Why is that.......

Why is it that the mass media makes mistakes on EVERY major news story day ("Jim Brady has died" "11 of 12 miners found alive" "Columbia was traveling at 18 times the speed of light" etc) and that is expected and accepted. When the BBC screws up one thing on 9/11, it becomes conspiracy fodder, why is that? Text

If you can notice this about the mass media in general, who is to say any of it can be trusted. Why do people trust one source as opposed to another? I suspect it has to do with reinforcing preconceptions rather than the trustworthiness of the source.

Why is it when it takes professional demolition crews MONTHS to wire small buildings for demolition, people think that both Towers and WTC7 were wired in less than a day, why is that?

If you know it can take months to wire a building for demolition, and we are told three buildings were all demolished on the same day, why don't you also consider they must have taken months as well? Is it because the implications don't fit into the al Qaeda story?

Why is it that when George Bush, on a good day, could hardly string together two sentences without mangling the rules of grammer, people expect him to be English Professor perfect on one of the worst days in American History, why is that?

I was never surprised by Bush's performance. Bush as president said more about the intelligence of we the people than it did him.

Why is it, that when throughout history engineering projects prove to have fatal flaws (Challenger, Tacoma Narrows Bridge, KC Hyatt walkways, Ford Pinto), people will accept the word of an engineer that a building would survive being hit by an airliner without question, why is that?

I don't do that, so I don't know.

I find it easier to believe engineers will lie than for me to believe impossible things.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
Why is it that the mass media makes mistakes on EVERY major news story day ("Jim Brady has died" "11 of 12 miners found alive" "Columbia was traveling at 18 times the speed of light" etc) and that is expected and accepted. When the BBC screws up one thing on 9/11, it becomes conspiracy fodder, why is that?

That should be a decent start.....if I think of others, I will add them, but for now......lets discuss.....

This thinking is INCREDIBLE.

If WTC 7 had not collapsed then we could regard it as a simple mistake.

The mistake was publicly making the PREDICTION.

47 story buildings do not normally collapse. It has gotten to the point the 9/11 psychology is more important than 9/11. People rationalizing what they are told when it is beyond incredibly stupid is shocking.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by vipertech0596
Why is it that the mass media makes mistakes on EVERY major news story day ("Jim Brady has died" "11 of 12 miners found alive" "Columbia was traveling at 18 times the speed of light" etc) and that is expected and accepted. When the BBC screws up one thing on 9/11, it becomes conspiracy fodder, why is that?

That should be a decent start.....if I think of others, I will add them, but for now......lets discuss.....

This thinking is INCREDIBLE.

If WTC 7 had not collapsed then we could regard it as a simple mistake.

The mistake was publicly making the PREDICTION.

47 story buildings do not normally collapse. It has gotten to the point the 9/11 psychology is more important than 9/11. People rationalizing what they are told when it is beyond incredibly stupid is shocking.

psik

Another example of goldfish memory. It wasn't that the BBC made a public prediction that it was going to fall. Hell, ABC, CBS, and NBC were all reporting that authorities thought it was going to fall. The BBC, screwed that up and reported that it had fallen.

And you are right, 47 story buildings don't normally collapse. Then again, 110 story buildings don't normally have jetliners flown into them, and 47 story buildings don't normally have said skyscrapers collapse into them. Nor are they normally left to burn unchecked for hours. The incredible part is how many people seem to not understand that the events of that day were unlike anything ever seen before.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
Nor are they normally left to burn unchecked for hours. The incredible part is how many people seem to not understand that the events of that day were unlike anything ever seen before.

That is not true at all. There are plenty of buildings that have burned for far longer than WTC 7, and didn't collapse into their own footprints.

There are buildings that have been blown up with explosives, and yet still didn't collapse into their own footprints.

There are buildings that have been set up for implosion demolition, and yet because of a single mistake they didn't collapse into their own footprints.

So no, the events are not like anything that have not been seem before. But regardless of whether the events have been seen before we know what fire can do, we know what damage can do, we know how physics works.
We know what the final outcome of the collapses were, and what appears to happen to get there. It's not such a unique event that it can not be compared to other similar events, or so unique that known physics can not be applied.

You just want to believe that it's such a unique event so you can dismiss known physics, and pretend it's not possible to apply those known physics to what we can see happened. You guys take that path whenever you run out of excuses for the physics problems that we keep pointing out. Anything to avoid actually addressing the equal opposite reaction, and momentum conservation laws, that you keep ignoring. Not once have I ever heard any of you address those laws of physics in context with your hypothesis. How about giving it a try sometime?

reply to post by ANOK


Name me one other time where jetliners were intentionally flown into skyscrapers. Name me one other time building suffered the type of damage that WTC7 did,burned for hours and didn't collapse?


You can't.

You can try to distract things by shouting PHYSICS all you want. It won't change the fact that you are being disingenuous about the physics and that the events of that day were unique.

Actually there have been cases where larger airliners hit smaller buildings. They didnt explode or collapsed all the way. So cant even take recourse to it being a unique event.

reply to post by psikeyhackr

People rationalizing what they are told when it is beyond incredibly stupid is shocking.

It is incredibly shocking...some very smart people are in a trance.

It's like a Twilight Zone episode.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by Cassius666

 

Nope, no one reported that WTC7 was scheduled for demolition. It was reported that officials were concerned it was going to collapse. THEN the BBC made their mistake.

Nowhere has this been reported on 911. If Fox and CNN would have reported "is expected to collapse", then things would be different. Instead no other channel said anything on that matter. You would think they might think its important to give people a heads up that another building is coming down, but no nothing. Thats what makes the mistake of the BBC so fishy. But maybe you can produce a newscast of 911 where it says that WTC 7 is going to collapse.



It looks like the mistake wasnt with the BBC, but rather with Reuters who put out the information about the scheduled collapse of WTC 7 too early.

reply to post by vipertech0596


So just for that day we can throw all laws of physics out the window?? lol

Nice try.

reply to post by Cassius666


Going to have to call BS. Although I will admit I had to break out the videotape from that day to make sure. Yes, the networks WERE reporting that WTC 7 was expected to fall at some point.

reply to post by godfather420


Umm nope, its saying that all the internet physics experts are making assumptions not supported by reality.

reply to post by vipertech0596


Report from WCBS (Channel 2 in New York) - Vince DeMentri . Was taken from World Financial Cnter across the street shortly before WTC 7 collapsed. Was aired about 20 minutes after collapse of WTC 7, shown at end of video

Notice reporter talking about how building could collapse 1 minute into video. Poining to WTC 7 in backgound

www.911myths.com...

(Scroll down to last video titled "Local TV - Smoke and Flames"

reply to post by thedman


Thanks for the link Thed, kinda hard to cut and paste links from my phone.

reply to post by Cassius666


So cite your evidence

One normally trotted out by the conspiracy loons is EL AL 1862 which struck apartment building in Amsterdam
in Oct 1992

The 747 struck top of building glancing blow - not direct hit. Even them that section of building collapsed from
impact and fire

- - The initial impact area in the frontal face of the
buildings was small . Pavement and walkways along the
initial impact area and rather high trees immediately
in front of the building remained undamaged . Most of
the structure in front of the wings of the aircraf t
was recovered from this area .

From English translation of Dutch accident report

ElAl_flight_1862.pdf

reply to post by vipertech0596


No problem - just got off 24 hour hurricane watch in my firehouse

Minor damage so far from falling trees. Large part of town flooded from 10 inches of rain. Majoi damage to follow
as local river expected to crest later in week at over 7 1/2 ft above flood stage

I don't really get where a lot of your questions are coming from. The BBC didn't make a mistake, they predicted the future, hardly a mistake. But I will address the George W. part, in that Dick Cheney was the one in charge while W was picking his nose. Most people assume Cheney is the Sith lord so he's probably smart enough to pull it off, or at least concoct a pentagon story that it was hit by an airplane.

reply to post by vipertech0596


No he said had collapsed. And what you have on video is a controlled demolition. Nobody who has any degree of experites on that disputes that fact. The parttime structural "experts" keep citing flames as the cause of the collapse. If thats the case, why dont we have a burning pile of rubble after the "collapse"?

reply to post by thedman


Might be interesting to surf down Wall Street...... Stay safe Thed.

reply to post by Cassius666


Have you read the entire thread? Or did you decide to jump in without doing that? I said that the networks were reporting that they were concerned WTC7 was going to fall and that the BBC had screwed up and reported it had fallen......and you chimed in that no one had reported that. So again, have you bothered to follow the discussion?