BBC announced collapse of WT7 before it happened!

[ska invita]

Do you understand timezones, niks?

Nothing to do with timezones - shes standing with a caption that says its fallen down and its there behind her. I thought we'd ascertained that much? - didnt read all that thread mind you...

 

[editor]

All attempts to frame Jazzz as saying "oh so now the BBC are all in on it too" are a bit stupid I think - this BBC clip doesnt prove anything in and of itself - but it is undeiniably a bit bizzare: I cant see how anyone could think anything else. There must be some explenation, but what that is is pure guess work.

What do you find so bizarre about a reporter making what appears to be a small error during the chaos of an unfurling, unprecedented catastrophe?

The conspiraloons attempts to extrapolate this non-event into proof of some major conspiracy involving the BBC is laughable.

And let's get one thing straight: that's exactly what Jazzz was doing in his opening post here, and that's why he's embarked on another squirm-athon when pressed on the specifics.

 

[laptop]

she's standing with a caption that says its fallen down and its there behind her.

Has anyone mentioned bluescreen studios yet?

Where is the BBC studio in New York?

BBC World offices are at:

747 3rd Ave
New York, NY 10017
USA
​

And you can't see WTC7 from there. (It was roughly under the "e" of "New York" on that map.

Betcha it was a still photo.

didn't read all that thread mind you...

It shows.

E2A: 747 3rd Ave is on the midtown East Side, handy for the UN - so I'm betting that the studio is there. WTC7 was of course, for anyone concerned with ground truth rather than virtual internet shite, waaay downtown on the West Side.

 

[editor]

Has anyone mentioned bluescreen studios yet?

That did cross my mind. I don't suppose any loons have bother to check to see where the reporter was actually standing?

 

[Giles]

You must be fucking joking.

A 35 year old man going to the pub with a semen-stained hand puppet, who is a fan of David Icke, and who believes vaccines cause more damage than the diseases they are designed to prevent?

Naaa... nothing bonkers about that is there?

Eurgggh! Is this true? To think I let this man have a lift to Glastonbury in my bus. In the company of a child. He seemed quite normal at the time, but then, that's what Dennis Nilsen's neighbours probably said as well......

Giles..

 

[sparticus]

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=20521

It is now claimed CNN prophecised WTC's collapse

 

[reprehensor]

"We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html

Oh, really?

 

[editor]

It is now claimed CNN prophecised WTC's collapse

Or simply picked up the same misheard quote/Chinese whisper.

Oh hang on, that's far too simple!

 

[editor]

"We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another."

What do you think's really going on here then?

 

[axon]

I have 2 Qs. Has anyone been able to accurately time when those BBC reports were from? Has anyone correctly identified WTC7 in the background of the news reporter?

Note to conspiraloons: Answers to the positive or negative to the above do not prove or disprove the lizards done it.

 

[JHE]

Pixies announced it all the day before it happened. Jazzz never mentions pixies. Truth-seekers demand to know why Jazzz is covering up for the pixie conspirators.

 

[laptop]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html

Blimey, look at the angry nutcases on that!

They're all barking. And they're mad as hell at the BBC for challenging their faith. And they don't care what happened to WTC7 or the BBC coverage on that September day: the BBC has annoyed them, someone has attacked the BBC, and they're going to join in. All narrative and no content.

 

[Jazzz]

They have names like Rudolph Giuliani. Larry Silverstein. Fuck, LS even gave an interview where he said he'd personally instructed everyone to evacuate (the 'pull' interview) - they even put this all right in front of your nose and you still can't see it!

Can you make your mind up. Did they know the WTC7 was going to fall or not?

You see, just a few hours ago you were insisting, ""no-one could have predicted the collapse of WTC7."

Yes of course they did!

... because they demolished it!

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Yes of course they did!

... because they demolished it!

Yes, the firefighters were all in on it!

Can you get any crazier?

 

[Jazzz]

Did you read the 'media happenings' thread? Jazzz revealed himself to be woefully ignorant of civil engineering and had many of his thoeries thoroughly debunked. No insulting was involved in that process (although there was plenty going on on the sidelines)

Sorry, but if you're going to come to an argument like this with an attitude born out of faith and expect not to be insulted when you try and bring physical evidence into things, then will be dissapointed.

Right, enough of this false triumphalism from you Crispy.

What happened to your claim that the core couldn't stand up for itself? Because I remember you backing down on that one although you came at me full throttle on it. Yet you didn't even have the good grace to concede you (and several other architects) were wrong (and ignorant me was right). You just started saying 'it doesn't matter any more'. You went from being someone keen to correct me to someone who retreated to the sidelines and snipe, like you are doing now. Would you care (on the other thread) to explain why I'm wrong and TA is right about the DCR calculations? (hint - you shouldn't attempt because I'm right and TA knows it).

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Right, enough of this false triumphalism from you Crispy.

What happened to your claim that the core couldn't stand up for itself? Because I remember you backing down on that one although you came at me full throttle on it. Yet you didn't even have the good grace to concede you (and several other architects) were wrong (and ignorant me was right). You just started saying 'it doesn't matter any more'. You went from being someone keen to correct me to someone who retreated to the sidelines and snipe, like you are doing now. Would you care (on the other thread) to explain why I'm wrong and TA is right about the DCR calculations? (hint - you shouldn't attempt because I'm right and TA knows it).

Why waste time when you'll just ignore it. Sniping is all we can do when you won't engage.

 

[Jazzz]

Yes, the firefighters were all in on it!

Can you get any crazier?

No editor was talking about Silverstein and Guiliani, if you go back to his original quote.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

No editor was talking about Silverstein and Guiliani, if you go back to his original quote.

No, if we go back to the orriginal quote you see:

no-one could have predicted the collapse of WTC7.

 

[Jazzz]

That's misrepresentation. I've clarified it by inserting the quote which went missing when you use the 'reply with quote' button. Why don't you have a read, it's very clear.

 

[Yossarian]

Blimey, look at the angry nutcases on that!

They're all barking. And they're mad as hell at the BBC for challenging their faith.

Mad as badgers! What is it that makes so many unhinged people obsess over 9/11? They’re flapping around what’s probably the most dramatic thing to have happened in their lifetimes like moths around a flame…

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Are you having a laugh?

No, are you a jibbering idiot?

Besides, the whole problem with this is that no-one could have predicted the collapse of WTC7.

Wrong, people did.

It didn't 'look like' it was going to collapse.

Assertion with nothing at all to back it up. Merely your word, which is worthless these days.

One moment it was all there, 6.5.seconds later it was a heap of rubble.

No it was not, for several hours it sat there with large amounts of structural damage and massive fires.

See, read your post, you're still wrong.

 

[Jazzz]

This is all fair enough - the official report, as you point out, is somewhat stumped - it appears fire brought it down, but that this answer is very unlikely - and would be unprecedented (apart from WTC 1+2).

The fact that the final conclusions from the official US report still haven't been published, now five years later, suggest the problem in finding a suitable conclusion (the quote of 'a low probability of occurrence' comes from a somewhat bemused preliminary report I gather).

None of this can be denied - infact these were points made in that recent BBC documentary.

The problem seems to be the next step - Im not confident enough to say what did happen and how, why etc., but I readily admit there are suspiscious circumstances. Everything else is speculation - however, clearly the events are unusual. This analysis seems to be the most rational position to take, IMO.

All attempts to frame Jazzz as saying "oh so now the BBC are all in on it too" are a bit stupid I think - this BBC clip doesnt prove anything in and of itself - but it is undeiniably a bit bizzare: I cant see how anyone could think anything else. There must be some explenation, but what that is is pure guess work.

Everyone seems so entrenched on either side of the argument that any piece of information is either the final proof or the final proof of lunacy - it's neither: but it does add to a number of other bits of unusual information.

I dont think either side has proven the argument conclusively. Im happy to sit here with unawnsered doubts until a conclusive answer can be found... if ever.

To deny there are any doubts is, I think, stubborn.

Edit: That picture above in post 251 with the corner missing proves my point - none of us here know anywhere near enough to say that 'cos it looked like that it would have caused a collapse and in the way that it did - its entrenched thinking to suggest such a thing.

Blimey, someone on the other side of the debate has maintained some sanity. I was going to post something along these lines - the responses I've been getting here are frankly seeming pretty hysterical because there can surely be no doubt that news anchors announcing breathtaking events before they happen is very, very odd indeed, however you look at it.

 

[Yossarian]

Has anybody come up with any remotely convincing reasons why anybody would want to knock down WTC7, anyway?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Because it's easier than shredding paper and wiping hard drives.

 

[MikeMcc]

Blimey, someone on the other side of the debate has maintained some sanity. I was going to post something along these lines - the responses I've been getting here are frankly seeming pretty hysterical because there can surely be no doubt that news anchors announcing breathtaking events before they happen is very, very odd indeed, however you look at it.

Of course, nobody thought it was going to collapse...

"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/htm...igro_Daniel.txt

"WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after the WTC Towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene. Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there.

[Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]

According to Deputy Chief Peter Hayden, there is a bulge in the southwest corner of the building between floors 10 and 13.

[Firehouse Magazine, 4/02]

Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, “At the edge of the south face you could see that it is very heavily damaged.”

[Firehouse Magazine, 5/02]

Deputy Chief Nick Visconti also later recalls recounts, “A big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side.” Captain Chris Boyle recalls, “On the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors.”

[Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]

"Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 [o'clock], that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, [we've] got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. (Q. Initially when you were there, you had said you heard a few Maydays?) Oh, yes. We had Maydays like crazy.... The heat must have been tremendous. There was so much [expletive] fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you [couldn't] see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and [that's] when 7 collapsed.... Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess." - William Ryan

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/htm...yan_William.txt

This lot would probably make quite painful reading for you Jazz, so you will probably ignore it:

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_01.html

 

[Bob_the_lost]

This lot would probably make quite painful reading for you Jazz, so you will probably ignore it:

But of course he will!

 

[MikeMcc]

Has anybody come up with any remotely convincing reasons why anybody would want to knock down WTC7, anyway?

And it still comes down to invisible operatives installing super-secret invisible explosives that are capable of operating perfectly in the middle of a raging fire and major structural damage that was oh so predictable in the plan...

 

[detective-boy]

Nothing to do with timezones - shes standing with a caption that says its fallen down and its there behind her. I thought we'd ascertained that much?

I have not seen anything yet which confirms that the background shot was "live" as opposed to some re-run earlier footage (which is often used as a backdrop to a "live" reporter or presenter when there's nothing TV-genic happening now in front of a really live camera (or behind a really live reporter / presenter)).

 

[Crispy]

I give up. You win. It was cheney wot did it.
Pointless saying anything else, or I'm just going to go over the edge and get stupidly abusive like our friend pk upthread. Pointless. I may as well try and convert my mum to devil worship.

 

[detective-boy]

Because it's easier than shredding paper and wiping hard drives.

Or puitting the "command centre" somewhere else entirely, where no-one would think of looking (or be able to see, even if they did).