BBC and WTC 7 on 9/11: confusion or NWO-blunder? - Page 3

Gravy · 26th February 2007, 12:54 PM

Originally Posted by Miragememories

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.

When you read their accounts, you'll see that the firefighters, controlled demolitions experts, and engineers believed that WTC 7 would collapse, due to the severity of the fires and damage. The collapse of two huge skyscrapers from fire and damage, earlier in the day, across the street, no doubt weighed heavily on their minds.

Quote:

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

The debris was certainly heavy. Much debris from WTC 1 was flaming, but I don't think it's known if actual flaming debris hit WTC 7.

Quote:

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

No, facts will do just fine.

PerryLogan · 26th February 2007, 12:57 PM

Conspiracy people have a few strange ideas stuck in their brains. One of them is that the bad guys always confess.

In the Bizarro World of conspiracy theorists, the perps are forever spilling the beans and blurting out the truth.

But no one can perceive it except the conspiracy guys.

We've seen this mental glitch too many times to ignore it. The CTs think Silverstein admitted that he blew WTC7. They think Cheney confessed to shooting down one of the planes (or something). They think the bad guys had a TV movie made to give away the plot. It's all right there. It's all terribly obvious.

But only the conspiracy guys see it!

And here we go again. Once again, the bad guys have slipped up and given the game away. It's just so obvious...

...but only the conspiracy guys are smart enough to get it, natch. Do Truthers ever perceive this pattern in their own thinking?

Silly question.

MG1962 · 26th February 2007, 01:03 PM

Other reports from the day

The Capitol Building had been attacked, and a truck bomb had exploded outside the Congressional Library.

At the Pentagon, an LPG Tank had exploded. Then a helicopter had crashed on take off

Secret NWO agenda proof. Or a bunch of reporters scrambling to cover the biggest new story since Kennedy's death while trying to deal with their own emotions as events unfolded

The Silver Shadow · 26th February 2007, 01:10 PM

Those pesky kids! They discovered our plot to take over the world! Now, for all twoofers, we have to build those spaceships quickly and send them all to Jupiter, where the aliens will take care of them!

*waits patiently for Alex Jones to stumble on this and use it on his radio show!*

boloboffin · 26th February 2007, 01:11 PM

OK. I've just watched the video twice. The BBC says nothing at all about a press release. The liars who put this little propaganda gem together have injected talk of a "press release" into the discussion.

They also say EST time when it's EDT time in New York. However, the live shot of the reporter doesn't look greenscreened, and that's WTC 7 behind her. That's apparently a red herring.

Finally, video ends with links to 911blogger.com (which has removed this video from their pages), pilotsfortruth.com, and thepentacon.com. More lies and misleading information from that gang of incompetents.

Chedda · 26th February 2007, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by Gravy

"We’ve been watching number seven World Trade, which was part of the ancillary damage of the explosion and collapse of the other two.”

Aaaaahaaaa!!! Damage from an explosion.

So there were explosives planted in the two towers.... You can't deny the evidence, even Gravy's championing the controlled demoltion theory now!

(Sometimes I wish I was a troofer. It's great fun!)

Gravy · 26th February 2007, 01:24 PM

Here's an example of how inaccurate the live reporting of a confusing event can be. I was at home on October 11, 2006, when Yankees pitcher Cory Lidle's small plane crashed into the 30th floor of a residential building in Manhattan. I took notes on some of the early TV and internet reports.

Four witnesses said it was a helicopter...WRONG

“Conflicting reports whether it’s a fixed-wing or helicopter. Probably helicopter based on witness reports."

"Believes it was a seaplane"...WRONG

City and the FDNY have confirmed that a helicopter crashed into the building....WRONG

UPDATE: NYC police and firemen now agree it was a helicopter instead of a small aircraft...WRONG

WABC 7 reports that the helicopter was flying in "exclusion airspace."...WRONG

Death count is four...WRONG (it was 2)

A total of four people have been confirmed dead - two people from the plane, two people from the building...WRONG

Update: A distress call was made before the crash...WRONG

Latest reports say that the pilot made an emergency call about a fuel problem...WRONG

The FAA confirmed that the pilot of the plane made a mayday, stating that he was having fuel problems...WRONG

ABC Radio reports people in the area say they saw a helicopter in distress...WRONG

ESPN confirms that Cory Lidle was alone in the plane...WRONG

Where did the plane hit?
19th & 20th floor
20th floor
30th floor
32nd floor
40th floor
40th & 41st floor
30th-40th floor
44th & 45th floor (said it was a helicopter)

Former Managing Director of NTSB Peter Goelz: "If I had to bet, I'd say it was probably a helicopter."

Bit of a crapshoot, that live coverage of confusing events.

Miragememories · 26th February 2007, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by Gravy

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.

It's interesting because a source that JREFers respect, FEMA, published an opinion that found a low probability for the BEST HYPOTHESES the FEMA experts could think of to explain the WTC7 collapse.

What is not unusual, is that an important statement like that would be a subject of interest for anyone seeking the Truth?

It's also interesting how you, Gravy, can be so dismissive of an official opinion when it doesn't fit what you want to believe.

MM

rwguinn · 26th February 2007, 01:38 PM

Originally Posted by Miragememories

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

Do you truly believe that the rest of the world is as stupid as you seem to be?
Placing the transet on the bulge will,indeed, forecast a complete building collapse. As the distance bulged per unit time begins to increase, it takse no rocket scientist to see that the rate of change is increasing rapidly.

And if you missed the point (as you obviously did), a fantasy is an extremely low probability event

Comsat Angel · 26th February 2007, 01:41 PM

Where to begin?
Remember the Kursk? The Russian submarine that sank with all hands? We were treated to news stories of the gallant but despairing survivors alive in their metal tomb for days, courtesy of the media. In fact the hapless crew were all dead within seconds.
Closer to home, I happened to be walking through Manchester city centre back in the 90's when those thoughtful Fenian rascals the IRA set off a bomb. One bomb, singular. By the time I got into our office HQ, the staff there were talking about up to sixteen bombs. Conflation, inaccuracy, media speculation, the sound dynamics of a city centre with lots of tall buildings, all played their part.
Plus, back in the late 70's on Top of The Pops, DJ Peter Powell described Boney M's hit single "Brown Girl In The Ring" thus: " - and who could forget Boney M's single "Brown Eyed Girl In The Ring".' Opinions vary as to whether he was being absent-minded or ironic.

Gravy · 26th February 2007, 01:46 PM

Originally Posted by Miragememories

It's also interesting how you, Gravy, can be so dismissive of an official opinion when it doesn't fit what you want to believe.

FEMA's "official opinion" is there for all to see in their report. They said more study needed to be done. Don't take my word for it. Here it is:

Quote:

5.7 Observations and Findings

This office building was built over an electrical substation and a power plant, comparable in size to that operated by a small commercial utility. It also stored a significant amount of diesel oil and had a structural system with numerous horizontal transfers for gravity and lateral loads.

The loss of the east penthouse on the videotape suggests that the collapse event was initiated by the loss of structural integrity in one of the transfer systems. Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.

The collapse of WTC 7 was different from that of WTC 1 and WTC 2. The towers showered debris in a wide radius as their external frames essentially "peeled" outward and fell from the top to the bottom. In contrast, the collapse of WTC 7 had a relatively small debris field because the facade came straight down, suggesting an internal collapse. Review of video footage indicates that the collapse began at the lower floors on the east side. Studies of WTC 7 indicate that the collapse began in the lower stories, either through failure of major load transfer members located above an electrical substation structure or in columns in the stories above the transfer structure. Loss of strength due to the transfer trusses could explain why the building imploded, with collapse initiating at an interior location. The collapse may have then spread to the west, causing interior members to continue collapsing. The building at this point may have had extensive interior structural failures that then led to the collapse of the overall building, including the cantilever transfer girders along the north elevation, the strong diaphragms at the 5th and 7th floors, and the seat connections between the interior beams and columns at the building perimeter.

5.8 Recommendations

Certain issues should be explored before final conclusions are reached and additional studies of the performance of WTC 7, and related building performance issues should be conducted. These include the following:

Additional data should be collected to confirm the extent of the damage to the south face of the building caused by falling debris.
Determination of the specific fuel loads, especially at the lower levels, is important to identify possible fuel supplied to sustain the fires for a substantial duration. Areas of interest include storage rooms, file rooms, spaces with high-density combustible materials, and locations of fuel lines. The control and operation of the emergency power system, including generators and storage tanks, needs to be thoroughly understood. Specifically, the ability of the diesel fuel pumps to continue to operate and send fuel to the upper floors after a fuel line is severed should be confirmed.
Modeling and analysis of the interaction between the fires and structural members are important. Specifically, the anticipated temperatures and duration of the fires and the effects of the fires on the structure need to be examined, with an emphasis on the behavior of transfer systems and their connections.
Suggested mechanisms for a progressive collapse should be studied and confirmed. How the collapse of an unknown number of gravity columns brought down the whole building must be explained.
The role of the axial capacity between the beam-column connection and the relatively strong structural diaphragms may have had in the progressive collapse should be explained.
The level of fire resistance and the ratio of capacity-to-demand required for structural members and connections deemed to be critical to the performance of the building should be studied. The collapse of some structural members and connections may be more detrimental to the overall performance of the building than other structural members. The adequacy of current design provisions for members whose failure could result in large-scale collapse should also be studied.

Do you disagree that further study needed to be done, Miragememories?

Thunder · 26th February 2007, 01:59 PM

Chedda- not only do we know explosives were used because they called it an "explosion", we can deduce from the word "explosion" that it was clearly symtex or c4, and it was clearly planted by Mossad agents Shlomo Berkowitz and Chaim Goldstein.

Firestone · 26th February 2007, 02:08 PM

I am very surprised by Dylan Avery's reaction to this non-event.

I tought he would react more or less like miragememories.
But over at LCF he is gloating, doing as if this is some big thing, pep-talking his troups.

Of course, he doesn't explain what it actually means. He doesn't give a narrative.
His fans will be very disappointed when they realise within days that the world doesn't care for this empty "smoking gun".

In the meantime, Alex Jones has joined the party, with the usual lies:

Quote:

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 came as a result of fire damage weakening the building's structure.
...
As we have documented before, firefighters, police and first responders were all told to get back from the building because it was about to be brought down.

(bolding mine)

Gravy · 26th February 2007, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by Firestone

I am very surprised by Dylan Avery's reaction to this non-event.

I tought he would react more or less like miragememories.
But over at LCF he is gloating, doing as if this is some big thing, pep-talking his troups.

Of course, he doesn't explain what it actually means. He doesn't give a narrative.
His fans will be very disappointed when they realise within days that the world doesn't care for this empty "smoking gun".

Yes, I'm sure that when WTC 7 actually did collapse, the BBC said, "No! No! It collapsed earlier!...I mean, it was supposed to collapse earlier...I mean, it was on the shedyool for 4:55-5:00...I mean, that obviously is some other building...no, no, no, it's a replay!...that's right, a replay of the earlier collapse!...which as we reported happened at 4:57 eastern whatever time this afternoon!"

What blithering idiots. I hope at least Avery provides some good quotes for February. It's been slow the past few days. What happened to Stundie?

Gravy · 26th February 2007, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by AJ

As we have documented before, firefighters, police and first responders were all told to get back from the building because it was about to be brought down.

Edit. I thought this quote was Avery's. Nah, it's just Jones blaming the firefighters again.

I wonder when he'll stop doing that.

alexg · 26th February 2007, 02:21 PM

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?

1. How do you know she DIDN'T wonder? Reporters read the news, they don't question it unless they are pretty darn sure it is incorrect. The kind of reflection it requires to pick up even fairly obvious errors is hard to muster while you are live on TV!

2. Who knows how much she knew about the WTC complex. The Saloman building may have been unknown to her. At this point lots of other buildings had been damaged or destroyed, maybe she was imagining building 6 in her mind.

Firestone · 26th February 2007, 02:24 PM

Alex Jones article has been expanded in the last few minutes, and it is a must read (lies, lies and some more lies).

A few quotes:

Quote:

It is widely acknowledged by those who were there on the scene that warnings were issued for people to evacuate the area in anticipation of the building's collapse, with some even stating that a 20 second countdown preceded the collapse of the 47-story skyscraper, again clearly suggesting that it was taken down by means of explosives as the video footage of its implosion illustrates.
...
This newly uncovered video confirms that the collapse of WTC 7 was no surprise, because television news stations were reporting on it before it happened!
...
Who told the BBC that the building was going to collapse before it did and why were they reporting its fall in advance of the event actually taking place?

Many have speculated that some kind of press release was leaked too soon and AP wires, radio stations and TV news outlets prematurely reported on WTC 7's collapse.

(bolding mine)

Notice that the "NJ-EMT"-email is now used as a source.

Someone should really explain to the CTist that the collapse of WTC 7 was not a surprise, it was anticipated.

scissorhands · 26th February 2007, 02:26 PM

Dylan is creaming himself there, a mistake made by a BBC reporter who had been fed incorrect info, means he can string his sad punters on for another crappy edition of lies.
If there really is a special place in hell, then Avery gets the hot seat everytime.
He has no shame.
And he has no honour.

boloboffin · 26th February 2007, 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by scissorhands

Dylan is creaming himself there, a mistake made by a BBC reporter who had been fed incorrect info, means he can string his sad punters on for another crappy edition of lies.
If there really is a special place in hell, then Avery gets the hot seat everytime.
He has no shame.
And he has no honour.

While all of that is true, I think that Dylan's interest in promoting this is so he can strike back at the recent BBC documentary that showed him picking at his scabs while the interviewer explained what a simile is.

Miragememories · 26th February 2007, 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by Gravy

FEMA's "official opinion" is there for all to see in their report. They said more study needed to be done. Don't take my word for it. Here it is:
Do you disagree that further study needed to be done, Miragememories?

Further study equates to further investigation.

I've made no secret that the important goal is a full and proper investigation GRAVY.

Nice how you leap at the opportunity to cut & paste your FEMA info but dodge my original response.

To repeat; I stated, that of course anyone seeking the Truth would be interested in FEMA's original expert statement about why WTC7 collapsed. The fact that they said their best hypotheses to explain the collapse of WTC7 had a low probability of occurence was quite significant, especially given their access to all your rebuttal arguments and voluminous firefighter quotes.

MM

Chedda · 26th February 2007, 02:58 PM

The more I watch, the more I am disgusted at this BBC hit piece on the 'Skeptic' Movement. How dare they attempt discredit all our loony theories involving 19 pissed-off Arabs with this news report.

I suggest we all bombard the BBC with letters, phone calls and emails of complaint. Hell, lets organise a 'False' rally outside their offices.

9/11 was an outside job!

rwguinn · 26th February 2007, 02:58 PM

Originally Posted by Miragememories

.

To repeat; I stated, that of course anyone seeking the Truth would be interested in FEMA's original expert statement about why WTC7 collapsed. The fact that they said their best hypotheses to explain the collapse of WTC7 had a low probability of occurence was quite significant, especially given their access to all your rebuttal arguments and voluminous firefighter quotes.

MM

yepper, ladies and gentlemen--
We have a winner in the "Stupidest clinging to his own definition" category.
No matter that he is given the definition as used by engineers--several times, in fact-- he clings to his biased, self-fulfilling terminology...

PerryLogan · 26th February 2007, 03:00 PM

Originally Posted by Miragememories

The fact that they said their best hypotheses to explain the collapse of WTC7 had a low probability of occurence was quite significant, especially given their access to all your rebuttal arguments and voluminous firefighter quotes.

If it were part of a cover-up, they would never have said that, would they? They would have said there was a 100% probability, so as to reinforce the "official story."

Your own "evidence" suggests you're wrong. Conspiracy guys do this all the time.

maccy · 26th February 2007, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by Miragememories

To repeat; I stated, that of course anyone seeking the Truth would be interested in FEMA's original expert statement about why WTC7 collapsed. The fact that they said their best hypotheses to explain the collapse of WTC7 had a low probability of occurence was quite significant, especially given their access to all your rebuttal arguments and voluminous firefighter quotes.

The difference is that FEMA are looking at the whole event, the firemen are making judgments as the event progressed. When the building is belching smoke, leaning, creaking and bulging, and you're not fighting fires, there's a pretty good chance that it's going to collapse. Firemen didn't make that judgment immediately after WTC7 was hit by debris - that is what FEMA had to try to work out: the whole sequence of the collapse, not the latter (more obvious) stages.

Also, I'm sure that both fire brigade and any news reporter would have described a partial collapse simply as "the building has collapsed".

eeyore1954 · 26th February 2007, 03:08 PM

Originally Posted by Miragememories

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

I would agree if the report says best hypotheses is deemed to have a low probability of occurence . That would imply that other hypothesis that have been looked at were considered to have a lower probability of occurance.

This has nothing to do with if it was reasonable to assume that the building was going to collapse though.

Also low probability of occurance doesn't mean it isn't the correct hypothesis.

CHF · 26th February 2007, 03:12 PM

The kids over at Dylan's play-pen are happy as hell yet they don't seem aware of what this all means.

Was the BBC tipped off in advance about the demolition and foolishly read the press release too early?

THAT'S their explanation?

You'd think Dylan would have learned a lesson about media reports in a chaotic situation.

"Flight 93 landed in Cleveland," right Dylan?

Unsecured Coins · 26th February 2007, 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by ShowMe

Neiman Marcus cookie recipe.

My aunt is the one that bought that and put it on the net. I swear to GOD.

CHF · 26th February 2007, 03:21 PM

I urge everyone to check in on da twoofers at LC.

They really think THIS IS IT!

Yup, THIS video will blow the case wide open. Damn are they ever gonna be dissapointed.

How can that many posters ALL fail to grasp the absurd logical conclusion of this "conspiracy?"

Unsecured Coins · 26th February 2007, 03:24 PM

ya know, I would... but I got banned.

I am a sad panda

einsteen · 26th February 2007, 03:32 PM

Originally Posted by PerryLogan

If it were part of a cover-up, they would never have said that, would they? They would have said there was a 100% probability, so as to reinforce the "official story."

That's brilliant logics Perry. Now we know how to cover up things, we investigate what the best explanation would be and don't take that one.

Gravy · 26th February 2007, 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by Miragememories

To repeat; I stated, that of course anyone seeking the Truth would be interested in FEMA's original expert statement about why WTC7 collapsed. The fact that they said their best hypotheses to explain the collapse of WTC7 had a low probability of occurence was quite significant, especially given their access to all your rebuttal arguments and voluminous firefighter quotes.

I'm sorry that you can't wrap your mind around simple concepts, and so keep repeating yourself in bold and underlined text. It makes me quite sad.

I hope some day you'll understand that the FEMA investigation was brief, preliminary, and necessarily inconclusive. Which is why further study commenced. I hope you will understand that, but I won't bet on it.

Totovader · 26th February 2007, 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by Miragememories

To repeat; I stated, that of course anyone seeking the Truth would be interested in FEMA's original expert statement about why WTC7 collapsed. The fact that they said their best hypotheses to explain the collapse of WTC7 had a low probability of occurence was quite significant, especially given their access to all your rebuttal arguments and voluminous firefighter quotes.

MM

Interesting that you capitalized the word "truth"...

Keep in mind a couple of different things:

1) This was an early statement by NIST- their final report, and indeed statements since then, have involved more evidence and a more confident conclusion.

2) Low probability does not mean impossible. There was a low probability that these towers would be hit with planes. That probability changed as the planes were being hijacked- which of course only the hijackers knew.

3) The claim of lowest probability is that of a missile/death ray/cd/ufo/etc (so low, in fact, it's physically impossible). In fact, it's such a low probability that NIST only mentions it a few times- to satisfy those who lack a scientific inclination.

Gravy · 26th February 2007, 03:44 PM

Originally Posted by einsteen

That's brilliant logics Perry. Now we know how to cover up things, we investigate what the best explanation would be and don't take that one.

Proceed with your coherent explanation of the 9/11 coverup, einsteen.

I'm eager to read it.

Brainster · 26th February 2007, 03:48 PM

Originally Posted by PerryLogan

Conspiracy people have a few strange ideas stuck in their brains. One of them is that the bad guys always confess.

In the Bizarro World of conspiracy theorists, the perps are forever spilling the beans and blurting out the truth.

But no one can perceive it except the conspiracy guys.

We've seen this mental glitch too many times to ignore it. The CTs think Silverstein admitted that he blew WTC7. They think Cheney confessed to shooting down one of the planes (or something). They think the bad guys had a TV movie made to give away the plot. It's all right there. It's all terribly obvious.

We gotta come up with a term for this. It's like they've watched one too many episodes of Perry Mason or Columbo where the real killer always breaks down and confesses when confronted with a tough question, but it's even worse than that because these folks think the real killers break down when asked simple questions.

Something like "Codumbo" or "Perry 2nd-Degree Mason".

Gravy · 26th February 2007, 03:49 PM

Originally Posted by Totovader

Interesting that you capitalized the word "truth"...

Keep in mind a couple of different things:

1) This was an early statement by NIST- their final report, and indeed statements since then, have involved more evidence and a more confident conclusion.

2) Low probability does not mean impossible. There was a low probability that these towers would be hit with planes. That probability changed as the planes were being hijacked- which of course only the hijackers knew.

3) The claim of lowest probability is that of a missile/death ray/cd/ufo/etc (so low, in fact, it's physically impossible). In fact, it's such a low probability that NIST only mentions it a few times- to satisfy those who lack a scientific inclination.

A correction here. The report MM is concerned about here is the FEMA/ASCE Building Assesment report. Theirs was a brief, underfunded, not well-organized study. Fortunately in 2002 enough people pushed for a much more thorough, better-funded study, and that's when NIST took over.

An interesting question, which the CTs never answer, is this:

If this was all an inside job, and the engineers are all paid off or threatened, why did NIST's conclusions about the tower collapses differ radically from FEMA's?

CHF · 26th February 2007, 03:49 PM

Today has been a great case study of the lemming mentality.

A BBC video surfaces which translates into a clear-cut case of Mistaken reporting vs. Illogical Conspiracy, and sure enough the twoofers stampede over the cliff in a mad dash.

99.9% of them don't even stop and ask "hey does this even make sense? What exactly are we saying here?"

All they know is that it doesn't add up at first glance so it MUST be proof of a conspiracy.

Gravy · 26th February 2007, 03:52 PM

Originally Posted by Brainster

Something like "Codumbo" or "Perry 2nd-Degree Mason".

It's gonna be a long week.

Gravy · 26th February 2007, 04:02 PM

Originally Posted by CHF

Today has been a great case study of the lemming mentality.

A BBC video surfaces which translates into a clear-cut case of Mistaken reporting vs. Illogical Conspiracy, and sure enough the twoofers stampede over the cliff in a mad dash.

99.9% of them don't even stop and ask "hey does this even make sense? What exactly are we saying here?"

All they know is that it doesn't add up at first glance so it MUST be proof of a conspiracy.

I mentioned the Corey Lidle crash earlier. Here's how Dylan Avery would have reported the unfolding events:

Quote:

fixed-wing aircraft, flying under VFR, confirmed with the FAA by CNN's Deborah Feverick (a good friend of ours actually)

logistically...this pilot could have flown ANYWHERE besides that building...for him to not know he was heading straight for that building I find hard to believe. he could have dumped into the East River.

pilot either passed out or severely drunk.

No, wait...that's what Avery actually DID say.

pagan · 26th February 2007, 04:05 PM

Originally Posted by Firestone

This is an interesting video showing part of the BBC World Service's live coverage of the events on 9/11.
(It also includes some propaganda, of course.)

Google Video This video is not hosted by the ISF, the ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

The video shows the coverage from around 5pm EST.

At 4.57pm, the collapse of the Salomon Building (WTC 7) is announced. That's 23 minutes before the actual collapse.

Later, around 5.15pm EST, BBC correspondent Jane Standley is talking from New York City, with WTC 7 in her background clearly still standing, while the collapse is mentioned on the screen.

Attachment 5738

So, is this an example of the confusion reigning on that day, or did a secretary of the evil NWO send the press release too early to the BBC?

Guess what the boys at LCF are thinking.

What is actually interesting is the heavy smoke escaping from WTC 7 during the whole sequence with Jane Standley .

This is a true smoking gun. Someone released a press release too early.

This means that the perps are exposed and that the BBC is being caught with their pants down.

CHF · 26th February 2007, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by pagan

This is a true smoking gun. Someone released a press release too early.

This means that the perps are exposed and that the BBC is being caught with their pants down.

So you think the guv hands out press releases announcing demolitions and building collapses?

Well I guess you gotta make it fit somehow, right?

26th February 2007, 12:54 PM	#81
Gravy Downsitting Citizen Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 17,072	Originally Posted by Miragememories 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. When you read their accounts, you'll see that the firefighters, controlled demolitions experts, and engineers believed that WTC 7 would collapse, due to the severity of the fires and damage. The collapse of two huge skyscrapers from fire and damage, earlier in the day, across the street, no doubt weighed heavily on their minds. Quote: WTC7 was hit by debris from WTC1, a 110 storey building. I recall no report of a shower of heavy flaming debris. The debris was certainly heavy. Much debris from WTC 1 was flaming, but I don't think it's known if actual flaming debris hit WTC 7. Quote: Klingon cruisers are fantasy but if you feel that's required to support your comments than be my guest. No, facts will do just fine.
	__________________ "Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links

26th February 2007, 12:57 PM	#82
PerryLogan Banned Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 980	The Bad Guys Always Confess Conspiracy people have a few strange ideas stuck in their brains. One of them is that the bad guys always confess. In the Bizarro World of conspiracy theorists, the perps are forever spilling the beans and blurting out the truth. But no one can perceive it except the conspiracy guys. We've seen this mental glitch too many times to ignore it. The CTs think Silverstein admitted that he blew WTC7. They think Cheney confessed to shooting down one of the planes (or something). They think the bad guys had a TV movie made to give away the plot. It's all right there. It's all terribly obvious. But only the conspiracy guys see it! And here we go again. Once again, the bad guys have slipped up and given the game away. It's just so obvious... ...but only the conspiracy guys are smart enough to get it, natch. Do Truthers ever perceive this pattern in their own thinking? Silly question.
PerryLogan Banned Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 980	Last edited by PerryLogan; 26th February 2007 at 01:03 PM.

26th February 2007, 01:03 PM	#83
MG1962 Guest Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 17,252	Other reports from the day The Capitol Building had been attacked, and a truck bomb had exploded outside the Congressional Library. At the Pentagon, an LPG Tank had exploded. Then a helicopter had crashed on take off Secret NWO agenda proof. Or a bunch of reporters scrambling to cover the biggest new story since Kennedy's death while trying to deal with their own emotions as events unfolded
MG1962 Guest Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 17,252

26th February 2007, 01:10 PM	#84
The Silver Shadow Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 1,060	Those pesky kids! They discovered our plot to take over the world! Now, for all twoofers, we have to build those spaceships quickly and send them all to Jupiter, where the aliens will take care of them! waits patiently for Alex Jones to stumble on this and use it on his radio show!
	__________________ I've accomplished more without film school than most people, such as yourself, will EVER accomplish. Period. Jealousy is a bitch, and I'm sorry you're experiencing it, but don't spew ******** like that and expect to not be corrected. This is why you were banned from my forums in the first place. - Dylan Avery on the budget of his film.

26th February 2007, 01:11 PM	#85
boloboffin Guest Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 4,986	OK. I've just watched the video twice. The BBC says nothing at all about a press release. The liars who put this little propaganda gem together have injected talk of a "press release" into the discussion. They also say EST time when it's EDT time in New York. However, the live shot of the reporter doesn't look greenscreened, and that's WTC 7 behind her. That's apparently a red herring. Finally, video ends with links to 911blogger.com (which has removed this video from their pages), pilotsfortruth.com, and thepentacon.com. More lies and misleading information from that gang of incompetents.
boloboffin Guest Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 4,986

26th February 2007, 01:15 PM	#86
Chedda Scholar Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 111	Originally Posted by Gravy "We’ve been watching number seven World Trade, which was part of the ancillary damage of the explosion and collapse of the other two.” Aaaaahaaaa!!! Damage from an explosion. So there were explosives planted in the two towers.... You can't deny the evidence, even Gravy's championing the controlled demoltion theory now! (Sometimes I wish I was a troofer. It's great fun!)
Chedda Scholar Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 111

26th February 2007, 01:24 PM	#87
Gravy Downsitting Citizen Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 17,072	Here's an example of how inaccurate the live reporting of a confusing event can be. I was at home on October 11, 2006, when Yankees pitcher Cory Lidle's small plane crashed into the 30th floor of a residential building in Manhattan. I took notes on some of the early TV and internet reports. Four witnesses said it was a helicopter...WRONG “Conflicting reports whether it’s a fixed-wing or helicopter. Probably helicopter based on witness reports." "Believes it was a seaplane"...WRONG City and the FDNY have confirmed that a helicopter crashed into the building....WRONG UPDATE: NYC police and firemen now agree it was a helicopter instead of a small aircraft...WRONG WABC 7 reports that the helicopter was flying in "exclusion airspace."...WRONG Death count is four...WRONG (it was 2) A total of four people have been confirmed dead - two people from the plane, two people from the building...WRONG Update: A distress call was made before the crash...WRONG Latest reports say that the pilot made an emergency call about a fuel problem...WRONG The FAA confirmed that the pilot of the plane made a mayday, stating that he was having fuel problems...WRONG ABC Radio reports people in the area say they saw a helicopter in distress...WRONG ESPN confirms that Cory Lidle was alone in the plane...WRONG Where did the plane hit? 19th & 20th floor 20th floor 30th floor 32nd floor 40th floor 40th & 41st floor 30th-40th floor 44th & 45th floor (said it was a helicopter) Former Managing Director of NTSB Peter Goelz: "If I had to bet, I'd say it was probably a helicopter." Bit of a crapshoot, that live coverage of confusing events.
	__________________ "Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links

26th February 2007, 01:36 PM	#88
Miragememories Banned Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Earth Posts: 4,473	Originally Posted by Gravy 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. It's interesting because a source that JREFers respect, FEMA, published an opinion that found a low probability for the BEST HYPOTHESES the FEMA experts could think of to explain the WTC7 collapse. What is not unusual, is that an important statement like that would be a subject of interest for anyone seeking the Truth? It's also interesting how you, Gravy, can be so dismissive of an official opinion when it doesn't fit what you want to believe. MM

26th February 2007, 01:38 PM	#89
rwguinn Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes Posts: 11,063	Originally Posted by Miragememories 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 Do you truly believe that the rest of the world is as stupid as you seem to be? Placing the transet on the bulge will,indeed, forecast a complete building collapse. As the distance bulged per unit time begins to increase, it takse no rocket scientist to see that the rate of change is increasing rapidly. And if you missed the point (as you obviously did), a fantasy is an *extremely low probability event*
	__________________ "Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." "I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275

26th February 2007, 01:41 PM	#90
Comsat Angel Muse Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 893	Where to begin? Remember the Kursk? The Russian submarine that sank with all hands? We were treated to news stories of the gallant but despairing survivors alive in their metal tomb for days, courtesy of the media. In fact the hapless crew were all dead within seconds. Closer to home, I happened to be walking through Manchester city centre back in the 90's when those thoughtful Fenian rascals the IRA set off a bomb. One bomb, singular. By the time I got into our office HQ, the staff there were talking about up to sixteen bombs. Conflation, inaccuracy, media speculation, the sound dynamics of a city centre with lots of tall buildings, all played their part. Plus, back in the late 70's on Top of The Pops, DJ Peter Powell described Boney M's hit single "Brown Girl In The Ring" thus: " - and who could forget Boney M's single "Brown Eyed Girl In The Ring".' Opinions vary as to whether he was being absent-minded or ironic.
Comsat Angel Muse Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 893

26th February 2007, 01:46 PM	#91
Gravy Downsitting Citizen Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 17,072	Originally Posted by Miragememories It's also interesting how you, Gravy, can be so dismissive of an official opinion when it doesn't fit what you want to believe. FEMA's "official opinion" is there for all to see in their report. They said more study needed to be done. Don't take my word for it. Here it is: Quote: 5.7 Observations and Findings This office building was built over an electrical substation and a power plant, comparable in size to that operated by a small commercial utility. It also stored a significant amount of diesel oil and had a structural system with numerous horizontal transfers for gravity and lateral loads. The loss of the east penthouse on the videotape suggests that the collapse event was initiated by the loss of structural integrity in one of the transfer systems. Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue. The collapse of WTC 7 was different from that of WTC 1 and WTC 2. The towers showered debris in a wide radius as their external frames essentially "peeled" outward and fell from the top to the bottom. In contrast, the collapse of WTC 7 had a relatively small debris field because the facade came straight down, suggesting an internal collapse. Review of video footage indicates that the collapse began at the lower floors on the east side. Studies of WTC 7 indicate that the collapse began in the lower stories, either through failure of major load transfer members located above an electrical substation structure or in columns in the stories above the transfer structure. Loss of strength due to the transfer trusses could explain why the building imploded, with collapse initiating at an interior location. The collapse may have then spread to the west, causing interior members to continue collapsing. The building at this point may have had extensive interior structural failures that then led to the collapse of the overall building, including the cantilever transfer girders along the north elevation, the strong diaphragms at the 5th and 7th floors, and the seat connections between the interior beams and columns at the building perimeter. 5.8 Recommendations Certain issues should be explored before final conclusions are reached and additional studies of the performance of WTC 7, and related building performance issues should be conducted. These include the following: Additional data should be collected to confirm the extent of the damage to the south face of the building caused by falling debris. Determination of the specific fuel loads, especially at the lower levels, is important to identify possible fuel supplied to sustain the fires for a substantial duration. Areas of interest include storage rooms, file rooms, spaces with high-density combustible materials, and locations of fuel lines. The control and operation of the emergency power system, including generators and storage tanks, needs to be thoroughly understood. Specifically, the ability of the diesel fuel pumps to continue to operate and send fuel to the upper floors after a fuel line is severed should be confirmed. Modeling and analysis of the interaction between the fires and structural members are important. Specifically, the anticipated temperatures and duration of the fires and the effects of the fires on the structure need to be examined, with an emphasis on the behavior of transfer systems and their connections. Suggested mechanisms for a progressive collapse should be studied and confirmed. How the collapse of an unknown number of gravity columns brought down the whole building must be explained. The role of the axial capacity between the beam-column connection and the relatively strong structural diaphragms may have had in the progressive collapse should be explained. The level of fire resistance and the ratio of capacity-to-demand required for structural members and connections deemed to be critical to the performance of the building should be studied. The collapse of some structural members and connections may be more detrimental to the overall performance of the building than other structural members. The adequacy of current design provisions for members whose failure could result in large-scale collapse should also be studied. Do you disagree that further study needed to be done, Miragememories?
	__________________ "Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links

26th February 2007, 01:59 PM	#92
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 34,918	Chedda- not only do we know explosives were used because they called it an "explosion", we can deduce from the word "explosion" that it was clearly symtex or c4, and it was clearly planted by Mossad agents Shlomo Berkowitz and Chaim Goldstein.
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 34,918

26th February 2007, 02:08 PM	#93
Firestone Proud Award Award recipient Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Belgium Posts: 1,960	I am very surprised by Dylan Avery's reaction to this non-event. I tought he would react more or less like miragememories. But over at LCF he is gloating, doing as if this is some big thing, pep-talking his troups. Of course, he doesn't explain what it actually means. He doesn't give a narrative. His fans will be very disappointed when they realise within days that the world doesn't care for this empty "smoking gun". In the meantime, Alex Jones has joined the party, with the usual lies: Quote: 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 came as a result of fire damage weakening the building's structure. ... As we have documented before, firefighters, police and first responders were all told to get back from the building because it was about to be brought down. (bolding mine)
	__________________ The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it, with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age. -- Carl Sagan Last edited by Firestone; 26th February 2007 at 02:11 PM.

26th February 2007, 02:16 PM	#94
Gravy Downsitting Citizen Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 17,072	Originally Posted by Firestone I am very surprised by Dylan Avery's reaction to this non-event. I tought he would react more or less like miragememories. But over at LCF he is gloating, doing as if this is some big thing, pep-talking his troups. Of course, he doesn't explain what it actually means. He doesn't give a narrative. His fans will be very disappointed when they realise within days that the world doesn't care for this empty "smoking gun". Yes, I'm sure that when WTC 7 actually did collapse, the BBC said, "No! No! It collapsed earlier!...I mean, it was supposed to collapse earlier...I mean, it was on the shedyool for 4:55-5:00...I mean, that obviously is some other building...no, no, no, it's a replay!...that's right, a replay of the earlier collapse!...which as we reported happened at 4:57 eastern whatever time this afternoon!" What blithering idiots. I hope at least Avery provides some good quotes for February. It's been slow the past few days. What happened to Stundie?
	__________________ "Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links

26th February 2007, 02:21 PM	#95
Gravy Downsitting Citizen Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 17,072	Originally Posted by AJ As we have documented before, firefighters, police and first responders were all told to get back from the building because it was about to be brought down. Edit. I thought this quote was Avery's. Nah, it's just Jones blaming the firefighters again. I wonder when he'll stop doing that.
	__________________ "Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links Last edited by Gravy; 26th February 2007 at 02:23 PM.

26th February 2007, 02:21 PM	#96
alexg Muse Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 539	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? 1. How do you know she DIDN'T wonder? Reporters read the news, they don't question it unless they are pretty darn sure it is incorrect. The kind of reflection it requires to pick up even fairly obvious errors is hard to muster while you are live on TV! 2. Who knows how much she knew about the WTC complex. The Saloman building may have been unknown to her. At this point lots of other buildings had been damaged or destroyed, maybe she was imagining building 6 in her mind.
alexg Muse Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 539

26th February 2007, 02:24 PM	#97
Firestone Proud Award Award recipient Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Belgium Posts: 1,960	Alex Jones article has been expanded in the last few minutes, and it is a must read (lies, lies and some more lies). A few quotes: Quote: It is widely acknowledged by those who were there on the scene that warnings were issued for people to evacuate the area in anticipation of the building's collapse, with some even stating that a 20 second countdown preceded the collapse of the 47-story skyscraper, again clearly suggesting that it was taken down by means of explosives as the video footage of its implosion illustrates. ... This newly uncovered video confirms that the collapse of WTC 7 was no surprise, because television news stations were reporting on it before it happened! ... Who told the BBC that the building was going to collapse before it did and why were they reporting its fall in advance of the event actually taking place? Many have speculated that some kind of press release was leaked too soon and AP wires, radio stations and TV news outlets prematurely reported on WTC 7's collapse. (bolding mine) Notice that the "NJ-EMT"-email is now used as a source. Someone should really explain to the CTist that the collapse of WTC 7 was not a surprise, it was anticipated.
	__________________ The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it, with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age. -- Carl Sagan

26th February 2007, 02:26 PM	#98
scissorhands Banned Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,545	Dylan is creaming himself there, a mistake made by a BBC reporter who had been fed incorrect info, means he can string his sad punters on for another crappy edition of lies. If there really is a special place in hell, then Avery gets the hot seat everytime. He has no shame. And he has no honour.
scissorhands Banned Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,545	Last edited by scissorhands; 26th February 2007 at 02:28 PM.

26th February 2007, 02:43 PM	#99
boloboffin Guest Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 4,986	Originally Posted by scissorhands Dylan is creaming himself there, a mistake made by a BBC reporter who had been fed incorrect info, means he can string his sad punters on for another crappy edition of lies. If there really is a special place in hell, then Avery gets the hot seat everytime. He has no shame. And he has no honour. While all of that is true, I think that Dylan's interest in promoting this is so he can strike back at the recent BBC documentary that showed him picking at his scabs while the interviewer explained what a simile is.
boloboffin Guest Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 4,986

26th February 2007, 02:48 PM	#100
Miragememories Banned Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Earth Posts: 4,473	Originally Posted by Gravy FEMA's "official opinion" is there for all to see in their report. They said more study needed to be done. Don't take my word for it. Here it is: Do you disagree that further study needed to be done, Miragememories? Further study equates to further investigation. I've made no secret that the important goal is a full and proper investigation GRAVY. Nice how you leap at the opportunity to cut & paste your FEMA info but dodge my original response. To repeat; I stated, that of course anyone seeking the Truth would be interested in FEMA's original expert statement about why WTC7 collapsed. The fact that they said their best hypotheses to explain the collapse of WTC7 had a low probability of occurence was quite significant, especially given their access to all your rebuttal arguments and voluminous firefighter quotes. MM

26th February 2007, 02:58 PM	#101
Chedda Scholar Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 111	The more I watch, the more I am disgusted at this BBC hit piece on the 'Skeptic' Movement. How dare they attempt discredit all our loony theories involving 19 pissed-off Arabs with this news report. I suggest we all bombard the BBC with letters, phone calls and emails of complaint. Hell, lets organise a 'False' rally outside their offices. 9/11 was an outside job!
Chedda Scholar Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 111

26th February 2007, 02:58 PM	#102
rwguinn Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes Posts: 11,063	Originally Posted by Miragememories . To repeat; I stated, that of course anyone seeking the Truth would be interested in FEMA's original expert statement about why WTC7 collapsed. The fact that they said their best hypotheses to explain the collapse of WTC7 had a low probability of occurence was quite significant, especially given their access to all your rebuttal arguments and voluminous firefighter quotes. MM yepper, ladies and gentlemen-- *We have a winner in the "Stupidest clinging to his own definition" category.* No matter that he is given the definition as used by engineers--several times, in fact-- he clings to his biased, self-fulfilling terminology...
	__________________ "Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." "I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275

26th February 2007, 03:00 PM	#103
PerryLogan Banned Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 980	Originally Posted by Miragememories The fact that they said their best hypotheses to explain the collapse of WTC7 had a low probability of occurence was quite significant, especially given their access to all your rebuttal arguments and voluminous firefighter quotes. If it were part of a cover-up, they would never have said that, would they? They would have said there was a 100% probability, so as to reinforce the "official story." Your own "evidence" suggests you're wrong. Conspiracy guys do this all the time.
PerryLogan Banned Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 980

26th February 2007, 03:01 PM	#104
maccy Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 2,094	Originally Posted by Miragememories To repeat; I stated, that of course anyone seeking the Truth would be interested in FEMA's original expert statement about why WTC7 collapsed. The fact that they said their best hypotheses to explain the collapse of WTC7 had a low probability of occurence was quite significant, especially given their access to all your rebuttal arguments and voluminous firefighter quotes. The difference is that FEMA are looking at the whole event, the firemen are making judgments as the event progressed. When the building is belching smoke, leaning, creaking and bulging, and you're not fighting fires, there's a pretty good chance that it's going to collapse. Firemen didn't make that judgment immediately after WTC7 was hit by debris - that is what FEMA had to try to work out: the whole sequence of the collapse, not the latter (more obvious) stages. Also, I'm sure that both fire brigade and any news reporter would have described a partial collapse simply as "the building has collapsed".
maccy Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 2,094

26th February 2007, 03:08 PM	#105
eeyore1954 Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 6,129	Originally Posted by Miragememories 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 I would agree if the report says best hypotheses is deemed to have a low probability of occurence . That would imply that other hypothesis that have been looked at were considered to have a lower probability of occurance. This has nothing to do with if it was reasonable to assume that the building was going to collapse though. Also low probability of occurance doesn't mean it isn't the correct hypothesis.
eeyore1954 Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 6,129	Last edited by eeyore1954; 26th February 2007 at 03:09 PM. Reason: ETA Where is the exact quote?

26th February 2007, 03:12 PM	#106
CHF Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 3,871	The kids over at Dylan's play-pen are happy as hell yet they don't seem aware of what this all means. Was the BBC tipped off in advance about the demolition and foolishly read the press release too early? THAT'S their explanation? You'd think Dylan would have learned a lesson about media reports in a chaotic situation. "Flight 93 landed in Cleveland," right Dylan?
CHF Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 3,871

26th February 2007, 03:15 PM	#107
Unsecured Coins Hoku-maniac Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 5,905	Originally Posted by ShowMe Neiman Marcus cookie recipe. My aunt is the one that bought that and put it on the net. I swear to GOD.
	__________________ "If God wants 10% of my paycheck, he can get it himself. Or at least work for it -Kochanski "I may not be easy, but I am fast." - Hokulele "Oh CRAP... DQ!!" - Ol' Hokey, yet again

26th February 2007, 03:21 PM	#108
CHF Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 3,871	I urge everyone to check in on da twoofers at LC. They really think THIS IS IT! Yup, THIS video will blow the case wide open. Damn are they ever gonna be dissapointed. How can that many posters ALL fail to grasp the absurd logical conclusion of this "conspiracy?"
CHF Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 3,871

26th February 2007, 03:24 PM	#109
Unsecured Coins Hoku-maniac Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 5,905	ya know, I would... but I got banned. I am a sad panda
	__________________ "If God wants 10% of my paycheck, he can get it himself. Or at least work for it -Kochanski "I may not be easy, but I am fast." - Hokulele "Oh CRAP... DQ!!" - Ol' Hokey, yet again

26th February 2007, 03:32 PM	#110
einsteen Guest Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 917	Originally Posted by PerryLogan If it were part of a cover-up, they would never have said that, would they? They would have said there was a 100% probability, so as to reinforce the "official story." That's brilliant logics Perry. Now we know how to cover up things, we investigate what the best explanation would be and don't take that one.
einsteen Guest Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 917

26th February 2007, 03:41 PM	#111
Gravy Downsitting Citizen Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 17,072	Originally Posted by Miragememories To repeat; I stated, that of course anyone seeking the Truth would be interested in FEMA's original expert statement about why WTC7 collapsed. The fact that they said their best hypotheses to explain the collapse of WTC7 had a low probability of occurence was quite significant, especially given their access to all your rebuttal arguments and voluminous firefighter quotes. I'm sorry that you can't wrap your mind around simple concepts, and so keep repeating yourself in bold and underlined text. It makes me quite sad. I hope some day you'll understand that the FEMA investigation was brief, preliminary, and necessarily inconclusive. Which is why further study commenced. I hope you will understand that, but I won't bet on it.
	__________________ "Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links Last edited by Gravy; 26th February 2007 at 03:43 PM.

26th February 2007, 03:41 PM	#112
Totovader Game Warden Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 3,321	Originally Posted by Miragememories To repeat; I stated, that of course anyone seeking the Truth would be interested in FEMA's original expert statement about why WTC7 collapsed. The fact that they said their best hypotheses to explain the collapse of WTC7 had a low probability of occurence was quite significant, especially given their access to all your rebuttal arguments and voluminous firefighter quotes. MM Interesting that you capitalized the word "truth"... Keep in mind a couple of different things: 1) This was an early statement by NIST- their final report, and indeed statements since then, have involved more evidence and a more confident conclusion. 2) Low probability does not mean impossible. There was a low probability that these towers would be hit with planes. That probability changed as the planes were being hijacked- which of course only the hijackers knew. 3) The claim of lowest probability is that of a missile/death ray/cd/ufo/etc (so low, in fact, it's physically impossible). In fact, it's such a low probability that NIST only mentions it a few times- to satisfy those who lack a scientific inclination.
Totovader Game Warden Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 3,321	__________________ "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into." --Jonathan Swift Blog - Corrected By Reality. My debunking videos, and philosophy on YouTube Totovader's 9/11 Conspiracy Challenge Still unanswered!

26th February 2007, 03:44 PM	#113
Gravy Downsitting Citizen Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 17,072	Originally Posted by einsteen That's brilliant logics Perry. Now we know how to cover up things, we investigate what the best explanation would be and don't take that one. Proceed with your coherent explanation of the 9/11 coverup, einsteen. I'm eager to read it.
	__________________ "Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links

26th February 2007, 03:48 PM	#114
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 15,293	Originally Posted by PerryLogan Conspiracy people have a few strange ideas stuck in their brains. One of them is that the bad guys always confess. In the Bizarro World of conspiracy theorists, the perps are forever spilling the beans and blurting out the truth. But no one can perceive it except the conspiracy guys. We've seen this mental glitch too many times to ignore it. The CTs think Silverstein admitted that he blew WTC7. They think Cheney confessed to shooting down one of the planes (or something). They think the bad guys had a TV movie made to give away the plot. It's all right there. It's all terribly obvious. We gotta come up with a term for this. It's like they've watched one too many episodes of Perry Mason or Columbo where the real killer always breaks down and confesses when confronted with a tough question, but it's even worse than that because these folks think the real killers break down when asked simple questions. Something like "Codumbo" or "Perry 2nd-Degree Mason".
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

26th February 2007, 03:49 PM	#115
Gravy Downsitting Citizen Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 17,072	Originally Posted by Totovader Interesting that you capitalized the word "truth"... Keep in mind a couple of different things: 1) This was an early statement by NIST- their final report, and indeed statements since then, have involved more evidence and a more confident conclusion. 2) Low probability does not mean impossible. There was a low probability that these towers would be hit with planes. That probability changed as the planes were being hijacked- which of course only the hijackers knew. 3) The claim of lowest probability is that of a missile/death ray/cd/ufo/etc (so low, in fact, it's physically impossible). In fact, it's such a low probability that NIST only mentions it a few times- to satisfy those who lack a scientific inclination. A correction here. The report MM is concerned about here is the FEMA/ASCE Building Assesment report. Theirs was a brief, underfunded, not well-organized study. Fortunately in 2002 enough people pushed for a much more thorough, better-funded study, and that's when NIST took over. An interesting question, which the CTs never answer, is this: If this was all an inside job, and the engineers are all paid off or threatened, why did NIST's conclusions about the tower collapses differ radically from FEMA's?
	__________________ "Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links