Bin Laden Confession Tape and BBC WT7 Video - Developments
Writer Claims bin Laden Confession Video Offers Evidence of Criminal Conspiracy To Go to War on Part of US and Britain, And Possible Foreknowledge of the 9/11 Attacks
TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum
Bin Laden Confession Tape and BBC WT7 Video - Developments (12 posts)
-
Posted 17 years ago #
-
Another example of foreknowledge -
Foreknowledge of WTC 7's Collapse http://wtc7.net/foreknowledge.html
But a significant difference - the hype over this video is similar to the "pull it" hype, it's a gut response without the necessary elements to make a legal case.
However, when we take a look at the small group of people who gave the order to clear out hundreds of others in the area (bottom of this page - http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/...)
- firefighters protested, asking why they couldn't just work on putting out the fire instead of walking away, and remarking that that building "never come down" - we can narrow down who was involved at least on the level of spreading the order. Did these fire chiefs really create this order, or was someone else involved?
A demolition expert in the Netherlands puts the necessary time to rig the building within the available time between the order ("imminent collapse" so clear out) and the actual "collapse," which was 1 1/2 hours. -
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2007/02/354522.sh...
Anyway, food for thought. But back to the easier cases . . .
Posted 17 years ago # -
bbc "part of the conspiracy"
yeah, i'm not sure why everybody's going gaga over this bbc wtc7 video over at blogger:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/6501
even if they did report it had collapsed before it did, they can always say they were mistaken in the confusion...
the comments here are encouraging:
Posted 17 years ago # -
No, fire chiefs did not create the order.
Wow, do we get a lot of heat from Mark Roberts on this one! He's down at Ground Zero every weekend telling people that NY911Truth is accusing the NYFD of being in on it. And he is not without his reasons for saying this. Some well intentioned truthers just state the facts in a manner that leads to the wrong implication. The people highest up the chain of command that we are able to identify having foreknowledge of the WTC7 collapse, would of course, be the people on site directing the evacuation. But there is no doubt that these people were all themselves simply following orders, as they could not have coordinated a demolition.
So like many areas of 9/11 research, for the time being, and possibly for good, this leads us to no definite conclusions. We need to be focusing only on the fact that there may have been foreknowledge, and not on who gave the order. That's like a 'what hit the Pentagon' distraction to me.
And also, I find it unreasonable that the building would have been set up for demolition during the crisis. The Twin Towers could not have been set for demolition on that day, and so we have greater reason to suspect that the demolition charges were also planted in WTC7 prior to that day. I've never heard anywhere else that a controlled demolition could be set up in 1 1/2 hours. I understand that remote control detonation makes this a possibility, but as many have pointed out, who is going to handle explosives in a burning building? Occam's Razor applies here.
Let's get back to establishing foreknowledge as firmly as possible.
Here's what we've go so far:
We have strong reason to suspect that WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition due to evident foreknowledge of the collapse, relative to the lack of any precedent for such a collapse. The fire department, on its own, would simply have no reason to assume the building would come down. And that is in fact one reason that so many of them died in the collapse of the Twin Towers. The 9/11 truth movement wants a new investigation that will address this issue.
Does that sound about right?
Posted 17 years ago # -
Thanks for taking the heat on the front lines! A few thoughts.
We need to be focusing only on the fact that there may have been foreknowledge, and not on who gave the order.
The goal of Mark Roberts (probably unconsciously) in trying to tar us with attacking the fire chiefs is to set up a firewall between us and them. Don't go for this. Fire chiefs didn't do 9/11 - of course - but we also know that the liklihood of those men to have known within an hour that a building, which came down via demolition, would come down, is very low.
They indeed believed it was ready to come down, but did someone else tell them something? This is actually how real criminal investigations happen -- you talk to people. Everyone. You find out who knew what and who said what. All it would have taken was one chief or one person talking to a chief to have planted the seed that suggested it was time, and that fear would spread.
You may be right -- it may turn out to be like the Pentagon, indeed. But I think that call at this point is premature. We need to pause and take a look closer and not let Mark Roberts decide our course. Is there a way to investigate without offending people? Or is it impossible?
Someone recently reminded me - look at what Ruppert found out on the war games by making phone calls and getting statements. That information was unique and undocumented elsewhere. But he was trained to investigate . . .
And also, I find it unreasonable that the building would have been set up for demolition during the crisis.
The video which captures Jowenco's statements implies otherwise (I can't watch it here at work now). While it may seem implausible, I wouldn't rule it out at this point.
Posted 17 years ago # -
wow, this story is actually kind of exciting. the internet archive video find, the bbc's response...
why does bbc use the exact words of mel goodman ("cockup not conspiracy") from the cynthia mckinney hearings? i guess it's just a coincidence, but this doesn't sit well with me:
- We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another
Posted 17 years ago # -
i take back my previous dismissal...
the fact that both cnn and bbc reported wtc7's collapse early is very suspicious. i think the bbc will be forced to give a better explanation than the "part of the conspiracy?" crap.
looks like this is spreading beyond the 9/11 truth ghetto
http://wonkette.com/politics/wtc/bbc-cnn-employ-ma...
check out the mainstream left comments, mostly dismissing conspiracy claims:
This is the lamest conspiracy theory yet (so, what, the BBC was behind 9/11 now?), but I do love how hilariously open the BBC chief is about their (apparently massive) incompetence. I'm having a hard time comprehending the head of the largest news corporation in the world saying, "So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it."
Posted 17 years ago # -
First hand account
At the time WTC 7 collapsed, I was on the West Side Highway about 10 blocks north of Ground Zero. My uncle and I had volunteered to help the rescue efforts and we were staged, along with hundreds of others, near N Moore St and the West Side Highway. We never actually got to do anything, we just waited there for a few hours. But I did see WTC 7 come down, and I remember word going around before it happened, that it was about to collapse. I remember it not being a surprise, and I just thought that they must have demolished the building because it was precarious or damaged beyond repair.
My memory is a bit vague; it was long, intense day, but I do believe that this is exactly what happened.
Posted 17 years ago # -
Re: First hand account
truthmod Wrote:
My memory is a bit vague; it was long, intense day, but I do believe that this is exactly what happened
I recall watching NY1's coverage, as they were more "on the street" than the networks. I distinctly remember seeing their coverage of WTC7, and showing a helicopter shot of a huge hole in the south-side of the building... and the comment... "we've been told building seven may not last much longer."
And of course, this seems to be long lost.
I wonder if it may be as simple as asking them if they have the footage?
Posted 17 years ago # -
Was the hole in the corner?
The point of the issue of the hole is that no building could collapse from asymmetric structural damage - or scattered fire damage - in a symmetrical and near free fall method. The goal of hiding the images of the damage is to pull them out when they are most needed to undermine our case. An image like that would elicit automatic emotional responses from people that override logic and analysis, so the sooner we can expose the real images, the better.
Yes, it would be well worth calling them. What network are they affiliated with? It says Time Warner Cable on the site.
It might be interesting to preface with the recent embarrassment of the BBC for having lost their footage, and maybe just inquire as to whether they too have lost their footage?
Posted 17 years ago # -
What I remember is a large hole, low in the middle of the building. I was focused more on other items, as I was active with conspiracy theory well before this event... and at the time, I was never surprised by the building 7 failure (after seeing the hole).
A few NYers on our site also recall seeing the live coverage, and I think someone tried to get a copy... but recent events might make the timing might be better now. ;)
Yes, NY1 is a cable-only news channel, owned by Time Warner.
Posted 17 years ago # -
Symmetrical collapse.
WTC7 was a trapaziod. Not pointed out often enough.
http://www.truthmove.org/image/120/0/1/fff/photos-...
All the damage was done to the shortest side of the building facing the towers. All the structural support on the longer back side of the building remained intact. And yet as you can see in the picture (after only a bit of clean up to clear the roads had been done), that the building fell straight down.
As Victronix stated, you don't get a symmetrical collapse from asymmetric damage. This would be true with a rectangular building. And yet WTC7 was not, and as a result, would have been even more likely to fall asymmetrically with damage only on its shorter front side.
Two things should have happened if the collapse has been due only to damage and fire. First, the top of that building should have ended up across the street. And second, some of the core columns to the rear of the building should not have failed, leaving columns standing after the collapse.
And yet a 47 story building is reduced to a four story, symmetrical pile that looks EXACTLY like the result of a controlled demolition.
For all the discussion of controlled demolition, this is the most compelling evidence we have. The Towers, after all, were exploded, and not imploded, not demonstrating a classic CD. There has been no official explanation offered regarding the collapse of WTC7 that adequately accounts for the symmetrical collapse. This is a wide open hole in the official story, and one of the few cases where personal interpretation of the physical evidence contributes effectively to our efforts.
With the eyewitness testimony regarding foreknowledge, and this new BBC story, if its really legit, this issue may greatly help us counter the official story in the year to come.
But we don't need another four websites devoted exclusively to this issue. Say no to the smoking gun witch hunt. Ya, that's it. Another thread.
Posted 17 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.