zIFBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.

Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Welcome to Loose Change Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Name:   Password:


Pages: (5) « First ... 3 4 [5]  ( Go to first unread post )

 Wtc7 23 Minute Warning Before The Collapse, Unusual BBC report of the WTC7 collapse
UKperspective
Posted: Mar 6 2007, 06:48 AM


Blunt Speaking Yorkshireman


Group: Members
Posts: 237
Member No.: 2,862
Joined: 5-March 07



QUOTE (ChrisK @ Mar 5 2007, 09:28 PM)
First off, I didn't say I believed Silverstein was the one who would have been in charge of the demolition of WTC 7. I was only saying there are benefits for him to have had the building pulverised on that day the way it was than to have it standing. I'm sure he wasn't calling the shots that day.
Also, If there were explosives placed to bring it down why would they wait for the damage to occur then plant the devices?

I love the crazy idea that someone posted a while back that WTC7 was the headquarters of the purpetrators, where they directed the demolition of the twin towers. Before destroying all evidence of the control centre hours later by scuppering this building too.
Top
UKperspective
Posted: Mar 6 2007, 07:01 AM


Blunt Speaking Yorkshireman


Group: Members
Posts: 237
Member No.: 2,862
Joined: 5-March 07



The opinions some of you Americans have about the BBC I find interesting. I'm British, I live in UK and listen to BBC news and comment every day because it is the best source of news here.

However, they do make mistakes. They are terrible at reporting up to the minute details. Often a current news item is reported followed by an interview with one of the people involved and therby the story is settled and found to be a non story to everyone's satisfaction.
Unfortunately the News team in the same building continue to report the earlier incorrect details for hours after. The BBC are a high quality service, they take extreme trouble to pronounce foreign words correctly and have original reports but their journalism can often be highly polished with seeming gravitas but crap.

I am not sure if you are aware of this other fact about BBC journalism, they tend to be very liberal and left wing.
For example when reporting the most Recent two US presidential elections, they reported it in a way that it appeared that almost everyone in the whole country was supporting the Democrats. The few people who seemed to be supporting the Republicans seemed to be "strange". We were led to believe that Bush didn't have a chance of winning a second term.

It was quite a shock to find out that he did. :o
Top
Coconino
Posted: Mar 6 2007, 07:30 AM


Advanced Member


Group: Gone
Posts: 79
Member No.: 2,008
Joined: 8-February 07



QUOTE (Dereck Breuning @ Mar 5 2007, 01:47 PM)
QUOTE (Coconino @ Mar 2 2007, 09:33 PM)
QUOTE (Coconino @ Mar 1 2007, 10:29 AM)
QUOTE (Dereck Breuning @ Mar 1 2007, 09:40 AM)
Even though the WTC7 early collapse report was aired LIVE nobody even heard of WTC7 until Loose Change and other 9/11 movies/documentaries came out. That says something about secrecy of the collapse of WTC7. The man earned a rough 700 to 800 million bucks with the collapse because it was a terrorist attack, WTF!

He earned nothing.
Rebuilding WTC7 cost slightly more than the insurance payout.

Why are you perpetuating this lie?

Dereck?
Any answer on why you're lying about the WTC7 insurance situation?
Or are you simply ignorant of the fact that WTC7 was outside the "double attack" terms that applied to some of the insurers on the main complex?

Responded to you in the "one bomb" thread by einsteen. Sorry if I lied. Read the info on infowars.com I think. Never seen a real report on what he actually lost and what it cost.

Then please accept my sincere apologies for the harsh and inappropriate words.

It's just that the "Lucky Larry" myth can get a tad irritating after the 134th airing.
Top
Coersion
Posted: Mar 19 2007, 08:14 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 128
Member No.: 878
Joined: 6-November 06



Not sure if this other BBC news 24 footage has been posted before?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7nwji2i7xE

More confirmation of advanced knowledge with time stamp.
Top
Arvel
Posted: Apr 26 2007, 10:06 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 124
Member No.: 2,590
Joined: 25-February 07



Can anyone offer any theories as to how, precisely, the news came in, if not by a misguided reporter? I'm coming up blank.
Top
e^n
Posted: Apr 27 2007, 04:55 AM


NWO Employee Of The Year 2007


Group: Members
Posts: 2,126
Member No.: 3,405
Joined: 26-March 07



QUOTE (Arvel @ Apr 26 2007, 10:06 PM)
Can anyone offer any theories as to how, precisely, the news came in, if not by a misguided reporter? I'm coming up blank.

The easiest and most 'non conspiracy' explanation is that someone shouted 'WTC7 is going to collapse' and someone overheard it as 'WTC7 has collapsed'. They obviously didn't know what the hell was going on as evidenced by the fact the very building is behind them so I don't put too much stock in organised conspiracy screwing up timelines.
Top
Arvel
Posted: Apr 27 2007, 06:47 AM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 124
Member No.: 2,590
Joined: 25-February 07



QUOTE
The easiest and most 'non conspiracy' explanation is that someone shouted 'WTC7 is going to collapse' and someone overheard it as 'WTC7 has collapsed'. They obviously didn't know what the hell was going on as evidenced by the fact the very building is behind them so I don't put too much stock in organised conspiracy screwing up timelines.

Sorry, I could have phrased that better. I meant if it was scripted, how did the script get blurted out early? (for lack of better words, I'm looking for the conspiracy theory)
Top
girlsnextdoor
Posted: Sep 13 2007, 10:02 PM


Newbie


Group: Members
Posts: 3
Member No.: 7,065
Joined: 13-September 07



I love this story!!!! BBC F'D UP!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHxOeNXSUcM
Top
NoQuestionAboutIt
Posted: Sep 15 2007, 03:26 PM


How do shills vaporize? Like this.... poof!


Group: Gone
Posts: 25
Member No.: 7,101
Joined: 15-September 07



What I think what happened is that the source (an inside job somebody) informed BBC at the same when WTC7 was supposed to be demolished (by the time that information reached the journalist, WTC7 would already have gone down probably), so BBC was the first one to inform the people. But something went wrong with the detonation, so it was delayed. Doesn't mean that BBC is involved in the whole cover-up. Maybe this was already said by someone else in this topic, didn't read all.
Top
0 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
« Next Oldest | WTC 7 | Next Newest »
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you

Topic OptionsPages: (5) « First ... 3 4 [5] 



Hosted for free by zIFBoards* (Terms of Use: Updated 2/10/2010) | Powered by Invision Power Board v1.3 Final © 2003 IPS, Inc.
Page creation time: 0.0269 seconds · Archive