Should we just focus on Building 7?

originally posted by: Jchristopher5

originally posted by: Prezbo369
Is the OP claiming the BBC were in on a 9/11 conspiracy?......

No, not necessarily. I was stating a fact, it was reported on the BBC before it collapsed, with the building in the background.

I don't know exactly what to ascertain from that fact, but it is the least important of the points that I referenced. Typical "OS" style to pick the one aspect of something that you want to poke holes in.

So the people in charge of the media distribution section of the 9/11 conspiracy group just jumped the gun a little? let the news out before the building even collapsed?

So they went to all that trouble only to tell people about an event before it actually happened?

Why hasn't the BBC since caught onto this fact? are they now in on the conspiracy?

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
The only way for 911 to be an inside job is for hundreds if not thousands of people to be involved in the plot and the cover up that followed. The sheer amount of people involved would need to be enormous.
The global warming crowd says that getting that many people to agree to lie is impossible.

You move yourself in a circle of bad logic. You deny the obvious, and then make up a reason the obvious can't be possible.

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: Jchristopher5

originally posted by: Prezbo369
Is the OP claiming the BBC were in on a 9/11 conspiracy?......

No, not necessarily. I was stating a fact, it was reported on the BBC before it collapsed, with the building in the background.

I don't know exactly what to ascertain from that fact, but it is the least important of the points that I referenced. Typical "OS" style to pick the one aspect of something that you want to poke holes in.

So the people in charge of the media distribution section of the 9/11 conspiracy group just jumped the gun a little? let the news out before the building even collapsed?

So they went to all that trouble only to tell people about an event before it actually happened?

Why hasn't the BBC since caught onto this fact? are they now in on the conspiracy?

I don't know if the BBC is in on the conspiracy or not, again I only mentioned the simple fact that it was reported before it collapsed.

But, the MSM has been guided by the likes of the CIA and M16 for decades. Do I really have to prove this point to you? I shouldn't. Study about Operation Mockingbird. Study the Gary Webb case. Read "Katherine the Great".

Or, continue to deny all the facts, if it makes you feel better.

a reply to: samkent
Your first problem to overcome is almost never talked about on conspiracy sites.

Problem - Reaction - Solution

FireFighters for 911 Truth

a reply to: Jchristopher5

It's interesting to watch the progression of people when they start out with the 9-11 conspiracy.

If you spend enough time studying all the aspects, you evolve into different thinking. A lot of what official story believers say, will turn out to be true. But there is enough nagging inconsistencies to warrant a disbelief in the entirety of the official story unless you disregard logic. Building 7 is certainly a questionable aspect.

The locations of some of the parts of flight 93 tend to push me in the direction of the OS not being factual. (at least parts of it)

originally posted by: Jchristopher5
I don't know if the BBC is in on the conspiracy or not, again I only mentioned the simple fact that it was reported before it collapsed.

So you listed it in the OP but didn't think about it?....

But, the MSM has been guided by the likes of the CIA and M16 for decades. Do I really have to prove this point to you? I shouldn't. Study about Operation Mockingbird. Study the Gary Webb case. Read "Katherine the Great".

So are you saying you think they (the BBC) were or were not implicitly involved in a 9/11 conspiracy?

Or, continue to deny all the facts, if it makes you feel better.

I'm asking questions about your OP, and it seems to me that if you really did have something here you'd welcome questions....

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: Jchristopher5
I don't know if the BBC is in on the conspiracy or not, again I only mentioned the simple fact that it was reported before it collapsed.

So you listed it in the OP but didn't think about it?....

But, the MSM has been guided by the likes of the CIA and M16 for decades. Do I really have to prove this point to you? I shouldn't. Study about Operation Mockingbird. Study the Gary Webb case. Read "Katherine the Great".

So are you saying you think they (the BBC) were or were not implicitly involved in a 9/11 conspiracy?

Or, continue to deny all the facts, if it makes you feel better.

I'm asking questions about your OP, and it seems to me that if you really did have something here you'd welcome questions....

Wow, you are thick headed.

Again, for the third time, I mentioned that it was a fact that it was reported on the BBC before the building collapsed. I did not claim the BBC was in on the conspiracy, but clearly they reported something before it happened.

Either way, it doesn't change the fact that Building 7 is the smoking gun on the official story being false. I suspect that you are aware of that, and that you are trying to lead me into a rabbit hole with this point.

That is all that I have to say about the reporting from the BBC today. Perhaps the reporter is a psychic (unlikely)? Maybe it was a "simple mistake (unlikely). How do you explain it?

Draw whatever conclusion that you choose. Why don't you address the rest of the more significant points, if you really seek the truth?

Is there something new in THIS building 7 thread as opposed to
These?
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

These are just building 7 threads. I could keep going but my browser locked up.

Is there anything in this thread that hasn't been talked to death already.
Everyone already has their minds made up. NOBODY ever listens to anybody else in these threads.
It always devolves into the same crap. Whats the point?

a reply to: stosh64

Starred for your point but this isn't crap, the events of 9/11 have rippled through time and changed EVERYTHING to this point.

a reply to: Jchristopher5

No it's not wrong, yours is, and you reek of desperation with your post. Trying to pull at our heart strings about the great fire fighters who gave or risked their lives that day.

You are falling into the same pattern (trap) that most conspiracy believers do.
You draw conclusions without taking ALL EVIDENCE into consideration.
You need to be able to rationally explain all of the aspects of an event for your conclusion to be valid.

You can't use one photograph and conclude that Bigfoot exists.
You have to be able to explain why Bigfoot bones have never been dug up.

Back to 911:
Firefighters were watching 7 all day.
They said the building was leaning farther and farther.
By your theory, you are concluding they are lying.
Please explain how hundreds of people of a close knit fraternity can sweep their family members under the rug.

a reply to: BlueJacket

The typical response that the ground shake from the other two caused a perfect footprint collapse is ridiculous and patently absurd.

Is it?

And here I thought the images available to all researchers that a chunk of one corner about a one and half stories high contributed to the collapse, the chunk of building was taken out by the falling towers.

Never heard the typical response you speak of.

Building 7 is an internet gurus that thinks they know things trap if they simply watch videos with intense soundtracks especially when the maker of said videos blows your mind by the connections and/or inconsistencies they tell you about.

The Pentagon attack is what anyone wanting to expose things should target their amazing research abilities at.

Hopefully that research is better done than what the usual BLDG 7 crap is,

I assume NIST or what ever official agency don't want to touch it because of its design, it could show buildings that are architecturally similar in design are prone to collapse if a part such as one corner of the base is damaged, then one lone nut can fill his car with manure and bring down other buildings, hence not wanting alarm the public if they released an official statement on why it collapsed.


Flight 93 is the second most damning point to the official story, The Pentagon being the first.

The New York attack is the last that should be looked at but because of its scope and live broadcast world wide it seems to be the first thing anyone researching 9/11 gets into.

Don't follow the herd when you don't know who the Sheppard is.

a reply to: stosh64

Quite simply because people tend to ignore old threads, and it is critical to get this important message out to new people. Many are simply not aware.

Let me turn this around. If this is a worthless thread, then why do you feel compelled to respond? Move on to something "important". You seem to protest too much.

If the mods lock it, so be it. Maybe one more person is now aware that wasn't before.

originally posted by: Jchristopher5

Wow, you are thick headed.

Again, for the third time, I mentioned that it was a fact that it was reported on the BBC before the building collapsed. I did not claim the BBC was in on the conspiracy, but clearly they reported something before it happened.

Either way, it doesn't change the fact this is the smoking gun on the official story being false. I suspect that you are aware of that, and that you are trying to lead me into a rabbit hole.

The amount of assumptions that would have to be made to allow for the apparent early reporting of building 7 by the BBC to be done for nefarious reasons would lead most critical thinkers to have serious doubts.

That is all that I have to say about the reporting from the BBC today. Perhaps the reporter is a psychic (unlikely)? Maybe it was a "simple mistake (unlikely).

Draw whatever conclusion that you choose. Why don't you address the rest of the points, if you really seek the truth?

Yeah perhaps the BBC are part of the evil plot (likely) lol

If this is how you react to a critical eye placed upon one of your talking points/claims I think i'll leave it here.

However I do understand a little bit more as to why you guys have the label you do.

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: Jchristopher5

Wow, you are thick headed.

Again, for the third time, I mentioned that it was a fact that it was reported on the BBC before the building collapsed. I did not claim the BBC was in on the conspiracy, but clearly they reported something before it happened.

Either way, it doesn't change the fact this is the smoking gun on the official story being false. I suspect that you are aware of that, and that you are trying to lead me into a rabbit hole.

The amount of assumptions that would have to be made to allow for the apparent early reporting of building 7 by the BBC to be done for nefarious reasons would lead most critical thinkers to have serious doubts.

That is all that I have to say about the reporting from the BBC today. Perhaps the reporter is a psychic (unlikely)? Maybe it was a "simple mistake (unlikely).

Draw whatever conclusion that you choose. Why don't you address the rest of the points, if you really seek the truth?

Yeah perhaps the BBC are part of the evil plot (likely) lol

If this is how you react to a critical eye placed upon one of your talking points/claims I think i'll leave it here.

However I do understand a little bit more as to why you guys have the label you do.

Likewise, I see why you folks (the "OSers") get your reputation.

You completely ignore all the other damning facts, and focus on the one point you feel you can destroy. Unfortunately for you, you have proven nothing, except your own willful ignorance, by denying the other points.

a reply to: Jchristopher5

Wow, you are thick headed.

Again, for the third time, I mentioned that it was a fact that it was reported on the BBC before the building collapsed. I did not claim the BBC was in on the conspiracy, but clearly they reported something before it happened.

Brilliant,

You have already lost any credibility as a researcher with such comments to a question being asked of you.

No one said you made that claim, it was a question posed to hear your thoughts on it. Yes it could be perceived as they were implying something but don't fall for it if you recognize whatever tactics you think you can recognize,

That is all that I have to say about the reporting from the BBC today. Perhaps the reporter is a psychic (unlikely)? Maybe it was a "simple mistake (unlikely). How do you explain it?

Why not try to find out, research the procedures of news broadcast and maybe then speculate if it was a mistake or not from incoming reports from either contacts in fire department or some other emergency bureau which could have easily been of a likely collapse due to the buildings condition.

but its unlikely in your opinion so you like many arm chair researchers you wont bother, however, if you really seek the truth maybe look from all angles.

Why don't you address the rest of the more significant points, if you really seek the truth?

They addressed what they wanted to, by asking you about the point they did. They haven't said if they are or are not seeking truth simply asking you about a point in your OP, so why add that last bit as an attempted sting to imply they are not seeking truth.

Are you or you simply rehashing facts that are all over the ATS, all over YouTube and half of the rest of the internet, are you really seeking truth or simply parroting what you hear?

If you don't know hat to ascertain from the fact it was reported that way why not like I already said try to instead pointing out facts that really don't need pointing out anymore than they have, why not point out why or who its possible that the BBC would make such a mistake, cant find it in any video I assume?

When I reviewed 9/11 I was also struck by the Building 7 collapse. I read that NIST refused to model the collapse and really didn't present a decent answer for it. Well, parts of a different building hitting it didn't seem credible as building 7 survived that impact for hours. The whole ground shaking the footprints idea just seemed like bunk as many other buildings around there had no problems. Remember that Building 7 housed critical infrastructure and was built to higher quake standards to survive when other buildings didn't.

I find the OP weak in it's discussion of the Building 7 collapse. There are lots of details about it not discussed. If you want to change opinions you really have to work for it. You need to carefully review all the arguments and counter arguments and present it in a tight format. Tossing up yet another weak thread on the subject doesn't seem helpful to me.

originally posted by: stosh64Whats the point?

the point is not to let 9/11 go away, ever. the l-OS-ers hope that will happen. it's not going to.

a reply to: Jchristopher5

You completely ignore all the other damning facts, and focus on the one point you feel you can destroy. Unfortunately for you, you have proven nothing, except your own willful ignorance, by denying the other points.

No, if you would answered a simple question maybe you could have had a proper conversation but to conclude things with such little info and your perception of anothers implications just shows me all I need to see.

Enjoy the party even though you are quite late and it might have died down which I would assume there would be less noise so someone new to this should be able to hear clearly but I guess the music is still too loud and nothing can be heard, just reading lips and assuming they mean this or that to fit what you already believe.

originally posted by: noeltrotsky
When I reviewed 9/11 I was also struck by the Building 7 collapse. I read that NIST refused to model the collapse and really didn't present a decent answer for it. Well, parts of a different building hitting it didn't seem credible as building 7 survived that impact for hours. The whole ground shaking the footprints idea just seemed like bunk as many other buildings around there had no problems. Remember that Building 7 housed critical infrastructure and was built to higher quake standards to survive when other buildings didn't.

I find the OP weak in it's discussion of the Building 7 collapse. There are lots of details about it not discussed. If you want to change opinions you really have to work for it. You need to carefully review all the arguments and counter arguments and present it in a tight format. Tossing up yet another weak thread on the subject doesn't seem helpful to me.

Thank you for your feedback. Sorry you find this inadequate.

I was reaching for the person who was unfamiliar with the finer points of the 9/11 conspiracy case, and asking how we best reached this audience. Since you seem to have it all together feel free to take over the thread with your expert analysis.

a reply to: Jchristopher5

You need to stop being so insulting to people who have opposing viewpoints as you.

You report the following as "facts", yet produce no evidence to corroborate those claims except a heavily edited short clip of the fall.

1. Building 7 fell at free fall velocity for 2.25 seconds, and crumbled into it's footprint in a way identical to a modern demolition. This 2.25 second freefall was acknowledged in the NIST report.
2. The building's demise was left out of the tainted "Official 9/11 report" (aka "The official conspiracy theory"), likely because of the fact its fall is not explainable.
3. It's fall was reported in the BBC before it happened, and you can clearly see the building in the background.
4. The NIST report refused to provide a model of its collapse, saying it "might jeopardize public safety".
5. The leaseholder, Larry Silverstein confirmed the obvious, that the building was demolished in a 2002 PBS interview.

Let's break your "facts" down one by one.

1. Building 7 fell at free fall velocity for 2.25 seconds, and crumbled into it's footprint in a way identical to a modern demolition. This 2.25 second freefall was acknowledged in the NIST report.

The towers did not fall at or below free fall speeds…

In every photo and every video, you can see columns far outpacing the collapse of the building. Not only are the columns falling faster than the building but they are also falling faster than the debris cloud which is ALSO falling faster than the building. This proves the buildings fell well below free fall speed. That is, unless the beams had a rocket pointed to the ground.

Just look at any video you like and watch the perimeter columns.

Deceptive videos stop the timer of the fall at 10:09 when only the perimeter column hits the ground and not the building itself. If you notice, the building just finishes disappearing behind the debris cloud which is still about 40 stories high.

2. The building's demise was left out of the tainted "Official 9/11 report" (aka "The official conspiracy theory"), likely because of the fact its fall is not explainable.

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation

Looks to me like the NIST report DOES talk about WTC 7 despite what you claimed seeing as how there is a Q&A about it which references the NIST report.

3. It's fall was reported in the BBC before it happened, and you can clearly see the building in the background.

Part of the conspiracy? (2)

Here is what BBC has to say about that themselves.

4. The NIST report refused to provide a model of its collapse, saying it "might jeopardize public safety".

Why is this a problem? If your other "facts" don't add up then that is left with us admitting that NIST is telling the truth here.

5. The leaseholder, Larry Silverstein confirmed the obvious, that the building was demolished in a 2002 PBS interview.

"Pull It" isn't a demolition term and Silverstein was likely just telling them to evacuate the building.