Posted by MutantMandias And who the fuck would have given him the document, because, what I'm saying is, people would have to be far too inept to do any of this stuff if they didn't realize that the events happening during a simulated terrorist attack would not be handled by press releases specifying future events that are supposed to happen as a result of unexpected terrorist actions.

Every time you bring up an issue there can be one of many explanations.

The easiest way to explain how BBC knew of WTC 7 was that they were either told by an anonymous "official," or a release was forwarded and faxed to them.

And you're telling me that somebody with the right means and resources can't send a simple fucking press release with agency letterhead? I'm sure Cheney has a drawer full of DOD, CIA, FBI, White House letterhead at his disposal.

This whole operation could have EASILY been carried out by 4-6 people. That's what I meant when I said the Manhattan Project of 10,000 people involved was never leaked, and the NSA "didn't even exist" for over 5 decades, despite being much bigger than the CIA.

I'm not saying that's what happened. I'm saying the official explanation is SERIOUSLY flawed, so we need to figure out what actually did happen.

Posted by tunnelbug The easiest way to explain how BBC knew of WTC 7 was that they were either told by an anonymous "official," or a release was forwarded and faxed to them.

Okay, I don't understand why you don't seem to be able to hear me. Let me try it a different way:

I want to do something nefarious. My motives are not important, but I will accomplish my goals using havoc and misdirection. First, the asassination of George Clooney. Then, in the ensuing worldwide despair and confussion, I will chop off his left hand and take it to my underground bunker for further unspeakable acts. It is very important for my plans that people are horrified that his hand has been removed.

So, I start by shooting Clooney, which is very rewarding. Then, as I am setting off to chop off his hand, I remember that I want to make damn sure that people are disturbed by the attrocity, so I issue a press release to the media announcing that the recently asassinated star's hand will be chopped off in about 15 minutes. Don't release this info for 15 minutes, please, okay, thanks.

In the tail spin of despair that everyone in the entire world has been dragged into, the reporters accidentally proceed right away with the report that his hand has been chopped off, all the while standing in front of his 2 handed corpse.

Then I say, "Hey! What's that over there?" and cut off his hand when people look over at Lindsey Lohan holding her press conference about how all of this is all affecting her.


Okay, yeah, I guess you're right. That IS a lot more plausible than the official story.

Again, none of us know the ANSWER!

But the fact that the news networks (both CNN AND BBC reported it before it happened) knew about this raises even more QUESTIONS.

You don't need to believe me, or any of the other 60% of Americans who are supposed "conspiracy nuts"

Hypothetically speaking, however, the release didn't necesarily need to say "WTC 7 will fall" in order to be suspicious. It could have simply said, "People on the ground are reporting that the building is unstable, and that WTC 7, according to engineers' estimates will fall at approximately 5:20 p.m. -- EMBARGO 5:20 p.m."

The release would have pointed more cameras at the building -- something that Bush could later use in his re-election campaign commercials (and did quite effectively, I might add).

It tires me to explain these things. A little critical thinking gets you a long way.

Posted by tunnelbug A little critical thinking gets you a long way.

How could you possible know? Did someone tell you this?

Posted by MutantMandias How could you possible know? Did someone tell you this?

These obscure concepts called "logic" "reason" and "empirical deduction" told me. That's all I need personally to believe what I do. You don't need to believe the same thing, but in my opinion the evidence speaks for itself.

I abstain from anything else on this subject because I know, by now, everyone is annoyed at both of us for prolonging the thread.

Posted by tunnelbug These obscure concepts called "logic" "reason" and "empirical deduction" told me. That's all I need personally to believe what I do. You don't need to believe the same thing, but in my opinion the evidence speaks for itself.

Well, I finally got around to watching the videos and reading the article, and maybe you could alert the writers of that article about these ideas of "logic" and "reason." They seem very unfamiliar with such things.

They describe their detractors' best arguments as some insipid, easily countered ideas, which clearly don't even need to argued against. That supports their side about as well as me telling everyone that you have PM'd me and told me that your central argument is that I am actually a goat.

And then they make leaps of faith with no supporting logic, and then reinterpret everything in such a way so as to not contradict the simplistic absurdity "concluded" as a result of something else not being demonstrably true, which is not the same as false.

And I love how they indignantly ask "Where is the BBC's clarification on this?" without actually asking the BBC for clarification. That's cute. It seems if they were interested in the BBC's response, they might could have maybe asked the BBC to comment.

I also love the apparent catch phrase used when they say how could the BBC have reported that it had collapsed from fire damage "when no modern steel building in history had collapsed from fire damage alone." It was 8 hours after the whole thing had started; the single most exhausting day EVER in the life of every one of those people. They had already watched 2 modern steel buildings collapse, essentially as a result of fire damage.

Do you remember that day? I do. People were talking all kinds of shit. No one knew what the hell was going on. Long before the towers collapsed, there had been discussions that they would fall, no they couldn't, maybe they will, blah blah blah. Then they did. At that point, no one involved in any of it can trust their "logic" and "reason." Logic and reason had left the building. People should have been taking elevators, but logic and reason have always told us that the stairs are safer. People jumped the fuck out of buildings, and those were probably the most logical decisions made that day, in a nice tribute to fucked-upedness. By the end of the day, I could have walked up and told anyone in New York that any building was going to collapse and they would have fucking believed me, whether it had even been on fire or not.

Firemen, who are trying to deal with WTC7, see that steel inside is yielding and giving way. They think back about 1000 years earlier to that very morning when they saw their friends die. At that point, their job is to tell as many people as possible that the building is collapsing from structural damage.

Where is any of this contradicted? The word spreads to the news agencies that the building is collapsing. They report it. Where is the problem? Why does an error, on a day when nothing was clear or understandable or logical, mean that the BBC had a script of the events of the day and played along with it?

The great thing about all of this is that it seems to all depend on the idea that it would have been impossible for someone to accidentally report that a building had collapsed. So this whole bizarre, alternative story is created where everyone has even more knowledge and more planning and STILL the result is that they accidentally report that a building has collapsed. All it does is make the details MORE muddy and unbelievable.

Posted by tunnelbug I abstain from anything else on this subject because I know, by now, everyone is annoyed at both of us for prolonging the thread.

Great! Glad I won.

I think this was sloppy reporting by the BBC, but they didn't know ahead of time. Many "Live on location" reports are just in front of a green screen, and I think that's what is going on here. Someone fucked up and got stock footage from earlier in the day for the report.

Here ya go, fucktards:

The BBC flubbed. WTC 7 falling was news enough on its own that no one should have been prepping any news agency on the when/what/where about it. I can't believe that Alex Jones revealing a 20 minute error is monumental news. At all.

Futhermore, BBC, CNN, Fox Noise Channel, etc are all corporations that stay in business by making money on viewership. Henceforth, their credibility, (even when reporting on waterskiing squirrels), is in question. The "News" and "World Events" are two separate things. Remember, TV is entertainment and that includes the News.

Now for the fun part: There is no reason to believe that airplanes and fire alone could drop WTC1, 2, or 7. Never happened before, hasn't happened again.

Demo makes sense. Controlled-access gaps are documented, yada yada yada.

The crux of this issue lies in the realization that there are literally two sets of facts associated with September 11th.

For example, there are several people who were employed by the company that inspected the steel used to build WTC1 and 2, and they'll all have highly contradictory opinions. These people have the same education, have reached the same position in that company, etc. They've just PERCEIVED the events of that day differently.

Any fact you find from the Popular Mechanic's hitpiece can be countered by a fact from a slew of conspiracy-labeled reports.

My advice, (after 7 years of pulling my hair out over this), is to stick to the hard stuff: Free-fall physics, flight records, stand-down orders.

You assholes with your BBC this, missing planes that, Bin Laden anti-confessions, etc are making it difficult to keep the 911 Truthers out of the "Crazies" denomination.

Posted by thewesticle My advice, (after 7 years of pulling my hair out over this), is to stick to the hard stuff: Free-fall physics, flight records, stand-down orders. You assholes with your BBC this, missing planes that, Bin Laden anti-confessions, etc are making it difficult to keep the 911 Truthers out of the "Crazies" denomination.

Finally! A voice of reason and moderation. I repeat: the facts are the very basis of my beliefs. The conjecture about Mossad, Cheney, etc. are just conjecture, and that's all they ever will be until we get real answers.

I just see suspicious activity like I've never known before in government. And that's reason enough to be critical.

Posted by tunnelbug Finally! A voice of reason and moderation.

HA! I know that guy. Reason and moderation? Not his game, baby.

But seriously, I asked him to join us here because I can agree with him on a lot of his crazy conspiracy ideas, but tunnelbug just keeps sounding like a freaking nut.

Posted by fedge I noticed this interesting article about how BBC actually reported the collapse of WTC building 7 before it collapsed, even given a reason for its collapse! All this reported with a new reporter standing in front of the still-standing WTC 7! CNN was also reporting the imminent collapse of WTC 7 prior to its collapse - when no modern steel building in history had collapsed from fire damage alone. http://img182.imag.../270207bbc2ab5.jpg From the article:

Just a question here.

Don't the reporters stand in front of a blue screen and the image is added to it just before broadcast? Maybe the report just came in that the building had collapsed and the picture behind the reporter was an earlier one showing the building still standing. If so, that may just explain the discrepancy.

As mentioned before, for a building to be imploded, weeks of prep work has to be done to make sure the building implodes correctly. The prep work would be immediately obvious (walls removed etc) to occupants of the building. I remember seeing footage of the building's actual collapse on TV and it was fully engulfed in flames when it just gave a small twist and folded in on itself.