Jump to content
aberdeen-music
Sign in to follow this  
McGoatski

From the BBC 9-11 archives...

Recommended Posts

The BBC has lost all it's tapes of 11/09? I find that a little hard to swallow.

As the building is still standing in the background behind the reporter as she claims it has collapsed, it's hard to believe that noone would just take a look out of the window to verify what they were told by the source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"CNN beat the BBC by nearly an hour - Just after 4.00pm on 9/11, CNNs Aaron Brown reported that WTC-7 had either collapsed or was about to. Now, given that WTC-7 is still visible behind Aaron in this video, clearly it has not already collapsed, so where did this report come from?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The BBC has lost all it's tapes of 11/09? I find that a little hard to swallow.

No, BBC World has lost it's tapes. As stated they have the coverage from News 24 and other BBC channels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"CNN beat the BBC by nearly an hour - Just after 4.00pm on 9/11, CNNs Aaron Brown reported that WTC-7 had either collapsed or was about to. Now, given that WTC-7 is still visible behind Aaron in this video, clearly it has not already collapsed, so where did this report come from?"

Erm, if CNN were reporting that the building had either "collapsed or about to", then surely they were right in their prediction that it was about to tumble down?

News outlets do get it wrong, you know...I remeber on the day of the London bombings, they were reporting power surges for at least an hour after the event.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Erm, if CNN were reporting that the building had either "collapsed or about to", then surely they were right in their prediction that it was about to tumble down?

How would anyone know it was "about to collapse"? You would think CNN would have at least 1 person on the ground who could look at the building and tell wether it was still standing or not, especially considering it's in the shot behind the reporter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Now, given that WTC-7 is still visible behind Aaron in this video, clearly it has not already collapsed, so where did this report come from?"

Larry Silverstein said to the fire department commander "the smartest thing to do is pull it."

...and..

Firefighters withdrawing from the area stated the building was going to "blow up".

..then....

WTC 7's roof crumbled and the building subsequently collapsed perfectly into its own footprint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
News outlets do get it wrong, you know...I remeber on the day of the London bombings, they were reporting power surges for at least an hour after the event.

I suspect they knew that that wasn't the case at the time though, and it was more to do with keeping people off the tube without creating panic, than not knowing what was happening. Large swathes of the tube break regularly, but they don't interrupt BBC radio to report it.

From a moral point of view, I have no problem whatsoever with that if it is the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ooooooh people in 'getting things wrong' shocker. BBC consider your wrists slapped, you've achieved ultimate chastisement: being dissed on a music forum oooooooh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ooooooh people in 'getting things wrong' shocker. BBC consider your wrists slapped, you've achieved ultimate chastisement: being dissed on a music forum oooooooh.

:laughing:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Erm, if CNN were reporting that the building had either "collapsed or about to", then surely they were right in their prediction that it was about to tumble down?

News outlets do get it wrong, you know...I remeber on the day of the London bombings, they were reporting power surges for at least an hour after the event.

I remember that, watched the coverage from pretty much when it happened, was at least an hour before they had any confirmed facts on what had happened. Plus they were finding out about the other (simultaneous) bombs way later on.

Just shows it can get incredibly confusing when you've got all sorts of facts flying at you from loads of sources and have to make a snap decision on what to report.

Conspiracy bollocks, arsey as the US is I really find it hard to swallow that they'd murder thousands of people on their own soil just to invade Iraq. In their eyes they had enough reason to do it anyway without what happened at 9/11.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, BBC World has lost it's tapes.

They don`t back-up their data several times and put copies in fireproof, bomb-proof vaults several miles apart any more? Or do they rely on YouTube for that now??(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Must. Resist. Debate. ahh..

WTC7 is basically DOT to DOT for Idiots. I love you, the person who denies that 7 wasn't a controlled demolition. Just loook at it. Look. We know the facts of WTC7 like:

- Larry Silverstein Insured WTC7 a month before 9/11. He then reccomends it to be pulled, wonder-why?

- Fires raged on 4 floors. FOUR. Not enough fire power to melt the internal buckling that mysteriously had freeyon (detonation fluid) splattered everywhere.

- Oh - and one of those floors was the New York branch of the CIA. Pretty lucky that it contained most of the terrorist activity listings that basically denies any movement from Attah and all of his coke-snorting, strip-club, allah-avoiding mates.

- WTC7 took 3 seconds to fall down. The same amount of time it took you to read this line. If it was fire damage it would have crumbled piece by piece. And remember people - WTC7 was NOT hit by a frickin plane.

Don't even attempt to deny these facts Cloud. :up:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Must. Resist. Debate. ahh..- Larry Silverstein Insured WTC7 a month before 9/11. He then reccomends it to be pulled, wonder-why?

That's simple - insurance payout to replace the building would be cheaper than having to restore the building from a damaged state. He'd then be able to rebuild in a manner which suits him - so yep, I'd recommend it to be pulled too.

- Fires raged on 4 floors. FOUR. Not enough fire power to melt the internal buckling that mysteriously had freeyon (detonation fluid) splattered everywhere.

Funnily enough, I did a search on the mysterious "freeyon" liquid that you mention. My inital thought was that you were talking about Freon, which I *think* is used in fridges. It turns out that the stuff was used to help cool the WTC buildings - so..hmm. Perhaps it may be worth doing some simple investigations before coming out with a ridiculous theory?

- Oh - and one of those floors was the New York branch of the CIA. Pretty lucky that it contained most of the terrorist activity listings that basically denies any movement from Attah and all of his coke-snorting, strip-club, allah-avoiding mates.

Out of interest, why would the data be in New York?

Course, got any sources to back up your assertation?

- WTC7 took 3 seconds to fall down. The same amount of time it took you to read this line. If it was fire damage it would have crumbled piece by piece. And remember people - WTC7 was NOT hit by a frickin plane.

Expert in fire damage now, are we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's simple - insurance payout to replace the building would be cheaper than having to restore the building from a damaged state. He'd then be able to rebuild in a manner which suits him - so yep, I'd recommend it to be pulled too.

Of course you would.

Fires raged on 4 floors. FOUR. Luckily one of them was the New York Branch of the CIA. Which dealt with Counter Terrorism. The rest were banks.

Funnily enough, I did a search on the mysterious "freeyon" liquid that you mention. My inital thought was that you were talking about Freon, which I *think* is used in fridges. It turns out that the stuff was used to help cool the WTC buildings - so..hmm. Perhaps it may be worth doing some simple investigations before coming out with a ridiculous theory?

Eh?

It contains ammonia, which is highly toxic and corrosive which anyone will tell you. And it cools Metal down, no, I think you'll find it burns right through it.

Out of interest, why would the data be in New York?

Course, got any sources to back up your assertation?

Ask the CIA.

BreakForNews.com : Mohammed Atta

informationliberation - The Secret World of Mohamed Atta: An Interview With Atta's American Girlfriend

www.blackopradio.com/top%20ten.html

..etc

Expert in fire damage now, are we?

What?

No. I'm an expert at counting to 3 however!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's simple - insurance payout to replace the building would be cheaper than having to restore the building from a damaged state. He'd then be able to rebuild in a manner which suits him - so yep, I'd recommend it to be pulled too.

How did they plant the explosives so quickly in all that chaos?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No they weren't. There were several government organisations

Did you actually read any of those? Mohammed Atta certainly seems to fit the Islamist terrorist profile quite neatly.

No. I didn't read those threads, I simply googled them. But the claims made by witnesses seen attah snorting coke, drinking vast amounts, going to strip clubs etc etc. Now, whether that happened or not is another case. It really doesn't make that much differance to the big picture anyway. But a lot of doubt certainly surrounds him and his ability to be a class A pilot and Terrorist. And of course, if these claims are real about attah, then he certainly wouldn't be flying a plane into a building on the knowledge he isn't going to Heaven (Islamic version of?). But thats pretty much conjucture at this stage.

The rest were banks - was in referance to the 4 fires. Not the industries that lurked within WTC7.

And a fire that is on 4 floors near the ground would probably weaken the structure.. given a lengthy timescale. But look at the size of the building. It wouldn't fall down if fires were on the first 20 floors. It's far more steardy than the other towers because it's more Girthy!

And don't forget that these buildings were designed to withstand Earthquakes. A fire on 4 floors is like a grazed knee.

wtc7.gif

And what I meant about the crumble part about WTC 7 falling is. If one of the internal buckling's buckled, then it would be a lopsided fall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No they weren't.And a fire that destroys four floors on the lower level of a building is certainly enough to weaken the structure sufficiently so that it collapses.

''We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity,'' Larry Silverstein (From New York Times)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it doesn't take a genius to work out that if the structural supports are weakened sufficiently on those floors, then they can't take the weight of the rest of the building.

Would fire-weakened structural supports cause a modern steel-framed building to collapse in the way building 7 did?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would fire-weakened structural supports cause a modern steel-framed building to collapse in the way building 7 did?

Who cares. I don't see the building miraculously reappearing and all the dead people suddenly coming back to life due to someone on a message board in Aberdeen speculating as to the cause of a large building falling down. There could have been any number of reasons, regardless as to how bizarre or sensible they sound, why that building came down. We might never know for sure and even if we do, is it that big a deal. It still happened, there's no going back and changing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who cares. I don't see the building miraculously reappearing and all the dead people suddenly coming back to life due to someone on a message board in Aberdeen speculating as to the cause of a large building falling down. There could have been any number of reasons, regardless as to how bizarre or sensible they sound, why that building came down. We might never know for sure and even if we do, is it that big a deal. It still happened, there's no going back and changing it.

Exactly. Sometimes freaky things happen, just because a building *shouldn't* have collapsed in a certain manner doesn't mean it can't happen or it is the result of some massive conspiracy. I'm with Rachie on this one, the US did not need to kill several thousand of it's own people to start the 'war on terror', it was going to happen one way or another, if September 11th hadn't been the catalyst something else would have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you look right to the start. For this to the a consprisy then the hijackers must have been conected to the a. guy wanting the insurance or b. what ever the other consprisy rubbish was that was being descussed.

Terrorists hijacked a plane. The found that the hijackers where known to have connections to terrorisum and had recently taken flying lessons.

Basicly what i trying to say is the goal of the whole thing was the loss of american life and promation of terrorisum. If it was for insurince, get a plane to crash in to it at night when employs wont died.

Anyway lets get back to talking about more important things like music!! :up:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...