posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 05:06 AM
Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Clearly there were reports it was expected to collapse that were mis-reported,
"Clearly"? Only in your
imagination. Who could have expected WTC7 to collapse naturally
, in view of the limited damage from the fall
of the NorthTower and the fires confined to a few floors? 'Clearly', the gouges in the south face of the building could not have caused a
collapse at free-fall speed! And certainly none of the fire fighters anticipated immanent collapse, except after
they had been
told the building would be demolished. Yes, there are videos showing policemen warning people to get back from the area because the building was about
to come down. But that was not because they suddenly had a precognition or were stupid enough to believe such a thing could happen because of the
damage to the WTC7. It was because they had been told
it was being 'pulled' (remember that word?). To use the word 'clearly' is to
misrepresent the reality on the ground and to pass off a vacuous speculation about the existence of imaginary reports as though it is factual. Very
disingenuous of you.
or else someone 'slipped' and told the BBC about the planned demolition in advance. Either one I guess, whichever makes more sense to you.
Um, neither, really. Why on earth do you think the BBC had special favor with those carrying out the controlled demolition?
They would hardly let
the cat out of the bag and tell the biggest news organisation in the world that WTC7 had been demolished! The world was not meant to believe that.
Anyway, the BBC never reported it as such. The BBC did not make a mistake of misreporting (despite their pathetic attempt to defuse the issue by
claiming that they had) because CNN reported the same news at about the same time. The mistake was made by whoever was the source of the story.
[edit on 27-4-2008 by micpsi]