• 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?

ok...Good job then...lol (removes foot from mouth, and curses under his breath to stop from entering into a topic half way through)

TAM
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
RE 1) a) Lack of precedent is not an indicator of impossibility. It it were, you never would have been born
b) You're assuming they specifically meant a global collapse
RE 2) Questions are not evidence.
RE 3) a) Citation?
b) You're assuming they specifically meant a global collapse

You need to show that the FDNY and other parties differentiated between global and partial collapses in their assessment and, if so, that they specifically meant a global collapse. Otherwise you are making a sweeping generalization fallacy.
Click to expand...

you mean they way they were hastily running away saying its "coming down!":rolleyes:
 
scooby said:
Didn't the Journal of 911 Studies contain a study on 118 Firefighters statements referencing bombs in the WTC? This was recorded as part of an oral history documenting their experiences and obtained under FOIA. It's not disputed.
Click to expand...

That's not a citation. Please provide a link. If you leave the http://www. off it will work (you can't post links until you reach 15 posts)

And welcome to the forum!
 
scooby said:
Didn't the Journal of 911 Studies contain a study on 118 Firefighters statements referencing bombs in the WTC? This was recorded as part of an oral history documenting their experiences and obtained under FOIA. It's not disputed.
Click to expand...
Link?

And let's reiterate something here:
explosions <> explosives

That is to say, explosives cause explosions, but not all explosions are caused by explosives.
 
parmanides said:
you mean they way they were hastily running away saying its "coming down!":rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Equivocation noted. Now, you said, "The NIST report must therefore prove that ground workers could tell ... that the building would entirely collapse ..."
This clearly implies foreknowledge, not commentary as the event occurred. Please address it as such.
 
scooby said:
Didn't the Journal of 911 Studies contain a study on 118 Firefighters statements referencing bombs in the WTC? This was recorded as part of an oral history documenting their experiences and obtained under FOIA. It's not disputed.
Click to expand...
Please provide one quote, just one quote of responding fireman saying there was a bomb in the building.

Not it sounded like a bomb.
Not they heard explosions.
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
Link?

And let's reiterate something here:
explosions <> explosives

That is to say, explosives cause explosions, but not all explosions are caused by explosives.
Click to expand...

I can't post links properly at the moment, but if you go to youtube and search for "Firefighters shocked by explosions on 911" you'll find a video where two of them give their honest impressions.

And I would hesitate to suggest that all explosions are caused by something explosive in nature, exploding.
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
Equivocation noted. Now, you said, "The NIST report must therefore prove that ground workers could tell ... that the building would entirely collapse ..."
This clearly implies foreknowledge, not commentary as the event occurred. Please address it as such.
Click to expand...

oops see next reply
 
Last edited:
I'm just happy to see the boys happy again. The Truth Movement has been down in the dumps ever since the Democratic landslide in 2006. And now, God has dropped another bogus clue into their laps! The BBC tempest is almost as good for the Truthers as another terror attack, with the added advantage of being completely unreal.
 
Last edited:
scooby said:
And I would hesitate to suggest that all explosions are caused by something explosive in nature, exploding.
Click to expand...

If so air could be said to be "explosive in nature" since pumping a ballon full of it will lead to the inevitable explosion of said ballon...
But would you argue that air is an explosive?

/S
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
Equivocation noted. Now, you said, "The NIST report must therefore prove that ground workers could tell ... that the building would entirely collapse ..."
This clearly implies foreknowledge, not commentary as the event occurred. Please address it as such.
Click to expand...

i paraphrase my previous question (which noone has answered - and if given i will go a way and rest my weary brain:) )

"Did the sources that claim this damage, predict a sudden and overwhelming collapse in that time frame? "

there is a big difference between saying a building is badly damaged to specifically predicting a sudden and overwhelming collapse in a half hour time frame? if they didnt say that, or cannot now substantiate then its case closed
 
parmanides said:
i paraphrase my previous question (which noone has answered - and if given i will go a way and rest my weary brain:) )

"Do the sources that claim this damage, put a sudden and overwhelming collapse in that time frame? "
Click to expand...
Once again you are presupposing they differentiated between the risks of partial versus total collapse and that they specifically meant global collapse. We need you to address the critiques of your post in order to quantify the validity of your question. Once its validity is substantiated, then we can see about answering it.
 
Canadian Jeff has got hold of the reporter's number and tried to contact her:

http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/janes_office.mp3

Interesting that he uses a false name...

It sounds like the BBC is very aware of this and are preparing a response.

As for the question why is BBC stuff still on Google? Well, Google will only remove content when requested to do so - this means that the BBC has to be aware of the clip and ask Google to get rid of it. Given that Jeff called them and told them aboot* the clip it's hardly surprising that they ahd them taken down. Anybody who's tried to get hold of a BBC series via youtube will know that they're taken down as soon as the BBC work out where they are.
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
Once again you are presupposing they differentiated between the risks of partial versus total collapse and that they specifically meant global collapse. We need you to address the critiques of your post in order to quantify the validity of your question. Once its validity is substantiated, then we can see about answering it.
Click to expand...

firefighters "its coming down" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vr5TxKTMRx0

BBC news (subject of current thread) - like the twin towers it has "also collapsed"
 
scooby said:
I can't post links properly at the moment, but if you go to youtube and search for "Firefighters shocked by explosions on 911" you'll find a video where two of them give their honest impressions.

And I would hesitate to suggest that all explosions are caused by something explosive in nature, exploding.
Click to expand...

Yep those are explosions. Now are the the charges used in CD? If so why only two? (Also It seems there are once again two explosions instead of one.)
 
SLOB said:
If so air could be said to be "explosive in nature" since pumping a ballon full of it will lead to the inevitable explosion of said ballon...
But would you argue that air is an explosive?

/S
Click to expand...

Are you talking about compressed air?
Yes, thats explosive - remember Jaws?
 
parmanides said:
firefighters "its coming down" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vr5TxKTMRx0

BBC news (subject of current thread) - like the twin towers it has "also collapsed"
Click to expand...
Did you miss the part where the same person said that there was "fire and debris" coming down? Additionally, this still does nothing to address the critique of your post that you are assuming that they differentiated between the risk of partial vs. global collapse and that they specified global collapse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom