The smoking gun of 9/11 that can not be disputed?

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Quote:

February 26, 2007
THE SMOKING GUN WTC7, BBC JUMPS THE GUN !!!

9/11 Building 7 Collapse - WTC7 23 Minute Warning - Salomon Brothers Building

BBC Error ! Huge smoking gun of pre-knowledge collapse of WTC7 *911blogger.com

'On September 11th 2001, BBC World reported at 4:57pm Eastern Time that the Salomon Brothers Building (more commonly known as WTC7 or World Trade Building 7) had collapsed.

This even made the 5pm EST headlines, what is bizarre is that the building did not actually collapse until 5:20pm EST.

9/11 was unusual enough, without BBC World being able to foretell the destiny of WTC 7.

What is even stranger, is that the women reporter is telling the world that the building had collapsed when you can see it in the background over her left shoulder.

Then at 5:15pm EST, just five minutes before the building did actually collapse, her live connection from New York to London mysteriously fails.

So the question is, on 9/11 how did the BBC learn that WTC7 collapsed 23 minutes before it actually did.

Building Seven was 47 storeys, modern in design with structural steel throughout, yet symmetrically collapsed in 6.5 seconds, was someone leaking information.

No steel framed skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire, before or after 9/11, most people who find out about WTC7, believe it was brought down by a controlled demolition, even demolition experts agree.' *911Blogger.com

WATCH THE FULL BBC VIDEO

I am looking for confirmation of the broadcast times, and whether that really is WTC-7 behind the BBC announcer woman reporting that the building has already collapsed (at 15:00 into the clip).

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,862 • Replies: 54

No top replies

Uh oh. Oooopsie.

0 Replies

Yep. This is timely!
Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Can you guys just step back, take a deep breath, and see how silly you are being?

First, it is ridiculous that someone on the internet puts up a video and claims it is a "smoking gun" with no proof, and you all jump on it like little kids at Christmas. There is nothing in this video that says what time it is from except big white letters (which are probably not from the BBC). The guy (anonymous?) tells you what you want to hear, and that is enough for you to offer it as proof?

Second, This makes absolutely no sense.

If there was a conspiracy... why the heck would they tell civilian reporters at the BBC. There is nothing to gain and it just means more work and more risk to tell reporters what to report when (presumably) the conspirators know what is going to happen anyway?

Even if this claim weren't from an anonymous source from the internet, it wouldn't make any sense, even in the bizzarro world of the 9/11 conspiracy people.

0 Replies

I'm not a 9/11 nut, but I saw the guy who owned the WTC give an interview in which he stated that the firemen and he decided to 'pull' WTC7. I can't believe that the guy was lying when he said this; he was in a position to know, after all.

While I don't think it proves a huge conspiracy, I do think that the official story isn't the truth.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

... and of course you guys have the right to believe whatever wacko theory you find, for whatever reason. It is a free country.

I get upset because I like to think that all of the wacko conspiracies come from the extreme right.

But then you guys come, with leftist rhetoric, with very similar (and equally wacky) conpiracies.

Sure, there isn't anything I can do about it but complain... But it kind of bugs me that you guys will be called liberals.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

... and of course you guys have the right to believe whatever wacko theory you find, for whatever reason. It is a free country.

I get upset because I like to think that all of the wacko conspiracies come from the extreme right.

But then you guys come, with leftist rhetoric, with very similar (and equally wacky) conpiracies.

Sure, there isn't anything I can do about it but complain... But it kind of bugs me that you guys will be called liberals.

I don't believe in any wacky conspiracies. I believe what I saw with my own good eye, a gentleman say on TV about the matter, who was intimately involved with it. That's not a conspiracy theory.

Watch for yourself - from a documentary on 9/11 -

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7750532340306101329

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

... and of course you guys have the right to believe whatever wacko theory you find, for whatever reason. It is a free country.

I get upset because I like to think that all of the wacko conspiracies come from the extreme right.

But then you guys come, with leftist rhetoric, with very similar (and equally wacky) conpiracies.

Sure, there isn't anything I can do about it but complain... But it kind of bugs me that you guys will be called liberals.

What kind of comspiracies would the right be putting out? Last I checked the left had the right beat by a long yard.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

ebrown_p wrote:
... and of course you guys have the right to believe whatever wacko theory you find, for whatever reason. It is a free country.

I get upset because I like to think that all of the wacko conspiracies come from the extreme right.

But then you guys come, with leftist rhetoric, with very similar (and equally wacky) conpiracies.

Sure, there isn't anything I can do about it but complain... But it kind of bugs me that you guys will be called liberals.

What kind of comspiracies would the right be putting out? Last I checked the left had the right beat by a long yard.

How about 'saddam and AQ were best friends' or maybe 'there are WMD in Iraq and they were moved to Syria with the help of the Russians' or perhaps 'cutting taxes on the rich, helps the poor.'

Or Ican's 'George Soros is the devil' theory, maybe.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Come on Baldimo, surely you jest!

The Right has the whole "Turner Diaries" stuff, where race wars threaten the existance of the white race. They also had all of the commie plots to flouridate water. Combine this with Holocaust denial and black helicopters from the UN taking all of our guns which are both common themes in the extreme right.

I would like to believe that the right invented conspiracy theories and then the left wing wackos sort of jumped on (off) the wagon. But sadly, they are similar enough that sometimes it is difficult to tell them apart.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Come on Baldimo, surely you jest!

The Right has the whole "Turner Diaries" stuff, where race wars threaten the existance of the white race. They also had all of the commie plots to flouridate water. Combine this with Holocaust denial and black helicopters from the UN taking all of our guns which are both common themes in the extreme right.

I would like to believe that the right invented conspiracy theories and then the left wing wackos sort of jumped on (off) the wagon. But sadly, they are similar enough that sometimes it is difficult to tell them apart.

Good point E. I try to forget those wack jobs because they don't usually post here. You got a good point. I concede!

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Come on Baldimo, surely you jest!

The Right has the whole "Turner Diaries" stuff, where race wars threaten the existance of the white race. They also had all of the commie plots to flouridate water. Combine this with Holocaust denial and black helicopters from the UN taking all of our guns which are both common themes in the extreme right.

I would like to believe that the right invented conspiracy theories and then the left wing wackos sort of jumped on (off) the wagon. But sadly, they are similar enough that sometimes it is difficult to tell them apart.

Did you watch the video?

Is my belief a conspiracy theory, given what the owner of the site said himself?

I do find it rather funny that you don't trust the bush admin at all, on a large number of issues - except for this one. You don't have to believe that the whole thing was planned and plotted from the WH to believe that the official story doesn't add up completely.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cyclo,

I haven't watched the video yet. I will watch it tonight.

Yes, there are different "flavors" of conspiracy theories... some of which are not as wacky as others. But, let me see the video and post my reaction then.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Cyclo,

I haven't watched the video yet. I will watch it tonight.

Yes, there are different "flavors" of conspiracy theories... some of which are not as wacky as others. But, let me see the video and post my reaction then.

Thanks. It's only a thirty-second clip.

I saw the whole original documentary, and it isn't a '9/11 truth' or anything like that. The documentary itself doesn't posit anything different than the official story; I just found it interesting that so much time has been spent explaining how WTC7 fell, and then watching Silverberg talk about how he and the fire dept. decided to 'pull' the building. I can't imagine how he could say such a thing if it wasn't true.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

What did Rudy know and when did he know it?

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

ebrown_p wrote:
Cyclo,

I haven't watched the video yet. I will watch it tonight.

Yes, there are different "flavors" of conspiracy theories... some of which are not as wacky as others. But, let me see the video and post my reaction then.

Thanks. It's only a thirty-second clip.

I saw the whole original documentary, and it isn't a '9/11 truth' or anything like that. The documentary itself doesn't posit anything different than the official story; I just found it interesting that so much time has been spent explaining how WTC7 fell, and then watching Silverberg talk about how he and the fire dept. decided to 'pull' the building. I can't imagine how he could say such a thing if it wasn't true.

Cycloptichorn

I watched the video, and my first reaction was that, although the term was puzzling, this didn't suggest any conspiracy.

I mean what conspiracy would this prove-- Silverstein was obviously recounting a decision made in a time of stress that wasn't planned in advance. The phrase 'pull it' was part of a story where he was lamenting the tragedy of the day. This is not the kind of story that would be told by someone who was part of a plan where he knew what would happen in advance.

The communication he was recounting was between him and a fire chief. It is difficult to believe that the fire chief would have been part of a government plot. It is even more difficult to believe that in a government plot two civilians would be in control of these detonations (instead of some government/military person).

After I saw the video, it took me about 5 minutes to sift through all the conspriacy theory sites (which I actually looked at to see what they said). Ironically none of the conspiracy sites offered an explanation that would explain why Silverstein recounts how he made this unexpected decision under stress, or why non-government civilians would be in a controll.

The only logical explanation was that he was making the pained decision to pull the rescue efforts.

I would be open to hearing how two civilians factor into the overall explanation of how the alleged conspiracy worked- except in all this time, I have yet to hear an over explanation. This happens to be the reason I am so confident that these conspiracies can be dismissed out of hand by anyone with any sense.

0 Replies

... and for the record I want to say-- and I have said this before.

I would be less scornful if there was one alternate version of what happened that explained all of the facts of the day (including the passengers, the planes the witnesses etc.) in any way that didn't defy logic.

Not one conspiracy theorist has even attempted to answer this challenge.

0 Replies

Rudolph Giuliani Got Warning WTC Towers Were Going To Collapse http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2005/090405gotwarning.htm

0 Replies

Update : (I've done some research since posting this thread. I can confirm that this story is BIG - possibly the smoking gun...)

Time Stamp Confirms BBC Reported WTC 7 Collapse 26 Minutes In Advance

http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/february2007/280207bbc.jpg

Both the announcer in the clip and the lower third banner report the collapse of WTC-7. The time stamp shows 21:54, or 9:54 PM British Time. (During the summer, British "summer" time is one hour ahead of Greenwich Mean or "Universal Time".)

Since the US is also on "Daylight Savings Time" in September, 9:54 PM British Time is 4:54 PM East Coast Time. That is roughly 20 minutes before WTC-7 actually came down.

What seems to be emerging here is that Flight 93 was planned to crash into WTC-7. When Flight 93 had to be shot down instead because the crew regained control, WTC-7 still had to come down or the pre-placed explosives inside would have given the whole game away. What seems likely is that a time was set for the demolition and sent out to agents in the media, but there was an unexpected delay to clear responders from the building, which is why WTC-7 is seen still standing behind the female announcer even as she reports the building as destroyed.

------------------

Also check out BBC's pathetic response : BBC Responds

Laughing

0 Replies

Another Smoking Gun? Now CNN Jumps the Gun: On 911 CNN Announced WTC 7 "Has Either Collapsed or is Collapsing" Over an Hour Before it Fell (Information Liberation)
In an amazing redux, new video has been unearthed of a CNN report on the day of 911 in which a CNN anchor announces they have received word that WTC 7 is on fire and "has either collapsed or is collapsing." The problem with this is that WTC 7 is clearly visible behind the anchor.

This report was carried at "about 4:15 eastern daylight time" (according to the anchor), over an hour before the building actually collapsed at 5:20. Who told them the WTC 7 building "has either collapsed or is collapsing."? Keep in mind he did not say it was going to collapse, he said it either had or was in the process of doing so. The anchor says is "we are getting information now", who is giving him this information? If you pay close attention you can see after the anchor announces this he turns around and sees the building as clear as day still standing, he then proceeds to backtrack on the initial information which informed him clearly the building "has either collapsed or is collapsing."

This report is doubled in significance seeing as it comes on the heels of a report that BBC announced that WTC 7 had collapsed over 20 minutes before it actually fell. Both of the anchors were told the building had collapsed, the question is who told them? http://www.informationliberation.com/print.php?id=20521

0 Replies

The smoking gun of 9/11 that can not be disputed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know