It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by ignorant_ape
the first thing that springs to mind is to ask
EST or EDT for the collapse time
and are the BBC using BST ?
i have just awaoken - so i may have mis read , but :
scorce
states :
Eastern Time - USA + Canada (ET ~ East Coast Time)
Eastern Standard Time (EST) = GMT-5
Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) = GMT-4
there , GMT time of 21:58 minus 4 hours = 17:58 , AKA 5:58 PM
that is 20 minuties after the collapse
i have no idea how to find out what time format every ones reports / broadcast followed
but IMHO you need to establish this
because if my conjecture is correct - your conspiracy evaporates
[edit on 28-2-2007 by ignorant_ape]
Originally posted by shindigger
Completely irrelevant.
Unless WTC7 is in a different time zone to the building the female BBC reporter was in, roughly 10 blocks away.
Originally posted by Nygdan
The people on location knew well in advance that the building was unstable and pulled everyone out of it because it was going to collapse. The news channels in england probably got that report, but it became garbled along the way and went from 'its unstable / is collapsing' to it did fall'.
Originally posted by shrunkensimon
Originally posted by Nygdan
The people on location knew well in advance that the building was unstable and pulled everyone out of it because it was going to collapse. The news channels in england probably got that report, but it became garbled along the way and went from 'its unstable / is collapsing' to it did fall'.
How did they know it was going collapse? There was nothing to suggest the structural integrity of the building was in critical condition. The fires were confined to six or so floors...that is no way enough to ensure a total collapse. As for falling debry from the towers...buildings closer to the towers had massive slices taken out of them, yet they still stood. WTC 7 suffered minimal exterior damage on one bottom corner, that was it!
There really is nothing left to cling too with the official story on WTC7.
No one can say a building is coming down when it is not even heavily damaged! That only leaves one option, controlled demolition.
"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.
...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."
...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."
getting the guys out
the development of the fires was not significantly impeded by the firefighters because manual firefighting efforts were stopped fairly early in the day.
Originally posted by TheStev
Wouldn't a 'bulge in the southwest corner' almost certainly indicate that an uneven collapse was imminent? I mean, the fact that the shrapnel damage (the only thing that really even begins to explain the collapse - fires don't cut it) was almost entirely on one side of the building supports this as well. Why would one corner bulge, and then the whole building collapse in on itself?
Originally posted by Nygdan
The people on location knew well in advance that the building was unstable and pulled everyone out of it because it was going to collapse. The news channels in england probably got that report, but it became garbled along the way and went from 'its unstable / is collapsing' to it did fall'.
Originally posted by golddragnet
Originally posted by Nygdan
The people on location knew well in advance that the building was unstable and pulled everyone out of it because it was going to collapse. The news channels in england probably got that report, but it became garbled along the way and went from 'its unstable / is collapsing' to it did fall'.
You must be totally deluded, are you a paid stooge/spokesperson for the government, or was that intended to be a lame joke, and why are you making excuses for the BBC. They released a statement themselves and it didn't mention anything about the building being unstable. Did you read their statement?
If you really believe that load of garbage then you are truly one of the "sheeple". BBC news and BBC 24 and CNN all reported the building had actually collapsed, which shows that they had prior knowledge and it was all being stage-managed, this is evidence of it, so why are you making nonsense excuses for them. Major news stations don't report garbled messages, and you could remember the building fell in only a few seconds, so there wasn't time to mix up a report that it was collapsing, they reported the collapse 25 minutes in advance. That is 25 minutes in advance of the controlled demolition of wtc7
Originally posted by Nygdan
The people on location knew well in advance that the building was unstable and pulled everyone out of it because it was going to collapse. The news channels in england probably got that report, but it became garbled along the way and went from 'its unstable / is collapsing' to it did fall'.
Originally posted by golddragnet
there was nothing garbled about their report, they were very clear about it on the BBC. It was a clear case of the news being leaked to them by the powers that be in advance of the event. It is clear evidence that the 9/11 news reporting was being stage-managed.
posted by Curious_Agnostic
reply to post by SPreston
That video shows them talking about it possibly collapsing. It's clear that they didn't know everything that was going on, but they did at least know that the building was on fire and in danger. That leads me to believe that the BBC got the same report as them and simply misread it.