BBC announced collapse of WT7 before it happened!

[Aldebaran]

Jazzz, I'm not all too familiar with your posts on this issue, but can you answer a few obvious questions:

1.
a)How could demolition specialists completely undetected place an immense (for me as non-informed unimaginable immense) amount of explosives needed to bring such buildings down.
b) how long do you think it took them to do this
2. If you can answer that question
a) who were they
b) who planned all of it
b) who paid all of them
c) why
3. If you answered these questions:
a) why, if all that is done undetected,not simply blow everything up but bring passenger planes into the story at that
b) who recorded the voices of the people on these planes.
c) who were the people you can hear on these recordings, talking about them being hijacked (including their families who obviously heard them speaking to them)
d) who paid all of them
e) who wrote this scenario
d) why
4. If you answered all these questions
a) who piloted those planes
b) why did they commit suicide taking hundreds of people with them
c) why is their family in this plot and agrees with the situation
d) do they get recompensations for their losses by whomever plotted all of it

After you detailed answered all of this, we can proceed.

salaam.

 

[Crispy]

So, Paimei, do you accept that the seismograph evidence proves there was no explosive demolition or not?

 

[ska invita]

No, but they pretty clearly rule out CD don't they?

Yes, they say there was no siesmic record and the eyewitnesses they spoke to said they didnt hear anything. That seems conclusive up to a point. The bystanders hearing is too unscientific, so lets put that aside, and concentrate on seismic recordings.

I dont know the details of the seismic coverage, so, I'll take it in good faith.
I also dont know if it would have had to have shown up at all. Im no expert on that. If this is the way that it can conclusively be proven no explosives were used, and the record is correct then that should just about clear up CD - agreed.

For my own curiosity I would like to see some more evidence on this point - official seismic readouts, dated etc., - backed by hard science that siad that if en exlosive was used at pint a b and c it would have registered on the equipment used etc., - but Im ready to except on good faith for now anyhow.

But there is still considerable doubt as to how the building collapsed - sorry that this doesnt mean we can lock the thread and say its all solved, but a mystery does remain as to how it came to pass this way.

 

[Crispy]

Yes, the WTC 7 collapse is still mysterious. My hunch is that the structural damage, coupled with extensive ground floor fires were to blame.

I'd also like to see the actual Seismograph readings in question. It would help avoid doubt.

 

[ska invita]

How can anyone know exactly what hit the building?

The document we are talking about from implosion.com brags of having countless recordings and photos throughout the whole thing - they even make claims as to the state of the building before collapse

The damage was from the 18th floor all the way to ground level. What about the dirty great big chunk taken out of one side of the building shown in editors photo?

Again, the document is clear about the extent of the damage - read it yourself.

You are getting excited about seeing a picture of a hole, and then jumping to the conclusion that the whole building will collapse as a result in the fashion that it did. The experts dont dare to make this leap of faith so why do you?

 

[Combustible]

-They're as stumped as anyone else...

No they are not. They are just avoiding commenting outside of their area of expertise. They are specifically rebutting the claim that explosives were used to demolish the towers.

 

[editor]

I dont know the details of the seismic coverage, so, I'll take it in good faith.
I also dont know if it would have had to have shown up at all. Im no expert on that. If this is the way that it can conclusively be proven no explosives were used, and the record is correct then that should just about clear up CD - agreed.

For my own curiosity I would like to see some more evidence on this point - official seismic readouts, dated etc., - backed by hard science that siad that if en exlosive was used at pint a b and c it would have registered on the equipment used etc., - but Im ready to except on good faith for now anyhow.

Hold on. Some of the biggest and most respected demolition experts on the planet have carefully analysed their independent seismological readings and emphatically concluded that there were no explosions - and still you're not sure?

What other proof do you expect?

Or do you think they're in on it too?

 

[Kenny Vermouth]

Gosh... amazing that this only comes to light now. Astonishing. And moreover it's been under all our noses all this time!

Here is the BBC feed from around about a half hour before WTC7 collapsed, hosted on liveleak.com with a few comments.

They announce that WTC7 has collapsed 23 minutes before it actually did, and not merely as an unconfirmed report but as part of the 10pm BST (5pm EDT) headlines. And then it gets even crazier when there's a link to a NY reporter and you can see WTC7 still there in the background!

A further interesting point is that our very own Nemo beat the BBC to it by 2 minutes reporting the collapse right here on urban75 at 8.55pm UTC (4.55pm EDT). Take a bow, Nemo.

WTC7 actually collapsed at 5.20pm EDT.



Right, well how do the conspiracy denialists fancy trying to wave this one away?


edited to clarify timezones and am/pms

Fuck off you boring spastic.

 

[editor]

The document we are talking about from implosion.com brags of having countless recordings and photos throughout the whole thing - they even make claims as to the state of the building before collapse

It doesn't "brag." It states facts.

The way you're trying to spin them into some sort of loudmouth blaggards rather makes me wonder exactly how open minded you are here.

These guys are hugely respected, massively experieced, independent experts.

They know more about demolition than the entire 'truth-seeking' movement put together. So why are you accusing them of "bragging"? Is it because you don't like what they're saying?

 

[paimei01]

Jazzz, I'm not all too familiar with your posts on this issue, but can you answer a few obvious questions:

1.
a)How could demolition specialists completely undetected place an immense (for me as non-informed unimaginable immense) amount of explosives needed to bring such buildings down.
b) how long do you think it took them to do this
2. If you can answer that question
a) who were they
b) who planned all of it
b) who paid all of them
c) why
3. If you answered these questions:
a) why, if all that is done undetected,not simply blow everything up but bring passenger planes into the story at that
b) who recorded the voices of the people on these planes.
c) who were the people you can hear on these recordings, talking about them being hijacked (including their families who obviously heard them speaking to them)
d) who paid all of them
e) who wrote this scenario
d) why
4. If you answered all these questions
a) who piloted those planes
b) why did they commit suicide taking hundreds of people with them
c) why is their family in this plot and agrees with the situation
d) do they get recompensations for their losses by whomever plotted all of it

After you detailed answered all of this, we can proceed.

salaam.

Those buildings were secured after the 1993 attack. That is why blowing them up is suspicious. But when Larry Silverstein who owned them is in on it, it is easy to place explosives. Wolf guarding the sheep. Look at "9/11 mysteries" on google video and see how in the weeks before the attacks there were evacuation drills, dust in the offices found in the mornings, and a lot of noise becouse of "renovation"


Planes can be flown by remote control. No bodies of the terrorists were found.
What about that flight instructor that says that the terrortists could not fly anything ? How did they become so skilled ? How did they navigate to hit their targets in a foreign country ?
Why ? For war oil money and control. No way would US be in Afghanstan and Iraq now, and everywhere else they want if 9/11 did not happen. They said the needed a "new Pearl Harbour" for the transformation of the american society

You say "unimaginable ammount of explosives" needed ? But you agree that WTC 7 fell down - all of it and symetrical, in a nice pile of rubble, exactly as if being demolished, and that was just because some fires and a big part of a corner missing ?

 

[editor]

Those buildings were secured after the 1993 attack. That is why blowing them up is suspicious. But when Larry Silverstein who owned them is in on it it is easy to place explosives.

You have no proof. None. Not a scrap.

You obviously have no idea how much work is involved in wiring up a building either because the idea of just hiding it all away somewhere for eight years is ridiculous beyond belief.

The simple facts: there is no seismological record of any explosions bringing down WTC7. Why is that, do you think?

 

[guinnessdrinker]

Planes can be flown by remote control. No bodies of the terrorists were found.
What about that flight instructor that says taht the terrortist could not fly anything ? How did they become so skilled ? How did they navigate to hit their targets in a foreign country ?

can you fly a great big boeing by remote control?

of course you could not find any terrorists bodies. that would have been a bit of surprise given the speed and the ensuring conflagration, you fool.

I suspect it is not too difficult to handle a plane once it is in the air. a bit like driving a car on autopilot. they did not need to land or take off which is what should have made suspicious when they took the lessons.

go away, loony.

 

[Crispy]

PNAC, pearl harbour, oil, remote control planes

Oooh look! Not seen any of that before.

Leave out the 'Spastic' comments eh Kenny? I know it makes us angry but there's no need for that.

 

[paimei01]

Because there were lots of explosives that cut the columns and the building fell. It was not a big bomb to see it in seismological records.
But for WTC 1 and 2 there is seismological record.

 

[Crispy]

So you're an expert now are you? Protec are demolitions experts and you think they're mistaken when they say readings would have been picked up?

Or maybe you know better than the experts who say that explosions produce S and P waves when the only readings were of S waves?

But for WTC 1 and 2 there is seismological record.

Really? Show me.

 

[paimei01]

Watch Loose Change, it is here :
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=loose+change

I am tired of saying the same things that documentaries like the one above say, and people ask, and I begin to tell them what is in the movie, because that is where I found out. Want to know watch the movie.
Yes big planes were flown by remote control. I have seen it even on Discovery channel, they crashed a plane for fuel tests. The auto pilot of a Boeing can even land it if the pilots let it do that, the pilot does nothing just says the route. Imagine if someone programs that autopilot with a different route.

 

[WouldBe]

The document we are talking about from implosion.com brags of having countless recordings and photos throughout the whole thing - they even make claims as to the state of the building before collapse

So WTC7 was structurally surveyed to assess the exact damage before it collapsed then?

Again, the document is clear about the extent of the damage - read it yourself.

That first photo clearly isn't just a hole in the 18th to 20th floors. It's a great big lump out of the corner down to ground level.

The second photo shows nearly a third of one wall wiped out.

You are getting excited about seeing a picture of a hole, and then jumping to the conclusion that the whole building will collapse as a result in the fashion that it did. The experts dont dare to make this leap of faith so why do you?

I'm not making any leap of faith. With towers 1 & 2 they knew the types of aircraft that hit them. They therefore know the dimensions, weight, construction of the aircraft and the construction of the towers and it's fairly easy to set-up a computer model of what happened and come up with an explanation of how they fell.

With tower 7 you have no idea how big a chunk of the tower caused the visible damage, no idea of the weight of this chunk and no idea of how this chunk was held together even without it being damaged in the collapse so it's nigh on impossible to simulate what damage this chunk did to tower 7. So you have no idea of wether this damage and fires were capable of bringing 7 down. That doesn't mean it had to be demolished.

 

[guinnessdrinker]

Watch Loose Change, it is here :
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=loose+change

I ma tired of saying the same things that documentaries like the one above say, and people ask, and I begin to tell them what is in the movie, because that is where I found out. Want to know watch the movie.
Yes big planes were flown by remote control. I have seen it even on Discovery chanel, they crashed a plane for fuel tests. The auto pilot of a boeing can even land it if the pilots let it do that, the pilot does nothing just says the route. Imagine if someone programs that autopilot with a different route.

they did not need to learn landing....! and in any case, why do they still use pilots then?

 

[WouldBe]

Yes big planes were flown by remote control. I have seen it even on Discovery channel, they crashed a plane for fuel tests.

Not without being modified. Please show when these aircraft were taken out of service to be modified.

The auto pilot of a Boeing can even land it if the pilots let it do that, the pilot does nothing just says the route. Imagine if someone programs that autopilot with a different route.

Since when was WTC 1&2 designated as an airport. and how does the autopilot ignore the collision radar system?

 

[Crispy]

Loose change. Loose fucking change??!!

oh please. come back when you've got something new to say, please

 

[Crispy]

Oh, and you are aware of the multiple guidance aids that only exist at airports right? Active radar, ILS, that sor of thing?

 

[Fez909]

paimei01 - Even if we accept the demolition theory, there's a major flaw in the story which has not been answered by Jazzz, despite him being asked three times now. Maybe you can help?

Scenario: The building is about the be destroyed by explosives. The world is watching the World Trade Center site due to the massive terrorist attack which has just brought down two of the world's tallest buildings. Everything is going to plan.

Why then, would there be any need to inform the media? What could be gained by leaking it to the BBC and CNN before the deed? You know what could be lost - the entire plan could be discovered, as appears to be the case here, should you believe there was a plan. So why do it?

 

[editor]

I am tired of saying the same things that documentaries like the one above say, and people ask, and I begin to tell them what is in the movie, because that is where I found out. Want to know watch the movie.

I'm tired of reality-denying, Johnny come lately twerps like you turning up here spewing out the same old URLs of space-beam believing nutcases and selectively quoting dodgy websites.

When you're faced with hard, independent evidence that doesn't match up to your exciting, twisted conspiracy beliefs you just ignore it or keep on repeating something you know to be untrue. You've already stated that you believe that the BBC are in on the conspiracy. Do you believe the demolition experts Protec are too?

 

[paimei01]

Look at the Oklahoma bombing. Huge, giant, incredible damage, building still there. Does everyone know how a controlled demolition looks like ?
Even if I snatch half of the base of a building the building does not fall like that ! Look around you at some big buildings and imagine them falling like WTC 7 did
Yes it's the same old story, ok if you don't believe me look for yourselves I stop writing around.
What solid evidence. Why do WTC 1 and 2 fall at free fall speed ? Imagine 20 stories of WTC 1 suspended at 400 meters in the air. The one falling trough air hits the ground in 9 seconds - laws of physics, the other does the same if it has to pass trough 80 similar stories ?

 

[8den]

Those buildings were secured after the 1993 attack. That is why blowing them up is suspicious. But when Larry Silverstein who owned them is in on it, it is easy to place explosives.

Here's a simple piece of logic. If it's easy to wire a building to explode while it is full of tennants why isn't that standard practice in all Controlled Demolitions? I mean why don't they just do that? Why do they condemn buildings clear then before they wire them to explode?

Wolf guarding the sheep. Look at "9/11 mysteries" on google video and see how in the weeks before the attacks there were evacuation drills, dust in the offices found in the mornings, and a lot of noise becouse of "renovation"

Hey paime01 how long do you think it to wire the Hudson building the largest structure ever CD'd?

Planes can be flown by remote control.

Boeing 757s and 767 cannot.

No bodies of the terrorists were found.

Very few in fact no intact bodies were found at every crash site. Why should only their bodies be found?

What about that flight instructor that says that the terrortists could not fly anything ? How did they become so skilled ?

Thats a damn lie.

Atta and Shehhi finished up at Huffman and earned their instrument certificates from the FAA in November. In mid-December 2000, they passed their commercial pilot tests and received their licenses.They then began training to fly large jets on a flight simulator. At about the same time, Jarrah began simulator training, also in Florida but at a different center. By the end of 2000, less than six months after their arrival, the three pilots on the East Coast were simulating flights on large jets.
http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-244.html

Settling in Mesa, Hanjour began refresher training at his old school,Arizona Aviation. He wanted to train on multi-engine planes, but had difficulties because his English was not good enough.The instructor advised him to discontinue but Hanjour said he could not go home without completing the training. In early 2001, he started training on a Boeing 737 simulator at Pan Am International Flight Academy in Mesa.An instructor there found his work well below standard and discouraged him from continuing.Again, Hanjour persevered; he completed the initial training by the end of March 2001.
http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-243.html
http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-244.html

How did they navigate to hit their targets in a foreign country ?

How about GPS? They were planning this for years y'know.

Why ? For war oil money and control. No way would US be in Afghanstan and Iraq now, and everywhere else they want if 9/11 did not happen. They said the needed a "new Pearl Harbour" for the transformation of the american society

The actually bloody quote in full

"To preserve American military preeminence in the coming decades, the Department of Defense must move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in military affairs. Information technologies,in particular, are becoming more prevalent and significant components of modern military systems. These information technologies are having the same kind of transforming effects on military affairs as they are having in the larger world. The effects of this military transformation will have profound implications for how wars are fought, what kinds of weapons will dominate the battlefield and, inevitably, which nations enjoy military preeminence".

They're talking about information technology, not wanting a new pearl habour.

You say "unimaginable ammount of explosives" needed ? But you agree that WTC 7 fell down - all of it and symetrical, in a nice pile of rubble, exactly as if being demolished, and that was just because some fires and a big part of a corner missing ?

Some fire. Do I need to find you the quotes about the building being fully involved in fire?

Also the building had an unusual structure. A power substation in it's base and diesel fuel thousands of gallons of diesel fuel flowing into the building.

So you're being disenginous.

 

[editor]

Does everyone know how a controlled demolition looks like ?

The demolition experts Protec do and they are emphatically saying that there is no evidence that points towards a controlled demolition.

So why do you think you know more than them, then?

 

[guinnessdrinker]

The demolition experts Protec do and they are emphatically saying that there is no evidence that points towards a controlled demolition.

they are part of the conspiracy as well.

 

[PJW20]

Why then, would there be any need to inform the media? What could be gained by leaking it to the BBC and CNN before the deed? You know what could be lost - the entire plan could be discovered, as appears to be the case here, should you believe there was a plan. So why do it?

cos The Man likes to taunt us all.

 

[Crispy]

Look at the Oklahoma bombing. Huge, giant, incredible damage, building still there. Does everyone know how a controlled demolition looks like ?
Even if I snatch half of the base of a building the building does not fall like that ! Look around you at some big buildings and imagine them falling like WTC 7 did

Oklahoma - concrete building, 8 storeys, large single explosion. Comparable how?

 

[MikeMcc]

Those buildings were secured after the 1993 attack. That is why blowing them up is suspicious. But when Larry Silverstein who owned them is in on it, it is easy to place explosives. Wolf guarding the sheep. Look at "9/11 mysteries" on google video and see how in the weeks before the attacks there were evacuation drills, dust in the offices found in the mornings, and a lot of noise becouse of "renovation"


Planes can be flown by remote control. No bodies of the terrorists were found.
What about that flight instructor that says that the terrortists could not fly anything ? How did they become so skilled ? How did they navigate to hit their targets in a foreign country ?
Why ? For war oil money and control. No way would US be in Afghanstan and Iraq now, and everywhere else they want if 9/11 did not happen. They said the needed a "new Pearl Harbour" for the transformation of the american society

You say "unimaginable ammount of explosives" needed ? But you agree that WTC 7 fell down - all of it and symetrical, in a nice pile of rubble, exactly as if being demolished, and that was just because some fires and a big part of a corner missing ?

Evidence - not heresay - what evidence is there that such widespread preparation took place? Don't forget that a sizeable portion of the US male population has some military experience. How would it be done with none of the night staff noticing anything? In a building of that size companies are always carrying out drills, they don't co-ordinate them between the companies because it would be too distruptive ot the local area to have so many people suddenly leave such a large complex.

Remote controlled planes? WTF!? What fucking happened to the crew and the passengers then? It is possible to install robot systems to cars and aircraft, but it's a bit bloody obvious, the equipment is bulky and occupies the area where the pilot goes.

The targets - it's not as if they picked the most obscure targets, the two tallest towers in NYC and one of the most identifiable buildings in Washington (that also happens to be next to an airport whith all of its nav beacons. The evidence also suggests they DID screw up the first approach for that one and had to turn back.

WTC7 had damage to a third of the frontage on the south face (firemans interview, I can find the quote if you are desperate for it), damage to a corner. Major fires throughout. The type of fire that has been shown in the uS and here at Cardington to weaken steel, casing to sag and lose structural strength. Why the hell shouldn't it collapse?

Look back through the threads or look at Implosionworld and look at the sort of prepartion that goes on to do this sort of thing. Both Editor and Crispy have posted up pictures of the type of preparation work required. It CANNOT be hidden.