IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags bbc , jane standley , wtc7

Reply
Old 26th February 2007, 04:53 AM   #1
Firestone
Proud Award Award recipient
 
Firestone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 3,015
BBC and WTC 7 on 9/11: confusion or NWO-blunder?

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.

bbc.jpg

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 .
__________________
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 04:59 AM.
Firestone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2007, 05:06 AM   #2
Aphelion
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 453
This is truly bizarre. I didn't think wtc 7 was that suspicious but I do now.

How the **** can anyone explain this?
Aphelion is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2007, 05:22 AM   #3
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 99,902
Originally Posted by Aphelion View Post
This is truly bizarre. I didn't think wtc 7 was that suspicious but I do now.

How the **** can anyone explain this?
Look at the title of the thread - that offers two explanations.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2007, 06:08 AM   #4
Shrinker
Graduate Poster
 
Shrinker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,072
Originally Posted by Aphelion View Post
This is truly bizarre. I didn't think wtc 7 was that suspicious but I do now.

How the **** can anyone explain this?
You ever worked in TV news? Ever been in the gallery? Thought not.

Journalists knew WTC 7 was in danger of collapse. The caption operator very probably had a caption typed up and ready to go just in case. That's not unusual. The caption operator then screwed up and displayed the wrong caption. That's far from unusual also.

Sinister secret demolitions are quite unusual though aren't they?

Edit: okay, ignore the above. I hadn't watched the video properly.

Last edited by Shrinker; 26th February 2007 at 06:36 AM. Reason: WTC 7 not WTC
Shrinker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2007, 06:32 AM   #5
The_Fire
Unimpressed Female
 
The_Fire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: 8th level of Hell - Maleborgia
Posts: 3,267
I've been working in the tv business since 2000. When the heat is on, **** happens. Mistakes gets made in the heat of the moment as a direct result of getting news to the people asap.

When a journalist gets a news item to cover, non-live and the 2 minute timespan that is, it's generally shot, edited and racked up for broadcast within a 5-6 hour period WITH preparation and written blurbs. That means room for mistake due to misunderstandings or bad information. Add to that the human factor.

Now compare it to a live, real time coverage of a disaster like 9-11 where no one really knew what the hell was going on and only had rumors to go on for much of the information and you got a bloody war zone going on in the broadcast booth.

To get a clear picture of what it COULD look like, imagine a small room with a wall full of monitors and a bank of various equipments in front of maybe 6-7 people. One is a live-editor, one takes care of sound, one manages satellite feeds, there's a "director" and one poor soul taking care of the written blurbs.

You've got signals coming in from at least 4 different places in New York which means at least 4 different journalists feeding the broadcast crew back on the farm information through an ear piece/mic. You've got various in house researchers and journalists running around trying to gather as much information as they can, including the unavoidable claptrap which they must attempt to filter out with nothing to compare it to.
You've got feeds from OTHER news services online as well to try and keep up with things.

Airing of wrongful information is BOUND to happen.
__________________
If anyone told you that I'm a nice person, they were either from a different level of existance, lying through their teeth or mentally instable.
"We? That better be you and that invisible aardwarck in your pocket you are talking about, because I KNOW you are not stupid enough to open a giant can of whoop ass by claiming you know what I think."
Stop Sylvia Browne
The_Fire is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2007, 06:44 AM   #6
CptColumbo
Just One More Question
 
CptColumbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Lots of places
Posts: 9,237
Originally Posted by The_Fire View Post
I've been working in the tv business since 2000. When the heat is on, **** happens. Mistakes gets made in the heat of the moment as a direct result of getting news to the people asap.

When a journalist gets a news item to cover, non-live and the 2 minute timespan that is, it's generally shot, edited and racked up for broadcast within a 5-6 hour period WITH preparation and written blurbs. That means room for mistake due to misunderstandings or bad information. Add to that the human factor.

Now compare it to a live, real time coverage of a disaster like 9-11 where no one really knew what the hell was going on and only had rumors to go on for much of the information and you got a bloody war zone going on in the broadcast booth.

To get a clear picture of what it COULD look like, imagine a small room with a wall full of monitors and a bank of various equipments in front of maybe 6-7 people. One is a live-editor, one takes care of sound, one manages satellite feeds, there's a "director" and one poor soul taking care of the written blurbs.

You've got signals coming in from at least 4 different places in New York which means at least 4 different journalists feeding the broadcast crew back on the farm information through an ear piece/mic. You've got various in house researchers and journalists running around trying to gather as much information as they can, including the unavoidable claptrap which they must attempt to filter out with nothing to compare it to.
You've got feeds from OTHER news services online as well to try and keep up with things.

Airing of wrongful information is BOUND to happen.
In addition you have jammed phone lines and circuits due to the overwhelming number of calls being made, so it is hard to confirm any information. Plus, being the BBC they have a ocean between them and the events. All flights to the US are cancelled, so they are unable to send anymore reporters to NYC, and they must rely more heavily than they like on other news outlets. They may also not be familiar enough with the WTC complex to know which is WTC7. They keep hearing that it is going to collapse and may have jumped the gun.

With so much confusion going on that day, I would rely more on the reports from days after 9/11 rather than the live coverage.
__________________
I've been involved in a lot of cults, both as a leader and a follower. You have more fun as a follower, but you make more money as a leader.--Creed, "The Office"
The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices to be only found in the minds of men. Prejudices and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own.--Rod Serling
CptColumbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2007, 06:44 AM   #7
ref
Master Poster
 
ref's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,685
I would say they probably got to know that people were evacuated from the area, because WTC 7 was in danger of collapsing. Somewhere along the line during the busy newsday someone made a mistake, and the report changed to the one we are seeing. To a report that WTC 7 had already collapsed, when it actually was still only in danger of doing so.

I love the CT logic. This is the most secret NWO operation ever, but hell, they release a press report stating that a building they demolished has collapsed, when in reality everyone can see on their screens that the building is still standing. OOPS.

And Alex Jones would say, they are this arrogant, they laugh in your faces!
__________________
9/11 Guide homepage

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit. - Chief Daniel Nigro
ref is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2007, 07:13 AM   #8
Totovader
Game Warden
 
Totovader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,321
I bet they didn't bother to actually check on this... It just "appears as if" they were notified or there was a press release. So the fact that the press release probably said "is expected to collapse" (if there even was a press release- probably just a lot of talk from higher-ups, like... say... the fire chief).

No investigation, of course- just a lot of speculation...
__________________
"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!
Totovader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2007, 07:18 AM   #9
Firestone
Proud Award Award recipient
 
Firestone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 3,015
Our good friend Jeff has called the BBC about this.

I can't listen to it here at work, so I have no idea what it says, but for the record, here it is: Jeff/Shure calls the BBC.

The original BBC footage is here (it's 1Gb).
__________________
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
Firestone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2007, 07:27 AM   #10
Totovader
Game Warden
 
Totovader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,321
Originally Posted by Firestone View Post
Our good friend Jeff has called the BBC about this.

I can't listen to it here at work, so I have no idea what it says, but for the record, here it is: Jeff/Shure calls the BBC.

The original BBC footage is here (it's 1Gb).
It's nothing- he's just catching some poor secretary off guard and going off on a speech so he can inject language which strongly suggests what he thinks the reasons are.

When he gets a call back, I bet he won't post it.
__________________
"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!
Totovader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2007, 07:27 AM   #11
ellindsey
Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 228
I remember on September 11 hearing quite clearly that at least 8 aircraft had been confirmed hijacked. I recall hearing that San Francisco and other west coast cities had been hit, and that the hijackers were starting to simply crash the planes now that their plans were known. I also recall hearing of car/truck bombs going off in DC and elsewhere.

Obviously none of this was actually true. It's hard to appreciate the chaos of that day looking back. Nobody knew just what was happening.
ellindsey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2007, 07:32 AM   #12
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,078
Man, those NWO conspirators sure are bad at keeping secrets!
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2007, 07:39 AM   #13
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
I to work in the 'biz' and what we saw from the BBC was a very amazing gaff for such a reputable news organization.

Roughly 7 hours since the last collapse, well after the major news has occured, they make this sensational unsubstantiated claim and continue to build on it.

Meanwhile, they are receiving via satellite, all the major American news feeds as well as their own live feeds from New York City. And strangely, no one apparently wondered why CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC etc., American media at the scene, had made no mention of this major new event?

Obviously they got it wrong, obviously there was confusion. It's probably a case of predicted collapse getting misinterpreted as "it collapsed", but what a blunder!

MM
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2007, 07:43 AM   #14
CHF
Illuminator
 
CHF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,871
Originally Posted by Aphelion View Post
This is truly bizarre. I didn't think wtc 7 was that suspicious but I do now.

How the **** can anyone explain this?
Ummmm....an incorrect report, maybe?

I guess your explanation is that the conspirators decided to tip off the BBC just so they could blow the whole thing, huh?

Last edited by CHF; 26th February 2007 at 07:45 AM.
CHF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2007, 07:47 AM   #15
Mashuna
Ovis ex Machina
 
Mashuna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,856
Originally Posted by CHF View Post
Ummmm....an incorrect report, maybe?

I guess your explanation is that the conspirators decided to tip off the BBC just so they could blow the whole thing, huh?
No, I think the NWO planned a controlled demolition of WTC 7, had it all ready to go off, then accidentally told the BBC about it. It's the only explanation.

__________________
I’d rather be a rising ape than a falling angel. - Sir Terry Pratchett
Mashuna is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2007, 07:48 AM   #16
Totovader
Game Warden
 
Totovader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,321
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
I to work in the 'biz' and what we saw from the BBC was a very amazing gaff for such a reputable news organization.

Roughly 7 hours since the last collapse, well after the major news has occured, they make this sensational unsubstantiated claim and continue to build on it.

Meanwhile, they are receiving via satellite, all the major American news feeds as well as their own live feeds from New York City. And strangely, no one apparently wondered why CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC etc., American media at the scene, had made no mention of this major new event?

Obviously they got it wrong, obviously there was confusion. It's probably a case of predicted collapse getting misinterpreted as "it collapsed", but what a blunder!

MM
Did someone steal your profile? This sounds reasonable...
__________________
"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!
Totovader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2007, 08:01 AM   #17
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Totovader View Post
Did someone steal your profile? This sounds reasonable...
I call 'em the way I see 'em.

MM
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2007, 08:06 AM   #18
Totovader
Game Warden
 
Totovader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,321
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
I call 'em the way I see 'em.

MM
Missiles at hitting WTC7 was it?
__________________
"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!
Totovader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2007, 08:07 AM   #19
Shrinker
Graduate Poster
 
Shrinker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,072
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
I to work in the 'biz' and what we saw from the BBC was a very amazing gaff for such a reputable news organization.
You mean this reputable news organisation?
Shrinker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2007, 08:08 AM   #20
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,154
Originally Posted by Aphelion View Post
This is truly bizarre. I didn't think wtc 7 was that suspicious but I do now.

How the **** can anyone explain this?
Quote:
News is the first rough draft of history.
Phil Graham
Arkan_Wolfshade is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2007, 08:24 AM   #21
stateofgrace
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,843
Originally Posted by Mashuna View Post
No, I think the NWO planned a controlled demolition of WTC 7, had it all ready to go off, then accidentally told the BBC about it. It's the only explanation.

I heard the NWO handed out the scripts weeks in advance, if not months .
In fact I heard they even handed it to Fox TV to make a pilot episode of the Lone gunman series.

I just don’t understand how the BBC got it so wrong.
stateofgrace is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2007, 08:44 AM   #22
Aphelion
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 453
This could be a blunder, however its so odd that they were totally convinced of the upcoming collapse. Yes, the building was in a bad state but they couldnt be absolutely sure it would suffer a global collapse.
Aphelion is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2007, 08:49 AM   #23
Parsman
Muse
 
Parsman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 814
Err given the fact that two huge buildings had collapsed just hours before, you are telling me that an on the spot reporter wouldn't be easily convinced another badly damaged building was about to collapse, might even have collapsed already? Given the horror and confusion of that day, this smacks more of cock-up than conspiracy
Parsman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2007, 08:53 AM   #24
Aphelion
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 453
Originally Posted by Parsman View Post
Err given the fact that two huge buildings had collapsed just hours before, you are telling me that an on the spot reporter wouldn't be easily convinced another badly damaged building was about to collapse, might even have collapsed already? Given the horror and confusion of that day, this smacks more of cock-up than conspiracy

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

FEMA said the best hypothesis had only a low probability of occurence. How could they be so certain of a future event that only had a low probability of occurence?
Aphelion is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2007, 09:03 AM   #25
Mashuna
Ovis ex Machina
 
Mashuna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,856
Originally Posted by Aphelion View Post
My point was that people seemed 100% convinced that 7 would suffer this global collapse. It just seems odd that they could be so convinced when the collapse of 7 is still such a mystery.

FEMA said the best hypothesis had only a low probability of occurence. How could they be so certain of a future event that only had a low probability of occurence?
Well one possibility is, as described by others above, it was a mistake.

I'm not sure what you're implying with your question. You've stated previously that you don't think WTC 7 was CD. Are you now suspicious that it may be, and Larry Silverstein called the BBC autocue operaters just before he told the fire department to pull it?

I'm just guessing at what your alternative scenario is, could you clarify your suspicions?
__________________
I’d rather be a rising ape than a falling angel. - Sir Terry Pratchett
Mashuna is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2007, 09:04 AM   #26
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
Originally Posted by Aphelion View Post
My point was that people seemed 100% convinced that 7 would suffer this global collapse. It just seems odd that they could be so convinced when the collapse of 7 is still such a mystery.

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


...

I don't think you understand what FEMA were saying.

Regarding predictability of collapse...

The fact that so many people were so sure WTC7 was going to collapse is a significant sign of just how bad the damage was.

It was leaning, it was bulging, it was engulfed in flames, it had an enormous chunk of it missing, it was creaking, groaning, etc...

The thing I find truly amazing about 9/11 is how so many people still assert that each building collapse was "sudden and totally unexpected" despite the fact that in all three cases people there on the day stated with conviction that the buildings were going to collapse.

-Gumboot
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2007, 09:11 AM   #27
ShowMe
Graduate Poster
 
ShowMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,348
Originally Posted by stateofgrace View Post
I heard the NWO handed out the scripts weeks in advance, if not months .

My sister-in-laws brother has a cousin who saw a Wal-Mart truck flipped over and there were a bunch of scripts for the BBC talking about the collapse.

No, really. He said if I forward it to 10 people that Bill Gates would send me money and a Neiman Marcus cookie recipe.

It's true!
__________________
"One wonders how one augur may pass another in the street without laughing." -Marcus Porcius Cato, 2nd Century B.C. referring to the fortune tellers of his time

"I could tell you that it is because I don't want The Language Award to appear too cliqueish. But I won't. 'Cause you're not one of the cool people." - Tricky
ShowMe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2007, 09:54 AM   #28
Firestone
Proud Award Award recipient
 
Firestone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 3,015
The difference between how this is viewed here and on LCF is fascinating.

Two examples:

Originally Posted by alexvegas@LCF
This is actually huge, is it not? They reiterate it so many times that it can't be a misunderstanding. Someone in the know has told them that the building has collapsed, but forgotten to check if it had been pulled yet. Maybe there was a hold up in the demolition?
Originally Posted by mysterious stranger@LCF
Here's how it will go, every time you bring this up, there will be a concerted effort to put it in a frame of the time and the time diference between Britain/USA, never once will the real discussion be about the fact that the building she just said collapsed is indeed standing in the feed behind her. Then, if you press that angle, they will try and convince you that a live feed back to the BBC is always off by the amount of time between what it reads onscreen and the actual collapse time.

If you perservere, the next line of attack will be to call you a Holocaust denier, and as you try in vain to defend against that charge, enough time will have elapsed to make this piece of evidence yesterdays news.

I hope this helps.
Only miragememories is cautious:

Originally Posted by miragememories
I think too much is getting read into this.

Clearly this report was rushed to air before any research had been done. It's likely all the repeated 'on-the-street' reports about the imminent collapse of WTC7 eventually got distorted by a reporter, and "gonna collapse" became "did collapse."

It was a major gaff on the BBC's part for sure, especially given the fact that no one immediately identified the burning building behind their 'live' reporter as the 'still standing' WTC7 building which she was claiming had already collapsed. Since it was the last major standing structure still pouring out heavy smoke on the site, you'd think they might have checked it's identity..amazing..unbelievably poor work on their part.

You would have thought in the roughly 7 hours that passed after the collapse of WTC1, that the BBC Research Dept. would have located maps and visuals of the area so they would be familiar with what they were seeing in their 'live' feed, or, duh..had there on-the-scene people find out for them..I guess they figured that the clearly viewable smoking 47-storey building in their live feed must have been WTC7a, WTC7's twin tower?

It's also pathetic that no one at the BBC seemed to wonder why none of their satellite feeds from the major American TV networks were reporting such a major event. Did they not ask themselves how odd it was that no one but their on-the-scene reporter noticed the sudden collapse of this 47-storey building?

Talk about extremely sloppy..maybe it will damage their credibility regarding the recent 9/11 'hit piece'?
__________________
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
Firestone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2007, 09:56 AM   #29
eeyore1954
Philosopher
 
eeyore1954's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,807
Originally Posted by Aphelion View Post
My point was that people seemed 100% convinced that 7 would suffer this global collapse. It just seems odd that they could be so convinced when the collapse of 7 is still such a mystery.

FEMA said the best hypothesis had only a low probability of occurence. How could they be so certain of a future event that only had a low probability of occurence?
What do you think they were talking about when they said this. They weren't talking about whether or not it was probable that given the observed conditions on 9/11 it would collapse. They were saying a hypothesis for explaining the reason for the collapse had a low probability of occurance. There is a world of difference.
eeyore1954 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2007, 09:56 AM   #30
JAStewart
Graduate Poster
Tagger
 
JAStewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,521
Originally Posted by Aphelion View Post
This is truly bizarre. I didn't think wtc 7 was that suspicious but I do now.

How the **** can anyone explain this?
Dude you're too easily convinced.
__________________
Ignorance and google is a horrible combination. - BigAl

Argumentum ad YouTubeum - sts60
JAStewart is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2007, 09:59 AM   #31
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 99,902
When there was the terrorist attack on the tube and buses in London in 2005 because my partner commutes into London every morning and with the mobile phone networks being overwhelmed so not being able to contact them I was on the look out for any news.

Time and time again there were captions up on the screen and reporters repeating things that later on would turn out to be incorrect. The pressure for "live" saturation coverage of a major event results in all new broadcasters being less then rigorous with their fact checking on live feeds.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you

Last edited by Darat; 26th February 2007 at 10:20 AM. Reason: Oops 2007 to 2005 please NWO don't kill me!
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2007, 10:04 AM   #32
einsteen
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 917
Originally Posted by eeyore1954 View Post
What do you think they were talking about when they said this. They weren't talking about whether or not it was probable that given the observed conditions on 9/11 it would collapse. They were saying a hypothesis for explaining the reason for the collapse had a low probability of occurance. There is a world of difference.
If wtc7 collapsed 'naturally' under the conditions it had on 9/11 how could they talk about a low probability of occurrence. The chance of collapse is defined as the ratio of the amount that collapse and the amount that doesn't collapse or collapses (the total), the more measurements you have the more accurate it is. Since wtc7 collapsed under the conditions it has it should be a high probability of occurrence.

The OCT does not know what to say. The only thing we can conclude is that FEMA's story is has a low probability of being the right one.
einsteen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2007, 10:05 AM   #33
8den
Graduate Poster
 
8den's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,293
Wishful bloody thinking

Originally Posted by miragememories

Talk about extremely sloppy..maybe it will damage their credibility regarding the recent 9/11 'hit piece'?
Gosh yes, a mislabelled aston on a dramatic and confusing day, is going to damage the "BBC's credibility".

Christ RTE news were still reporting the "5th" plane at around 6pm GMT. Hell they should Come check out sky news. Some of their Aston cock up are legendary.

8den is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2007, 10:06 AM   #34
eeyore1954
Philosopher
 
eeyore1954's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,807
What possible reason could there have been for the neer do well's who planned this deed to have let people know the tower had collapsed. Wouldn't they have just waited until it happoened and let the news report it. Especially because as we all know they hoped no one would pay much attention to it since its demise was clearly cause by a CD. This makes about as much sense as orders coming down to warn the people the building was going to be pulled before it collapsed.

The most likely case was a mix up between reporters hearing that the area had been cleared because a collapse was thought to be imminent.
eeyore1954 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2007, 10:09 AM   #35
Thunder
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,918
So many people were in on it..including the BBC..yet no one has come forward to blow the whistle. Amazing.
Thunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2007, 10:14 AM   #36
8den
Graduate Poster
 
8den's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,293
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
When there was the terrorist attack on the tube and buses in London in 2007 because my partner commutes into London every morning and with the mobile phone networks being overwhelmed so not being able to contact them I was on the look out for any news.
You mean 2005 right? Unless [CTer]you know something the rest of us don't[/CTER]

Quote:
Time and time again there were captions up on the screen and reporters repeating things that later on would turn out to be incorrect. The pressure for "live" saturation coverage of a major event results in all new broadcasters being less then rigorous with their fact checking on live feeds.
I was in sky news that day. Firstly you need to know sky news' unoffical staff motto is "Never wrong for long". Secondly sky was reporting the tavistock bombing for two hours before the BBC and ITN, who were reporting a power surge, and possible bombing. Simply because a Sky News producer had been evacuated off his tube, at Russell Sq moments before the bomb went off, and reached the scene and somehow managed to get through to the newsroom
8den is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2007, 10:21 AM   #37
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 99,902
Originally Posted by 8den View Post
You mean 2005 right? Unless [CTer]you know something the rest of us don't[/CTER]
I do not know what you mean I never said 2007.....



Originally Posted by 8den View Post
I was in sky news that day. Firstly you need to know sky news' unoffical staff motto is "Never wrong for long".

...snip...
Funny!
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2007, 10:36 AM   #38
ConspiRaider
Writer of Nothingnesses
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,156
Originally Posted by einsteen View Post
...The OCT does not know what to say. The only thing we can conclude is that FEMA's story is has a low probability of being the right one.
Corrections:

The OCTopus actually DOES know what to say, only we humans don't speak mollusk.

The only thing YOU can conclude is that FEMA's story has a low probability of being the right one. Not "we".
ConspiRaider is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2007, 10:39 AM   #39
Aphelion
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 453
Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
...

I don't think you understand what FEMA were saying.

Regarding predictability of collapse...

The fact that so many people were so sure WTC7 was going to collapse is a significant sign of just how bad the damage was.

It was leaning, it was bulging, it was engulfed in flames, it had an enormous chunk of it missing, it was creaking, groaning, etc...

The thing I find truly amazing about 9/11 is how so many people still assert that each building collapse was "sudden and totally unexpected" despite the fact that in all three cases people there on the day stated with conviction that the buildings were going to collapse.

-Gumboot

FEMA asserted that it was primarily the fire, not the damage causing the collapse.

That would make sense, given that the building stayed up for 7 hours after the damage was sustained.
Aphelion is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2007, 10:41 AM   #40
Firestone
Proud Award Award recipient
 
Firestone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 3,015
Originally Posted by dylan avery@LCF
I can just hear Mark Roberts now...

"Well...um...Chief Daniel Nigro...collapse zone...3 PM...obviously the BBC was reporting what the firefighters had told them...and, er...they jumped the gun. That's all. Go back to bed America."

9/11 Deniers speak. :lol:

LCF
Of course, Dylan, would never, NEVER make a mistake in a live report or a documentary. NEVER!
__________________
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
Firestone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:17 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.