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: 62
101
<< 59  60  61    63  64  65 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 04:20 AM
link   
hey guys...

i hit upon this site by chance...I must say this is a very interesting discussion that has come up in this post. But i cant downlaod the videos posted....infact the site www.studyof911.com... itself doesnt open. If anyone of you have alreday downloaded the video can you please upload on a fiel hosting site like www.uploading.com...

Thanks




posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by mustbebc
I think there's one explanation for all of this. If the events of 911 were pre planned and the media was in on it then something like this could easily happen. I am an AV operator and work on a lot of shows with cue sheets that could be novels. All it would have taken was for someone to have skipped ahead a page and run with a cue a little early for this to have happened. The implications of this are pretty huge and it is hard to believe that the BBC and its entire production team would be in on this but it is one explanation. Just to clarify live news obviously wouldn't have cue sheets drawn up but if it was all pre planned....


EXACTLY what I was thinking. She was just reading from a teleprompter or what have you, and either she read ahead too far or the info was given too early.

Can some one get a download version so that this thing doesn't completely disappear? The links are drying up.



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by lee anoma
Can some one get a download version so that this thing doesn't completely disappear? The links are drying up.


Please do your own homework - the links given two pages back are still all working:


Originally posted by Fjtruth

Originally posted by TrondH
An old video suddenly popped out of Jones'/CNN's archives as well:
www.youtube.com...


I believe this also came from us.archive.org - see the list of files in the thread I mentioned above - there are CNN, NBC & Fox files listed as well as BBC ones.
[see this thread www.abovetopsecret.com...]


Originally posted by TrondH
"An astounding video uncovered from the archives today..."
www.prisonplanet.com...




Originally posted by Fjtruth
the film [originates] from a TV archive. The archive itself has now confirmed this - see www.archive.org...



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 02:27 PM
link   
I must agree with the more skeptical people.

The fact that she says the building just collapsed says NOTHING.
What do WE see?
We see a woman standing there, looking at us, saying that a building collapsed:
So what do we conclude?
ZOMG SHES PSYCHIC AND SAW IT THROUGH HER THIRD EYE IN TEH BACK OF HER HEAD.

No.

So what DO we conclude?
OMG BBZ CONPIRACY ZNCREW UP

No.

For all you know there might've been erroneous communication between BBC & random people at WTC7.

Eg.: It's quite easy for someone to have misheard (From what i've read here apparently people at the site said "it's going down or going to be brought down") the just mentioned quote ("It's either going down or going to be brought down") for ''actual collapsing''.

After all, I'm pretty certain the site would be quite loud.

So for all we know, someone called BBC, told them about the ''going down or have to be brought down'', BBC misunderstood, and reported it as actually collapsing.

^ Number 1 scenario if it's not a green screen. (Which apparently has been declared true, there ''is no green screen involved'')

You people should think further than your perception.

What do I mean with this?
Let's say I bitchslap you and someone recorded me, everyone would think that I bitchslapped you because I hate you. Yet noone would know that the EXTERNAL FACTOR would be a sniper that threatened to shoot me if I didn't bitchslap you.

Same thing, only the external factor here is someone who gives info instead of tries to threaten to kill me or newsreporter.



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by -0mega-
Eg.: It's quite easy for someone to have misheard (From what i've read here apparently people at the site said "it's going down or going to be brought down") the just mentioned quote ("It's either going down or going to be brought down") for ''actual collapsing''.



Originally posted by -0mega-
Let's say I bitchslap you and someone recorded me, everyone would think that I bitchslapped you because I hate you. Yet noone would know that the EXTERNAL FACTOR would be a sniper that threatened to shoot me if I didn't bitchslap you.

For those of us who are short on perception as you say, please show the correlation between these two remarks with something higher than a third grade mentality. Who does the sniper represent?

Maybe you don't have a point and just like to talk about snipers and bitch slapping.



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Big edit, it was a long post and I decided to try and write a short one


In the Bitchslap example: The sniper represents the EXTERNAL FACTOR.
People do not think of any other external factors than the link between BBC and people who made the 9/11 conspiracy. (Ok and some other random stuff about green screens & time & foreign crew)

But they should think further than that.
What if someone called them that it collapsed, and they launched the ''statement'' prematurely?

What if someone called them that its gonna go down, or it will have to be brought down, and they misinterpret / interference made them hear ''its going down'' and they launched the statement prematurely?



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by -0mega-
In the Bitchslap example: The sniper represents the EXTERNAL FACTOR.
People do not think of any other external factors than the link between BBC and people who made the 9/11 conspiracy.

Well that’s not true. Many have brought up the same thing I think your saying. You think that someone else was told the building might collapse and made a mistake and told the BBC that the building did collapse. Correct me if I didn’t get it right.

I don’t think anyone thinks that the reporter is in front of a green screen and can’t see the building, and no one thinks this is a fake video. She probably was not familiar with which building was WTC7 so I can see how she would make a mistake. To some it looks like she was reading from a script that was released too early, so you can see where the conspiracy comes in.

I agree that it could be a mistake, but what bothers me is that the news crews were told ahead of time the building would collapse even though no building like it has ever collapsed due to fires. If it sustained enough damage when debris from Tower 1 hit it, why didn’t it collapse then? Why did it collapse within a few minutes of when the press was informed?

Any way you look at it, something smells.

Cheers, and welcome to ATS.



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 11:18 PM
link   
Nah, its no mistake. Even the anchor repeated that 'It was weakend by fire'. He even went as far as saying 'Indeed it has' when speaking about the collapse. When you re-call that video where someone says 'You see that building Its about to blow up', then when you recall the emergency personal on another video hearing what surely sounds like a 'bomb' type of explosion.

Then when you factor in the unlikely event of a steel structure falling in 6.5 seconds, albeit a Super Steel Structure made with enough redundancy to withstand anything 9/11 could throw at it.

It sure sounds like something else is going on.

I mean, jury's convict killers on *LESS* circumstantial evidence then this.



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 05:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
..
I mean, jury's convict killers on *LESS* circumstantial evidence then this.



rightly so. especially if the alledged perpetrators are trying to confuse, side-track or simply ignore the accusations altogether. too sad that unconditional obedience yet again reigns supreme among the public and that this civilisation is apparently doomed to got the way of the 3rd (Reich).

face it: people know people don't care for the most part and most of those who do, probably support the empire.



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 05:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hal9000
I don’t think anyone thinks that the reporter is in front of a green screen and can’t see the building, and no one thinks this is a fake video. She probably was not familiar with which building was WTC7 so I can see how she would make a mistake. To some it looks like she was reading from a script that was released too early, so you can see where the conspiracy comes in.


They don't put reporters who thinks New York is a city in Norway to report from New York. No one is this incompetent.

In the CNN video they zoom in on WTC as he says "has either collapsed".

... I... Y..You, to be honest, can see these pictures a little bit more clearly than I.

Why would we see more clearly than him? Because he's not looking at what he's talking about? Obviously, someone behind the scenes knows what he's talking about, as they zoom in on what he's talking about.

If the reporter had said "This is a car" as they zoomed in on a house, it would be just as stupid.

[edit on 10-3-2007 by TrondH]



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 07:20 AM
link   
Why would the Government inform the news media, AND presenters that there is a massive conspiracy going on? Why would the news know that building 7 was doing to collapse?

There are two OBVIOUS explanations for this:
A: Old video feed which was only aired then
B: False media reports which happens TONS! Building 7 was already on fire and significantly smashed at that time.



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by PisTonZOR
Why would the Government inform the news media, AND presenters that there is a massive conspiracy going on? Why would the news know that building 7 was doing to collapse?

There are two OBVIOUS explanations for this:
A: Old video feed which was only aired then
B: False media reports which happens TONS! Building 7 was already on fire and significantly smashed at that time.



it was still seen standing in the background. smashed?

perhaps it's fake, not necessarily, though, and the most obvious explanation is of course, that someone planned to implode #7 ~ an hour earlier. something went wrong, delaying the demolition. why inform the media? dunno, perhaps it was meant as a time critical signal of some sort, but your guess is as good as mine.

wouldn't desperately trying to retract the press release be even more suspicious? no-one is omnipotent or omniscient, so any reaction takes time and even then they had to play it cool, ie. let her speak as long as possible.



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by PisTonZOR
Why would the Government inform the news media, AND presenters that there is a massive conspiracy going on? Why would the news know that building 7 was doing to collapse?

There are two OBVIOUS explanations for this:
A: Old video feed which was only aired then
B: False media reports which happens TONS! Building 7 was already on fire and significantly smashed at that time.



Point B:
About my thoughts, exactly.



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 08:18 AM
link   
One aspect I find interesting is the anchor's question about 2/3's of the way through--something along the lines of: "Are people there already talking of revenge?"

There's your answer as to why the gov't/conspirators tipped off the BBC: control the flow of info, push the agenda.

The whole report was scripted, just jumped the gun, got a green light to go but there was some last-minute hitch back at CD Central.

Remember, this was late in the day, perfect time to start feeding the PNAC agenda--they just couldn't continue showing the towers falling in an endless tape loop anymore at that point--on to the talking points!


[edit on 10-3-2007 by gottago]



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 02:51 PM
link   
Didn't Silverstein say that they "pulled it" which is another term for Controlled Demolitions???

See the video from Alex Jones, below the other:
prisonplanet.com...

I mean come on....



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Drewsillac
Didn't Silverstein say that they "pulled it" which is another term for Controlled Demolitions???


And Silverstein has been careful in his choice of words. Quarrelsome people will claim that he meant "pull the people out of the building", but "it" refers to "the building". And it wouldn't make much difference if he'd said "# it", because the consequence of "doing it" was "...the building collapsed." And it's so obvious that the building was demolished by its owner, so we don't really need any confessions from him.

We can't bring Silverstein to court and claim he's lying, because he wasn't. He's admitting his crimes straight out on TV. But who's gonna file a lawsuit against him? He is the boss of CIA and the White House. The average citizen wouldn't do that. We may hope that some of the truthmovements would do it. But they're all hired by Silverstein, so they sure won't do it.

We, the average citizens, must take care of this case and solve this crime. There are many fake people out there. I've met many of them. They aquire fake ID's and fake opinions. They pretend to be your friend, when they're actually your enemy.

Think about it. Professor Steven E. Jones has been working as a professor on a school for a long time, always having a strong hidden agenda, strong hatred, against muslims, and a strong love for Israel. These people jerk off as they watch muslims getting killed. These people are sick. Alex Jones is a muslimhater. In this newsreport from nutty Jones he has totally forgotten that he is supposed to say that 9/11 was an inside job. He has conspiracy theories that look like the official theory. He's talking about terrorists hijacking planes. He's gone totally insane.

[edit on 10-3-2007 by TrondH]



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 05:36 PM
link   
Yes he did. This video has been referred to quite a bit in the WTC7 discussions.

What is being missed here is that there is all this talk of "the building being pulled" and "it's coming down later" etc.. but the official report categorically stated that "fire weakened the steel structure and it collapsed". If there isn't a conspiracy here, why lie about the cause of its collapse in the official report? Why not simply say that due to structural damage the building was demolished. Case closed. Why not??

That on its own should alarm people that something fishy is going on.

[edit on 11-3-2007 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
Why not simply say that due to structural damage the building was demolished. Case closed. Why not??
[edit on 11-3-2007 by mirageofdeceit]


Because then they would have to explain how they rigged it for demolition so quickly, while the building was on fire, and amid the chaos of everything else going on around - a task which others have said takes amny hours, or even days.

[edit on 11-3-2007 by Fjtruth]



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 07:20 PM
link   
I had sent emails to Killtown on YouTube and told him that he was identified as a liar. He asked me:

So how am I an "identified" liar?

(this ought to be rich.)
----------

I replied:

Not telling. I'll tell you when you're behind bars...

That will be... in not such a long time.

Look at my latest blogentry. It's funny

blog.myspace.com...

I've told Fetzer and Jones many of the "errors" they had which they then corrected a bit, but still not enough. After some time there were to many "errors" for them to fix, and they didn't know how to "fix" them. I realized a few months ago that they did the changes to hold on to my trust. Their lies are way too many, and there's no longer any doubt that they're hoaxes. All the truthmovements are part of the cover-up. They have so many totally stupid lies. U're part of it. You're gonna end up in the same cage as those... All you fake ass antisemites...
----------------

I also started posting on the Loose Change forum where Killtown also participated. The zionists participating were asking for more evidence for my claims. I gave them more. And my IP-address was blocked. And Killtown is cracking up.

One of the lies in his blog, which also shows a connection between BBC and Killtown:

BBC mentions my "Hunt the Boeing II" game.

Did United 93 crash?

Photographs taken at the crash site near Shanksville show a small
crater and fragments of clearly identifiable aircraft wreckage along
with personal possessions from some of those on board.


These pictures do not exist. BBC promotes Killtown's lies, and Killtown shows us BBC promoting him. The lies are repeated.

[edit on 11-3-2007 by TrondH]



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 06:11 AM
link   
i found a very intresting article on this matter




here is the article on it

antagonise.blogspot.com...

scrool down till u see Part of the conspiracy?

Richard Porter
27 Feb 07, 05:12 PM

and its right below that

(srry if this has been posted before but there is too many posts to read)



[edit on 13-3-2007 by snobird]



new topics

top topics



 
101
<< 59  60  61    63  64  65 >>

log in

join