BBC News Reports Building 7 collapse 23 Minutes before it collapses., page 66


Pages: <<  63    64    65    66  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 101 times


reply posted on 25-4-2009 @ 10:21 AM by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by SPreston



No, what is amazing is that this thread is still alive. The news media makes mistakes on almost every "breaking news" story. This has been explained (with examples) multiple times, and yet people still think that the BBC saying the building had collapsed, when it had not, is some sort of proof of a big bad conspiracy.

While I do not have the BBC on tape, I DO have another network on tape from that day. And they were talking about how it was feared that WTC 7 was going to collapse at some point, and this went on until the building actually collapsed, no loss of link, no static, just one continuous transmission.


reply posted on 25-4-2009 @ 10:37 AM by Smack
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999





The news media makes mistakes on almost every "breaking news" story.


except that this "mistake" was repeated by three separate news outlets on the same day.

Nice try though.


reply posted on 25-4-2009 @ 11:06 PM by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Smack



How many news outlets used the bad AP report about Flight 93 that day? Heres a hint...it was more than one...

Remember the mining accident, where the dozen or so guys were trapped? EVERY network reported that eleven of them had been found alive....EVERY network.........and yet, the next morning we found out the truth, only one man was found alive.

On a big story, crap like that always happens. One network will report something, and next thing you know, it pops up on a couple others. They get in a hurry to scoop the competitors and run with something before it gets verified.


reply posted on 26-4-2009 @ 11:17 AM by Smack
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999



I know. Don't you worry, Swampy. I'm sure all those coincidences can be explained away. You've done a masterful job so far in dismissing every single piece of evidence thrown your way.

I guess it was a common occurrence in the world pre 911 for buildings on fire to suddenly implode on themselves. That would explain how they were so sure that it would -- an hour before it actually did.


reply posted on 26-4-2009 @ 01:17 PM by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Smack



Except...the buildings didnt implode, they collapsed due to severe damage and fire.

And, I dont dismiss actual evidence...altered youtube video, and ravings about dust residue dont count.

[edit on 26-4-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]


reply posted on 11-11-2010 @ 07:22 AM by Alfie1
Originally posted by andy1033
Amazing how the bbc never explained that video. Not sure myself on it, but i saw a bbc reporter being put on spot about it, and he was stumped.


The BBC has explained it, long ago :-

www.bbc.co.uk...

What is the alternative ? that the perps thought it was a good idea to give a foreign news outlet a script as to how it was all going to go down ? Isn't that insane ?

Was this the only error in reporting that day ? Did a car bomb really go off at the State Dept ?
Pages: <<  63    64    65    66  >>    ^^TOP^^



Why the Pentagon?
  Posted 3 days ago with 12 member flags
NEVER FORGET 9-11….Maybe we SHOULD forget.
  Posted 11 days ago with 11 member flags
Personal Theory on The Twin Towers Plane Pilots
  Posted 0 days ago with 8 member flags
The 9/11 Hijackers: Fraud in Official Video Exhibits Uncovered
  Posted 1 days ago with 7 member flags
Note from trapped workers surfaces 10 years after 9/11
  Posted 1 days ago with 6 member flags
Where were you when the world stopped turning...
  Posted 2 days ago with 4 member flags

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

My rant about my country.... England
  Rant: 8 hours ago, 45 replies
PROOF 9/11/01 was an inside job
  9/11 Conspiracies: 17 hours ago, 35 replies
I have a new Kitten....
  General Chit Chat: 17 hours ago, 26 replies