Aneurhythmia wrote:

clocker bob wrote:these 'warnings' about a building that wasn't hit by a plane or significant debris and had only small fires were issued

I've gotta take issue with this point. I'll see if I can find the pictures my friend took that day. One face of 7 WTC looks like someone took a giant icecream scoop to it.

Please post, if you can. We have heard rumors that NYPD also has pics of WTC7 that were not released to the media.

That is possible, 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 ( or it fell, as alleged by the myth ).

Who and why would have given this press release or phone call?

tommydski wrote:I'm going with E-Cunts suggestion on this one.

Either it was patently obvious it was going to fall down, it was in the process of falling down and she used an unfortunate terminology. Poor lass made one mistake while reporting on an incredibly hectic story and everyone is jumping on her back.

Well, pardon us, tommy, but can we try and get to the bottom of this? We aren't talking about one slip in one sentence of her report. We have here a seven minute segment where both Standley and the host are discussing WTC7 in the past tense, talking about how 'the details are sketchy', pumping out the official explantion for the collapse, before the collapse. And the graphic crawl reports it, too. That's a lot of unfortunate terminology. I hear 'reporter's error', 'reporter's error' all over this thread right now. Let's wait and see if that is how the BBC attempts to explain this before we accept that as the only explanation

Enjoy this story until say, tomorrow when the BBC will release a statement explaining this minor irregularity.

They have to know about it. I'm waiting, but I'm also thinking while i'm waiting.

Linus Van Pelt wrote: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?

To play Bob's Advocate, the BBC is a government-owned broadcast system, correct? (British people, confirm or debunk that for me, please.) Since the British have been our A #1 allies in the Iraq debacle, i don't think it's too much of a stretch to suggest that the British government was complicit, but i would like to see evidence of Tony Blair's holdings in Halliburton before i totally hopped on board with that.

Honestly, i tend to agree with most of the people being skeptical that this in any way exposes a conspiracy. Isn't one of the cardinal rules of a conspiracy that the more people let in on it, the less likely it is to stay quiet?

Again, why would they need to send a script out that a building was going to collapse? That makes no sense to me.

emmanuelle cunt wrote:she could have thought that the guy is talking about the collapse of wtc5 (i think the number was 5) - much smaller building, which was out of her sight and she didn't want to reveal the confusion so she just carried on. this is only my guess, of course.

Good guess. I wouldn't mind if guesses were acknowledged as guesses a little more often around here. Okay, to say that she was talking about WTC5, you have to believe that both names of a different building ( SB and WTC7 ) and the exact description of the other building ( 47 stories ) ended up on the BBC, instead of an accurate report of the partial collapse of a totally different much smaller building.


WTC5 and 6 for reference.

btw, there were also reports on cnn of a car bomb exploding in front of pentagon that day, nad that 7 planes were hijacked. what does it prove?

Again, you think it proves nothing, because that's how you think, but think about the reported truck/car bomb at the Pentagon - the clocks in that wing of the Pentagon stopped at 9:32 am. The 'plane' impact is reported as 9:37am.

The seven planes that were reported hijacked ( actually, many more than that ) fit into the theory that the war games were used to load up the radar screens with confusing data to retard the military response. But, of course, that's an explanation that you will also not consider.

DrAwkward wrote:
To play Bob's Advocate, the BBC is a government-owned broadcast system, correct? (British people, confirm or debunk that for me, please.) Since the British have been our A #1 allies in the Iraq debacle, i don't think it's too much of a stretch to suggest that the British government was complicit, but i would like to see evidence of Tony Blair's holdings in Halliburton before i totally hopped on board with that.

Given the BBC's roasting over the Hutton Report, you would be hard pressed to hold the BBC as wholly under control of Westminister.

The UK government funds the BBC through license fees paid by British tax payers, and therefore has control over the BBC through funding reviews. However, it's management structure is made up of figures outside the government.

I frequently find fault with some of the emphasis, language and perceived bias in BBC reporting, but as state-funded broadcasters go, I think it is the best.

cb wrote:When did this clip air? Beginning at 4:57 EDT. Here is the metadata from the the Internet Archive where the BBC coverage was downloaded:

From the Internet Archive metadata...

bbc200109111654-1736
BBC Sept. 11, 2001 4:54 pm - 5:36 pm

News from BBC TV was recorded by the Television Archive, a non-profit archive. Video available as a loan (stream) only.

Date: 2001-09-11 20:54:47 UTC
Air Time: 2001-09-11 16:54:47 EDT
Length: 0:41:41
english
2001-09-11 20:54:47
2001-09-11 16:54:47 EDT

Television News; September 11 Terrorist Attacks; 911 Terrorist Attacks
[curator]renata@archive.org[/curator][date]20070218204203[/date][state]un-dark[/state]

So...it was broadcast at 4:57. There's no disputing that now.

Hold on a second. We need more data. You have a link to a 7-minute clip that was aired between 4:54 and 5:36 p.m? But the time from 4:54 to 5:36 is 42 minutes. Obviously, we are seeing a 7-minute excerpt of a 42-minute-long clip. And although the metadata tells us when the 42-minute-long clip starts, it doesn't tell us when the 7-minute excerpt starts. If the excerpt started, say, 27 minutes in, that would be just after 5:20 pm, which would be a perfectly logical time to report that WTC 7 had just fallen.

Obviously, if the excerpt started before 5:20, that doesn't prove your point, just like if it started after 5:20, it doesn't prove "the official myth." There's still plenty of other evidence on both sides which has to be evaluated. But - a big part of this "smoking gun" hinges on when this report airs, and I don't think your data support the claim that it aired when you say it aired.

Mose Varty-Seppanen wrote:Whoa! Scary. That is undoubtedly WTC7 over the reporters left shoulder. What other 47 story building fell that day?

Hey Mose, good to see you again. You know that you are one of the few people here able to look at the video and find themselves asking normal questions about what they saw, instead of scrambling for reasons for why what they saw wasn't what they saw? Congratulations!

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 media, when they could instead just wait for the building to be blown up when the media would observe and report it?

eta: Bob, you're the one making the claim of a "smoking gun" and "script" and "proof". Please explain.