BBC and WTC 7 on 9/11: confusion or NWO-blunder?

[Gravy]

Newsflash! Major media headlines:

"12 Miners Found Alive 41 Hours After Explosion"
"Twelve Alive."
"Joy At Mine: 12 Are Alive."
"They're Alive."
"12 Found Alive in W. Va. Coal Mine"
"Miracle at Sago, 12 Miners Alive."

13 miners were trapped. Only one was found alive. Conspiracy?

On the other hand, reports of Mark Twain's death were "greatly exaggerated." Until he died, that is.

In other news,

[Aphelion]

Originally Posted by Gravy

Newsflash! Major media headlines:

"12 Miners Found Alive 41 Hours After Explosion"
"Twelve Alive."
"Joy At Mine: 12 Are Alive."
"They're Alive."
"12 Found Alive in W. Va. Coal Mine"
"Miracle at Sago, 12 Miners Alive."

13 miners were trapped. Only one was found alive. Conspiracy?

On the other hand, reports of Mark Twain's death were "greatly exaggerated." Until he died, that is.

In other news,

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...31ea27c851.jpg

That's a poor analogy. We are talking about reports being read while the building still stood in the background.

What if wtc7 had stood until the next day?

[eeyore1954]

Originally Posted by einsteen

If wtc7 collapsed 'naturally' under the conditions it had on 9/11 how could they talk about a low probability of occurrence. The chance of collapse is defined as the ratio of the amount that collapse and the amount that doesn't collapse or collapses (the total), the more measurements you have the more accurate it is. Since wtc7 collapsed under the conditions it has it should be a high probability of occurrence.

The OCT does not know what to say. The only thing we can conclude is that FEMA's story is has a low probability of being the right one.

Do you really not understand the difference?

They are talking about the probability that a certain scenario was the cause of the collapse.

They are not talking about whether or not it was very probable that it was going to collapse based upon observations on 9/11. It is one thing to look at the building and notice it is damaged or bowing but it is an entirely different thing to figure out what mechanism caused the problem.

[Gravy]

Originally Posted by Firestone

Of course, Dylan, would never, NEVER make a mistake in a live report or a documentary. NEVER!

If Avery were true to form, he'd insist that building 7 DID collapse at 4:57, because the BBC said so.

[Aphelion]

Originally Posted by eeyore1954

Do you really not understand the difference?

They are talking about the probability that a certain scenario was the cause of the collapse.

They are not talking about whether or not it was very probable that it was going to collapse based upon observations on 9/11. It is one thing to look at the building and notice it is damaged or bowing but it is an entirely different thing to figure out what mechanism caused the problem.

FEMA stated that the best hypothesis had only a low probability of occurence. This indicates that all hypotheses had a low probability of occurence.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Originally Posted by Aphelion

That's a poor analogy. We are talking about reports being read while the building still stood in the background.

What if wtc7 had stood until the next day?

You're assuming the anchor can see what is on the greenscreen behind them.

[Brainster]

Is it established that:

A. The times shown on the video are correct?
B. That the building shown behind Jane Standly is indeed WTC 7? I'll admit that it certainly looks like that building.

Of course, in my mind the notion that the BBC had gotten the story that WTC 7 was in imminent danger of collapse and jumped the gun is far more plausible than... what exactly is the theory that the CTers propose here? The film implies that the "press release" was accidentally sent out too early. Why would there need to be a "press release" about a 47-story building collapsing?

[Aphelion]

Originally Posted by Arkan_Wolfshade

You're assuming the anchor can see what is on the greenscreen behind them.

Greenscreen? The lady in question was at the scene with the building behind her.

[Gravy]

Originally Posted by Aphelion

FEMA stated that the best hypothesis had only a low probability of occurence. This indicates that all hypotheses had a low probability of occurence.

Aphelion, they were talking about the diesel fuel hypotheses. Please read more carefully.

[Aphelion]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Is it established that:

A. The times shown on the video are correct?
B. That the building shown behind Jane Standly is indeed WTC 7? I'll admit that it certainly looks like that building.

Of course, in my mind the notion that the BBC had gotten the story that WTC 7 was in imminent danger of collapse and jumped the gun is far more plausible than... what exactly is the theory that the CTers propose here? The film implies that the "press release" was accidentally sent out too early. Why would there need to be a "press release" about a 47-story building collapsing?

The times are correct. The building is 7.

[Aphelion]

Originally Posted by Gravy

Aphelion, they were talking about the diesel fuel hypotheses. Please read more carefully.

I know which hypothesis they meant. Do you deny that the best hypothesis having a low probability of occurence precludes any hypothesis having a better probability?

[Gravy]

Originally Posted by Aphelion

That's a poor analogy. We are talking about reports being read while the building still stood in the background.

And the reporter knew that? Obviously not, just as the reporters at the Sego mine disaster didn't know the men were dead, that the reporters who wrote Twain's obituary didn't know he was alive, and the papers that printed that Dewey had won didn't know he had lost. All reported unverified information.

Get it?

[tacodaemon]

I do remember watching the 9/11 rebroadcast on CNN's Web site last September and noticing that they reported about an hour and 20 minutes before WTC7's collapse that there were strong expectations that the building was going to fall. They already had a camera trained on it; in fact, it looked like the same camera angle of the collapse video that CTers think looks like a controlled demolition. Cameras were pointing at WTC7 for well over an hour before the collapse because everyone there knew that it was very likely to fall.

As for the BBC not noticing the building was still standing when they were making the reports, well, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that they had no idea which building they were talking about anyway. I've seen enough laughably inaccurate maps of NYC and DC on the BBC's Web site to know that that organization is not made up entirely of experts on American cities.

edit: For that matter, how many people on this very forum, debunker or CT, could have identified Seven World Trade Center on sight before 9/11 happened? How many of you were even aware that there were that many buildings in the WTC complex? So would a random British reporter necessarily recognize what was at the time a relatively obscure skyscraper in a city full of famous skyscrapers?

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Aphelion

My point was that people seemed 100% convinced that 7 would suffer this global collapse. It just seems odd that they could be so convinced when the collapse of 7 is still such a mystery.

FEMA said the best hypothesis had only a low probability of occurence. How could they be so certain of a future event that only had a low probability of occurence?

You're confusing two separate issues. The actual collapse mechanism is still unknown. That the building was likely to collapse was known by observation--the transit that FDNY fixed on the WTC 7 revealed that the building was moving. Of course, you could say that the fact that FDNY focused a transit on a burning steel structure was suspicious in itself, given that no steel highrise... etc.

[Aphelion]

Originally Posted by Gravy

And the reporter knew that? Obviously not, just as the reporters at the Sego mine disaster didn't know the men were dead, that the reporters who wrote Twain's obituary didn't know he was alive, and the papers that printed that Dewey had won didn't know he had lost. All reported unverified information.

Get it?

When this lady reported that a 47 storey building had collapsed, didn't she wonder why she hadnt noticed this taking place?

[Gravy]

Yes, the news crews were told to expect a collapse. Here, Ashleigh Banfield of MSNBC is interviewing a woman when WTC 7 collapses in the background. Banfield: “This is it!” Newsman Brian Williams: “What we’ve been fearing all afternoon has apparently happened. We’ve been watching number seven World Trade, which was part of the ancillary damage of the explosion and collapse of the other two.” Watch it here: http://tinyurl.com/o58sa

[boloboffin]

Hm. I wonder what time it was on EDT.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Originally Posted by Aphelion

I know which hypothesis they meant. Do you deny that the best hypothesis having a low probability of occurence precludes any hypothesis having a better probability?

Improbable <> impossible. Your argument from incredulity is going nowhere.

[Gravy]

Originally Posted by Aphelion

When this lady reported that a 47 storey building had collapsed, didn't she wonder why she hadnt noticed this taking place?

Here's what you should do: ask her. Okay?

[Aphelion]

Originally Posted by Brainster

You're confusing two separate issues. The actual collapse mechanism is still unknown. That the building was likely to collapse was known by observation--the transit that FDNY fixed on the WTC 7 revealed that the building was moving. Of course, you could say that the fact that FDNY focused a transit on a burning steel structure was suspicious in itself, given that no steel highrise... etc.

It's very much one issue. If the people at the scene were certain from observation that the building would collapse then what they observed would be the cause of collapse, would it not?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Originally Posted by Aphelion

It's very much one issue. If the people at the scene were certain from observation that the building would collapse then what they observed would be the cause of collapse, would it not?

No, because there is a risk of confusing correlation with causation. That is why forensic investigation still needed to take place.

[Aphelion]

Originally Posted by Gravy

Here's what you should do: ask her. Okay?

She was reporting all day on the biggest disaster scene in history. If I asked her, she would say she couldn't remember and she would probably be telling the truth.

[Gravy]

Originally Posted by Aphelion

I know which hypothesis they meant. Do you deny that the best hypothesis having a low probability of occurence precludes any hypothesis having a better probability?

Apparently my statement wasn't clear. Let me rephrase it: FEMA was talking ONLY about the diesel fuel hypotheses.

Get it?

[Aphelion]

Originally Posted by Gravy

Apparently my statement wasn't clear. Let me rephrase it: FEMA was talking ONLY about the diesel fuel hypotheses.

Get it?

Really? Your source for that?

[tacodaemon]

In the picture at the beginning of this thread --



...it sure doesn't look to me like she's all that close to the WTC anyway. From what I can see in the background I'd say she's at least in lower midtown, maybe the Gramercy Park area, which would put her more than a mile away from the WTC.

[rwguinn]

Originally Posted by Aphelion

My point was that people seemed 100% convinced that 7 would suffer this global collapse. It just seems odd that they could be so convinced when the collapse of 7 is still such a mystery.

FEMA said the best hypothesis had only a low probability of occurence. How could they be so certain of a future event that only had a low probability of occurence?

Go look up "transit" and "surveying tools" on the web somewhere.
They had a transit trained on the obvious bulge, and could actually measure (a term unfamiliar to you idiots who deal only with the subjective) the change in the area undergoing buckling.
At some point, the rate of change made it obvious that the building was going to go.

And go study statistics and engineering a bit. In this case, "A low probability of occurance" means that the building's design criteria did not include protecting against 2 113-storey buildings collapsing nearby, showering it with heavy, flaming debris and causing massive damage and wide-spread fires.
Just as a photon torpedo from a Klingon cruiser chasing the JSF is a low-probability occurance for a fighter aircraft--we don't design for it. If it should happen, though...
We would ave to analyse the wreckage (if any), and the most likely hypothesis would have a low probability of ever happening.
The space-shuttle disasters are good examples.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Aphelion

It's very much one issue. If the people at the scene were certain from observation that the building would collapse then what they observed would be the cause of collapse, would it not?

What they observed was that the building was moving. Obviously the fact that the building was moving was not the cause of the movement. Suppose you see a car accident about to happen. What is the cause of the car accident? Well, obviously in one sense it is caused by two cars trying to occupy the same space at the same time, and that is in fact what you see. What you may not see is that one of the drivers was drunk; this can be determined later, through blood testing.

[Firestone]

For now we have two possible explanations:

1. Somehow the BBC misunderstood reports that WTC 7 was about to collapse, and reported that it had actually collapsed. Jane Standley and the anchor had no idea what WTC 7 was, so they didn't get it that they were looking at the supposedly collapsed building.
2. The conspirators who for some reason had to secretly destroy WTC 7 by CD also found it necessary to release a statement about its collapse to the press. This statement was released a little to soon.

Hmmm ....
Doesn't seem a hard case to crack.

[scissorhands]

Everybody had better forget that Govt bonus.
Looks like those pesky kids have rumbled the plot again.
Damn that reporter, shes lucky if she gets toilet detail at the office now.

[Firestone]

Originally Posted by scissorhands

Everybody had better forget that Govt bonus.
Looks like those pesky kids have rumbled the plot again.
Damn that reporter, shes lucky if she gets toilet detail at the office now.

Yeah, damn her!
She actually blew it on another count too:

Originally Posted by jackchit@LCF

There is also the fact that the window behind her shows that they are pretty high up in a building, That's very brave on the part of this reporter and camera man on a day when planes are flying into high rise buildings.
Unless of course they knew the events of the day were over..

LCF

I soooooooooo warned not to involve Brits, but who listens to me ...

[Miragememories]

Originally Posted by Gravy

Aphelion, they were talking about the diesel fuel hypotheses. Please read more carefully.

A best hypotheses has the highest probability of being valid from a list of all the hypotheses.
If it was the only hypotheses the use of "best" would make no logical sense.

If this best hypotheses is deemed to have a low probability of occurence, then Gravy, it's only logical that all the remaining explanations considered for the collapse of the WTC7, have to have been considered less than best hypotheses, and would therefore FEMA believes them to have an even lower probability of occurence.

MM

[Mancman]

Twoofers clutching at straws so short they barely exist, yet again......

[ConspiRaider]

Originally Posted by tacodaemon

edit: For that matter, how many people on this very forum, debunker or CT, could have identified Seven World Trade Center on sight before 9/11 happened? How many of you were even aware that there were that many buildings in the WTC complex? So would a random British reporter necessarily recognize what was at the time a relatively obscure skyscraper in a city full of famous skyscrapers?

Yep!

My ex-wife and I were on top of WTC 2 in May, 2001. We did not know it was called WTC 2 or the South Tower. All we knew is that they took us up to the top of the tower that did not have the big antenna on top of it. We didn't know there were other "WTC" buildings. Had no idea there was a "Building 7".

On 9/11, while watching the TeeVee, when the news folks kept referring to this "other WTC building" maybe collapsing, we had no idea what building that really was, or even how they knew that it was probably going to come down. But, it seemed perfectly within reason that after these 2 big buildings collapsed, that certainly other buildings nearby could have been damaged, set afire or whatever. And could collapse.

[scissorhands]

Originally Posted by Firestone

Yeah, damn her!
She actually blew it on another count too:


I soooooooooo warned not to involve Brits, but who listens to me ...

IIRC, she was told NOT to appear nonchalant and as "if it was all over" at any point.
You can train and train people, you think they are on message, and then this.

[Gravy]

Originally Posted by Aphelion

Really? Your source for that?

I'll retract that. Although FEMA specifically mentions the diesel fuel hypothesis when saying "low probability of occurrence," they may be referring to any of their collapse hypotheses, and I'm fine with that idea.

It's interesting that conspiracists focus on this statement, in a report that FEMA and everyone else says was brief, preliminary, and inconclusive. FEMA said that further study was needed on a host of issues. That's what NIST has been doing. And conspiracists will only be satisfied if NIST determines that there is no rational explanation for WTC 7's collapse that does not involve explosives. So sad.

[ConspiRaider]

Originally Posted by Gravy

And the reporter knew that? Obviously not, just as the reporters at the Sego mine disaster didn't know the men were dead, that the reporters who wrote Twain's obituary didn't know he was alive, and the papers that printed that Dewey had won didn't know he had lost. All reported unverified information.

Same thing with the JFK shooting in Dallas. That first day, lots of confusion on news reports. LBJ had supposedly been shot, was in hospital. Oswald was apprehended with a shotgun (nope, a handgun). The shots came from the Grassy Knoll (nope, the Depository).

[progressquest]

Originally Posted by Firestone

Yeah, damn her!
She actually blew it on another count too:


I soooooooooo warned not to involve Brits, but who listens to me ...

Brits?!? I thought you said "Flits." It didn't really make sense to me then, but now I get it.
First the termites, now the brits. I hope they don't fire me for this.

[njslim]

Had something like this happen to me - 6 months before 9/11 (March 2001)
was in class for Weapons of Mass Destruction Operations (taught how to
recognize if WMD is occuring and how to evacuate, treat victims) when our
instructor (NWO stooge) pointed to the cover of our text - the infamous
rifle scope targeting WTC and said that they would be back (meaning Bin
Laden). Strange how he knew what was going to happen. Looks like
let secret out.

[Miragememories]

Originally Posted by rwguinn

Go look up "transit" and "surveying tools" on the web somewhere.
They had a transit trained on the obvious bulge, and could actually measure (a term unfamiliar to you idiots who deal only with the subjective) the change in the area undergoing buckling.
At some point, the rate of change made it obvious that the building was going to go.

And go study statistics and engineering a bit. In this case, "A low probability of occurance" means that the building's design criteria did not include protecting against 2 113-storey buildings collapsing nearby, showering it with heavy, flaming debris and causing massive damage and wide-spread fires.
Just as a photon torpedo from a Klingon cruiser chasing the JSF is a low-probability occurance for a fighter aircraft--we don't design for it. If it should happen, though...
We would ave to analyse the wreckage (if any), and the most likely hypothesis would have a low probability of ever happening.
The space-shuttle disasters are good examples.

Transit readings don't translate into a forecast of high speed, symmetrical, complete building collapses. For all the firefighters knew, a section of WTC7 was possibly going to collapse. It's not unusual for damaged buildings to drop large debris from severely damaged areas of the structure.

WTC7 was hit by debris from WTC1, a 110 storey building. I recall no report of a shower of heavy flaming debris.

Klingon cruisers are fantasy but if you feel that's required to support your comments than be my guest.

MM

[Gravy]

Originally Posted by tacodaemon

edit: For that matter, how many people on this very forum, debunker or CT, could have identified Seven World Trade Center on sight before 9/11 happened? How many of you were even aware that there were that many buildings in the WTC complex? So would a random British reporter necessarily recognize what was at the time a relatively obscure skyscraper in a city full of famous skyscrapers?

I'm a New Yorker who often visited the WTC observation deck, and until recently I couldn't have picked out WTC 3,4,5,6, or 7 on a map (the buildings had number signs on them, so in person it was easy enough to tell them apart).