|
Post by 911: Inside Job on Feb 26, 2007 23:14:29 GMT -4
liveleak.com videoStart watching the above video at 14:50. On September 11th 2001, BBC World reported at 4:57pm Eastern Time that the Salomon Brothers Building (more commonly known as WTC7 or World Trade Building 7) had collapsed. What is bizarre is that the building did not actually collapse until 5:20pm EDT. Stranger still, is that the woman 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 EDT, just five minutes before the building actually did collapse, her live connection from New York to London mysteriously fails. Just another 9-11 coincidence, of course. Nothing to see here.
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Feb 27, 2007 7:26:59 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 27, 2007 8:03:40 GMT -4
I didn't answer previously for two reasons.
Number one, I don't watch videos on my computer.
Number two, I don't have an answer. I'll admit it. It could be a communications error--she could have meant to say it was looking like it was going to collapse; she could have meant to say they had evacuated it in case it collapsed. It was a bit of a high stress day, after all, and a lot of people misspeak under high stress. But no, I don't have an answer.
Still, if it was still there and she said it had collapsed, what's your answer? Is the BBC in on the conspiracy? Are the conspirators just that stupid?
|
|
|
Post by gorgonian on Feb 27, 2007 8:55:23 GMT -4
I guess it helps posting at midnight and then saying nobody replies first thing in the morning. I'm sure this will be discussed soon. I haven't even had a chance to watch the video yet, let alone do any research on it. This is something I hadn't seen before (which is rare) so it requires time (you know, to avoid jumping to unwarranted conclusions).
Could be something as simple as a miscommunication, of course.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Feb 27, 2007 9:58:27 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Feb 27, 2007 10:28:24 GMT -4
The reporter appears to be standing in front of a window with a view of the WTC site in the distance. However, the "window" could just as easily be a screen showing video recorded earlier. Unless there is firm evidence that the BBC had a studio with a window looking in that direction, the case is definitely not proven.
|
|
|
Post by gorgonian on Feb 27, 2007 10:45:37 GMT -4
The reporter appears to be standing in front of a window with a view of the WTC site in the distance. However, the "window" could just as easily be a screen showing video recorded earlier. Unless there is firm evidence that the BBC had a studio with a window looking in that direction, the case is definitely not proven. It definitely does not look like a window shot anyway. It has a clear "blue-screen" quality to it. That may mean she is in front of a monitor or it may not. Just an observation. I am still glad to see something new for once (and that isn't just obviously nonsense).
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Feb 27, 2007 12:23:17 GMT -4
It is also highly possible that the BBC received a report that the WTC 7 building looked like it was about to collapse and interpreted it to mean had already collapsed. People do make mistakes sometimes you know.
|
|
|
Post by pzkpfw on Feb 27, 2007 14:46:10 GMT -4
Why pre-warn the BBC anyway?
Why not just let them film the collapse and report it - the same way the other networks did?
This is so much like the "let's crash a global hawk into the Pentagon but pretend it's a 757" claim.
How many more people are "in on it"?
(Big topic on GLP for a couple of days, if that says anything. Probably how it ended up here.)
|
|
|
Post by 911: Inside Job on Feb 27, 2007 15:37:07 GMT -4
I doubt the BBC would use a green screen and taped footage for what is purported to be a live report from New York City. Do you really think she was secretly in a London BBC studio faking a live report ala SNL or The Daily Show? This is the BBC we're talking about here.
If she was really in NYC, then it was a live report. She even turns around and points out the window as the camera zooms in. Not something you would try if you were in front of a green screen.
One suggested theory is that the BBC had a script of the day's events, but they pulled WTC7 a bit later than planned. Nobody in England knew what WTC7 even looked like, so they were none the wiser with the premature report.
I think it was more likely that the plan to detonate it was leaked to the BBC and they ran with it too early. This video certainly supports the idea that the collapse of WTC7 was planned ahead of time and not a surprise.
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Feb 27, 2007 15:42:53 GMT -4
One suggested theory is that the BBC had a script of the day's events, but they pulled WTC7 a bit later than planned. Nobody in England knew what WTC7 even looked like, so they were none the wiser with the premature report. Why on Earth would the BBC have a 'script' of the day's events? Here's a theory: the BBC got a report that the building was in danger of imminent collapse and mis-reported that it had actually collapsed. If it never would have collapsed, they would have retracted the story. Easy, doesn't require an elaborate conspiracy theory, and is totally possible considering the confusion of the day. What makes this unlikely in your opinion? Why the cloak and dagger stuff?
|
|
|
Post by 911: Inside Job on Feb 27, 2007 15:51:03 GMT -4
One suggested theory is that the BBC had a script of the day's events, but they pulled WTC7 a bit later than planned. Nobody in England knew what WTC7 even looked like, so they were none the wiser with the premature report. Why on Earth would the BBC have a 'script' of the day's events? Here's a theory: the BBC got a report that the building was in danger of imminent collapse and mis-reported that it had actually collapsed. If it never would have collapsed, they would have retracted the story. Easy, doesn't require an elaborate conspiracy theory, and is totally possible considering the confusion of the day. What makes this unlikely in your opinion? Why the cloak and dagger stuff? The better question to raise is why they were so sure it was going to fall that they even leaked it ahead of time, and when it did fall, why it collapsed with such symmetry and precision. The simplest explanation of the collapse is that it was a controlled demolition, because that's what it looked like. A collapse by fire would have been asymmetrical and chaotic.
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Feb 27, 2007 15:57:31 GMT -4
The better question to raise is why they were so sure it was going to fall that they even leaked it ahead of time, and when it did fall, why it collapsed with such symmetry and precision. The simplest explanation of the collapse is that it was a controlled demolition, because that's what it looked like. A collapse by fire would have been asymmetrical and chaotic. LOL what, you think this is the first time I've read your posts? You're not getting me into one of your "it looks like that to me, so it must be what I say it is" arguments. You say a collapse by fire would have been asymmetrical and chaotic. I'm supposed to believe you over the huge number of qualified structural engineers and demo experts who happen to disagree with you because.... You know better than that, you know the drill. Per usual, show your calculations and expert corroboration that the building should have fallen like you say it should of. Otherwise you're just arguing from personal incredulity.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Feb 27, 2007 16:08:37 GMT -4
If she was really in NYC, then it was a live report. She even turns around and points out the window as the camera zooms in. Not something you would try if you were in front of a green screen. You do know they've done the weather reports on green screen for years...
|
|
|
Post by 911: Inside Job on Feb 27, 2007 16:14:04 GMT -4
The better question to raise is why they were so sure it was going to fall that they even leaked it ahead of time, and when it did fall, why it collapsed with such symmetry and precision. The simplest explanation of the collapse is that it was a controlled demolition, because that's what it looked like. A collapse by fire would have been asymmetrical and chaotic. LOL what, you think this is the first time I've read your posts? You're not getting me into one of your "it looks like that to me, so it must be what I say it is" arguments. You say a collapse by fire would have been asymmetrical and chaotic. I'm supposed to believe you over the huge number of qualified structural engineers and demo experts who happen to disagree with you because.... You know better than that, you know the drill. Per usual, show your calculations and expert corroboration that the building should have fallen like you say it should of. Otherwise you're just arguing from personal incredulity. The facts are that before and after 9-11, steel frame buildings exposed to much hotter fires and for much longer durations have never collapsed the way those 3 building did, at near free-fall speeds. At worst there have been partial steel frame collapses due to fire, leaving most of the steel frame intact. I believe a pancake collapse has never happened before or after to a steel frame building, only to reinforced concrete structures due to earthquake. Why are you so credulous of the official story which flies in the face of the history of steel frame buildings?
|
|