http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltP2t9nq9fI
and why did the signal quickly get cut after the reporter incorrectly reported building 7 collapsing BEFORE IT COLLAPSED?
The BBC is awesome. They can actually give you the news BEFORE it happens. Now THAT’S awesome!
You think that is news, check this out !!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=vcgv-axkgs4&vq=medium#t=27
jeez, and you anarchists wonder why nobody takes you guys seriously.
I for one believe 9/11 was an inside job done by America’s shadow government. Mossad may have had something to do with it but it was mostly a pretext to crack down on anti-government and anti-marxist activists. I’m sure the Norway killer was also a false flag. His love of Mises and Hayek and hatred of Marx and “muslims” seems too suspicious.
Actually, I think most of us do know why “nobody” takes anarchism seriously.
Who mentioned anarchy? What’s the connection between anarchy and disbelieving the official 9/11 conspiracy theory? You seem to see an anarchist behind every bush.
Clayton -
hahaha that’s funny, OP. Moussad didn’t have a little to do with it…
9/11 was pulled off by the EXACT same people as Iran/Contra. The guy who gave Oliver North and Reagan immunity during the I/C hearings, Lee Hamilton, is the same guy who obstructed the 9/11 commission. People who deny it are truly the one’s fooling themselves.
Has anyone heard that there was a van packed with explosives trying to blow up the G WAshington bridge that day? (You’ll have to scroll down on that link) and that the people doing it got caught red-handed and arrested? and it happened along side three other vans that caused problems that day? And they got…deported?
Check these out:
Border Dispute? - This is why the arabs are suspicious…
http://www.rys2sense.com/anti-neocons/
http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/
http://www.iamthewitness.com/Bollyn/Bollyn-Chertoff_cousin.html - Popular Mechanics has no skin in the game? Who was it that invested heavily in the TSA body scanners…Michael Chert-who?
If you were setting up a secret conspiracy, would you let BBC in on it?
where did you get this dude’s love of mises and hayek? not that i don’t believe you just that i want the source
BBC is a propaganda station…why do people think the media stations are some benevolent force?
Does anyone on this thread know of any BBC licence-payer who has written to the BBC to enquire about the accuracy of this news item?
“If you were setting up a secret conspiracy, would you let BBC in on it?”
stick to the question. you can’t answer it can you?
“hahaha that’s funny, OP. Moussad didn’t have a little to do with it…”
stick to the one simple question. how did bbc know it collapsed before it collapsed? one question, very simple.
because they were given a report beforehand…They are a propaganda station. WT7 was demolished and they reported that it collapsed casue of fire from the “terrorists”
Did you look at that stuff i posted?
You answer how all of those people knew about it.
Did the BBC “know” that it collapsed, or merely report that it had? There’s a huge difference here. In rapidly developing and chaotic events bad information gets reported all the time. It’s entirely plausible that some BBC or affiliated reporter picked up some chatter from some engineer or first repsonder that “WTC 7 is in danger of collapse and/or collapsing” and by the time it got to the broadcast it had been muddled into “WTC has collapsed”. This is not some strech of the imagination. Go look at any rapidly developing emergency broadcast ever. On the morning of 9/11, my friends were telling me that the main towers had collapsed before they actually had. Are then in on the conspiracy too?
Lets also examine any reason why the alleged conspiracy would have to tell the BBC that WTC 7 had collapsed. Wouldn’t it be blatantly obvious that it had, and be reported anyway? Why the need to puppet the information to them in advance? It makes no sense.
It appears that Reuters reported that WTC7 fell to BBC and CNN before it happened. click this link it’s in Pt. 2
She was probably standing in front of a green screen. In the first 4 hours of the footage on each station there was not realy a lot of presenters standing in front of the building speaking. Of the footage that that there was presenters standing in front of the building, It definitely looks like it could easily be a looped green screen footage.The 20 min timecode is also difficult to prove because there are no timestamps on the footage. I think it was about 10 mins before the time of collapse that they reported it.
Anyway, this is relatively trifling compared to the manner of the collapse. The official theory has a rebuttal when it comes to WTC1 and WTC2: they were hit by freaking jumbo jets. All your laws of physics can’t tell you that it’s impossible for a building to collapse from being hit by a damn jetliner at 600mph. No other building has been hit by a jetliner like this in the history of the world, so nobody can know for sure what’s going to happen. But WTC7 wasn’t hit by an airplane. It had fires but lots of steel buildings have experienced fires. Steel buildings have even collapsed from fires. But steel building collapse due to fire looks nothing like what happened to WTC7. The official report on the collapse says that the timing of the 47 column collapses happened within a few hundred millisecond of each other and progressed in order from one end of the building to the other. Now, except for not mentioning the word “demolition”, the NIST report’s account of the WTC7 collapse is indistinguishable from the firing order of demolition charges. How you get a tightly timed, rapid-fire succession of vertical support collapse from one end of a building to another in such a manner that the entire roofline remains parallel to the ground as the building sinks into itself from unevenly distributed office fires - most of which had been put out by the time of the collapse - is beyond me.
But squeeze your eyes shut and bury your head in the sand. It makes you seem more serious and respectable.
Clayton -
Clayton, to my knowledge WTC 7 did not have a structure that required “47 column collaps[ing] within a few hundred millisecond of each other” in order to fall. It had a few central trusses that held up the majority of the building. One of them failed, then several seconds later (not milliseconds), the other two failed, which created the dramatic “demolition” look. However if you look at video and picture of the structure from other angles, you’ll see that this “symmetrical” and “rapid-fire” collapse is nothing of the sort.
Penthouse collapse: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLHwvwJCmgk
And here’s another good video descripbing some of the building’s structure and how it collapsed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbPpK-oWdYc
Everyone has to make thier own decsion. But increasingly over time it’s obviously clear to me that in order to mainain 9/11 conspiracy theories, you have to be starting from your hypothesis and ignoring a huge amount of data to make it fit. It’s entirely possible to jet liners and fires to do what happened on 9/11. Why aren’t the claims simply that the hijackers were government agents or dupes? This would be plausible. No, instead we have theories that the planes were really missiles, or somehow complex demolition projects were prepared secretly with no one noticing, or the laughable “no plane” theories that claim everything was computer generated. It’s all about people looking at half-pictures and starting with the premise of a government conspiracy, then twisting the information to make it fit. Wake up.
Logistic: You’re just hand-waving. I’m not an expert in buildings, structural collapse or any of those kinds of things but I don’t need to be an expert to know that the principle of cause-and-effect is always in operation in this Universe. Take a look at this video of the North Tower collapse. Most of the fire and structural damage is to the left-far side of the building. The camera is looking at the side of the building where there were almost no fires at all and where there was less damage to the building caused by the impact of the plane. Watch the corner of the building on the right hand side right about where the fires are (no smoke, so you have crystal-clear visibility to the building itself). When the top of the building begins to fall, both the left and right corners give way at almost precisely the same instant. What is the cause of the right side of the building giving way at almost precisely the same instant as the left side of the building? I’m not saying the right side of the building could not have given way and collapsed. I’m saying there’s no reason for it to have given way at almost precisely the same moment. Think carefully about what I’m saying before dismissing it as an argument from ignorance of structural engineering or whatever. I don’t need to be a structural engineer to see that there is no apparent cause for the right edge of the building to have given way at almost precisely the same instant as the left edge.
The weakest part of a building must - by definition - give way first and, if the entire building is going to collapse, we should be able to see a progressive chain of cause and effect whereby the next weakest part of the building collapses from the additional strain caused by the first collapse and so on until the entire building has collapsed. But in all cases - WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 - the collapses of these buildings involved the simultaneous giving way of multiple points on the building at almost precisely the same instant. It is a mockery of reason to say that multiple points will “just happen” to give way simultaneously - and this is supposed to have happened not just one time in a day but three times in one day.
By comparison, look at the collapse of this small structure. While the forces involved are much smaller than those involved in the WTC towers, the principle of cause and effect remains the same. Look at how the front of the structure collapses. The front-right side of the building - where the support has been removed - begins to collapse first. Then, the left front side. Then the rear corner of the building which is visible begins to collapse last. There is a sequence of events related to each other by cause and effect. In all three collapses of WTC towers, there is no such causal sequence of events visible in the manner of the collapse.
The idea that this could not have been a conspiracy because of the operational problems presumes that there’s some sort of inherent tendency within the government for people to blow the whistle when things are suspicious. But the government operates in precisely the opposite manner. Whistle-blowing is treated like a threat to national security because “operational details” or “sources and methods” get compromised or any of a million other excuses. So, even if something seems odd, the best course of action for the average bureaucrat is to keep shut and look the other way.
Clayton -
As to the claim that it was milliseconds, not seconds, between the failure of the core columns:
From NIST NCSTAR 1A on WTC7:
The failure of the interior columns then proceeded toward the west [after the failure of column 79]. Truss 2 failed, hit by the debris from the falling floors. This caused Column 77 and Column 78 to fail, followed shortly by Column 76. Each north-south line of three core columns then buckled in succession from east to west, due to loss of lateral support from floor system failures, to the forces exerted by falling debris, which tended to push the columns westward, and to the loads redistributed to them from the buckled columns. Within seconds, the entire building core was buckling.
The global collapse of WTC 7 was underway. The shell of exterior columns buckled between the 7th and 14th floors, as loads were redistributed to these columns due to the downward movement of the building core and the floors. The entire building above the buckled-column region then moved downward as a single unit, completing the global collapse sequence.
Section 2.4 “Probably Collapse Sequence”
WTC7 had 24 columns, I don’t know where I got 47 (was going from memory), please excuse my mistake. Here is a diagram. As you can see, there are 8 ranks of columns. The NIST quote above is basically saying that it all started with the girders attached to column 79 heating up to the point that they actually buckled the column, causing it to fail. This caused some floors to collase internally which then caused Truss 2 to fail (I’m assuming Truss 2 is connected between columns 76, 77 and/or 78) which caused the same kind of buckling that happened to column 79. This progressed across all 24 columns in a matter of a few seconds. 24 columns failing in a matter of even 10 seconds (it took way less than 10 seconds for this to happen) would be no more than 500 milliseconds (half a second) between column failures.
And if you read closely, you will notice that NIST is actually implicitly claiming that all three columns in each north-south line of columns failed simultaneously. This is truly a remarkable occurrence. As I said earlier, except for not using the word “demolition”, NIST’s account of the collapse is otherwise indistinguishable from a description of how a building collapses during demolition.
Clayton -
.jpg){kind=link}
