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

[Chedda]

The more I watch, the more I am disgusted at this BBC hit piece on the 'Skeptic' Movement. How dare they attempt discredit all our loony theories involving 19 pissed-off Arabs with this news report.

I suggest we all bombard the BBC with letters, phone calls and emails of complaint. Hell, lets organise a 'False' rally outside their offices.

9/11 was an outside job!

 

[rwguinn]

.

To repeat; I stated, that of course anyone seeking the Truth would be interested in FEMA's original expert statement about why WTC7 collapsed. The fact that they said their best hypotheses to explain the collapse of WTC7 had a low probability of occurence was quite significant, especially given their access to all your rebuttal arguments and voluminous firefighter quotes.

MM

yepper, ladies and gentlemen--
We have a winner in the "Stupidest clinging to his own definition" category.
No matter that he is given the definition as used by engineers--several times, in fact-- he clings to his biased, self-fulfilling terminology...

 

[PerryLogan]

The fact that they said their best hypotheses to explain the collapse of WTC7 had a low probability of occurence was quite significant, especially given their access to all your rebuttal arguments and voluminous firefighter quotes.

If it were part of a cover-up, they would never have said that, would they? They would have said there was a 100% probability, so as to reinforce the "official story."

Your own "evidence" suggests you're wrong. Conspiracy guys do this all the time.

 

[maccy]

To repeat; I stated, that of course anyone seeking the Truth would be interested in FEMA's original expert statement about why WTC7 collapsed. The fact that they said their best hypotheses to explain the collapse of WTC7 had a low probability of occurence was quite significant, especially given their access to all your rebuttal arguments and voluminous firefighter quotes.

The difference is that FEMA are looking at the whole event, the firemen are making judgments as the event progressed. When the building is belching smoke, leaning, creaking and bulging, and you're not fighting fires, there's a pretty good chance that it's going to collapse. Firemen didn't make that judgment immediately after WTC7 was hit by debris - that is what FEMA had to try to work out: the whole sequence of the collapse, not the latter (more obvious) stages.

Also, I'm sure that both fire brigade and any news reporter would have described a partial collapse simply as "the building has collapsed".

 

[eeyore1954]

A best hypotheses has the highest probability of being valid from a list of all the hypotheses.
If it was the only hypotheses the use of "best" would make no logical sense.

If this best hypotheses is deemed to have a low probability of occurence, then Gravy, it's only logical that all the remaining explanations considered for the collapse of the WTC7, have to have been considered less than best hypotheses, and would therefore FEMA believes them to have an even lower probability of occurence.

MM

I would agree if the report says best hypotheses is deemed to have a low probability of occurence . That would imply that other hypothesis that have been looked at were considered to have a lower probability of occurance.

This has nothing to do with if it was reasonable to assume that the building was going to collapse though.

Also low probability of occurance doesn't mean it isn't the correct hypothesis.

 

[CHF]

The kids over at Dylan's play-pen are happy as hell yet they don't seem aware of what this all means.

Was the BBC tipped off in advance about the demolition and foolishly read the press release too early?

THAT'S their explanation?

You'd think Dylan would have learned a lesson about media reports in a chaotic situation.

"Flight 93 landed in Cleveland," right Dylan?

 

[Unsecured Coins]

Neiman Marcus cookie recipe.

My aunt is the one that bought that and put it on the net. I swear to GOD.

 

[CHF]

I urge everyone to check in on da twoofers at LC.

They really think THIS IS IT!

Yup, THIS video will blow the case wide open. Damn are they ever gonna be dissapointed.

How can that many posters ALL fail to grasp the absurd logical conclusion of this "conspiracy?"

 

[Unsecured Coins]

ya know, I would... but I got banned.

I am a sad panda

 

[einsteen]

If it were part of a cover-up, they would never have said that, would they? They would have said there was a 100% probability, so as to reinforce the "official story."

That's brilliant logics Perry. Now we know how to cover up things, we investigate what the best explanation would be and don't take that one.

 

[Gravy]

To repeat; I stated, that of course anyone seeking the Truth would be interested in FEMA's original expert statement about why WTC7 collapsed. The fact that they said their best hypotheses to explain the collapse of WTC7 had a low probability of occurence was quite significant, especially given their access to all your rebuttal arguments and voluminous firefighter quotes.

I'm sorry that you can't wrap your mind around simple concepts, and so keep repeating yourself in bold and underlined text. It makes me quite sad.

I hope some day you'll understand that the FEMA investigation was brief, preliminary, and necessarily inconclusive. Which is why further study commenced. I hope you will understand that, but I won't bet on it.

 

[Totovader]

To repeat; I stated, that of course anyone seeking the Truth would be interested in FEMA's original expert statement about why WTC7 collapsed. The fact that they said their best hypotheses to explain the collapse of WTC7 had a low probability of occurence was quite significant, especially given their access to all your rebuttal arguments and voluminous firefighter quotes.

MM

Interesting that you capitalized the word "truth"...

Keep in mind a couple of different things:

1) This was an early statement by NIST- their final report, and indeed statements since then, have involved more evidence and a more confident conclusion.

2) Low probability does not mean impossible. There was a low probability that these towers would be hit with planes. That probability changed as the planes were being hijacked- which of course only the hijackers knew.

3) The claim of lowest probability is that of a missile/death ray/cd/ufo/etc (so low, in fact, it's physically impossible). In fact, it's such a low probability that NIST only mentions it a few times- to satisfy those who lack a scientific inclination.

 

[Gravy]

That's brilliant logics Perry. Now we know how to cover up things, we investigate what the best explanation would be and don't take that one.

Proceed with your coherent explanation of the 9/11 coverup, einsteen.

I'm eager to read it.

 

[Brainster]

Conspiracy people have a few strange ideas stuck in their brains. One of them is that the bad guys always confess.

In the Bizarro World of conspiracy theorists, the perps are forever spilling the beans and blurting out the truth.

But no one can perceive it except the conspiracy guys.

We've seen this mental glitch too many times to ignore it. The CTs think Silverstein admitted that he blew WTC7. They think Cheney confessed to shooting down one of the planes (or something). They think the bad guys had a TV movie made to give away the plot. It's all right there. It's all terribly obvious.

We gotta come up with a term for this. It's like they've watched one too many episodes of Perry Mason or Columbo where the real killer always breaks down and confesses when confronted with a tough question, but it's even worse than that because these folks think the real killers break down when asked simple questions.

Something like "Codumbo" or "Perry 2nd-Degree Mason".

 

[Gravy]

Interesting that you capitalized the word "truth"...

Keep in mind a couple of different things:

1) This was an early statement by NIST- their final report, and indeed statements since then, have involved more evidence and a more confident conclusion.

2) Low probability does not mean impossible. There was a low probability that these towers would be hit with planes. That probability changed as the planes were being hijacked- which of course only the hijackers knew.

3) The claim of lowest probability is that of a missile/death ray/cd/ufo/etc (so low, in fact, it's physically impossible). In fact, it's such a low probability that NIST only mentions it a few times- to satisfy those who lack a scientific inclination.

A correction here. The report MM is concerned about here is the FEMA/ASCE Building Assesment report. Theirs was a brief, underfunded, not well-organized study. Fortunately in 2002 enough people pushed for a much more thorough, better-funded study, and that's when NIST took over.

An interesting question, which the CTs never answer, is this:

If this was all an inside job, and the engineers are all paid off or threatened, why did NIST's conclusions about the tower collapses differ radically from FEMA's?

 

[CHF]

Today has been a great case study of the lemming mentality.

A BBC video surfaces which translates into a clear-cut case of Mistaken reporting vs. Illogical Conspiracy, and sure enough the twoofers stampede over the cliff in a mad dash.

99.9% of them don't even stop and ask "hey does this even make sense? What exactly are we saying here?"

All they know is that it doesn't add up at first glance so it MUST be proof of a conspiracy.

 

[Gravy]

Something like "Codumbo" or "Perry 2nd-Degree Mason".

It's gonna be a long week.

 

[Gravy]

Today has been a great case study of the lemming mentality.

A BBC video surfaces which translates into a clear-cut case of Mistaken reporting vs. Illogical Conspiracy, and sure enough the twoofers stampede over the cliff in a mad dash.

99.9% of them don't even stop and ask "hey does this even make sense? What exactly are we saying here?"

All they know is that it doesn't add up at first glance so it MUST be proof of a conspiracy.

I mentioned the Corey Lidle crash earlier. Here's how Dylan Avery would have reported the unfolding events:

fixed-wing aircraft, flying under VFR, confirmed with the FAA by CNN's Deborah Feverick (a good friend of ours actually)

logistically...this pilot could have flown ANYWHERE besides that building...for him to not know he was heading straight for that building I find hard to believe. he could have dumped into the East River.

pilot either passed out or severely drunk.

No, wait...that's what Avery actually DID say.

 

[pagan]

This is an interesting video showing part of the BBC World Service's live coverage of the events on 9/11.
(It also includes some propaganda, of course.)

Google Video This video is not hosted by the ISF, the ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

The video shows the coverage from around 5pm EST.

At 4.57pm, the collapse of the Salomon Building (WTC 7) is announced. That's 23 minutes before the actual collapse.

Later, around 5.15pm EST, BBC correspondent Jane Standley is talking from New York City, with WTC 7 in her background clearly still standing, while the collapse is mentioned on the screen.

View attachment 5738

So, is this an example of the confusion reigning on that day, or did a secretary of the evil NWO send the press release too early to the BBC?

Guess what the boys at LCF are thinking.

What is actually interesting is the heavy smoke escaping from WTC 7 during the whole sequence with Jane Standley .

This is a true smoking gun. Someone released a press release too early.

This means that the perps are exposed and that the BBC is being caught with their pants down.

 

[CHF]

This is a true smoking gun. Someone released a press release too early.

This means that the perps are exposed and that the BBC is being caught with their pants down.

So you think the guv hands out press releases announcing demolitions and building collapses?


Well I guess you gotta make it fit somehow, right?