newberry wrote: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?

Bob's theory:

clocker bob wrote: 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.

It's a solid theory: Having the "truth" out there in printed form turns a lot of schmucks into believers, especially when it's filtered through the news media (remember, the average american is pretty trusting of the evening news). If you read up on various media critics' opinions about how the media "sets a narrative" (example: John Kerry's a Flip-Flopper) and then tends to, out of laziness, report stories in the context of that narrative ("Kerry's past senate votes prove his flip-flopping rather than show how bogged down with earmarks bills can be), it makes sense that the govt. people in charge of talking to the media that day would have been intent on building a "narrative" for the day.

What would the right time be to send it?

Well, after WTC7 went down, of course.

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?

I agree with you on this part. While i can follow Bob's theory and see how it's plausible, it's still merely speculative, and Occam's Razor, to me, says that, considering the bedlam of the day, the BBC just plain fucked up. Still, i'm not willing to discount Bob's theory because 1) it's also plausible, although more complex and slightly far-fetched, and 2) my inherent distrust of the government causes me to critically look at both sides of the argument and not discount either one.

newberry wrote:

CB wrote: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?

You are misunderstanding, but not as much. I know I'm not the greatest writer, but I think I'm clear on this. It is not the preannounced fall that is the purpose of the back history. Remember, if they didn't blow up WTC7, then they couldn't preannounce the fall, they could only issue warnings that it was in danger of falling. They did issue these warnings to create the impression in the media and in the minds of those on the scene that WTC7 was a severely weakened building, and was on the verge of collapse for hours. They used the back story to methodically exaggerate the poor condition of the structure, so when they pushed the cameras back six blocks and pulled it, there was a story in place that hopefully explained why something that looked just like a controlled demolition wasn't. The back story is to create the illusion of a sick building, not to actually announce the fall of the building.

clocker bob wrote: You are misunderstanding, but not as much. I know I'm not the greatest writer, but I think I'm clear on this. It is not the preannounced fall that is the purpose of the back history. Remember, if they didn't blow up WTC7, then they couldn't preannounce the fall, they could only issue warnings that it was in danger of falling. They did issue these warnings to create the impression in the media and in the minds of those on the scene that WTC7 was a severely weakened building, and was on the verge of collapse for hours. They used the back story to methodically exaggerate the poor condition of the structure, so when they pushed the cameras back six blocks and pulled it, there was a story in place that hopefully explained why something that looked just like a controlled demolition wasn't. The back story is to create the illusion of a sick building, not to actually announce the fall of the building.

I.E. "Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia," only applied to real life.

I think part of the reason i'm inclined to give weight to Bob's theory is because media manipulation just fucking fascinates me...and i love 1984.

It's a solid theory: Having the "truth" out there in printed form turns a lot of schmucks into believers, especially when it comes to the media. If you read up on various media critics' opinions about how the media "sets a narrative" (example: John Kerry's a Flip-Flopper) and then tends to, out of laziness, report stories in the context of that narrative ("Kerry's past senate votes prove his flip-flopping rather than show how bogged down with earmarks bills can be), it makes sense that the govt. people in charge of talking to the media that day would have been intent on building a "narrative" for the day.

Of course people can be influenced by propaganda. But there is video of airplanes crashing into buildings. WTC7 was on fire. I'm sorry, but I still don't see the need to send warning in advance that the building was going down.

Well, after WTC7 went down, of course.

Why would the conspirators send the media information that the WTC7 was going to collapse or did collapse when it was all over TV? I think I'm missing your point here--could you please elaborate?

I agree with you on this part. While i can follow Bob's theory and see how it's plausible, it's still merely speculative...

No, not speculative. It's a smoking gun; it's proof. According to Bob.

newberry wrote:Of course people can be influenced by propaganda. But there is video of airplanes crashing into buildings. WTC7 was on fire. I'm sorry, but I still don't see the need to send warning in advance that the building was going down.

WTC7 wasn't on fire very much, from the photos i've seen. If the building was planned for demolition all along, and if the plane crashes and the chain reaction from that were never going to be enough to take it down by itself, and if WTC7 was going to be blown up from the inside, then yes, establishing a precedent of warnings crying "the building is unsound!" would be absolutely necessary.

Admittedly, i haven't done near enough reading on the structural integrity of the buildings and all that stuff, so i must bow out of any ensuing discussion about how likely it is that WTC7 fell just from the plane crashes.

Why would the conspirators send the media information that the WTC7 was going to collapse or did collapse when it was all over TV? I think I'm missing your point here--could you please elaborate?

You've got a point there that i'd have to research further. I can speculate that foreign news outlets needed to be guided regarding which building was which due to their unfamiliarity with the plaza. I'm not sure.

No, not speculative. It's a smoking gun; it's proof. According to Bob.

Don't shoot the messenger. I also disagree on it being a "smoking gun," but that's no reason to dismiss the theory wholesale.

Remember, if they didn't blow up WTC7, then they couldn't preannounce the fall, they could only issue warnings that it was in danger of falling. They did issue these warnings to create the impression in the media and in the minds of those on the scene that WTC7 was a severely weakened building, and was on the verge of collapse for hours. They used the back story to methodically exaggerate the poor condition of the structure, so when they pushed the cameras back six blocks and pulled it, there was a story in place that hopefully explained why something that looked just like a controlled demolition wasn't. The back story is to create the illusion of a sick building, not to actually announce the fall of the building.

The building was on fire, I don't see why they would have to exaggerate the condition. What if there was evidence of press releases before the fall of WTC7 that said the building was in very bad shape and would probably fall. How does that prove a conspiracy? That doesn't seem like an unlikely claim to make, that a burning building might fall.

DrAwkward wrote: it makes sense that the govt. people in charge of talking to the media that day would have been intent on building a "narrative" for the day.

That was the word I was reaching for before, 'narrative'. A conspiracy is both an act or a plot carried out in secrecy *and* a controlled narrative that shields the events of the plot from being examined, not as they are, but as the plotters want them to be seen. They are the yin and the yang of a successful crime against both people *and* against people's minds. The plot and the propaganda rarely sync up like a swiss watch, but close enough is usually good enough.

I would like to ask a question here: for those who think that the US had no warning of 9/11 and no role in its execution, was the blossoming propaganda assault on the 'al qaeda network' and the taliban that spread through the media like a mushroom cloud within an hour of the first plane strike either:

An example of rapidfire exploitation of the attacks by the Bush admin and the media ( who are largely owned by defense contractors or business partners with defense contractors )?

An example of what is stage two of a successful conspiracy plot's propaganda agenda ( first the back story, second the part where you start collecting your reward for a successful plot )? Was the Bush admin able to focus on a target and sell revenge so quickly after 9/11 because they are simply that good at exploiting tragedy, or was it because they had their eyes on the prize well before 9/11, and either allowed 9/11 to happen or aided it to happen?

I agree with you on this part. While i can follow Bob's theory and see how it's plausible, it's still merely speculative, and Occam's Razor, to me, says that, considering the bedlam of the day, the BBC just plain fucked up.

I've said the same, not the Occam's Razor part, but the possibility that this was all a fuck up. But I argue from the conspiracy side, because if I don't, nobody will.

clocker bob wrote: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.

It is not the only possibilty and your suggestions are not impossible they just seem to me very implausible.

A news room especially on a day like that (there hasn't been another day like that since rolling news began) is full of people hearing tales told from all over the shop from many different sources and yelling them to some line producer and director who have to make decisions about what gets typed into the autocue. All this with the pressure to break stories first and without anyone really having a fucking clue what is going on.
Someone described it above as extremely sloppy journalism - and it is - but it also the norm for rolling news (it's why rolling news should be stopped and the money pumped into investigative journalism) there is no time for analysis of information or time to consider decisions.

My line of thinking usually goes for the 'someone fucked up' conclusion. There's a threshhold on that for me and on 9/11 too many people fucked up for it (the official story) to be entirely plausible (also no one got nailed for fucking up so appallingly either which suggests things went swimmingly)

Also whoever went on above about the incompetence you seem to be forgetting that before the attacks Bush was one of the most unpopular presidents ever (hardly surprising considering he wasn't elected) and afterwards was one of the most popular ever (hardly surprising considering people are largely fucking idiots).

I hasn't looked at any Alex Jones sites when I asked the question, so here it is again: Is Paul Joseph Watson the originator of this theory? If not, then who is?

I'm not insinuating anything, I'm asking you a question.

WTC7 wasn't on fire very much, from the photos i've seen. If the building was planned for demolition all along, and if the plane crashes and the chain reaction from that were never going to be enough to take it down by itself, and if WTC7 was going to be blown up from the inside, then yes, establishing a precedent of warnings crying "the building is unsound!" would be absolutely necessary.

1) That's a lot of IFs.
2) Where is the evidence that inaccurate (maybe the building was unsound) warnings were issued saying "the building is unsound"?
3) Is it out of the question that the building caught fire from the plane attacks and collapsed due to that, not due to a conspiracy?

Don't shoot the messenger. I also disagree on it being a "smoking gun," but that's no reason to dismiss the theory wholesale.

I don't think I'm necessarily dismissing the theory wholesale. I've been asking for evidence and asking questions in general. I don't believe I've made sweeping statements dismissing the theory.