The 9-11 Cover Up Ends: July 9, 2008

11
Is it possible that the BBC had the building misidentified? I'm very skeptical that this reporter would be so stupid to say that a building collapsed when she can see before her eyes that it's still there. Also, let's say for the sake of argument that this was a conspiracy. Why would you need to ask reporters to read from a script (which would be extremely risky--how could you be sure the reporter would go along with it and not reveal the plot)?

ETA: at the time of this segment, which building were actually down? This is 8 hours after the attack, right?
Last edited by newberry_Archive on Tue Feb 27, 2007 1:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

The 9-11 Cover Up Ends: July 9, 2008

12
That's the most messed up piece of evidence I've seen. The British journalists probably don't even know what WTC 7 is, right?

The guy says (approx) "8 hours after the attack" or something. WTC 7 collapsed at 5:30 PM, right? Second tower came down at...I forget now, I used to know.

The Kennedy Assassination as conspiracy...I buy that...but this 9/11 stuff seems so unbelievable...yet conspiracies of this sort in order to rally the people for war are as old as time, no?

I feel like Woody Allen in that scene in Annie Hall when he has his Kennedy revelation...except I haven't been in the company of a woman for way too long now...
kerble wrote:Ernest Goes to Jail In Your Ass

The 9-11 Cover Up Ends: July 9, 2008

14
newberry wrote:Can someone show me evidence that the building seen behind the reporter in the BBC clip is in fact the Salomon Bros. building? (I'm not saying it isn't, but I'd like to see evidence)


"Someone"? What, I can't be trusted??
Screenshots from the BBC coverage:
Image

Image

Picture of WTC7:
Image

Picture of Salomon Brothers building from the site nycskyscrapers.com, where it is identified as WTC7:
Image

Confirm that Salomon Brothers building and WTC7 are one and the same here:
http://www.nycskyscrapers.com/wallstreet.html

Article from New York Times about the very extensive structural reinforcements made to the Salomon Bros. building ( you know, the building that wasn't hit by a plane and collpased on cue ):
COMMERCIAL PROPERTY: The Salomon Solution; A Building Within a Building, at a Cost of $200 Million

By MARK MCCAIN
Published: February 19, 1989

BEFORE it moves into a new office tower in downtown Manhattan, Salomon Brothers, the brokerage firm, intends to spend nearly two years and more than $200 million cutting out floors, adding elevators, reinforcing steel girders, upgrading power supplies and making other improvements in its million square feet of space.

The work, which began last month at Seven World Trade Center, reflects both the adaptability of steel-framed towers and the extraordinary importance of fail-safe computer and telephone systems for the brokerage industry. According to many real estate experts, no company has ever made such extensive alterations to a new office building in Manhattan.


Confirm that bob is not making that up by checking the Times article:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... A96F948260

Just admit it: WTC7 was blown up. It will feel good.

The 9-11 Cover Up Ends: July 9, 2008

15
Minotaur029 wrote:That's the most messed up piece of evidence I've seen. The British journalists probably don't even know what WTC 7 is, right?

The guy says (approx) "8 hours after the attack" or something. WTC 7 collapsed at 5:30 PM, right? Second tower came down at...I forget now, I used to know.


First plane hit at 8:48 am. Eight hours after is right when this report began, just before 5pm EDT. But time is not the issue here, Minotaur ( although the timing is a factor )- the issue is that Jane Stanley is reporting a building collapse that has not yet happened!

The 9-11 Cover Up Ends: July 9, 2008

16
Someone"? What, I can't be trusted??


I didn't meant to exclude you; I don't care who provides the evidence. In the post above, the small jpg from nycskyscrapers.com doesn't look like the same building in the photo above it, of WTC 7. Note the verticals on the left and right sides, and the color.

Also, have we ruled out that the BBC reporter confused the name of the building that just fell? After all, in the Youtube clip she turns around and looks at the scene.

And how do you know the exact time this segment originally aired?

Here's a bigger view of the Salomon Bros. building from the link Clocker Bob supplied: http://www.nycskyscrapers.com/wallstree ... alomon.jpg

The 9-11 Cover Up Ends: July 9, 2008

17
newberry wrote:I don't see WTC 7--when during the Youtube clip is the building most clearly seen? Also, how do we know the exact time that this originally aired?


Look over her left shoulder for the duration of the video- WTC7 is mostly obscured, but occasionally she moves to where you can see the top six or eight floors very clearly.

The full video of the BBC World 9/11 coverage is available ( for now ) on an archive site. If you want to check the timing of this report, go here, scroll down, and you'll find links to five 1GB .mpegs of the BBC coverage:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/6458

The timing is just added evidence. What you need to get your head around is that WTC7 is clearly visible on the video feed behind Stanley's head, and she is describing the 'collapse' of that building in her report. She's either working from a script, or she is a time traveler from one half hour into the future.

The 9-11 Cover Up Ends: July 9, 2008

18
newberry wrote:
Someone"? What, I can't be trusted??


I didn't meant to exclude you; I don't care who provides the evidence. In the post above, the small jpg from nycskyscrapers.com doesn't look like the same building in the photo above it, of WTC 7. Note the verticals on the left and right sides, and the color.


I agree with you on both these points. I'm currently juggling answering this thread and hunting for more pictures that show the Salomon Bros. building to be the WTC7 that it was. You have seen the NY times article that refers to the Salomon Bros. building as World Trade Center 7.

Also, have we ruled out that the BBC reporter confused the name of the building that just fell? After all, in the Youtube clip she turns around and looks at the scene.


Hold on a second. She refers to a building that just fell, and she refers to it as a 47 story building. So does the graphic crawl underneath her video feed. There were only three buildings that 'fell' on 9/11, and the only one that was 47 stories was WTC7, and the only building anywhere near the Towers of that height was WTC7.

More from the times article of '89 that explains the construction inside the Salomon Bros. /WTC7 building, and describes it as a 47 story structure:
To help shuttle Salomon employees between floors, construction crews are adding two escalators and four elevators inside the tower. And to help adjust the floor layouts to Salomon's needs, workers are moving sections of the tower's ''core'' area, which includes pipes up to two feet in diameter and air-handling equipment the size of delivery trucks.

''This is the first time I've every seen such dramatic interior changes being made in a new building,'' said Irwin G. Cantor, structural engineer for the project. ''And the whole world is watching.''

Perhaps not the whole world, but certainly some very concerned parties. Consolidated Edison intends to protect its electrical substation stretched out beneath the 47-story tower. The only existing tenant, an accounting firm, intends to protect its services and security while construction crews work above and below its four floors. Silverstein Properties and the land owner, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, intend to protect their investments. And Salomon intends to move the work along at breakneck speed.


If you know about 9/11 and WTC7, you know that Silverstein owned it, and Con Ed had a substation under it.

The 9-11 Cover Up Ends: July 9, 2008

20
newberry wrote:Why would the conspirators need to give a script to the BBC? Why take that gigantic risk of letting the press in on the conspiracy?


I'm not exactly saying that the press were in on it, although there was reporting on that day that makes me think in retrospect that some media were clued in to the psyop nature of what they were reporting. I'm suggesting that some emergency management agency in NYC that *was* in on the fact that WTC7 was wired for demolition sent out a news release or spoke to some reporters about the 'collapse' of WTC7 before it had actually happened, and that maybe the wires got crossed, and the BBC began reporting the 'collapse' before the collapse. Maybe the news release was meant to be embargoed until 6pm and got into the press' hands by 5pm.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests