• 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?

pagan said:
This means that the perps are exposed and that the BBC is being caught with their pants down.
Click to expand...

Who are the perps? Names please.

Has any truther contacted that reporter? Of course not.
 
Getting back to the OP, my guess is that the video is showing BBC coverage just before and after the 11.00pm British Summer Time news bulletin (6.00pm EDT). In other words, at least 25 minutes after WTC7 collapsed. The background behind the reporter is some sort of screen of recorded material. You can tell this from the way the smoke disappears out of the left hand side of the frame. So why are the BBC using recorded material? Maybe simply because they wanted to frame their reporter in a backgound shot smoke rising from GZ and they didn't have a shot of this from the building where their reporter was based.

The video seems to have been pulled now, so I'll leave it to Dylan to chase down the facts.
 
sleahead said:
Getting back to the OP, my guess is that the video is showing BBC coverage just before and after the 11.00pm British Summer Time news bulletin (6.00pm EDT). In other words, at least 25 minutes after WTC7 collapsed. The background behind the reporter is some sort of screen of recorded material. You can tell this from the way the smoke disappears out of the left hand side of the frame. So why are the BBC using recorded material? Maybe simply because they wanted to frame their reporter in a backgound shot smoke rising from GZ and they didn't have a shot of this from the building where their reporter was based.

The video seems to have been pulled now, so I'll leave it to Dylan to chase down the facts.
Click to expand...



The background appears to be genuine, rather than a chromakey insert.

-Gumboot
 
Gravy said:
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?
Click to expand...

Oops- thanks for the correction.
 
As you know about this stuff, Gumboot, I'll take it that you are correct. It just seemed to me that the rising smoke did not pass through a bar on the left hand side and flow into the space to the left of that bar.
 
gumboot said:
The background appears to be genuine, rather than a chromakey insert.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

Agreed- it's more likely that the report was made from the location they were at and either they misunderstood the report, or were recording the comments in advance... their version was very ambiguous- and I bet they didn't know what building was what.
 
sleahead said:
As you know about this stuff, Gumboot, I'll take it that you that are correct. It just seemed to me that the rising smoke did not pass through a bar on the left hand side and flow into the space to the left of that bar.
Click to expand...


I have only that single frame to judge because I haven't seen the video and it seems to have been pulled, so I don't want to make too bold a statement...

However in the single frame we have there the smoke continues to the left and upper edges of the frame.

The main thing for me is the lighting on the reporter. If it were a chromakey, they have intentionally lit her to make it look like it's NOT a chromakey. While this would be normal for a drama etc... it would point to intentional deception in a news broadcast, and would be highly unlikely.

You only really ever intentionally use hard directional light for dramatic purposes. For a studio scenario you're far more likely to use soft fill light.

Also, can we have confirmation from a NYer that WTC7 is indeed in the background? Based on that single frame I'd say WTC7 was behind her head, so I am assuming she moves about and we see WTC7 at other points?

-Gumboot
 
gumboot said:
One thing worth pointing out...

The purpose behind the FEMA report was to assess the condition of buildings at and around Ground Zero in order to determine if it was safe to conduct recovery operations or not.

Partially damaged, still standing buildings, which might fall down, were of far more concern to them than buildings which had already totally collapsed.

In addition, the "low probability of occurance" refers to the ENTIRE sequence of events that caused WTC7's collapse - not just the end bit. In other words, prior to it happening, there was a low probability that debris from WTC1 would hit WTC7, severly damaging it and starting fires across multiple floors that would remain unfought because other debris severed the water mains, ultimately causing the building to collapse. Given that the collapse itself is a direct cause and effect chain, I would assume the "low probability of occurance" refers primarily to the debris from WTC1 causing the damage and fires.

Of course, once it had happened the probability became 1.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

The "low probability of occurance" refers to the "best total diesel fuel hypothesis"

"Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence."

Not the ENTIRE sequence of events that caused WTC7's collapse.
FEMA itself states that fires were the likely cause. ("Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors.")
And I agree that the likelyhood of the "TOTAL diesel fuel" causing the collapse is very low.

I get tired of this misquote
 
Last edited:
Kent1 said:
The "low probability of occurance" refers to the "total diesel fuel "
Not the ENTIRE sequence of events that caused WTC7's collapse.
FEMA itself states that fires were the likely cause. ("Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors.")
And I agree that the likelyhood of the "TOTAL diesel fuel" causing the collapse is very low.

I get tired of this misquote
Click to expand...


Thanks for the correction. Unless I am very much mistaken FEMA were not aware of the massive structural damage that WTC7 suffered during the collapse.

-Gumboot
 
gumboot said:
Thanks for the correction. Unless I am very much mistaken FEMA were not aware of the massive structural damage that WTC7 suffered during the collapse.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...
Correct. IF you read the FEMA document, you'll also see other places where they make it clear that they believe fire was indeed the cause of the collapse.
Here's another area FEMA Chapter 5: WTC 7 - page 5-1
The performance of WTC 7 is of significant interest because it appears the collapse was due primarily to fire, rather than any impact damage from the collapsing towers.

Jones has edited and re-written FEMA remarks. The line about fire being the likely cause tends to get edited out of the truther websites.
 
Last edited:
Kent1 said:
Correct. IF you read the FEMA document, you'll also see other places where they make it clear that they believe fire was indeed the cause of the collapse.

Jones has edited and re-written FEMA remarks. The line about fire being the likely cause tends to get edited out of the truther websites.
Click to expand...



Let's be honest, unless you've never ever researched any aspect of 9/11, dishonesty is mandatory in order to be a Troofer.

-Gumboot
 
It's time to get real here. I didn't believe that wtc7 was demolished, I do now. This is big.

You [people are going to find it more and more difficult as things like this emerge. Quit while you are behind.
 
Well, if I was President of the United States, and I wanted to murder thousands of my countrymen, then I'd certainly make sure I told the media my plans in advance. It's only polite, after all.
 
Aphelion said:
It's time to get real here. I didn't believe that wtc7 was demolished, I do now. This is big.

You [people are going to find it more and more difficult as things like this emerge. Quit while you are behind.
Click to expand...

So you think...what?

The BBC got a press release and read it too early?
 
The fact that this is big news to twoofers just shows how mentally gone they are.
 
Aphelion said:
My dad is a fireman. Try again.

What a pathetic response. That is pure desperation. Sorry, but you lost.
Click to expand...


But if you believe WTC7 was a controlled demolition, you must believe the FDNY were in on it. There's no leeway in this.

-Gumboot
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom