Originally posted by twitchy
reply to post by Anonymous ATS

---

Reporting events before they actually happen isn't very plausible either, yet it happened...

The building the BBC reported as collapsed still stands behind the reporter. Interestingly, the BBC, usually well known for their meticulous record keeping, has since 'lost' the time coded originals for this broadcast. Scripted events or amazing ability to predict the collapse of the assumably structurally sound WTC 7? This is just one example of a myriad of cooincidences and anamolies we're expected to swallow in order for the official story to work.
Plausibility works both ways...

BBC denies "conspiracy" over 9/11 video

Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Yesterday, Richard Porter, an editor from BBC News, wrote a blog entry to respond to a controversy that has erupted overnight in the blogosphere. "We're not part of a conspiracy," he assures his readers. "We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening."

At the heart of the controversy is a video that surfaced on Google Video and YouTube. It is a segment taken from the BBC's own archive of their news coverage of the events of September 11. In it, reporter Jane Standley reports the complete unexpected collapse of WTC 7. However, she presented this information half an hour before it actually happened. In fact, while she is reporting the demise of WTC 7, it is clearly visible right behind her. During the course of the broadcast, the studio loses the connection with her, and when she returns, the building is gone.

During the first part of the broadcast, she gives specific details about the building, how many floors it has, who owns & leases it, and the fact that nobody was inside at the time of the collapse. All of these facts that Ms. Standley presented were 100% accurate.

In Porter's 5-point response to the accusations, he insists that his organization was the victim of chaos, not conspiracy. Unfortunately, Porter says, none of the reporters involved remember exactly what happened, and they have lost all of the original archive tapes, making it impossible to check. Porter explains that "like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services."

He concludes that, at worst, they simply made an error — an error that happened to be prophetic. He signs off by quoting a flippant comment from YouTube: "so the guy in the studio didn't quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy... ".

Directly beneath Porter's blog are two-dozen comments from BBC News readers. The comments are less than appreciative.

en.wikinews.org...

Originally posted by twitchy
I suppose jet fuel also causes structural Steel to section itself off into 30' pieces for hauling though.

posted by HowardRoark
I don’t suppose it ever occurred to the theologian (or to you for that matter) that the columns were originally manufactured in 30 foot lengths, did it? The 30 foot lengths were bolted together to form the structure. When the structure collapsed, the bolted joints were the weak points that failed.

Furthermore, it two pieces were still attached after the collapse, it would have been a lot easier and faster for the workers to separate them by cutting the bolts rather then to cut the column itself in half.

posted by Zamboni

I am trained in structural engineering (University of Western Ontario - Canada) ... and even IF the collapse was initiated at the point of plane impact the entire structure would have only partially collapsed and surely not in symetry. Also the time for a complete collapse due to the absurd 'pancake' theory would have been at least 20-30 secs since each structural joint would have resisted failure, not to mention the central support structure was designed inside of the floor truss structure (47 columns). However the video evidence shows pulverization and disintegration at near free fall acceleration which means the internal central structure must have failed throughtout the 110 stories in a simultaneous dynamic action .... which is exactly what demolition crews attempt to create.

Mr Roark either has the attention span of some brevity or he is blinded by internet disinfo .... It is common knowledge in the 'Structural Engineering' community worldwide that the WTC's didn't collapse, but very few will publically admit it due to fear of corporate reprisals.

The key to understanding the demolition of the WTC's is to know that nearly ALL the concrete floor and wall structures were pulverized ... a simple collapse would have left thousands of tonnes of broken pieces of concrete piled high above ground zero. And a number of static vertical support columns would have remained standing at least a few hundred feet in the air and a 'collapse' would have been slow moving and partial or toppling in appearance.