

THe TACTIC that Identified is using is called

"STONEWALLING"

if you, as an individual,managed to predict a terrorist attack, you'd be jailed fora few days and interrogated, and with good reason. predictions are either supernatural (uh, ok) or betray insider knowledge.




50/50 odds, wtf, more like one in several trillions. imagine a situation where someone announced the second impact a few minutes after the first on TV, would you be trying to find excuses, too?

Quote from Deputy Fire Chief Peter Hayden

"By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

...we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn't want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn't even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn't know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o'clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then."

So according to this report, from the damage to the south west corner they could diagnose 'pretty surely' that the building would collapse, cleared it by 3.30, two hours before the collapse. So by the time the BBC reported it, emergency workers in the area had been expecting the collapse for a good 3 hours.

With that being such a long timeframe, the source could have come from a number of different conversational sources around the area. They probably couldnt get close enough to the site to talk to the people involved and may have been relying on multiple second hand info, somewhere along the line 'will collapse' got mistranslated as 'has collapsed'.

Only leaves me with three questions really:

1) Was this 'bulge' in the south west corner enough to predict/cause total collapse?
2) Can someone explain to me what 'putting a transit' on something means?
3) If the explanation is simple as 'firefighters told us, we got muddled and ran with the story too soon', why the obfuscation?

Beginning to suspect there may not be all that much to this, may be a honey pot. Keep your eyes on the rest of the news...e.g. stock market crash...jesus tomb...



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

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

www.nytimes.com...

They told us to get out of there because they were
worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it,
coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon
building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom
corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over
to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up.
Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was
tremendous, tremendous fires going on.

Finally they pulled us out. They said all right,
get out of that building because that 7, they were really
worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they
regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and
West Street. They put everybody back in there.

Finally it did come down. From there - this is much
later on in the day, because every day we were

BANACISKI

so worried about that building we didn't really want to
get people close. They were trying to limit the amount
of people that were in there. Finally it did come down.
That's when they let the guys go in. I just remember we
started searching around all the rigs.

That was basically the rest of the day, the
rest of the night. We were searching around rigs looking
for men. That was it.

Guess pull has become a popular word these days.

Originally posted by Identified


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.

Chicago calm down, you're making us look bad

Lets try to stay on topic.

No they obviously can't say that because pulling it requires alot of time and planning.

Originally posted by deltaboy


Guess pull has become a popular word these days.

I see that as deliberate confusing and expansion of the word.
What do you see?

The date on that article is after steins interview, i think. 5 am. Forgive me if i'm wrong.

[edit on 28-2-2007 by T0by]

Originally posted by Chicagofreedomfighter


WHO THE FUC&^ are you!!!!!!! This thread is alive and kicking!!!!! your

A DISS INFO AGENT ITS OBVIOUS!!!!


YOUR LOOSING!!!! your "infowar"



TRUTH IN LOGIC!!!!!!!! PEOLPE COME TO YOUR OWN CONCLUSION USE ONLY THE FACTS RESEARCH THE FACTS!!!!


AND seriously I will DESTROY YOU IN A DEBATE!!!!!!!!!

GO AWAY THIS IS THE HOUSE OF LOGIC, SMART PEOPLE INTELLIGENT PEOPLE RULE THIS FORUM!!!

Can you destroy someone through the use of a Caps Lock? You are pretty new yourself Cff, and I am sure you don't want a reputation of this kind of posting to stick to you throughout your ATS days. Take a deep breath and you should be good to go again

Let's just ALL calm down shall we? Everyone has their own individual beliefs and nearly as many people lack the evidence to back it all up. So, I think we have reached an impasse and we now should, if so inclined, go and find evidence that helps one way or the other.

If you believe that a press release was involved, go all out in finding it.
If you believe WTC7 was demo'd, do the above - but post about it in the right thread
If you believe someone literally informed a reporter or anyone face to face because they knew it was coming down at that time, try and find that person.

Too often I see people on both sides shouting and abusing their points across and to be honest, that's dumb. Some people don't think a person or group should impose their religious beliefs on everyone else, so why does ANYONE think that sort of behavior should be tolerated in other areas?

[edit on 28/2/2007 by Muppetus Galacticus]

Originally posted by tombangelta
how about larry silverstein PULL IT

how about the fire fighters and police officers saying they listened to a countdown over the radio

how about 8.5 seconds to collapse

how about 3rd steel building to collapse due to fire

how about the 15 million $$$$ floor with its own water supply and air supply with windows built to with stand 160 MPh winds

how about the building housed the CIA

there is more




[edit on 28-2-2007 by tombangelta]

[edit on 28-2-2007 by tombangelta]

What about it? None of that is proof of anything regarding this tape.

Originally posted by T0by

Originally posted by Identified


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.

Chicago calm down, you're making us look bad

Lets try to stay on topic.

No they obviously can't say that because pulling it requires alot of time and planning.

Your right im "woooosaaaaaa" LOL,

It isn’t something to get all worked up over, I know.
However it is comical to see firsthand how "damage control operates"

I just wanted to point that out

Your right though cooler heads and methodical logic will prevail str8 through to the truth

Catchtwentytwo,

I left out the contraction.

It should say "What isn't sketchy about standing..."

My point is if reporting on a building that is still there isn't their idea of sketchy details then what is?

The BBC didn't have their details in this case IMO.

Originally posted by T0by


I see that as deliberate confusing and expansion of the word.
What do you see?

The date on that article is after steins interview, i think. 5 am. Forgive me if i'm wrong.

[edit on 28-2-2007 by T0by]

I guess the firefighters want to lie as well eh? Their brethren dead at WTC on 9/11 and they are conspirators too.

As i mentioned earlier, there is plenty of evidence out there to make you go 'hmmm'
This is not just about the tape, it is about the tape reinforcing what is already out there.

Can you not put all the pieces together for a second and think with an open mind?

To see things from our point of view, you need to be looking at the whole picture, not a brush stroke.

Originally posted by Long Lance
if you, as an individual,managed to predict a terrorist attack, you'd be jailed fora few days and interrogated, and with good reason. predictions are either supernatural (uh, ok) or betray insider knowledge.




50/50 odds, wtf, more like one in several trillions. imagine a situation where someone announced the second impact a few minutes after the first on TV, would you be trying to find excuses, too?

Come on; I am sure you can follow this:

I didn’t say the 50/50 was whether or not the building was going to collapse. I said the 50/50 was the manner in which it later actually collapsed.

What are the trillion other odds?
A bird flies into it at just the right angle?
Smurfs blow it up with birthday candles?

Had the BBC said that smurfs blew up the building and then 23 minutes later smurfs actually blew it up then you could say they had to have known something because a normal conclusion on that day would not have been that smurfs would blow up that building.

But a normal conclusion on that day would have been it collapsed because of the well-reported FIRE or from another ATTACK!

50/50.

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by T0by


I see that as deliberate confusing and expansion of the word.
What do you see?

The date on that article is after steins interview, i think. 5 am. Forgive me if i'm wrong.

[edit on 28-2-2007 by T0by]

I guess the firefighters want to lie as well eh? Their brethren dead at WTC on 9/11 and they are conspirators too.

I don't know, but i see things like that happen all too often. : )
I have no grounds for debate, i don't know who that guy is, who wrote the piece, if the editor said hey btw can i write it in this way? It still means the same thing.

Who knows...really.

Just a thought.

Originally posted by T0by
As i mentioned earlier, there is plenty of evidence out there to make you go 'hmmm'
This is not just about the tape, it is about the tape reinforcing what is already out there.

Can you not put all the pieces together for a second and think with an open mind?

To see things from our point of view, you need to be looking at the whole picture, not a brush stroke.

What kind of evidence are we talking about here? That the BBC correspondent tells the camera that there are "very very sketchy reports." And the anchors both CNN and BBC that are reading aloud what is said on the tv thing or cue or whatever they call it?

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by T0by
As i mentioned earlier, there is plenty of evidence out there to make you go 'hmmm'
This is not just about the tape, it is about the tape reinforcing what is already out there.

Can you not put all the pieces together for a second and think with an open mind?

To see things from our point of view, you need to be looking at the whole picture, not a brush stroke.

What kind of evidence are we talking about here? That the BBC correspondent tells the camera that there are "very very sketchy reports." And the anchors both CNN and BBC that are reading aloud what is said on the tv thing or cue or whatever they call it?

God no,
I mean the evidence in the piles of threads throught ATS and the internet, in regards to 9/11.

This video is another brushstroke.

Giordano Bruno

thanks for that info!


Transit to me means an instrument used in surveying to check angles againt one another.

I am not sure if that is what he meant there but maybe they were watching for movement?