BBC Reports that WTC building 7 collapsed 20 minutes prior to it actually happening

If this link doesn't work, it's cuz youtube pulled it. If that's the case, I will upload and host for all to see.

Wonderful dialouge between a reporter and news anchor (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc)

For those of you that don't feel like clicking, I'll give a summary.

Clearly sometime before the "unexpected" collapse of building 7, a reporter from the BBC, who is clearly in New York, tells us repeatedly that WTC 7 (the solomon brothers' building) has collapsed. If you look behind her, over her left shoulder, you will see that the building is still very much intact.

It's quite clear some alleged unknown persons knew wtf was going on besides the public.

If you remember from reading the 9/11 Comssion report found here (http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf) you'll notice that the collapse of building 7 isn't even mentioned, or is it? (Someone verify for me plz) For those of you that haven't been keeping notes let's recap....

- it wasn't hit by a plane
- There was no large debris that would caused such an event, nor would that cause all the lower floors to crumble (look at some video, you'll see)
- there were no large fires accelerated by jet fuel, (as if jet fuel burns hot enough to melt steel...it doesnt)
- Larry Silverstein said they pulled it
- The BBC is saying the building collapsed before it happend, ergo, they knew it was about to be blown up too
- Condi says that they didn't know why it fell
- There is no reason given in the 9/11 Comission report (keep in mind this is the official statement by our goverment concerning the days events
- even NIST is now exploring the possibilities of explosives being used in WTC7's collapse


Informative Link 1 (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/270207trustanything.htm)

Informative Link 2 (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/270207bbcslammed.htm)


A picture of some of the buildings in close proximity to WTC 1 & 2, please note the non-uniform destruction of parts of the buildings. These buildings haven't been pulverized into dust like WTC7.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/docs/dcp_0898.jpg

This is a picture of WTC5. This building was demolitished 2 days later, after 9/11. Please note that this building while burning for hours and was damaged by falling debris did not collapse in less than 2 hours like WTC 1 and WTC 2, which were constructed in a far superior manner. Compare this to what we've seen of WTC7. If you are unsure of what WTC7 looked like before it's collapse, look at the BBC video or this CNN video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1LetB0z8_o) , where another reporter is telling us about the building's collapse before it actually happens. BBC was broadcasting about 20 minutes before it happend.

Here is a picture of WTC5 note the large fires, and smoke, which are not seen on WTC7. If there were fires on WTC7 they weren't as ravagenous as these, and this building stood for 2 whole days after the event...something doesn't add up.

http://911research.com/wtc/attack/docs/wtc5_fire_floors.jpg

Here's is a picture of WTC3. This building was not damaged, so much so, by fires but by substantial debris from WTC1 & 2. Please note, the non-uniform collapse. This structure was about 160ft away from WTC1 or 2. One would figure, that a building that close to the twin towers, surely would have fallen to pieces.
http://physics911.ca/gallery2/d/6230-1/fig-3-7.jpg

Here's a layout of the WTC complex. Remeber WTC6? It also stood for 2 whole days before being deliberately demolished.
http://killtown.911review.org/images/wtc6/ny-map-wtc6.jpg
Picture of building 6.
http://killtown.911review.org/images/wtc6/wtc6-side-aerial-hr.jpg

Something is amiss....

oh yeah another one and now the whole bbc is in on it....

If you remember from reading the 9/11 Comssion report found here you'll notice that the collapse of building 7 isn't even mentioned, or is it? (Someone verify for me plz)


Yes, it is mentioned. In fact, they specifically said that the collapse was brought about by a Mason and a Knight Templar driving a hijacked Crossfire.

wack, waste of a thread. /

everyone loves a conspiracy story, stupid thread.

I love conspiracy theories...
This one ranks right up there with the whole lunar landing being filmed in a Hollywood studio, Or the Jewish Holocaust never really happening. Revisionist History at it's finest.

I'm pretty sure you can't even begin to imagine the mind bogingly ammount of potential energy those buildings packed in their very construction, just by the merit of their sheer size.
The history channel ran a documentary on Mount Vesuvious a couple of weeks ago, comparing the destructive force of that volcanic erruption, to the force of the WTC collapse, look it up...very eye opening.

As for the building collapse. do we have an exact timeline of the actual building collapsing, time stamped in any reliable manner, or just some smoke filled sceenes from the news, with no time stamp and a building in the distance that some claim is BLDG 7?

Even if it was, at a time of panic like that rumors start flooding in. Someone says "the building is compromised structurally and could collapse any minute" and next thing you know some talking head in the news is claiming "the building has collapsed and taken half the city with it" just to be the first to announce it in the news.

The great thing about conspiracy theories is that there is no way to proove them, but they use that lack of proof, as evidence that since it cannot be disprooved it must be true.

circular logic at it's finest... "If the tail wags the dog, is the tail wagging, or the dog the one that wags... well it depends...Do you ask the tail...or the dog?"

gahh!!! dont talk about the the Templars- they'll come for you , man!!

gahh!!! dont talk about the the Templars- they'll come for you , man!!
Bah. They are no match for a member of the Illuminati.

^^^Ahem...the Priory of Scion would like to have a word with you

^^^Ahem...the Priory of Scion would like to have a word with you
Bah. I am not afraid of Toyota subsidiaries either.

^^Scion,??!!??

Holds NOTHING to the Priory of Mazda (Zoom will be the founding member, and we'll hold crusades against all things Piston and against MPG threads)

teh ghey

Yo, I'm hanging with the Templars.

http://members.aol.com/eurosin/amandoandfriend.jpg

teh ghey

Pie anyone?

Yes, it is mentioned. In fact, they specifically said that the collapse was brought about by a Mason and a Knight Templar driving a hijacked Crossfire.
ive got my eye on you now!

I actually was really impressed with Farenheight 9/11 - and def do think there is a lot missing from the Govts version of what happened... but

this thread isnt goiong to go anywhere. Too many people are stuck in their shoes and no matter how much evidence you show them, W is always right.

-hS

ive got my eye on you now!

:naughty:

...you guys have obviously never watched "Loose Change 2nd edition". this is a conspiracy, it was planned by the Amer. Gov. for sure.

...you guys have obviously never watched "Loose Change 2nd edition". this is a conspiracy, it was planned by the Amer. Gov. for sure.
Plus it's got a nice beat and you can dance to it.

:bsmeter:

Plus it's got a nice beat and you can vogue to it.

:bsmeter:
:angel:

you guys obvious never watched "old school", great movie.


"BLUE!!!, HOW COME THERE'S NO ICE IN MY LEMONADE???!!!"

All the evidence I need is when the consumate whack-job, Oliver Stone, digs into all the details, yet finds only stories of courage and heroism. Trust me (and him) if there was any conspiracy, he would be the one to find it.

I find it sad that you, and idiots like you, fail to see the valor and sacrifice displayed - preferring to focus on the boogeyman under your bed....

S

:angel:
:rollingla

The bogetman under the bed is nothing...
the real bad a$$ is the one in the closet...

The bogetman under the bed is nothing...
the real bad a$$ is the one in the closet...

That's why you pack heat under your pillow. You can pop a cap in his ass and sleep peacefully...until the next night when he respawns. Persistent little bastards...

you guys obvious never watched "old school", great movie.


"BLUE!!!, HOW COME THERE'S NO ICE IN MY LEMONADE???!!!"


Something good has come of this thread. I just looked this movie up, and now I'm adding it to my Netflix queue.

sigh....fuck me

As we sit here picnicking on the Grassy Knoll
Is it possible our BBC reporter really did say it 20 minutes early because they didn't know which building was which? No too easy...

So has the BBC figured out, yet, what is in the gasoline that is killing all those cars in England - was it terrorism or just a really bad batch?

Anyone know which oil company was the supplier?

(The Holy Grail was really Joseph of Aramathia's passover service cup!!!)

I like how everyone believes exactly what the govt tells them, even when theres a pile of evidence to suggest otherwise.

U-S-A U-S-A U-S-A - ur only patriotic if you dont ask questions.

-hS

maximum jet fuel burning temp: 980 °C (1796 °F)

While Steel's melting point is around 1300 °C, it starts bending way before that. in addition, the floor trusses that made up the WTC was lightweight steel (also known as lightgauge steel) which is thinner than regular steel. also, there was 4 inches of lightweight concrete on top of these trusses (spaced at about 6 foot o.c.). People must understand that steel trusses are designed for the loads it must handle, not for handling up to 980 °C heat.

I hate conspiracy theories. Yeah, and a missile hit the pentagon too :jerkit:

-Steakboy

...


...squirrels did it!

OJ did it!

I would also recommend "loose change" if you haven't seen it and want a different opinion.
I don't believe in it as I haven't done any research on the info contained in it, but it was cool to watch.

I also don't believe in the gov't reports. everything is so censored, we will never know what really happened so I am not going to worry about it.

Took a JFK class in college. One thing I remember was that people find it hard to believe that a loser like Oswald could kill the most powerful man in the world. Sure, there was evidence going in many directions but nothing concrete. A lot of it was conflicting testimony from guess who, the public. It's also hard for some to believe that the Japanese surprised the hell out of us and almost wiped out our entire pacific fleet. There is no need to call something a conspiracy if there is hard evidence. Try telling this to Roswell believers. All the testismony and people involved and no hard bit evidence. Quite ridiculous indeed. The government is not good at keeping secrets but people are damn good at making b.s. up.

I like how everyone believes exactly what the govt tells them, even when theres a pile of evidence to suggest otherwise.

U-S-A U-S-A U-S-A - ur only patriotic if you dont ask questions.

-hS
I don't believe everything that any government or any administration says. It's just that the conspiracy theorists employ either half truths or outright lies. Their theories are founded on asking questions and then refusing to consider the answers.

I would also recommend "loose change" if you haven't seen it and want a different opinion.
I don't believe in it as I haven't done any research on the info contained in it, but it was cool to watch.

I also don't believe in the gov't reports. everything is so censored, we will never know what really happened so I am not going to worry about it.

The Loose Change folks are notoriously dishonest.
Really, just about everything you need to know about the conspiracy theorists can be debunked right on this one page. (http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11.html) Excellent detail on how the theorists ignore the full picture and manipulate the evidence.

excerpt:
-----

The documentary “Loose Change” claims that the hole left in the Pentagon by the alleged airplane was “a single hole, no more than 16 feet in diameter,” and that no remains whatsoever of Flight 77 were found at the crash site. To dramatically support this last point, conspiracy theorists cite CNN correspondent Jamie McIntyre’s report from the crash site on 9/11, which says, “From my close-up inspection, there’s no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.”24

Like the previously discussed arguments about WTC 7 not being damaged enough to fall on its own, complaints about the size of the hole in the Pentagon left by Flight 77 rely on selective choice of perspective. 9/11 conspiracy theorists like to reference pictures of the damaged Pentagon in which the hole made by the plane appears to be small, but aren’t as fond of the pictures accurately showing the full extent of the damage. Some conspiracy theorists also don’t seem satisfied that the shape of the hole matches that expected for a crashed airplane. But the expectation that the plane should have left an immediately recognizable hole in the building is delusional — a speeding Boeing 757 will not leave a snow-angel style impression of itself in a concrete building (versus the mostly-glass exterior of the WTC buildings, which did leave an outline of a plane). And the contention that no remains of Flight 77 were found at the crash site is simply absurd. Many pictures taken of the area around the Pentagon crash site clearly show parts of an airplane in the wreckage. In an excellent article about 9/11 conspiracy theories in Popular Mechanics, blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer describes his own observations as the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after Flight 77 crashed:

I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box.

Kilsheimer’s eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: “I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?”

But if there is so much evidence that a plane crashed into the Pentagon, why did CNN correspondent Jamie McIntyre report that he could find none? The answer is that McIntyre did not report this at all, and the 9/11 Truth Movement is once again selectively manipulating evidence to fit their conclusions. When McIntyre noted that no debris from a plane was observable near the Pentagon, he was responding to a specific question asked by CNN anchor Judy Woodruff during the segment. Flight 77 came in flying very low, and there had been speculation that the plane might have struck the ground shortly before reaching the Pentagon. McIntyre’s response, when quoted in full, makes clear that he is saying that there was no evidence that the plane hit the ground before hitting the Pentagon, but he certainly does not deny that the plane struck the Pentagon itself.

WOODRUFF: Jamie, Aaron was talking earlier — or one of our correspondence was talking earlier — I think — actually, it was Bob Franken — with an eyewitness who said it appeared that that Boeing 757, the American jet, American Airline jet, landed short of the Pentagon.

Can you give us any better idea of how much of the plane actually impacted the building?

MCINTYRE: You know, it might have appeared that way, but from my close-up inspection, there’s no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. The only site is the actual site of the building that’s crashed in [emphasis added], and as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you can pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around, which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse.

Note that McIntyre never questions that an airplane crash damaged the Pentagon, and indeed describes seeing many pieces of the aircraft around the crash site in an earlier section of the CNN transcript.

The Loose Change folks are notoriously dishonest.
Really, just about everything you need to know about the conspiracy theorists can be debunked right on this one page. (http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11.html) Excellent detail on how the theorists ignore the full picture and manipulate the evidence.


thanks for the link, that will be my afternoon project. (obviously a very busy day at work) ;)

Hitler did it, along with elvis, monroe, and napolean.

This was over as soon as Loose Change 2nd Ed. was mentioned. Well put together home vid, using only what, 6 grand? but still, complete manipulation of the entire truth.

Go look on Popular Mechanics website for "debunking the 9/11 conspiracies". They had so many conspiracies coming in that they actually published a thick ass book ( they're all thick because i don't read) on the subject.


If you want to see an interesting movie, go see "why we fight" (the modern one). Similar to 9/11 but atleast it has some reputable people on it... including McCain... say isnt he running for president? (takes reputable out...)

I find it sad that you, and idiots like you, fail to see the valor and sacrifice displayed - preferring to focus on the boogeyman under your bed....

SDude, you're a freakin' mod. How about setting an example and knock off the personal attacks? :rolleyes:

Besides the truth is worse than any of these conspiracies:

For example, a National Security Advisor that fails to keep the country safe is promoted to Secretary of State?? Or what about the apparent connection between Iraq and 9/11? Or the fact that Bin Laden is still happily enjoying his freedom?

C'mon people, do you really think we would blow up our own buildings and kill innocent people so GW would have an excuse to attack Iraq and take out Saddam which would have finished the job his father couldnt? Were we in cahoots with Osama bin Laden? Did we contact him and tell him to admit to the attacks in exchange for cash? Ridiculous crap!

One thing i do agree on is you cannot believe everything that is on the news, for example earlier this week on most news websites was a story of a soccer field bombing in iraq with dozens of children hurt or killed. but it turned out to be a controlled explosion from the u.s but debris flew everywhere and hurt alot of people (no children soccer bombing.)

Remember the news just enjoys the story, not the source, and the source in this matter was an extreme islamic .com blog. snowball became an avalanche.

If anyone questions it i have the web address.

One thing i do agree on is you cannot believe everything that is on the news, for example earlier this week on most news websites was a story of a soccer field bombing in iraq with dozens of children hurt or killed. but it turned out to be a controlled explosion from the u.s but debris flew everywhere and hurt alot of people (no children soccer bombing.)

Remember the news just enjoys the story, not the source, and the source in this matter was an extreme islamic .com blog. snowball became an avalanche.

If anyone questions it i have the web address.
Moral of the story: beware of nutjobs on the net.

C'mon people, do you really think we would blow up our own buildings and kill innocent people so GW would have an excuse to attack Iraq and take out Saddam which would have finished the job his father couldnt? Were we in cahoots with Osama bin Laden? Did we contact him and tell him to admit to the attacks in exchange for cash? Ridiculous crap!
I think the government would do something like that to gain more power.

they're a gov't most gov't want more power. since 9/11 they have been able to look in on people here a lot easier with a lot less questions. (big brother type stuff)
there are a lot of personal things the gov't can look into or take away from us and all they have to say is "it's for homeland security"

I am not paranoid, but I am aware that it is there. yeah, them planning 9/11 is a stretch, but I think believing the gov't would never do anything bad to the citizen of the us is naive.

ph0tic, I think loose change is a great thing to get people to at least think about it more. yeah, they shouldn't blindly accept it and some/most do, but if you don't there are a lot of ideas to at least research more into.

I believe that the US Government mostly just muddles through - and much of it's time is spent throwing away power!

Stupid stuff happens all the time like the Husband of a certain lady CIA agent accidentally leaks the name of his wife to the press because he is ticked that he can't have a political career -and then he confesses it during the last two minutes of his interview with Wolf Blitzer in front of millions of people, but Libby goes on trial anyhow! And he will probably lose the case!!!

A school in the south receives a tornado warning, but ignores it, some kids are killed and activists want to blame Global Warming!

The wing tank of a plane slides by a camera and the government is charged with hiding a missile attack on the Pentagon, which would have been an even greater act of provocation!

"Burgler" Beany Ballard stuffs secret documents in his pants - in front of witnesses, carries them away, and he complains when they pull his clearance for a day or two...

A group in California wants to ban cars, incandescent light bulbs, and raise the price of gasoline to protect the world from Global Warming during one of the coldest winters in California history.

The Government looses millions of dollars in Iraq, the Iraqi President has a heart attack, the British who are trying to protect people from killing each other want to pull out because too many people have been killed, with the potential result of many more people being killed in a civil war...The debate rages as to whether Democrates should boycott the war, but decisions are prevented because potential presidential candidates voted for it!

Conspiracy? No! Mindless Muddling - highly probable! It would be funny if it weren't all so sad!!!!!

Stupid stuff happens all the time like the Husband of a certain lady CIA agent accidentally leaks the name of his wife to the press because he is ticked that he can't have a political career -and then he confesses it during the last two minutes of his interview with Wolf Blitzer in front of millions of people, but Libby goes on trial anyhow! And he will probably lose the case!!!


thats not what happened, and even if it was don't you think that would be the lead case of the defense (defense hasn't even mentioned that)

raise the price of gasoline to protect the world from Global Warming during one of the coldest winters in California history.
Raising the price of gasoline would ultimately also reduce the cashflow to a very problematic region and reduce the US dependence on foreign oil. (I pay double on gas and half on income tax and have more money in my pocket at the end of the month.) Besides I hope you are not seriously claiming that global warming is not actually taking place.

Back to 9/11: Fact is that errors were made on many levels and none of the officials higher up took any responsibility. I know, for instance, that our National Security Advisor would have lost her job and definitely not have gotten a promotion.

thats not what happened, and even if it was don't you think that would be the lead case of the defense (defense hasn't even mentioned that)

I don't know if it is in the transcript, it should be - they ran the interview about 3 times that day - Mom pointed it out to me first, so I watched it the other 2 times and it is right there at almost the very end where he starts complaining about how it had interfered with his career - Wolfe went right on by it- because the whole reason for the interview was to show how much it had harmed her job and the CIA - no, it was never used in the defense I don't think Libby or anyone else except people who watch the Situation Room ever knew -

Yes, it is mentioned. In fact, they specifically said that the collapse was brought about by a Mason and a Knight Templar driving a hijacked Crossfire.

That made my day! Good shot 'bro! :evil_laug