WTC 7 "About to blow up"???

Thunder · 9th February 2007, 04:24 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vr5TxKTMRx0

I need a JREFer to help me understand this video. It shows firemen and nypd stating wtc 7 is about to blow up and come down. how did they know this was going to happen at that moment?

Im sure there is a very logical explenation as to why they made these statemants at this point in time.

Arus808 · 9th February 2007, 04:29 PM

why are you creating two threads on this?

HeyLeroy · 9th February 2007, 04:31 PM

My guess is: voice-over.

Firestone · 9th February 2007, 04:35 PM

The question is: for how long before the collapse of WTC7 were the police and firemen warning the people?
It was known for hours that the building might collapse.

I knew it.

Thunder · 9th February 2007, 04:38 PM

sorry about the sorta-double post. i was just inpatient to get an answer and thought it deserved a more directly titled topic. i will erase the other topic.

Firestone- you have a good point. we cant tell from the video exactly when these statements were made. maybe they were made 5 minutes before the collapse..maybe 2 hours. but it appears..to be shortly before.

Firestone · 9th February 2007, 04:43 PM

It's late now, so I'll just write what I remember.
The area around WTC7 was secured around 3.00pm, more than 2 hours before the eventual collapse.

It seems logical that in that time-interval the police and firemen were warning people, especially when they saw some sign in the building (debris falling, the fires intensifying).

The warning in the video may be from shortly before the collapse. That doesn't mean that there weren't others before.

Cl1mh4224rd · 9th February 2007, 04:53 PM

Originally Posted by parky76

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vr5TxKTMRx0

I need a JREFer to help me understand this video. It shows firemen and nypd stating wtc 7 is about to blow up and come down. how did they know this was going to happen at that moment?

Im sure there is a very logical explenation as to why they made these statemants at this point in time.

Sounds to me like the officer said it, then the cameraman merely repeated it.

Also... that noise (like falling debris) in the video... what do people think; is it from WTC7 or just "ambient" noise from the area?

boloboffin · 9th February 2007, 05:01 PM

I think, at that point in time, not a lot of people knew why WTC 1 and 2 came down. The officer is trying to get people to move, and he's using some hyperbole to remind people of the towers coming down and get them out of the way of 7's coming collapse. CTers are reading way too much into this.

Plus, people already knew that 7 was going to fall. It had heavy structural damage, it was leaning and bulging, it was burning without check on several floors, and making horrendous noises all the while.

Alt+F4 · 9th February 2007, 05:12 PM

The cop is NOT referring to WTC 7, he is referring to Stuyvesant High School.

boloboffin · 9th February 2007, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by Alt+F4

The cop is NOT referring to WTC 7, he is referring to Stuyvesant High School.

Get out...citation? Really?

jon · 9th February 2007, 05:20 PM

Originally Posted by boloboffin

I think, at that point in time, not a lot of people knew why WTC 1 and 2 came down. The officer is trying to get people to move, and he's using some hyperbole to remind people of the towers coming down and get them out of the way of 7's coming collapse. CTers are reading way too much into this.

Plus, people already knew that 7 was going to fall. It had heavy structural damage, it was leaning and bulging, it was burning without check on several floors, and making horrendous noises all the while.

Sounds about right - telling people (esp journalists, keen to cover the story) 'please move away from the area, the building looks unstable and is likely to fall down at some point' would probably not be as effective as saying telling them to walk away cause 'the whole building's about to blow up'.

If it was a CD, by the way, surely they wouldn't have needed to rush people away from the building. If they cared about avoiding casualties (why, after killing so many in the two towers?) all they would need to do is wait until the police had had time to establish a secure area around the building and then 'pull it'.

Cl1mh4224rd · 9th February 2007, 05:23 PM

Oh, geez... I just noticed the video was posted by Killtown.

From the video:

Quote:

Rescuer 3: "We are walking back. There's a building about to blow up. There's flame and debris coming down."

It's been pointed out, but this sort of makes planted explosives extremely unlikely. Either they had to have survived all this fire and damage, or people with balls the size of Jupiter went into WTC7 to plant explosives...

Thunder · 9th February 2007, 05:23 PM

yup. if wtc was a controlled demo then it was done to maximize casualties. if you want to maximize casualties you dont warn people to get away. it really is too bad no one was able to take a picture of the hole in wtc 7 from the south. that might convince some of the "truth seekers"

Matilda · 9th February 2007, 05:29 PM

Originally Posted by parky76

it really is too bad no one was able to take a picture of the hole in wtc 7 from the south. that might convince some of the "truth seekers"

I doubt it. They look at all the footage and photos of the devastation of the Twin Towers, having seen large planes smack into them at fantastic speeds, and they still don't believe that's why the towers fell.

Quad4_72 · 9th February 2007, 05:31 PM

Why would someone who was involved in the deaths of 3000 people run around saying that it was about to blow up and expose the whole thing? Perhaps he knew of the diesel fuel tanks inside. Perhaps it was a voice over, something which I would NOT put past the truth movement especially with their recent EMT letter. Perhaps he was just using a terrible description for a building collapse. EITHER way, none of that is proof of an inside job.

Alt+F4 · 9th February 2007, 06:02 PM

Originally Posted by boloboffin

Get out...citation? Really?

This video is very manipulative. You hear a male voice (the cop) saying:

“This building is about to blow up, move it back.”

When the cop says, “This building is about to blow up…” we are seeing WTC 7. When the same voice continues, “move it back”, it’s a different shot – outside Stuyvesant High School. The next shot is back at WTC 7. It's trying to insinuate that all three shots are part of the same video, which they aren't. Even without the sound it's clear that the middle shot (Stuyvesant) isn't the same street.

I know a teacher that worked there who said they were being evacuated because of a bomb threat after the second plane hit. As for further confirmation:

10:21 NBC reports live from outside Stuyvesant High School near the World Trade Center. The area is being evacuated because of bomb threat.
http://www.poynter.org/dg.lts/id.607...ntent_view.htm

From the Stuyvesant High School Parent's Association:
“Once the students left the building, cars and rescue vehicles were removed from the area because of a bomb threat.”
http://stuy-pa.org/Environment/stuyinpress.htm

Cl1mh4224rd · 9th February 2007, 06:23 PM

Originally Posted by Alt+F4

This video is very manipulative. You hear a male voice (the cop) saying:

“This building is about to blow up, move it back.”

When the cop says, “This building is about to blow up…” we are seeing WTC 7. When the same voice continues, “move it back”, it’s a different shot – outside Stuyvesant High School. The next shot is back at WTC 7. It's trying to insinuate that all three shots are part of the same video, which they aren't. Even without the sound it's clear that the middle shot (Stuyvesant) isn't the same street.

Hmm, yeah... The splice is pretty obvious. In addition to the sound, the color of the picture changes, too. They're definitely two different videos spliced together. The last part is also, obviously, an actual news report that was tacked on.

I'd like to know the original source for these videos. I watch very little CNN (television news in general, really), but the overlay doesn't look like your typical CNN stuff, either.

Alt+F4 · 9th February 2007, 06:29 PM

Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd

I'd like to know the original source for these videos.

I believe the original source of the cop/Stuyvesant High School footage was shot by WNBC, the local NBC station in NYC (channel 4).

boloboffin · 9th February 2007, 07:07 PM

That's magnificent. Thanks much.

Cl1mh4224rd · 10th February 2007, 12:20 AM

Originally Posted by Alt+F4

I believe the original source of the cop/Stuyvesant High School footage was shot by WNBC, the local NBC station in NYC (channel 4).

The other question would be, "Did CNN actually put these clips together like that, or was it someone else?" I'm not all that familiar with CNN (I don't watch much television news), but I've never seen the overlay that's present in that video. It seems exceptionally amateurish.

Panoply_Prefect · 10th February 2007, 03:21 AM

Originally Posted by parky76

it really is too bad no one was able to take a picture of the hole in wtc 7 from the south. that might convince some of the "truth seekers"

I've been thinking the same from time to time, only to realise that had there been pictures of the southside, CT's would only have moved the goal posts a tad and we would have been thinking "Oh, why didnt anyone [video][take a picture][see][collect debris] of something else, or whatever. Look at how the "no plane" on Pentagon is based more or less on the lack of video or photo of the plane in-flight. Had there been such footage, the claim would only have been altered somewhat to incorporate that footage [it doesnt show what company][its obviously military][its obviously a Global Hawk][Its obviously a hologram].

Point is its not the lack of evidence that is the issue, its the evidence at hand.

Cheers,
SLOB

boloboffin · 10th February 2007, 03:38 AM

If they would not believe Moses and the prophets, they would not believe if one rose from the dead.

mailman · 10th February 2007, 04:03 AM

Originally Posted by Alt+F4

This video is very manipulative. You hear a male voice (the cop) saying:

“This building is about to blow up, move it back.”

When the cop says, “This building is about to blow up…” we are seeing WTC 7. When the same voice continues, “move it back”, it’s a different shot – outside Stuyvesant High School. The next shot is back at WTC 7. It's trying to insinuate that all three shots are part of the same video, which they aren't. Even without the sound it's clear that the middle shot (Stuyvesant) isn't the same street.

I know a teacher that worked there who said they were being evacuated because of a bomb threat after the second plane hit. As for further confirmation:

So then this is pretty serious, if this footage has been spliced together then someone is deliberately telling fibs about the whole video being of WTC7.

I mean, why would people lie like that?

Mailman

MikeW · 10th February 2007, 04:48 PM

Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd

The other question would be, "Did CNN actually put these clips together like that, or was it someone else?" I'm not all that familiar with CNN (I don't watch much television news), but I've never seen the overlay that's present in that video. It seems exceptionally amateurish.

There is some splicing there, at least from what originally went out on 9/11. The film of WTC7 collapsing is separate from the rest: the transcript is at http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../11/bn.74.html . That's actually worth a look itself, for something the producer says a few seconds after the footage they show:

Quote:

MAUREEN MADDEN, CNN PRODUCER: Well, about two minutes ago, we had to see seven World Trade Center go down, which holds the office of emergency management of the city of New York on the 23rd floor there. What we heard from the fire department and N.Y.P.D. is that the whole south part of the building was engulfed in flames at one point and it was a matter of time to -- to collapse. They were just waiting for it to collapse. They have been waiting for, for about a half hour. When it went down, it was quick, it was quiet, and we saw a lot of smoke come up. And now, the smoke is pretty much gone off to the side, going towards the east side of Manhattan.

South part engulfed in flames? Bound to collapse? And this was the story even before WTC7 did collapse? It went down "quietly", no explosions? No, far too many inconvenient truths there for prisonplanet: there's no way their visitors would get to hear that clip.

boloboffin · 10th February 2007, 05:57 PM

Watching this clip, it appears to be from a CNN special. The CNN logo is on top throughout, and there's no indication of NBC footage being used. The clip of the cop in front of the high school is audibly different from the WTC 7 clips, and the two clips of the camera backing up from WTC 7, that surround the cop clip - it doesn't appear that the blow up statement (actually there are two - one in each clip) is about the high school. It appears to be made about WTC 7.

As I said before, WTC 7 fell on its own. I think this is just hyperbole used by people who aren't sure exactly what is going on that day, and I don't blame anybody for thinking bombs were going off on the day of the attack.

9th February 2007, 04:24 PM	#1
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 34,918	WTC 7 "About to blow up"??? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vr5TxKTMRx0 I need a JREFer to help me understand this video. It shows firemen and nypd stating wtc 7 is about to blow up and come down. how did they know this was going to happen at that moment? Im sure there is a very logical explenation as to why they made these statemants at this point in time.
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 34,918

9th February 2007, 04:29 PM	#2
Arus808 Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 6,204	why are you creating two threads on this?
Arus808 Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 6,204	__________________ Back home with a new sunburn...I look like a tomato. “Life may begin at 30, but it doesn’t get real interesting until about 150.” “Most motorcycle problems are caused by the nut that connects the handlebars to the saddle.”

9th February 2007, 04:31 PM	#3
HeyLeroy Vegan Cannibal Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 5,567	My guess is: voice-over.
HeyLeroy Vegan Cannibal Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 5,567	__________________ Cows are in large numbers, and do not serve any other purpose, other than to eat grass, and moo -- makaya325 I ♥ my kids. I ♠ my dog. I ♣ my baby Harp Seal.

9th February 2007, 04:35 PM	#4
Firestone Proud Award Award recipient Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Belgium Posts: 2,998	The question is: for how long before the collapse of WTC7 were the police and firemen warning the people? It was known for hours that the building might collapse. I knew it.
	__________________ 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

9th February 2007, 04:38 PM	#5
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 34,918	sorry about the sorta-double post. i was just inpatient to get an answer and thought it deserved a more directly titled topic. i will erase the other topic. Firestone- you have a good point. we cant tell from the video exactly when these statements were made. maybe they were made 5 minutes before the collapse..maybe 2 hours. but it appears..to be shortly before.
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 34,918

9th February 2007, 04:43 PM	#6
Firestone Proud Award Award recipient Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Belgium Posts: 2,998	It's late now, so I'll just write what I remember. The area around WTC7 was secured around 3.00pm, more than 2 hours before the eventual collapse. It seems logical that in that time-interval the police and firemen were warning people, especially when they saw some sign in the building (debris falling, the fires intensifying). The warning in the video may be from shortly before the collapse. That doesn't mean that there weren't others before.
	__________________ 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

9th February 2007, 04:53 PM	#7
Cl1mh4224rd Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 9,778	Originally Posted by parky76 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vr5TxKTMRx0 I need a JREFer to help me understand this video. It shows firemen and nypd stating wtc 7 is about to blow up and come down. how did they know this was going to happen at that moment? Im sure there is a very logical explenation as to why they made these statemants at this point in time. Sounds to me like the officer said it, then the cameraman merely repeated it. Also... that noise (like falling debris) in the video... what do people think; is it from WTC7 or just "ambient" noise from the area?
Cl1mh4224rd Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 9,778

9th February 2007, 05:01 PM	#8
boloboffin Guest Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 4,986	I think, at that point in time, not a lot of people knew why WTC 1 and 2 came down. The officer is trying to get people to move, and he's using some hyperbole to remind people of the towers coming down and get them out of the way of 7's coming collapse. CTers are reading way too much into this. Plus, people already knew that 7 was going to fall. It had heavy structural damage, it was leaning and bulging, it was burning without check on several floors, and making horrendous noises all the while.
boloboffin Guest Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 4,986

9th February 2007, 05:12 PM	#9
Alt+F4 diabolical globalist Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 9,997	The cop is NOT referring to WTC 7, he is referring to Stuyvesant High School.
	__________________ "My folks touched a lot of kids." - Jerry Sandusky

9th February 2007, 05:18 PM	#10
boloboffin Guest Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 4,986	Originally Posted by Alt+F4 The cop is NOT referring to WTC 7, he is referring to Stuyvesant High School. Get out...citation? Really?
boloboffin Guest Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 4,986

9th February 2007, 05:20 PM	#11
jon Muse Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 897	Originally Posted by boloboffin I think, at that point in time, not a lot of people knew why WTC 1 and 2 came down. The officer is trying to get people to move, and he's using some hyperbole to remind people of the towers coming down and get them out of the way of 7's coming collapse. CTers are reading way too much into this. Plus, people already knew that 7 was going to fall. It had heavy structural damage, it was leaning and bulging, it was burning without check on several floors, and making horrendous noises all the while. Sounds about right - telling people (esp journalists, keen to cover the story) 'please move away from the area, the building looks unstable and is likely to fall down at some point' would probably not be as effective as saying telling them to walk away cause 'the whole building's about to blow up'. If it was a CD, by the way, surely they wouldn't have needed to rush people away from the building. If they cared about avoiding casualties (why, after killing so many in the two towers?) all they would need to do is wait until the police had had time to establish a secure area around the building and then 'pull it'.
jon Muse Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 897

9th February 2007, 05:23 PM	#12
Cl1mh4224rd Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 9,778	Oh, geez... I just noticed the video was posted by Killtown. From the video: Quote: Rescuer 3: "We are walking back. There's a building about to blow up. There's flame and debris coming down." It's been pointed out, but this sort of makes planted explosives extremely unlikely. Either they had to have survived all this fire and damage, or people with balls the size of Jupiter went into WTC7 to plant explosives...
Cl1mh4224rd Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 9,778	Last edited by Cl1mh4224rd; 9th February 2007 at 05:25 PM.

9th February 2007, 05:29 PM	#14
Matilda Thinker Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 188	Originally Posted by parky76 it really is too bad no one was able to take a picture of the hole in wtc 7 from the south. that might convince some of the "truth seekers" I doubt it. They look at all the footage and photos of the devastation of the Twin Towers, having seen large planes smack into them at fantastic speeds, and they still don't believe that's why the towers fell.
Matilda Thinker Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 188	__________________ "If ever a spirit-form takes to coming near me, I shall not be content with trying to grasp it, but, in the interests of science, I will shoot it." Samuel Butler

9th February 2007, 05:31 PM	#15
Quad4_72 AI-EE-YAH! Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 6,354	Why would someone who was involved in the deaths of 3000 people run around saying that it was about to blow up and expose the whole thing? Perhaps he knew of the diesel fuel tanks inside. Perhaps it was a voice over, something which I would NOT put past the truth movement especially with their recent EMT letter. Perhaps he was just using a terrible description for a building collapse. EITHER way, none of that is proof of an inside job.
Quad4_72 AI-EE-YAH! Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 6,354	__________________ Looks like the one on top has a magazine, thus needs less reloading. Also, the muzzle shroud makes it less likely for a spree killer to burn his hands. The pistol grip makes it more comfortable for the spree killer to shoot. thaiboxerken

9th February 2007, 06:02 PM	#16
Alt+F4 diabolical globalist Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 9,997	Originally Posted by boloboffin Get out...citation? Really? This video is very manipulative. You hear a male voice (the cop) saying: “This building is about to blow up, move it back.” When the cop says, “This building is about to blow up…” we are seeing WTC 7. When the same voice continues, “move it back”, it’s a different shot – outside Stuyvesant High School. The next shot is back at WTC 7. It's trying to insinuate that all three shots are part of the same video, which they aren't. Even without the sound it's clear that the middle shot (Stuyvesant) isn't the same street. I know a teacher that worked there who said they were being evacuated because of a bomb threat after the second plane hit. As for further confirmation: 10:21 NBC reports live from outside Stuyvesant High School near the World Trade Center. The area is being evacuated because of bomb threat. http://www.poynter.org/dg.lts/id.607...ntent_view.htm From the Stuyvesant High School Parent's Association: “Once the students left the building, cars and rescue vehicles were removed from the area because of a bomb threat.” http://stuy-pa.org/Environment/stuyinpress.htm
	__________________ "My folks touched a lot of kids." - Jerry Sandusky

9th February 2007, 06:23 PM	#17
Cl1mh4224rd Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 9,778	Originally Posted by Alt+F4 This video is very manipulative. You hear a male voice (the cop) saying: “This building is about to blow up, move it back.” When the cop says, “This building is about to blow up…” we are seeing WTC 7. When the same voice continues, “move it back”, it’s a different shot – outside Stuyvesant High School. The next shot is back at WTC 7. It's trying to insinuate that all three shots are part of the same video, which they aren't. Even without the sound it's clear that the middle shot (Stuyvesant) isn't the same street. Hmm, yeah... The splice is pretty obvious. In addition to the sound, the color of the picture changes, too. They're definitely two different videos spliced together. The last part is also, obviously, an actual news report that was tacked on. I'd like to know the original source for these videos. I watch very little CNN (television news in general, really), but the overlay doesn't look like your typical CNN stuff, either.
Cl1mh4224rd Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 9,778

9th February 2007, 06:29 PM	#18
Alt+F4 diabolical globalist Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 9,997	Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd I'd like to know the original source for these videos. I believe the original source of the cop/Stuyvesant High School footage was shot by WNBC, the local NBC station in NYC (channel 4).
	__________________ "My folks touched a lot of kids." - Jerry Sandusky

9th February 2007, 07:07 PM	#19
boloboffin Guest Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 4,986	That's magnificent. Thanks much.
boloboffin Guest Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 4,986

10th February 2007, 12:20 AM	#20
Cl1mh4224rd Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 9,778	Originally Posted by Alt+F4 I believe the original source of the cop/Stuyvesant High School footage was shot by WNBC, the local NBC station in NYC (channel 4). The other question would be, "Did CNN actually put these clips together like that, or was it someone else?" I'm not all that familiar with CNN (I don't watch much television news), but I've never seen the overlay that's present in that video. It seems exceptionally amateurish.
Cl1mh4224rd Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 9,778

10th February 2007, 03:21 AM	#21
Panoply_Prefect Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Sweden Posts: 1,075	Originally Posted by parky76 it really is too bad no one was able to take a picture of the hole in wtc 7 from the south. that might convince some of the "truth seekers" I've been thinking the same from time to time, only to realise that had there been pictures of the southside, CT's would only have moved the goal posts a tad and we would have been thinking "Oh, why didnt anyone [video][take a picture][see][collect debris] of something else, or whatever. Look at how the "no plane" on Pentagon is based more or less on the lack of video or photo of the plane in-flight. Had there been such footage, the claim would only have been altered somewhat to incorporate that footage [it doesnt show what company][its obviously military][its obviously a Global Hawk][Its obviously a hologram]. Point is its not the lack of evidence that is the issue, its the evidence at hand. Cheers, SLOB

10th February 2007, 03:38 AM	#22
boloboffin Guest Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 4,986	If they would not believe Moses and the prophets, they would not believe if one rose from the dead.
boloboffin Guest Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 4,986

10th February 2007, 04:03 AM	#23
mailman Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 341	Originally Posted by Alt+F4 This video is very manipulative. You hear a male voice (the cop) saying: “This building is about to blow up, move it back.” When the cop says, “This building is about to blow up…” we are seeing WTC 7. When the same voice continues, “move it back”, it’s a different shot – outside Stuyvesant High School. The next shot is back at WTC 7. It's trying to insinuate that all three shots are part of the same video, which they aren't. Even without the sound it's clear that the middle shot (Stuyvesant) isn't the same street. I know a teacher that worked there who said they were being evacuated because of a bomb threat after the second plane hit. As for further confirmation: So then this is pretty serious, if this footage has been spliced together then someone is deliberately telling fibs about the whole video being of WTC7. I mean, why would people lie like that? Mailman
mailman Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 341

10th February 2007, 04:48 PM	#24
MikeW Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 1,910	Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd The other question would be, "Did CNN actually put these clips together like that, or was it someone else?" I'm not all that familiar with CNN (I don't watch much television news), but I've never seen the overlay that's present in that video. It seems exceptionally amateurish. There is some splicing there, at least from what originally went out on 9/11. The film of WTC7 collapsing is separate from the rest: the transcript is at http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../11/bn.74.html . That's actually worth a look itself, for something the producer says a few seconds after the footage they show: Quote: MAUREEN MADDEN, CNN PRODUCER: Well, about two minutes ago, we had to see seven World Trade Center go down, which holds the office of emergency management of the city of New York on the 23rd floor there. What we heard from the fire department and N.Y.P.D. is that the whole south part of the building was engulfed in flames at one point and it was a matter of time to -- to collapse. They were just waiting for it to collapse. They have been waiting for, for about a half hour. When it went down, it was quick, it was quiet, and we saw a lot of smoke come up. And now, the smoke is pretty much gone off to the side, going towards the east side of Manhattan. South part engulfed in flames? Bound to collapse? And this was the story even before WTC7 did collapse? It went down "quietly", no explosions? No, far too many inconvenient truths there for prisonplanet: there's no way their visitors would get to hear that clip.
MikeW Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 1,910

10th February 2007, 05:57 PM	#25
boloboffin Guest Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 4,986	Watching this clip, it appears to be from a CNN special. The CNN logo is on top throughout, and there's no indication of NBC footage being used. The clip of the cop in front of the high school is audibly different from the WTC 7 clips, and the two clips of the camera backing up from WTC 7, that surround the cop clip - it doesn't appear that the blow up statement (actually there are two - one in each clip) is about the high school. It appears to be made about WTC 7. As I said before, WTC 7 fell on its own. I think this is just hyperbole used by people who aren't sure exactly what is going on that day, and I don't blame anybody for thinking bombs were going off on the day of the attack.
boloboffin Guest Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 4,986