It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 63
<< 60  61  62    64  65  66 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 10:00 AM

Originally posted by snobird

scrool down till u see Part of the conspiracy?

Richard Porter
27 Feb 07, 05:12 PM

and its right below that

uh oh, take an unbiased look at the video linked at

(sorry, embedding failed)

not as clear but strange nevertheless. their alledged source is utterly bogus and i wonder why anyone would spout such drivel live on TV.

posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 12:31 PM
So, still no actual evidence of anything regarding the BBC video? What has been done to find a source or press release? Who is currently heading up that investigation?

And I'd just like to say you guys need to calm down and stop bullying some people just because they have different beliefs of that day. Just because someone gives valid reasons without years of research why something may not be the way you say, does not mean they are working for "them", nor are they stupid, blind or fools.

If you believe 100% in what you saying and you say YOU are the smart one, try acting it instead of forcing your beliefs on everyone. Put your comments in a clear, calm and concise way and more people will be willing to listen.

posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 03:01 PM
Please take the time to sign this petition if you haven't already?

Here is the coverage again:

posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 09:12 AM

Originally posted by deessell

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Having not seen the footage due to being at work
how do you know they wont just showing footage of the tower when it was 'standing' because they hadnt received the footage from it 'falling'

Ha ha! Way to go mate -- I think you hit the nail on the head. As much as I don't believe the official truth, I think suggesting that the BBC had prior knowledge is far fetched to say the least.

I also have not seen the footage.

The BBC have admitted it happened. So that's out the window. What they won't do is reveal is their sources claiming it was just a simple mistake. They also claim that they 'lost' all the footage for that day! By law they are required to keep 3 archive copies and somehow they errr misplaced all of them. CNN also reported this one hour before the event. I have no idea of their response if any but I can guess.

You can see the footage here:

You can read their response here:

and you can see from their conspiracy files hit piece how they actively use a public service network to try to discredit anyone that doesn't believe in the offical story here:

posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 01:30 AM
MyS pace have automated paranoia features

Alex Jones:
Everything is going to hell!
They're gonna have their way with us because we're a bunch of idiots!
That's just the way it is... That's the way it is!!
It's gonna get worse, ok?!
You wanna know what I.. I mean...
ha ha ha ha whaamm.. ssshs.. y'know.. I'm just so sick!
It's people! People! People! People!

I gotta go! I just don't care...

[edit on 15-3-2007 by TrondH]

posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 11:54 AM
Though this is fishy, there are possible explanations...

The reporter could be using a green screen w/ a shot from earlier that day. Just because she turns around, says "right behind me" or points doesn't mean she's standing in that window sill. Many movies are filmed w/ green screen, but you wouldn't really know it to look at them. Weatherman use green screen all the time. Look at the lighting on her face. It's not natural lighting as the windows are behind her. She's in a studio somewhere, why is it so hard to accept that might just not be a live shot?

The times on the video could have been altered. This is not all that hard to do.

It's possible, though not likely that she was referring to a different building.

This evidence is far from damning. Interesting, but not damning...

posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 04:48 PM

Originally posted by DOcean
Though this is fishy, there are possible explanations...

The right explanation is that the videos are fake, made on feb 25th, by Alex Jones, BBC and CNN.

CBS - Jew - Paley
NBC - Jew - Jeff -(rey) Zucker
ABC - Jew - Stuart Bloomberg and George W. Bodenheimer
ABC news - Jew - David Westin
CNN - Jew - Gerald Levin
FOX - Jew - Gail Berman
MBS - Jew - Ronnessen

And they came up in a hurry because I started to expose the lies of the truthmovements on his blog feb 22nd. Alex Jones needed breaking news on his blog, to keep his fans, and draw the attention away from my blogcomments. I was exposing lies, and I was blocked. Alex Jones doesn't like lies to be exposed, obviously. Scared criminals make stupid mistakes. Now he's cracking up.

The breaking evidence was only big for a short time, as all his evidences.

the Zionist Jew larry Silverstein brought down his buildings. He's the boss of CIA and the theatre building they call The White House.

A list of the richest jewish property owners with their estimated wealth.

David & Simon Reuben £3.25 billion
Simon Halabi £2.0 billion
Poju Zabludowicz £2.0 billion
Mark Pears & family £1.15.billion
Benzion Freshwater & family £1.03 billion
Bernard Lewis & family £1.03 billion
Sir Alan Sugar £790 million
Ian & Richard Livingstone £750 million
Albert Gubay £650 milion
David Khalili £610 million
Vincent & Robert Tchenguiz £600 million
Jack Dellal £600 million
Eddie & Sol Zakay £517 million
Leo Noe £380 million
Mendi & Moises Gertner £360 million
Harry Hyams £320 million
Gerald Ronson & family £280 million
Elliot Bernard £277 million
Laurence Kirschel £260 million
Jonathan Lyons & family £250 million
Anthony Lyons £215 million
David Pearl £178 million
David Gubbay & family £170 million
Ephraim Shahmoon & family £160 million

[edit on 15-3-2007 by TrondH]

posted on Mar, 18 2007 @ 08:02 PM
Hey, I'm new to this site, and quite impressed. Which is why I am wondering aobut this video, its not comming up on any link. Kinda funny how proof of conspiracy is now some how unavailable to the public, more importantly those of us who know the truth, lol.
-David X

posted on Mar, 18 2007 @ 08:39 PM
Not only does this building collapse like a retired Las Vegas casino in 6.5 seconds (free fall rate), but it's unprecedented total collapse is reported by the BBC and others 20 minutes before it happened. Even if you don't understand the concept of conservation of momentum and how that would guarantee that all structural support would necessarily need to be eliminated ahead of the collapse wave to accomplish the actual rate of collapse, you can't dismiss reporting on it before it happened.

Green screen? Changed time stamps? Horse hockey! Someone in an official capacity released the news of the collapse along with the reason it collapsed 25 minutes too early. They jumped the gun on the cover story. Another rather large hole in the official narrative.

Find the entity that issued that press release and you have found someone who was in on the plan. Of course, no one in power or in the corporate content controlled media really wants a legitimate investigation into the 911 atrocity. It would force the question as to what the actual agenda is and reveal how utterly corrupt and conscienceless those is power actually are.

Jeebus...count the lies..WMD in Iraq, cost of Medicare Drug coverage, no one in the WH had anything to do with outing Plame, DU munitions residue is non-toxic, nine US attorneys were fired for bad job performance, we don't torture captives, no one could have predicted that "terrorists" would use commercial jets as missiles, and on and on. After this proven and on going record of forthrightness, how can anyone believe their feeble and contradictory explanation of the 911 atrocity?

[edit on 18-3-2007 by brisa]

posted on Mar, 18 2007 @ 09:04 PM

Sorry for double linking to studyof but this is the only clean version of the video that WILL NOT go down untill internet2 comes along.

posted on Mar, 19 2007 @ 07:21 PM
These are some of the more relevant Comments on the 23 minutes too early comments by a NY based BBC correspondent :

EDIT : I included the right YouTube nr C7SwOT29gbc in the video link, but all you get is the above black screen! An ATS bug, or a YouTube bug ?????


-- 1. Here's something that you might find disturbing. BBC World was (at the time of 9/11) being run by a woman called Dame Pauline Neville-Jones. BBC World is also not funded by the British state, which many people won't know, but is funded by corporate donations and other "sponsors." Dame Pauline once headed the Joint Intelligence Committee in the UK, a body which brings together the heads of the various British intelligence bodies with political leaders.
2. She went from intelligence, to running the BBC World Service (radio) from which BBC World was spun off in 1995. Since leaving the BBC World Service, she has taken up a role on the board of QinetiQ (a corporation spun off from the UK defence establishment, from the privatization of which the Carlyle Group recently made a killing).
3.She is also on the advisory board of the Intelligence Summit -- where she joins Richard Perle, Kenneth Timmerman, Alrezi Jafarzadeh (the source of the U.S. "intelligence" on Iranian nuclear weapons programs).
-- "At 4.54pm, the BBC's domestic television news channel, BBC News 24, reports the same thing. Presenter Gavin Esler says: "We're now being told that yet another enormous building has collapsed... it is the 47storey Salomon Brothers building and then at 4.57pm on BBC World..."
Richard Porter's blog
Head of News, BBC World
-- There is another video from News 24 that has a time stamp and also reports the collapse of WTC7 23 minutes before it came down. That video also keeps getting pulled from google. Whether it's 5 minutes before or 20 minutes before is irrelevant. The building can be seen intact behind the reporters head, proving the report was given out before the collapse.
-- It`s not a green screen, she casts a shadow on the window frame
-- You cannot zoom in on a green screen.
-- BBC never said that was a greenscreen.
-- how many more people are going to say this? ITS NOT A GREEN SCREEN!! ITS A WINDOW!! Hence the sunlight on her face! There is also another piece of footage now going around on you tube from BBC news 24 not BBC world once again announcing the collapse too early. That version has a time stamp.
-- 911 was a skillfully orchestrated stunt. But of course not all events go without slips. Either the demolition of building nr 7 was after schedule, or the reporting to the news channels about the official explanation of the demolition was before schedule. Anyway, CIA avoided scrutiny over missing funds when the CIA-offices in building nr 7 were demolished.
-- BBC says Jane Stanly can not remember the entire interview, it was only the biggest day in her Journalistic life..anyhow BBC are in an emergency damage control meeting as we speak, lucky someone quickly found the time stamps to the interview so the BBC will not be able to lie their way out this time.
-- Guy in WTc7 said he was blown by a bomb. ootage%29&hl=en
(LT/ : I have inserted a google video screen down below to watch directly)
-- The time can be seen in the original footage, this video is real, you can't zoom in a green screen.
-- I have been observing the viewing stats for this video all day long. The number of views has remained at 178,551, and yet the the "ratings" and "favorited" stats have been rising constantly all day. Google have definitely switched off the viewing stats counter in order to keep the viewing stats down. This is what it's like to live in a fascist world folks!
-- You dis-info merchants and ill-informed people, listen: This BBC footage was only recently discovered from the BBC archive that was recently put up online. That's why it wasn't discovered before. In addition, you can see that the reporter is actually there in New York and they are not using a greenscreen, you can hear the police sirens, you can see the smoke from the twin towers. Get informed before you leave lame comments.
-- so its blue/green screen is it? So thats not sunlight on her face then? LOL*10
-- The setting sun on her face, hair and shoulder is just 911 studio magic, huh? They even got it to align with the blue screen!
-- If the government was not in on it, why did FOX news and the others broadcast faked images of wtc1 before 9:00 am on 911? Why did they interview faked witnesses?
Who provided the video they broadcast? Who provided the script they obviously were reading? Who planted the eyewitnesses on the ground?
-- Are your eyes failing you? Time is given, and can be verified. They even SAY what time it is in their reports. "It's 5:00pm..."
-- I loved 1993-2000! As we neared the millennium -together- there was a universal sense of change. It could be heard in the music, seen at the cinema; the thought of living in the 21st century provoked an energy that will never be felt again. Now, five and a half years later, that fantastic sense of belonging has vanished due to the political groping of that day our freedoms were raped, and our souls were soon to follow. We live our lives in fear now. Not from terrorists, but from our government.
-- errr. .. US time zone VS UK time zone ..
-- the bottom line is the Salomon Brothers building WTC 7 is still standing in the live shot and she's talking about it's collapse as if it had already happened.
-- You do realize the time zone difference has already been calculated, both on that telecast and the guy who wrote over it and posted the video. 5:00pm, the time is right. Check it out on windows calendar. Seriously. Don't make # up just so you can seem like the GREAT DEBUNKER who thinks the republicrats are your lords and saviors.
-- I'm getting tired of the lame argument that the government was incapable of pulling it off--it was too complex an operation and everyone wouldn't have been able to keep silent, someone would have talked by now.
We know the names of the 3 CIA agents who killed Robert Kennedy, ironically reported on the BBC, yet it's completely blacked out by the American media and nothing is done to investigate and determine if anyone still alive was involved.

[edit on 19/3/07 by LaBTop]

[edit on 19/3/07 by LaBTop]

posted on Mar, 19 2007 @ 07:24 PM
-- NYPD OFFICER CRAIG BARTMER: "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. I didn't see any reason for that building to fall down the way it did -- and a lot of guys should be saying the same thing. I don't know what the fear is coming out and talking about it? I don't know -- but it's the truth."
-- BARTMER: "I walked around it (Building 7). I saw a hole. I didn't see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though. Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn't hear any... I didn't hear any creaking, or... I didn't hear any indication that it was going to come down. And all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone started screaming 'get away, get away, get away from it!'..
-- Like the lack of timestamps or time references.
-- here are timestamps on the bbc24 footage. besides, you can clearly see the building standing behind her after she reported its collapse.
-- I'll have to review the bbc24 footage you mention again. But you MUST be kidding about the video of the building still standing after she reported it fell ... video is recorded. Could it be that it was previous footage?
-- the BBC IS NOT saying it was previous footage, The can not defend it, we have the time stamps from that interview, those words were said by those 2 people from 4.57 to 5.18 when the picture defaulted...2 minutes before the actual collapse.
-- 2. A Simple misunderstanding. News reports of events unfolding are often incorrect and riddled with here say and rumour. It's the "chinese whispers" effect along with witnesses with faulty recall or vivid imaginations in times of stress. The BBC simply caught one of these rumours as fact.
-- 2. 3 different videos from different news agencies show the same "misunderstanding". Who was feeding the information to the controlled media? There was prior knowledge which proves it was planned.
-- Is the famous "confession video" genuine? Despite Bush's insistence that the tape is authentic, America's top academic Bin Laden expert has finally gone on the record, joining numerous other experts.
"It's bogus," says Professor Bruce Lawrence, head of Duke University's Religious Studies program.
Lawrence, author of Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama Bin Laden, offered his historic debunking of the administration's lie.
Why has the Bush Administration been lying for more than five years by telling us that this preposterously bad hoax is a genuine "confession video"? Lawrence, citing informants in the US intelligence apparatus's Bin Laden units, said that everyone knows the tape is fake, adding that the hoax has been kept alive because it is politically useful to those who wish to deflect attention from
"conspiracy theories" about 9/11.
If Professor Lawrence, simply by comparing the overweight impostor in the Fatty Bin Laden bogus confession video to other pictures of Osama Bin Laden—the Bush Administration, by repeatedly citing the tape as authentic, is clearly guilty of obstruction of justice at best, high treason and conspiracy to mass murder at worst. Since the FBI now tells us that Osama Bin Laden is "not wanted for 9/11" because there is "no hard evidence" connecting him to the 9/11 attacks.
-- What terrorists? Please tell me. Are you talking about the published list of supposed hijackers?
Try looking into their identities.
Also, Google the Venice Flying Circus and watch the films, then tell me if you really believe Atta was a devout Muslim who hated the US.
He was a coc aine smuggler and user into fast money and had a blond, very American girlfriend.
He was paid $200,000 for whatever operation he thought he was on that day.
-- The BBC has confirmed themselves of the time. BBC has responded to it admitting the reports came early. It actually started 26 min before hand.

posted on Mar, 19 2007 @ 07:58 PM
Here is the online petition send continuously with more and more underwriters, to the BBC, asking to explain how they got that 23 minutes too early transcript their reporter read far too early, in front of a window looking out on the still standing WTC 7 tower, while telling that it already collapsed, and btw, you can't zoom in on a blue- or greenscreen inserted background, simultaneously zooming in on a reporter standing in front of that screen (non-existing, as stated lately by the BBC) :
Go underwrite that petition, if your heart is at the base of the true meaning of the Declaration of the Constitution.

Eric Hufschmid wrote two books, "Painful Questions" and "Painful Deceptions".
He also made the following film, 41 minutes long, "WTC 7 (new footage)" :

Google Video Link

EDIT : Again, this video link does not work, is ATS blocked by GoogleVideo or Network.RealMedia ???
This is their original link :

In this video footage, shown on September 10, 2006 for the 9/11 truth movement, you at last see the WTC 7 south face burning, and some very suspicious white flashes coming through windows (no, not the many white papers flying around, real flashes to be seen in the slow motion footage shown also).

Here is a non-censored video link website, where you can find all videos, not endorsed and censored by evil mainstream companies :

Have a look at that beautiful piece of artwork posted there :
And now for something completely different

Stunning, beautiful piece of artwork. CROPCIRCLES
Makes you wonder who performed it, ain't it?
Pay attention to the cropcircle with the ASCI code in it, at 2/3 in the video, and it's translation overlayed.!
This should be the base of all your present and future true feelings and beliefs.

It should be a good idea for the administrators of ATS, to include an embedded link to this amazing video site, just as has been done for Google and YouTube videos.
There are many 9/11 videos to be found, which you will not find at the other, censored video sites.
And there are a few truly amazing new 9/11 videos to appear there shortly....

This is the trailer of an upcoming long video compilation of eye/earwitnesses who all report bombs going off in all three World Trade Centre towers :
The Ultimate Con 911 Documentary Trailer 1 :

EDIT : again, this YouTube video does not show, does ATS get blocked by YouTube or Network.RealMedia ?
This is the original YouTube link :

EDIT2 : Now they all show again, bugs are damn critters. END-EDIT.

[edit on 19/3/07 by LaBTop]

posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 07:01 AM
The breaking news is that WTC 7 has collapsed, and all the time we can see parts of WTC 7 behind the reporter's head. And right before they zoom in on the building the reporter moves her head in the wrong direction, as to reveal WTC 7, which she was partially hiding. And when they zoom in she starts to talk about the Twin Towers, although the story is about the collapsed WTC 7.

This clip is a mixture of old and new footages. BBC are very well aware that 9/11 was a Zionist job. They are part of the coverup. So are all the other newsmedia owned by Zionist Jews.

Presidents or owners:
Jew - CBS - Paley
Jew - NBC - Jeff -(rey) Zucker
Jew - ABC - Stuart Bloomberg and George W. Bodenheimer
Jew - ABC news - David Westin
Jew - CNN - Gerald Levin
Jew - FOX - Gail Berman
Jew - MBS - Ronnessen

Jew - The World Bank Group - Paul Wolfowitz
Jew - The World Trade Centers - Larry Silverstein

Who other than the boss of CIA would own the building where they had secret offices?

The Zionist Jew Larry Silverstein brought down his buildings on 9/11. The Zionist Jew Paul Wolfowitz stated in September 2000 that USA needed a catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor. One year later that event arrived. The Zionists are so lucky.

9/11 was a Zionist job! The Zionists have infiltrated America.

I started to expose Alex as being part of the criminal network on his blog feb 22nd. He needed "breaking evidence" to present on his blog, to draw attention away from the blogcomments. I was exposing lies from Jim Hoffman, Morgan Reynolds and other fake "truthseekers".

I was blocked from writing on his blog and two videos from two different newschannels, allegedly broadcasted live on 9/11 - both implying the same in two different ways with two extremely incompetent reporters - pop simultaneously out of Alex Jones' magic hat.

These two "breaking evidences" were very big only for a very short time. Jones has totally forgotten about them already. Maybe because they are so obviously fake?

- Alex Jones is headed for the mental institution -

Alex "New World Order" Jones now believes that Boeing conspired with muslims on 9/11 and that they hijacked some planes with a remote control especially designed to crash planes into buildings owned by Zionist Jews.

Morgan Reynolds, who started to work for Bush one week prior to 9/11, and who now is a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, believes that the planes which hit the WTCs had blue screens under them - so to make them invisible.

Michael Zebuhr, a member of the Scholars, was killed under strange circumstances. The professors are not making a big deal out of this in an attempt to find out who did it.

Instead - they are covering it up - pretending it didn't happen.

The Scholars for 9/11 Truth appeared to be a group of intelligent professors when it first appeared. But in less than one year they have degraded into an obnoxious group that fights over whether nuclear bombs or Space Weapons brought down the towers.

False Flag Operations are typical Zionist operation.

According to Jewish myth, the King of Jews will bring all Gentile nations, cultures and religions to ruins through world wars. The King of Jews, whom the Jews call "Messiah", will then rule the world from Jerusalem.
To get away with crimes, pretend to be a crime fighter

[edit on 20-3-2007 by TrondH]

posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 12:56 PM
I see anti-semetism is alive and kicking.

posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 01:57 PM

Originally posted by DOcean
Though this is fishy, there are possible explanations...

The reporter could be using a green screen w/ a shot from earlier that day. Just because she turns around, says "right behind me" or points doesn't mean she's standing in that window sill. Many movies are filmed w/ green screen, but you wouldn't really know it to look at them. Weatherman use green screen all the time. Look at the lighting on her face. It's not natural lighting as the windows are behind her. She's in a studio somewhere, why is it so hard to accept that might just not be a live shot?

The times on the video could have been altered. This is not all that hard to do.

It's possible, though not likely that she was referring to a different building.

This evidence is far from damning. Interesting, but not damning...

if you look back over the first 20 pages of this thread you will see this all discussed and explained in great detail.

posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 03:07 PM

Originally posted by snoopy
I see anti-semetism is alive and kicking.

You didn't want to see what was written obviously. You didn't like those facts? You seem to be unable to show any arguments. Arabs are originally Semites. You Zionist muslimhating ant-Semites will go to jail when the criminal network crack up. It's falling apart as we speak. And then there will be an end to all wars and lies.

[edit on 20-3-2007 by TrondH]

posted on Mar, 21 2007 @ 02:11 AM
9/11 was a Jew Job!

The Zionist Jew Paul Wolfowitz - who became President of The World Bank Group on March 31, 2005 - stated in September 2000 that USA needed a catastrophic and catalyzing event.

One year later the Zionist Jew Larry Silverstein demolished his World Trade Centers - told Bush to blame the Arabs and collected the insurance money.

9/11 was a Zionist Job!
9/11 was an Israeli Job!
9/11 was a Jew Job!

According to Jewish myth, the King of Jews will bring all Gentile nations, cultures and religions to ruins through world wars. The King of Jews, whom the Jews call "Messiah", will then rule the world from Jerusalem.

posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 06:55 PM
Congratulations,'ve obvious found the smoking gun that unravels the greatest crime of our times. Good work!!

Just have a couple of questions....

The conspirators must be some pretty smart guys. After all, they were able to:

1. Wire up the two tallest buildings in New York, plus a third 50-story building, with controlled demolition explosives. Despite the fact that thousands of ordinary people work in these buildings, no one noticed that the buildings were being setup for demolition. Furthermore, they were able to accomplish this task and keep it hidden in a very small amount of time.

2. Fake the hijacking of 4 planes, and somehow get rid of the planes, crew, and passengers, with no witnesses

3. Fake phone calls from hijacked passengers, using simulated voices that were authentic-sounding enough to fool even the families of the passengers.

4. Score a direct hit at both of the twin towers using pilotless drone aircrafts.

5 Ensure that the explosives were planted in such a way that the collapse of the towers begins at precisely the area of the buildings where the planes struck.

6 Arrange it so that the collapse of the north tower would seriously damage and start major fires in WTC7, so that even experts will be fooled and won't suspect that the building is really being deliberately destroyed

5. Fire a cruise missile at the Pentagon, fooling several dozen witnesses into believing that it was really an American Airlines jet.

6 Somehow transport the black boxes, and the remains of the passengers from the AA plane, back to the crash site at the Pentagon, while somehow spiriting away all of the wreakage of the missile.

7 Make sure that all of the hundreds of participants in the conspiracy keep quiet about this, despite the fact that 3000 Americans were deliberately killed for political and economic gain.

Yet, in spite of all of this careful and complex planning and execution, the conspirators were so stupid that they tipped off the news media ahead of time!! For what? Why was it necessary to tell the BBC ahead of time? What could it possibly have gained to involve any more participants? If the conspirators knew that WTC7 was coming down in a few minutes anyway, it served no purpose to tip off the news media and risk involving that many more potential whistle-blowers. The BBC would have reported it the same anyway, even if they weren't in on the plan. They are a news organization; that's what they do. Telling a news organization in advance is like printing a headline in the New York Times that says "We Did It!!".

Bottom line is that there is a far simpler explanation for what happened: Probably the BBC heard that WTC7 was in imminent danger of collapsing, and in their haste to report the story, they somehow got confused and jumped the gun. Instead of hearing that the building is about to collapse, they somehow heard that the building had already collapsed. A simple, human mistake. As much as conspiracy buffs would like you believe otherwise, sometimes a screw-up is just a screw up, and doesn't indicate anything sinister. A major news outlet making a premature declaration is certainly nothing new: think of the 2000 election, where several of the networks declared Al Gore the winner in Florida. Think of the recent mining disaster, in which members of the news media announced that 9 of the miners had survived, when in fact most of them had been killed.


posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 06:59 PM
There are dozens of accounts of firemen who, unlike the conspiracy buffs, were on the scene and knew that WTC7 was in bad shape and was probably going to collapse. There was a 20 story rip in the building, and there were huge fires burning for hours, fires that could not be fought properly because of insufficient water pressure. The building's collapse was not really a surprise to anyone at that point in time, and the fact that the BBC incorrectly reported it early does not indicate their complicity in a 'conspiracy'.
Clearly, this is a desparate attempt by the 9/11 'truth' movement, to interpret any trivial incident as evidence of a conspirary,

By the way, the word 'pull' does not refer to the process of destroying a building with explosives. My understanding is that the word is used in the demolition industry to refer to the process of destroying a badly-damaged build with cables; the building is 'pulled' down, rather than blown up. Clearly, there were no cables 'pulling' down WTC7, and when Larry Silverman used the term 'pull', he was not referring to the process of deliberately destroying WTC7. This is Silverman's quote:

"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

I think that, taken in context (particulary the line "We've had such a terrible loss of life"), most reasonable, open-minded people would acknowledge that he is referring to removing the fire fighters from harm's way when he uses
the word 'pull'. If the word 'pull' is so incriminating, why would he admit it while being interviewed on television? What does Silverman gain from the deliberate destruction of WTC7 anyway? Did it have political value as a means of further justifying the wars in Afganistan and Iraq? The shock value
that was required by the conspirators to justify the wars was already supplied by the collapse of the twin towers, and it's doubtful that the demise of WTC7 significantly adds to that. Was insurance fraud Silverman's motive? If so, the insurance companies (who have a lot more to lose than any of the
conspiracy buffs) seemed convinced that the building was not deliberately destroyed. Besides, Silverman did not need to blow up the building to collect the insurance money; it was so badly damaged by the collapse of the north tower, it would have been brought down anyway, even if it didn't collapse on it's own.

Besides, Silverman was not in a position of authority at that point to order anything. In that situation, the Chief of FDNY is the only person that can make that kind of decision. Silverman clearly reports that "they' made the decision to pull, and it is clear that he is referring to the Fire Department.

Conspiracy theorists are, I believe, predisposed to interpret every event and every ambiguous quote as somehow suspicious. They are looking for a smoking gun, and in the absence of any real physical evidence, this quote, plus the erroneous BBC report, are the closest that they have been able to come. I have no problem with those who raise issues and question the results of the official report on 9/11. This is a democracy, and we are entitled to hear the truth from our government. But when every question is answered, and there is a reasonable, logical explanation provided for every objection raised, then it's the responsibility of those in the 'Truth' movement to weigh the evidence intelligently and objectively. Otherwise, those
that are going through the burden of providing these answers are just wasting their breath.

new topics

top topics

<< 60  61  62    64  65  66 >>

log in