SternFanNetwork Archive - Proof that WTC7 was "pulled" BBC reports it 20 minutes before it happened.

SternFanNetwork Archive > Other Talk > Politics & News

Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.

Proof that WTC7 was "pulled" BBC reports it 20 minutes before it happened. - Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics

banner

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Proof that WTC7 was "pulled" BBC reports it 20 minutes before it happened. - Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics

FatesWebb

BBC Error! Huge smoking gun of pre-knowledge collapse of WTC7

On September 11th 2001, BBC World reported at 4:57pm Eastern Time that the Salomon Brothers Building (more commonly known as WTC7 or World ... all » Trade Building 7) had collapsed.

This even made the 5pm EST headlines, what is bizarre is that the building did not actually collapse until 5:20pm EST.

9/11 was unusual enough, without BBC World being able to foretell the destiny of WTC 7.

What is even stranger, is that the women reporter is telling the world that the building had collapsed when you can see it in the background over her left shoulder.

Then at 5:15pm EST, just five minutes before the building did actually collapse, her live connection from New York to London mysteriously fails.

So the question is, on 9/11 how did the BBC learn that WTC7 collapsed 23 minutes before it actually did.

Building Seven was 47 storeys, modern in design with structural steel throughout, yet symmetrically collapsed in 6.5 seconds, was someone leaking information.

No steel framed skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire, before or after 9/11, most people who find out about WTC7, believe it was brought down by a controlled demolition, even demolition experts agree.

http://video.google.com/googleplaye...985581749234824

the bbc video of them telling that wtc7 had been destroyed BEFORE IT HAPPENED, has been removed from the link above at google video but can be found

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=49f_1172526096

and

http://www.esnips.com/doc/47ae2fd7-...ilding7Collapse

Skip forward to around the 14:30 minute mark

and here

http://www.prisonplanet.com/video/9...ng7Collapse.flv

Although there is no clock or time stamp on the footage, the source claims the report was given at 4:57pm EST, 23 minutes before Building 7 collapsed at 5:20pm. While the exact time of the report cannot be confirmed at present, it is clear from the footage that the reporter is describing the collapse of WTC 7 while it clearly remains standing behind her in the live shot.

The fact that the BBC reported on the collapse of Building 7 over twenty minutes in advance of its implosion obviously provokes a myriad of questions as to how they knew it was about to come down when the official story says its collapse happened accidentally as a result of fire damage and debris weakening the building's structure.

FatesWebb

you guys dont find it a bit silly that she is reporting the collapse of a building that is right behind her still standing?

Petey Arms

bullshit

FatesWebb

how can you say that, there is the proof right there, she is on the damn video saying it collapsed, and it is clearly still standing right out the window... do you know what wtc7 looked like? because THAT IS IT IN THE VIDEO OUT THE WINDOW, AS SHE CLAIMS IT HAS COLLAPSED.

here let me make it easy for you

here is a picture of her with wtc7 just over her left ear

notice the caption that says it has collapsed...

then here is another photo where she has moved out of the way so you can see the whole building.... this time just in front of her forehead....

ok and here is another picture of wtc7 JUST AS IT IS COLLAPSING FROM THE SAME ANGLE EXCEPT HIGHER UP so you can compare them...

bullshit? looks pretty clear to me that the building was still standing and they were reporting it as collapsed...

Crazytree

bad information... just like I remember on 9/11 they said a car bomb blew up outside the State Department.

how do you propose she would know? the Mossad told her?

FatesWebb

Quote: Originally posted by Crazytree
bad information... just like I remember on 9/11 they said a car bomb blew up outside the State Department.

how do you propose she would know? the Mossad told her?

you also think it was an accident that they lost contact with her just before it actually collapsed?

Ok so here is the deal, we have the following facts to put with this particular evidence..

1) we know that larry silverstein admits on video to saying he gave the orders to pull wtc7. and then they watched it fall.
2) we know giuliani admits to having been forewarned that the building was going to collapse, he admits it on video as well
3) we actually have video of police warning people it was coming down soon to stand back. "this building is coming down, stand back"
4) we have EMT workers that have testified not only were they warned, but they actually counted down from 20.... 19.... 18.... 17.... to its collapse, that they were told it was being taken down by explosives.
5) we have the bbc knowing about it ahead of time...

I can provide links to every one of these.. what it shows is over and over again there was foreknowledge, to the timed preplanned collapse of the building.

whats crazy is no matter how many collaborating reports I come up with, people will continue to say it was a mistake..

for instance I have video interviews with 4 of the 13 eyewitnesses to planes at the pentagon, 2 of the 4 are police officers from the pentagon. and all 4 agree that the plane was not on the "official path" actually they agree that it was on the same path as was released on the flight recorders. But they and the flight recorders dont agree with the official story... that is the trajectory of whatever penetrated the pentagon to ring c, and whatever caused the light poles to fall was not the plane that the eyewitnesses saw.....

this is not an accident... these police officers were not both mistaken, and the Flight data recorder was not mistaken.... This is all stuff that cannot be refuted, unless you just accept that you could accidently win the lottery 100 times in one day...

not possible.

Kill Van Kull

The Salomon Brothers Building?

Where do you get this shit?

Didn't Salomon disband in like the late 80's after that bond scandal thing?

Not that that really matters, as someone who was standing right there when it happened, everything else in that story is just plain bizarre.

It's just keep getting weirder and weirder...

:rolleyes:

adam

This is such a waste of time and effort.

Crazytree

ok how did she know ahead of time?

Snoopyrules

Oh please, this douche needs to show an actual video and not some bloggers pictures. How do we know she's not just reporting the story of WTC 7 in front of a blue screen.

BTW:

1) we know that larry silverstein admits on video to saying he gave the orders to pull wtc7. and then they watched it fall. - Larry Silverstein would not have the authority to pull the building even if it was a nonsensical story, the real story behing pull it has been explained many times. He was talking about pulling out the firefighters that may have been there.

2) we know giuliani admits to having been forewarned that the building was going to collapse, he admits it on video as well..... So, trained firerighters who saw the big scoop in the building and saw it wobbling made the determination that it was going to fall; which it did. This is not a fact of anything.

3) we actually have video of police warning people it was coming down soon to stand back. "this building is coming down, stand back"... See explanation 2, They absolutely knew it was coming down. In fact, 1010 WINS was reporting that it suffered damage and was in danger of coming down the whole day....

4) we have EMT workers that have testified not only were they warned, but they actually counted down from 20.... 19.... 18.... 17.... to its collapse, that they were told it was being taken down by explosives.....This is an example of his trickery. It's one EMT worker who happens to be investigating bush and the saudis for books she is selling contradicting almost every statement.

5) we have the bbc knowing about it ahead of time..... This douche better post a video so we can see it in context before he uses this as proof. BTW, now the BBC reporters are in on the conspiracy, where does it end. It's up to like 5000 people who worked on this thing.

Look through all this testimony, find a complete statement that agress with this silly story:
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/htm...stories_01.html

It's ridiculous, don't believe this shit!!!

zimmie

Geez, it also says on the caption it the WTC was hit by hijacked planes....and we know thats not true

LMAO

Stickman

Quote: Originally posted by Snoopyrules
Oh please, this douche needs to show an actual video and not some bloggers pictures. How do we know she's not just reporting the story of WTC 7 in front of a blue screen.

If the BBC video is verified as legit, will you admit you're wrong and a clueless douche?

FatesWebb

Snoopy is such an idiot he doesnt realize that I linked the fucking video 4 times. talk about a fucking dumb ass. hopeless idiot.

FatesWebb

Quote: Originally posted by Crazytree
ok how did she know ahead of time?

hmmm, because the building was taken down by explosives? why do you act like you are unable to put 2 and 2 together, I know you are smarter than that...

Stickman

Fate,
I think you did a great job on this one. If you tie all of the pieces together, it's obvious that the word that WTC 7 would be brought down came out earlier in the afternoon.

It's no surprise that so many people were saying it was about to come down because... it was about to come down.

How else would the collapse be so predictable?

FatesWebb

Quote: Originally posted by Kill Van Kull
The Salomon Brothers Building?

Where do you get this shit?

Didn't Salomon disband in like the late 80's after that bond scandal thing?

Not that that really matters, as someone who was standing right there when it happened, everything else in that story is just plain bizarre.

It's just keep getting weirder and weirder...

:rolleyes:

that was the name of wtc7....

FatesWebb

Quote: Originally posted by Stickman
Fate,
I think you did a great job on this one. If you tie all of the pieces together, it's obvious that the word that WTC 7 would be brought down came out earlier in the afternoon.

It's no surprise that so many people were saying it was about to come down because... it was about to come down.

How else would the collapse be so predictable?

thanks, this thread, and this other thread

http://www.sternfannetwork.com/foru...threadid=221062

are direct slaps across the debunkers faces, they cannot debunk it, and it is blaringly obvious that they are wrong at this point. It is not wonder that they have completely avoided the pentacon thread. They would have to admit that the very point that they had all along that they were using to debunk the "no plane hit the pentagon" claims actually turned out to be the very thing that proves that the plane did not hit it. the witnesses did see a plane there, and it was not at the correct angle to cause the damage to the building or the light poles.

This, and the pentacon thread are big middle fingers in the faces of billy and snoopy, they must either ignore it, or admit it at this point. So as you know they will ignore it..

HAH snoopy tried to say that they used CHROMAKEY ahahahaaha, and that is what is funny is the worst of the conspiracy theorists said the planes were chromakeyed... which is even more believable than snoopys claim....

FW

Billyfromsphily

Well thanks for the big finger. Its the classy thing you guys love to do when you are wrong!

keep bumping your own threads. They are so boring!

FatesWebb

yep, thats all you got, as usual you dont attack the actual data, but the person. keep it up.

Billyfromsphily

Quote: Originally posted by FatesWebb
yep, thats all you got, as usual you dont attack the actual data, but the person. keep it up.

You started this thread. I didn't respond to it and now I am attacking you?????

Especially when you throw the "BIG FINGER IN MY FACE"?

Can't have it both ways !

Bye now !

FatesWebb

yep, you lose, and you admit it. that is all you have is the finger, because you know you cannot explain anything else. here let me make it easy on you. run away little boy. you got nothing.

YOU LOSE

Stickman

Quote: Originally posted by FatesWebb
yep, you lose, and you admit it. that is all you have is the finger, because you know you cannot explain anything else. here let me make it easy on you. run away little boy. you got nothing.

YOU LOSE

Give 'em hell, Fate.

FatesWebb

Quote: Originally posted by Stickman
Give 'em hell, Fate.

normally I dont do that, but he bit on it, so he gets it. he could easily address the actual facts, but since he cannot go to som "myths" site to get his bullshit, he has nothing, and therefore he has to try and find anything possible to respond to.... in this case the finger comment. which the point of the finger comment was that he has nothing, and the fact that he responded to that only proved my point....

he proved my point..

"suck it down" "you lose..." "you got nothing but a finger"

thanks stickman. sometimes I will give them hell, usually I keep it on track..

hell i even took snoop off ignore just to see what bullshit he posts, and he posted CHROMAKEY ahahahahah!!! that is at least a better attempt than billy had, no matter how laughable it is.

Kill Van Kull

Quote: Originally posted by FatesWebb
that was the name of wtc7....

No, it wasn't.

That's my point.

:rolleyes:

FatesWebb

Quote: Originally posted by Kill Van Kull
No, it wasn't.

That's my point.

:rolleyes:

not that it makes a bit of difference...

7 World Trade Center housed Salomon Smith Barney
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

http://demopedia.democraticundergro...on_Smith_Barney
WTC7 originally served as the corporate headquarters of Salomon Brothers. [4] (http://www.ifar.org/911_citi1.htm) Other unrelated companies like the CIA, Secret Service and the Office of Emergency Management filled in the vacant extra floors.

http://www.nycskyscrapers.com/wallstreet.html
Travelers Group
388 Greenwich St.
Formerly Travelers Group and soon to be Citigroup this company is about to combine with Citibank to become the largest bank in the world and the first to cross the barrier between banks and insurance companies in America. Sanford Weill probably has his office somewhere at the top of this building. From his window he can probably see Salomon Brothers building (visible in this picture), the company he took over recently. He can probably also see Merrill Lynch, the company he envies the most.

furthermore http://www.google.com/search?q=%22S...others+building

returns over 1000 hits. but if you say so, fine she got the name wrong.. I am sure that so did all 1000 of the websites.. good thing you are around to clear that up.

rexx2294

This is an interesting argument with some strong points, but isn't there another (and perhaps more likely) explanation: that the BBC just screwed up and got the story wrong? Even on a slow day news organizations often fail to check facts and verify sources... just ask Captain Janks. Now think of the flood of information and ensuing chaos swirling through newsrooms around the globe on that day.

It's like that telephone game, where one person whispers something to another, who whispers it to another, and so on, until the original message is a jumbled mess. And so "WTC7 is about to collapse" becomes "WTC7 has collapsed, purple monkey dishwasher". Maybe my thinking is too simplistic here, but that's the first thing I thought when watching that clip you linked. The female correspondent even prefaces her report by saying "details are very sketchy at this moment..."

Not trying to start a flame war here, just offering a different opinion/explanation. For the record I don't believe the 9/11 conspiracy theories, but I try to stay open minded toward new facts and evidence.

but to claim a whole building collapse before it happens?

DUDE-HERE

Quote: Originally posted by FatesWebb
you guys dont find it a bit silly that she is reporting the collapse of a building that is right behind her still standing?

OR THE FACT THAT IN NORWAY A WHOLE STORY ABOUT LEE HARVEY OSWALD FEATURED EVEN BEFORE KENNEDY WAS EVEN SHOT...LIKE SOMEONE WAS PLANING A BLACK OP

LOL

FatesWebb

yeah I dont get it, how people are all.... oh it was just an accident... that is too much, so they accidentlay reported what DID HAPPEN 20 minutes later?? talk about conspiracy theories...

all of these are accidents? or they are showing a trend...

1) we know that larry silverstein admits on video to saying he gave the orders to pull wtc7. and then they watched it fall.
2) we know giuliani admits to having been forewarned that the building was going to collapse, he admits it on video as well
3) we actually have video of police warning people it was coming down soon to stand back. "this building is coming down, stand back"
4) we have EMT workers that have testified not only were they warned, but they actually counted down from 20.... 19.... 18.... 17.... to its collapse, that they were told it was being taken down by explosives.
5) we have the bbc knowing about it ahead of time...

DUDE-HERE

Quote: Originally posted by FatesWebb
yeah I dont get it, how people are all.... oh it was just an accident... that is too much, so they accidentlay reported what DID HAPPEN 20 minutes later?? talk about conspiracy theories...

all of these are accidents? or they are showing a trend...

1) we know that larry silverstein admits on video to saying he gave the orders to pull wtc7. and then they watched it fall.
2) we know giuliani admits to having been forewarned that the building was going to collapse, he admits it on video as well
3) we actually have video of police warning people it was coming down soon to stand back. "this building is coming down, stand back"
4) we have EMT workers that have testified not only were they warned, but they actually counted down from 20.... 19.... 18.... 17.... to its collapse, that they were told it was being taken down by explosives.
5) we have the bbc knowing about it ahead of time...

so firemen never know if a building will collapse when its on fire..

lol

if a building on fire collapses does it make a sound ?

FatesWebb

steel buildings have never before collapsed from fire, so hmmm...

DUDE-HERE

Quote: Originally posted by FatesWebb
steel buildings have never before collapsed from fire, so hmmm...

steel buildings never had a fire like that ...

rexx2294

Quote: Originally posted by FatesWebb
4) we have EMT workers that have testified not only were they warned, but they actually counted down from 20.... 19.... 18.... 17.... to its collapse, that they were told it was being taken down by explosives.

I trust you can offer a reputable source or link for this claim?

Your other points just further demonstrate that everyone knew the collapse of WTC7 was imminent, not that it collapsed from a controlled demolition.

FatesWebb

Quote: Originally posted by DUDE-HERE
steel buildings never had a fire like that ...

they have had worse, much much worse.

DUDE-HERE

Quote: Originally posted by FatesWebb
they have had worse, much much worse.

really..when and where ?

FatesWebb

there was even a fire that was much worse in the same wtc building that lasted overnight. which prompted upgrading the fire controls to astm e119 to prevent fires from spreading floors. By making the floors airtight.

and there was one in madrid that was MUCH worse, and the building did not collapse.

DUDE-HERE

Quote: Originally posted by FatesWebb
there was even a fire that was much worse in the same wtc building that lasted overnight. which prompted upgrading the fire controls to astm e119 to prevent fires from spreading floors. By making the floors airtight.

and there was one in madrid that was MUCH worse, and the building did not collapse.

FLOORS ARE NOT AIR TIGHT ?

FatesWebb

Quote: Originally posted by DUDE-HERE
FLOORS ARE NOT AIR TIGHT ?

astm-e119 is a fire control that stops the fire from going from one floor to another. they were upgaded to this after the first wtc fire... they were astm-e119 compliant on sept 11th.

DUDE-HERE

Quote: Originally posted by FatesWebb
astm-e119 is a fire control that stops the fire from going from one floor to another. they were upgaded to this after the first wtc fire... they were astm-e119 compliant on sept 11th.

MAYBE JUST MAYBE THAT BUILDING WAS NEVER UP TO CODE..IT WAS A GOVERNMENT BUILDING...MAYBE THEY CHEATED ON THE CONSTRUCTION CODES ?

FatesWebb

like i said it passed astm-e119. it wouldnt matter anyways the fire could not have possibly been hotter than 490 degrees F which is not hot enough to cause a collapse.

Billyfromsphily

Quote: Originally posted by Stickman
Give 'em hell, Fate.

My My Fates a little upset that you had to post 8 times before Snoop bit on your regurgitation?

Stick, well if this is the best you can do, So be it. I guess you got that associates degree by posting U-Tube videos!

Bye Bye little boy!

FatesWebb

hah, I didnt know stickman had an associates degree, good job stickman!!

Snoopyrules

Quote: Originally posted by FatesWebb
steel buildings have never before collapsed from fire, so hmmm...

I don't talk directly to this guy, but here are some facts in the history of steel buildings

Contrary to popular belief September 11, 2001 was not the first time a steel framed building collapsed due to fire. Though the examples below are not high rise buildings, they make the point that fire alone can collapse a steel structure.

The McCormick Center in Chicago and the Sight and Sound Theater in Pennsylvania are examples of steel structures collapsing. The theater was fire protected using drywall and spray on material. A high rise in Philly didn't collapse after a long fire but firefighters evacuated the building when a pancake structural collapse was considered likely. Other steel-framed buildings partially collapsed due fires one after only 20 minutes.

The steel framed McCormick Center was at the time the World's largest exhibition center. It like the WTC used long steel trusses to create a large open space without columns. Those trusses were unprotected but of course much of the WTC lost it's fire protection due to the impacts.

"As an example of the damaging effect of fire on steel, in 1967, the original heavy steel-constructed McCormick Place exhibition hall in Chicago collapsed only 30 minutes after the start of a small electrical fire."

http://www.wconline.com/CDA/Archive/24ae78779d768010Vgn
VCM100000f932a

[Note this article has several comments from engineers who back the
WTC collapse theory.]

"The unprotected steel roof trusses failed early on in the fire"

http://www.chipublib.org/004chicago...rmick_fire.html

The McCormick Place fire "is significant because it illustrates the fact that steel-frame buildings can collapse as a result of exposure to fire. This is true for all types of construction materials, not only steel." wrote Robert Berhinig, associate manager of UL's Fire Protection Division and a registered professional engineer. He also discusses UL's steel fire certification much more knowledgably than Kevin Ryan. He is an example of one more highly qualified engineer who supports the collapse theory.

http://www.iaei.org/subscriber/maga..._d/berhinig.htm

From the FEMA report of the theater fire, my comments in [ ]
www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-097.pdf

On the morning of January 28, 1997, in the Lancaster County, Pennsylvania township of Strasburg, a fire caused the collapse of the state-of-the-art, seven year old Sight and Sound Theater and resulted in structural damage to most of the connecting buildings.
The theater was a total loss, valued at over $15 million.

pg 6/74

The theater was built of steel rigid frame construction to allow for the large open space of the auditorium, unobstructed by columns... The interior finish in the auditorium was drywall.

The stage storage area, prop assembly building, and prop maintenance building were protected with a sprayed-on fire resistant coating on all structural steel. The plans called for the coating to meet a two-hour fire resistance assembly rating. The sprayed-on coating, which was susceptible to damage from the movement of theater equipment, was protected by attaching plywood coverings on the columns to a height of eight feet.

The walls of the storage area beneath the stage were layered drywall to provide a two-hour fire protection rating for the mezzanine offices [the WTC used drywall as fire protection in the central core] , and sprayed-on fire-resistant coatings on the structural
steel columns and ceiling bar joists supporting the stage floor.
pg 15/74

The two theater employees told the State Police Fire Investigator that when they first discovered the fire they noticed that the sprayed-on fire proofing had been knocked off the underside of the stage floor bar joists and support steel. The fire proofing was hanging on the wire mesh used to hold the coating to the overhead. The investigation revealed that the construction company's removal of the stage floor covering down to the corrugated decking involved striking the floor hard enough to knock off the sprayed-on protection, exposing the structural steel and bar-joists in the storage area. [The theater's spray-on fireproofing was newer and more modern than at the WTC, The theater was only seven years old. If striking the floor during renovations was enough to dislodge it imagine the impact of a 767]

pg 16/74

Temperatures of 1000° F can cause buckling and temperatures of 1500° F can cause steel to lose strength and collapse. When the heat and hot gases reached the stage ceiling they extended horizontally into the auditorium, causing the roof to fail all the way to the lobby fire wall. The fire also extended horizontally from the stage to the elevated hallway, causing the structural steel to fail and buckle in the prop assembly and prop maintenance buildings

pg 17/74

Once the heat of the fire caused the structural steel to fail in the storage area (aided by the damage to the sprayed-on fire protection during renovation), interior firefighting became too hazardous to continue. The truck crews ventilating the roof noted metal
discoloration and buckling steel.

pg. 21/74

The two hour fire resistance-rated assembly in the storage area beneath the stage was damaged during the stage floor renovation, leaving the structural members unprotected from the ensuing fire.

pg. 26/74

Buildings constructed of steel should, in effect, be considered unprotected and capable of collapse from fire in as few as ten minutes. Fire resistant coatings sprayed onto structural steel are susceptible to damage from construction work.

The impact of fire and heat on structural steel members warrant extreme caution by firefighters.

pg. 36/74
Unless the steel members are cooled with high-volume hose streams, the fire's heat can rapidly cause steel to lose its strength and contribute to building collapse.
pg. 37/74

Other Fires

In February 1991, a fire broke out in One Meridian Plaza - a 38 story office building in Philadelphia. The building was built during the same period as the WTC and had spray-on fire protection on its steel frame. Despite not suffering impact damage, authorities were worried it might collapse.

"All interior firefighting efforts were halted after almost 11 hours of uninterrupted fire in the building. Consultation with a structural engineer and structural damage observed by units operating in the building led to the belief that there was a
possibility of a pancake structural collapse of the fire damaged
floors."

http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/...ions/tr-049.txt

About 2 years later, the NYFD was concerned that a steel framed building that partially collapsed during after a gas explosion might collapse entirely due to the resulting fire.

http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/...ions/TR-068.pdf

Part of a floor of an unprotected steel frame building collapsed in Brackenridge, Pennsylvania on, December 20, 1991, Killing 4 volunteer firemen
http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/...ions/TR-061.pdf

Part of the roof of a steel framed school in Virginia collapsed about 20 minutes after fire broke out

http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/...ions/tr-135.pdf

Snoopyrules

What most likely, logically happened: While investigating and updating information on the collapse of the towers, someone at the BBC was given a report/press release that building 7 was going to collapse. According to the fire department they knew the building was going to collapse by 2:00PM. Reporters KNEW this well before the event because there are videos of reporters talking about it before it happened. So we KNOW reporter were given information on WTC 7's imminent demise. We can conclude from this evidence that the fire department relayed information to reporters that the building was going to collapse. (Possibly by press release) By the time the report reached the reporter at the BBC it may have simply been misscommunicated from "About to collapse" to "Has collapsed". She even starts out by saying "Details are very, very sketchy". That alone should put this to rest. She didn't say 'Sketchy'. She didn't say 'Very Sketchy'. She said "very, very sketchy".

---
little critical thinking is all that's needed to debunk this nonsense. Why in the world would they make an already unbelievably massive conspiracy into one involving reporters who would LOVE a scoop like that? "Sept. 9, 2001 - EXCLUSIVE BREAKING NEWS! Government about to murder thousands for oil! We have the script!" Can you imagine the job offerings after a scoop like that? Can you say Pulitzer prize? What a hero! Who would pass that up to help a shadowy government mass murder Americans? This would be MUCH bigger than Watergate! Or maybe this was a planed gaff to expose this plot? Are we to believe this gaff is the only way she could have told us? A method which could easily be dismissed as typical poor reporting?

And here is the kicker... Did they really need even MORE people (http://www.debunking911.com/massivect.htm) involved? What was the reason they absolutely needed to tell the reporters this? Why haven't any of the other reporters talked? Are most reporters part of a mass murder scheme? How much can conspiracy theorists swallow?

Do the conspiracy theorist leaders have one shred of REAL evidence of explosives or anything else which could take down the buildings? Air samples with trace explosive chemicals in it? A memo like the downing street memo? A whistleblower who was in on the planning maybe? None of that involves the so called "whisked away steel". They have nothing. They're left to scour the internet for the slightest mistake made by anyone on that horrific, chaotic day. They're left destroying peoples lives by suggesting innocent people are involved in mass murders.

Snoopyrules

Seriously, This piece of the conspiracy has the BBC getting in on it. How retarted is that? These loons are really really stretching this shit. This is why I put FW on ignore, I'm sick of his shit.

Billyfromsphily

Snoop, we all know that you have taken the time before to post this and they choose to ignore it and keep making their unsubstantiated claims. So let them cry Chicken Little all they want. No one takes them seriously any more. They have to keep bumping their own posts to get attention!

Sad thing for them

Snoopyrules

Quote: Originally posted by FatesWebb
hah, I didnt know stickman had an associates degree, good job stickman!!

He has a B.S. in bat shit conspiracy douche baggery. FW, has a doctorite because he did 8000 hours of research. BTW, he thinks Saddam Hussein is alive...that's just to put his bat shit conspiracy douche baggery qualifiactions in perspective.

tourette_ticker

Does it still stop fire from spreading floor to floor when the floors have giant holes torn in them by airplanes?

Billyfromsphily

Quote: Originally posted by tourette_ticker
Does it still stop fire from spreading floor to floor when the floors have giant holes torn in them by airplanes?

Not according to them! They have the expert testimony of some guy who heard a bang and some U-TUBE video. Not one of the several hundred thousands in person, myself included, or the millions who watched the towers fall on TV, knows anything and has been muffled by a Government who can't find WMD's or at least plant some in Iraq!

Facts don't matter when you make them up! And they become true if you repeat them enough.

Snoopyrules

Quote: Originally posted by Billyfromsphily
Snoop, we all know that you have taken the time before to post this and they choose to ignore it and keep making their unsubstantiated claims. So let them cry Chicken Little all they want. No one takes them seriously any more. They have to keep bumping their own posts to get attention!

Sad thing for them

The guy is whining about not posting in his Pentagon thread about shit that's been disputed multiple times. Is it really necessary to post in every one of the threads he creates on this subject. He's not convincing anyone. It just get's old....ponderous.

Billyfromsphily

Yeah and they don't know the difference between a Global Hawk and a Predator either!

Now watch them run for Google.

Snoopyrules

Hmmm, I wonder why the conspiracy theorist are all of sudden using this piece of evidnece....could it be they're a little upset the BBC made them look like the idiots they are:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...228117189&hl=en

The best part is near the 15 minute mark when the dopey loose change kid claims popular mechanics isn't qualified. What a dirtbag.

Halcyon

Quote: Originally posted by Snoopyrules
What most likely, logically happened: While investigating and updating information on the collapse of the towers, someone at the BBC was given a report/press release that building 7 was going to collapse. According to the fire department they knew the building was going to collapse by 2:00PM. Reporters KNEW this well before the event because there are videos of reporters talking about it before it happened. So we KNOW reporter were given information on WTC 7's imminent demise. We can conclude from this evidence that the fire department relayed information to reporters that the building was going to collapse. (Possibly by press release) By the time the report reached the reporter at the BBC it may have simply been misscommunicated from "About to collapse" to "Has collapsed". She even starts out by saying "Details are very, very sketchy". That alone should put this to rest. She didn't say 'Sketchy'. She didn't say 'Very Sketchy'. She said "very, very sketchy".

---
little critical thinking is all that's needed to debunk this nonsense. Why in the world would they make an already unbelievably massive conspiracy into one involving reporters who would LOVE a scoop like that? "Sept. 9, 2001 - EXCLUSIVE BREAKING NEWS! Government about to murder thousands for oil! We have the script!" Can you imagine the job offerings after a scoop like that? Can you say Pulitzer prize? What a hero! Who would pass that up to help a shadowy government mass murder Americans? This would be MUCH bigger than Watergate! Or maybe this was a planed gaff to expose this plot? Are we to believe this gaff is the only way she could have told us? A method which could easily be dismissed as typical poor reporting?

And here is the kicker... Did they really need even MORE people (http://www.debunking911.com/massivect.htm) involved? What was the reason they absolutely needed to tell the reporters this? Why haven't any of the other reporters talked? Are most reporters part of a mass murder scheme? How much can conspiracy theorists swallow?

Do the conspiracy theorist leaders have one shred of REAL evidence of explosives or anything else which could take down the buildings? Air samples with trace explosive chemicals in it? A memo like the downing street memo? A whistleblower who was in on the planning maybe? None of that involves the so called "whisked away steel". They have nothing. They're left to scour the internet for the slightest mistake made by anyone on that horrific, chaotic day. They're left destroying peoples lives by suggesting innocent people are involved in mass murders.

Snoopy, I have to somewhat disagree with you on this. It's not likely a Fire department is going to announce the collapse of a building, press release or OTHERWISE.

What happened most likely is that the reporters, who has been buzzing ALL around Ground Zero at the time, probably heard some of the Fire Fighters talking about the fact that they would have to pull the building and those reporters relayed the info that it was going to collapse...

And... as in any game of 'telephone' by the time this information reached the BBC in England, they thought it HAD collapsed, by which a reporter decides to erroneously report it as collapsed when in fact, it's in the background.

Snoopyrules

Quote: Originally posted by Halcyon
Snoopy, I have to somewhat disagree with you on this. It's not likely a Fire department is going to announce the collapse of a building, press release or OTHERWISE.

What happened most likely is that the reporters, who has been buzzing ALL around Ground Zero at the time, probably heard some of the Fire Fighters talking about the fact that they would have to pull the building and those reporters relayed the info that it was going to collapse...

And... as in any game of 'telephone' by the time this information reached the BBC in England, they thought it HAD collapsed, by which a reporter decides to erroneously report it as collapsed when in fact, it's in the background.

Could be, but FW just posts his nonsense and calls in indisputable proof. When you get time, watch the BBC video I posted. All the conspiracy theorists in that video act the same way and they all come off as loons. It illustrates what you're dealing with when you debate with these people.

Peter Jennings did the best JFK conspiracy special a couple of years back. It completely proved that there was no conspiracy. I hope one of the big American networks tackles this story as well as the BBC video did.

Max-the-Silent

Quote: Originally posted by Snoopyrules
Could be, but FW just posts his nonsense and calls in indisputable proof. When you get time, watch the BBC video I posted. All the conspiracy theorists in that video act the same way and they all come off as loons. It illustrates what you're dealing with when you debate with these people.

Peter Jennings did the best JFK conspiracy special a couple of years back. It completely proved that there was no conspiracy. I hope one of the big American networks tackles this story as well as the BBC video did.

Only if you believe that a strip club owner/loan shark/bookie shot LHO to save Jackie from having to go through a trial...

Halcyon

Quote: Originally posted by Max-the-Silent
Only if you believe that a strip club owner/loan shark/bookie shot LHO to save Jackie from having to go through a trial...

I believe there are a couple of JFK threads in this forum.... let's stick to topic

Snoopyrules

Halycon, They were talking about the buildings collapsing hours before it actually collapsed. I mentioned this before but I don't usually bring it up because it's not verifable, but I actually was staring at WTC 7 when it collapsed from the ferry on my way back to Hoboken. Everyone on the ferry was staring at it, because we all knew it was going to collapse. We all knew that because of the reports. So, it's believable that they mistook the multiple reports that is was going down with it actually collapsing.

oat

If disco is dead and people still listen to the 70s channel.. Does that mean you have wasted 8000 hours of your life?

Crazytree

I enjoy your threads FW as I consider myself an intelligent pragmatist... and necessarily gravitate towards some CTs.

speaking of my favorite CT... is the CIA-crack connection still considered CT or considered facT?

Halcyon

Quote: Originally posted by Snoopyrules
Halycon, They were talking about the buildings collapsing hours before it actually collapsed. I mentioned this before but I don't usually bring it up because it's not verifable, but I actually was staring at WTC 7 when it collapsed from the ferry on my way back to Hoboken. Everyone on the ferry was staring at it, because we all knew it was going to collapse. We all knew that because of the reports. So, it's believable that they mistook the multiple reports that is was going down with it actually collapsing.

Ok, so it was announced that it was going to collapse ahead of time.

Let's assume these two things:

A) It was announced it was GOING to collapse or that it was going to be 'pulled'
B) The BBC reporter mistakenly announced it had already collapsed when it hadn't

How does this 'prove' that there is a CIA or Government conspiracy to engineer 9/11?!

More than likely it sounds like, firefighters were concerned with the debris of WTC7 after the collapses of the two main towers, and decided in the interest of making sure it was somewhat controlled, to 'pull' WTC7.

Snoopyrules

Quote: Originally posted by Halcyon
Ok, so it was announced that it was going to collapse ahead of time.

Let's assume these two things:

A) It was announced it was GOING to collapse or that it was going to be 'pulled'
B) The BBC reporter mistakenly announced it had already collapsed when it hadn't

How does this 'prove' that there is a CIA or Government conspiracy to engineer 9/11?!

More than likely it sounds like, firefighters were concerned with the debris of WTC7 after the collapses of the two main towers, and decided in the interest of making sure it was somewhat controlled, to 'pull' WTC7.

Seriously, you think they caused the destructions themselves out of concern that it may fall? How do you think they did that? That doesn't make any sense. If you believe that, you believe the buildings were pre-wired...do you?

Stickman

You guys can spin this all you want but basically it goes like this,

Giuliani puts the word out that the building is going to collapse

Everyone on the street, the firefighters etc hear the building is going to collapse

Reporters on the scene hear the building is going to collapse

The BBC reports that the building has collapsed before the building collapses

The building collapses.

When skyscrapers have burned in the past, it was impossible to predict the moment of collapse since skyscrapers have never collapsed from fire.

So why on 9/11 would anyone suspect WTC 7 was going to collapse, especially since no plane hit it?

Next, you guys are going to tell me that there was major damage to the building, based on a photograph we're not allowed to see.

Great. A fucking year on these threads and you guys can provide nothing to support the official story.

jigzaw

Quote: Originally posted by Stickman
You guys can spin this all you want but basically it goes like this,

Giuliani puts the word out that the building is going to collapse

Everyone on the street, the firefighters etc hear the building is going to collapse

Reporters on the scene hear the building is going to collapse

The BBC reports that the building has collapsed before the building collapses

The building collapses.

When skyscrapers have burned in the past, it was impossible to predict the moment of collapse since skyscrapers have never collapsed from fire.

So why on 9/11 would anyone suspect WTC 7 was going to collapse, especially since no plane hit it?

Next, you guys are going to tell me that there was major damage to the building, based on a photograph we're not allowed to see.

Great. A fucking year on these threads and you guys can provide nothing to support the official story.

If this was a great coverup and Giuliani wanted to kill lots of Americans, WHY would they make things look fishy by telling people in advance? To save lives? They obviously weren't interested in saving lives if they just detonated 3000 people, so why? How does this make any sense?

P.S. They didn't predict THE MOMENT it would collapse.

The questions you ask have been answered so many times on these threads and in so many ways, all one can do is throw up one's hands and say fuck it, why bother wasting time with these fanatics? You do realize that your mind is cemented shut and that the 9/11 thing is a religion for you, right? It's a faith that no evidence would ever shake.

Billyfromsphily

Great Now we have your "OFFICIAL STORY"! Thanks for the concise and detailed explanation.

Now be ready to answer all the questions just like you are the 9/11 commission,

OH Thats right there is no Officiakl Story Just the 9-11 Commission's So we will have to accept yours till a newer and fuller US Senate/Congress/Supreme Court/EPA/Treasury/DOD/HUD et al Report comes out!.

Thank You for your valuable service to all of us.

.

Stickman

Quote: Originally posted by Billyfromsphily
Great Now we have your "OFFICIAL STORY"! Thanks for the concise and detailed explanation.

Now be ready to answer all the questions just like you are the 9/11 commission,

OH Thats right there is no Officiakl Story Just the 9-11 Commission's So we will have to accept yours till a newer and fuller US Senate/Congress/Supreme Court/EPA/Treasury/DOD/HUD et al Report comes out!.

Thank You for your valuable service to all of us.

.

Other than the obvious sarcasm, you're not far off the mark here. For one, I don't have an official story, but as you correctly point out, neither does the gov't.

I hope you do hold your breath waiting for a "newer and fuller...report."

Stickman

Quote: Originally posted by jigzaw
If this was a great coverup and Giuliani wanted to kill lots of Americans, WHY would they make things look fishy by telling people in advance? To save lives? They obviously weren't interested in saving lives if they just detonated 3000 people, so why? How does this make any sense?

P.S. They didn't predict THE MOMENT it would collapse.

The questions you ask have been answered so many times on these threads and in so many ways, all one can do is throw up one's hands and say fuck it, why bother wasting time with these fanatics? You do realize that your mind is cemented shut and that the 9/11 thing is a religion for you, right? It's a faith that no evidence would ever shake.

I know you don't have the capacity to expand your mind and consider a range of possibilities, but you'd have to know that WTC 7 was not just another office building.

It was the command and control center of 9/11. It had to be destroyed after the operation.

Billyfromsphily

Quote: Originally posted by Stickman
Other than the obvious sarcasm, you're not far off the mark here. For one, I don't have an official story, but as you correctly point out, neither does the gov't.

I hope you do hold your breath waiting for a "newer and fuller...report."

I won't. Thanks for the concern.

Snoopyrules

I'm guessing the last line is aimed at conspiracy theorists. The real story is absolutely been proven, however every time it is, you guys make some more shit up. Your story keeps getting bigger and grander, but nowhere close to being plausable. BTW, no one predicted the moment of the collapse, they were reporting it was in danger of collapsing. They were reporting the same thing about the Deutche Bank building. I thought you said you were there.

Stickman

Heh? You're starting to make Billy sound coherent. I never said I was there.

Stickman

Quote: Originally posted by Billyfromsphily
I won't. Thanks for the concern.

You might want to read what I wrote a bit more closely.

Billyfromsphily

Quote: Originally posted by Stickman
I know you don't have the capacity to expand your mind and consider a range of possibilities, but you'd have to know that WTC 7 was not just another office building.

It was the command and control center of 9/11. It had to be destroyed after the operation.

Your speculation is limited as usual. So it wasn't destroyed during the operation? They were operating from it during the whole day?

So there were people to be "Pulled" from the building before it was,

A. Destroyed by CD

B. Fell down

C. Collapsed as a result of fires.

D. Was hit by missiles form the Govt.

Now which is it?

Snoopyrules

Quote: Originally posted by Stickman
Heh? You're starting to make Billy sound coherent. I never said I was there.

Than you have even less credibility than I thought.

Billyfromsphily

Snoop, that response should provoke an, all over the map type of response that we are used to!

Sharpen those fingers boys their about to go into action!

Stickman

Quote: Originally posted by Billyfromsphily
Your speculation is limited as usual. So it wasn't destroyed during the operation? They were operating from it during the whole day?

So there were people to be "Pulled" from the building before it was,

A. Destroyed by CD

B. Fell down

C. Collapsed as a result of fires.

D. Was hit by missiles form the Govt.

Now which is it?

I don't even know what you're asking, but I would say all evidence points to WTC 7 being destroyed by CD. And you don't "pull" workers in a building, you evacuate them.

Could there have been covert operatives in Giuliani's OEM? Do you need to see the WTC 7 tenant list again?

Stickman

Quote: Originally posted by Snoopyrules
Than you have even less credibility than I thought.

Good, then stop debating with me.

Snoopyrules

Quote: Originally posted by Stickman
Good, then stop debating with me.

Stop posting a ridiculous story

Billyfromsphily

Quote: Originally posted by Snoopyrules
Stop posting a ridiculous story

This has never been a debate. Its been a lecture by the conspiracists and we don't agree!

Stickman

I had a very reasonable, informative debate with Frogball. If you've noticed, he hasn't been seen from since.

Stickman

Let the spin begin...

Guns & Butter Radio interview - April 27th 2005:
Hosted by Bonnie Falkner
Guest: Indira Singh (Ground Zero Emergency Worker)

Bonnie: How long did you work as an emergency medical technician and exactly what is it that you were doing (at ground zero)?

Indira: ...when I got there we were setting up triage sites (at ground zero), close, very close to the area. The triage site that I was setting up was behind, well, to the east of Building 7 where Building 7 came down...
...we were setting up triages as close to the pile as possible… so what we were doing was setting up different kinds of stations… IV stations, cardiac stations, wound stations, burn stations ...just trying to have an organized space. What happened with that particular triage site is that pretty soon afternoon, after mid-day on 9/11 we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down... I do believe that they brought Building 7 down... By noon or one o'clock they told us we had to move from that triage site up to Pace University a little further away because Building 7 was going to come down or being brought down.

Bonnie: Did they actually use the word "brought down" and who was it that was telling you this?

Indira: The fire department... the fire department and they did use the word "we're going to have to bring it down."

Billyfromsphily

Maybe because he decided that you were lecturing him!

Stickman

Quote: Originally posted by Billyfromsphily
Maybe because he decided that you were lecturing him!

He didn't come off as that much of a pussy. Try again.

FatesWebb

so that is fine and all, except the official story is that the fires were unfought in the building which led to its collapse, and it would have been impossible to rig the building for explosives in the time needed...

FatesWebb

bullshit

FatesWebb

Quote: Originally posted by Crazytree
I enjoy your threads FW as I consider myself an intelligent pragmatist... and necessarily gravitate towards some CTs.

speaking of my favorite CT... is the CIA-crack connection still considered CT or considered facT?

I consider it fact, especially since it was all part of the iran contra affiars. and gary webb was killed over it.

FatesWebb

HERE IS PROOF THAT IT WAS NOT AN ACCIDENTAL REPORT IT WAS NOT THE ONLY TIME THE BBC REPORTED IT!!!

this one also has the time on the screen in case you doubt somehow it was before the building collapsed.

http://video.google.com/googleplaye...929074608938354

"WE ARE NOW BEING TOLD"

...at 21:54....that is 16:54 (or 4:54 EST) in NYC.

WELL BEFORE IT HAD COLLAPSED.

Billyfromsphily

Quote: Originally posted by FatesWebb
bullshit

Is that an "official report" or is this just a made up response?