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

[Totovader]

The emergency workers knew when it would collapse. They were videoed saying "get back, building coming down soon", "its about to blow up". How did they know that?

This question has been answered for you multiple times.

But what video are you quoting? You haven't given a source, here.

 

[Firestone]

Prisonplanet is at it again.

Excerpts:

...
What seems obvious is that Silverstein was getting the cover story out as quickly as possible before the building was intentionally demolished, and that's how they were so sure it was going to collapse before it eventually did.
...
Debunkers have scoffed at our suggestion that some kind of press release had to have been issued for the BBC to report this ahead of time. Well how else do you suggest the BBC learned of the building's demise before it happened? A psychic premonition?
...
Besides the advance reporting of just the collapse itself, how could the news anchor tell us the reason for the collapse before it happened?

"This was not the result of a new attack," states the anchor, "It was because the building had been weakened during this morning's attacks."
...
How else could the BBC have relayed this information unless by way of some kind of press release or official statement by Silverstein, Giuliani or the NYFD? Who told them that the building had been weakened? In effect, the BBC were working to a 9/11 script and made the error of orating their lines too early.
...

The stupidity, the lies, the accusations, it's all there.
I'm quite sure that in Europe he could be sued for these accusations.

 

[Mashuna]

How did they know when it would collapse?

They didn't, they made a mistake under the pressure of the situation.

How did they know the collapse would be total?

They didn't, they made a mistake under the pressure of the situation.

What if 7 had kept standing till the next day?

It would have been very obvious that they made a mistake under the pressure of the situation, and discounted along with the numerous other errors that occured on the day, such as the news agencies that had reported up to six planes hijacked.

 

[twinstead]

It would have been very obvious that they made a mistake under the pressure of the situation, and discounted along with the numerous other errors that occured on the day, such as the news agencies that had reported up to six planes hijacked.

This whole BBC thing, at least at first glance really is tantamount to somebody latching on to a video report broadcast that day that 6 planes had been hijacked, and then finding it suspicious that the 'official story' only acknowledged 4.

 

[apathoid]

The emergency workers knew when it would collapse. They were videoed saying "get back, building coming down soon", "its about to blow up". How did they know that?

I can smell the desperation. Out comes the firemen are in on it strawman. We must be onto something.

Since its apparently not a strawman anymore....the firemen were in on it?

 

[twinstead]

Since its apparently not a strawman anymore....the firemen were in on it?

Besides, the only way I've ever seen the word strawman used in CT circles is as some kind of codeword for "an implication of my theory that I'm not prepared to address" and not a real strawman.

It is being implied that the firemen were in on it, or incompetent.

 

[Panoply_Prefect]

Has any of the tinfoilhats that actually believe that the BBC, a foreign public-service company, was in on it with the US government, read from a script, but did it prematurely, ever, ever spent any time at all in a news room when these kind of things happen?

I have, and I do, and needless to say Im not surprised that BBC got some wrong. In fact Im impressed that so little was wrong during those hours.

Cheers,
SLOB

 

[parmanides]

Yes, each and every Truther picks out the stuff he believes, based on his own intuition. The result is that no two Truthers believe exactly the same thing. On the contrary, they attack one another and declare one another's beliefs absurd.

sadly, i have to mostly agree with you

 

[Panoply_Prefect]

The emergency workers knew when it would collapse. They were videoed saying "get back, building coming down soon", "its about to blow up". How did they know that?

Yes, It must have been far-fetched with those two buildings falling down, with debris, fire and no water. Everyone there must have been very, very surprised indeed.

I've never more seen the need for Occams razor...

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Further study equates to further investigation.

I've made no secret that the important goal is a full and proper investigation GRAVY.

Nice how you leap at the opportunity to cut & paste your FEMA info but dodge my original response.

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

Probability at winning the PowerBall lottery: 1:80,000,000
Total number of PowerBall winners: 544,737

See also Drake Equation

It is clear you don't have a good understanding of probability.

 

[oahuoahu]

Originally Posted By PerryLogan

We're already tired of it--but of course the Truthers are terribly excited by this latest smoking gun. They are living out the latest incarnation of the "cat is out of the bag" fantasy.On his cable TV show today, Alex talked about the BBC tapes with the "Loose Change" guys. Everyone was full of excitement, and they all agreed this spectacular blunder by the BBC was going to wake everyone up (again). The cat is out of the bag, and soon everyone will stop laughing and tell these guys they were right all along. The Truthers just can't see that they're repeating the same fantasies over and over again.

My Take...

We're already tired of it--but of course the Truthers are terribly excited by this latest smoking gun. They are living out the latest incarnation of the "cat is out of the bag" fantasy.On his cable TV show today, Alex talked about the BBC tapes with the "Loose Change" guys. Everyone was full of excitement, and they all agreed this spectacular blunder by the BBC was going to wake everyone up (again).

I dont think I saw them say that. They did say that it would wake up many people, but they did not say it would wake up "everyone". Maybe you just made a typo, I dont know, but I thought I should clear this misleading information up.

The cat is out of the bag, and soon everyone will stop laughing and tell these guys they were right all along.

I doupt it. There are still many people who wont believe it was an inside job untill a new president says it is. No amount of fake staged evidence will make them change their mind. But a president saying lies will. But dont get me wrong I'm sure soon people who watch this BBC footage and actually know what it means and what it implicates will stop laughing and tell those guys they were right all along. I just think its misleading when you say "everyone" will do that so I just thought I would clear that up.

The Truthers just can't see that they're repeating the same fantasies over and over again.

Well the way you explained the fantasy... seems to be misleading. They dont think everyone will wake up, they say that many people will wake up, or alot of people will wake up. They are living "that" fantasy over and over again, I agree, but the fantasy the way you explained it was a little misleading so I thought I should clear that up________________________________________________________________________Originally Posted By CHF

The whole day was scripted for the newscasters. Including when the "planes" hit. Have you seen the Octupus videos that have the different news channels reading off the same script? That's good, but this one is great.

So let's tally this up....So in addition to the actual plotters (bomb planters, plane controllers etc) every structural engineer is in on this...and now the entire media as well. Only problem is that the conspirators didn't propely brief the media on their role, resulting in screw-ups like the BBC one.Pretty sad that such a pathetic, massive, blundering conspiracy is the only way for you to make this thing work.

My Take...

So let's tally this up....So in addition to the actual plotters (bomb planters, plane controllers etc) every structural engineer is in on this...and now the entire media as well.

In my opinion I do not think this is true. I doupt there are any structural engineers "in" on this. Some have gone public saying it had to be controlled demolition. Others say that it wasn't controlled demolition. I dont know the real numbers, but lets just assume you have 987,634 highly credited structural engineers saying it wasnt CD, and theres maybe 5 or 10 highly credited structural engineers saying it was CD. Does that means it wasn't CD because more say it wasn't? Well no. What matters is the actual science behind what either group says.There is NO PROOF that I have seen that show buildings 1,2 or 7 were brought down by controlled demolition. There is no evidence of explosives used, no evidence of a demolitions crew rigging it, and noone has gone public saying "I helped rig the building(s)". Those are the only 3 types of evidence that could prove 1,2, and 7 were controlled demolition and evidence simply doesnt exist.There IS PROOF that buildings 1,2, and 7 fell from fires reducing the structual integrity of the steel frame, because fires do that and there is evidence (video footage of fires). And its just basic science, when you have buildings with no concrete core and most of the structual steel supporting a floor is weakened through intense fires, you're going to see a top to bottom collapse. So its obvious why the majority of structural engineers say 1,2 and 7 were not Controlled Demolitions, because the evidence simply doesn't support that they were CD.As for the media, I have seen some proof that the media is "in" on it (such as reports of Fox News passing out talking points), but the twoofer movement also uses talking points, heck all media using talking points, all this means is that the media is "in" bed with the government, but it doesnt show that the media was "in" on 9/11 conspiracy. So no, I do not think the media was "in" on this

Only problem is that the conspirators didn't propely brief the media on their role, resulting in screw-ups like the BBC one.Pretty sad that such a pathetic, massive, blundering conspiracy is the only way for you to make this thing work.

I would love to comment but I do not know what you mean when you say "this thing".________________________________________________________________________Originally Posted By Brainache

Well speaking as someone who spent 16 years working in TV news, on the studio floor, in the control room and the News room, I can tell you that a day like 9/11 was would have been pretty damn chaotic behind the scenes. If this was the only thing misreported that day I would be very surprised.The most obvious solution has already been pointed out many times in this thread, ie: A report about building seven's immanent collapse was somehow garbled in all the other reports of what was happening and someone thought it meant that seven had already collapsed.Truthers seem to have no problem disregarding main stream media when it disagrees with their pet theories, but if someone at the BBC or where ever gets something wrong, suddenly we have to accept that they should be infallible. Let's also not forget that this was six or seven hours into an ongoing live coverage of events and Journalists being what they are, they like to keep the story moving along. You can only fill airtime with experts speculating about who is responsible for so long.Eventually the situation demands fresh news. Someone gets a statement from a spokesman saying: "Building Seven is about to fall down so we have evacuated all our people". Reporter phones producer:" Boss the spokesman said seven is about to fall down""When?""Not sure, but pretty soon, they evacuated everyone"Producer types script: "Building Seven has collapsed" waits until terrorism expert gets boring and figures it's a safe bet that seven has collapsed, pushes the earpiece button and says: "Building seven has collapsed, throw to reporter in NY"The above is of course speculation, but it seems a lot more likely to me than the BBC getting a press release about a secret demolition and reading it twenty minutes early. Truthers never seem to consider that people don't always know what is going on, they forget that they are looking in hindsight at chaotic events.

My Take...It certainly could have happened that way, however I think this explanation is more plausible.BBC has been known to report random things that the swinging psychadellic british teenagers hired by the BBC that somehow survived to their twenties write into the script and then BBC just "goes with it". Like when they reported Al Gore won florida, or like when they reported 13 planes had been hijacked. I can go on but theres many instances of this.The standars of BBC really are preschool like when compared to the college standards of American media outlets. American media outlets dont just write up random crap to get more viewwership, BBC does. Ok fine, american media outlets SOMETIMES have a punk teenager that will write up something nutty thinking he will get promoted and when it hits the air he gets fired, but if he was in BBC he probably would have been promoted.So to me its obvious. Some punk in BBC wrote of this story because he had heard reports of 7's coming collapse, so he decided "dude, im going to just write that it did collapse. hahaha" into his script and sent it out to the airwaves. Remember when If you want to know what I am talking about, here is a Fox News Clip where some punk called in and said he was a "police officer with information regarding micheal jackson" and he got on air and made his prank phone call.i cant post it, but just search youtube for "jackson buddygz"So as you can tell, even American media isnt perfect and sometimes American media "goes with" anything. But when you look at the BBC, they literally ALWAYS "go with" anything. So this is just my personal educated guess of how this BBC blunder happened, but really, it doesnt matter how we think it happened, the bottom line is that this BBC blunder isn't proof of prior knowledge in any way. Someone messed up, I think some punk did it, but who knows, and who cares________________________________________________________________________Originally Posted By David Wong

Okay.Ace, imagine this reporter. This BBC reporter, working there before the conspirators came to power. Somebody from the NWO sits down with this reporter and says, "Look, Bush is going to murder 3,000 Americans so that he can cause millions of others to die in World War 3 against Islam. We're going to need you to go along with it. Okay?"And this non-American, non-Neocon reporter says, "Sure! Give me my script!"Insanity. Utter insanity.Though you have to admit, this video is such a devastating blow to those who say the conspiracy could have been carried out by a couple dozen people. Right?Rooting for this video is, at the same time, jumping fully into the old thousands-strong conspiracy, made up almost entirely of people who were in their jobs before the conspiracy started and thus had to be convinced to go along, exactly 100% of whom did because none have come forward. I mean, not only is it the FDNY, the federal government, the city government, the state government, volunteers, cops, every engineer in the world, the vast majority of academia in the world, every American news TV station, radio station, newspaper, news website... but it's the freaking BBC, too. So now we've stretched into foreign news agencies.Tens of thousands - no - HUNDREDS of thousands in the conspiracy, if this video is right. All operating in PERFECT unison, with 100% compliance, with 0 defectors, 0 changed minds, 0 leaks, 0 mistakes. Except this one.Okay.

My Take...

Okay.Ace, imagine this reporter. This BBC reporter, working there before the conspirators came to power. Somebody from the NWO sits down with this reporter and says, "Look, Bush is going to murder 3,000 Americans so that he can cause millions of others to die in World War 3 against Islam. We're going to need you to go along with it. Okay?"And this non-American, non-Neocon reporter says, "Sure! Give me my script!"Insanity. Utter insanity.

Even if the twoofers conspiracy was real, I doupt thats how it would work. If there was a New World Order who was trying to take over the world like the twoofers say then it probably would have just been 2 or 3 guys in the BBC who were in on it that were recieving scripts from their bosses and sending it through the system, and the useful idiot reporters and anchors read the script never questioning it. They are too stupid to even know BLDG 7 was in the footage so they would have just kept reporting. What you explained above sure was funny and satirical, but even in the twoofer nut world, I doupt something that crazy would happen.

Though you have to admit, this video is such a devastating blow to those who say the conspiracy could have been carried out by a couple dozen people. Right?

I don't think so. This BBC blunder is not even proof of prior involvement or knowledge, so how could it be a devastating blow? What do you mean exactly?

Rooting for this video is, at the same time, jumping fully into the old thousands-strong conspiracy, made up almost entirely of people who were in their jobs before the conspiracy started and thus had to be convinced to go along, exactly 100% of whom did because none have come forward. I mean, not only is it the FDNY, the federal government, the city government, the state government, volunteers, cops, every engineer in the world, the vast majority of academia in the world, every American news TV station, radio station, newspaper, news website...

I dont think rooting for this video is jumping into that conspiracy, or at least the one you have explained. Who knows what the twoofers are saying, but it certainly can't be what you portray... If the twoofer theory was true, I dont think the whole FDNY would be in on it. The people highest in the FDNY were probably recieving their orders from guliani's command center evergency response operational team, so if there was any NWO agents they would have been in high levels of that emergency response team and they were the ones who radio'ed the FDNY commanders, police commanders, and first responder commanders "get back, 7 is going to be brought down". So with that explanation, you could have conspiracy work out with only 3 people needed to carry it out (certainly not the entire FDNY and NYPD like you portray)As for the majority of academia and engineers, just because they say the conspiracy isnt real doesnt mean they are a part of the conspiracy. They just say it because they have studied the science and the science proves it isn't real.So no, if the twoofer theory was true the FDNY, the federal government, the city government, the state government, volunteers, cops, every engineer in the world, the vast majority of academia in the world, every American news TV station, radio station, newspaper, and news website wouldn't have been involved, it simply means they report the science, and the science proves that the conspiracy is not real.

but it's the freaking BBC, too. So now we've stretched into foreign news agencies.Tens of thousands - no - HUNDREDS of thousands in the conspiracy, if this video is right. All operating in PERFECT unison, with 100% compliance, with 0 defectors, 0 changed minds, 0 leaks, 0 mistakes. Except this one.Okay.

If the twoofer conspiracy was real I doupt there are hundreds of thousands of people in it. There would probably just be NWO agents in the key positions of power allowing them to pass their orders down the chain to controll almost everything, but not everything, while useful idiots never question. And of course there would be hundreds of organizations not infiltrated by the NWO that simply report the science. I think it is very misleading of you to portray it as if they are a part of the conspiracy simply because they report the science that proves the conspiracy to be false. I think its very misleading to inference that conclusion, but I guess that's just my opinion. Maybe you think its not misleading, whatevers, freedom of speech.________________________________________________________________________Originally Posted By apathoid

You just contradicted yourself. It wasn't a mistake, they just aired the report too soon, thus foiling the plot.I realize you are completely immune to anything resembling logic and reason, but I'd like to hear your take on why it was even necessary to alert new agencies of the collpase. Surely they would've reported it's collapse anyway, no? Even if they didn't report on it, so what? Why make the plot unnecessarily complex, adding yet another layer of people who actually dont serve a useful purpose in the conspiracy, any of whom who could blow the lid off the whole thing.

Exellent Point! Well said. These twoofers will probably just ignore this statement, but you spot on showed how this whole conspiracy is nonsense and this isn't proof at all of anything significant.________________________________________________________________________Originally Posted By Dr Adequate

Dear BBC,I'm going to use the office of President to commit mass murder and treason, and I want to ask you a teensy favor. As you'll see from the enclosed timetable, WTC7 is scheduled to collapse at 4:57 pm, and that's when we'd like you to report it happening. Your pal,George W. Bush.PS: Donald just explained to me that you'd probably report the collapse of a tower anyway, even without me telling you about it in advance, 'cos collapsing towers are kinda newsworthy. I guess either way's good.I enclose a press presentation pack giving full details of our false flag operation; a special 9/11 souvenir key-ring in the shape of a bloodstained hand; and a T-shirt with the slogan "I Could Have Saved Thousands Of Lives But All I Got Was This Lousy T-Shirt".

My Take...I know your post is probably meant to be sarcastic and satirical, but I found it very misleading so I thought I should clear things up.If the twoofer conspiracy was real, what you explain certainly wouldn't have been the course of events. The script would have been written months in advance and the 2 or 3 NWO agents at the top of the BBC controlling everything would have sent them down the chain and the useful idiots would have followed it never questioning.Now I know your original post is just satire to poke fun at the twoofers, but to new people reading it would be very misleading so i just had to clear that up. What you portrayed is even more crazy than what the twoofers portray.________________________________________________________________________Originally Posted By Gumboot

I think I see now what Ace is saying here..Apparantly the BBC article was perfectly accurate and correct...Aside from the minor detail that it was wrong...Unfathomable.-Gumboot

LOL. EXACTLY!Exelent point________________________________________________________________________Originally Posted By jimtron

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.

Exactly. Why take the chance.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I think you have two choices.

1. The BBC news people are psychic, and deserving of the JREF million dollar prize.

2. They were fed a press release from "official sources" that said that the Sololman bros. building had collapsed because of structural damage and fire.

False dilemma
This fallacy typically involves asking a question and providing only two possible answers when there are actually far more.

Go back to playing with your Barbies Ace.

 

[Dave_46]

<snip>
The whole day was scripted for the newscasters.
<snip>

Has anybody seen a copy of this script?

Does it exist?

Dave

 

[twinstead]

I still find the idea of this conspiracy only requiring a couple two or 3 NWO agents to feed orders to the automatons working below them as far-fetched.

Unless these agents were disguised as regular firemen and demolition experts on the ground at WTC7 feeding the media and commanders false reports of bulges, sounds, damage, and fires, and that it was in danger of imminent collapse, I suppose.

Out of all the evidence for WTC7, I find these eye-witness reports from the ground to be some of the most compelling. I suppose if they were faked or it was disinfo they pulled one over on me

 

[twinstead]

Has anybody seen a copy of this script?

Does it exist?

Dave

In troothydude's fantasy world, those scripts are not only real, but actually the best explanation of the event.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

The emergency workers knew when it would collapse. They were videoed saying "get back, building coming down soon", "its about to blow up". How did they know that?

Just hazarding a guess here, but, they're professionals and were erring on the side of caution given the events from earlier that day?

 

[twinstead]

False dilemma
This fallacy typically involves asking a question and providing only two possible answers when there are actually far more.

Go back to playing with your Barbies Ace.

OOOOh, false dilemma. That's one of my favorites!

 

[Brainster]

How did they know when it would collapse? How did they know the collapse would be total? What if 7 had kept standing till the next day?

Then it would be like the other mistaken stories from 9-11. Anybody remember the hijacked DC police helicopter?

 

[twinstead]

Then it would be like the other mistaken stories from 9-11. Anybody remember the hijacked DC police helicopter?

Even better, initial reports in our local media reported a light plane, like a Cesna, had crashed into the Pentagon.

 

[Aphelion]

Your analogies are not correct. This wasn't an error. They reported a true event but they reported it before it happened.