The Truth Behind 9/11

[Lost Login]

The "BBC" film I am sure was shot from a fair distance away considerably forshortening the angles. As I say I have a many pictures in the office showing the Skyline from all angles in 2004 which show all the buildings that could have possibly been between the camera & WTC 7. This is consistent with the link I posted with the picture of the empire state building. WTC 7 towers over the buildings immediately in front of it in all these pictures but yet in the "BBC" video it does not. That seems stangely suspicious to me.

 

Yes it could be a low camera angle looking up but that would have the building in front of "WTC7" similarly blocking out or seeming similarly as tall as the other buildings which is not the case. As I say the distances are I reckon considerably foreshorted especially as I am 99% certain I can recognise the red brick building in the middle of the picture and from looking at that are what surrounds it when I compare to the "bbc" fortage it just does not match up. It looks like five years after the event somebody has superimposed an image on WTC 7into the video.

 

That is though only what it looks like to me and I look forward to being proved or disproved either way.

 

 

From looking at the layout of buildings, camera angles etc. my guess would be that the BBC video was filmed from the tall building in front of the CNN video (bottom right large brown building). The shadows/sun on buildings show the BBC film to be consistent with early evening. Sunset in New York that day was 19:11pm.

[stevie]

[Lost Login]

I believe in a nutshell it is fire damage and damage to the building as a result of I think the North Tower Collapsing next to and partly hitting it. The south part of WTC 7 as can be seen from pictures was extensively damaged

 

I am happy to go along with that as every other explanation I have read I do not understand the logic of. I do not believe there is any way you could demolition a building with explosives and not have the explosion or setting up spotted. Let alone that there would have been time to set up and rig. When buildings are demolished it is just not a question of explosives but drilling and taking out supports to weaken the stucture etc. You would have had also to keep hundreds of people quiet about the event afterwards and before. To me that is totally implausible

 

The collapse as happened might be unlikely but I can ubderstand the logic of a building collapsing if it has a great big hole in the side of it and is on fire. I can not understand the logic of the other theories which seem much more far fetched and unlikely.

 

Sept 11 was and will hopefully always remain a one off. Consequently things happened on that day which have not happened before or since. Like a large building collapsing (WTC7) from fire and other damage. That might be a unique event but I am not aware of any other large skyscapper that has been next to two large 100+ story buildings that have collapsed next to it. The whole day was a unique event from which I am not surprised there were unexpected consequences. But until their are contrary rational explanations I am happy with the official ones.

 

What I do believe though on a conspiracy level is that all these present theories do greatlty distract from the incompetetance of the security services before hand and how the politicians lied and tried to cover up the failings. They also manipulated subsequent events to justify certain actions.

 

That I believe is a much greater area worthy of investigation and people should be brought to account but no everybody gets distracted arguing about something which is basically ridiculous. It makes you wonder who are promoting or fueling some of the theories as to me it seems that presently there is little to be gained from those in power trying to resolve. Rather let us prolls be distracted on a matter where there is nothing to find and hope we do not turn our attention to more damaging matters

 

 

ok so what was the official reason that wtc7 collapsed, lost login?

It's just that on the BBC conspiracy files it said it was because of the Twin Towers 'collapsing' and so caused structual damage to building 7? and it was on fire as well?

[Lost Login]

Not if it is a fake. I have no proof either way but I am suspicious of any video which turns up five years after the event and is taken at face value as prooving the events one way or the other. After all I am fairly sure Forest Gump never met Elvis, or Kennedy never mind did a chat show with llennon

 

[Albert Tatlock]

Another interesting video - about power downs and WTC security etc.

[haX0red_Account]

I've also noticed too how inconsistent the rabid debunkers get when rebutting various arguments related to 9/11, perhaps due to their greater intellectual capacities. The logical fallacy concept gets a bye when this subject comes up, however only the conspiracists actually have to abide by it. It's a bit like those atheists who make it a mission to convince you there's no such thing as god.

 

HaX0red we are now getting closer to the real issue - I assume you'd put me in the rabid debunkers camp.

 

I fully admit I am totally reactive - I ignore this joke of a thread until some idiot goes "look at this - its impossible and has therefore to be a conspiracy". [on a side note I am fascinated by Christian nut jobs who fixate on Intelligent Design as a foil to evolution - the mind set is identical]

 

I come back with chapter and verse showing they are totally mistaken in their beliefs - I feel I provide factual information - photos, witness statements - what a historian would describe as primary evidence - and then back this up with peer reviewed analysis of this data. I've worked within peer review - I know how rigorous it is and so when 100 engineers examine a building collapse, or a plane crash and do not find the huge inconsistencies conspiracy theorists claim I tend to be dismissive of the CT's claims.

 

Repeatedly I and others have asked you lot to stop arm waving and get on with it. You don't.

 

Now how about a sliding scale of conspiracy.

 

1] The pre attack intelligence was unclear and only with hindsight was it possible to identify the attacks were been planned.

2] The pre attack intelligence gave vauge hints of the plot, which should have been picked up and identified, but bureaucratic failure allowed it to remain uncovered.

3] The pre attack intelligence gave indications that an attack was being planned, but not its large scale scope - rather than follow this up a deliberate decision was taken to under resource it to give the US a wake up slap in the face. My basic idea is that they thought it was another car bomb or similar at the WTC - 50/100 killed/hurt, but America wakes up to the reality of terrorism in a dangerous world.

4] The pre attack intelligence gave a clear indication of the nature and scope of the attack, but the investigators are told to back off to allow it to occur in all its bloody glory.

5] The pre attack intelligence is clear, but the conspiracy activel helps the plotters realize their plans, but without collusion - the plotters have no idea they are being helped.

6] The conspiracy actively colludes with its enemies to allow the attack to occur.

7] The conspiracy runs the plot - organizing the plotters in a false flag operation.

8] The conspiracy runs the plot - organizing the plotters - and decides to fake additional explosions, hijackings etc while also undertaking insurance fraud and stock market manipulation to profit from the attack.

 

I would really like people to repsond - where are you on the scale?

 

I am extremely sceptical of 3; I see almost no evidence to back it up, but I admit it MAY be possible. Cheney seems to me to be that type of patriot. But as far as I have read there is almost no evidence whatsoever that this occurred. 2 seems by far the most feasible option and people who are in the 6, 7s and 8s are just in the realms of messianic belief.

 

I hope this is a way the more serious sceptics on both sides can engauge each other.

 

So HaX0red - where are you - and far more importantly why?

 

hi there, I was away on holiday (not guantanamo!) and wanted to say that was a helpful post and sort of around the topic I was wanting to see more of, rather than the pure lose/win, right/wrong opinion stuff. On that scale I'm a strong '5' and see discrepancies in a lot of the official story while see a lot of nonsense in some conspiracy theories. If I could only cite one thing that makes me suspect the official version that would be the 'who profits?' question as I can't really see 9/11 taken in its own to be an al-qaeda recruitment video. Iraq really lent them moral justification and did them a big favour. War has always been a good economic stimulus for the Yanks, win lose or draw. That said, there will be elements of 6, 7 and 8 I could envisage taking place but other angles being not feasible, for example I couldn't see an active collusion between the sides happening. I could see some sort of agent provocateur being used though. I've got to be honest and acknowledge sometimes really bizarre coincidences do happen at almost unbelievably small odds.

 

I'm also not totally convinced (although do agree 90%) that a conspiracy to do this would need that much manpower. Need to know and coercion can go a long way, allied to technology to implement plans and cover tracks. The federal government hides away many people each year on witness protection programmes and we have no difficulty in believing that so it's just possible that uniting mafia style disappearances with high-tec surveillance and profiling and compartmentalising security could get it done or at least make the waters to murky to investigate coherently.

[tameelf]

bbc responds to wtc7 footage

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007...conspiracy.html

 

would seem the footage is authentic

 

but the excuse is piss poor

[Chinahand]

I'm much happier about this now with the additional CNN report, and I think I'm starting to understand what in all the fog of 911 what the media might have been reporting.

 

I agree with Albert the CNN report is earlier, in fact we do have an accurate time check - a quarter past 11 Israel time - which is a quarter past 4 in the afternoon New York time.

 

So we have two videos concerning WTC 7. The earlier CNN report says it may be collapsing or has collapsed. The later BBC report is more certain saying it has collapsed: both were wrong.

 

So what do I think is going on. Well it goes right to the nub of what Mr Silverstein said - he said that the Fire Chief told him the building might be unrecoverable and so collapse - in the later interview he said he told the fire chief that there's been such a loss of life that day that fighting a lost cause was pointless and so "pull it".

 

So much has been made of these words. I wish a phone call existed of the actual conversation with the fire chief, to give context to the conversation and to even confirm what he actually said - did he say pull it or pull out, or give up or what - whatever it was he wasn't saying go and get a series of demolition people to rig the building with explosives - he was agreeing to the pulling out of all personel and abandoning the building cos it might collapse naturally.

 

I just don't have the level of obsession with the term "pull it" that the conspiracy theorists have - the context of what he was saying was abandoning not demolishing.

 

I've read, and the BBC video reports, that the fire department moved a medical station away from WTC 7 in the early afternoon. I imagine the CNN report comes after the fire department has given up - their assessment was the buidling was going to collapse - they'd told the owner, they'd told the medics near by get away. Firemen have been recorded as pointing out the structural sounds coming out of WTC 7 - the whole building was groaning - and saying its going to come down. Collapse due to the cause of the structural sounds - failing girders etc - not due to the rigging of the building with explosives.

 

So starting in the early afternoon reports that the building may collapse start circulating - parts of the Marriot do collapse - CNN remain cautious - saying may, or has collapsed - they know didly - they have no idea where or what WTC 7 is - IF THEY DID THEY'D HAVE SAID IT HASN'T COME DOWN YET: THEY'D SAY "AS YOU CAN SEE THIS BUILDING HASN'T YET COLLAPSED, BUT WE ARE RECIEVING REPORTS THAT IT MAY DO SO IMMINENTLY SO KEEP WATCHING OVER MY SHOULDER!!!

 

The BBC an hour later change that may to has - yes they jumped the gun - the fire department had been warning for hours the building was so structurally unsound there was a genuine risk of it going down. CNN's report starts with may or has collapsed and then carries on under the assumption it has - the BBC follow that assumption on only reporting that it has collapsed.

 

For me this all confirms that the building was damaged and in a dangerous condition - the fire department took action because of these fears from the early afternoon onward.

 

It wasn't that the building unexplainably blew up - quite the opposite - the fire department were fully aware of the problems and told people about them - this building is damaged and is at a risk of collapsing. No explosives, no conspiracy - just major damage from multiple floors of damage, as FEMA reports, from debris from the twin towers.

 

What the CNN and BBC are reporting are the fog on the day - and the fact that the Fire Department were extremely concerned about the building and were telling people this was so - I see no need for secret explosives or conspiracies - and if the conspiracy theorists are right it would mean the Fire Department had to be involved - don't believe a word of it - they'd just lost hundreds of men - the idea they'd just roll over to the conpriacists is bull.

 

This is confusion not conspiracy.

[Albert Tatlock]

This is confusion not conspiracy.

All in all...I'd still put £10 to one for a conspiracy. I've looked and looked and looked..and still go for it. The evidence, and more importantly the lack of evidence, is still there.

 

There are too many factors...from 'Bush Security' to 'Bush' we are where we are now!

 

I still say the answer is to be found in WTC7. Whether this is planned or complicit is irellevant.

[stevie]

so china we are also to belive that the BBC has now convieniently lost the footage of that day? they think we are to believe that they have lost the footage to one of the most important events in history? well personally i dont belive that.

and these videos PROVE that someone had prior knowledge of the events that fed the information to the BBc, someone so credible that the MSM run with the story.

how can you interpret larry silverstien's quote of saying to pull the building as to mean get all the people out of the building? "pull the building" does not sound to me an instruction to get all the people out of the building. especially as all the people had been moved out of the area earlier on that day! the context is of it is definately not abandoment, that would be more like "get out" or "give up" something like that, not "PULL THE BUILDING".

as he says in interview "and then we watched the building". if the building had stood all day why does he think something is going to happen worth watching now, as soon as he just gaver an instruction to pull the building?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0scE7bQWdk

 

China. Firemen have been recorded as pointing out the structural sounds coming out of WTC 7 - the whole building was groaning - and saying its going to come down. Collapse due to the cause of the structural sounds - failing girders etc - not due to the rigging of the building with explosives.

 

you want to really know what the firefighters heard on 911??

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moDr8eON2Hk

 

so we have the BBC foretelling the future on 911, larry silverstein saying to pull the building, firefighters saying the heard explosions on all towers, and now the BBC saying they lost all this footage regarding 911? no conspiracy? ha ha

[tameelf]

it would seem that the beeb or boob as they are now known. are trying to bury this as soon as possibal.

they seem to be tampering with evidence to a crime. accesserys after the fact in legal terms

the boob say the whole segment was a error ok explain the same ccn footage

 

msn beeb .ccn. faux news. all part off the plot or the coverup

 

as i said in a previous post the beeb are a goverment tv station

 

payed for by taxpayers cash now were have i heard that before?

[Chinahand]

This is confusion not conspiracy.

All in all...I'd still put £10 to one for a conspiracy. I've looked and looked and looked..and still go for it. The evidence, and more importantly the lack of evidence, is still there.

 

There are too many factors...from 'Bush Security' to 'Bush' we are where we are now!

 

I still say the answer is to be found in WTC7. Whether this is planned or complicit is irellevant.

 

Albert - where are you on the conspiracy scale? You are putting your £10 on what? a level 4 conspiracy or a level 8.

 

I love the fact that you use lack of evidence to say it was a conspiracy - what's this: fill in the gaps with conspiracies of your own choosing - that's not Occam's razor is it!

[stevie]

its not only the lack of evidence about 911 that makes people think it was a conspiracy. it is also the lack of answers the government are giving. its the back-pedalling of the government on certain issues they told us were correct and have turned out to be a load of shit. it is the MSM not asking the right questions, not doing any investigative journalism as they are supposed to do, not just print out official story after official story.

Albert is bang on, the WTC7 is the answer to the puzzle. pre 911 a building had never collapsed due to a fire in the building, now not only did we have the twin towers collapsing due to fire, but a building near it that was hit with the debris? it just doesnt make sense. yes the marriot building semi collapsed as one side of the building fell down, but not the whole of it! I'm 100% sure that had the marriot fell, it would not have been how any of the 3 buildings fell. it would have collapsed to one side, not impolded into the ground, this is due to the fact there were explosives planted in all 3 of the other buildings. for a building to collapse how all of the buildings did, it takes a controlled demolition, it takes all 4 of the load bearings members to fail at EXACTLY the same time. Now for you to believe that the building collapsed due to the fire it would mean the fire had to be EQUALLY distributed along the entire floor of the building, providing equal heat for an equal amount of time to make the load bearings members collapse at the same time. do you find this plausable?

[tameelf]

another boob by the beeb this time with a timestamp.

 

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/febru...07timestamp.htm

 

Both the announcer in the clip and the lower third banner report the collapse of WTC-7. The time stamp shows 21:54, or 9:54 PM British Time. (During the summer, British "summer" time is one hour ahead of Greenwich Mean or "Universal Time".)

Since the US is also on "Daylight Savings Time" in September, 9:54 PM British Time is 4:54 PM East Coast Time. That is roughly 20 minutes before WTC-7 actually came down.

 

What seems to be emerging here is that Flight 93 was planned to crash into WTC-7. When Flight 93 had to be shot down instead because the crew regained control, WTC-7 still had to come down or the pre-placed explosives inside would have given the whole game away. What seems likely is that a time was set for the demolition and sent out to agents in the media, but there was an unexpected delay to clear responders from the building, which is why WTC-7 is seen still standing behind the female announcer even as she reports the building as destroyed.WRH

 

facts the beeb omited from their in depth recent 911 documentry/joke

 

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_conspiracy.html

[Albert Tatlock]

Another time stamped video is on youtube.

 

Different BBC reporter.