• 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?

It's possible that killtown may have found the source of the BBC statement:

Now this one seems to concur about foreknowledge of 7 collapsing:

----Over an hour before the WTC 7 demolition at 4:10pm, Aaron Brown reports - "building 7, in the wtc complex, is on fire and has either collapsed, or is collapsing".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1LetB0z8_o
Click to expand...
source:http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=4549&view=findpost&p=12361571

Entirely plausible that he made that statement on the basis of what the FDNY were saying (based on the state of the building). The BBC then mangled it into "has collapsed". Chinese whispers.

Here's the video in embedded form:



ETA: It's pretty clear that Aaron Brown doesn't know which building WTC7 is either - and feels he has to explain to viewers that there were more than two WTC buildings (from his tone of voice, I'd say this was new to him as well).
 
Last edited:
The great thing about the CTers digging up all these videos is we're getting some videos that capture the staggering scale of the fires in WTC7.

-Gumboot
 
So this is the best "evidence" the Troothers can come up with?

It took them five years to find one, just one seeming inconsistency in a news broadcast, during that most confusing of all days, that goes along with their theory? Oh, wait, they don't have one... I mean their absence of theory?

And in all this time, not one other person -- presumably the Beeb has quite a few viewers, to say nothing of folks working for the Beeb itself -- noted this alleged impossibility?

Teh Con$p!rac33 rulz not just the White House, NORAD, and near space, but also runs the British media as well?

Has there ever been a more gullible group of people than the Troothers?
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
BBC were advancing the official story: "WTC7 collapses due to structural damage and fire". Their recitation of the official story was perfect. Flawless. They just did it too soon. Obviously the reporter woman did not recognize WTC7. They had been given information that the building had collapsed. And they reported it.

They didn't report that it was threatening to collapse. Or that it might collapse. Or that it could collapse. Or that people were worried it might collapse. They said it had collapsed.
Click to expand...

The MSM was also given the 13 coal miners were found alive.
 
maccy said:
ETA: It's pretty clear that Aaron Brown doesn't know which building WTC7 is either - and feels he has to explain to viewers that there were more than two WTC buildings (from his tone of voice, I'd say this was new to him as well).
Click to expand...

Speaking of people not knowing Manhattan distances at all, Aaron Brown is also the guy who spent that whole day on top of one of the buildings at Penn Plaza (around 33rd-34th Street) saying that the WTC was "about 30 blocks" south of him. Yeah, the Village, the Financial District, same thing, except off by the better part of a mile. (The Truthers would use this as evidence that Midtown and the Financial District were much closer to each other before the government/Bushies/neocons/J000s used tactical nukes to reshape the entire island while paying off the news media and half the residents of New York and New Jersey to pretend not to notice.)
 
Last edited:
The original BBC World footage is still available here (1Gb though).

Truthers seem to believe that mistakes can't happen.
Quite understandable, of course, certainly for Loose Changers. :)

However, as everybody knows, mistakes happen.
Here and here you can find Alex Jones radio-broadcast on 9/11.

I only had the stomach to listen to the first half hour.

Some mistakes that Alex Jones or his witness make:
  • Tower 2 collapsed in 5 seconds.
  • Tower 1 collapsed in 10 seconds.
  • A plane crashed in Pittsburgh International Airport.
  • Another 50-60 floors building is on fire, probably WTC 5 or 6! (The witness was working at the WFC, right across the WTC, and he didn't know the buildings. WTC 5/6 had 9 floors, WTC 7 47 floors.)

So, was Perry Logan feeding Alex Jones with wrong info on 9/11? :)
 
Last edited:
R.Mackey said:
So this is the best "evidence" the Troothers can come up with?

It took them five years to find one, just one seeming inconsistency in a news broadcast, during that most confusing of all days, that goes along with their theory? Oh, wait, they don't have one... I mean their absence of theory?

And in all this time, not one other person -- presumably the Beeb has quite a few viewers, to say nothing of folks working for the Beeb itself -- noted this alleged impossibility?

Teh Con$p!rac33 rulz not just the White House, NORAD, and near space, but also runs the British media as well?

Has there ever been a more gullible group of people than the Troothers?
Click to expand...

NO, there has not. Having seen the thread over at LC and the truthers spin on this here, I am actually speechless as to how utterly gullible they are.

I actually hope, although I doubt it will happen, that they really do annoy the BBC. They seem to have had this thing for them since they broadcast their documentary last week. I hope they annoy and aggravate the BBC so much that they decide to fight back. Given a choice of which I would rather have standing in my corner, the BBC or the truthers, I know whom I would pick.


 
Firestone said:
Truther logic at its best.

For five years truthers have been whining that "they" did everything to keep the collapse of WTC 7 out of the news, that the 9/11 commission ignored it, bla bla bla ...

But, on 9/11, "they" had actually prepared in advance a press release to announce the collapse of WTC 7!

In French, we call this "un pétard mouillé" (something like a wet firecracker). :)
Click to expand...

In english, this is known as a damp squib.

Further proof, if any were needed, that the BBC were in on the whole thing.
 
If you were a BBC reporter, would you rather go along with a horrendous conspiracy, or let the cat out of the bag enjoying one of the biggest scoops in history? But if you did decide to go along with it, wouldn't you be anxious about announcing it too early? Of course, if your going to esplode a building, what do you gain by letting the media know in advance? It's a huge risk, why not just wait until it blows up and then let the media report it.
 
R.Mackey said:
So this is the best "evidence" the Troothers can come up with?

It took them five years to find one, just one seeming inconsistency in a news broadcast,

Has there ever been a more gullible group of people than the Troothers?
Click to expand...


Its almost as if after five and a half years of failed research to back up their conspiracy they are desperately reduced to extracting bits of corn from feces.

ace_bruce2.jpg
Hows that corn taste ace?
 
Last edited:
maccy said:
It's possible that killtown may have found the source of the BBC statement:

source:http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=4549&view=findpost&p=12361571

Entirely plausible that he made that statement on the basis of what the FDNY were saying (based on the state of the building). The BBC then mangled it into "has collapsed". Chinese whispers.

Here's the video in embedded form:



ETA: It's pretty clear that Aaron Brown doesn't know which building WTC7 is either - and feels he has to explain to viewers that there were more than two WTC buildings (from his tone of voice, I'd say this was new to him as well).
Click to expand...


I think its pretty evident that they had a contact either doing fire rescue or in communication with them who warned that the fire fighters felt the collapse was imminent. Brown get's tripped up because he doesn't know which building he's talking about in the shot, and for all he knows by the time he got the message and read it on the air the building may have collapsed or started collapsing. Seeing as he mainly focuses on the fact that he can't really tell what is going on, and keeps mentioning how much smoke there is, it is likely that he had no idea what was being obscured by said smoke, up to and including a possible building collapse.

Now, BBC heres this report and runs with it. Not hard to believe.
 
Aphelion said:
This could be a blunder, however its so odd that they were totally convinced of the upcoming collapse. Yes, the building was in a bad state but they couldnt be absolutely sure it would suffer a global collapse.
Click to expand...


Correction. The BBC was convinced WT7 had collapsed. Obviously, this was in error. Perhaps it was reported that WT7 would likely collapse (remember, the report was late in the day, after WT7 had burned for hours and falling debris and buckling was observed) and they misinterpreted it as WT7 had collapsed.
 
Pretty easy to see how this mistake could have occured.

Reports come in the wtc7 is in danger of collapse/ is about to collapse and the end report becomes wtc7 HAS collapsed.

Sloppy but understandable, given the circumstances of the day.

Unfortunately it is the way of 24hour news services where the imperative to be first with the news or soundbite means rumours or incomplete information is reported as fact. If the BBC took time to check and verify the information they are reporting on they would appear padestrian compared to the competing news outlets and would fear losing viewers to the more fast paced reports.

That the woowoos have latched on to this insignificant error says an awful lot about their desperation.

WTC7 is all they have left and even that barely provides a morsel of sustenance for their conspiracy fantasies.
 
Hello all, some observations

At the very least, this demonstrates that the mainstream media repeat a sizable portion of their 'information' from official sources without ever questioning it - cue camera zooming in the building 7 actually still standing!! This proves that an act does not even need to be well orchestrated - it just needs well placed 'news' and people with a poor grasp of human psychology who will accept, or even righteously defend what the 'experts' have 'proved' to them (like most of the posters here)

oh and I keep hearing "but why would the NWO lizards leak their plans to everyone!!!!". Which is shorthand for:

- no leaking evidence means no conspiracy
- leaking of evidence would be logically inconsistent with a conspiracy

which is shorthand for " I don't have to question my own reality cos I ve got it all worked out"

George orwell would be proud of you all:)
 
Hello all, some observations

At the very least, this demonstrates that the mainstream media repeat a sizable portion of their 'information' from official sources without ever questioning it - cue camera zooming in the building 7 actually still standing!! This proves that an act does not even need to be well orchestrated - it just needs well placed 'news' and people with a poor grasp of human psychology who will accept, or even righteously defend what the 'experts' have 'proved' to them (like most of the posters here)

oh and I keep hearing "but why would the NWO lizards leak their plans to everyone!!!!". Which is shorthand for:

- no leaking evidence means no conspiracy
- leaking of evidence would be logically inconsistent with a conspiracy

which is shorthand for " I don't have to question my own reality cos I ve got it all worked out"

George orwell would be proud of you all:)
Click to expand...

You need to get your hands on a fabulous Australian Comedy "Frontline" Which was an entire show made about how the media sometime accidentally or intentionally mis-direct the public
 
parmanides said:
I keep hearing "but why would the NWO lizards leak their plans to everyone!!!!". Which is shorthand for:

- no leaking evidence means no conspiracy
- leaking of evidence would be logically inconsistent with a conspiracy

which is shorthand for " I don't have to question my own reality cos I ve got it all worked out"
Click to expand...

Nuh-uh!

Any conspiracy might leave a few clues. But 9/11 Truth Movement people posit huge numbers of "smoking guns." They also claim that the perpetrators of the 9/11 deliberately made the cover story absurd and hard to believe. None of this is consistent with a real conspiracy.

Why would conspirators--trying to keep their hoax a secret--leak tons of obvious clues? Why would they make their cover story absurd or impossible? They would not do this deliberately, so far as I can figure. And it seems unlikely they would make that many stupid mistakes and still fool everyone in the world except the conspiracy guys.

So, in finding a zillion smoking guns, the Truthers are busily disproving their own hypothesis, but are too dumb to know it. We try to tell them, but they just cover their ears and start calling us shills.
 
Last edited:
parmanides said:
Hello all, some observations

At the very least, this demonstrates that the mainstream media repeat a sizable portion of their 'information' from official sources without ever questioning it - cue camera zooming in the building 7 actually still standing!! This proves that an act does not even need to be well orchestrated - it just needs well placed 'news' and people with a poor grasp of human psychology who will accept, or even righteously defend what the 'experts' have 'proved' to them (like most of the posters here)

oh and I keep hearing "but why would the NWO lizards leak their plans to everyone!!!!". Which is shorthand for:

- no leaking evidence means no conspiracy
- leaking of evidence would be logically inconsistent with a conspiracy

which is shorthand for " I don't have to question my own reality cos I ve got it all worked out"

George orwell would be proud of you all:)
Click to expand...

Nope.

apologies to prewitt81
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom