http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltP2t9nq9fI
and why did the signal quickly get cut after the reporter incorrectly reported building 7 collapsing BEFORE IT COLLAPSED?
The BBC is awesome. They can actually give you the news BEFORE it happens. Now THAT'S awesome!
I for one believe 9/11 was an inside job done by America's shadow government. Mossad may have had something to do with it but it was mostly a pretext to crack down on anti-government and anti-marxist activists. I'm sure the Norway killer was also a false flag. His love of Mises and Hayek and hatred of Marx and "muslims" seems too suspicious.
jeez, and you anarchists wonder why nobody takes you guys seriously.
Actually, I think most of us do know why "nobody" takes anarchism seriously.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Who mentioned anarchy? What's the connection between anarchy and disbelieving the official 9/11 conspiracy theory? You seem to see an anarchist behind every bush.
Clayton -
hahaha that's funny, OP. Moussad didn't have a little to do with it...
9/11 was pulled off by the EXACT same people as Iran/Contra. The guy who gave Oliver North and Reagan immunity during the I/C hearings, Lee Hamilton, is the same guy who obstructed the 9/11 commission. People who deny it are truly the one's fooling themselves.
Has anyone heard that there was a van packed with explosives trying to blow up the G WAshington bridge that day? (You'll have to scroll down on that link) and that the people doing it got caught red-handed and arrested? and it happened along side three other vans that caused problems that day? And they got....deported?
Check these out:
Border Dispute? - This is why the arabs are suspicious...
http://www.rys2sense.com/anti-neocons/
http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/
http://www.iamthewitness.com/Bollyn/Bollyn-Chertoff_cousin.html - Popular Mechanics has no skin in the game? Who was it that invested heavily in the TSA body scanners...Michael Chert-who?
Need a wealth of evidence?
What else might they be planning?
If you were setting up a secret conspiracy, would you let BBC in on it?
where did you get this dude's love of mises and hayek? not that i don't believe you just that i want the source
BBC is a propaganda station...why do people think the media stations are some benevolent force?
Does anyone on this thread know of any BBC licence-payer who has written to the BBC to enquire about the accuracy of this news item?
"If you were setting up a secret conspiracy, would you let BBC in on it?"
stick to the question. you can't answer it can you?
"hahaha that's funny, OP. Moussad didn't have a little to do with it..."
stick to the one simple question. how did bbc know it collapsed before it collapsed? one question, very simple.
because they were given a report beforehand....They are a propaganda station. WT7 was demolished and they reported that it collapsed casue of fire from the "terrorists"
Did you look at that stuff i posted?
You answer how all of those people knew about it.
Did the BBC "know" that it collapsed, or merely report that it had? There's a huge difference here. In rapidly developing and chaotic events bad information gets reported all the time. It's entirely plausible that some BBC or affiliated reporter picked up some chatter from some engineer or first repsonder that "WTC 7 is in danger of collapse and/or collapsing" and by the time it got to the broadcast it had been muddled into "WTC has collapsed". This is not some strech of the imagination. Go look at any rapidly developing emergency broadcast ever. On the morning of 9/11, my friends were telling me that the main towers had collapsed before they actually had. Are then in on the conspiracy too?
Lets also examine any reason why the alleged conspiracy would have to tell the BBC that WTC 7 had collapsed. Wouldn't it be blatantly obvious that it had, and be reported anyway? Why the need to puppet the information to them in advance? It makes no sense.
It appears that Reuters reported that WTC7 fell to BBC and CNN before it happened. click this link it's in Pt. 2
it does make sense because the narrative to apply the events to UBL happened 10 minutes after the second plane hit. BBC is owned by the british government all it does is disseminate propaganda and corporate narrative. Not to mention the israeli factors in it. Israel is let off the hook for everything illegal that it does...White phospohorus on civilians, planting bombs in the mexican parliment building, survailing the Seals tower and seattle space needle...but those are all failed attempts at framing arabs.
Will people please look at the evidence that i posted? instead of just pretending like they know how the world works...
and that BBC wt7 event, why does the sattelite feed breakup as you can see wt7 in the background? The editors and CEOs of these stations go to bilderberg meetings and bohemian grove. Why do people not want to open their eyes to these things?
She was probably standing in front of a green screen. In the first 4 hours of the footage on each station there was not realy a lot of presenters standing in front of the building speaking. Of the footage that that there was presenters standing in front of the building, It definitely looks like it could easily be a looped green screen footage.The 20 min timecode is also difficult to prove because there are no timestamps on the footage. I think it was about 10 mins before the time of collapse that they reported it.
Anyway, this is relatively trifling compared to the manner of the collapse. The official theory has a rebuttal when it comes to WTC1 and WTC2: they were hit by freaking jumbo jets. All your laws of physics can't tell you that it's impossible for a building to collapse from being hit by a damn jetliner at 600mph. No other building has been hit by a jetliner like this in the history of the world, so nobody can know for sure what's going to happen. But WTC7 wasn't hit by an airplane. It had fires but lots of steel buildings have experienced fires. Steel buildings have even collapsed from fires. But steel building collapse due to fire looks nothing like what happened to WTC7. The official report on the collapse says that the timing of the 47 column collapses happened within a few hundred millisecond of each other and progressed in order from one end of the building to the other. Now, except for not mentioning the word "demolition", the NIST report's account of the WTC7 collapse is indistinguishable from the firing order of demolition charges. How you get a tightly timed, rapid-fire succession of vertical support collapse from one end of a building to another in such a manner that the entire roofline remains parallel to the ground as the building sinks into itself from unevenly distributed office fires - most of which had been put out by the time of the collapse - is beyond me.
But squeeze your eyes shut and bury your head in the sand. It makes you seem more serious and respectable.
Clayton, to my knowledge WTC 7 did not have a structure that required "47 column collaps[ing] within a few hundred millisecond of each other" in order to fall. It had a few central trusses that held up the majority of the building. One of them failed, then several seconds later (not milliseconds), the other two failed, which created the dramatic "demolition" look. However if you look at video and picture of the structure from other angles, you'll see that this "symmetrical" and "rapid-fire" collapse is nothing of the sort.
Penthouse collapse: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLHwvwJCmgk
And here's another good video descripbing some of the building's structure and how it collapsed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbPpK-oWdYc
Everyone has to make thier own decsion. But increasingly over time it's obviously clear to me that in order to mainain 9/11 conspiracy theories, you have to be starting from your hypothesis and ignoring a huge amount of data to make it fit. It's entirely possible to jet liners and fires to do what happened on 9/11. Why aren't the claims simply that the hijackers were government agents or dupes? This would be plausible. No, instead we have theories that the planes were really missiles, or somehow complex demolition projects were prepared secretly with no one noticing, or the laughable "no plane" theories that claim everything was computer generated. It's all about people looking at half-pictures and starting with the premise of a government conspiracy, then twisting the information to make it fit. Wake up.
Logistic: You're just hand-waving. I'm not an expert in buildings, structural collapse or any of those kinds of things but I don't need to be an expert to know that the principle of cause-and-effect is always in operation in this Universe. Take a look at this video of the North Tower collapse. Most of the fire and structural damage is to the left-far side of the building. The camera is looking at the side of the building where there were almost no fires at all and where there was less damage to the building caused by the impact of the plane. Watch the corner of the building on the right hand side right about where the fires are (no smoke, so you have crystal-clear visibility to the building itself). When the top of the building begins to fall, both the left and right corners give way at almost precisely the same instant. What is the cause of the right side of the building giving way at almost precisely the same instant as the left side of the building? I'm not saying the right side of the building could not have given way and collapsed. I'm saying there's no reason for it to have given way at almost precisely the same moment. Think carefully about what I'm saying before dismissing it as an argument from ignorance of structural engineering or whatever. I don't need to be a structural engineer to see that there is no apparent cause for the right edge of the building to have given way at almost precisely the same instant as the left edge.
The weakest part of a building must - by definition - give way first and, if the entire building is going to collapse, we should be able to see a progressive chain of cause and effect whereby the next weakest part of the building collapses from the additional strain caused by the first collapse and so on until the entire building has collapsed. But in all cases - WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 - the collapses of these buildings involved the simultaneous giving way of multiple points on the building at almost precisely the same instant. It is a mockery of reason to say that multiple points will "just happen" to give way simultaneously - and this is supposed to have happened not just one time in a day but three times in one day.
By comparison, look at the collapse of this small structure. While the forces involved are much smaller than those involved in the WTC towers, the principle of cause and effect remains the same. Look at how the front of the structure collapses. The front-right side of the building - where the support has been removed - begins to collapse first. Then, the left front side. Then the rear corner of the building which is visible begins to collapse last. There is a sequence of events related to each other by cause and effect. In all three collapses of WTC towers, there is no such causal sequence of events visible in the manner of the collapse.
The idea that this could not have been a conspiracy because of the operational problems presumes that there's some sort of inherent tendency within the government for people to blow the whistle when things are suspicious. But the government operates in precisely the opposite manner. Whistle-blowing is treated like a threat to national security because "operational details" or "sources and methods" get compromised or any of a million other excuses. So, even if something seems odd, the best course of action for the average bureaucrat is to keep shut and look the other way.
As to the claim that it was milliseconds, not seconds, between the failure of the core columns:
From NIST NCSTAR 1A on WTC7:
The failure of the interior columns then proceeded toward the west [after the failure of column 79]. Truss 2 failed, hit by the debris from the falling floors. This caused Column 77 and Column 78 to fail, followed shortly by Column 76. Each north-south line of three core columns then buckled in succession from east to west, due to loss of lateral support from floor system failures, to the forces exerted by falling debris, which tended to push the columns westward, and to the loads redistributed to them from the buckled columns. Within seconds, the entire building core was buckling.
The global collapse of WTC 7 was underway. The shell of exterior columns buckled between the 7th and 14th floors, as loads were redistributed to these columns due to the downward movement of the building core and the floors. The entire building above the buckled-column region then moved downward as a single unit, completing the global collapse sequence.
Section 2.4 "Probably Collapse Sequence"
WTC7 had 24 columns, I don't know where I got 47 (was going from memory), please excuse my mistake. Here is a diagram. As you can see, there are 8 ranks of columns. The NIST quote above is basically saying that it all started with the girders attached to column 79 heating up to the point that they actually buckled the column, causing it to fail. This caused some floors to collase internally which then caused Truss 2 to fail (I'm assuming Truss 2 is connected between columns 76, 77 and/or 78) which caused the same kind of buckling that happened to column 79. This progressed across all 24 columns in a matter of a few seconds. 24 columns failing in a matter of even 10 seconds (it took way less than 10 seconds for this to happen) would be no more than 500 milliseconds (half a second) between column failures.
And if you read closely, you will notice that NIST is actually implicitly claiming that all three columns in each north-south line of columns failed simultaneously. This is truly a remarkable occurrence. As I said earlier, except for not using the word "demolition", NIST's account of the collapse is otherwise indistinguishable from a description of how a building collapses during demolition.
the bbc is an active player in the so-called war on terror. the ripple effect is a good look at the british inside job behind the 7/7 subway bombing, and how the bbc span that. the filmaker was extradited from ireland and spent eighteen months in gaol for his efforts at dissecting the london false flag.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/05/18/suppressed-news-false-flag-whistleblower-acquitted-in-britain/
9/11 was a psy-op, and certain upper echelons of the msm (bbc included) were an integral part of the operation.
to clayton:
i don't think the role of media in 9/11 is any less important that who were the material executors of the "collapse". did it never strike you as strange how quickly the jet-fuel caused structural failure story got aired so promptly? go fox!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0wHeekgPqk
They inform the media because the media acts as the molder of public opinion, a gatekeeper. They might not be privy to the exact procedure, but they know that UBL did it and that YOU need to fear what they tell you to.
Look at the evidence rather than thinking that your intuition is somehow more honed than others hard research.
Moderator note: profanity removed. -Nielsio
not everybody in the msm is privy to what the shadow state's agenda is, any more than the grunt knows what's happening in the executive suite of the pentagon.
The case against the official is almost ridiculously simple.
First of all, you don't need a thousand reasons to doubt it, you just need one clear and convincing example of purposeful deceipt to establish that the official explanation is not true. To illustrate the point, take a look at this proof that the Zapruder film is a hoax. Even if that were the only mistake that the forgers had made, it would be sufficient to prove that the film is, in fact, a hoax. All you need to find is one mistake, one deceipt.
In the case of the WTC tower collapses, that mistake is the lack of cause and effect in each of the building collapses. The damage caused by the plane impacts on WTC1 and WTC2 is an apparent cause of those collapses. No doubt, the damage was significant. But the official story has a mistake - WTC7 wasn't hit by an airplane, and the damage caused to WTC7 by the falling debris and the office fires was not unprecedented. The architects and engineers who designed WTC7 may have even made fatal mistakes in their design that made it especially susceptible to collapse. But no matter what explanation you give, you can't get the entire roofline to fall simultaneously and symmetrically, keeping all four edges of the roof almost perfectly parallel to the ground. That's like claiming a miracle happened. "Mother Mary appeared and then WTC7 collapsed" is as sensible and reasonable as "all 24 vertical support columns in WTC7 failed within a matter of seconds of each other and the building collapsed symmetrically."
But if WTC7 was demolished, then the entire official story unravels from there. You don't need to look at transcripts of cell phone calls or speculate about whether there were, in fact, planes or no planes. It really doesn't matter. WTC7 was, as a matter of simple fact, demolished. Hence, WTC1 and WTC2 were also demolished. Why and how they were demolished are separate questions that cannot alter the fact that they were demolished.
You are all wasting your time endlessly analyzing tower collapse videos, be they of WTC1, 2 or 7 [or of any other WTC complex buildings]. They are all just crude, computer generated fakes.
All of the plane "into/ through buildings" videos are fakes [i.e. computer generated animations] , simply because the events depicted defy fundamental laws of physics.
All of the [supposedly "live"] collapse sequence footage of WTC1 and 2 are also obviously fake [i.e. computer generated animations] for the exact same reason [they defy fundamental laws of physics] - i.e. 1300 ft tall, 500,000 ton steel and concrete buildings can neither collapse from the top down [they must be demolished from the bottom up- removing the strongest part, the base, first], nor can they be demolished in under 20 seconds [ some videos of WTC1 show it collapsing from top to bottom in 10 seconds, which is free-fall speed].
Assume "False In One False In All"?
Although the collapse sequence for WTC7 looks more realistic [because the collapse starts at the base, not from the top down, as for WTC1 and 2], because all of the "plane into/through building" videos are obvious fakes, and all of the WTC 1 and 2 collapse sequence videos are also obvious fakes, it is safer to assume "false in one false in all"; meaning that in all likelihood, the collapse sequence for WTC 7 is also fake, although there is know way of knowing for certain.
regards, onebornfree.
For more information about onebornfree, please see profile.[ i.e. click on forum name "onebornfree"].
@obf: No, I disagree on WTC7 footage. There is potentially footage out there of the WTC7 collapse that did not come from either major media or the government. It would be too dangerous to fake footage of the WTC7 collapse and have other private footage that contradicts it. I don't know about WTC1/WTC2 footage but it's not relevant given that WTC7 is clearly a controlled demolition.
Clayton: @obf: No, I disagree on WTC7 footage. There is potentially footage out there of the WTC7 collapse that did not come from either major media or the government. It would be too dangerous to fake footage of the WTC7 collapse and have other private footage that contradicts it. I don't know about WTC1/WTC2 footage but it's not relevant given that WTC7 is clearly a controlled demolition.
As I said, I do not really know for sure one way or another regarding the authenticity of the building 7 collapse footage- it is impossible to know with absolute certainty [one way or the other].
All I said was that given the obvious fakery of the other famous footage I previously referred to, my own logic tells me that it was safer to assume "false in one false in all" regarding all supposed footage- including that purportedly showing WTC7's collapse.
Logically, at this point in time, I can see no good reason to assume that it is not fake footage, while at the same time I try to keep, in the back of my mind, the slight possibility that it could after all prove to be authentic.
As to it being "too dangerous" to fake WTC 7 collapse footage, in light of the fact that the perps had already manufactured fake "plane into /through building " footage, and fake WTC1 and 2 collapse footage, I can see little justification for your claim.
Most likely, a combination of military style smoke screens and HERF were used. Smoke screens obscured the area , and HERF technology was probably used to jam/ inactivate any private cameras in the proximity of the WTC complex that day, so most likely, no real amateur footage exists of events that day that was taken close enough up to give us any discernible detail, including any showing the actual demolition of WTC 7 .
Have you come across any WTC7 collapse footage that you believe to be authentic?
Regards, onebornfree.
to onebornfree:
whilst i do share your view on the digital trickery of the "planes" , i'm not necessarily prepared to accept your exclusion of all film of the destruction, just because some visuals are doctored. i'd prefer to judge on a case-by-case basis.
it was september clues that opened my eyes to the visual deception in the first place, just to give credit where it's due.
to mark:
i'll have a look at the video later, your other links tread the same path that i did in coming around to the inside job. for what it's worth, i don't think it's a matter of winning, as the establishment has already achieved what the objectives were all along - a war that did nothing but drain america of blood and money, and an internal security regime ready to crack down on any dissent.
Mark: Calm down, the caps-lock is unnecessary. Onebornfree swoops in from wherever he usually hides out whenever there's a 9/11 thread on this forum and he is a proponent of the "no planes" theory. There are some interesting things pointed out in the September Clues documentary but I remain firmly planted on the fence. Given the nature of the problems experienced by the forgers of the JFK assassination footage, it stands to reason that the criminals behind 9/11 would want to simply avoid any genuine footage of the event. The only question that really matters is whether 9/11 was dirty business or not and the evidence is clear: it was. I think that WTC7 is crucial because it is the inevitable kink in the plans of the criminals. Something is bound to go wrong in an operation as complex as the 9/11 attacks and that's what WTC7 is... the mistake.
Barry Jennings was actually in WTC7 and has gone on video describing his experiences (once on the morning of 9/11, just minutes after he survived his ordeal in the building). He died days before the NIST report on WTC7 was released. I'm sure he died of "natural" causes. Jennings said that there were explosions in WTC7 before the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2. One was so powerful it destroyed the platform he was walking on in the stairwell on the 6th floor. He denied claims that the explosions were from fuel tanks. WTC7 would remain standing for hours until it, too, mysteriously collapsed around 5pm in the evening. My hypothesis is that they had started blowing charges in preparation for the final demolition and were going to fully collapse it while it was engulfed in the smoke and dust of WTC1 or WTC2. This would automatically take care of the footage and noise problems. But something went wrong and the building didn't collapse as it was supposed to. This is why there is basically no footage of the south side of the building... it probably bore visual evidence of HE charges. So, a military unit was dispatched into the building to rig another set of charges or to find and fix the problem with the original charges but first they had to wait for the fire department to beat back the office fires to where they could enter. The firefighters were pulled back at around 3:30 on orders from the fire chief and during the hour and 50 minutes after they pulled back, the military unit went to work rewiring the charges.
This is why I harp on WTC 7... it is the smoking gun, it is the screw-up of the 9/11 operation. It's not that we cannot know from other evidence, as well, that it was an inside job, but WTC 7 is so easy to see through.
right on, but you've gotta understand that this is a CENTURY long war plan (and effort) to bulkanize three different sections of the middle east. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan. Get back and ill show you some links to the war maps and the white papers for the plans themselves.
The US is gonna have a draft unless we can get people to understand the big picture. 9/11 was only the beginning...
newson: to onebornfree: whilst i do share your view on the digital trickery of the "planes" , i'm not necessarily prepared to accept your exclusion of all film of the destruction, just because some visuals are doctored. i'd prefer to judge on a case-by-case basis. it was september clues that opened my eyes to the visual deception in the first place, just to give credit where it's due.
"whilst i do share your view on the digital trickery of the "planes" , i'm not necessarily prepared to accept your exclusion of all film of the destruction, just because some visuals are doctored."
I understand.
The differences in our approach to examining the 9/11 video record archives appear to be that , speaking for myself, after having come across just one example of what I consider to be incontrovertible evidence that the official story is a lie, via the use of a neutral, non-biased approach for government/media "evidence" examination, I then deliberately , pre-examination of any more government/media "evidence", assume that every other piece of 9/11 government/media story "evidence" I come across is suspect/untrustworthy until proven otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt.
In other words from that moment on [ discovery of falsity via neutrality] I deliberately examine all subsequent government/media "evidence" with a pre-biased, "guilty until proven innocent" examination mindset.
I believe that this is the only approach that is reasonable for me to take, in a search for truth.
So , for me, after discovering even one example of government falsity , I am at that point no longer prepared to examine any other government/media "evidence" without a pre-supposition of it being completely inaccurate, or just plain false [ thereby holding all subsequently examined government/media evidence to that famous "higher standard of truth"]
Others,[ including yourself from what I can tell], after discovering undeniable evidence of a government lie, [in your case fake plane into building videos] appear to feel fully comfortable in reverting to a more neutral mindset for any evidentiary examination they might subsequently carry out - actually giving the government the benefit of the doubt on , what you have called " a case by case basis" .
This might seem to be a reasonable methodological approach for yourself [and others] - but for myself such an approach [giving a benefit of the doubt to the government on a case by case basis after discovery of a lie, or lies ] makes no sense whatsoever, plus, it runs contrary to the evidentiary procedures regarding any/all government evidence listed in the Bill of Rights, and also to the oft-used court instruction by judges to juries, whom after seeing/hearing a cross-examined witness exposed as a liar under cross-examination, are instructed by the judge that they have the right to completely disregard all testimony by that same witness and to apply the maxim "false in one false in all" if they so desire.
While I understand and respect your choices and thinking processes for yourself, personally I could never use them, as I believe they are liable to lead to false and possibly dangerous conclusions . However, "each to his own."
Regards, onebornfree
9/11 was definitely the beginning of some weird, sinister plan. It feels like we've been living in a political/economic Twilight Zone since 2001. However, I think there is some hope because I don't think everything is going to plan. I personally believe the Iraq war was a big monkey wrench in the globalists' plans to start a war with Iran that would cascade at least into a regional war if not a world war. This would be the focal point of the world's attention while the establishment of carbon cap&trade+carbon tax would give the United Nations an independent tax revenue stream, granting it real sovereignty for the first time. A chain-reaction of debt crises and collapse of national currencies would then impel nations into unifying in currency blocs, such as the Euro, Amero which would then be regulated directly by the UN. The final steps in solidifying world government would just be window dressing.
I think we're going to see a gradual draw-down. The Iran thing has fizzled and I don't think they're going to be able to resurrect it. The cap&trade crap failed and I don't think that's coming back either. China has openly proposed a world commodity-based currency standard which, while not Austrian, is still a hell of a lot better than what we have now. I think that really scared the hell out of the globalists. Their worst nightmare is the end of the fiat money gravy train. So, I think that has forced them to back off and regroup. For that reason, I think this economic crisis is also going to fizzle... it's not useful to the globalists any longer to have an economic crisis. So, they'll continue going through the motions of QE and bailing out bad banks and so on but I think that, behind the scenes, things are probably going to be getting a lot tougher for the good ol' boy network.
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2011/07/israel-iran-war-in-september.html
hope you're right.
Mark,
I've deleted three of your posts and edited one remaining. Take note of the forum rules. A higher standard of conduct is required.
wow. okay. my bad.
why don't you tell that to the people who made this.
LogisticEarth,
many many buildings were damaged, but didn't fall. for a huge news agency to single out that one and say it fell before it collapsed is very strange and telling.
Just because your friend said some building fell before it happened doesn't disprove that a conspiracy took place. nor does it take away from the strangeness of the BBC (an international news agency) reporting that a building fell before it fell.
although it regards the british analogue to 9/11 - the ripple effect should help to understand the bbc's role in the war-on-terror psy-op.