or possibly, the media were more actively in on the construction of the back story,

Possibly? Do you have a smoking gun or not? This reminds me of the autism thread where you made a claim in the thread title and later admitted that it was open to debate ("The U.S. Autism Epidemic: It's the Mercury in Vaccines").

And why would it be necessary to have the media in on it? Such a big risk when the media could spill the beans and have a gigantic scoop on their hands.

ipitcher wrote:Who is the originator of this theory, and how did it propagate?

When are you going to stop being my groupie, like you promised? Last I heard from you, my threads were 'too painful for you to read"...

What worries you more- the lack of attention for your bad Shellac cover band, or your lack of attention on this forum?

newberry wrote:And why would it be necessary to have the media in on it? Such a big risk when the media could spill the beans and have a gigantic scoop on their hands.

OK, at this point, even I have gotten the point that Bob's not saying that the media were in on the backstory.

EDIT: Not directly, anyway.

So, you're not going to answer my question? If you don't know, just say so.

DrAwkward wrote:

newberry wrote:And why would it be necessary to have the media in on it? Such a big risk when the media could spill the beans and have a gigantic scoop on their hands.

OK, at this point, even I have gotten the point that Bob's not saying that the media were in on the backstory.

EDIT: Not directly, anyway.

But what is he saying then (not about the backstory, but about the smoking gun and the BBC report and the script)? Why do you have to pre-announce that the building's going to fall?

Getting ugly, I think everyone should use they're angst and write some music, shovel some snow, mix a cocktail,........relax.

I don't mind being railroaded a little, its the American way.

Bob: First of all, yes, I see the building and the reporter saying the building has already crumbled. Another disturbing bit to consider.

But when news is breaking, you don't get press releases. You observe with your eyes and ears, ask questions of witnesses and officials, try to develop an understanding of what has happened, and report it. With something like this, witness accounts are going to be suspect because of all the stress they're facing. Same goes for any official statements that came out that day. So what reporters are learning and trying to piece together, all of it is kind of strained by the stress everyone is facing that day, and there are going to be inaccurate reports.

What NYC employee had time to write up and send out a press release that day? Most non-emergency workers were sent home shortly after the second plane hit. If you could prove there were press releases being sent out, I'd be more likely to believe that the clip reveals prior knowledge on the BBC's behalf. Not convinced, but more likely to believe. Are you saying this clip was supressed until recently?

Is it possible the timestamp on the video is wrong?
Is it possible they misidentified the building? (Weren't there other buildings that fell before WTC7?)

What is more likely: an inaccurate timestamp, faulty reporting, accurate reporting in front of an older bluescreen image, or the NWO's minions fudging a press release embargo? What could they possibly gain by alerting reporters in advance to something that was going to be covered in extreme detail anyway?

All I will agree with in this thread is that it's interesting that the BBC was reporting a collapsed building that was still standing in the background.

I think Bob might be reading a little TOO into it, but I also think the rest of you are too quick to debunk the footage.

I agree that there was plenty of information covered up on that day. Why is information being suppressed? What doesn't the government want us to know? And why are so many people comfortable with not knowing? Those are the bigger issues.

Still, the footage was interesting. This thread is going to go like 20 pages, though, with the way everyone's sort of getting bent out of shape from not really having more information surrounding it.

Linus Van Pelt wrote:

CB wrote: 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.

Jesus and you both come on. What 'debunked'? Silverstein said it. His explanation from four years later holds more water for you than his original comments? Damn, that's some bias you've got.

LVP wrote: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?

Christ, like pulling teeth.... Yes, you are right that WTC7 was a 47 story building and could be seen no matter how far back they pushed the media. BUT, if the media is back six blocks, things can happen inside the building that are not meant to be seen. Like thermite charges. The early warnings about the 'collapse' and the story of the destruction were supposed to match what was captured by the videos, and the time of the collapse was supposed to match the reporting , but it didn't! Why didn't it all match up? Were they sending out warnings to shape the reporting, so that when reporters looked out their windows and saw a 47 story building that wasn't engulfed in flames and wasn't hit by a plane collpase in 6.5 seconds, they didn't say what Dan Rather did, that it looked like controlled demolition?

They knew that when they pulled it, it would look fishy, even on distant video, so they began preparing a back story explanation for the collapse beginning hours earlier, feeding the press spin about the condition of the building, but they jumped the gun and BBC reported the collapse early.

I was thinking that they should have demolished it at night, but then I thought that the lack of fire would be even more apparent after nightfall.

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?

Explanations have been offered that is was all reporter error. I don't rule that out. But I also don't rule out they were trying to leave a paper trail in the media that made the fall look less like what it did, demolition, and more like what it wasn't, a collapse.

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.

Okay, you just can't keep your bias in your pants, so you're not getting any more responses until you acknowledge that reporter error is not the only possible explanation for what is on this video. If you say that it is the only explanation, then we are done.

LVP wrote:6. See Matthew.

Fuck off. I would never say that you argued like matthew. Argue 9/11 outside your world of total obedience to the official story and your cheap shots against the psychology of the conspiracy theorists ( part of your evasion of hard evidence ), and I'll tear you apart.

newberry wrote:But what is he saying then (not about the backstory, but about the smoking gun and the BBC report and the script)? Why do you have to pre-announce that the building's going to fall?

He has said a few times now that his theory is this:

1) Those In Charge of the Collapse (Administration shadys, what have you) had pre-prepared press releases to send to media outlets upon collapse of buildings (the "script," which i think should be discontinued as a term because i think it's putting out a connotation that Bob didn't initially mean to imply--i don't think Bob ever meant to imply that the reporter and anchor were literally reading from a script with dialogue spelled out for them).

2) Someone in the Administration's media relations fucked up and erroneously sent the press release regarding WTC7's collapse early.

3) BBC anchor and reporter, not familiar with what WTC7 looks like, go ahead and report on the press release, not realizing that WTC7 is still standing behind the reporter (while this seems like laughably sloppy journalism, i wouldn't put it past any media outlet to ignore details and make shit up as they go in an effort to be the "first" to "break" a new development).

In short, the video we are discussing, according to Bob, was a result of a combination of a fuckup in the execution of the conspiracy, combined with typically shoddy media reporting (which was probably even shoddier considering the chaos of the events of the day).

I'm not saying i totally buy this, but i think y'alls should have Bob's story straight before you try to poke holes in it. (Bob, please clarify if i got something wrong.)

(Edited for "clarity")