BBO Discussion Forums: The Curious Case Of Building 7 - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

The Curious Case Of Building 7 New video raises more questions

#1 User is online   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 14,937
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2007-February-28, 18:05

New BBC News video shows BBC News 24 announcing on 9-11 that a third building had collapsed, World Trade Center-7, also known as the Saloman Building.

The oddity is they reported the collapse before the collapse occured - some 26 minutes too early. In another video from the BBC, the building is standing without a hint of collapse, seen clearly over the shoulder of the reporter while she reports that it too had collapsed.

From where or whom would a network like the BBC get news feeds to read on air?

I would provide a link, but everytime a new link on youtube is opened Google takes it down. However, if you a curious you should be able to find it.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Black Lives Matter.
0

#2 User is online   mikeh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,025
  • Joined: 2005-June-15
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada
  • Interests:Bridge, golf, wine (red), cooking, reading eclectically but insatiably, travelling, making bad posts.

Posted 2007-February-28, 18:20

Winstonm, on Feb 28 2007, 07:05 PM, said:

New BBC News video shows BBC News 24 announcing on 9-11 that a third building had collapsed, World Trade Center-7, also known as the Soloman Building.

The oddity is they reported the collapse before the collapse occured - some 26 minutes too early. In another video from the BBC, the building is standing without a hint of collapse, seen clearly over the shoulder of the reporter while she reports that it too had collapsed.

From where or whom would a network like the BBC get news feeds to read on air?

I would provide a link, but everytime a new link on youtube is opened Google takes it down. However, if you a curious you should be able to find it.

I haven't seen the video and have no interest in doing so, unless the BBC admits to something incriminating. I can tell you that I have seen several examples of video, time and date stamped, that contains apparent errors. I once got a surveillance tape of an accident victim (showing him happily at work on a construction site while claiming to be off work) which showed work at 11:30 am and then later, on the same unedited tape, another segment at 10:55 am, on the same day. How could this be so?

Well, the cameraman had forgotten to update the time recording device on his camera to account for a change due to daylight savings: he made the change between segments. A suspicious mind would have seen, instead of a mild degree of incompetence, some form of conspiracy to fabricate evidence.

Experience has long taught me that most seemingly inexplicable lapses are due to incompetence or misunderstanding rather than to conspiracy, but there is something in our brains, perhaps driven by evolution,that makes us tend to see patterns where there are none.. and to draw inferences linking unlinked events into such patterns. My gut sense (for what little that is worth) says that this is likely such an example.
'one of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is the howls you will hear from the Men of God' Johann Hari
0

#3 User is online   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 14,937
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2007-February-28, 18:33

Quote

I can tell you that I have seen several examples of video, time and date stamped, that contains apparent errors.


Yes, that can certainly happen. But in this particular video the female reporter is standing in front of a window, reporting that WTC-7 had collapsed, all the while WTC-7 is clearly seen over her shoulder, still standing. A time stamp here is irrelevant as she is reporting an event that has yet to happen and the evidence is clearly visible.

The only question is from where did that information originate? I do not suggest any complicity on the BBC's part, as they were only reporting the news as it was relayed to them, and the reporter had her back to the window and could not see WTC-7 and probably did not know which of the many NY skyscrapers it was, anyway.

The curious aspect is that someone somewhere relayed a news item to the BBC that WTC-7 had collapsed, almost 30 minutes prior to the collapse, and that would take foreknowledge of the event, would it not?
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Black Lives Matter.
0

#4 User is offline   mike777 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,739
  • Joined: 2003-October-07
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2007-February-28, 18:49

Are you suggesting that the BBC or Brits blew up wtc-7 in revenge for the war of 1812 and the battle of NO?
0

#5 User is offline   glen 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,624
  • Joined: 2003-May-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ottawa, Canada
  • Interests:Military history, WW II wargames

Posted 2007-February-28, 18:49

Winstonm, on Feb 28 2007, 07:33 PM, said:

and that would take foreknowledge of the event, would it not?

or confusion over the events taking place, and lack of detailed knowledge of New York buildings by BBC reporters
'I hit my peak at seven' Taylor Swift
0

#6 User is online   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 14,937
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2007-February-28, 19:00

officeglen, on Feb 28 2007, 07:49 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Feb 28 2007, 07:33 PM, said:

and that would take foreknowledge of the event, would it not?

or confusion over the events taking place, and lack of detailed knowledge of New York buildings by BBC reporters

I would not expect the BBC nor a BBC reporter to know by heart the outline of the NY skyline or even know the building they were talking about.

That is not the point. The point is that some 20+ minutes before the actual collapse, when only 2 other building had collapsed, the BBC was reporting on a third collapse.

This could not have been BBC screw up or confusing buildings - they either had the foresight of Nostradamus or the information was relayed to them that WTC-had fallen. You cannot dig out a scoop and report events that have yet to occur.

From what source did their information come is the question - it is silly to think the BBC did anything other than read the feeds on their monitors - they had no idea what they were reporting had not happened - the BBC was not to blame for the information they received.

But where did it come from?
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Black Lives Matter.
0

#7 User is offline   mike777 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,739
  • Joined: 2003-October-07
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2007-February-28, 19:04

Winstonm, on Feb 28 2007, 08:00 PM, said:

officeglen, on Feb 28 2007, 07:49 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Feb 28 2007, 07:33 PM, said:

and that would take foreknowledge of the event, would it not?

or confusion over the events taking place, and lack of detailed knowledge of New York buildings by BBC reporters

I would not expect the BBC nor a BBC reporter to know by heart the outline of the NY skyline or even know the building they were talking about.

That is not the point. The point is that some 20+ minutes before the actual collapse, when only 2 other building had collapsed, the BBC was reporting on a third collapse.

This could not have been BBC screw up or confusing buildings - they either had the foresight of Nostradamus or the information was relayed to them that WTC-had fallen. You cannot dig out a scoop and report events that have yet to occur.

From what source did their information come is the question - it is silly to think the BBC did anything other than read the feeds on their monitors - they had no idea what they were reporting had not happened - the BBC was not to blame for the information they received.

But where did it come from?

Winston why not write a letter and ask them? Sending a letter via registered mail may have a better chance of a response than an email.
0

#8 User is offline   glen 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,624
  • Joined: 2003-May-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ottawa, Canada
  • Interests:Military history, WW II wargames

Posted 2007-February-28, 19:04

So the BBC was not just reporting a particular building had collasped, but that 3 buildings had collasped?
'I hit my peak at seven' Taylor Swift
0

#9 User is online   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 14,937
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2007-February-28, 19:12

officeglen, on Feb 28 2007, 08:04 PM, said:

So the BBC was not just reporting a particular building had collasped, but that 3 buildings had collasped?

The BBC reported that a third buidling had just collapsed, the Saloman Building, WTC-7. This is shown in 2 different videos. One is a live shot from a woman reporter, stating that a third buidling had collapsed, (WTC-7), and in the live shot the buidling is clearly seen still standing. She is on air some 5+ minutes and during that time the building is quite intact.

The BBC has been barraged with mail and phone calls - their official explanation?
They can't answer because of a "cock up". They have lost all their tapes of what occured on 9-11 - which is odd because U.K. law demands that they have at least 3 seperate tapes in at least 3 different locations, so losing them would mean losing them in all 3 locations. Weird.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Black Lives Matter.
0

#10 User is online   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 14,937
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2007-February-28, 19:32

mike777, on Feb 28 2007, 07:49 PM, said:

Are you suggesting that the BBC or Brits blew up wtc-7 in revenge for  the war of 1812 and the battle of NO?

You'll have to forgive me, Mike, but I have trouble being glib about the events of 9-11, knowing that over 3000 Americans died that day, over 3000 more soldiers have died in Iraq and Afghanistan directly due to what happened that day, and that thousands of Iraqis and Afghans have also died, all because of 9-11.

The National Institute of Safety and Transportation, the NIST, has no explanation as to what caused WTC-7 to fall.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Black Lives Matter.
0

#11 User is offline   EricK 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,294
  • Joined: 2003-February-14
  • Location:England

Posted 2007-March-01, 00:04

When a building has been ravaged by fire it is often easy for firefighters to tell that it is bound to collapse imminently. Since this is almost certainly what happend to WTC7 it is not too difficult to see how a report of "It is about to collapse" could morph into "It has collapsed" by the time it reaches a foreign news station. Certainly it is more believable than the "conspirators" accidentally informed a foreign news station that a building had collapsed half an hour before they "blew it up".
0

#12 User is online   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 14,937
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2007-March-01, 19:55

EricK, on Mar 1 2007, 01:04 AM, said:

When a building has been ravaged by fire it is often easy for firefighters to tell that it is bound to collapse imminently. Since this is almost certainly what happend to WTC7 it is not too difficult to see how a report of "It is about to collapse" could morph into "It has collapsed" by the time it reaches a foreign news station. Certainly it is more believable than the "conspirators" accidentally informed a foreign news station that a building had collapsed half an hour before they "blew it up".


I certainly sympathize with your views. It indeed would be "easier" to accept some natural explanation - but believability must take into account facts and not speculations. I find it interesting when I post about 9-11, I do not claim an alternate conspiracy hypothesis, but opponents are quick to try to debunk what they see as a "conspiracy theory".

I present a simple fact: the BBC broadcast information that WTC-7 had collapsed before the collapse occured. You, on the other hand, try to find a reason to explain away that fact. Your conclusion may be right - but it is nothing more than speculation. I do not speculate on the meaning of the event - I only state that it occured and is an oddity.

As to your claim that fireighters would have known, this would have again been a prognostication on the part of firefighters to rival Nostradamus, as prior to 9-11 not a single steel-framed highrise anywhere in the world had collapsed due to fire, and worldwide there have been much worse fires that lasted much longer. This again is fact. I do not try to explain what caused the fall - I only present the fact that it did fall, and the 3 buildings that fell on 9-11 are the only examples ever when steel-framed highrises collapsed due to fire.

Ceilings have come down. Brick facades can fall. The structure can be unsafe due to these types of things - but no firefighter would suspect a total and complete collapse. Buildings much closer to the twin towers suffered much more severe damage than WTC-7 yet none collapsed and none had advanced warning of collapse.

It would be easier to accept some type of structural failure secondary to the attacks caused the collapse - but that is speculalation; unfortunately, the evidence does not support that speculation.

Here are the oddities so far - for any one there might be an explanation, but when you take them in total it is hard to find a reasonable explanation that fits the total picture.

1. Just as the collapse began, puffs of smoke shot out the windows on the sides of the building - moving upwards (pressure from the fall would not cause the upward movement, toward the roor and away from the direction of collapse.)

2. NIST has not found a reason for the collapse.

3. Larry Silverstein said on national t.v. that a decision was made to "pull it."

4. The building fell straight down into its basement.

5. The construction design was different from the twin towers - so the hypothesis of what caused the towers to collapse cannot be transposed onto WTC-7.

6. The building collapsed at freefall speed, with no resistance from the floors below.

7. And now it is found that the BBC aired a broadcast that the building had collapsed 20+ minutes before it happened - when no other like building ever in history had collapsed due to fire damage.

These are the fact - science takes facts and creates a hypothesis that fits all the known facts; speculation tries to explain away anomolies; I think we all deserve more after 9-11 than speculation.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Black Lives Matter.
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users