BBC announced collapse of WT7 before it happened!

[Lock&Light]

Wow. You really are utterly bonkers, aren't you?

Have you only just noticed?

 

[laptop]

Boringly returning to a still-unanswered question relevant to the OP subject:

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!!!

In the absence of actual research to locate the studio with a view - which may involve something as messy and real-world as a phone call - we have to track the whole thread back to some wazzock not understanding time-zones.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

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

Oh for gods sake.

You're an idiot.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Hi Aldebaran, I know you are a reasonable poster so I'll try to give a brief rundown, although a lot of this I've gone over before.

1) a) & b) The WTC security was controlled. This is the key. You control the security, you can let in people to do the work, also you can keep an eye out for anyone who might find something they shouldn't. Explosives would have to be of the remote-detonation variety. Still this is no easy task, granted. It would take months I would guess.

2) The plot would have been carried out by the highest levels of the US military, with lower levels knowing nothing of it. Maybe they used the few $trillion missing in the accounts. Why? An immediate answer is to fulfil the desires of PNAC, who infamously stated they needed 'a new pearl harbour' to accomplish their ambitions to empire within a few years. But that's just half the chessboard - a grander plan is the scheme to remove freedoms of the populace. You can see this happening by the day.

3) a) Crucial to the impact of 9/11 was that we watched the horror unfold live on television, it happened before our very eyes. This would not have been accomplished if the buildings were simply demolished.

b) I'm only aware of one recording from a plane which was recorded - Betty Ong. There are a mixture of methods by which the calls could have come around. They could have been faked, they may have been the genuine person tricked into fooling his next of kin, they may have been even been genuine calls (flight 93 may have been a staged hijack, nearly all the calls were from there). The point is that the reported calls, however appealing emotionally, are far from hard evidence; and it's telling that they are presented as the incontrovertible evidence for the official story.

d) e) f) I don't think it's for me to identify who the paymasters were or who indeed was paid

4. The planes that hit their targets were not the ones that took off. I don't believe anyone committed suicide on September 11 2001.

And so are you.

 

[TAE]

Ignoring holographic conspiracies for a second ...

I do find it very very strange that the BBC are claiming they've lost the original recording of the 9/11 broadcast and would like people to contact them if they have a copy:

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

You just don't loose that kind of stuff. It's like Microsoft claiming they've lost the source code for Internet Explorer.

4. 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.

You what?

 

[editor]

I do find it very very strange that the BBC are claiming they've lost the original recording of the broadcast.

It is a bit odd. But there again, we very nearly lost the entire boards - posts, members, threads, topics, forums, the lot - last summer. Shit happens.

 

[Giles]

As far as you know they could have been installed before the building was occupied. The planning for this would have gone back years.

OMFG.

Giles..

 

[laptop]

It is a bit odd. But there again, we very nearly lost the entire boards - posts, members, threads, topics, forums, the lot - last summer. Shit happens.

Anyways, one of the responses on the BBC blog says it's out there (presumably lo-res - about 1GB if I recall) on www.archive.org

As would the boards have been, after a fashion...

 

[Chairman Meow]

Have you only just noticed?

Nah. Its just the thought of the WTC7 having had explosives built in all along just struck me as possibly one of the most ludicrous things I have ever read in my life. I mean, WTF?

 

[WouldBe]

As far as you know they could have been installed before the building was occupied. The planning for this would have gone back years.

In which case you will be able to show us a battery that keeps it's charge for 30+ years to be able to power the remote control detonators.

 

[MikeMcc]

The only structures that I KNOW were designed for demolition were bridges in West Germany, since the threat from the Soviets was recognised they built chambers into the bridges for demo charges. But this was an open secret, it's difficult to hide from the construction crews! There's no way that the WTC had similar compartments. You can't leave charges or det cord in place because they have a shelf life and you seriously don't want to fuck about with out of date explosives!

Editted for typo

 

[editor]

The only structures that I KNOW were designed for demolition were bridges in West German, since the threat from the Soviets was recognised they built chambers into the bridges for demo charges.

Actually, the Waterloo Bridge in London was built with explosive chambers, but then that was during WW2 and Britain was fearing a Nazi invasion and the bridge had immense strategic value..

The notion that a modern American occupied *skyscraper* was built with completely undetected, invisible explosives charges that were left in place for 15 years is straight out of Jazzz's sci-fi holographic plane fantasy.

It's almost as ridiculous as that 9/11 Scholar's shite about space beams,

 

[TAE]

Shit happens.

Not that kind of shit. Seriously, perhaps they don't want to admit to such a huge mistake (wrongly reporting WT7 collapsed) being made live on air, but if they've lost their own 9/11 broadcast tapes, they are utterly incompetent beyond belief.

 

[editor]

Not that kind of shit. Seriously, perhaps they don't want to admit to such a huge mistake (wrongly reporting WT7 collapsed) being made live on air, but if they've lost their own 9/11 broadcast tapes, they are utterly incompetent beyond belief.

To be honest, it was hardly such a "huge mistake" if no one noticed for over five years. I can remember al sorts of things being said on the radio that turned out to be false alarms.

If they've lost the tapes then that is worthy of some knuckles being seriously rapped. We're paying for what is essentially an important modern televisual archive.

I wonder if any of the loons have bothered to cross check the BBC tape with the News 24hr won - or found out if the background was live or not.

Probably not, I guess. That's too much like proper research.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Nah. Its just the thought of the WTC7 having had explosives built in all along just struck me as possibly one of the most ludicrous things I have ever read in my life. I mean, WTF?

I prefer the idea that the oaklahoma city bombings were a trial run for 9/11 to be rather good myself.

 

[WouldBe]

I prefer the idea that the oaklahoma city bombings were a trial run for 9/11 to be rather good myself.

You mean they flew a van into the WTC.

 

[Giles]

You mean they flew a van into the WTC.

They did. But they cunningly painted it to look an airliner. Clever bastards.

Giles..

 

[bristol_citizen]

if they've lost their own 9/11 broadcast tapes, they are utterly incompetent beyond belief.

Perfectly possible. The BBC is basically a load of Oxbridge chumps. Given the massive resources they have and the myths they can create with them, their journalism is usually well below average. I doubt their archivists are any better.

 

[pk]

I know for a fact they aren't....

 

[TAE]

I find it very hard to believe that the BBC have lost all high quality copies their own 9/11 broadcasts.

 

[smokedout]

i made a list, hope no-one minds

Back to reality, looking up a thread posted as the events unfolded on 9/11 (which can be found on urban 75 you need to register) reveals many more media blunders on the day.

"The initial quoted casualty figure is 6 dead and 1,000 injured - Posted by Editor

Pentagon was bombed or hit by a helicopter and a third plane suspected of hitting the mall. - Posted by salman

There are rumours of 4 more planes hijacked - Posted by Scruff

Car bomb goes of outside the State dept. Five-Live - Posted by Brew

And now a car-bomb outside the whitehouse... - Posted by h8jj

Radio five live says that there are two planes on way to washington... - Posted by Brew

American networks are saying that the military are about to "take out" the plane heading for Washington - ITV News - Posted by Tankgirl

Washington Mall explosion - CNN - Posted by D

I've just been told that there's a plane been hijacked from amsterdam and is heading for London... (from CNN) - Posted by Twitch

ITN news are still saying that Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine have claimed responsibility - Posted by Tank Girl

Reports that there could be a massive gas explosion in Lower Manhatten. - Posted by - Moon

I heard unconfirmed reports of a plane hitting a building in Chicago about 2 hours ago. Then nothing. - Posted by Grasshopper"

from the void

 

[Augie March]

As far as you know they could have been installed before the building was occupied. The planning for this would have gone back years.

The first occupants moved into World Trade Centre 1 in December 1970... are you seriously suggesting that explosives were placed in the building before then? That the whole conspiracy has been in the works for 31+ years? Why?

 

[detective-boy]

The first occupants moved into World Trade Centre 1 in December 1970...

Osama was a very bad 12 year old ... it was already clear that some massive self-inflicted wound would be needed to get the American people to rid the world of him ...

 

[detective-boy]

Have we ever been told HOW this broadcast is known to have been made prior to the collapse - I've heard all the stuff about time zones, but, apart from repeated statements that it was at such and such time, what evidence of that is there?

And it would not surprise me to find out that the "out of the window" footage pointed at by the live reporter was, in fact, actually recorded footage from earlier ... which would explain why the BBC are now a little reluctant to admit what really happened.

"Well, we weren't actually involved in some massive conspiracy ... but we have got caught out faking "live" footage ..."

 

[8den]

As far as you know they could have been installed before the building was occupied. The planning for this would have gone back years.

Uh what? So if you believe that you'll have to ignore the PNAC bollocks.

Theres a nutter over at the JREF forum who claims he saw a PBS documentary in the 80s which shows C4 coated rebars.

1) a) & b) The WTC security was controlled. This is the key. You control the security, you can let in people to do the work, also you can keep an eye out for anyone who might find something they shouldn't. Explosives would have to be of the remote-detonation variety. Still this is no easy task, granted. It would take months I would guess.

And what would happen if these explosives were discovered over previous months. The outrage the fury etc? Your plan puts the elite of the US in major jeporady if it is exposed.

2) The plot would have been carried out by the highest levels of the US military, with lower levels knowing nothing of it. Maybe they used the few $trillion missing in the accounts. Why? An immediate answer is to fulfil the desires of PNAC, who infamously stated they needed 'a new pearl harbour' to accomplish their ambitions to empire within a few years. But that's just half the chessboard - a grander plan is the scheme to remove freedoms of the populace. You can see this happening by the day.

Again if it was planned years in advance why the PNAC document? Also you're misrepresenting the PNAC document. Incidently why would someone release a unclassified document explaining their plan before they did it?

3) a) Crucial to the impact of 9/11 was that we watched the horror unfold live on television, it happened before our very eyes. This would not have been accomplished if the buildings were simply demolished.

You didn't think the sight of two plans crashing into a buildings wasn't horrfiying. What kind of sick git are you?

b) I'm only aware of one recording from a plane which was recorded - Betty Ong. There are a mixture of methods by which the calls could have come around. They could have been faked, they may have been the genuine person tricked into fooling his next of kin, they may have been even been genuine calls (flight 93 may have been a staged hijack, nearly all the calls were from there). The point is that the reported calls, however appealing emotionally, are far from hard evidence; and it's telling that they are presented as the incontrovertible evidence for the official story.

Are you claiming that the people who claimed they recieved calls are liars? There are dozens of phone calls yiu rancid pathetic waste of flesh. People like Mark Bingham you dirty little fuck wit. The flight recorder of United 93 is another example, of brave scared human beings terrified calling their nearest and dearest, before sacrificing their lives.

You really are a worthless excuse for man Jazzz.

d) e) f) I don't think it's for me to identify who the paymasters were or who indeed was paid

Gosh Jazzz you'd make a pathetic dectective.

"Well You see Watson now that I've proved* who didn't commit the murder case closed."

But I say Jazzz, who did do the murder?

Buggered if I know Watson. Morphine?

Have we ever been told HOW this broadcast is known to have been made prior to the collapse - I've heard all the stuff about time zones, but, apart from repeated statements that it was at such and such time, what evidence of that is there?

And it would not surprise me to find out that the "out of the window" footage pointed at by the live reporter was, in fact, actually recorded footage from earlier ... which would explain why the BBC are now a little reluctant to admit what really happened.

"Well, we weren't actually involved in some massive conspiracy ... but we have got caught out faking "live" footage ..."

Sorry mate thats just as paranoid as Jazzz. The way the smoke goes behind the reporter makes it unlikely. PK will back me up, it's difficult and unlikely that a BBC reporter would stand behind a green/blue screen and pretend it's live.


*Proved is used here in the most ironic sense of the word.

 

[Augie March]

Also, in regards to the idea that explosive material might've been installed in the World Trade Centre before anyone had actually occupied the building.

Surely the fire in 1975 and the bombing in 1993 may have set off these supposed explosives in the building?

 

[editor]

Surely the fire in 1975 and the bombing in 1993 may have set off these supposed explosives in the building?

Well, if they hadn't, two dirty great big fuel laden planes smashing into the side of the buildings at high speed may have just caused the odd spark or two in the area.

No doubt Jazz will be back to tell us they used a special, ultra-long lasting, heat resistant, vibration resistant, inferno-resistant top secret explosive that the military invented years ago, along with holographic planes and missiles, invisibles bombs, Instant Mike Yarwood In A Box's and a special Silent Cream that you rub over the mouths of all of the tens of thousands involved in the conspiracy.

 

[Jazzz]

The first occupants moved into World Trade Centre 1 in December 1970... are you seriously suggesting that explosives were placed in the building before then? That the whole conspiracy has been in the works for 31+ years? Why?

I was actually just referring to WTC7 (subject of thread) there.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

I was actually just referring to WTC7 (subject of thread) there.

This time. If memory serves you've made the exact same argument before, and was laughed off the thread then too.

 

[Augie March]

I was actually just referring to WTC7 (subject of thread) there.

Ah sorry, so prior to 1987 then? Only a 14 year conspiracy in the works which makes a hell of a lot more sense...