Yes Nick. I wonder if you'll be out equally praising the 7/7 programme after it has effectively trashed you, and the 7/7 movement
This programme requires a line by line, shot by shot analysis, showing how it relentlessly turns the analysis round so that the final impact on the erstwhile neutral person, however much it may have seemed to have presented one or two aspects fairly, that the conspiracy argument is in fact insubstantial. No doubt there'll several versions of such analysis around the internet within the next 48 hours.
Still, I am of the inclination that this may be part of the softening up process, that may yet in the near future result in the official revelation of at least partial regime involvement, and blamed on the hapless non-PNAC tools of the Bush administration _________________ http://www.exopolitics-leeds.co.uk/introduction
I didn't think it was as bad as the previous episode about 9/11 in that we did get to see a lot of the evidence that counters the official story, even though it was usually dismissed with generalisations and misleading statements. However, the fact that the programme concluded with a "no mystery here - case closed" message will probably be enough for most viewers....
Did anyone notice that for a brief moment they showed somebody in a T-shirt with a tv fakery slogan on it? I'm surprised that one of killtown's minions hasn't already posted about this major triumph for the npt cause over in "controversies"....
i thought it was a very sophisticated (much more so than the last one ) hit piece , with some clever editing to spin it towards the official story .
there was a lot more truth in there than i thought but that was cleverly placed at the beginning of the programme and then building towards a conclusion of " nothing to see here but crazy conspiracy theorists , oh and by the way you upset people if you talk about this so shut up " but thats just me !
and Richard Clarke is a real piece of work , eyes fixed open while lying his tits off with a smug little smile going , that needs wiping off !
and lets cut to Mark Loiseaux who cleared up the Oklahoma Murrah building aswell as the twin towers site for the ahem .. government , now he wouldn`t lie to you now would he ...
but all in all like some have said here , at least building 7 is now on the map , i don`t think it would be if it hadn`t been down to the truth organisations constantly pushing this info forward so everyone should be pleased , and now push it harder
and i also don`t think that there would have been as much real truth in there if people hadn`t hit Rudins blog in the past and given him such a hard time , he knew that if he did another one like last time it would have back fired on him big time , so i think its a good job done all round by everyone.
Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 10:06 pm Post subject: Response to WTC7 and Zero
I thought the programme was ok and wasnt anywhere near as slanted as we first thought it would be. I felt it certainly allowed an issue which previously hasnt been discussed to get an airing.
Look our for Zero: An Investigation into 9/11 which is coming soon to 20 Cinemas, a couple of weeks before the anniversary. This is a soup-nuts trawl around the 9/11 issue and very little will be new to you, save for the links between Al Quaeda and the CIA, and the origins of Al Quaeda.
Joined: 01 Mar 2007 Posts: 48 Location: Central Scotland
Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 10:14 pm Post subject:
Caz wrote:
I suggest he torch all his buildings instead, much cheaper and quicker, and watch them come down within hours!
Excellent point my friend... why bother with expensive, short shelf life, unstable, complicated, explosives and teams of highly trained engineers when all you need is a box of matches.
The time handed over to those questioning the official version was exemplary for a controlled media.
The question though arises why now AFTER 7 years?
The neocon agenda has run its course. The 'war on terror' is dead.
The fact that the BBC's only argument is that essentially a cover up of such an operation is too hard to hide in the modern world is ridiculous as they have done a pretty good job covering it up for a whole 7 years and their arguments that it is
a) a c*** up instead of a conspiracy
b) fire melts steel
c) 9/11 is a faith based issue not one based on facts
are essentially an admission of defeat, that they got caught lying through their teeth and like small children are attempting to wriggle out of the position of announcing news before it happened.
What we have is a 'news corporation' that can tell us the future and not how they arrived at it, needs years to pass by before they can tell us what happened and lie barefacedly about the war on Iraq.
Now they will either go after Silverstein for the insurance scam, or they will go after some minor neo-con officials...
At the end of the day all we are asking the media for is to report the events, evidence and opinions fairly and without bias. I dare say on closer srutiny errors and legitimate criticisms in the programme will emerge, but on first viewing I say Mike Rudin deserves a lot credit. Given the confines that he must undoubtedly operate under, it would be unrealistic to expect more at least at this stage of the unraveling.
The BBC and the mainstream media in general and Conspiracy Files in particular still have a long way to go before peoples' faith in their integrity and fairness is restored. Their reporting of 9/11, the 9/11 truth movement and 'the war on terror' in general has been so outrageous to date that it will take a lot to restore that faith but this programme I see as a positive development. Much better editorially than the first 9/11 programme.
paul wright wrote:
Yes Nick. I wonder if you'll be out equally praising the 7/7 programme after it has effectively trashed you, and the 7/7 movement
When the BBC analyse Nick's opinions about the holocaust I expect them to well and truly 'trash Nick'. These opinions deserve to be. As for them 'trashing the wider 7/7 movement', only time will tell whether they will repeat the error that others have made in stereotyping 'conspiracy theorists' and portraying Nick's opinions as being in anyway representative of the wider 9/11 or the July 7 truth movements in this country. They clearly are not. Surely tonight's programme offers more reason to be hopeful that in reporting the truth movement they will atleast be fair (or atleast less biased)
paul wright wrote:
Still, I am of the inclination that this may be part of the softening up process, that may yet in the near future result in the official revelation of at least partial regime involvement, and blamed on the hapless non-PNAC tools of the Bush administration
I know what you are saying but in terms of covering the full range of opinions on WTC7 and the tower collapses, let's remember that Judy Woods was offered the opportunity to participate in the programme but choose to decline. I understand that decision (especially given the first 9/11 conspiracy files programme) but they did have this choice.
Last edited by ian neal on Thu Jul 10, 2008 12:24 pm; edited 3 times in total
I've just finished watching and recording the BBC Conspiracy Files programme about the Tower Seven collapse. Here are my initial reactions:
What the BBC does with programmes like this is basically first to confuse the average listener with myriad detail and then get an 'expert' or 'authority' to make the final summing-up. They are using the psychological ploy that a confused or destabilised mind will look for an authority figure to guide it out of the confusion. That is precisely what the BBC tries with this programme.
Secondly, by losing everyone in the minutiae of the Tower Seven Collapse the BBC distracts the viewer from the basic, unanswered questions on the main event which Rab on Medialens has put rather well:
"1 - How could Al Qaeda (AQ) arrange for the visas for the 19 alleged hijackers if some of them were on a watch list (and that's before discussing identity theft as some of the 19 are still alive and were never in the U.S.) and how could they get them safely through immigration?
2 - How could AQ get the FBI to pull back many of their investigations into AQ in the U.S. before 9-11, investigations that could have stopped the events from happening?
3 - How could AQ have ensured the numerous war games held on 9-11 would actually be held (and how could they have found out these were going to be held as these ensured resources were stretched on that day?) and ensured they were not cancelled when their 9-11 events started?
4 - How could AQ have ensured that none of all the fighter / interceptors the U.S. possesses would be scrambled to stop 9-11 and when eventually scrambled how could they ensure they were sent the wrong way out to sea or to provide air cover over the wrong cities when exactly those kind of intercept missions had been successfully and quickly conducted 91 times in the previous year?
5 - How could AQ ensure their 'pilots' who could barely fly in some cases would actually be able to stay on course and not miss the targets?
6 - How could AQ ensure that none of the surface to air missiles that protect the pentagon would be launched when the alleged airliner that hit the pentagon approached (see here the stuff about Cheney being asked if the orders still stood as a plane was 30 miles out - he said yes according to Norman Mineta and defensive measures were never taken even though any plane approaching without a valid U.S. military transponder is targetted, a system that lead to a UK plane being shot down in the ME by the U.S.)?
7 - How could AQ ensure the Bush regime would ignore the many warnings about an attack on 9-11 given to them by many security agences around the world including many from the U.S.'s own sources?
8 - How, given that no fire had ever caused a steel framed building to collapse into its own footprint despite there being many bigger and longer lasting fires in much smaller, weaker buildings; given that the first firemen on the scene said they only needed two hoses as the fire was small; given the huge plumes of smoke meaning less flames and heat; given the fact that airline fuels burns at a much lower temperature than that needed to melt or weaken steel yet molten steel was found in the ruins in the basement; given that video evidence shows white smoke coming from the base of the WTC before the collapse and many eyewitnesses spoke of explosions in the basement; given that hundreds of structural engineers and demolition experts from around the world have said it was a controlled demolition; taking all this into consideration to reach the only conclusion scientifically possible - that of explosives in the building, how could AQ have gotten access to the building for the time necessary to plant explosives and without any prying eyes around to see what they were doing?
9 - How, given the fact that there was a two day power down in the weeks prior to 9-11 when all security cameras were switched off, the building emptied and bomb sniffer dogs taken away never to return just for a so-called internet rewiring organised by the firm in charge of security, a firm run by Bush's younger brother and cousin, could AQ have infiltrated this firm enough to organise all this without triggering any suspicions?"
During the 'seventies, in the days when I was active in the UK Anti-Nuclear Campaign, we soon found out not to allow ourselves to be drawn down the never-ending path of discussing the minutiae of the argument about nuclear power technology which the pro-nuclear groups, particularly the UKAEA, would invariably try to take us. Even if a few activists were technically au fait with a lot of the technical detail such a ploy was deliberately aimed at confusing and losing the greater part of the audience. It was always best to stick with the core essentials of the argument.
I have every reason to believe that we would do best to adhere to such a policy here as well. Having said that, various apparent glaring inconsistencies about tonight's programme --eg. why were Larry Silverstein's comments about his decision to pull the building not taken at face value to mean exactly what was meant when he made them?-- are already surfacing ...
I know what you are saying but in terms of covering the full range of opinions on WTC7 and the tower collapses, let's remember that Judy Woods was offered the opportunity to participate in the programme but choose to decline. I understand that decision (especially given the first 9/11 conspiracy files programme) but they did have this choice.
I'm not sure what Judy Woods has to do with it. I wasnt arguing her case, Ian, and I'm pretty sure she was right not to involve herself.
Though for the cogniscenti I do personally believe that whilst the 7 collapse looks absolutely like conventional CD, I'm kind of with that Controlled Demolition guy, undoubtedly part of it, who said that to set that building up with CD would have required masses of work and wiring
It's this sleight of hand stuff, where they offer a smoking gun, then selecting their options, they can either deny it or introduce it into the mainstream
Woods' contention only contains the methodology of the main mirage where alternate interpretations can exist simultaneously _________________ http://www.exopolitics-leeds.co.uk/introduction
Last edited by paul wright on Sun Jul 06, 2008 11:58 pm; edited 1 time in total
Was not too bad. Main complaint would be how little air time Steven Jones and his work was given. I guess because he is very credible and they were unable to undermine him.
Joined: 26 Apr 2006 Posts: 1850 Location: Currently Andover
Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 5:19 am Post subject:
Although on the surface it seemed to balance, I would agree the alternative stuff was presented at the beginning so people would forget it by the end of the hour.
It would also be interesting to sum the total screen time for each side of the argument. _________________ Currently working on a new website
...and the fire systems were under test, by coincidence, and people were told to ignore any fire alarms!?... no wonder no one spotted anyone destroying the Enron and Worldcom evidence and starting the fires in the first place!
...was really looking forward to their explanation of the "squibs", if thats what they were, running up the top right corner of the building a split second before the collapse!... but the BBC failed to spot them!... blast!!... maybe next time!?
....given that the first firemen on the scene said they only needed two hoses as the fire was small; given the huge plumes of smoke meaning less flames and heat; given the fact that airline fuels burns at a much lower temperature than that needed to melt or weaken steel ....
He could add in point 8 that a woman was seen standing in the hole made by the plane, completely unaffected by any heat, so proving the fires were not intense. _________________ "The conflict between corporations and activists is that of narcolepsy versus remembrance. The corporations have money, power and influence. Our sole influence is public outrage. Extract from "Cloud Atlas (page 125) by David Mitchell.
Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 10:34 am Post subject: Re: WTC: The BBC's theory
IanFantom wrote:
The BBC's theory is based on a hypothesis which is to be confirmed by computer modeling which will show that extensive fires on one side only of WTC7 would bring down the building symmetrically because it was built over a substation and therefore fewer columns were constructed going deep into the ground.
Regards,
Ian.
They can try but all the Engineers unsure of where they lie on this will now for sure lean more to our side as they really are struggling with impossabilities, plucking fancyfull maybes and calling them truths.
The Raging fires in (building five I think) showed that maybe 4 collumns removed over much longer time frame but the scant fires spread over WTC 7 was enough to weaken every joint? and again where is the Freefall??
This Programme is PRICELESS _________________ 'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'
“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”
Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:16 am Post subject: Re: WTC: The BBC's theory
Disco_Destroyer wrote:
The Raging fires in (building five I think) showed that maybe 4 collumns removed over much longer time frame but the scant fires spread over WTC 7 was enough to weaken every joint? and again where is the Freefall??
Yes, the fire in building 5 says it all really. Why didn't it collapse?
No doubt the BBC will refer to the structural design of building 7 which was very asymmetrical, spanning as it did the underground system below it but as Richard Gage was trying to point out (and the BBC ignored this), the building could only have fallen with its outer walls remaining vertical if failure had been completely symmetrical and so the BBC (and NIST's) hypothesis is clearly wrong.
Also, what about all the other buildings close to WTC7 which took direct hits and lost great sections of facade in the process yet remained standing?
I know what you are saying but in terms of covering the full range of opinions on WTC7 and the tower collapses, let's remember that Judy Woods was offered the opportunity to participate in the programme but choose to decline. I understand that decision (especially given the first 9/11 conspiracy files programme) but they did have this choice.
Though for the cogniscenti I do personally believe that whilst the 7 collapse looks absolutely like conventional CD, I'm kind of with that Controlled Demolition guy, undoubtedly part of it, who said that to set that building up with CD would have required masses of work and wiring
Note that Rudin's article states that NIST says "fire fighters could not fight the fires in Tower 7, because they didn't have enough water and focused on saving lives." However, NIST's claim is incorrect. There were fireboats moored near the WTC the morning of 9/11, to provide water to the site. See:
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/17_Pharvey.html
One of the boats, the John J. Harvey, could "pump 16,000 to 20,000 gallons of water a minute. 'That's the equivalent of 15 [fire] engines drafting water,' explained 65-year-old FDNY retiree Bob Lenney, who spent 25 years piloting Harvey." See:
http://www.fireboat.org/press/time_out_092701.asp
An earlier NIST report in fact stated, "According to the FDNY first-person interviews, water was never an issue at WTC 7 since firefighting was never started in the building." See:
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-8.pdf (p. 110).
Micspi: Pre-wiring issue:
There seem to be many maverick angles on 9/11 which co-opt bits of 9/11 truth movement truth or lore to then bend things back against wicked mulsim perps. e.g.. Hawkscafe going a bundle on thermite, cos it was stolen from Saddam's missile programme by Iraq Al-Q and shipped via Canada (dirty French) to New York harbour and thence into the towers .... I think this Bin Laden company angle is absurd, and I would be surprised if the pre-built for demolition line turns out true, even minus Bin Laden company.
Mark Loizeaux says the stuff doesn't stay stable for more than 3 years, - yes I know his dodgy record, but he does know about explosives and not everything he says is necessarily false! - but maybe the pre-wiring allows for the charges to be clipped in neatly when the time is right? Though how come no one noticed all the extra wires and brackets?
Rory: I very much agree that they got so close in to some selected bits of the evidence , [which they toggle bewildering between,] that it can be bewildering for folk, and can be seen as softening people up for experts to reassure them by the end, including Richard Clarke ...nuff said.
They also showed the Mark Roberts circle about us conspiracy nuts. This psychologism is the central core of the CF agenda, IMO. But it is also true that others may view their programmes and, based on their experience and knowledge, be able to read different things in it, which does help us.
The whole force of our focus on WRC7 was 'no plane hit it' - but these days one realises that no planes hit any other of the buildings .... - at least some of us think we know that. (spare us the long list, G)
So we need a whole site analysis.
Paul, I agreed with you about maybe crediting Loizeaux up to a point,, and about the first sentence here not sure what you meant in the second sentence:
Quote:
It's this sleight of hand stuff, where they offer a smoking gun, then selecting their options, they can either deny it or introduce it into the mainstream
Woods' contention only contains the methodology of the main mirage where alternate interpretations can exist simultaneously
could you expand?
Anyway, this was my reply, which I think my fellow co-ordinator in Scotland will agree with but couldn't check. (We seem to take a somewhat different view in Scotland).
Letter to Herald
I write to protest about Sunday night's BBC2 Conspiracy Files programme, entitled 9/11 - The Third Tower, which toggled between two versions of reality while ignoring a third.
The first version was the official hypothesis which invokes computer modelling to suggest that, in the absence of effective fire-fighting, moderately extensive fires in World Trade Centre Building 7 would bring down this massive steel-framed building because it was built over a substation and therefore fewer columns had been used in its construction.
The only rival version allowed in this programme successfully pointed out the impossibility of WTC7 falling at 'freefall speed' (half a second faster than air-resistance actually) and falling so symmetrically, given the assymetrical locations of such fire, explosion and debris damage as occurred.
However as Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolitions Inc argued, this 'controlled demolition' conspiracy hypothesis itself failed to propose how this huge building could have been wired up for destruction so extensive that not a squashed filing cabinet nor computer remained, let alone explosive tubes and detonation caps such as are usually found at demolition sites, but only 'powdered debris and mettle', according NY Fire Chief Daniel Nigro.
Both theories depend on sufficient heat to have weakened or melted the steel, and point to NASA reports of red hot metal at C725 degrees in the debris. However, this 'evidence' runs into the massive problem of why no flash steam explosions were reported, which constant hosing of the debris would surely have led to, if such hot-spots had really existed.
To resolve this stalemate we need to return to close physical observations of the World Trade Centre and surrounding area, which Dr Judy Wood provides on www.drjudywood.com, which shows a large range of remarkable 'field effects' occurring that morning, from exploding oxygen tanks and 'cold' engine fires to empty 'cookie cut-out' holes in WTC6 and 5, to bizarre rusting and deformation of steel beams contorted around a vertical axis.
Some of these field effects continue to this day, which is probably the real reason Ground Zero has not been built on, requiring as it has from Day One huge lorryfuls of soil to be shipped in - and out at the end of every week, in an attempt to soak up or switch off some remarkable dissociative reaction which e.g. 're-infected' the damaged Bankers Trust building even after many steel girders had been replaced.
Wood observes a destruction wave travelling down the side of the Towers, but does not assume from this that e.g. the top floor of the South Tower fell to earth at the government-reported speeds of 9 seconds, which is impossible, because it nearly corresponds to freefall in a vaccum, not through air, and certainly not through 109 other steel and concrete floors. How to resolve this conundrum?
Close observation suggests that the twin towers didn't fall, but went up, after turning into fine powder in mid air, including 98 percent of their steel. From analysis of amazed eye-witness reports and the few early photos which weren't rounded up, it seems that there never was a 'pile' where the twin towers used to stand - google Hunt the Rubble.
To account for these remarkable observations, Dr Wood proposes that we need to consider the possibility of black budget High-Tech directed energy weaponry, against which proponents of both the explanations portrayed by the BBC unite in derision.
Unfortunately the stakes are too high for derision. We need reason and evidence, not more disinformation, such as this heavily promoted Conspiracy Files programme, 'unravelling the last mysteries of 9/11', so it was trailed.
Most of us in the 911 Truth movement believe the official (Bin-Laden dunnit) conspiracy theory is a government psy-op and racist war pretext. Beyond that we know that there is much that we don't know. But the intel-media complex haven't even started to unravel the first mysteries of 9/11, and often confuse matters further. The sooner we have our own Scottish broadcasting service and an independent Scottish investigation into September 11th, the better.
For what price 'Independence' if we still labour under the War on Terror delusions manufactured by the Anglo-American State?
Keith Mothersson
911 Truth Scotland
2b Darnhall Cres, Perth
01738 783677
07815 653389 _________________ For the defence of our one worldwide civilian Motherland, against whatever ruling or informal fraternities.
They can try but all the Engineers unsure of where they lie on this will now for sure lean more to our side as they really are struggling with impossabilities, plucking fancyfull maybes and calling them truths.
The Raging fires in (building five I think) showed that maybe 4 collumns removed over much longer time frame but the scant fires spread over WTC 7 was enough to weaken every joint? and again where is the Freefall??
This Programme is PRICELESS
I think the BBC now need to revise their theory on how the Twin Towers came down. How could they have been struck by aircraft? Clearly the raging fires would have melted the jet engines before they even reached the towers.
James C wrote:
Quote:
No doubt the BBC will refer to the structural design of building 7 which was very asymmetrical, spanning as it did the underground system below it but as Richard Gage was trying to point out (and the BBC ignored this), the building could only have fallen with its outer walls remaining vertical if failure had been completely symmetrical and so the BBC (and NIST's) hypothesis is clearly wrong.
I think the BBC are saying that because the columns were unsymmetrical and the fires were unsymmetrical the other way round, then the building would have fallen straight down. It's all in the computer.
Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 4:34 pm Post subject: Re: WTC: The BBC's theory
IanFantom wrote:
James C wrote:
Quote:
No doubt the BBC will refer to the structural design of building 7 which was very asymmetrical, spanning as it did the underground system below it but as Richard Gage was trying to point out (and the BBC ignored this), the building could only have fallen with its outer walls remaining vertical if failure had been completely symmetrical and so the BBC (and NIST's) hypothesis is clearly wrong.
I think the BBC are saying that because the columns were unsymmetrical and the fires were unsymmetrical the other way round, then the building would have fallen straight down. It's all in the computer.
Which is clearly nonsense.
If the weight of the structure is distributed via an asymmetrical arrangement of columns and beams then any collapse of the building and its outer walls will be asymmetrical also which in the case of the facade of WTC7 it wasn't. How on earth could every column in the facade have failed at exactly the same point at exactly the same time - a sequence required to happen if the walls were to remain vertical as they fell? And since the inside of the building collapsed first with the loss of the penthouses happening a few seconds before the rest of the building started to fall, how on earth could this have happened without pulling the facade inwards? Are we to believe that the dozens and dozens of rigid connections between each floor and the outer columns suddenly disappeared to leave the outer walls free to fall on their own? Then again, the BBC didn't discuss the collapse sequence in any great detail and so any casual watcher would have been none the wiser.
With so many puzzling questions, no wonder NIST has taken almost 7 years to produce its final report on the matter - they can pretend to have started only 2 and a half years ago but that's probably rubbish.
All in all it's oh so easy for anyone to be an expert when they know nothing about how buildings really work and that includes those at the BBC. And before you say it, up until 13 years ago when I decided on a career change, I was working as a qualified architect.
Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 5:55 pm Post subject: James C:
Would you please consider writing a list of hard questions which remain unanswered re. WTC 7? Activists could use it in material aimed at the media and the public.
Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 9:37 pm Post subject: WTC7 Came down symmetrically due to its unique design?
ACCORDING TO THE BBC CONSPIRACY FILES THAT WENT OUT 06/0708,
WTC7 CAME DOWN SYMMETRICALLY AT FREE-FALL SPEED INTO ITS OWN FOOTPRINT BECAUSE IT WAS BUILT ON TOP OF AN ELECTRICITY SUB-STATION AND A SUBWAY.
AN UNUSUAL DESIGN OF STEEL FRAMEWORK WAS NEEDED AND USED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF WTC7 BECAUSE OF WHAT WAS UNDERNEATH.
SO WTC7 COLLAPSED AS IT DID DUE TO THIS UNIQUE STEEL FRAMEWORK.
Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 2568 Location: One breath from Glory
Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:07 pm Post subject:
Quote:
ACCORDING TO THE BBC CONSPIRACY FILES THAT WENT OUT 06/0708,
WTC7 CAME DOWN SYMMETRICALLY AT FREE-FALL SPEED INTO ITS OWN FOOTPRINT BECAUSE IT WAS BUILT ON TOP OF AN ELECTRICITY SUB-STATION AND A SUBWAY.
AN UNUSUAL DESIGN OF STEEL FRAMEWORK WAS NEEDED AND USED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF WTC7 BECAUSE OF WHAT WAS UNDERNEATH.
SO WTC7 COLLAPSED AS IT DID DUE TO THIS UNIQUE STEEL FRAMEWORK.
Sounds a load of cods wallop because why has it taken all these years to come up with that answer. FEMA and NIST go from "dont know" to "substation/subway below" Clutching at straws me thinks _________________ JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12
Joined: 31 Jan 2007 Posts: 296 Location: Halifax, West Yorkshire
Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:24 pm Post subject: BBC's theory on WTC7
Yes, amaninblack, that sums it up. Details on Mike Rubin's blogsite
amaninblack wrote:
ACCORDING TO THE BBC CONSPIRACY FILES THAT WENT OUT 06/0708,
WTC7 CAME DOWN SYMMETRICALLY AT FREE-FALL SPEED INTO ITS OWN FOOTPRINT BECAUSE IT WAS BUILT ON TOP OF AN ELECTRICITY SUB-STATION AND A SUBWAY.
AN UNUSUAL DESIGN OF STEEL FRAMEWORK WAS NEEDED AND USED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF WTC7 BECAUSE OF WHAT WAS UNDERNEATH.
SO WTC7 COLLAPSED AS IT DID DUE TO THIS UNIQUE STEEL FRAMEWORK.
A certain gentleman, who has a known record of demolishing buildings, and goes by the name of B.B. Wolf was seen in the vicinity of Building 7 shortly before its collapse. Witnesses saw him taking a large intake of breath. They were diverted by a naked emperor passing by and stopped to admire his wonderful clothes. Suddenly Building 7 was gone. I could have saved the BBC a fortune. _________________ "The conflict between corporations and activists is that of narcolepsy versus remembrance. The corporations have money, power and influence. Our sole influence is public outrage. Extract from "Cloud Atlas (page 125) by David Mitchell.
A certain gentleman, who has a known record of demolishing buildings, and goes by the name of B.B. Wolf was seen in the vicinity of Building 7 shortly before its collapse. Witnesses saw him taking a large intake of breath. They were diverted by a naked emperor passing by and stopped to admire his wonderful clothes. Suddenly Building 7 was gone. I could have saved the BBC a fortune.
Why on earth do you post such blatant whims?
-
Some pondering on the program:
- WTC 7 and another building being brought down by controlled demolition shown side by side, falling by the EXACT same speed, PRIME TIME. Thats actually something.
- What the media demonizes as "conspiracy theorists" shows up to be an architect with 20 yrs professional experience + Steven Jones + this Loose change guy who had perfectly clear arguments. Our victory.
- Normal lies that "its a dishonour to the first responders and victims families", which could be easily proven wrong. Since it's to the contrary.
- NIST still doesnt seem to have a clue, if you see trough their hyper-detailed computer models.. They have the steel frames modelled, but hey - there's CONCRETE there also.. and the house is falling like a house of cards!
- BBC puts a microphone in the face of TWO PRIME SUSPECTS!! That is actually quite cool, and could be used in our advantage if anyone mixed it into a youtube video..
Naturally it was angled, but I wonder if it does not raise more questions that it leaves answers to a regular viewer? They certainly did not manage to contradict our theory in a very convincing way.
It is derision. The BBC programme deserves nothing less. Feel free to ignore it if it bothers you. _________________ "The conflict between corporations and activists is that of narcolepsy versus remembrance. The corporations have money, power and influence. Our sole influence is public outrage. Extract from "Cloud Atlas (page 125) by David Mitchell.
While we're at it.. This is history Channel special on CDI. Note the part from Las Vegas, when theyre making these spectacular show demolitions with jet fuel! And on their website, theyre bragging about having brought down the tallest building in the world. They sure did...
Joined: 28 Jul 2005 Posts: 274 Location: North West London
Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 11:17 am Post subject:
This BBC film is an opportunity for us. It has presented all of the centrally-relevant evidence for the first time ever. The British public have now heard it, and not just from loony ‘conspiracy theorists’ but from the BBC. Is that an achievement or what?
Of course the program had to end up with the ‘official’ view. It had to. There was never any question about that. But, at every stage thru the program, our side’s view was presented fairly and forcefully.
The official view that was presented is going to fall apart in viewers’ minds very quickly. It’s totally incredible, for the reasons that were in fact given in this program: the idea that the steel beams can all buckle simultaneously, at only 600° centrigrade, and allow a sudden totally vertical collapse where the Tower descends into its own footprint … given that no such collapse has ever happened before or since that day… no-one will really believe that, will they? In their hearts, viewers are going to know that Dylan Avery has to be right.
I agree with 'JM' that there is an opportunity of us lot doing a leaflet explaining why the views of Mark Loiseaux and others here given are absurdly impossible (‘would you please consider writing a list of hard questions which remain unanswered re WTC 7? Activists could use it in material aimed at the media and the public.') The ‘other side’s views have been clearly laid out in this program, and that now gives us a great opportunity. We could organise fine public discussions using this BBC program, with such leaflets.
This could be also an opportunity to put out a press release, commending the BBC’s balance of views in this program (Ian: ‘Surely tonight's programme offers more reason to be hopeful that in reporting the truth movement they will at least be fair’), then itemising a number of points as people are here making.
PS What a pity Judy Wood declined, she is the one person who has discussed the ‘smouldering’ of WTC-7 for 2 hours in the morning, and how this then vanished for some hours before the collapse.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You can attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
