Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

BBC announced collapse of WT7 before it happened!

Since it was clear it was going to collapse, and it was being evacuated in something of a panic, there is little doubt that word would be going round to that effect, which would have been interpreted as it coming down.

And are we even sure that the BBC were in a studio which had such a perfect view, rather than showing footage on a screen behind the reporter?
 
detective-boy said:
Or puitting the "command centre" somewhere else entirely, where no-one would think of looking (or be able to see, even if they did). :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Good point, why have a command centre to demolish two buildings INSIDE an area thats likely to be clobbered by the debris?
 
MikeMcc said:
Good point, why have a command centre to demolish two buildings INSIDE an area thats likely to be clobbered by the debris?
Click to expand...
Because in the absence of credible evidence, the lunatics are forced to cling on to stupid, illogical ideas, regardless of reality.

I really believe it's getting time to put an end to these threads here because it's no different to arguing with a religious fundamentalist.

The more Jazzz preaches his faith-based message, the less people believe him, and after thousands of posts proclaiming The Word Of Evidence-Free Conspiraloonery it's unlikely that he's ever going to convince anyone.

Most rational people at this stage would take a step back and wonder what brought about such intellectual isolationism, but Jazzz only hears the laughter of others as vindication of his higher calling of 'truth.'
 
ill-informed said:
Just look at this thread for example, nearly every post was an insult. A good way to stifle debate i guess
Click to expand...
When evidence, logic, reason, credibility and qualifications have failed, ridicule is pretty much all you've got left.
 
editor said:
getting time to put an end to these threads here because it's no different to arguing with a religious fundamentalist.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Someone who misunderstands his religion can eventually come to a better understanding and thus obtain a more balanced worldview. I used to post for a while on a message board of fundamental Evangelical Christians, which led to interesting discussions.
Disagreements in views do not need to lead to disrespect, yet I could easily add to your comment that arguing with a fundamental atheist (especially one who made of what he calls "science" his god and religion having all the answers to "truth") is not different then what is going on in threads like this.

salaam.
 
Aldebaran said:
I disagree. Someone who misunderstands his religion can eventually come to a better understanding and thus obtain a more balanced worldview.
Click to expand...
Thing is that Jazzz's beliefs get more ridiculous and more grounded in sci-fantasy after the science has been explained and the evidence presented to him.

His beliefs mean that he will ignore the expert testimony and analysis of highly qualified leaders in the field in preference to tinpot charlatans posting on laughable loon sites.

As each of the pillars of his claims collapse, he clings more and more to an irrational belief, even if that involves him being ridiculed here.

He still believes in invisibly installed invisible explosives and planes firing invisible missiles for fuck's sake!
 
editor said:
Because in the absence of credible evidence, the lunatics are forced to cling on to stupid, illogical ideas, regardless of reality.

I really believe it's getting time to put an end to these threads here because it's no different to arguing with a religious fundamentalist.

The more Jazzz preaches his faith-based message, the less people believe him, and after thousands of posts proclaiming The Word Of Evidence-Free Conspiraloonery it's unlikely that he's ever going to convince anyone.

Most rational people at this stage would take a step back and wonder what brought about such intellectual isolationism, but Jazzz only hears the laughter of others as vindication of his higher calling of 'truth.'
Click to expand...
I you do lock it, can we keep them as a sticky so that we can just tell anybody raising a new thread to 'refer to the above unless you've got anything really new'. Saves going through it all over again, and again, and again...

Groundhog day for the internet age.
 
MikeMcc said:
I you do lock it, can we keep them as a sticky so that we can just tell anybody raising a new thread to 'refer to the above unless you've got anything really new'. Saves going through it all over again, and again, and again....
Click to expand...
In a way, I could now see a use for a 'conspiracy sub-forum' so long as it was populated by a series of sticky threads with a very strongly worded warning that anything that's already been discussed - or any claims referencing prisonplanet or any of the other loon sites - will be binned on sight.

But there again, why give these fucking nutters any more coverage?
 
The ideea is that soemone told BBC it collapsed or was going to collapse.The same thing happened at CNN


Someone knew it was going to collapse ! And knew it was all going to collapse, no steel structure in histoery ever collapsed because of fire , except WTC 1 and 2, but someone knew, and the media reported what they were told.
Larry Silverstein said they are going to "pull" the building :



This is evidence it was a controlled demolition. The collapse was symetrical. Other buildings have burned for 24 hours until only the steel frame remained but no collapse

BBC said in their own declaration about the video :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html

"Nobody told us it was going to collapse"

Also they said they "lost the tapes" . It was the biggest story ever, they could not lose those tapes
http://infowars.net/articles/february2007/280207BBC.htm
 
paimei01 said:
The ideea is that soemone told BBC it collapsed or was going to collapse.
Click to expand...
And that might be people reporting back from the fire chiefs saying just that. So your point is?

paimei01 said:
Larry Silverstein said they are going to "pull" the building :
Click to expand...
FFS: this has been discussed and debunked a million times. But I love the idea of Silverstein touring the site and over-riding fire chiefs at whim!

paimei01 said:
Other buildings have burned for 24 hours until only the steel frame remained but no collapse
Click to expand...
Would those same buildings have been struck with almighty chunks of one of the world's highest buildings collapsing catastrophically beforehand?

Oh what's the point? You're not interested in truth.
 
You saw the structural damage didn't you? That was unprecedented.

Evidence it was controlled demolition would include things like seismograph recordings of the explosive charges. These guys (pdf) (protec are the world's leading demolitions experts and hold the records for largest, tallest and most buildings brought down with explosives) had loads of such machines running on the day and recorded nothing of the sort. Unless they were in on it too right?

protecextract.GIF
 
If I take away all the floors from 1 to 20, the rest of them which remain suspended in thin air will fall - and still they will not fall in the way WTC 7 fell.
They said one corner was affected - "unprecedented damege" ? It should have tilted, or whatever. But it fell down like a classic demolition
Here are some pictures :




 
Crispy said:
Evidence it was controlled demolition would include things like seismograph recordings of the explosive charges.
Click to expand...
You see, normal people would now accept the overwhelming evidence presented by those eading independent experts in that PDF file and abandon their theory that any buildings were brought down by explosives.

But it'll just be ignored in preference to some unqualified cunt babbling shit on some moronic site or another, or, as you suggest, the ever-expanding conspiracy will be broadened to include the authors of the report.
 
editor said:
He still believes in invisibly installed invisible explosives and planes firing invisible missiles for fuck's sake!
Click to expand...

At a US website I was a member, they had an actual eye witness who worked with rescue teams at the WTC site and posted almost *live* reports of that day and the days afterwards. As far as I know it gets revived every year to add comments. Maybe if Jazzz tried to confront an actuel witness "life" in such a thread, that could help him to see the light. ;)

salaam.
 
paimei01 said:
If I take away all the floors from 1 to 20, the rest of them which remain suspended in thin air will fall - and still they will not fall in the way WTC 7 fell.
They said one corner was affected - "unprecedented damege" ? It should have tilted, or whatever. But it fell down like a classic demolition
Here are some pictures :




Click to expand...
Those buildings are 10 storeys tall and made of reinforced concrete. Nice comparison.
 
More pictures, as you can see there were some buildings even closer to WTC 1 and 2 but they did not fall
Steel is stronger tehn reinforced concrete. It does not break suddenly, it stretches or bends alot before it breaks. No way that building has fallen because of structural collapse, only if it was structural collapse in the entire building at the same time - controlled demolition



 
Right ok. nice. More 10-storey buildings. One of which is a concrete building (therefore monolithic and capable of toppling) and the others of 10 storey steel buildings.

Got an explanation for the lack of seisomograph readings?
 
paimei01 said:
If I take away all the floors from 1 to 20, the rest of them which remain suspended in thin air will fall - and still they will not fall in the way WTC 7 fell.
They said one corner was affected - "unprecedented damege" ? It should have tilted, or whatever. But it fell down like a classic demolition
Click to expand...
Er, hello? HELLO?

There is no seismological data to support the explosions theory. None. Nothing. Nada. Zip.

No one saw any explosives (and there would have to be thousands of explosive charges fitted to exposed beams all over the building). It would take a large crew several months to strip down, prepare and prime a building that size. No one saw a thing.

And no demolition experts have stated that it was a demolition.

But seeing as you're insisting that it was a "classic demolition" could you give me some idea of your expertise in this area? What qualifications have you got? Have you studied demolition techniques? To what level?

Or have you just seen a few on YouTube and decided that any building falling downwards (where else would they go) simply has to be a demolition, despite the complete absence of evidence?
 
I said : steel is stronger than concrete. I could tell you I have all the qualifications in the world. There were experts which saw WTC7 and they said it was controlled demolition. Check this site:
http://911scholars.org/
No buiding falls like that. If you look at some videos and listen to what witnesses say you will see they had time to plant demolition charges - in the mornings they found dust in their offices and there were evacuation drills and so on. The did not try to contain the damage they just wanted to destroy the building
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003&q=9/11
 
Have any of the conspiraloons managed to pinpoint the location of the BBC studio with the panoramic view of WTC7?

My current best guess would be 60 stories up, in the middle of the Hudson river.

OMG!!! Flying holographic studios!!!
 
paimei01 said:
I said : steel is stronger than concrete. I could tell you I have all the qualifications in the world. There were experts which saw WTC7 and they said it was controlled demolition.
Click to expand...
Could you point out the world leading demolition experts on that site please and show me how they explain away the seismological findings? Thanks.
 
paimei01 said:
I said : steel is stronger than concrete. I could tell you I have all the qualifications in the world. There were experts which saw WTC7 and they said it was controlled demolition. Check this site:
http://911scholars.org/
Click to expand...

That site's run by crazy people who thought weapons based in outer space brought down the Twin Towers - if you've linked to it for a joke, then it's a funny one, if not...
 
What is with the seismological findigs ? There was no big explosion to create seismic findings before it collapsed. Where are those findings ?

Yossarian I want a link from that site which says what you just said
 
paimei01 said:
I said : steel is stronger than concrete.
Click to expand...
That's completely ambiguous. It's stronger in compression, but steel wins in tension. The reason I make a distinction between concrete and steel buildings is because a reinforced concret building is literally one item - a monolithic lump of concrete with re-bars riddled through it. A steel framed building is an assembly of parts, with weaknesses and failure points all over the place.

And do you have an explanaton for the lack of seismograph evidence? Because there'd have to be some recordings of the blasts if there were explosions. Like the expret says, any explosions powerful enough to sever steel beams would transmit some of that energy intot he ground, where it would be read by seismographs. Bearing in mind that such instruments pick up things like buses going past, they're definitely going to pick up loads of sequenced demolition charges.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

taffboy gwyrdd
BBC "Conspiracy Files" on 911 was clearly biased
2
Replies
34
Views
5K
editor
editor
C
If the US govt organised 9/11 in order to justify a war in Afghanistran...
Replies
12
Views
37K
Citizen66
C
DrRingDing
King Abdullah accused the UK of ignoring Saudi's forewarning of the 7/7 bombing.
Replies
24
Views
3K
selamlar
S
Jazzz
Collapse of the World Trade Centre (cont.)
Replies
8
Views
1K
editor
editor
W
Osama bin Laden May Have Chartered Saudi Flight Out of U.S. after 9/11
2 3
Replies
71
Views
8K
Jazzz
Jazzz
Back
Top Bottom