did the bbc have foreknowledge ?
POSTED BY: vincenoirrocknrollstar
UPDATED: Saturday, March 3, 2007 18:32
VIEWED: 4132
PAGE 2 of 3
I have a sneaking suspicion that WTC-7 is a favorite of the conspiracy theorists primarily because the NIST has not yet released their report (it is expected some time during the first half of this year). Once the report is released, we shall see how well the claims stack up and figure out which claims are automatic tune-out indicators (in other words, when someone makes those claims you can automatically discount them because they are not serious. For example, as Finn noted, anyone who claims that the steel columns couldn't have failed because the fire didn't get hot enough to melt steel can be automatically discounted as a non-serious idiot).
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
For all the utter nonsense and conspiracy theory junk I've seen, there IS one thing about WTC # 7 I've yet to have explained. For those who watched the documentary - 9/11, done by the 2 French brothers, everyone should see it. But there's one part, near the end , which is shown, but simply unexplained. From behind a building, the camera centre's on BLD # 7, and then it just collapses. Why was the camera man focusing in on that building? Was there some talk from around those on the ground that it sounded like it might collapse? I know there were many false alarms from various other buildings, but in this case, I never heard an explanation.
Also, to be honest, I've never seen any footage which shows all this 'damage' that WTC 7 had before it fell. The few shots I have seen, the building looks just fine.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
That's because the side of the building that was damaged was the side that had 1 and 2 Trade Centre burning and collapsing onto it.
But you can see pictures of the damage here:
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by vincenoirrocknrollstar:
i was sent this today and wondered what you guys make of it ...is this the smoking gun ?
Dr. Who told them. He would know.
The real conspiracy is...which Doctor told them and when did he tell it to them?
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well #1 they never said that the building collapsed because of heat stress. They said it collapsed because of falling debris from the WTC.
#2 the reporter said "some 8 hours ago" not exactly 8 hours ago. Most of the time reporters are not going to say eight hours and 23 minutes ago, they are going to round up or down and say approximately eight hours or about nine hours, or a little over eight hours.
Just one more pathetic attempt at a conspiracy theory. And not a very good one at that.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
That's because the side of the building that was damaged was the side that had 1 and 2 Trade Centre burning and collapsing onto it.
But you can see pictures of the damage here:
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html
Looking at the photo, there clearly is damage to #7, but it's hard to tell just how much. Thinking back, the OK City Murrah Building had much more damage, and it still stood. Still a tad perplexed. Honest, I'm just a bit curious here. Don't paint me as trying to mimic PN.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
pardons accepted auraptor...as for the doctor who question ...it was tom pertwee 1975
back to the subject matter..
the bbc conspiracy files shown 2 sundays back showed wtc7 in what looks to me (having a background in building property developing and construction )very very much like a controlled demolition ,i could also say the same for both the other towers too ,but thats not what i was curious about ..the origins of my thread was to try and figure out whether anyone still believes in the bbc`s credibility as world news reporting leaders after showing an unbalanced view of the whole 9/11 subject followed by a shoddy piece of reporting about dr david kelly ,the weapons inspector found dead a few years back
shoot the moon ...shoooooot the mooon
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:How was the reporting of 9/11 unballanced? And what are you talking about with David Kelly?
Originally posted by vincenoirrocknrollstar:
the origins of my thread was to try and figure out whether anyone still believes in the bbc`s credibility as world news reporting leaders after showing an unbalanced view of the whole 9/11 subject followed by a shoddy piece of reporting about dr david kelly ,the weapons inspector found dead a few years back
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:How was the reporting of 9/11 unballanced? And what are you talking about with David Kelly?
Originally posted by vincenoirrocknrollstar:
the origins of my thread was to try and figure out whether anyone still believes in the bbc`s credibility as world news reporting leaders after showing an unbalanced view of the whole 9/11 subject followed by a shoddy piece of reporting about dr david kelly ,the weapons inspector found dead a few years back
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
the conspiracy files (is what i was referring to when i said unbalanced reporting )interviewed many people for the show ,sadly they chose to show more views supporting the u.s governments official story than the `conspiracy theorists` versions of events ...and surely if a tv station makes claims that they give a unbiased and balanced viewpoint then they should have balanced out the conspiracy theorists vs the official theory so that the viewer could decide for themselves what they think is the correct version of events ..even if both viewpoints are incorrect at least the programme makers couldn`t have been accused of fueling the conspiracy behind the reporting of 9/11..instead it has caused a serious flurry of complaints to the bbc and many viewers are now questioning the validity of its reporting and programme makers
as for dr david kelly ,if you dont already know he was found dead (i was going to say in mysterious circumstances ..but thats just too spurious)he was a wepons inspector who was sent into iraq to inspect saddams wmd ..dr kelly`s conclusion was that there were none and none would be found ,a few days later he was a dead man
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3076869.stm
http://dr-david-kelly.blogspot.com/
shoot the moon ...shoooooot the mooon
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The conspiracy files has nothing to do with the BBC's news reporting, any more than EastEnders does. To be perfectly frank the conspiracy theorists are so off the wall it's hard to find one that is part way lucid, if the BBC really did have an unbalanced report in that program they probably did the conspiracy theorists a favour by not letting them embarrass themselves too much. Though I saw the David Kelly program, and for each person on the official line they had a conspiracy theorist, including a guy who couldn't seem to separate real life from a Tom Clancy novel. I didn't see the 9/11 one, though I'm curious as to why they'd be so inconsistent with their biases. Also to be honest characterising a television documentary as News reporting seems a might unbalanced, BBC channel and BBC News are different things.
Originally posted by vincenoirrocknrollstar:
the conspiracy files (is what i was referring to when i said unbalanced reporting )interviewed many people for the show ,sadly they chose to show more views supporting the u.s governments official story than the `conspiracy theorists` versions of events ...and surely if a tv station makes claims that they give a unbiased and balanced viewpoint then they should have balanced out the conspiracy theorists vs the official theory so that the viewer could decide for themselves what they think is the correct version of events ..even if both viewpoints are incorrect at least the programme makers couldn`t have been accused of fueling the conspiracy behind the reporting of 9/11..instead it has caused a serious flurry of complaints to the bbc and many viewers are now questioning the validity of its reporting and programme makers
Quote:I'm well aware of who David Kelly is and what the conspiracy was, what I was asking was how it proved this or that about the BBC, unless you're implying the BBC 'offed' him?
as for dr david kelly ,if you dont already know he was found dead (i was going to say in mysterious circumstances ..but thats just too spurious)he was a wepons inspector who was sent into iraq to inspect saddams wmd ..dr kelly`s conclusion was that there were none and none would be found ,a few days later he was a dead man
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3076869.stm
http://dr-david-kelly.blogspot.com/
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME