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?

Here's my suggestion: They knew that when they pulled it, it would look fishy to whoever caught it on video. So they planned for that occurrence by, (beginning hours earlier ) disseminating dire warnings about the impending collapse through the firemen and cops and media, in the hopes that when the steel skyscraper that wasn't hit by a plane and only had two small fires collapsed into its own footprint in 6.5 secs and everybody said, "Huh? What just happened?", they would point to the paper trail that had pushed into the media starting hours before, and say look at all the warnings. The story that the BBC ran was supposed to be the last chapter of the back history, but they either didn't understand that it shouldn't have aired until 5:30, or they did totally get a different partial collapse totally wrong and report it as SB WTC7.

I am also impressed about how the media has edited their own performace that day so they don't look as clueless as they did at the time. Most of the comentators on the tube in were the happy morning squad who like Kity Corric simply don't have the common sence or journalist chops to pull off much else than a proctology report with ass cam footage.

DrAwkward wrote: (Bob, please clarify if i got something wrong.)

Your excellent rage and profanity-free explanation is perfect. You're hired, but don't take the job, because thoughtful skepticism and reasoning like you display will get you hated on this forum.

Thanks for tying up a long thread so well.

Man, I asked a sincere question and you made fun of my band -- and didn't answer the question. Classy.

hogrot wrote:What NYC employee had time to write up and send out a press release that day?

I'm using press release as interchangeable with phone call. I think most contact between sources and reporters was all on the phone or face to face.

Is it possible the timestamp on the video is wrong?

Many people in the 9/11 forums are trying to nail this completely down. So far, I have heard that the youtube link begins at 4:57pm on 9/11.

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

No other building completely fell after the towers. That's part of the WTC7 conspiracy theory- that buildings closer to the towers were hit by more debris and did not fall. I am not ruling out the possibility that the partial collapse of WTC5 or 6 somehow became reported as the collapse of the 47 story SB WTC7 building by BBC, but T think that's a stretch, because first, neither 5 or 6 collapsed, and second, they were hit by debris by 10:30 am and didn't change their condition after that. Why did one of those buildings suddenly appear as WTC7 in a news story?

What could they possibly gain by alerting reporters in advance to something that was going to be covered in extreme detail anyway?

Well, here's the thing- after that day, reporting on WTC7 was buried, and those demolition videos were never seen on the air for years. This may seem hard to believe, but the 9/11 commission report does not mention WTC7's collapse. What they gained ( they hoped ) by creating the back story for the collapse was an easier route to having the demolition seen as what it wasn't. Creation of a back story is risky, even when you own the media, because you're basically lying, and liars sometimes get caught.

ipitcher wrote:Man, I asked a sincere question and you made fun of my band -- and didn't answer the question. Classy.

Yeah, you know all about class. Here's some of your recent groupie behavior around me:

ipitcher wrote:How many of your own posts begin in your own mind? The bulk of your posts consist of regurgitated information from other sources, and I'm not just talking about the obvious cut-and-paste wallpaper jobs; I know this because I read a lot of the same sources, as I've stated before.

and

ipitcher wrote:You don't halt conversations, you make them tiresome to even observe.

Look what you're telling me here. You don't like to read what I write, because it's tiresome *and* that you already read all the same sites as me, so you don't need me. Well then, since you have such excellent research skills and you don't like reading the results of mine, then why aren't you answering your questions for yourself? Are you a confused douche who doesn't mean what he writes?

newberry wrote:

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").

Yes, and you have failed to understand my multiple explanations for that headline, which is that I have just as much right to write a headline proclaiming that mercury in vaccines is dangerous as the pharmaceutical companies have the right to proclaim that mercury in the vaccines isn't dangerous. Because it is an open debate, I have a right to choose a position.

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.

You're still not getting it. The media can be manipulated as an unwitting ally of the conspiracy just like the interceptor pilots who were sent out over the Atlantic in the wrong direction because moles in the FAA and at NORAD used the wargames as an excuse to send the air response on wild goose chases. Those pilots didn't want to not get to NYC any more than the media wants to put out bad information that helps the conspiracy plotters, but the media is largely helpless in these situations. If they're getting calls early in the day that WTC7 is going to collapse, they report it. They can't get near the building to see for themselves. Then, when the building is demolished, the media's promotion of the building as weak exists as back story, and then cover up mode begins.

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).

Why would they want to give pre-prepared pres releases to the media? Do you mean a legit warning that the building was likely to fall, or something shady?

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

What would the right time be to send it?

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).

I think this is plausible. There were legit reports going around that the building was likely to fall. The BBC reporter didn't know what WTC7 looked like. The reporter mistakenly said the building had collapsed, instead of "is about to." It is known that there were many mistaken reports that day; it was insanely chaotic. The press makes mistakes.

Where is the evidence of foul play?

Here's my suggestion: They knew that when they pulled it, it would look fishy to whoever caught it on video. So they planned for that occurrence by, (beginning hours earlier ) disseminating dire warnings about the impending collapse through the firemen and cops and media, in the hopes that when the steel skyscraper that wasn't hit by a plane and only had two small fires collapsed into its own footprint in 6.5 secs and everybody said, "Huh? What just happened?", they would point to the paper trail that had pushed into the media starting hours before, and say look at all the warnings.

Sorry, that doesn't sound plausible to me. They thought their planned explosion of the building wouldn't look convincing on video, so to cover for that they thought they would preannounce the fall? Or am I misunderstanding?

COFFEE BREAK

If you, like me, have just read this thread from its first post to here, then you're probably thinking "I need a fucking coffee."

ps - clocker bob, I don't think you're right on this one.

Yes, and you have failed to understand my multiple explanations for that headline, which is that I have just as much right to write a headline proclaiming that mercury in vaccines is dangerous as the pharmaceutical companies have the right to proclaim that mercury in the vaccines isn't dangerous. Because it is an open debate, I have a right to choose a position.

Of course you can do whatever you want; I'm a strong proponent of freedom of speech. My point is that you made a misleading proclamation (mercury in vaccines causes autism) in the thread title, even though you later admitted the jury was still out. And in this case you speak of "proof" and a "smoking gun," and it turns out what you meant is that you have theories and there are "possibilities" of something shady going on.

I think people would take your arguments more seriously if didn't do this. But of course you are free to express yourself any way you wish.