BBC: We aren't part of any 9/11 conspiracy

[Lex]

Part of the conspiracy?

The 9/11 conspiracy theories are pretty well known by now. The BBC addressed them earlier this month with a documentary, The Conspiracy Files, shown within the UK.

Until now, I don't think we've been accused of being part of the conspiracy. But now some websites are using news footage from BBC World on September 11th 2001 to suggest we were actively participating in some sort of attempt to manipulate the audience. As a result, we're now getting lots of emails asking us to clarify our position. So here goes:

1. We're not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening.

2. In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had. We did what we always did - sourced our reports, used qualifying words like "apparently" or "it's reported" or "we're hearing" and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving.

3. Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I've spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn't remember minute-by-minute what she said or did - like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services.

4. We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another.

5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today "so the guy in the studio didn't quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy... "


http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html

[quinnox]

1. hmm ... an official denial?

That proves they were part of the conspiracy! And to think all this time a lot of liberals thought the BBC were one of the good guys.... how little did they know.

[Lex]

2. Yes! Their denial totally proves they did it!!!11!

This is hugh!

[kestrel91316]

7. Lol! You beat me to it.

[soothsayer]

3. so the Beeb has lost its orginal tapes of the thing? uh huh. ok.

nothing to see here, folks, just move along!

[muriel_volestrangler]

42. They managed to lose their copy of Apollo 11 landing on the Moon

They can be remarkably incompetent.

[helderheid]

4. #4 - someone get them a copy n/t

[pdrichards114]

5. I have seen that tape...

The BBC reporter is reporting the collapse of Building 7, 20 minutes before it "Collapsed." It is as clear as crystal. You can see the building over her shoulder. The BBC is full of shit.

[Lex]

6. BBC is saying they were wrong about the building collapsing.

Plain and simple.

It had been talked about for several hours that the building was on the verge of collapse and it was falsely reported that it had already collapsed.

[Flarney]

9. Were there really reports about 7's imminent collapse?

I've never actually seen anything anywhere that said that building was expected to collapse. Thanks...

[Lex]

10. Lots of reports that day that it had fallen

before it actually fell. I distinctly remember that. They reported that it had sustained a lot of damage and they were expecting it to fall too.

[Flarney]

14. Then why did it take NIST like 5 years to come up with a hypothesis for the collapse?

We need to find whoever was reporting the imminent collapse of WTC 7 (i.e. whoever was on the ground making that determination) and get them together with NIST to compare notes. I am no engineer, but I still cannot get past the fact that 7 was damaged on one side, but it did not fall over, it just collapsed straight down into its own footprint (at virtually free-fall speed, no less).

[jberryhill]

45. CNN was reporting imminent collapse at 4:15

Watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1LetB0z8_o

Aaron Brown mentions the time in the tape.

Firefighters were already clearing the area around it.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html


Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?

Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.

Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out?

Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. At that point in time, it seemed like a somewhat smaller event, but under any normal circumstances, that’s a major event, a 47-story building collapsing. It seemed like a firecracker after the other ones came down, but I mean that’s a big building, and when it came down, it was quite an event. But having gone through the other two, it didn’t seem so bad. But that’s what we were concerned about. We had said to the guys, we lost as many as 300 guys. We didn’t want to lose any more people that day. And when those numbers start to set in among everybody… My feeling early on was we weren’t going to find any survivors. You either made it out or you didn’t make it out. It was a cataclysmic event. The idea of somebody living in that thing to me would have been only short of a miracle. This thing became geographically sectored because of the collapse. I was at West and Liberty. I couldn’t go further north on West Street. And I couldn’t go further east on Liberty because of the collapse of the south tower, so physically we were boxed in.

[mhatrw]

51. That video is just as damning! It shows an undamaged WTC-7 standing tall!

No steel high rise building had ever collapsed due to fire before 9/11 in thousands of horrible high rise fires over the entire history of the entire world. There is no sign of any WTC-7 "bulge" in this video. Why in the world were multiple news outlets reporting that WTC-7 "had or was about to" collapse?

[jberryhill]

75. The north side WAS undamaged

In fact, large portions of the north facade remained relatively undamaged during and after the collapse:



Because the side visible in that video was not the side that was hit by debris from the falling tower, nor was it the side showing the bulge.

But you know that, having been through the same discussion time and time again.

[mhatrw]

78. So show us the "extensive damage" to the south side!

Don't hold out on us!

[jberryhill]

83. You know full well

That the south side was engulfed in smoke for most of the day. You know what the FDNY reports of damage on that side were, and the photographs of the south side which do show damage have been posted here in the dungeon time and time again. You have claimed that the video of the building is "photoshopped", and you will make the same claim about any picture of the south side of that building.

[mhatrw]

84. I just want to see the best evidence you have.

Are the 5-6 floors of facade damage shown in Spak's video stills actually all you have that is not "eyewitness" testimony?

[Bolo Boffin]

85. Here's some of the eyewitness testimony you're rejecting so casually.

Damage

1. The major concern at that time was number Seven, building number Seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. When it fell, it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street. We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building col-lapsing. –FDNY Chief Frank Fellini
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110217.PDF

2. At that time, other firefighters started showing up, Deputy Battalion Chief Paul Ferran of the 41 Battalion, and James Savastano of the First Division assigned to the Second Battalion showed up and we attempted to search and extinguish, at the time which was small pockets of fire in 7 World Trade Center. We were unaware of the damage in the front of 7, because we were entering from the northeast entrance. We weren't aware of the magnitude of the damage in the front of the building. – FDNY Captain Anthony Varriale
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110313.PDF

3. I don’t know how long this was going on, but I remember standing there looking over at building 7 and realizing that a big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side. I looked up at the building and I saw smoke in it, but I really didn't see any fire at that time. Deputy ––Chief Nick Vis-conti http://tinyurl.com/paqux
4. A few minutes after that a police officer came up to me and told me that the façade in front of Seven World Trade Center was gone and they thought there was an imminent collapse of Seven World Trade Center. –FDNY Lieutenant William Melarango
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110045.PDF

5. I think they said they had seven to ten floors that were freestanding and they weren't going to send anyone in. –FDNY Chief Thomas McCarthy
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110055.PDF

6. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. De-bris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good. But they had a hose line operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too.
Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that build-ing doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.
So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandeis came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Vis-conti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.
Firehouse Magazine: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?
Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.
Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?
There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered through there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was proba-bly a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post.
– Capt. Chris Boyle http://tinyurl.com/e7bzp

7. After the initial blast, Housing Authority worker Barry Jennings, 46, reported to a command center on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center. He was with Michael Hess, the city's corporation counsel, when they felt and heard another explosion. First calling for help, they scrambled downstairs to the lobby, or what was left of it. "I looked around, the lobby was gone. It looked like hell," Jennings said.
http://www.record-eagle.com/2001/sep/11scene.htm

8. Anyway, I was looking at WTC7 and I noticed that it wasn’t looking like it was straight. It was really weird. The closest corner to me (the SE corner) was kind of out of whack with the SW corner. It was impossible to tell whether that corner (the SW) was leaning over more or even if it was leaning the other way. With all of the smoke and the debris pile, I couldn’t exactly tell what was going on, but I sure could see the building was leaning over in a way it certainly should not be. I asked another guy looking with me and he said “That building is going to come down, we better get out of here.” So we did. –M.J., Employed at 45 Broadway.

9. So we left 7 World Trade Center, back down to the street, where I ran into Chief Coloe from the 1st Division, Cap-tain Varriale, Engine 24, and Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did. – FDNY Lieutenant Rudolph Weindler http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110462.PDF

10. Just moments before the south tower collapsed and, you know, when it happened we didn't know it was the south tower. We thought it was the north tower. There was a reporter of some sort, female with blond hair and her cameraman, an oriental fellow. They were setting up outside 7 World Trade Center, just east of the pedestrian bridge. I told them it would probably be better off to be set up under the bridge. At least it was protected. I was just about to enter a dialogue with her when I heard a sound I never heard before. I looked up and saw this huge cloud. I told him run. I grabbed the female, I threw her through the revolving doors of number 7.
We were proceeding inside. She fell to the ground. I helped her out, I pushed her towards the direction of where we were all in the south corner and there was a little doorway behind that desk which led into the loading bays. Every-body started to run through that. Never made it to that door. The next thing that I remember was that I was covered in some glass and some debris. Everything came crashing through the front of number 7. It was totally pitch black.
Q. Were you injured?
A. Yes, I saw some stuff had fallen on me. I didn't believe that I was injured at that time. I discovered later on I was injured. I had some shards of glass impaled in my head, but once I was able to get all this debris and rubble off of me and cover my face with my jacket so that I could breathe, it was very thick dust, you couldn't see. We heard some sounds. We reached out and felt our way around. I managed to find some other people in this lower lobby. We crawled over towards the direction where we thought the door was and as we approached it the door cracked open a little, so we had the lights from the loading bay. We made our way over there. The loading bay doors were 3-fourths of the way shut when this happened, so they took a lot of dust in there, but everyone in those bays was safe and se-cure. We had face to face contact with Chief Maggio and Captain Nahmod. They told me – I said do whatever you need to do, get these people out of here. Go, go towards the water. –EMS Division Chief Jon Peruggia
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110160.PDF

11. You could see the damage at 7 World Trade Center, the damage into the AT&T building.
–FDNY Firefighter Vincent Palmieri
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110258.PDF

12. At this point, 7, which is right there on Vesey, the whole corner of the building was missing. I was thinking to myself we are in a bad place, because it was the corner facing us. –Fred Marsilla, FDNY
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110399.PDF

13. The way we got into the loading dock was not the way we were getting out. It was obstructed.
Q. The door was blocked?
A. Yeah, and we found our way -- we walked across the loading dock area, and we found there was another door. We went in that door, and from there we were directed to -- I really guess it was like a basement area of the building, but we were directed to an opposite door. –Dr. Michael Guttenberg , NYC Office of Medical Affairs http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110005.PDF

14. We eventually ended up meeting after the second explosion, three of us met up here, but I didn't see a lot of the people that were with me until two, three days later. I got word that they were okay. For instance, Dr. Guttenberg and Dr. Asaeda, who were at 7 World Trade Center, they got trapped in there and had to like climb in and out and get out because that building also became very damaged supposedly and they were there. We thought they were dead. I guess he was in an area where Commissioner Tierney might have been, I believe. I think she was in 7 also. –Paramedic Manuel Delgado
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110004.PDF

(After collapse of south tower)
15. The decision was either to go left or right and we ended up going right, between the two buildings, in the alley-way on the north, which turned out to be the right direction because apparently there was a lot of debris and part of 7 down already. Also, I did notice as I was making my exit the sound of the firefighters' alarms indicating that they were down. I did remember that as well but just could not see anything.
–Dr. Glenn Asaeda http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_national/sept11_fdny_transcripts/9110062.PDF

16. I saw the firefighter. There were people screaming out of one of these two buildings over here saying they could-n't get out, and my partner took one straggler fireman, the one that we had with us, and was trying to break the door because the door obviously had shifted or something. They couldn't get the door open.
Q. That was 7 World Trade Center?
A. I believe it was 7. Maybe it was 5. It was at the back end of it because I do remember the telephone company . So I think it was the back end of 7, I think right over here at that point, and they couldn't get out. Then I had ran down the block and I flagged a ladder company and they brought the ladder, which they had like a vestibule that you couldn't like really reach the people because the ladder wouldn't reach. So they went and got other resources, they went inside the building, and I told my partner that it wasn't safe and that we need to go because everything around us was like falling apart.
–EMT Nicole Ferrell http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110304.PDF

Facade damage. Yeah, that's it. That's the ticket. How's Morgan Fairchild, your wife, whom you've slept with?

Fires

1. We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors. –FDNY Lieutenant Robert LaRocca
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110081.PDF

2. ...Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down. –FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110447.PDF

3. I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank . He said, we’re moving the com-mand post over this way, that building’s coming down. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor, heavy fire and smoke that really wasn’t bothering us when we were searching because it was being pushed southeast and we were a little bit west of that. I remember standing just where West and Vesey start to rise toward the entrance we were using in the World Financial Center. There were a couple of guys standing with me and a couple of guys right at the intersection, and we were trying to back them up – and here goes 7. It started to come down and now peo-ple were starting to run. –FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/visconti.html

4. All morning I was watching 7 World Trade burn, which we couldn't do anything about because it was so much chaos looking for missing members. –Firefighter Marcel Klaes http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110018.PDF

5. When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories.
–FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers (Smith, Dennis, 2002. Report From Ground Zero: The Heroic Story of the Rescuers at the World Trade Center. New York: Penguin Putnam. p. 160)

6. The concern there again, it was later in the afternoon, 2, 2:30, like I said. The fear then was Seven. Seven was free burning. Search had been made of 7 already from what they said so they had us back up to that point where we were waiting for 7 to come down to operate from the north back down. –Captain Robert Sohmer http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110472.PDF

7. Then we had to move because the Duane Reade, they said, wasn't safe because building 7 was really roaring. –FDNY Chief Medical Officer Kerry Kelly.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110207.PDF

8. At this point Seven World Trade was going heavy, and they weren't letting anybody get too close. Everybody was expecting that to come down. –Firefighter Vincent Massa
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110222.PDF

9. Chief Cruthers told me that they had formed another command post up on Chambers Street. At this point there were a couple of floors burning on Seven World Trade Center. Chief McNally wanted to try and put that fire out, and he was trying to coordinate with the command post up on Chambers Street. This is after searching for a while. He had me running back and forth trying to get companies to go into Seven World Trade Center. His radio didn't seem to be working right either because he had me relaying information back and forth and Chief Cruthers had me --

Q. So everything was face-to-face? Nothing was by radio?

A. Yeah, and it was really in disarray. It really was in complete disarray. We never really got an operation going at Seven World Trade Center. –FDNY Captain Michael Donovan
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110205.PDF

10. Building #7 was still actively burning and at that time we were advised by a NYFD Chief that building #7 was burning out of control and imminent collapse was probable. –PAPD P.O. Edward McQuade http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports02.pdf page 48.

11. At Vesey St. and West St., I could see that 7 WTC was ablaze and damaged, along with other buildings.
–M. DeFilippis, PAPD P.O. http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports03.pdf page 49


12. So yeah then we just stayed on Vesey until building Seven came down. There was nothing we could do. The flames were coming out of every window of that building from the explosion of the south tower. So then building Seven came down. When that started coming down you heard that pancaking sound again everyone jumped up and starts.

Q: Why was building Seven on fire? Was that flaming debris from tower two, from tower two that fell onto that build-ing and lit it on fire?

A: Correct. Because it really got going, that building Seven, saw it late in the day and like the first Seven floors were on fire. It looked like heavy fire on seven floors. It was fully engulfed, that whole building. There were pieces of tower two in building Seven and the corners of the building missing and what-not. But just looking up at it from ground level however many stories -- it was 40 some odd -- you could see the flames going straight through from one side of the building to the other, that’s an entire block. –Firefighter Tiernach Cassidy
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110413.PDF

13. "We were down about a block from the base of the World Trade Center towers about an hour ago. And there was a great deal of concern at that time, the firemen said building number 7 was going to collapse, building number five was in danger of collapsing. And there's so little they can do to try to fight the fires in these buildings, because the fires are so massive. And so much of the buildings continues to fall into the street. When you're down there, Dan, you hear smaller secondary explosions going off every 15 or 20 minutes, and so it's an extremely dangerous place to be."
–CBS-TV News Reporter Vince DeMentri http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.secondary.explosions.wmv

14. Well, they said that's (7) fully involved at this time. This was a fully involved building. I said, all right, they're not coming for us for a while. Now you're trapped in this rubble, and you're trying to get a grasp of an idea of what's go-ing on there. I heard on the handy talky that we are now fighting a 40-story building fully involved.

Now you're trapped in the rubble and the guys who are there are fighting the worst high-rise fire in the history of New York or history of the world, probably, I don't know, 40, story building fully involved, I guess that was probably the worst.

I was, needless to say, scared to death that something else was going to fall on us, that this building was going to come down and we were all going to die, after surviving the worst of it.

15. And 7 World Trade was burning up at the time. We could see it. ... the fire at 7 World Trade was working its way from the front of the building northbound to the back of the building. There was no way there could be water put on it, because there was no water in the area. –Firefighter Eugene Kelty Jr.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110261.PDF

16. The time was approximately 11a.m. Both of the WTC towers were collapsed and the streets were covered with debris. Building #7 was still standing but burning. ...We spoke to with a FDNY Chief who has his men holed up in the US Post Office building. He informed us that the fires in building 7 were uncontrollable and that its collapse was imminent. There were no fires inside the loading dock (of 7) at this time but we could hear explosions deep inside. –PAPD P.O. William Connors http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports04.pdf page 69

17. "There's number Seven World Trade. That's the OEM bunker." We had a snicker about that. We looked over, and it's engulfed in flames and starting to collapse.
We're kind of caught in traffic and people and things, and everything's going on. We hear over the fire portable, "Eve-rybody evacuate the site. It's going to collapse." Mark Steffens starts yelling, "Get out of here! Get out of here! Get out of here! We've got to go! We've got to go! It's going to collapse." I turned around, and I piped up real loud and said, "Stay in the frigging car. Roll the windows up. It's pancake collapsing. We'll be fine. The debris will quit and the cloud will come through. Just stay in the car." We pulled the car over, turned around and just watched it pancake. We had a dust cloud but nothing like it was before. –Paramedic Louis Cook http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110103.PDF

Building 7 fire makes rescuer of NT stairwell victim’s route impassable (just before collapse):
I remember it was bad and I'm going to get to a point where we came back that way on the way up. We couldn't even go that way, that's how bad the fire was, but by the time I was coming back it was rolling, more than a couple of floors, just fully involved, rolling.
...So now it's us 4 and we are walking towards it and I remember it would have at one point been an easier path to go towards our right, but being building 7 -- that must have been building 7 I'm guessing with that fire, we decided to stay away from that because things were just crackling, falling and whatnot.
So as I’m going back, that fire that was on my right is now on my left. I’m backtracking and that fire is really going and on the hike towards there, we put down our masks, which at this point started to realize maybe it would have been good thing if we had this mask on the way back, but then again between the fire and about halfway when I was on the way back, I got a radio call from the guys that we left and it was Johnny Colon the chauffeur of 43, who was effecting a different rescue. He was carrying somebody out.
He had called me and said “Hey Jerry don’t try and get back out the way you went in which was big heads up move because he said that building was rolling on top of the building that we were passing. That building was on fire and likely to collapse more too.
Between Picciotto asking me are you sure we can get out this way because it really didn’t look good with that fire and my guy telling me that you better not because of the area we crawled in was unattainable now too. ...we started going back the other way.
Q: Would that be towards West Street?
A: That would have been back towards what I know is the Winter Garden....
–Firefighter Gerard Suden http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110022.PDF

18. I remember Chief Hayden saying to me, "We have a six-story building over there, a seven-story building, fully involved." At that time he said, "7 has got fire on several floors." He said, "We've got a ten-story over there, another ten-story over there, a six-story over there, a 13-story over there." He just looked at me and said, "Fuck 'em all. Let 'em burn." He said, "Just tell the guys to keep looking for guys. Just keep looking for the brothers. We've got people trapped. We've got to get them out." –Lieutenant William Ryan http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110117.PDF

19. I walked around the building to get back to the command post and that's when they were waiting for 7 World Trade Center to come down. ...They had three floors of fire on three separate floors, probably 10, 11 and 15 it looked like, just burning merrily. It was pretty amazing, you know, it's the afternoon in lower Manhattan, a major high-rise is burning, and they said 'we know.' –FDNY Chief Thomas McCarthy
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110055.PDF

20. We were champing at the bit," says WCBS-TV reporter Vince DeMentri of his decision to sneak behind police barricades and report from 7 World Trade Center a half-hour before it collapsed. "I knew the story was in there." But after he and his cameraman slipped past officers, they lost all sense of direction. "From outside this zone, you could figure out where everything was," he says. "But inside, it was all destruction and blown-out buildings, and we had no clue. I walked into one building, but I had no idea where I was. The windows were all blown out. Computers, desks, furniture, and people's possessions were strewn all over." He found a picture of a little girl lying in the rubble. Then he realized that No. 7, aflame, was about fifteen to twenty feet ahead of him. "I looked up Barclay Street," he says. "There was nobody out. No bodies, no injured. Nobody. There were mounds of burning debris. It was like open-ing a broiler." http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/sept11/features/5183/index.html

21. They are worried that number 7 is burning and they are talking about not ceasing operations.
–Deputy Commissioner Frank Gribbon http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110167.PDF

22. There were hundreds of firefighters waiting to -- they were waiting for 7 World Trade Center to come down as it was on fire. It was too dangerous to go in and fight the fire. –Assistant Commissioner James Drury http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110098.PDF

23. We assisted some FDNY personnel who were beginning to attempt to fight the fire at 7 WTC. We assisted in dragging hose they needed to bring water into the building. –Kenneth Kohlmann PAPD P.O. http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports04.pdf page 26

24. My first thoughts when I came down a little further into the site, south of Chambers Street, was, "Where am I?" I didn't recognize it. Obviously, the towers were gone. The only thing that remained standing was a section of the Vista Hotel. Building 7 was on fire. That was ready to come down. –Charlie Vitchers, Ground Zero Superintendent http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/profiles/profiles_vitchers_t.html

I so totally see your point. It's like nothing here to see at all! We should move along. Hey, do you have any chocolate? I ran out this past week...

[mhatrw]

86. So all you have is Spak and spam. n/t

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mhatrw]

89. No, you cleared it.

I was starting to think that maybe y'all had some more long suppressed photographic or video evidence up your sleeves.

But I suppose that wouldn't follow NIST's previous pattern of simply postulating their desired conclusion and then working backwards towards it using as little hard evidence as possible.

[Bolo Boffin]

90. So all of those people are liars, just to keep your beautiful mind clear.

How special for you.

[mhatrw]

91. No, they are true believers. Let's roll!

[Bolo Boffin]

92. But their testimony is false, according to you.

How do you account for that, without calling them liars?

[mhatrw]

93. They are not liars. They are just team players.

What do you think the cops in the Rodney King video would have witnessed had no video been rolling?

People remember seeing what their peers and superiors want them to remember seeing. It's not lying. It's just Sociology 101.

[Bolo Boffin]

95. Deal with what they say. Stop calling them coverups and liars.

Deal with what they say.

[mhatrw]

97. Why should I deal with eyewitness reports and backward engineered computer models?

Where is the hard physical evidence? Where is all the damn metal and all the rest of the debris? Why were only two pieces of WTC-7 metal ever analyzed? Why did these show unexplained signs of high temperature sulfidation?

Where is the video and photographic evidence of all of these eyewitness reports? WTC-7 stood for over 6 hours after the second tower fell. FEMA said they examined evidence from all sides of the building yet couldn't produce a single photo or video still to confirm these eyewitness reports. Nor can you or anyone else some five and half years later.

Anybody can claim anything about anything for any reason. I can produce a much longer list of reliable eyewitnesses claiming to have seen UFOs. Your eyewitness reports were typically made long after the fact. The people making these reports were not under oath. They were not giving sworn testimony. The simple fact of the matter is that eyewitness testimony is notoriously inaccurate in the best of circumstances.

I am not questioning the intentions or integrity of the men who made these reports. I am confident that most if not all of them felt they were doing the right thing for their country, city and memories of their fallen comrades. Many could simply have mistaken the damage to other nearby structures for damage to WTC-7. In any case, I am not in any position to judge these men in any way. I just want to see some decent, reliable evidence of their claims. Reams of video and photographic evidence of WTC-7 on 9/11 must exist. Since debunkers like you aren't lording this evidence over anyone who has any legitimate questions about WTC-7, I am forced to conclude that there is no decent, reliable evidence to support your eyewitness claims.

[Bolo Boffin]

99. "I am not questioning the intentions or integrity of the men who made these reports."

So why did you compare them to the people who beat Rodney King?

There is video evidence of debris from the North Tower hitting WTC 7. There is video evidence that the building was on fire, and that heavily. There is video evidence of the damage to the southeast corner, and the southern facade, both at the top and the bottom. All of this corroborates with the eyewitness testimony that I've quoted.

If WTC 7 was a CD, the FDNY collaborated in its destruction and participated materially in the coverup. You are calling these people liars and worse. Have the guts to acknowledge this.

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bolo Boffin]

106. Mm-hmm. n/t

[tridim]

116. Rummy said a missle hit the Pentagon.

Deal with what they say! Deal with what they say! Deal with what they say!

[Bolo Boffin]

117. Do you believe everything Rumsfeld says?

Really, your trip down 9/11 CT memory lane is quaint.

This is what Rumsfeld said:

They and any number of terrorist efforts have been dissuaded, deterred or stopped by good intelligence gathering and good preventive work. It is a truth that a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any technique and it's physically impossible to defend at every time and every place against every conceivable technique. Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center.

Rumsfeld misspoke. He clearly means that the "American Airlines flight filled with our citizens" was used as a "missile to damage this building." The difference between "as a" and "and the" isn't that great audibly. Why else mention the AA flight?

Silliness. TTLDMFADL. Carry on.

[tridim]

118. Deal with what they say! Deal with what they say! Deal with what they say!

Your words, not mine.

Yes, Rummy is a proven liar, but that doesn't change the fact that he said a missile hit the Pentagon on 9/11. Open your fucking eyes and "Deal with what they say", not with what you wish he meant to say.

[Bolo Boffin]

120. I have dealt with what he said.

Why do you think Rumsfeld mentioned the AA jet filled with our citizens?

Deal with what he says.

[tridim]

121. I think he fucked up the official cover story.

Why do you ignore the rest of the sentence? "..and the MISSILE to damage this building"

Airliners aren't missiles, and regardless "nobody could have foreseen airliners used as missiles". So, why'd he say "a missile damaged this building"? If a plane really hit the pentagon he would have said, "A plane hit the Pentagon". Occam's fucking razor, pal.

[Bolo Boffin]

122. Why did he say "an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens"?

You are not dealing with what he said.

I am not ignoring the rest of the sentence. I say he misspoke. I say that the AA flight was the missile he was talking about. I have dealt with what he said.

Now you deal with the American Airlines flight that he said. Now would be good, pal.

[tridim]

123. As I just wrote, he screwed up the offical story.

Airplanes AND missiles, oh my!

[Bolo Boffin]

124. If you seriously think that Rumsfeld thinks a missile hit the Pentagon

and admitted to this on national television...

You seriously think that?

[tridim]

125. Yes I do, because he did say exactly that on national television.

Are you Rummy? Seriously, you ignore reality and logic just like Rummy did every day before he was shit-canned.

[Bolo Boffin]

126. So let's get this straight...

I say Rumsfeld's pretty much a crazy old guy who could even screw up describing Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon (something independently corroborated by the evidence)...

...and you think Rumsfeld is pretty much a crazy old guy until he says something that you seize upon as the gospel truth.

[mhatrw]

87. Dupe. n/t

[Devon77]

94. Some Gems

7. After the initial blast Housing Authority worker Barry Jennings, 46, reported to a command center on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center. He was with Michael Hess, the city's corporation counsel, when they felt and heard another explosion. First calling for help, they scrambled downstairs to the lobby, or what was left of it. "I looked around, the lobby was gone. It looked like hell," Jennings said.
http://www.record-eagle.com/2001/sep/11scene.htm


14. We eventually ended up meeting after the second explosion, three of us met up here, but I didn't see a lot of the people that were with me until two, three days later. I got word that they were okay. For instance, Dr. Guttenberg and Dr. Asaeda, who were at 7 World Trade Center, they got trapped in there and had to like climb in and out and get out because that building also became very damaged supposedly and they were there. We thought they were dead. I guess he was in an area where Commissioner Tierney might have been, I believe. I think she was in 7 also. –Paramedic Manuel Delgado
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/2005...


Explosions, yeah of course, what do you expect?


6. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. De-bris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good. But they had a hose line operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too.

1. The major concern at that time was number Seven, building number Seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. When it fell, it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street. We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building col-lapsing. –FDNY Chief Frank Fellini
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/2005...

20 stories or 6-3 = 3 stories ?




8. Anyway, I was looking at WTC7 and I noticed that it wasn’t looking like it was straight. It was really weird. The closest corner to me (the SE corner) was kind of out of whack with the SW corner. It was impossible to tell whether that corner (the SW) was leaning over more or even if it was leaning the other way. With all of the smoke and the debris pile, I couldn’t exactly tell what was going on, but I sure could see the building was leaning over in a way it certainly should not be. I asked another guy looking with me and he said “That building is going to come down, we better get out of here.” So we did. –M.J., Employed at 45 Broadway.


12. At this point, 7, which is right there on Vesey, the whole corner of the building was missing. I was thinking to myself we are in a bad place, because it was the corner facing us. –Fred Marsilla, FDNY
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/2005...


Why didn't the building collapse to the corner? But straight down like CD?

[rocktivity]

81. It's okay if the media was advised that WTC7 was IN DANGER of collapsing

But the BBC spent seven minutes explaining that it HAD collapsed. WHO TOLD THEM THAT? That's all I want to know. I'm not accusing anybody of anything. I just want to know how this "error" came to happen, and why they're finding it so hard to simply admit they made one.

:headbang:
rocknation

[jberryhill]

114. Your question is based on the assumption

That someone "told them that". Have you ever played "telephone" or "whisper down the lane?"

Who "told" the media that there were bombs at the State Department and Capitol that day? Both stories were duly reported by various news media.

As to why anyone finds it hard to admit making an error, that's not usually hard to understand.

[tridim]

119. So it's okay for "respected" news orgs to play "telephone" with the facts?

Big Brother would be very proud of your post. Extra chocolate rations for you!

[jberryhill]

127. Did I say "okay"?

No, I don't believe I said that.

Does it happen with fast-developing live events? Yeah sure.

Why are you not at all concerned with the major media reports that day of a bombing at the State Department and the Capitol?

Hmm?

[Bryan Sacks]

22. Lex, there were lots of reports 7 had fallen before it did?

Could you point to any of them? I'd be much obliged.

[Lex]

23. I'm going by what I remembered from that day. I don't have footage

myself--I was flipping around on all the stations watching. The thing is that a friend worked in Building 7 (and who is okay) but I kept hearing it had fallen, then no it hadn't but was expected to because of the damage, and then finally that it had fallen, etc. A lot of confusion over that building for a bit before it actually fell.

[The Lone Groover]

30. I trust you.

Honest.

[truthpowertruth]

24. no, bryan..

He distinctly remembers.

[Lex]

25. There's a reason I remember.

I certainly don't care one bit if you believe me or not.

[mhatrw]

49. It's not a case of "believing you." Video simply trumps memory.

I was flipping channels at the time of the WTC-7 collapse and I dictinctly do NOT remember any early reports of that WTC-7 collapse.

So I'd simply like to see some proof of your claims. Furthermore, even if many of these reports exist -- the question remains the same. Why did these early reports of the WTC-7 collapsing exist? Who was spreading all of these psychically prescient reports?

[mhatrw]

47. Lex "distinctly remembers" lots of erroneous early reports about

the WTC-7 collapsing long before it became the first steel framed high rise to collapse due to fire in the entire history of the world.

We should all just unquestioning defer to Lex's memory. Accurately reporting a historically unique event in the future as if it were already the past twenty minutes before it happens is no big deal. It happens all the time for major news outlets. Nothing to see here.

[Lex]

55. LOL! Read the rest of the thread. I'm not the only one

who remembers that the building was reported as being collapsed or near collapse before it actually happened.

I find it hard to believe that you don't realize what an ass you look like.

[mhatrw]

57. I'd love to see all the evidence of all of these psychic news reports!

How does that make me an ass?

[jberryhill]

76. Then you will love this

Here's a psychic news flash from CNN:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1LetB0z8_o

Noted psychic Aaron Brown mentions the time in the tape.

Psychic firefighters were already clearing the area around it for hours by then:

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html


Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?

Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.

Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out?

Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. At that point in time, it seemed like a somewhat smaller event, but under any normal circumstances, that’s a major event, a 47-story building collapsing. It seemed like a firecracker after the other ones came down, but I mean that’s a big building, and when it came down, it was quite an event. But having gone through the other two, it didn’t seem so bad. But that’s what we were concerned about. We had said to the guys, we lost as many as 300 guys. We didn’t want to lose any more people that day. And when those numbers start to set in among everybody… My feeling early on was we weren’t going to find any survivors. You either made it out or you didn’t make it out. It was a cataclysmic event. The idea of somebody living in that thing to me would have been only short of a miracle. This thing became geographically sectored because of the collapse. I was at West and Liberty. I couldn’t go further north on West Street. And I couldn’t go further east on Liberty because of the collapse of the south tower, so physically we were boxed in.

[The Lone Groover]

29. "Plain and simple."

You wish.

"It had been talked about for several hours that the building was on the verge of collapse"

It was on the verge of being blown up.

[Lex]

33. "It was on the verge of being blown up."

You wish.

[mhatrw]

46. No other steel frame high rise had ever collapsed due to fire in

history of the world, six years later we still don't have any official explanation for why WTC-7 fell, WTC-7 was still standing up perfectly straight and was not even ablaze right behind the reporter, yet the BBC (and everyone else?) was falsely reporting that WTC-7 had collapsed 20 minutes before it did?

Exactly who was putting out all the reports of the historically unique WTC-7 implosion "due to fire" in advance?

[HCE SuiGeneris]

60. Stop it! Lex remembers distinctly. That is enough for me.

:silly:

[Flarney]

8. it is very weird...

...they had to have been told SOMETHING about building 7. Who told them that it was even in danger of coming down? How would anyone have known it was about to come down? Why would they have even mentioned building 7 at that point (i.e. while it was still standing with no indication of its imminent collapse)? I don't know what it means but it's just another "weird anomaly" to throw on the huge pile of "weird anomalies" from that day. No doubt we need a real investigation...

[Lex]

11. "No doubt we need a real investigation..."

I agree 100% with that, Flarney.

[deutsey]

12. That is odd, especially when they lose the satellite linkup

just 5 minutes before the building actually collapses.

[truthpowertruth]

20. Your eyes are wrong.

Move along. Nothing to see. Go away. Please........

[HamdenRice]

13. New York Magazine reporter was told WTC7 "is coming down" at 5:15

In May 2006, New York Magazine ran a mostly sympathetic review of the 9/11 Truth Movement by reporter Mark Jacobs. Jacobs actually had been at ground zero on 9/11. Here is what he has to say about forewarnings about the collapse of building 7:

http://nymag.com/news/features/16464/index4.html

Speaking with the widows, or simply walking by a firehouse, was a teleportation back to the raw unspun brutality of the Day. This isn’t as much of a stretch as it sounds, since I was there on September 11.

I’d just walked right into what would come to be called ground zero. No one stopped me. I knew the towers had fallen, seen it on TV. Still, I didn’t expect things that big to totally disappear, as if the ground had swallowed them up.

“Where are the towers?” I asked a fireman. “Under your foot” was the reply.

Hours later, I sat down beside another, impossibly weary firefighter. Covered with dust, he was drinking a bottle of Poland Spring water. Half his squad was missing. They’d gone into the South Tower and never come out. Then, almost as a non sequitur, the fireman indicated the building in front of us, maybe 400 yards away.

“That building is coming down,” he said with a drained casualness.

“Really?” I asked. At 47 stories, it would be a skyscraper in most cities, centerpiece of the horizon. But in New York, it was nothing but a nondescript box with fire coming out of the windows. “When?”

“Tonight . . . Maybe tomorrow morning.”

This was around 5:15 p.m. I know because five minutes later, at 5:20, the building, 7 World Trade Center, crumbled.

“Shit!” I screamed, unsure which way to run, because who knows which way these things fall. As it turned out, I wasn’t in any danger, since 7 WTC appeared to drop straight down. I still have dreams about the moment. Even then, the event is oddly undramatic, just a building falling.

<end quote>

It cuts both ways. This could either mean that there was speculation that WTC 7 was so badly damaged that it was going to collapse; or it could mean that people knew definitely that it was going to be pulled down in some way.

What is smelly to me about this is that there were much, much more badly damaged buildings that WTC 7 -- I mean there is no comparison between the damage that other buildings suffered and what 7 suffered.

Yet all the "speculation" or "predictions" seemed to have centered in WTC 7.

[mhatrw]

52. It's worse than that.

No other steel frame high rise had ever collapsed due to fire in the history of world fire fighting before 9/11. Surely many firemen had to know this fact. So why would they assume a largely undamaged with just a few floors visibly burning was about to come down? Who was busy priming everyone for the impending collapse?

[LibinMo]

15. Can someone explain what this means?

4. We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy).

Just curious.

[TheLeftyMom]

18. Cock-up is Brit-speak for fuck up

I'm guessing they said they fucked up and lost the tapes?

(Hey, fellow KC fan!)

[LibinMo]

19. Thanks

I figured it was something like that.

(Just wait til next year)

[Larry Ogg]

16. Ah oh wait a minute they said they lost there video… well I guess I found it! If anyone’s curious.

?http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/88.html

[wildbilln864]

17. kick!

:hi:

[LARED]

21. The BBC has really screwed up now.

By denying any part in a conspiracy, the CT'ers will determine this a near smoking gun evidence they were indeed part of it.

[Bryan Sacks]

26. The BBC still has not addressed the relevant questions

To begin with:

1. Who was the source of the claim that WTC 7 had collapsed, prior to the time it did?

2. What work was done by the BBC to confirm the claim?

3. If no work was done, why was the claim taken to be authoritative?

If nothing else, this story will at least demonstrate the arrogance and utter illegitimacy of television news. On what possible grounds does a news program justifiably deem to report on the collapse of a building, when its own reporter, who is on the scene, does not even know enough about the skyline to see that she is reporting a falsehood?

It is exactly the opposite of what we expect from an authority - to know about that of which they speak.

That's why it's not an "error". The BBC did not check the story and then, having made a fact-checking error, went with it. They failed to check the facts. They should say so.

[LARED]

27. Relevant to what?

The fact that the BBC demonstrated "the arrogance and utter illegitimacy of television news?" I agree

If you are speaking to the relevance showing the BBC being part of a conspiracy regarding preplanned canned news about the WTC 7 collapsing, we must part ways.

[MervinFerd]

28. Relevant to WHAT? Are you buying into the "BBC had a script" ...

bug-fucking craziness?

Or just trying to buy a little favor with the WOOs without actually saying anything idiotic?

The reporter was live at a scene of ultimate chaos; it was known that the building would collapse for an hour or more; the showed signs of distress well before the final collapse. The reporter, speaking live, had no chance to "fact check"; she reported her understanding of the situation; there was no deception about this; there was no pretence that the facts had been checked.

It was an error. Nothing more.

[The Lone Groover]

32. " it was known that the building would collapse for an hour or more;"

It was also known it was going to "blow up".

[MervinFerd]

35. Yes, it was known. And the sequence of events is documented.

That sequence does not include, or need, explosives.

[mhatrw]

56. Nor does the sequence include, or need, any explanation whatsover.

Five years later and counting ...

[rinsd]

62. Hey stick_dog I see the old subjects are still a fave (nt)

[mhatrw]

65. Cute.

What is a thread without my stalkers?

[Bryan Sacks]

38. "there was no pretense that the facts had been checked"???

Here I was, Merv, having a perfectly respectable discussion with LARED, when you barged in with your hot-tempered, gun-jumping conclusions.

I don't believe the BBC to be "in on" a conspiracy regarding the collapse of WTC 7. That is prima facie silly.

Where we will part ways, I suppose, is that in the false story (it's not an "error") I see the possibility (hardly PROOF, simply the possibility) of foreknowledge about the WTC 7 collapse based on information that has nothing to do with the building's condition at that time.

If the reports prior to 5:20 that WTC was about to collapse were being made on a sound evidentiary basis, then there is not much to look into here. But that is what should be revisited now. You see, once 7 collapsed, everyone goes back to uncritically collect the statements predicting its collapse beforehand. That's exactly what Merv does in his post, for instance. But that won't do now.

What this story does, in my view, is give new reason for inspecting the evidentiary basis of the claims that WTC 7 was going to collapse before it did. It raises the possibility that the claim of collapse was being made by authorities with a degree of certainty that could not be warranted by events at the time. That's as far as I'll go.

Once the BBC answers the questions satisfactorily and apologizes, I'll be satisfied and return (in all likelihood) to my non-controlled-demolition theory views.

So no, I don't think the BBC is in on any conspiracy. They simply disgraced themselves. And your statement, Merv, that "there was no pretence that the facts had been checked" has to be one of the most shocking statements around here in a long time (and that is saying something)!

This is the BBC, merv, not some local, small-town snotrag. They serve millions and millions of homes. There is an obligation to fact-check EVERYTHING before it goes on the air. It is where your legitimacy comes from as a news agency. Remember?

I like the WOOs, Merv, it's true (most of them). I like you too, though, so what do I know?

[mhatrw]

59. A psychic news report of a historically unique event comes true

just five minutes after the satellite transmission of the report goes dead, and we are supposed to hardly raise an eyebrow?

The building housed the CIA and the Secret Service, but we are not supposed to question psychic reports of it becoming the first steel frame high rise to collapse due to fire in the entire history of the world?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgoSOQ2xrbI

Nothing to see here, folks:

[eyl]

77. Bear in mind

that there's a significant difference in the level of fact-checking done for, say, a news segment, compared to that done during live reporting of a rapidly developing event. In the latter case, there simply isn't time for acurate double-checking, so what's reported is often reports by authorities who are themselves wrong.

For example - here in Israel, when there's reporting of terrorist incidents, I generally don't bother to liten until at least an hour later, because a lot of the initial information is simply wrong.

[JackRiddler]

40. CAPITAL LETTERS! Are you still advocating beating up mothers...

On a SPACESHIP? Bug fucking nuts! Ooga booga!

[HCE SuiGeneris]

48. God, I love the dismissive attitude.

Do not be curious or ask questions. If you witness an anomaly, it isn't real. All my conjectures are "fact". Move along. :eyes:

[mhatrw]

54. The building was clearly still standing outside the window behind her!

She was filming indoors over a mile away more than six hours after the initial collapses.

And her report was 100% INACCURATE, but strangely became 100% ACCURATE just five minutes after her satellite feed cut off.

PSYCHIC BROADCASTING COMPANY?

[Bolo Boffin]

68. Oops.

This is what I was talking about, sadly.

Psychic? As is abundantly clear, the idea of WTC 7 collapsing was not this psychic leap of faith that you are making it out to be. People realized the building was going to fall eventually.

[mhatrw]

74. LOL.

http://www.yayhooray.com/thread/103993/Dana-Carvey-SNL-Gerald-Ford-Is-Dead

[The Lone Groover]

31. Ah...

reverse reverse psychology.

reverse reverse reverse psychology trumps that - try it.

"Keep on playing those mind games" - J Lennon

[SidDithers]

34. And yet the Inside Job Cultists will continue to hype the error....

for months and months and months, claiming that this is indeed THE SMOKING GUN which finally and undeniably demonstrates the conspiracy behind 9/11.

Same as it ever was.

Sid

[Bolo Boffin]

39. I think we're actually watching something more here.

This is on the level of a rise in chocolate rations.

[mhatrw]

61. War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Psychic News Reports are Nothing To See. n/t

[Devon77]

66. Brought to you by the Ministry Of Truth

In 1941 Orwell took a job at the BBC Eastern Service, mostly working on programs to gain Indian and East Asian support for the United Kingdom's war efforts. He was well aware that he was engaged in "propaganda", and wrote that he felt like "an orange that's been trodden on by a very dirty boot".

The wartime "Ministry of Information", who was based at Senate House University of London, was the inspiration for the "Ministry of Truth" in Nineteen Eighty-Four. Nonetheless, Orwell devoted a good deal of effort to his BBC work, which gave him an opportunity to work closely with people like T. S. Eliot, E. M. Forster, Mulk Raj Anand and William Empson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell

[Bolo Boffin]

67. You're not what I'm talking about.

I thought I was actually watching people pretend to believe that they'd never considered the idea of people knowing WTC 7 was going to collapse. This is something that is documented, and yet people were treating this video like it's the first hint they've had of the general knowledge of the day that the building would fall.

Admittedly, if it weren't about 9/11 and the horrendous loss of life, the video would be funny, like something out of Monty Python. Her head is almost perfectly covering up the building, she talks about it having collapsed - and then she swivels around and there it is.

Aaron Brown almost did the same thing a hour earlier - he'd gotten reports of the building collapsing or having collapsed and reports it that way. Then he turns around and looks, and from there on out only talks about its impending fall. Clearly some faulty information is making its way around the media, and in the BBC's case, someone who didn't know what 7 WTC looked like ran with the story.

The fire commander talking to Silverstein before the evacuation of emergency personnel, the firefighter testimony to the condition of the building, all available pictures and video, and now these news stories from the day all show that people were anticipating the collapse of WTC 7. Most of these things have been talked about ad nauseam around here. And yet people were using this video like the subject had never been broached -- like the subject was DENIED by any OCT out there. It was like the rise in chocolate rations, it was that bizarre.

[mhatrw]

69. No other steel frame high rise had ever collapsed due to fire before 9/11.

My questions are who told the media this building was "about to fall" based on what and why?

[Bolo Boffin]

70. Do you have that sentence on macro?

Your questions have been answered. However, you will not sully your mind with the answers given so far. Which is fine -- there's no law forcing you to educate yourself. But running around crying about no answers when answers are available to you is not doing you any favors.

[mhatrw]

73. My questions have not been answered!

Who was pushing the "WTC-7 already/is about to collapse" story?

Why didn't the networks who went with this story fact check it (even by looking at their own video footage of the scene)?

Where were the "expert" sources who "predicted" that the WTC-7 was about to become the first steel frame high rise in history to implode due to fire hiding when FEMA issued its original report about WTC-7? Why wasn't FEMA privy to this information?

Just think about this for a second. A year after the implosion, FEMA throws up its hands and says, "Probably fire, but who knows for sure?" Five and a half years later NIST still hasn't issued its final WTC-7 report. But supposedly a bunch of "experts" (or authorities?) on the scene on 9/11 knew for a FACT that WTC-7 was going to collapse long before it did. Who were these psychics? Or if they weren't psychics, on what evidence were they basing this completely ahistorical prediction? And why didn't they help out FEMA by coming forth with this evidence when FEMA was writing its initial report?

At the very minimum, this shows utter FEMA negligence as well as the complete journalistic bankruptcy of corporate media. But if one were to investigate exactly WHO pushed these psychic reports of WTC-7's impending collapse on 9/11, one might very conceivably uncover a whole lot more.

Luckily, the "nothing to see here" crew is here to stop any further investigation into anything associated with 9/11, no matter how legitimate or obvious the questions are.

[BuyingThyme]

72. You may have noticed that they're slowly retiring

the brought-down-by-fire meme.

It doesn't mesh with the implosion predictions.

The great thing is that they don't know that we know how badly they're contradicting themselves.

[AZCat]

82. That's not true.

No high rise whose steel structure was protected by modern fireproofing methods has collapsed completely due to fire alone. There are some early twentieth century high rises that collapsed from fires but they were built during the era when fire protection methods were still not understood very well. It's probably not fair to consider those when discussing the collapse of WTC 7.

[mhatrw]

98. Those are funny hairs to split.

What's the closest analogue to WTC-7 in the entire history of steel frame high rise fires? Note that there are many thousands of steel frame high rise fires each year in the US alone.

[AZCat]

101. I'm not sure what it would be.

The history of building safety is pretty interesting but after the big fires about 100 years ago (Triangle Shirtwaist, Equitable Life, etc) effective measures were implemented that greatly reduced the chance of catastrophic incidences and so there aren't a lot of similar structures that have failed (at least when built to modern standards) and I don't think there are any that have collapsed quite so completely (other than the towers). That of course doesn't mean such collapses aren't possible, just as the fifty successful shuttle missions prior to the Challenger tragedy didn't prevent it from occurring.

They may be funny hairs, but you should some of the hair-splitting done over real projects - it's hair-raising! (heh)

[mhatrw]

103. I'm not saying that historically unique high rise disasters are impossible --

just that they bear full, comprehensive physical examinations and require prompt, extensive and open investigations.

[AZCat]

105. The devil's in the details, though.

It isn't that we disagree about your point, I think the problem arises when discussing the specifics of such an investigation. What does "comprehensive" mean, for example, and how do we all define an independent and open investigation? Who is both qualified (technically speaking) and universally respected enough to serve as an investigator?

More importantly, what lessons are we trying to learn from the examination of this singular event? Is building safety really the issue or we attempting to apportion blame for the collapse?

I think these questions unfortunately get left by the roadside in the rush for new investigations when IMO they are essential to laying the proper groundwork for investigations that will meet our criteria. How else would they, if we haven't defined our criteria yet?

[mhatrw]

113. It always is.

I really we have more common ground here than you probably think, assuming that your posts have always been made in good faith.

[AZCat]

128. I think you might be surprised.

I don't think I've ever tried to misrepresent either myself or my view here at DU (or anyplace else for that matter). I think (and have written a number of times) that the format of the discussion has a great deal to do with the perceived gulf between the various groups here and that under different circumstances (face-to-face, for example) we would find a great deal of common ground.

[JackRiddler]

36. Wow... one for the textbooks.

File this under "How to Exacerbate a Public Relations Crisis."

One of our resident debunkers (if given the right dose of tranquilizers) might have written a calm explanation along the lines of well, yeah it looks funny at first sight that our Jane is talking about the collapse with the building still standing behind her, shucks, but consider please the damage to WTC 7, everyone was expecting it to come down, and in anticipation the report was prepared (honestly, we don't really remember who we got it from), and then this ended up broadcast prematurely, oops, we regret this but things like that do happen, blah blah defuse reassure talk about integrity advertise an upcoming program etc. etc.

Child's play.

But I guess even the corporate PR guy can succumb to bloggerist counter-hysteria of the kind that invites further trouble.

Let's see:

- Identify "conspiracy theorists" as the enemy. Piss them off. Make the link directly to your moron documentary about them. Challenge them!
- Preemptively act insulted that you've been accused of being part of "the conspiracy" (which of course the clip does not show - and no reasonable person would claim - but it does show that an advance version of the collapse story was in circulation, by whatever means, before the collapse).
- Claim you forgot. Puh-lease. That's what notes and in this case videotape is for.
- Ah, but then you can claim you "lost your footage." -- Admit incompetence! Revel in it!

Normally that last one would get groans from the gallery and yet still work, except that in this case you have to also:
- Pretend you don't know said footage is circulating openly on the Web, where everyone can see it and thus know you're lying when you pretend you don't know what the footage shows!*
- "We didn't receive press releases or scripts..." Carefully worded. What about just plain reports? Did you get any information on 9/11 or did you just make up the whole thing?

* Anyone care to argue the author of this BBC blog wrote it without actually looking at the footage in question? If so, what does that say about him as a reporter?

[MervinFerd]

37. "Public Relations Crisis".

More of a Tempest in a Teapot.

[JackRiddler]

41. Well then let's take the tempest and the teapot and smash some heads with it.

That will help limit this thing.

[jayfish]

43. Ding, Ding, Ding.

"We didn't receive press releases or scripts..." Carefully worded. What about just plain reports? Did you get any information on 9/11 or did you just make up the whole thing?

That jumped right out at me. Either they received some information regarding WTC 7s impending or(inaccurate)actual collapse or they just made "up the whole thing". Maybe they had a Ouija board operator on staff. And of-course he didn't look at the footage before his post. It's lost, remember? :eyes:

Jay

[Bolo Boffin]

44. Well, of course they got the information from somewhere!

Dude, it's this thing called cellphones, or live transmissions from other reporters at the scene - Standly probably heard the same thing from a couple of different places and ran with it.

But "Press Release" implies that someone is chasing, I don't know, Giuliani around with a laptop preparing carefully-worded statements. Or, horrors above horrors, that someone wrote the "press release" in the pre-production phase of Operation Attack-Our-Own-Base-Kill-Our-Dudez, and that the BBC read it before the embargo was lifted!

:spray:

[mhatrw]

63. OK. Where?

Funny that the reporter can't seem to remember and the BBC hasn't seen fit to ask any of their own producers or the anchor about this. If I made a journalistic screw up like that, I might just file away the name of source who embarrassed the hell out of my news organization on world television. How about you?

[BuyingThyme]

53. Yes, responding to the clip while pretending to be unfamiliar with it

seems a little silly.

[Bolo Boffin]

50. mhatrw: First thread on the BBC's response....

Note the OP.

[mhatrw]

64. Sorry, didn't see it before. Have abandoned ship on my thread. n/t

[CJCRANE]

58. The BBC are really

playing up this passive-aggressive sh*t that they're victims of the bloggers. Poor multi-billion dollar/pound corporation, I feel so sorry for them.

[StrictlyRockers]

71. This denial is pure bunkum.

You have GOT to be kidding me with this response!

"We're not part of a conspiracy."

Why in the world would you say something as stupid as this to start off? Who accused you of being part of a conspiracy? Independent investigators are sticking to the facts, and we requested some kind clarification. This blanket denial of involvement in 9/11 is just lame.

This is like a parent asking, "Johnny, do you know why the house is flooded?" and the little kid saying, "I don't know anything about the broken faucet in the kitchen! I didn't leave the hammer under the sink!". Jeeze, I don't think the Beeb was "in on it", but could you guys possibly issue a denial that makes you seem less guilty? Ugh!

What ARE you hiding? It is totally irresponsible for the head of BBC World to misrepresent independent investigators' claims. He should be sacked. We will continue to focus on the evidence. They can keep issuing denials if they feel it is appropriate.

Next.

"We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening."

OMG! What a complete gem!! WTF??! We KNOW that they were told in advance that WTC 7 was going to fall down. So was CNN. To deny this is just plain ridiculous. If, say, the fire department thought that WTC 7 was going to collapse, or that the ceiling was going to fall, then they might very well release a public statement. Some of them may have talked to reporters and that information got back to the BBC.

The point is WE KNOW THAT THEY WERE TOLD IN ADVANCE. But the BBC doesn't make that claim. They claim that they have lost all their 9/11 tapes and that they never received word that WTC 7 was going to collapse ahead of time. Then how did they know to make the announcement over and over again that it had collapsed? Clearly it had not. Are they trying to get us to believe that the two reporters in the video just magically came up with this information on their own? WHAT??!

You lost the original tapes??! Ya rite, buddy!!

What a load of shite.

Lastly, their final defense to all of this is to quote "some guy on Youtube"???!!! Some anonymous poster on Youtube is their go-to guy for a defense regarding evidence of an insider conspiracy on 9/11? Who are these people and why do they think we will let them get away with this nonsense?

SR

[zapperlot]

79. My Post at bbc - blog

I wrote here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html

this:

>Lost Tapes,

>uh there were most lost of BBC- material the last days.
>Under http://www.archive.org/>search.php?query=bbc%20AND%20Sept.%20AND%20mediatype%3Amovies%20AND%20mediatype%3Amovies

>there where monday aprox. 10 videos which mached the criteria.
>eg. the original video which is to be dicussed here.

>Now lost in space for cock up ...

>shit happens

have a look if they publish it...

Greetings from Germany
Zapperlot

[rman]

80. color me gullible

I'll just take their word for it. With them acting all authoritatively, what else can i do?
:eyes:

[BuyingThyme]

96. Me too. Typing is hard work.

[JackRiddler]

107. 911Truth.org response to BBC public-relations suicide

AN OVERVIEW OF WTC 7 HISTORY, COLLAPSE CONTROVERSY AND ALL ABOUT BBC VIDEO

"CLAIRVOYANT COLLAPSE"

& The BBC shows us
"How to Exacerbate Your Public Relations Crisis"
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20070228173157804

& NEW 3-MINUTE MINI-VIDEO COMPILATION OF KEY POINTS IN BBC SEGMENT

The collapse is noted again in the top-of-the-hour headlines, and Hayton gives a longer report at 5:10pm. <13:30 on the archive.org video> Significantly, the details are now revised, indicating Hayton has been given new information in the meantime: "Now more on the latest building collapse," he says. "You might have heard a few minutes ago I was talking about the Salomon Brothers Building collapsing, and indeed it has… It seems that this was not the result of a new attack, it was because the building had been weakened in this morning's attacks." Thus Hayton is not only reporting on an event still 10 minutes into the future, but also accurately conveying how the authorities would explain that event, both then and for the next five years. He then introduces a live report from the network's New York correspondant, Jane Standley.

(...)

We presume the BBC was innocent and unwitting in presenting this report in advance of the actual event, believing the collapse had indeed already happened.

(...)

And that is the question here: Who was the original source of the information? Did the source also phrase the event in the past tense? How was the source certain the building would collapse?

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20070228173157804

[Bolo Boffin]

108. Um, is there a reason you are posting this in every BBC thread AND...

starting a new thread about this?

[JackRiddler]

109. Is there a reason you are following every one of my posts?

Have you set up a tote board? This topic was never consolidated into a single thread, and not everyone might be as diligent in reloading them all as regularly as you, so it seems logical if I want to reach everyone visiting these threads to post in each. That would be a small fraction out of hundreds of posts, but I guess easily detected by your systematic sweeps.

Come on, serve at least as a decent sparring partner, will ya? All this etiquette harping and rhetorical repeats drags.

[Bolo Boffin]

110. Hey, man, just asking questions over here. n/t

[JackRiddler]

111. Why not go to the other thread and finish that matter up? n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

112. Hanh?

What are you on about?

[JackRiddler]

115. This thread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x144988

Reply #1 in above, you started something. Exchange due to your insistence now at Reply #6. Now stand and deliver, soldier. "Be part of the solution."