BBC Announced WTC7 COLLAPSE before it happened! smoking gun

[pepik]

I think you just accidentally proved what a lot of people have been saying. For troofers, proving the conspiracy to themselves is the objective. Not proving it to other people, not doing something about it, no, just sitting at home in the bedsit secure in the knowledge that nobody can make them admit they are wrong.

[Serge]

[rodin]

[pepik]

[Serge]

[ian neal]

Pepik

Your attempts at an explanation for this mistake are laughable (still as long as you are enjoying yourself)

I for one am not claiming anything on the back of this BBC mistake. All I want is some kind of explanation that makes sense and is consistent with the BBC's previous statements with regards to WTC7.

As Tele says, the BBC reports

"We've got some news coming in –....." from where, what is your source?

and

"Now more on the latest building collapse," the BBC reports. "You might have heard a few minutes ago I was talking about the Salomon Brothers Building collapsing, and indeed it has…" Further confirmation, but who has provided this confirmation (which is clearly wrong).

I want to know the source for the BBC's report?

If they don't know who the source was, I want them to confirm this.

If they know who the source is they should say who it is. Then researchers could follow on and ask on what basis this source/wire/whatever made these claims in advance of its collapse.

This isn't about the BBC per se (although it's nice to see them squirm). It is about who knew WTC7 would collapse before it happened and what led them to know this.

There is a related issue about the BBC's professionalism and competence as a news organisation but that is secondary issue to me.

[John White]

[A Sharp Major]

serge the wealthy said

[rodin]

For goodness sake Sharp. Do you want me to publısh scale plans I drafted whıch passed both the conservatıon and buıldıng control gestapo at the boro councıl? I stıll know nothıng about you BTW

Here's a good read by another PhD

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=7369&start=60

[Johnny Pixels]

[Ignatz]

[rodin]

[John White]

[pepik]

[John White]

Gosh Pepik, you sound very serious for someone out to "have a laugh" at people you consider deluded

Do you have any admirable character traits, or are you truly as thoroughly unpleasant as you present yourself to be?

If being "right" (in your own bubble of "reality") means being like you, your certainly no form of advertisment!

[pepik]

I'm giving you good advice. This movement is going nowhere. Dylan Avery is getting his 15 minutes of fame. Alex Jones is making a reasonably good living. A bunch of crackpot academics are keeping themselves busy. But the movement? Not a lot happening.

Are you going to do anything? Ever?

Are you going to hire or persuade some people with relevant skills and experience to look at your "questions" or are you going to continue to rely on professors of philosophy to tell you how building should collapse? Are you going to build an army of web forum posters who, based on nothing whatsoever, complain that the towers fell the wrong way at the wrong speed making the wrong quantity of the wrong colored smoke? Plus assorted other irrelevant drivel?

Its been five years. What have you got?

[marky 54]

[chek]

[johndoe]

it's worth pointing out that the building many people have identified as wtc 7 is not it. i mean really if you are going to invent a theory then at least do your research on it. it's 75 park place. you can work this out from the other buildings seen (you can clearly make out the woolworth building). if the building in the background was wtc 7 then the red sand stone building in front of it would be 75 park place....... yet it can't be since it's not a red sand stone building, and since there is no other building to obscure it like that then.....obvious conclusions.

"Put your money where your mouth is. If you cannot do this, stop being an idiot by moving the goalposts. The onus is on you, a government loyalist to prove the wise being wrong.

I say it again '£100,000 is up for grabs for anyone who can prove the official version of 911 is correct'. "

how about i give you a million if you can prove that new york ever existed at all.

[Ignatz]

[johndoe]

no the smoke is from the wtc collapse.

and i know fine well what 75 park place looks like. but here's something, try and identify the red sandstone building in front of "wtc 7" (or park place if you're not an absolute tool)

[Ignatz]

[rodin]

[Dogsmilk]

[Johnny Pixels]

[johndoe]

"The red sandstone building seems to be in the region of Duane St and W Broadway, judging from Google Maps sat photos.
Fact is the building everybody's concerned with is clearly WTC7"

until you manage to work out what that building is then you have not managed to define the line of sight which the camera has.

oh and ignatz that photo of yours is not of 75 park place, that photo is looking north from 75 park place. yet again people try to discuss the skyline of new york yet have no clue about it.

[ian neal]

The standard of 'debate' here is pathetic, largely driven by pepik's posts but not exculsively so.

There is an important issue at the heart of this thread regarding the BBC's report but it has shot off at a tangent as usual.

The mods largely leave the critics corner unmoderated which sadly means the threads here often deteriorate like this thread one has done.

If 'the critics' would like the moderators to intervene to improve the quality of critics corner I will listen to suggestions sent to me by PM.

Ignatz, if you are trying to tell me that you consider that you and fellow believers of the OCT are in a 98% majority, then you are even more deluded and living in denial than I thought.

[Ignatz]

[pepik]

The whole topic is ridiculous. Why would the conspirators announce the collapse before it happens? As we can all see, the reporters are on the ground with the building in front of them, even if they're too uninformed to know which building is which. When WTC 7 collapsed they wouldn't need an Illuminati press release to allow them to annouce it. So why would someone tell the press something that the press would have announced of its own initiative anyway? And we also all know that fears of the collapse of WTC 7 had been circulating for hours, so we know the press would have been hearing it.

There isn't much to debate on this, one of the lamest smoking guns the troofers have dragged out yet.

So I simply thought it would be useful to point out that if you look at the grassy knoll loons today, you're looking where you will be in a few decades. Still around, still absolutely certain you are right, and still utterly irrelevant to the real world.

That's what's got everyone wound up - that and pointing out that all this hullabaloo isn't producing anything useful: nobody elected, no legal fund created, no engineers hired to do real studies, hardly any original research at all. Look, we have people here who call watching google video "scientific".

Sure, your popularity is growing exponentially. If these trends continue etc. Well you go ahead and believe that, just keep listening to Alex Jones and one day somehow victory will land in your lap.

[Ignatz]