BBC News Reports Building 7 collapse 23 Minutes before it collapses.

Here is one page. There is a link to a youtube video on this site as well.

debunking911.com...

Youtube link: www.youtube.com...

I will look for addition video.

Hey people back again! I'm reading through from page 13 where i left it at 6:30 this morning uk time. Can anyone give me a quick summary/review of where were upto with this?

When i left this morning we had it pretty solid that this vid isn't a hoax and the only way the gov. could spin it is if they said it was a reporting mistake (which is a bunch of bull obviously) but they'd probably get away with that spin anyway!

And that there would be no main stream reporting of this! (Which there hasn't has there) :-(

Originally posted by kuhl
you read the forum alot and yet you only just join....oh and thanks for the tea.

Yes. I have submitted anonymous posts before but today this system wasn't working.

well now your IDENTIFIED butm your posts are uninformative.

Originally posted by Identified
Looks like any other 47 storey building who has suffered structural damage to one side, buckles and collapses.

Please provide an example of a building suffering structural damage and then completely collapsing into a pile of rubble.

Originally posted by Identified
And a building can only fall as quickly as gravity and friction allows. It isn't as if explosives allow it to go quicker than other reasons would.

This is just plain incorrect. When a building is demolished using explosives, the explosive force actually creates a vaccuum within the building, thus actually pulling down the building.

Why are you working so hard to spread your silly dis-information?

Originally posted by Identified
Looks like any other 47 storey building who has suffered structural damage to one side, buckles and collapses.

And a building can only fall as quickly as gravity and friction allows. It isn't as if explosives allow it to go quicker than other reasons would.

Where I may agree with how the BBC made an epic error, they still have to answer for their source(s). If not, divulge the source, and explain their error.

As for how the building came down is not what this thread is about, you either believe it collapsed or it was demolished.

I sway on demolished cos' it looks like a duck.

The source is the key.

[edit on 27-2-2007 by Koka]

Originally posted by kuhl
well now your IDENTIFIED butm your posts are uninformative.

I am not interested in how informative you think my posts.

Ok less tit for tat guys, Let Stay on the topic details,

thanks Asala

and a thread is hardly the place for an arguement but you are disinfo...and a fine example.

Originally posted by Argos
Hey people back again! I'm reading through from page 13 where i left it at 6:30 this morning uk time. Can anyone give me a quick summary/review of where were upto with this?

It has pretty much deteriorated into the "WTC7 collapsed on it's own- WTC7 was brought down argument", not really dealing with the subject of this thread at all.

Have fun y'all, I am done here...

Originally posted by Identified
Looks like any other 47 storey building who has suffered structural damage to one side, buckles and collapses.

You can tell this guy doesn't know what he's talking about, because this kind of collapse has never, ever happened to any other building.

I'm not even going to ask about the logic on "damage to one side = drops straight down", and anyone with a brain can see that all four corners of WTC7 start dropping simultaneously.

And a building can only fall as quickly as gravity and friction allows. It isn't as if explosives allow it to go quicker than other reasons would.

Explosives compromise the friction by removing physical mass in the way of the falling building.

Originally posted by freakyty

Originally posted by Identified
Looks like any other 47 storey building who has suffered structural damage to one side, buckles and collapses.

Please provide an example of a building suffering structural damage and then completely collapsing into a pile of rubble.

Originally posted by Identified
And a building can only fall as quickly as gravity and friction allows. It isn't as if explosives allow it to go quicker than other reasons would.

This is just plain incorrect. When a building is demolished using explosives, the explosive force actually creates a vaccuum within the building, thus actually pulling down the building.

Why are you working so hard to spread your silly dis-information?

There is no misinformation being spread. If you are secure in what you know then what I have said would not in any way dispute it.

WTC7 fell in 18 seconds. Not 6 as has been quoted on this thread. And that doesn't include the part that collapsed earlier in the day.

Originally posted by freakyty

Originally posted by Identified
And a building can only fall as quickly as gravity and friction allows. It isn't as if explosives allow it to go quicker than other reasons would.

This is just plain incorrect. When a building is demolished using explosives, the explosive force actually creates a vaccuum within the building, thus actually pulling down the building.

Why are you working so hard to spread your silly dis-information?

Have to agree with freakyty why are you posting Identified in such a mis-imformative, way look at the evidence. Building colapses prior to 9/11 show that what your saying isnt true. And if you dont believe this then do your own research and come back here and prove were wrong about this!

Its been made almost crystal clear that the building was brought down with explosives and now we have pretty strong evidence that someone had prior knowledge it was gonna be pulled.

The evidence about 9/11 and even the london bombings is becoming so strong now that the so called truthers might actually have a chance now to stop this world turning to crap!

Sorry ranting everyone have been thinking and talking bout this all day and the sheeple just dont seem to get it!!!!!

Originally posted by Argos
Hey people back again! I'm reading through from page 13 where i left it at 6:30 this morning uk time. Can anyone give me a quick summary/review of where were upto with this?

Well, we've kicked it around a fair bit, everyones's been really nice to each other and we've come to the conclusion that it was a really silly reporting error after all.

Hope this helps.

Originally posted by timeless test

Well, we've kicked it around a fair bit, everyones's been really nice to each other and we've come to the conclusion that it was a really silly reporting error after all.

Hope this helps.

What?! No we haven't. Only you and two or three others think that last time i checked.

Originally posted by timeless test
Well, we've kicked it around a fair bit, everyones's been really nice to each other and we've come to the conclusion that it was a really silly reporting error after all.

Hope this helps.

Not really, read the whole thread, if you are just looking for a yes or no answer, you'll be waiting for a long time.

Originally posted by Koka

Originally posted by Identified
Looks like any other 47 storey building who has suffered structural damage to one side, buckles and collapses.

And a building can only fall as quickly as gravity and friction allows. It isn't as if explosives allow it to go quicker than other reasons would.

Where I may agree with how the BBC made an epic error, they still have to answer for their source(s). If not, divulge the source, and explain their error.

As for how the building came down is not what this thread is about, you either believe it collapsed or it was demolished.

I sway on demolished cos' it looks like a duck.

The source is the key.

[edit on 27-2-2007 by Koka]

Have you asked BBC to explain it? Would they be able to even remember what prompted that report that day? Would the evidence if they had any mean anything to you?

There is no way that was a reporting error, they just skipped ahead and read the wrong part of the script for that time of the day. They jumped the gun, it is as simple as that. BBC and Google are just as bad as the criminals who guided those planes into the towers, it's truly disgusting.

I'm sure it's in the monster thread but I'm lazy as can be so, is there a clip of the BBC after the collapse? How did they respond once they realized they'd been reporting for close to a half hour that a building collapsed that had not yet collapsed?

I do recall the local reporters, especially the guy on ABC who was there for what seemed like a month, saying they were expecting #7 to come down, that they were moving back to avoid the collapse etc but I don't remember how far before the actual collapse this started.

The BBC clip is odd as hell for sure.

OK I give up, next time I promise to put the little smiley winkey fellah after an ironic post.

Gone midnight here - off to bed now. Don't come tro any rash conclusions while I'm gone.