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: 47
101
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muppetus Galacticus
Even I've got caught up in this change of direction. A lot of what has been said lately has had nothing to do with the BBC video. I think this thread is officially off course!


You are right. And I have found myself off course with the very person who started this thread. :-)




posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Who cares? Youre being paid to do this, non??
By the way, how's "Larry"?



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Identified

You are correct that no other steel frame building has been brought down by just fire. But then I and NIST and FEMA and many scientists didn't say that WTC 7 was brought down by just fire. And no one can tell me that the BBC knew what sort of builing WTC 7 was before they were reporting or what the ramifications of it being that sort of building on fire would be.



No one is suggesting that the BBC knew those sorts of things, quit trying to cloud the issue.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 03:32 PM
link   
your obviously some kind of 911 myth / truth debunker and 99% of us here are coming from a totally different point of view.

how much do you know about the bush administration and the people who control the money in the US

once you know the facts it ain't so hard to see it was a controlled demolition

only yesterday the US secured the control of Iraq oil , i thought it was about liberating the people!!

i don't want to push this anymore of topic than it is but we are just going round in circles.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 03:32 PM
link   
People say steel buildings on fire has never been brought down in history. What nobody mentioned is the damage from north world trade center. Thats unprecedented. Never before seen, never happened before, probably never happen again, unique, rare, unbelievable.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 03:33 PM
link   
HEY lets all raise enough $$$ to completley rebuild the whole darn wtc complex!
heck throw in two B757's and some empty land out in Nevada.

We can recreate the whole thing.


Im betting it goes allot diffrentley!

But in all seriousness, we have them scared and running.

I would advise everyone to put stop losses on all of there stocks etc.

Does anyone remember back when NASA said they lost the moon landing footage! It was HEADLINE NEWS, and again when they found it weeks later HEADLINE news.



Is there anyreason you can think the mainstream media has not even picked up the fact that the BBC lost the video archive from 9/11.

I mean moon landing tapes missing=Headline news and commotion!!!!!!


video archives from the most important day in the history of modern civilations goes missng, and not a peep?????

Please Identified, Identify yourself on this one?



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 03:34 PM
link   
I have a week of work right im sat eating sh*t at my computer just enjoying doing nothing.

you have been on this thread for 6 hours now trying to convince a bunch of so called conspiracy nuts that 9/11 wasnt an inside job.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by r4758
[offtopic]It's been reported that on many sites discussing this specific issue there are people disrupting the discussions and they are apparently saying the same things at each site.[/offtopic]


IE

My labeling of "IDENTIFIED" as a DISSINFO AGENT



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by r4758

Originally posted by Identified

You are correct that no other steel frame building has been brought down by just fire. But then I and NIST and FEMA and many scientists didn't say that WTC 7 was brought down by just fire. And no one can tell me that the BBC knew what sort of builing WTC 7 was before they were reporting or what the ramifications of it being that sort of building on fire would be.



No one is suggesting that the BBC knew those sorts of things, quit trying to cloud the issue.



How is trying to show what the BBC reporter knew regarding whether or not in the history of the entire universe a building like that would collapse is clouding the issue?

Isn't the issue why the BBC reported the collapse before it happened?



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by tombangelta
your obviously some kind of 911 myth / truth debunker and 99% of us here are coming from a totally different point of view.


So this forum is just for those who support the theories? Doesn't matter what the theory we are all just to support it or we are automatically some kind of 911 myth/ truth debunker?

Here I thought it was for weeding out the truth. Not just accepting what the thread creater said or what anyone else said.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 03:44 PM
link   
you have to look at the bigger picture.

do your homework



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by tombangelta
I have a week of work right im sat eating sh*t at my computer just enjoying doing nothing.

you have been on this thread for 6 hours now trying to convince a bunch of so called conspiracy nuts that 9/11 wasnt an inside job.



Oh dear it has become personal again. I finished my work for the day. I am after all a talented multi-tasker.

And I haven't tried to convince anyone of anything other than you haven't provided me any evidence to support anything you have said on this thread.

Just remember who called who a nut. :-)



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by tombangelta
you have to look at the bigger picture.

do your homework


I think the problem is that I did look at the bigger picture.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Identified

How is trying to show what the BBC reporter knew regarding whether or not in the history of the entire universe a building like that would collapse is clouding the issue?

Isn't the issue why the BBC reported the collapse before it happened?



Yes, the issue is that the BBC reported the collapse before it happened, not whether or not BBC reporters knew anything about building collapses in the past.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Identified

Originally posted by tombangelta
you have to look at the bigger picture.

do your homework


I think the problem is that I did look at the bigger picture.



or your paid too



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chicagofreedomfighter

Originally posted by r4758
[offtopic]It's been reported that on many sites discussing this specific issue there are people disrupting the discussions and they are apparently saying the same things at each site.[/offtopic]


IE

My labeling of "IDENTIFIED" as a DISSINFO AGENT



Yes, because there can only be one.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Sorry for bringing the Jonesian "thermite theory" up, and that early in the thread (not meaning to derail it), but what if these "cutter charges" slowly worked their way through some support columns, slowly destablizing the building (or even all three of them), explaining vibrations (somewhere in the quoted text it says the rescue machinery caused them), seismic activity and the "bulge" (which I refuse to believe was caused by raging office fires), so a few smaller explosive charges would suffice to bring the final death blow, initiating the collapse?

That still doesn't answer who would rig the building with such devices and why, so back to topic. If the official reports were true, there would be no reason to sabotage the Google uploads or avoid questions in the "BBC Editors blog", so I smell conspiracy.

And although I'd readily believe that rumors and dfferent truths found shortcuts on that fateful day, like, that a car bomb hat exploded in front of the Pentagon and that a Cessna-sized sport plane hit the first tower or with oll numbers with up to 10.000 casualties given (some of the first news I heard when I switched on the TV on 9/11), it still isn't clear how, late in the afternoon when most things had settled and the attack was over, "the building is going to come down" could become "the building has come down" when it reached London.

What sources would they have in a BBC office in NY? They'd tune into local radios, watch CNN, listen to the news agencies who had their boots on the ground, filter a lot and seek out what was important. Especially in the afternoon, when the attack was over and there was a lot of confusion about what exactly happened except that 4 planes, the WTC and a part of the pentagon were down. News went short ways*, so a distortion like that is strange at least. If it's proclaimed fact that it was clear to certain circles that WTC7 would come down, and the news spread on their usual paths, why would the News Anchor say it HAS already collapsed... and why would the interview feed go haywire five minutes before the actual collapse, one of the many official coincidences on that day?

This interview wasn't one of the hectic ones anymore, with reporters pulled out of their beds because there was work to do. This one was set up and prepared for a few hours and was the result of high alert short meetings, briefings and all that: who's the interviewer, who is the correspondent, what's to cover, what do people want to know, what's important now?

*(for example: I remember that the ZDF (Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen) aired the tape of some guy who ran through the dust cloud, screaming at people that he was a doctor, hiding behind cars - I never saw it again, prolly because it was dumb, and the ZDF people haven't even taken the time to watch it before airing it - but that was right after the first collapse, they were glad to have anything at all. The moderator went really personal and emotional, stating how hard it is for him to be the first to bring these bad news, although Ulrich Wickert is an experienced pro).

Did you notice how the anchor hardly flinched or lost his flow when he saw the feed was going down? Wouldn't he say "can you still hear me", instead of turning back as if nothing happened, as if it was normal that the feeds suddenly stop - because it had happened so often that day and the lines weren't stable anyways? Or did he get a hint that the signal was poor, he shouldn't worry and be prepared to loose Janes line).

Anyways, that's just speculation.

The discussion about the BBC clip should be about the sources.

Where's the problem to say "funny you mention it, but we heard from NYFD and NYPD and FOX rumors it was due to collapse?" Why not agree to an interview with the correspondent, five years later, and let her tell her part of the story? That would be truly interactive and informative. Making a statement like "I spoke to her, she can't remember" sounds like putting words into her mouth. They should be more sensitive about this topic and stop treating those who ask questions as silly conspiracy theorists, because people don't like to feel ridiculed. At least not, when there are so many of them out there.

My $ .02007



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by kuhl

or your paid too



Hm.. maybe you are paid to. Everytime you show up this board goes from intellegent discussions to a discussion about me. Could it be dum dum dum that you are the one sent to disrupt the discussion?



[edit: clipped quote to relevant portion]

[edit on 28-2-2007 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Identified
Hm.. maybe you are paid to. Everytime you show up this board goes from intellegent discussions to a discussion about me. Could it be dum dum dum that you are the one sent to disrupt the discussion?


you give me too much crdit but as youare aware I am watching.



[edit on 28/2/2007 by kuhl]


[edit: clipped quote to relevant portion]

[edit on 28-2-2007 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 03:50 PM
link   
what do you think JFK is talking about.

www.youtube.com...

[edit on 28-2-2007 by tombangelta]



new topics

top topics



 
101
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join