newberry wrote:C Bob: So you can't explain the logic of sending a script out announcing the collapse of WTC 7? Why they would take such a risk of providing evidence of their conspiracy to the meeting, when they could instead just wait for the building to be blown up when the media would observe and report it?

I would like to hear an answer to this question you keep posing too, Jim.

Linus Van Pelt wrote:1 - The timeline. I don't see a time stamp on the screen at any time during the report. The only reference to the time is when the fellow says that it's some eight hours after the attacks. He doesn't say it's exactly eight hours after the first attack. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that WTC 7 fell about eight hours after the attacks.

No, it's an approximation. But he did say it at 4:57, which is eight hours after the first plane strike, and 23 minutes before WTC7 was reported to have collapsed

2 - The picture. I don't know that that's WTC 7 behind her. I also don't know if she's standing in front of a green screen and they're showing old footage.

It is WTC7, that has been substantiated. The green screen has been suggested as a possibility.

3 - This completely strains credibility. Here's the scenario, if there's not some innocent explanation: The U.S. government decides, in order to provoke war with Iraq and/or Afghanistan, to knock down three of its own buildings. It came up with a plan to knock down two big ones in the morning, and a smaller one in the afternoon. It planted explosives in them, and arranged for terrorists to fly planes into two of them. Obviously, this is, by several orders of magnitude, the worst criminal act any administration has ever committed. Not only that, but it can only be effective if no one ever knows that the administration was involved. So, the administration tells a foreign news organization about the plan?! Really?! This is the kind of thing that seems plausible to you?

Not any less implausible than Silverstein saying we pulled WTC7 twice, and not any less implausible than the core of the whole day: that al qaeda organized such a complex attack and nobody in US intelligence saw a thing coming.

Bob, I think you're invested in believing this. Have you looked at the debunking evidence too? Let's say you have

LVP, come on- we don't have to 'say' that I have. Read the 9/11 threads here- I've argued against the debunkers here for over two years, so I think you know that I've seen their evidence.

and you've weighed them honestly, and found the conspiracy evidence more convincing... that's fine. But when you start to find it plausible that, not only did the government script 9/11, but they passed along the script to the B fucking B fucking C, I think you've gone off the deep end. Why would they do such a thing?

I AM NOT SAYING THAT! Not the whole fucking plot in a notebook in the BBC's hands beginning at 7am. Follow this: I'm suggesting that possibly ( possibly, LVP- that's where theories begin, LVP, with the word 'possibly'), a call or a press release was prepared for the media that described WTC7 as a collapsed building before the event had occurred. They did this ( back to theory ) because they had cleared the area around WTC7 of media, so they knew that any media in possession of this news release would not be able to independently verify this collapse. They cleared the area ( theory ) because they intended to pull the building with explosives, just like Silverstein said they did. The person who called or faxed the BBC with report of the collapse mistakenly forwarded that info an hour early, before the collapse. The BBC, because they don't know SB from WTC7, didn't know they could see WTC7 behind their reporter's shoulder. This is my explanation for why the BBC is reporting the collapse of a standing building.

Now- can I think of this without having to argue that the whole fucking BBC was in on it, LVP??

When you're invested in believing something, you give a lot of weight to evidence that supports your belief, and you tend to ignore or explain away evidence that would tend to contradict it. I kind of think that's what's going on here.

HOW. THE. FUCK. AM. I. IGNORING. EVIDENCE. THAT. CONTRADICTS. THIS??????

I am right here arguing with about nine people over this. Are you a fucking mental case who can't understand that theories that get argued out in public are helpful? Yes, I am arguing a side, BUT SO ARE YOU AND THE OTHERS! Why am I the only one here subjected to the charge of ignoring evidence? Why don't you ever ask supporters of the official myth if they are ignoring evidence? I probably have more info on 9/11 in the left corner of my head than 9/10's of the people who take me on over it, but somehow, that storage of evidence is evidence that I am ignoring evidence.

Christ, Linus. I really like most of your posts, but let me have the same rules applied to me as the pro-OT side. Is that okay with you?

Emmanuelle, why is your reflex reaction to throw up a strawman argument in front of every anomaly of that day? Take it slowly here. This video clip does not prove that the BBC was in on it

[...]


but it seems more likely that the reporter received a press release or a phone call about WTC7 that described it in the past tense, and she didn't understand the instructions to hold that story until they actually demolished the building

so bbc recieved a script of what was going to happend on that day, and instead of annocning that fact, they started to report what was already in the scripct, no matter if it actually has happend? first of, that would make them part of the conspiracty, so i'm not exaggerating anything. secondly, you call this scenario a more plausible that the possibility of guy in the studio confusing the buildings?

Okay, now stop there. Answer those three questions.

i already did, bob. read my previous posts.

If you agree that it was WTC7, and the news report was reporting a collapse of that building as if it had already happened

this is not was is going on in this clip. woman on the scene is not reporting a collapse of wtc7, she mentions the partial collapse of marriot hotel. it's the man in the studio (in london, right?) who makes that mistake, and i can see how it happend as he was surely overloaded with information on that day but there was no time for him to check anything as he was going on air every ten minutes, or so (my guess again. i have no idea who the guy is).

and to follow your crazy logic: if it was all scripted and the scripit was given to bbc, explosives were planted etc, there was no reasons go off scripit (by delaying the explosion) and risk exposing the conspiracy.

Three possibilities have been presented. Newberry said that he thinks that the media may have received warnings about the WTC7 collapse before 5pm on 9/11, and he has suggested that the reporter for the BBC screwed up and reported it in the past tense. That is possible,

first part of this (warning that it might collapse) is a fact. according to other reporter wtc was "getting ready co collapse".

but it seems more likely that the reporter received a press release or a phone call about WTC7 that described it in the past tense,

or that the reporter misheard it so it sounded like past tense

and she didn't understand the instructions to hold that story until they actually demolished the building ( or it fell, as alleged by the myth )

that is only plausible if you agree that it was scripted.

Just answer that front end of the question, emmanuelle, before you start ringing the fire alarm and going "No, that means that the cover up and the conspiracy were TOO HUGE, stop asking questions, stop asking questions!"

who's exaggerating now?

Let me know if you are even capable of seeing a conspiracy anywhere. It would be helpful.

why the sarcasm? for the record: i do believe the offical jfk story is deeply flawed, but so are most of the jfk conspiracy pages.

EC wrote:ha, i just recalled another footage: policeman, or someone from the emergency crew saying that it has been observed the top of the towers has tilted to the side a bit, minutes before the collapse. explain that with the explosives theory.

What??? I can bring evidence of hundreds of witnesses ( including firemen and cops and EMT's and other first responders ) who reported hearing and feeling explosions, but I get told, "Oh no, Bob, they were just confused or stressed or in error", but you can tell me that some other eyewitness testimony that agrees with the official myth is solid gold evidence??? Give me a fucking break. If you can't give me the same rules as you want for yourself, then go to hell.

but that wasn't just a random witness. from what i recall, it was observed by proffesional crew that the top of wtc is slightly tilted, and the evacuation of the firemen from the building was ordered shortly before the collapse. but ok, let's stay on the topic of wtc7.

clocker bob wrote:
I AM NOT SAYING THAT! Not the whole fucking plot in a notebook in the BBC's hands beginning at 7am. Follow this: I'm suggesting that possibly ( possibly, LVP- that's where theories begin, LVP, with the word 'possibly'), a call or a press release was prepared for the media that described WTC7 as a collapsed building before the event had occurred. They did this ( back to theory ) because they had cleared the area around WTC7 of media, so they knew that any media in possession of this news release would not be able to independently verify this collapse. They cleared the area ( theory ) because they intended to pull the building with explosives, just like Silverstein said they did. The person who called or faxed the BBC with report of the collapse mistakenly forwarded that info an hour early, before the collapse. The BBC, because they don't know SB from WTC7, didn't know they could see WTC7 behind their reporter's shoulder. This is my explanation for why the BBC is reporting the collapse of a standing building.

who are they? the people behind a conspiracy? why did they bother with a press release? and how do you sign such a thing? "regards, we"?

kerble wrote:

newberry wrote:C Bob: So you can't explain the logic of sending a script out announcing the collapse of WTC 7? Why they would take such a risk of providing evidence of their conspiracy to the meeting, when they could instead just wait for the building to be blown up when the media would observe and report it?

I would like to hear an answer to this question you keep posing too, Jim.

My response to Linus. If this doesn't answer your question and Newberry's, let me know- I can always add more ( and more and more...):

Not the whole fucking plot in a notebook in the BBC's hands beginning at 7am. Follow this: I'm suggesting that possibly ( possibly, LVP- that's where theories begin, LVP, with the word 'possibly'), a call or a press release was prepared for the media that described WTC7 as a collapsed building before the event had occurred. They did this ( back to theory ) because they had cleared the area around WTC7 of media, so they knew that any media in possession of this news release would not be able to independently verify this collapse. They cleared the area ( theory ) because they intended to pull the building with explosives, just like Silverstein said they did. The person who called or faxed the BBC with report of the collapse mistakenly forwarded that info an hour early, before the collapse. The BBC, because they don't know SB from WTC7, didn't know they could see WTC7 behind their reporter's shoulder. This is my explanation for why the BBC is reporting the collapse of a standing building.

Now- can I think of this without having to argue that the whole fucking BBC was in on it, LVP??

This is a theory. The undeniable fact ( I hope ) is that the BBC did somehow report a standing building as collapsed. I'm trying to work out the possibilities here, and I do appreciate hearing the debunkers' side. If you want to say "case closed, reporter error and nothing more", that's your prerogative, but I think this ties in with the Silverstein quote and the other reports of warnings of WTC7's collapse, because they sure did time this collapse out if it was an honest collapse with no intervention by outside forces. The big issue remains: were the fires sufficient to cause that symmetrical collapse? I say no, of course, so any evidence that a building was reported as destroyed before it actually was is evidence in my favor, because it is much easier to make useful warnings/ reports about a destroyed building if you are in control of the destruction of it.

newberry wrote:Why they would take such a risk of providing evidence of their conspiracy to the meeting, when they could instead just wait for the building to be blown up when the media would observe and report it?

Newberry, you do know that you just referred to WTC7 as 'blown up', right? To understand my thinking on this, you have to think over the concept of 'back story'. Back story is something that is created to make future events better fit into the chosen explanation. We watched a 'back history' of Iraq's weapons programs and ties to al qaeda created before our eyes, to make the invasion palatable to congress and the people. Back to 9/11: IF WTC7 played a role in the execution of the attacks on NYC by serving as a command center, then the inside job crew knew they had to dispose of that building later in that day to destroy any evidence of that. If you read the article I linked to way back on page one of this thread from the NY Times, you can read about the complete gutting of WTC7 that went on before SB moved in, back in 1989. Now, if you think that WTC7 was demolished, that would have been the prime opportunity to wire that building up for future disposal. I do not think it's implausible that the shadow government has plans that take decades to unfold.

So, 9/11 comes, and it's going great, the towers blow up, it's not perfect, people hear things and see things, but they figure they and the media can gloss over any loose ends. The day rolls on. They look at WTC7, and realize it's never going to fall if left to its own devices. So they build the back story. They issue warnings, they get the area cleared, and they pull it, just like Larry said. BUT, during the creation of the back story, somebody either called or otherwise contacted the BBC with info that WTC7 had alreadycollapsed. It was a mistake, but too late, it got on the air. The back story jumped ahead a few clicks.

emmanuelle cunt wrote:this is not was is going on in this clip. woman on the scene is not reporting a collapse of wtc7, she mentions the partial collapse of marriot hotel. it's the man in the studio (in london, right?) who makes that mistake, and i can see how it happend as he was surely overloaded with information on that day but there was no time for him to check anything as he was going on air every ten minutes, or so (my guess again. i have no idea who the guy is).

EC, I am not ruling out the possibility that the report of an impending collapse was misread by both the host and the graphics dept. at the BBC. I am not. I am just saying that there could be other explanations. If you want to say that only reporter error can explain this, then we are done.

Every other answer you might want from me should be in the response to LVP or Kerble.

CB wrote:] What??? I can bring evidence of hundreds of witnesses ( including firemen and cops and EMT's and other first responders ) who reported hearing and feeling explosions, but I get told, "Oh no, Bob, they were just confused or stressed or in error", but you can tell me that some other eyewitness testimony that agrees with the official myth is solid gold evidence??? Give me a fucking break. If you can't give me the same rules as you want for yourself, then go to hell.

but that wasn't just a random witness. from what i recall, it was observed by proffesional crew that the top of wtc is slightly tilted, and the evacuation of the firemen from the building was ordered shortly before the collapse. but ok, let's stay on the topic of wtc7.

You are still telling me that your eyewitness testimony is all gold and mine is all bollocks, but whatever. Bring any pics, testimony or video of WTC7 that you want to use, but allow me mine or take them on.

emmanuelle cunt wrote:
who are they? the people behind a conspiracy? why did they bother with a press release? and how do you sign such a thing? "regards, we"?

Don't be silly. News is fed to the media to coax the direction of the reporting- that's what spin is. It happens in real time. Back to the point- somehow, BBC reported WTC7 as down when it wasn't. I am entertaining the possibility that this slip was the result of the sloppy creation of the back story for the events of that day, and you have decided that the only possibility for this is pure innocent human error, that somehow the BBC was told one thing and reported another.

Newberry said that he thinks that the media may have received warnings about the WTC7 collapse before 5pm on 9/11

I'm pretty sure that's an established fact, that it was widely known that the building was likely to collapse long before it did.

I'm suggesting that possibly ( possibly, LVP- that's where theories begin, LVP, with the word 'possibly'), a call or a press release was prepared for the media that described WTC7 as a collapsed building before the event had occurred. They did this ( back to theory ) because they had cleared the area around WTC7 of media, so they knew that any media in possession of this news release would not be able to independently verify this collapse. They cleared the area ( theory ) because they intended to pull the building with explosives, just like Silverstein said they did. The person who called or faxed the BBC with report of the collapse mistakenly forwarded that info an hour early, before the collapse. The BBC, because they don't know SB from WTC7, didn't know they could see WTC7 behind their reporter's shoulder. This is my explanation for why the BBC is reporting the collapse of a standing building.

The title of this thread uses "smoking gun" and "proof." Now I'm hearing a lot of "possibly" and "theory."

I still don't get it--why announce to the media that the building will collapse, unless it was a legitimate communication to warn people of the collapse? Why "script" it when you could simply let the media observe and report? Why take the risk of letting the cat out of the bag? I don't believe you have explained this.

Newberry, you do know that you just referred to WTC7 as 'blown up', right?

Yes, not because I believe it was, but because I'm trying to understand your scenario (which involves a conspiracy to blow up WTC and send a script to the media to read). Here's a more complete quote of what I said:

So you can't explain the logic of sending a script out announcing the collapse of WTC 7? Why they would take such a risk of providing evidence of their conspiracy to the media, when they could instead just wait for the building to be blown up when the media would observe and report it?

Earwicker wrote:This just seems like some kind of mix up to me Bob.
They are told No 7 is likely to fall (though no one at this point is reminding anyone of the steel structured buildings not falling down through fire thing) and then another building does fall down and someone gets a crossed wire. It is quite plausible the woman wouldn't recognise the building (if that is the building behind her - and it does look like it).

Crossed so badly that they reported the wrong building using both names for it, and crossed so badly that they called it a 47 story building? EW, there were only three full building collapses that day- the towers and 7. Which partial collapse of a smaller building are you saying prompted this quite in-depth erroneous reporting by the BBC?

What exactly is the thinking that the organisers of any attack would have press releases to give out at certain points of the day? Do they think someone might miss a 47 storey building falling down?

Doesn't stack up for me Bob. No smoking gun here. Just evidence that rolling news is totally fucking useless for finding out anything reliable about the world.

Well, if you can't conceive of real time spin being fed through news outlets to shape the reporting of a story, I'm shocked. When was al Qaeda first blared out in the media as the only possible culprits? 9:01 am EDT? If you are saying that there is no possibility other than reporter error for that info making it on the air early, then we are also done here.

clocker bob wrote:

Linus Van Pelt wrote:1 - The timeline. I don't see a time stamp on the screen at any time during the report. The only reference to the time is when the fellow says that it's some eight hours after the attacks. He doesn't say it's exactly eight hours after the first attack. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that WTC 7 fell about eight hours after the attacks.

No, it's an approximation. But he did say it at 4:57, which is eight hours after the first plane strike, and 23 minutes before WTC7 was reported to have collapsed

2 - The picture. I don't know that that's WTC 7 behind her. I also don't know if she's standing in front of a green screen and they're showing old footage.

It is WTC7, that has been substantiated. The green screen has been suggested as a possibility.

3 - This completely strains credibility. Here's the scenario, if there's not some innocent explanation: The U.S. government decides, in order to provoke war with Iraq and/or Afghanistan, to knock down three of its own buildings. It came up with a plan to knock down two big ones in the morning, and a smaller one in the afternoon. It planted explosives in them, and arranged for terrorists to fly planes into two of them. Obviously, this is, by several orders of magnitude, the worst criminal act any administration has ever committed. Not only that, but it can only be effective if no one ever knows that the administration was involved. So, the administration tells a foreign news organization about the plan?! Really?! This is the kind of thing that seems plausible to you?

Not any less implausible than Silverstein saying we pulled WTC7 twice,

Do you not distinguish between evidence that has and has not been debunked. Jesus, bob, come on.

and not any less implausible than the core of the whole day: that al qaeda organized such a complex attack and nobody in US intelligence saw a thing coming.

Bob, I think you're invested in believing this. Have you looked at the debunking evidence too? Let's say you have

LVP, come on- we don't have to 'say' that I have. Read the 9/11 threads here- I've argued against the debunkers here for over two years, so I think you know that I've seen their evidence.

and you've weighed them honestly, and found the conspiracy evidence more convincing... that's fine. But when you start to find it plausible that, not only did the government script 9/11, but they passed along the script to the B fucking B fucking C, I think you've gone off the deep end. Why would they do such a thing?

I AM NOT SAYING THAT! Not the whole fucking plot in a notebook in the BBC's hands beginning at 7am. Follow this: I'm suggesting that possibly ( possibly, LVP- that's where theories begin, LVP, with the word 'possibly'), a call or a press release was prepared for the media that described WTC7 as a collapsed building before the event had occurred. They did this ( back to theory ) because they had cleared the area around WTC7 of media, so they knew that any media in possession of this news release would not be able to independently verify this collapse.

It's a skyscraper. They didn't clear New York City. They didn't even clear Manhattan. You can see whether a skyscraper fell down from outside the area that was cleared. And even assuming you couldn't, why would they announce it? Wouldn't it make more sense to let the destruction of WTC 7 remain a mystery until somebody could verify it? I mean, what's the point of press releases at all?

They cleared the area ( theory ) because they intended to pull the building with explosives, just like Silverstein said they did.

Or, "pulled" means pulled emergency workers out of the building, and they cleared the area because there were goddamn giant buildings falling down in the area.

The person who called or faxed the BBC with report of the collapse mistakenly forwarded that info an hour early, before the collapse. The BBC, because they don't know SB from WTC7, didn't know they could see WTC7 behind their reporter's shoulder. This is my explanation for why the BBC is reporting the collapse of a standing building.

Now- can I think of this without having to argue that the whole fucking BBC was in on it, LVP??

I didn't say you said the BBC was in on it. And I didn't say that you're claiming the BBC had the whole script before it happened. But by sending the press release before the building fell, yes, they're sending part of the script. In order to believe your theory I have to believe that somebody who was involved in the greatest criminal conspiracy of our time decided to send a fax or email to a foreign news organization with information that only someone in on that conspiracy would know. What's the reasoning - why would they send a press release at all - do they think the BBC doesn't have people in New York who are capable of recognizing when a 47-story building has fallen?

This really gets to the point of it. Here's what's happened:
1. We've seen a video that is strange. Someone reporting that a building has collapsed, while apparently standing in front of that same building.
2. There are a number of explanations for this.
3. Some of the explanations require us to believe some things, some of the explanations require us to believe other things.
4. One of the explanations requires us to believe something utterly implausible.
5. You have an investment in believing that explanation, so you sign on to believe utterly implausible things. Others have no such investment, so they sign on to more plausible explanations.
6. See Matthew.