WTC 7: reinforce my flagging skepticism or believe with me

In My Humble Opinion
1

Occam’s Razor and all…sure. But this gives me pause:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/260207building7.htm

For the linky averse, allow me to summarize: this is an article, including supporting video, showing BBC reporter Jane Standley talking about the collapse of WTC 7 while it remains standing in the live shot behind her head.

Minutes before the actual collapse of the building is due, the feed to the reporter mysteriously dies.

From the article: “The fact that the BBC reported on the collapse of Building 7 over twenty minutes in advance of its implosion obviously provokes a myriad of questions as to how they knew it was about to come down when the official story says its collapse happened accidentally as a result of fire damage and debris weakening the building’s structure.”

I try not to be vulerable to conspiracy theories unless they have merit. I believe conspiracy happens, just not nearly so often nor so interestingly as some would have “us” believe.

Thoughts on this article?

2

This paragraph from your link is likely key:

3

And anyway the whole premise of the thing implies that the BBC is also involved in the “conspiracy”. There really is no end to the stupidity of these loons.

4

[QUOTE=Tabula Rasa]
Occam’s Razor and all…sure. But this gives me pause:

For the linky averse, allow me to summarize: this is an article, including supporting video, showing BBC reporter Jane Standley talking about the collapse of WTC 7 while it remains standing in the live shot behind her head.

Minutes before the actual collapse of the building is due, the feed to the reporter mysteriously dies.

From the article: “The fact that the BBC reported on the collapse of Building 7 over twenty minutes in advance of its implosion obviously provokes a myriad of questions as to how they knew it was about to come down when the official story says its collapse happened accidentally as a result of fire damage and debris weakening the building’s structure.”

I try not to be vulerable to conspiracy theories unless they have merit. I believe conspiracy happens, just not nearly so often nor so interestingly as some would have “us” believe.

Thoughts on this article?
[/QUOTE]

Prisonplanet?

Isn’t this Alex Jones? Do a little research about him, and then decide what this means - the guy is a compelte nutjob, who believes everything and makes up lies to support his theories.

In regards to this particular issue, it looks like the BBC just screwed up. Firemen, police, engineers, etc. new for a couple of hours that WTC7 was going to collapse. It had been burning for hours, there was a large chunk of it missing from the bottom, and by late afternoon it was moving, groaning, swaying. Most likely, the BBC screwed up when the heard “WTC7 is going to collapse, etc.” and reported that it actually did already. 99% of people, especially British reporters, didn’t actually know what building WTC7 was, so likely didn’t realize it was still standing in the camera shot.

5

Haven’t been able to watch the video, but isn’t the easier explanation that they got the name of the building wrong?

EDIT: Ah, the above explanation makes even more sense.

6

[QUOTE=Richard Parker]
Haven’t been able to watch the video, but isn’t the easier explanation that they got the name of the building wrong?

EDIT: Ah, the above explanation makes even more sense.
[/QUOTE]

Well, I believe they were specific, calling it the 47 story Salomon building, which would be WTC7.

Again, 20 minutes before it collapsed, everyone down there knew it was going to come down. The fireman were evacuated as there was nothing else they could do to save the building. I am sure people were running around saying “the building it going to collapse!” etc. Some reporter probably relayed that message uptown, and everying got screwed up in the translation.

That day I remember hearing the following errors as well:

  • a 5th plane
  • helicopter crash at the pentagon
  • car bombs at the capital
  • etc.

In such panic and confusion as 911, its not suprising some details were reported incorrectly.

7

[QUOTE=Fat Chance]
Prisonplanet?

Isn’t this Alex Jones? Do a little research about him, and then decide what this means - the guy is a compelte nutjob, who believes everything and makes up lies to support his theories.

In regards to this particular issue, it looks like the BBC just screwed up. Firemen, police, engineers, etc. new for a couple of hours that WTC7 was going to collapse. It had been burning for hours, there was a large chunk of it missing from the bottom, and by late afternoon it was moving, groaning, swaying. Most likely, the BBC screwed up when the heard “WTC7 is going to collapse, etc.” and reported that it actually did already. 99% of people, especially British reporters, didn’t actually know what building WTC7 was, so likely didn’t realize it was still standing in the camera shot.
[/QUOTE]

That is exactly right. News crews had cameras pointed at it for a long while to capture when it was finally going to go. It was evacuated for hours before it happened. Unless all of them were in on it too. :dubious:

I don’t understand why this would be part of the conspiracy. What purpose would knocking down #7 have in any conspiracy. No one was killed. There was no further outrage. Most people don’t even remember.

8

I’m discounting for the source. I know who the guy is. Maybe all I need is for several people who know the pre-9/11 New York skyline far better than I do to take a look atthe video here:

http://www.esnips.com/doc/47ae2fd7-0a9f-4928-9d30-f53741139733/911Building

and look at about the 19:30 -19:45 point and tell me if the building that is pointed out as Salomon Bros./WTC 7 really is Salomon Bros./WTC 7. If it is, then no matter what time the footage was shot, it shows a BBC reporter reporting on the destruction of a still-standing building. If it’s not, then, in the words of Emily Littela, “Never mind.”

If somebody could direct me to a pre-9/11 photo of WTC 7, well, then, even better. I’d have the good enough for my purposes “my own eyes” proof fulfilled. I could go about the rest of my day.

Thanks.

9

[QUOTE=Tabula Rasa]
I’m discounting for the source. I know who the guy is. Maybe all I need is for several people who know the pre-9/11 New York skyline far better than I do to take a look atthe video here:

http://www.esnips.com/doc/47ae2fd7-0a9f-4928-9d30-f53741139733/911Building

and look at about the 19:30 -19:45 point and tell me if the building that is pointed out as Salomon Bros./WTC 7 really is Salomon Bros./WTC 7. If it is, then no matter what time the footage was shot, it shows a BBC reporter reporting on the destruction of a still-standing building. If it’s not, then, in the words of Emily Littela, “Never mind.”

If somebody could direct me to a pre-9/11 photo of WTC 7, well, then, even better. I’d have the good enough for my purposes “my own eyes” proof fulfilled. I could go about the rest of my day.

Thanks.
[/QUOTE]

The building in the back with the smoke pouring out of it is indeed WTC7/Salomon Bros. The BBC clearly screwed up. But, its also pretty obvious that it was a innocent screwup, not an accidental blowing the lid off of the biggest consipiracy in history!!

Even if the reporter/BBC noticed that big building smoking, I doubt they would have known it was WTC7 in order to question it. A number of building were destroyed that day, so they likely just thought another building had fallen and the big smoking one was some other building that was damaged.

10

[QUOTE=Loach]

I don’t understand why this would be part of the conspiracy. What purpose would knocking down #7 have in any conspiracy. No one was killed. There was no further outrage. Most people don’t even remember.
[/QUOTE]

I’ve heard a few theories, the 2 most common (and stupid):

  • More insurance money for Silverman
  • Since the building housed a number of city and goverment offices (FBI? CIA? ATF?) it was an attempt to destroy records/computers, or something.

Basically these loons are looking for anything that doesn’t seem to make 100% perfect sense and point it out as evidence for some vast grand conspiracy involving thousands of people that nobody has blown the whistle on, and only a bunch of kids in their parents basement and discredited gullible losers have figured out.

11

I clearly remember there being *lots *of advance warning that building 7 was most probably going to collapse. I remember this so vividly because I heard that news when I left work for home, and as soon as I got home I checked in to see if it had happened yet. Basically, I tried to get home before it actually came down.

This article concedes advance notice was given of the imminent collapse and people were evacuated in anticipation.

It’s not unreasonable at all to assume that the reporter was mis-reporting the imminent collapse as a collapse that had already happened. So what? There were LOTS of early, sketchy reports of things that either never happened or were totally unrelated.

It happens all the time in breaking news.

12

[QUOTE=Tabula Rasa]
I’m discounting for the source. I know who the guy is.
[/QUOTE]

I’m with you.

Someone at my old job sent me to his site to ‘prove’ that the government brought down the WTC. Incidentally, this was the same guy who thinks that lizard people run the government and the contrails you see behind jets are actually chemicals meant to make the earth warmer/make the population more docile for the alien take over.

Also, in a conspiracy vast enough to involve the BBC someone would have certainly talked by now.

13

Thanks, Fat Chance. Yes, even fairly normal days often seem like they have more than their fair share of screw-ups, weirdness, and strange coincidences. Sometimes those are the informative aspects of a day and sometimes they are just the texture of the background of the day. I find the screw-ups, weirdnesses, and strange coincidences of 9/11 more interesting than those of an ordinary day. Anyone else want to chime in with confirmation about the building? In the face of the strange, I’m kinda comforted by consensus.

14

[QUOTE=Regallag_The_Axe]
Incidentally, this was the same guy who thinks that lizard people run the government
[/QUOTE]

…and are housed in a vast underground facility at Denver International Airport, if I recall correctly. As an explanation for the baggage retrieval problems at DIA, this tempts Occam’s razor, but…nah! (Note to the humor-impaired or otherwise self-righteous who may happen by: /Foghorn Leghorn voice on/ "It’s a joke. A little humor. Levity. Ya’ll can laugh if ya wants. /Foghorn Leghorn voice off/)

Though I did once shake hands with Ashcroft, years ago, and experienced a shiver of revulsion. Wouldn’t have surprised me all that much, in the moment, if he had unzipped his rubber “people suit” and revealed his reptilian self.

15

[QUOTE=Tabula Rasa]
Thanks, Fat Chance. Yes, even fairly normal days often seem like they have more than their fair share of screw-ups, weirdness, and strange coincidences. Sometimes those are the informative aspects of a day and sometimes they are just the texture of the background of the day. I find the screw-ups, weirdnesses, and strange coincidences of 9/11 more interesting than those of an ordinary day. Anyone else want to chime in with confirmation about the building? In the face of the strange, I’m kinda comforted by consensus.
[/QUOTE]

In the words of Groucho Marx, “who you gonna believe. . .me, or your own eyes?”

You got the building standing.

You got the BBC saying it collapsed.

Occam’s razor? You want the simplest explanation? They were supposed to report on the collapse at 4:57 Daylight Savings Time. Instead, they reported on it at 4:57 Eastern Standard Time. A huge error in an otherwise well-run cover-up.

16

If you want your mind settled once and for all, I’d encourage you to visit this link, which humorously and thoroughly explains the whole thing, and which eventually also contains a link to an 80-page PDF file ripping Alex Jones and his ‘‘claims’’ a new asshole.

Good stuff:
http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/911truth.html

17

Just for clarification-

Alex Jones’ big Conspiracy focus is on the Bohemian Grove, which he considers a bunch of Satanic Moloch-worshippers (he’s obsessed with the “Cremation of Care” ceremony). David Icke is the main Reptilians guy. Jones & the Birch Society have recently been dancing around each other, though he’s considered them too moderate and they’ve considered him too looney.

18

Oh, right. It’s been a while. I get my marginalized obsessives confused. Now, see, if we blame the baggage retrieval problems at DIA on a drugged, naked Henry Kissinger in a pointy hat…yes, it all makes so much sense now. Perhaps if we allow these ideas to cross-pollinate more, we’ll find the Truth.

Which is not to say I’m going to stop thinking about the WTC 7 video soon.

A while back, one of our four year old twins, woke us up on a Sunday morning to tell us that he had swallowed his toy fireman’s plastic wrench. We, of course, panicked in an early morning way – got dressed quickly and were on our way out the door to go to the ER when my husband saw the toy wrench in question on top of the toybox.
-“Is this the wrench you swallowed?”
-“Yep.”
-“This wrench? The one I’m holding?”
-“Yep.”
-“Where is it now?”
-“In my tummy.”
-“This wrench that I’m holding in my hand? It’s in your tummy?”
-“Yep?”
-“How did it get in your tummy?”
-“In my dream. I swallowed it in my dream and now it’s in my tummy.”
-“Why is it in my hand?”
-“I don’t know.”

We did not go to the ER that day. Some form of professional help is not out of the question, eventually…for someone. The wrench in question has been confiscated.

There was some echo of that wrenchy morning in my experience of watching the video.
A thought of “Which building has collapsed?” “This one right here.” “This one here?” “That’s right. It’s not there any more.”

19

[QUOTE=Trunk]
In the words of Groucho Marx, “who you gonna believe. . .me, or your own eyes?”

You got the building standing.

You got the BBC saying it collapsed.

Occam’s razor? You want the simplest explanation? They were supposed to report on the collapse at 4:57 Daylight Savings Time. Instead, they reported on it at 4:57 Eastern Standard Time. A huge error in an otherwise well-run cover-up.
[/QUOTE]

So the BBC was in on it too? That is not Occam’s razor. Not even Occam’s hairbrush. That is the most complicated and convoluted explaination, not the simplest.

I do like the whole lizard thing. It has a certain something.

20

[QUOTE=Trunk]
In the words of Groucho Marx, “who you gonna believe. . .me, or your own eyes?”

You got the building standing.

You got the BBC saying it collapsed.

Occam’s razor? You want the simplest explanation? They were supposed to report on the collapse at 4:57 Daylight Savings Time. Instead, they reported on it at 4:57 Eastern Standard Time. A huge error in an otherwise well-run cover-up.
[/QUOTE]

I’m going to go ahead and assume this a whoosh. You forgot the sarcasm smily right?