BBC announced collapse of WT7 before it happened!
- Thread starter Jazzz
- Start date
ill-informed
passive aggressive master
are you? not that it's any of my business of course. Jazz made some good points there. Was it the case that 7 had a normal building structure as opposed to 1 and 2?
edit to add, i thought i was posting just after guinnessdrinker, i should have refreshed.
edit to add, i thought i was posting just after guinnessdrinker, i should have refreshed.
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
Yes, and then there were big fires and then they fell. And there was a big mess of debris thereof, and fires in the buildings nearby and skittish firemen who just saw A happen to X and made the simple logical jump to X happening to Y.Jazzz said:...the funny thing is that if I say that about WTCs 1 & 2, you guys are always quick to point out that a plane crashed into them.
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
Jazzz said:
but then the whole two-massive-skuscrapers-on-fire thing hadn't happened before either. to test it properly we'd have to recreate 9/11 a few times until we'd gotten enough results to work out whether this was dodgy or not.
and how do you know 9/11 was planned from there. it seems too tenuous.
Stigmata
sexual tyrannosaurus
I'm waiting for the punchline. Whodunnit then? A cabal consisting of the US government, airline companies, the military, the BBC, a bunch of firefighters (some of whom cynically gave their lives to further the illusion), and some Jews (presumably, they've got a hand in everything these days innit?).
Fact me 'til I fart!
Fact me 'til I fart!
Stigmata said:
you forgot Nemo the lizard.
Yet they didn't about any of the other WTC buildings which were completely gutted. Wasn't one of them between WTC1&2 and WTC7? And still stood. Yeah, people were going to be 'jittery' on 9/11 for sure but that firemen are going to start thinking buildings are going to come down in ways they never have before simply because they are on fire. I think you are deluding yourself.Crispy said:
No of course not! 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! Where do you think the BBC got it from?
editor
hiraethified
To be honest I'm finding his grasp of the facts, his selective reading and his weird, near-religious devotion to outlandish conspiracies a little troubling now.Groucho said:The stuff he believes is really quite bonkers. Doesn't necessarily mean he is though does it?
I mean, he's been free to post up his 'evidence' for years but far from convincing people of the validity of his claims, he's just become a laughing stock. Even those posters previously mindful to get involved with his exciting conspiracy yarns seem to have deserted him for good.
Put simply: the more he writes the less people believe him.
ill-informed
passive aggressive master
From my own experience that's because of the language and the bullyboy tactics, not neccesarily from the arguments which are too often non existant. Just look at this thread for example, nearly every post was an insult. A good way to stifle debate i guess and why jazz keeps accepting it is beyond me. But of course it's the editors boards and jazzz can apparently go somewhere else etc etc etc........editor said:
ill-informed said:
you are obviously ill-informed
that debate has been going for years and is not leading anywhere. yet he is still allowed to put his point of view and this thread is not in the bin............yet.
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
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.
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.
ill-informed
passive aggressive master
I've been around long enough. I'm busier now than i used to be so i don't post very often, but i stand by what i said.
editor
hiraethified
You're quite wrong but seem quite happy to form your opinion from a position of self-confessed ignorance.ill-informed said:
If you're going to put the boot in and get personal, I suggest you first read back through some of Jazzz's threads and see why people have grown so frustrated with his evasive, dishonest tactics.
Funny enough WTC 6, the Bankers Trust building etc were all heavily damaged but they weren't seriously ablaze like WTC1,2 or 7.Jazzz said:
Sod Giuliani and Silverstein, if you think they could over-ride any command decision of the NYFD, then you are crazy. They made their decisions based solely on what was achieveable without further loss of life. You are clearly ignoring all of the quotes that were posted earlier from ordinary fire-fighters and police officers. There are plenty more quotes that say such things as WTC being 'fully engaged' by fire.
You mean apart from the two that had just collapsed killing so many of their mates...Jazzz said:No such building had ever collapsed due to fire before. EVER.
If you are aware of anything structural failing before WTC7 collapsed, do tell me about it - as far as I know the collapse theory depends on all of its columns failing simultaneously.
We still don't have a finished version of why it collapsed, and apparently the still leading one was admitted to have 'a low probability of occurrence'.
So we now have the extremely strange situation where every man and his dog was predicting the collapse of WTC7 before it happened.
But with the benefit of hindsight, no one has the foggiest about it!
Or is there a better explanation, my conspiracy denialists? Yes there is. It was demolished, to destroy the evidence where 9/11 was planned (I need not remind you about the emergency command centre it featured). This was a 'loose end' in the movie and the idea was to get rid of it and draw as little attention to it as possible. You want people to forget about it (as indeed they did, some people still look blank if you mention the collapse of building 7). So, you sprinkle some gasoline around, set alight, and then make sure that everyone knows it's coming down because you don't want any human interest stories - deaths, heroics - or court cases to arise when it does. Get everyone out of the way and hope they forget all about it.
There are quotes somewhere from the firefighters saying that a third of teh south face of the building was severely damaged and there were major fires throughout the building.
pk
drink flounce rinse repeat
Groucho said:The stuff he believes is really quite bonkers. Doesn't necessarily mean he is though does it?
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?
ska invita
back on the other side
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).Jazzz said:
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.
Similar threads
