BBC predicted the collapse of wtc 7.

[Fishpicker]

<object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="450" height="370" wmode="transparent" data="http://www.liveleak.com/player.swf?autostart=false&token=49f_1172526096"><param name="movie" value="http://www.liveleak.com/player.swf?autostart=false&token=49f_1172526096"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><param name="quality" value="high"></object>

the reporter was live in NYC and wtc 7 is visible in the background. skip to 14:50 to see the most revealing part of the broadcast

here is the BBC's response (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html)

BBC now claims they lost the entire archive of live footage from 9/11. How unbelievable is that? Their archive is probably stored in an enormous vault with all sorts of redundancies built in.

Some of the comments left on the BBC's site are better articulated than the BBC response.

[Donger]

For the love of God....

[Mr. Kotter]

For the love of God....

No, no....in this case....

For the love of Allah...

[Taco John]

I don't see what the big deal is. So what if the BBC got a press release that the building had already collapsed, and ran with the story before it actually collapsed?

[tk13]

I don't get it. For starters, I doubt many people who lived outside NYC could tell you which building was what number before that day, and it was absolute chaos. There was all kinds of bad info floating around that day... from the Mall of America being hit, to various other places. We should think there's some huge conspiracy because some people from England didn't have their building information organized?

[Mr. Kotter]

I don't see what the big deal is. So what if the BBC got a press release that the building had already collapsed, and ran with the story before it actually collapsed?

I' m quite certain there is no reasonable explanation.

I agree that we should assume the worse.

[Mr. Kotter]

I don't get it. For starters, I doubt many people who lived outside NYC could tell you which building was what number before that day, and it was absolute chaos. There was all kinds of bad info floating around that day... from the Mall of America being hit, to various other places. We should think there's some huge conspiracy because some people from England didn't have their building information organized?

YES.

We MUST assume the worse.

[jAZ]

YES.

We MUST assume the worse.
I'm one who is willing to suspect that BushCo deliberately ignored warnings about 9/11 (not realizing how devastating it would be). And even I don't doubt that this is more likely about confusion of which buildings collapsed when.

The easy way to sanity check this story is to find out what building might have just collapsed that would have been confused with the Salomon building.

[Taco John]

The easy way to sanity check this story is to find out what building might have just collapsed that would have been confused with the Salomon building.



The Marriott.

[Fishpicker]

The Marriott.

CNN (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/chronology.attack/) reported the marriot was on the verge of collapse at 7:02.

[Logical]

YES.

We MUST assume the worse.I would imagine we could do worse, however, I cannot imagine you don't know to use worst.:p

[BigRock]

Despite what the conspiracy sites say, no one was surprised by the collapse of WTC 7. They figured it would happen for the better part of the day. There's a video of the building falling with 1) NBC cameras trained on it, waiting for it to fall, and 2) anchors saying that they'd been expecting it to go down all afternoon.

Knowing that the collapse was inevitable, it's possible that someone did write a press release about the building falling before it actually happened. And the other explainations set forth in the thread are just as valid.

This just goes to show you the kind of worthless scraps the conspiracy crowd will cling to.

[Fishpicker]

Despite what the conspiracy sites say, no one was surprised by the collapse of WTC 7. They figured it would happen for the better part of the day. There's a video of the building falling with 1) NBC cameras trained on it, waiting for it to fall, and 2) anchors saying that they'd been expecting it to go down all afternoon.

Knowing that the collapse was inevitable, it's possible that someone did write a press release about the building falling before it actually happened. And the other explainations set forth in the thread are just as valid.

This just goes to show you the kind of worthless scraps the conspiracy crowd will cling to.

that seems plausible but why would the BBC issue the response that it did? why wouldnt they just say that the reporter spoke prematurely? If anything, the response that was issued added fuel to the fire.

they bring their own practices into question by saying they lost the archive footage. why would they even admit to that?

[BigRock]

that seems plausible but why would the BBC issue the response that it did? why wouldnt they just say that the reporter spoke prematurely? If anything, the response that was issued added fuel to the fire.

they bring their own practices into question by saying they lost the archive footage. why would they even admit to that?
If the BBC guy denied that they got info in advance of events happening, then maybe they didn't. Like I said, any of the explainations already mentioned here are valid. I'm just saying that even if they did get it early, it's hardly proof of a conspiracy.

As for admitting they lost their footage, I don't know why he'd admit it... except that it's (presumably) true. If they destroyed it for some sinister reason, wouldn't it be unlikely for them to ever admit they don't have it anymore?

[Taco John]

Despite what the conspiracy sites say, no one was surprised by the collapse of WTC 7. They figured it would happen for the better part of the day. There's a video of the building falling with 1) NBC cameras trained on it, waiting for it to fall, and 2) anchors saying that they'd been expecting it to go down all afternoon.

Knowing that the collapse was inevitable, it's possible that someone did write a press release about the building falling before it actually happened. And the other explainations set forth in the thread are just as valid.

This just goes to show you the kind of worthless scraps the conspiracy crowd will cling to.



Nobody expected the collapse of the WTC 7. Nobody figured it would happen for the better part of the day. No anchors said that they had been expecting it to go down all afternoon. Nobody thought that it's collapse was inevitable. It's a steel frame building for Christ sakes. Everything you just said is complete bullshit.

[BigRock]

Nobody expected the collapse of the WTC 7. Nobody figured it would happen for the better part of the day. No anchors said that they had been expecting it to go down all afternoon. Nobody thought that it's collapse was inevitable. It's a steel frame building for Christ sakes. Everything you just said is complete bullshit.

Hmm. That's weird.

http://msnbc.com/m/mp/dwvideo.asp?v=n_banfield_sevenwtc_010911

I could swear that I hear Ashleigh Banfield saying "this is it" when the building comes down. That's kind of a strange thing to say when something completely unexpected happens. And, boy, it sure was a stroke of luck that they happened to be filming in such a way that all they needed to do was zoom in when the building started to collapse. You know, since nobody expected anything to happen to it and all.

And that sure sounds like NBC News anchor Brian Williams saying "What we’ve been fearing all afternoon has apparently happened." Fearing all afternoon? They were fearing all afternoon that the 9/11 conspirators would blow up WTC 7 with controlled explosives? How strange! I mean, I guess he could mean that they worried about WTC 7 collapsing all afternoon, but you say nobody thought that would happen. So that can't be it.

Then, for some reason, Brian even specifically mentions that they were watching WTC 7 and points out how it was damaged by the collapse of the towers. But that doesn't make sense, either! If nobody thought the building would go down, what possible reason would they have to watch it? Was it going to start turning different colors, perhaps?

And why would people on-site think that WTC 7 was so damaged, when all the conspiracy web sites say that it wasn't? I mean, some losers with an internet connection and too much time on their hands surely know more than the people who were actually there at ground zero on 9/11, don't they?

Thanks for setting me straight.

[BigRock]

BTW, you've gotta love the logic of this story.

9/11 Conspirator #1: We're going to be blowing up WTC 7 in a while. Why don't you type up a press release about the collapse of the building and send it out to the news agencies?

9/11 Conspirator #2: Before it happens, boss? Couldn't that... you know... give us away?

9/11 Conspirator #1: Are you questioning my orders? Make it single spaced, indent the paragraphs. Talk about the building going down, all the smoke, blah blah blah.

9/11 Conspirator #2: But, boss, why do we even need to write up a press release? When the reporters see the building collapse, won't they... you know... report it on their own?

9/11 Conspirator #1: What did I tell you about questioning me?

9/11 Conspirator #2: Sorry, boss. I'll get right on it.

[Ultra Peanut]

Dis ain't nuffin'. Dat Nostradamon bloke predicted all dat stuff in like the 1940s.

[patteeu]

BTW, you've gotta love the logic of this story.

9/11 Conspirator #1: We're going to be blowing up WTC 7 in a while. Why don't you type up a press release about the collapse of the building and send it out to the news agencies?

9/11 Conspirator #2: Before it happens, boss? Couldn't that... you know... give us away?

9/11 Conspirator #1: Are you questioning my orders? Make it single spaced, indent the paragraphs. Talk about the building going down, all the smoke, blah blah blah.

9/11 Conspirator #2: But, boss, why do we even need to write up a press release? When the reporters see the building collapse, won't they... you know... report it on their own?

9/11 Conspirator #1: What did I tell you about questioning me?

9/11 Conspirator #2: Sorry, boss. I'll get right on it.

No shit. I know the first thing I'd think of if I was involved in a super secret traitorous conspiracy is to make sure and let the BBC in on it. Brilliant!

[Mr. Kotter]

Hmm. That's weird.

http://msnbc.com/m/mp/dwvideo.asp?v=n_banfield_sevenwtc_010911

I could swear that I hear Ashleigh Banfield saying "this is it" when the building comes down. That's kind of a strange thing to say when something completely unexpected happens. And, boy, it sure was a stroke of luck that they happened to be filming in such a way that all they needed to do was zoom in when the building started to collapse. You know, since nobody expected anything to happen to it and all.

And that sure sounds like NBC News anchor Brian Williams saying "What we’ve been fearing all afternoon has apparently happened." Fearing all afternoon? They were fearing all afternoon that the 9/11 conspirators would blow up WTC 7 with controlled explosives? How strange! I mean, I guess he could mean that they worried about WTC 7 collapsing all afternoon, but you say nobody thought that would happen. So that can't be it.

Then, for some reason, Brian even specifically mentions that they were watching WTC 7 and points out how it was damaged by the collapse of the towers. But that doesn't make sense, either! If nobody thought the building would go down, what possible reason would they have to watch it? Was it going to start turning different colors, perhaps?

And why would people on-site think that WTC 7 was so damaged, when all the conspiracy web sites say that it wasn't? I mean, some losers with an internet connection and too much time on their hands surely know more than the people who were actually there at ground zero on 9/11, don't they?

Thanks for setting me straight.

ROFLROFLROFL



:clap:

[Joe Seahawk]

Ashley Banfield and Brian Williams seemed to know WTC 7 was coming down.. :hmmm:

They must be the ones who planted the exlosives!!

Scuse me while I go start up a website..

[pikesome]

Great, another raging clue.

It's been covered. (http://www.tv.com/south-park/mystery-of-the-urinal-deuce/episode/890300/summary.html)

[Cochise]

I get to use my favorite graphic again! :rockon:

[Radar Chief]

I get to use my favorite graphic again! :rockon:

;)

did you ever hear
the one about last year
it was all a lie
ain't it funny how the time flies
what we gonna do baby
what is left for us to prove
i've never stolen nothing, not a thing
tried to stay away from this year's
big thing
ain't as easy as it seems
to find a mutual dream

can you tell me wrong from right
do you know when to freeze or take flight
can you tell me more or less
i got to know-confess

chorus:
don't neglect me
come be my conspiracy
don't neglect me
come be my conspiracy

[StcChief]

It's the Media. enough said.

[Ultra Peanut]

I get to use my favorite graphic again! :rockon:What a terrible photoshop job.

The original:

[Logical]

Ashley Banfield and Brian Williams seemed to know WTC 7 was coming down.. :hmmm:

They must be the ones who planted the exlosives!!

Scuse me while I go start up a website..


I agree that probably a lot of people who saw the smoke emanating from WTC 7 speculated that it would also come down, nothing sinister about that. I still to this day find it strange the way WTC 7 came straight down, that still seems odd.

[Cochise]

Uncomfortable Questions: Was the Death Star Attack an Inside Job?

Posted in Conspiracy Theories | Wednesday, February 28th, 2007 | Trackback

Websurdity Link: This article was inspired by the fine users at the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) Forum, to whom I am indebted for the use of much of this material.

We’ve all heard the “official conspiracy theory” of the Death Star attack. We all know about Luke Skywalker and his ragtag bunch of rebels, how they mounted a foolhardy attack on the most powerful, well-defended battle station ever built. And we’ve all seen the video over, and over, and over, of the one-in-a-million shot that resulted in a massive chain reaction that not just damaged, but completely obliterated that massive technological wonder.

Like many Americans, I was fed this story when I was growing up. But as I watched the video, I began to realize that all was not as it seemed. And the more I questioned the official story, the deeper into the rabbit hole I went.

Presented here are some of the results of my soul-searching regarding this painful event. Like many citizens, I have many questions that I would like answered: was the mighty Imperial government really too incompetent to prevent a handful of untrained nerf-herders from destroying one of their most prized assets? Or are they hiding something from us? Who was really behind the attack? Why did they want the Death Star destroyed? No matter what the answers, we have a problem.

Below is a summary of my book, Uncomfortable Questions: An Analysis of the Death Star Attack, which presents compelling evidence that we all may be the victims of a fraud of immense proportions.


Uncomfortable Questions about the Death Star Attack

The cover of Uncomfortable Questions: An Analysis of the Death Star Attack


1) Why were a handful of rebel fighters able to penetrate the defenses of a battle station that had the capability of destroying an entire planet and the defenses to ward off several fleets of battle ships?

2) Why did Grand Moff Tarkin refuse to deploy the station’s large fleet of TIE Fighters until it was too late? Was he acting on orders from somebody to not shoot down the rebel attack force? If so, who, and why?

3) Why was the rebel pilot who supposedly destroyed the Death Star reported to be on the Death Star days, maybe hours, prior to its destruction? Why was he allowed to escape, and why were several individuals dressed in Stormtrooper uniforms seen helping him?

4) Why has there not been an investigation into allegations that Darth Vader, the second-ranking member of the Imperial Government, is in fact the father of the pilot who allegedly destroyed the Death Star?

5) Why did Lord Vader decide to break all protocols and personally pilot a lightly armored TIE Fighter? Conveniently, this placed Lord Vader outside of the Death Star when it was destroyed, where he was also conveniently able to escape from a large-sized rebel fleet that had just routed the Imperial forces. Why would Lord Vader, one of the highest ranking members of the Imperial Government, suddenly decide to fly away from the Death Star in the middle of a battle? Did he know something that the rest of the Imperial Navy didn’t?

Emperor Palpatine fails to act after being informed of the attack


6) How could any pilot shoot a missile into a 2 meter-wide exhaust port, let alone a pilot with no formal training, whose only claim to fame was his ability to “bullseye womprats” on Tatooine? This shot, according to one pilot, would be “impossible, even for a computer.” Yet, according to additional evidence, the pilot who allegedly fired the missile turned off his targeting computer when he was supposedly firing the shot that destroyed the Death Star. Why have these discrepancies never been investigated, let alone explained?

7) Why has their been no investigation into evidence that the droids who provided the rebels with the Death Star plans were once owned by none other than Lord Vader himself, and were found, conveniently, by the pilot who destroyed the Death Star, and who is also believed to be Lord Vader’s son? Evidence also shows that the droids were brought to one Ben Kenobi, who, records indicate, was Darth Vader’s teacher many years earlier! Are all these personal connections between the conspirators and a key figure in the Imperial government supposed to be coincidences?

8) How could a single missile destroy a battle station the size of a moon? No records, anywhere, show that any battle station or capital ship has ever been destroyed by a single missile. Furthermore, analysis of the tape of the last moments of the Death Star show numerous small explosions along its surface, prior to it exploding completely! Why does all evidence indicate that strategically placed explosives, not a single missile, is what destroyed the Death Star?

[mlyonsd]

Since I was told once it would not be inconceivable for the WTC builders to lie about their findings in how the towers fell I see no reason to not believe Williams and Banfield couldn't be in on it too.

[CHIEF4EVER]

the reporter was live in NYC and wtc 7 is visible in the background. skip to 14:50 to see the most revealing part of the broadcast

here is the BBC's response (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html)

BBC now claims they lost the entire archive of live footage from 9/11. How unbelievable is that? Their archive is probably stored in an enormous vault with all sorts of redundancies built in.

Some of the comments left on the BBC's site are better articulated than the BBC response.

[Cochise]

BBC now claims they lost the entire archive of live footage from 9/11. How unbelievable is that? Their archive is probably stored in an enormous vault with all sorts of redundancies built in.


Ah, the hallmark of any good conspiracy theory. Non-experts commenting as if they were experts.

[Fishpicker]

Ah, the hallmark of any good conspiracy theory. Non-experts commenting as if they were experts.

ok, here it is from the source...

The BBC's policy on retaining recordings of all television and radio broadcast outputs, last reviewed: 18/02/03 - which you can view online at the BBC's own website, clearly states:

The following components to be retained:-
· Two broadcast standard copies of all transmitted/published TV, Radio and BBCi output – one to be stored on a separate site as a master
· One browse-quality version for research purposes, to protect the broadcast material
· All supporting metadata to enable research and re-use
· A selection of original (i.e. unedited) material for re-use/re-versioning purposes
· Hardware/software/equipment to enable replay/transfer of the media

"A retention schedule for each set of records kept /archived must be created as defined in the Core Records Policy. Retention periods are set according to the status and value of the record."

This means that the safe retention of archived recordings is checked at regular intervals, and the more valuable they are deemed to be, the more frequently they are checked.

"All transmitted/published media content will be kept for at least five years to fulfil legal requirements and to enable re-versioning and re-use."

that's 3 copies that are missing

[Crashride]

the wtc buildings were the first two buildings to ever collapse by fire...That metal cannont be melted down simply by jet fuel. We destroyed them. End of story