Explain this? WT7 explosions in the windows.

Originally posted by foodstamp

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by foodstamp
You have no proof whatsoever. There's a dozen or so news agencies that ALL did the same thing!
You Just have a claim by a woman.

The BBC admit it directly and explain it directly. Please just find and watch the documentary before telling me that I'm wrong. Thanks.

No they don't. They outright deny it completely!

www.bbc.co.uk...

There's the BBC statements written by BBC right there at that link.

Did you even read your link? The BBC official response seems to be

" there is no cover up and we could prove that IF WE HAD THE TAPES. But we dont so you have to believe us. But we are not covering it up"

that is not "proof" by your own standards. And how do you "lose" the tapes from one of the most important days in history?

reply to post by iwilliam


Even if you could show a time stamp that was early it still doesn't "prove" a thing. Again, the obvious fact that a bunch of news agencies reported WTC7 collapsed indicates that it was greenscreen.

Not too mention, you can watch WTC 7 footage and you will find the firemen saying "it's collapsing" "it's about to collapse" "It's coming down" up to an hour before it collapsed! It was making noise and collapsing in some parts. BBC could've easily got a report that it was collapsed when in fact it was not. They just didn't verify. They want to be the "first" ones with the news. Of course they rush to put it on the air!

Originally posted by Another_Nut

Originally posted by foodstamp

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by foodstamp
You have no proof whatsoever. There's a dozen or so news agencies that ALL did the same thing!
You Just have a claim by a woman.

The BBC admit it directly and explain it directly. Please just find and watch the documentary before telling me that I'm wrong. Thanks.

No they don't. They outright deny it completely!

www.bbc.co.uk...

There's the BBC statements written by BBC right there at that link.

Did you even read your link? The BBC official response seems to be

" there is no cover up and we could prove that IF WE HAD THE TAPES. But we dont so you have to believe us. But we are not covering it up"

that is not "proof" by your own standards

They say they don't have the tapes so that's proof they got a report before wtc 7 fell? No way bud... No way is that an indicator.

Anyways, youtube it. There's a million people who actually do have the clip recorded. None of them show a time stamp. They say it was "deleted" and you guys choose to believe it.

Like I said in another post. Even if you find a time stamp, it doesn't indicate anything. People knew that building was coming down an hour before it did. It's no secret at all.

Again! the fact that many news agencies reported WTC 7 collapsed with wtc 7 still in their background is Evidence that it wasn't a conspiracy. Unless you'd suggest all news agencies, both local AND national all were privy to top secret information.

reply to post by foodstamp


I'm not a big fan of this forum as it could go either way in my mind...what do you make of this?

[


Can't post vid for some reason:
Link



Yuck. So many edits...sorry.

reply to post by superman2012


The clip says it don't exist... Look I'll make it easy for you guys. There is in fact a BBC clip that shows a time stamp ok? But it proves nothing... As I've indicated before...

Originally posted by Another_Nut


that is not "proof" by your own standards. And how do you "lose" the tapes from one of the most important days in history?

edit on 6-12-2012 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)

It doesn't matter if they "lost" it or not. Because the footage is all over the internet!

Originally posted by foodstamp
reply to post by superman2012

 

The clip says it don't exist... Look I'll make it easy for you guys. There is in fact a BBC clip that shows a time stamp ok? But it proves nothing... As I've indicated before...

Saying they were all using a greenscreen when they claim to be there live, is not an argument. Nor a convincing one.

reply to post by superman2012


YEah I've seen the larry silverstein video. I think he's indicating it was brought down.

Look, I'm not a 911 conspiracy debunker. I do in fact believe there's a cover up. However, Im in search of truth and evidence. And BBC timstamps are not evidence that WTC 7 was brought down by the US.

I think Larry silverstein's statements are more credible than a timestamp definatley. But he would defend his words later by saying he meant "pull it" in the sense that they got all the people out because they thought it was coming down. Which in fact it did. So, you'll never know really what he meant...

Originally posted by superman2012

Originally posted by foodstamp
reply to post by superman2012

 

The clip says it don't exist... Look I'll make it easy for you guys. There is in fact a BBC clip that shows a time stamp ok? But it proves nothing... As I've indicated before...

Saying they were all using a greenscreen when they claim to be there live, is not an argument. Nor a convincing one.

Heh, clearly you haven't watched the news clips. Please provide a decent argument... None of these newclips that report the WTC 7 coming down are also claiming to be on location live.

You also have to realize on location does not mean they are in the mess. It means there in a studio nine times outta 10... In new York...Not at ground zero

Originally posted by foodstamp

Originally posted by superman2012

Originally posted by foodstamp
reply to post by superman2012

 

The clip says it don't exist... Look I'll make it easy for you guys. There is in fact a BBC clip that shows a time stamp ok? But it proves nothing... As I've indicated before...

Saying they were all using a greenscreen when they claim to be there live, is not an argument. Nor a convincing one.

Heh, clearly you haven't watched the news clips. Please provide a decent argument... None of these newclips that report the WTC 7 coming down are also claiming to be on location live.

You also have to realize on location does not mean they are in the mess. It means there in a studio nine times outta 10... In new York...Not at ground zero

edit on 12/6/1212 by foodstamp because: (no reason given)

Except for when it says "live" in the corner and they announce they are in Manhattan...but besides that, yes, you are correct.

Originally posted by foodstamp

Originally posted by Another_Nut

Originally posted by foodstamp

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by foodstamp
You have no proof whatsoever. There's a dozen or so news agencies that ALL did the same thing!
You Just have a claim by a woman.

The BBC admit it directly and explain it directly. Please just find and watch the documentary before telling me that I'm wrong. Thanks.

No they don't. They outright deny it completely!

www.bbc.co.uk...



There's the BBC statements written by BBC right there at that link.

Did you even read your link? The BBC official response seems to be

" there is no cover up and we could prove that IF WE HAD THE TAPES. But we dont so you have to believe us. But we are not covering it up"

that is not "proof" by your own standards

They say they don't have the tapes so that's proof they got a report before wtc 7 fell? No way bud... No way is that an indicator.

Anyways, youtube it. There's a million people who actually do have the clip recorded. None of them show a time stamp. They say it was "deleted" and you guys choose to believe it.

Like I said in another post. Even if you find a time stamp, it doesn't indicate anything. People knew that building was coming down an hour before it did. It's no secret at all.

Again! the fact that many news agencies reported WTC 7 collapsed with wtc 7 still in their background is Evidence that it wasn't a conspiracy. Unless you'd suggest all news agencies, both local AND national all were privy to top secret information.

edit on 12/6/1212 by foodstamp because: (no reason given)

so you are believing this BBC story that they "lost" the 9/11 tapes that WOULD have q time stamp?
I have seen no other footage of pre reporting the collapse.

You say dont believe a story but you want me to buy the official BBC story?
for me the only thing that matters on 9/11 is the "spire" . It proves that the towers wernt brought down conventionally
any thing else is gravey

Originally posted by foodstamp
reply to post by superman2012

 

YEah I've seen the larry silverstein video. I think he's indicating it was brought down.

Look, I'm not a 911 conspiracy debunker. I do in fact believe there's a cover up. However, Im in search of truth and evidence. And BBC timstamps are not evidence that WTC 7 was brought down by the US.

I think Larry silverstein's statements are more credible than a timestamp definatley. But he would defend his words later by saying he meant "pull it" in the sense that they got all the people out because they thought it was coming down. Which in fact it did. So, you'll never know really what he meant...

I agree with you here. This goes along quite nicely (in my opinion) with the video of Rudy talking about WTC7 being a hub of government offices...some of which he couldn't name. It would make sense to me, if the building was compromised, to destroy all evidence rather than let it fall into enemy hands, or allow it to be seen by people that shouldn't be looking....maybe the aliens from Area 51 were there.

reply to post by foodstamp


What the heck is your point? Even if she is in front of a green screen, or it was at an earlier time, whatever time the pic was taken there was no raging inferno.
Not in the morning.
Not in the afternoon.
Not 5 minutes before it collapsed.

So what made it fall?

reply to post by superman2012


Look at this clip for example.

www.youtube.com...

The woman is reporting the third building went down (wtc7) but they show recorded video that displays wtc 7 still up. Even though that's the case. This woman doesn't know what's going on so she says that the smoke in the clip is from the third building having fallen down. Which is false.. THEN wtc 7 collapses and she plays it off like she didn't just make a whole series of mistakes..

All these anchors were rushing to get the news out.

Originally posted by PaperbackWriter
reply to post by foodstamp

 

What the heck is your point? Even if she is in front of a green screen, or it was at an earlier time, whatever time the pic was taken there was no raging inferno.
Not in the morning.
Not in the afternoon.
Not 5 minutes before it collapsed.

So what made it fall?

I think it was brought down intentionally. Personally, I think that all the WTC buildings had self demolition charges in them just based upon the fact that they had to worlds most important secrets inside. Do we really think that we (the US) would just let those buildings be comprimised without a backup plan? Absolutely not!

Like I said before bud. I'm not a conspiracy debunker. But i'm looking at evidence. And a time stamp is not evidence... That's all

reply to post by foodstamp


Right, but again, it doesn't say "live" so you are saying this was pre-recorded or are you going against your own argument? Also, notice how you could put a ruler or any other straight edge against it and it appears to go straight down?

Originally posted by Another_Nut

so you are believing this BBC story that they "lost" the 9/11 tapes that WOULD have q time stamp?
I have seen no other footage of pre reporting the collapse. [

I believe you haven't cause you've done no research! Lol That's why your supporting this outdated theory..

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

Would you like more? Cause I could go on and on...

You say dont believe a story but you want me to buy the official BBC story?

No, I want you to analyse the evidence and find that many news agencies all said the same thing and made the same error as BBC. This is an indicator that it was not information that was given to BBC prior to wtc 7 actually collapsing. That's all..

for me the only thing that matters on 9/11 is the "spire" . It proves that the towers wernt brought down conventionally
any thing else is gravey

See, now your using evidence... Good call.. "Proves" is a little much.. But you get the idea...

Originally posted by foodstamp

Originally posted by PaperbackWriter
reply to post by foodstamp

 

What the heck is your point? Even if she is in front of a green screen, or it was at an earlier time, whatever time the pic was taken there was no raging inferno.
Not in the morning.
Not in the afternoon.
Not 5 minutes before it collapsed.

So what made it fall?

I think it was brought down intentionally. Personally, I think that all the WTC buildings had self demolition charges in them just based upon the fact that they had to worlds most important secrets inside. Do we really think that we (the US) would just let those buildings be comprimised without a backup plan? Absolutely not!

Like I said before bud. I'm not a conspiracy debunker. But i'm looking at evidence. And a time stamp is not evidence... That's all

Just look at the spire its all the evidence you will need . 60+ stories stood for 14 seconds before disappearing into nothing
did it fall straight down? Nope only 7 stories below and no damage to the "tub".
did it fall over? Nope would have hit something .an adjacent building or something
is it in the rubble ? Nope you can see from the pics on 9/11 that the spire just ceased to exist.

No time stamp needed lol. Nite all

Originally posted by superman2012

Originally posted by foodstamp

Originally posted by superman2012

Originally posted by foodstamp
reply to post by superman2012

 

The clip says it don't exist... Look I'll make it easy for you guys. There is in fact a BBC clip that shows a time stamp ok? But it proves nothing... As I've indicated before...

Saying they were all using a greenscreen when they claim to be there live, is not an argument. Nor a convincing one.

Heh, clearly you haven't watched the news clips. Please provide a decent argument... None of these newclips that report the WTC 7 coming down are also claiming to be on location live.

You also have to realize on location does not mean they are in the mess. It means there in a studio nine times outta 10... In new York...Not at ground zero

edit on 12/6/1212 by foodstamp because: (no reason given)

Except for when it says "live" in the corner and they announce they are in Manhattan...but besides that, yes, you are correct.

I don't know what clip your refering to or what your getting at but perhaps you'd like to share the link and better explain what your trying to say?

Not only is the video edited/fake, but Ive read this same topic years ago when the last guy fell for it.