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

[stateofgrace]

No, I think the NWO planned a controlled demolition of WTC 7, had it all ready to go off, then accidentally told the BBC about it. It's the only explanation.

I heard the NWO handed out the scripts weeks in advance, if not months .
In fact I heard they even handed it to Fox TV to make a pilot episode of the Lone gunman series.

I just don’t understand how the BBC got it so wrong.

 

[Aphelion]

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.

 

[Parsman]

Err given the fact that two huge buildings had collapsed just hours before, you are telling me that an on the spot reporter wouldn't be easily convinced another badly damaged building was about to collapse, might even have collapsed already? Given the horror and confusion of that day, this smacks more of cock-up than conspiracy

 

[Aphelion]

Err given the fact that two huge buildings had collapsed just hours before, you are telling me that an on the spot reporter wouldn't be easily convinced another badly damaged building was about to collapse, might even have collapsed already? Given the horror and confusion of that day, this smacks more of cock-up than conspiracy

My point was that people seemed 100% convinced that 7 would suffer this global collapse. It just seems odd that they could be so convinced when the collapse of 7 is still such a mystery.

FEMA said the best hypothesis had only a low probability of occurence. How could they be so certain of a future event that only had a low probability of occurence?

 

[Mashuna]

My point was that people seemed 100% convinced that 7 would suffer this global collapse. It just seems odd that they could be so convinced when the collapse of 7 is still such a mystery.

FEMA said the best hypothesis had only a low probability of occurence. How could they be so certain of a future event that only had a low probability of occurence?

Well one possibility is, as described by others above, it was a mistake.

I'm not sure what you're implying with your question. You've stated previously that you don't think WTC 7 was CD. Are you now suspicious that it may be, and Larry Silverstein called the BBC autocue operaters just before he told the fire department to pull it?

I'm just guessing at what your alternative scenario is, could you clarify your suspicions?

 

[gumboot]

My point was that people seemed 100% convinced that 7 would suffer this global collapse. It just seems odd that they could be so convinced when the collapse of 7 is still such a mystery.

FEMA said the best hypothesis had only a low probability of occurence. How could they be so certain of a future event that only had a low probability of occurence?

...

I don't think you understand what FEMA were saying.

Regarding predictability of collapse...

The fact that so many people were so sure WTC7 was going to collapse is a significant sign of just how bad the damage was.

It was leaning, it was bulging, it was engulfed in flames, it had an enormous chunk of it missing, it was creaking, groaning, etc...

The thing I find truly amazing about 9/11 is how so many people still assert that each building collapse was "sudden and totally unexpected" despite the fact that in all three cases people there on the day stated with conviction that the buildings were going to collapse.

-Gumboot

 

[ShowMe]

I heard the NWO handed out the scripts weeks in advance, if not months .

My sister-in-laws brother has a cousin who saw a Wal-Mart truck flipped over and there were a bunch of scripts for the BBC talking about the collapse.

No, really. He said if I forward it to 10 people that Bill Gates would send me money and a Neiman Marcus cookie recipe.

It's true!

 

[Firestone]

The difference between how this is viewed here and on LCF is fascinating.

Two examples:

This is actually huge, is it not? They reiterate it so many times that it can't be a misunderstanding. Someone in the know has told them that the building has collapsed, but forgotten to check if it had been pulled yet. Maybe there was a hold up in the demolition?

Here's how it will go, every time you bring this up, there will be a concerted effort to put it in a frame of the time and the time diference between Britain/USA, never once will the real discussion be about the fact that the building she just said collapsed is indeed standing in the feed behind her. Then, if you press that angle, they will try and convince you that a live feed back to the BBC is always off by the amount of time between what it reads onscreen and the actual collapse time.

If you perservere, the next line of attack will be to call you a Holocaust denier, and as you try in vain to defend against that charge, enough time will have elapsed to make this piece of evidence yesterdays news.

I hope this helps.

Only miragememories is cautious:

I think too much is getting read into this.

Clearly this report was rushed to air before any research had been done. It's likely all the repeated 'on-the-street' reports about the imminent collapse of WTC7 eventually got distorted by a reporter, and "gonna collapse" became "did collapse."

It was a major gaff on the BBC's part for sure, especially given the fact that no one immediately identified the burning building behind their 'live' reporter as the 'still standing' WTC7 building which she was claiming had already collapsed. Since it was the last major standing structure still pouring out heavy smoke on the site, you'd think they might have checked it's identity..amazing..unbelievably poor work on their part.

You would have thought in the roughly 7 hours that passed after the collapse of WTC1, that the BBC Research Dept. would have located maps and visuals of the area so they would be familiar with what they were seeing in their 'live' feed, or, duh..had there on-the-scene people find out for them..I guess they figured that the clearly viewable smoking 47-storey building in their live feed must have been WTC7a, WTC7's twin tower?

It's also pathetic that no one at the BBC seemed to wonder why none of their satellite feeds from the major American TV networks were reporting such a major event. Did they not ask themselves how odd it was that no one but their on-the-scene reporter noticed the sudden collapse of this 47-storey building?

Talk about extremely sloppy..maybe it will damage their credibility regarding the recent 9/11 'hit piece'?

 

[eeyore1954]

My point was that people seemed 100% convinced that 7 would suffer this global collapse. It just seems odd that they could be so convinced when the collapse of 7 is still such a mystery.

FEMA said the best hypothesis had only a low probability of occurence. How could they be so certain of a future event that only had a low probability of occurence?

What do you think they were talking about when they said this. They weren't talking about whether or not it was probable that given the observed conditions on 9/11 it would collapse. They were saying a hypothesis for explaining the reason for the collapse had a low probability of occurance. There is a world of difference.

 

[JAStewart]

This is truly bizarre. I didn't think wtc 7 was that suspicious but I do now.

How the **** can anyone explain this?

Dude you're too easily convinced.

 

[Darat]

When there was the terrorist attack on the tube and buses in London in 2005 because my partner commutes into London every morning and with the mobile phone networks being overwhelmed so not being able to contact them I was on the look out for any news.

Time and time again there were captions up on the screen and reporters repeating things that later on would turn out to be incorrect. The pressure for "live" saturation coverage of a major event results in all new broadcasters being less then rigorous with their fact checking on live feeds.

 

[einsteen]

What do you think they were talking about when they said this. They weren't talking about whether or not it was probable that given the observed conditions on 9/11 it would collapse. They were saying a hypothesis for explaining the reason for the collapse had a low probability of occurance. There is a world of difference.

If wtc7 collapsed 'naturally' under the conditions it had on 9/11 how could they talk about a low probability of occurrence. The chance of collapse is defined as the ratio of the amount that collapse and the amount that doesn't collapse or collapses (the total), the more measurements you have the more accurate it is. Since wtc7 collapsed under the conditions it has it should be a high probability of occurrence.

The OCT does not know what to say. The only thing we can conclude is that FEMA's story is has a low probability of being the right one.

 

[8den]

Wishful bloody thinking

Talk about extremely sloppy..maybe it will damage their credibility regarding the recent 9/11 'hit piece'?

Gosh yes, a mislabelled aston on a dramatic and confusing day, is going to damage the "BBC's credibility".

Christ RTE news were still reporting the "5th" plane at around 6pm GMT. Hell they should Come check out sky news. Some of their Aston cock up are legendary.

 

[eeyore1954]

What possible reason could there have been for the neer do well's who planned this deed to have let people know the tower had collapsed. Wouldn't they have just waited until it happoened and let the news report it. Especially because as we all know they hoped no one would pay much attention to it since its demise was clearly cause by a CD. This makes about as much sense as orders coming down to warn the people the building was going to be pulled before it collapsed.

The most likely case was a mix up between reporters hearing that the area had been cleared because a collapse was thought to be imminent.

 

[Thunder]

So many people were in on it..including the BBC..yet no one has come forward to blow the whistle. Amazing.

 

[8den]

When there was the terrorist attack on the tube and buses in London in 2007 because my partner commutes into London every morning and with the mobile phone networks being overwhelmed so not being able to contact them I was on the look out for any news.

You mean 2005 right? Unless [CTer]you know something the rest of us don't[/CTER]

Time and time again there were captions up on the screen and reporters repeating things that later on would turn out to be incorrect. The pressure for "live" saturation coverage of a major event results in all new broadcasters being less then rigorous with their fact checking on live feeds.

I was in sky news that day. Firstly you need to know sky news' unoffical staff motto is "Never wrong for long". Secondly sky was reporting the tavistock bombing for two hours before the BBC and ITN, who were reporting a power surge, and possible bombing. Simply because a Sky News producer had been evacuated off his tube, at Russell Sq moments before the bomb went off, and reached the scene and somehow managed to get through to the newsroom

 

[Darat]

You mean 2005 right? Unless [CTer]you know something the rest of us don't[/CTER]

I do not know what you mean I never said 2007.....

I was in sky news that day. Firstly you need to know sky news' unoffical staff motto is "Never wrong for long".

...snip...

Funny!

 

[ConspiRaider]

...The OCT does not know what to say. The only thing we can conclude is that FEMA's story is has a low probability of being the right one.

Corrections:

The OCTopus actually DOES know what to say, only we humans don't speak mollusk.

The only thing YOU can conclude is that FEMA's story has a low probability of being the right one. Not "we".

 

[Aphelion]

...

I don't think you understand what FEMA were saying.

Regarding predictability of collapse...

The fact that so many people were so sure WTC7 was going to collapse is a significant sign of just how bad the damage was.

It was leaning, it was bulging, it was engulfed in flames, it had an enormous chunk of it missing, it was creaking, groaning, etc...

The thing I find truly amazing about 9/11 is how so many people still assert that each building collapse was "sudden and totally unexpected" despite the fact that in all three cases people there on the day stated with conviction that the buildings were going to collapse.

-Gumboot

FEMA asserted that it was primarily the fire, not the damage causing the collapse.

That would make sense, given that the building stayed up for 7 hours after the damage was sustained.

 

[Firestone]

I can just hear Mark Roberts now...

"Well...um...Chief Daniel Nigro...collapse zone...3 PM...obviously the BBC was reporting what the firefighters had told them...and, er...they jumped the gun. That's all. Go back to bed America."

9/11 Deniers speak. :lol:

LCF

Of course, Dylan, would never, NEVER make a mistake in a live report or a documentary. NEVER!