• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

BBC and WTC 7 on 9/11: confusion or NWO-blunder?

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Newsflash! Major media headlines:

"12 Miners Found Alive 41 Hours After Explosion"
 [/FONT]"Twelve Alive."
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]"Joy At Mine: 12 Are Alive."
[/FONT]"They're Alive."
"12 Found Alive in W. Va. Coal Mine"
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]"Miracle at Sago, 12 Miners Alive."[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]13 miners were trapped. Only one was found alive. Conspiracy?[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]On the other hand, reports of Mark Twain's death were "greatly exaggerated." Until he died, that is.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]In other news, [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]
879045e31ea27c851.jpg

[/FONT]
 
Gravy said:
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Newsflash! Major media headlines:[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]"12 Miners Found Alive 41 Hours After Explosion"[/FONT]
"Twelve Alive."
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]"Joy At Mine: 12 Are Alive."[/FONT]
"They're Alive."
"12 Found Alive in W. Va. Coal Mine"
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]"Miracle at Sago, 12 Miners Alive."[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]13 miners were trapped. Only one was found alive. Conspiracy?[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]On the other hand, reports of Mark Twain's death were "greatly exaggerated." Until he died, that is.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]In other news, [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/879045e31ea27c851.jpg[/FONT]
Click to expand...


That's a poor analogy. We are talking about reports being read while the building still stood in the background.

What if wtc7 had stood until the next day?
 
einsteen said:
If wtc7 collapsed 'naturally' under the conditions it had on 9/11 how could they talk about a low probability of occurrence. The chance of collapse is defined as the ratio of the amount that collapse and the amount that doesn't collapse or collapses (the total), the more measurements you have the more accurate it is. Since wtc7 collapsed under the conditions it has it should be a high probability of occurrence.

The OCT does not know what to say. The only thing we can conclude is that FEMA's story is has a low probability of being the right one.
Click to expand...


Do you really not understand the difference?

They are talking about the probability that a certain scenario was the cause of the collapse.

They are not talking about whether or not it was very probable that it was going to collapse based upon observations on 9/11. It is one thing to look at the building and notice it is damaged or bowing but it is an entirely different thing to figure out what mechanism caused the problem.
 
Firestone said:
Of course, Dylan, would never, NEVER make a mistake in a live report or a documentary. NEVER!
Click to expand...
If Avery were true to form, he'd insist that building 7 DID collapse at 4:57, because the BBC said so.
 
eeyore1954 said:
Do you really not understand the difference?

They are talking about the probability that a certain scenario was the cause of the collapse.

They are not talking about whether or not it was very probable that it was going to collapse based upon observations on 9/11. It is one thing to look at the building and notice it is damaged or bowing but it is an entirely different thing to figure out what mechanism caused the problem.
Click to expand...


FEMA stated that the best hypothesis had only a low probability of occurence. This indicates that all hypotheses had a low probability of occurence.
 
Is it established that:

A. The times shown on the video are correct?
B. That the building shown behind Jane Standly is indeed WTC 7? I'll admit that it certainly looks like that building.

Of course, in my mind the notion that the BBC had gotten the story that WTC 7 was in imminent danger of collapse and jumped the gun is far more plausible than... what exactly is the theory that the CTers propose here? The film implies that the "press release" was accidentally sent out too early. Why would there need to be a "press release" about a 47-story building collapsing?
 
Aphelion said:
FEMA stated that the best hypothesis had only a low probability of occurence. This indicates that all hypotheses had a low probability of occurence.
Click to expand...
Aphelion, they were talking about the diesel fuel hypotheses. Please read more carefully.
 
Brainster said:
Is it established that:

A. The times shown on the video are correct?
B. That the building shown behind Jane Standly is indeed WTC 7? I'll admit that it certainly looks like that building.

Of course, in my mind the notion that the BBC had gotten the story that WTC 7 was in imminent danger of collapse and jumped the gun is far more plausible than... what exactly is the theory that the CTers propose here? The film implies that the "press release" was accidentally sent out too early. Why would there need to be a "press release" about a 47-story building collapsing?
Click to expand...


The times are correct. The building is 7.
 
Gravy said:
Aphelion, they were talking about the diesel fuel hypotheses. Please read more carefully.
Click to expand...

I know which hypothesis they meant. Do you deny that the best hypothesis having a low probability of occurence precludes any hypothesis having a better probability?
 
Aphelion said:
That's a poor analogy. We are talking about reports being read while the building still stood in the background.
Click to expand...
And the reporter knew that? Obviously not, just as the reporters at the Sego mine disaster didn't know the men were dead, that the reporters who wrote Twain's obituary didn't know he was alive, and the papers that printed that Dewey had won didn't know he had lost. All reported unverified information.

Get it?
 
I do remember watching the 9/11 rebroadcast on CNN's Web site last September and noticing that they reported about an hour and 20 minutes before WTC7's collapse that there were strong expectations that the building was going to fall. They already had a camera trained on it; in fact, it looked like the same camera angle of the collapse video that CTers think looks like a controlled demolition. Cameras were pointing at WTC7 for well over an hour before the collapse because everyone there knew that it was very likely to fall.

As for the BBC not noticing the building was still standing when they were making the reports, well, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that they had no idea which building they were talking about anyway. I've seen enough laughably inaccurate maps of NYC and DC on the BBC's Web site to know that that organization is not made up entirely of experts on American cities.

edit: For that matter, how many people on this very forum, debunker or CT, could have identified Seven World Trade Center on sight before 9/11 happened? How many of you were even aware that there were that many buildings in the WTC complex? So would a random British reporter necessarily recognize what was at the time a relatively obscure skyscraper in a city full of famous skyscrapers?
 
Last edited:
Aphelion said:
My point was that people seemed 100% convinced that 7 would suffer this global collapse. It just seems odd that they could be so convinced when the collapse of 7 is still such a mystery.

FEMA said the best hypothesis had only a low probability of occurence. How could they be so certain of a future event that only had a low probability of occurence?
Click to expand...

You're confusing two separate issues. The actual collapse mechanism is still unknown. That the building was likely to collapse was known by observation--the transit that FDNY fixed on the WTC 7 revealed that the building was moving. Of course, you could say that the fact that FDNY focused a transit on a burning steel structure was suspicious in itself, given that no steel highrise... etc.
 
Gravy said:
And the reporter knew that? Obviously not, just as the reporters at the Sego mine disaster didn't know the men were dead, that the reporters who wrote Twain's obituary didn't know he was alive, and the papers that printed that Dewey had won didn't know he had lost. All reported unverified information.

Get it?
Click to expand...


When this lady reported that a 47 storey building had collapsed, didn't she wonder why she hadnt noticed this taking place?
 
Yes, the news crews were told to expect a collapse. Here, Ashleigh Banfield of MSNBC is interviewing a woman when WTC 7 collapses in the background. Banfield: “This is it!” Newsman Brian Williams: “What we’ve been fearing all afternoon has apparently happened. We’ve been watching number seven World Trade, which was part of the ancillary damage of the explosion and collapse of the other two.” Watch it here: http://tinyurl.com/o58sa
 
Aphelion said:
I know which hypothesis they meant. Do you deny that the best hypothesis having a low probability of occurence precludes any hypothesis having a better probability?
Click to expand...
Improbable <> impossible. Your argument from incredulity is going nowhere.
 
Brainster said:
You're confusing two separate issues. The actual collapse mechanism is still unknown. That the building was likely to collapse was known by observation--the transit that FDNY fixed on the WTC 7 revealed that the building was moving. Of course, you could say that the fact that FDNY focused a transit on a burning steel structure was suspicious in itself, given that no steel highrise... etc.
Click to expand...


It's very much one issue. If the people at the scene were certain from observation that the building would collapse then what they observed would be the cause of collapse, would it not?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom