WTC 7

**Jesus Jones** · 30-09-2008, 01:29 PM

BBC reported WTC 7 collasped before it actually had.

I'm sure some have seen, and i'm sure lots haven't and may not care.

**daveboy** · 30-09-2008, 01:33 PM

I smell a rat.

bkkandrew · 30-09-2008, 01:37 PM

Its OK, the BBC are very effecint with their news gathering and can be relied on to be 'ahead of the curve'...

**Bobcock** · 30-09-2008, 01:45 PM

So the american government, being so clever and secretive and being able to create such a day without peoiple knowing, actually told the BBC 20 minutes before.

Actually I'll let you into a secret. The BBC didn't know about any of it until 5 hours later, it all happened at 8am (ish) and yet the BBC didn't report it until 1pm (ish) I know because I looked at my watch at the time.

Spooky huh, 5 hours editing the films to make it look convincing. Those shady Brit Bastards.

**Jesus Jones** · 30-09-2008, 01:52 PM

So something as drastic as this wasn't worth reporting until later.

So the fact that the female reporter is stood talking about the collpase live to the BBC studio, with the WTC7 building behind means nothing.

Regardelss of when the BBC actually reprted it, she is stood there infront.

**Bobcock** · 30-09-2008, 01:59 PM

Well, it was worth it but it took so long for the BBC to edit the films.

With WTC 7 they had the films already and hence were able to report it early as GWB's boys weren't ready.

The only mistake that day. I guess nothing can be seamless.

**AntRobertson** · 30-09-2008, 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by Jesus Jones

So the fact that the female reporter is stood talking about the collpase live to the BBC studio, with the WTC7 building behind means nothing.

What are you talking about, that's not WTC7 behind her.

**Jesus Jones** · 30-09-2008, 02:04 PM

Yes it is, to her right shoulder.

**AntRobertson** · 30-09-2008, 02:07 PM

^Righto, thought you were referring to the one on the left (as you look at the screen).

**Bobcock** · 30-09-2008, 02:47 PM

MI5 = BBC = KGB they are in fact one and the same.

**Butterfly** · 30-09-2008, 03:00 PM

where does the alien invasion fits into all this ?

**kingwilly** · 30-09-2008, 03:49 PM

Originally Posted by Jesus Jones

Regardelss of when the BBC actually reprted it, she is stood there infront.

yup.

absolute proof there mate.

of course there is no chance she was super imposed on old footage? cos they never do that ... do they?

**Bobcock** · 30-09-2008, 04:59 PM

No they don't, ever....silly willy

**Norton** · 30-09-2008, 07:02 PM

Originally Posted by Bobcock

MI5 = BBC = KGB they are in fact one and the same.

All under command of that dastardly Col. heading the KFC.

**britmaveric** · 30-09-2008, 07:36 PM

Well impending collapse would be like it - they reported that lot of the buildings in the WTC complex were unstable do to significant damage from the collapse of the towers.

**ItsRobsLife** · 01-10-2008, 03:07 AM

You know what JJ, no matter what the shortcomings of the official version of events surrounding WTC7, it's just one of those events where the truth will never be fully realised one way or the other and so will always rumble on... unless of course a top secret dossier turns up at some point in the future, and how likely is that?

Yes it's very fishy, so are many aspects of 9/11, but from the outset the chief conspiritors knew they would never be held accountable and we know they never will.

Perhaps now I am a victim of the culture of apathy, or maybe just a realist, either way older and now too pragmatic.

Keep fighting the good fight.

**sabang** · 01-10-2008, 06:19 AM

I honestly don't understand why the US authorities don't just admit WTC7 was a 'Pull'- a controlled demolition. They could justify it on public safety grounds.

Why the cover-up?

**flash** · 01-10-2008, 06:34 AM

she reported the marriot collapsed as well, it didn't. i heard the bbc filmed their coverage 2 years before the event in the same studios that they did the moon landing on

**Butterfly** · 01-10-2008, 07:27 AM

Originally Posted by sabang

I honestly don't understand why the US authorities don't just admit WTC7 was a 'Pull'- a controlled demolition. They could justify it on public safety grounds.

The SEC major fraud investigations were in that building, doesn't look good

**Jesus Jones** · 01-10-2008, 09:31 AM

Originally Posted by kingwilly

Originally Posted by Jesus Jones

Regardelss of when the BBC actually reprted it, she is stood there infront.

yup.

absolute proof there mate.

of course there is no chance she was super imposed on old footage? cos they never do that ... do they?

Super imposed my ass. I have the full version of this and watched it myself when it was reported on the day.

Your like so many that are unable to think outside of the box.

You probably agree that your government where ever you might be from is corrupt in one way or another, but think there's no way they would pull a stunt like this, just as those did about Pearl Harbour, but of course it doesn't matter now as it was over 30 years ago.

**britmaveric** · 01-10-2008, 10:36 AM

NIST determined that diesel fuel did not play an important role, nor did the structural damage from the collapse of the twin towers. But the lack of water to fight the fire was an important factor. The fires burned out of control during the afternoon, including on floor 13, where a critical interior column buckled. With the buckling of that column, adjacent columns also failed along with the floor structure above. This triggered a vertical progression of floor failures to the roof. The collapse then progressed east-to-west across the structure, and ultimately the entire structure collapsed. The fires, fueled by office contents, along with the lack of water, were the key reasons for the collapse.

7 World Trade Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

**sabang** · 01-10-2008, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by britmaveric

NIST determined that diesel fuel did not play an important role

Well, they had to didn't they! FEMA's explanation, that a diesel fire has partially melted and buckled the structural solumns was laughed out of the water. Unforunately for them, diesel burns at nowhere near the melting point of steel.

NIST's explanation is equally unsatisfactory. The causes they attribute would have caused the building to topple, not pancake. So much so, that they even say the Building toppled!

What bullshit- anyone can see footage of the WTC7 neatly collapsing into it's own footprint.

**Jesus Jones** · 01-10-2008, 12:17 PM

Then in that case I geuss miracles do really happen, cause on that day there were 3 that go completely against all engineering science.

**flash** · 01-10-2008, 12:26 PM

so what do you think really happened and why?

**Jesus Jones** · 01-10-2008, 12:46 PM

Why? so that the US government and it's allies could use it's false flag on terror to try and take control of the middle east.

The middle east has been on the cards for decades, they needed something that would get the public support, just like Pearl Harbour, WTC was it. My first reaction at the time was to go and blow these terrorist bastards up, but when you look deeeper and deeper, and take into consideration US's previous history with Iran and the oil embargo in the 80's, the pieces slowly start to come together. They haven't officially charged Osama for gods sake and they have broken even treaty going available for their quest on global economic control, however it's starting to bite back big time as we can all now see.

Thread: WTC 7

Thread Tools

Display

WTC 7

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions