BBC WTC 7 clip and Firefighters WTC 7 clips debunked

[oahuoahu]

Why was the BBC reporting that WTC 7 fell before it did?

because some people and the firefighters and police officers were on the ground near WTC 7 saw the huge fires and said, holy crap look at that building its going to fall just like WTC 1 and 2 did. so the emergency commanders spoke to the emergency command center and said WTC 7 is probably coming down, so they reported to the news that WTC 7 might come down, and BBC accidently read that as it has come down so they reported that. thats all that happened, there was no media scripting


Why were the firefighters and police officers saying get back the building is going to blow up seconds before it blew up?


because after the emergency command center got the orders that WTC 7 might come down, the police officers and firefighters on the ground had to tell people to move back and the most effective way to do that was to say get back that damn building is going to blow up. also its street lingo to say blow up instead of get destroyed or coming down its all the same message. no conspiracy here.

[Devil's Advocate]

Why was the BBC reporting that WTC 7 fell before it did?

because some people and the firefighters and police officers were on the ground near WTC 7 saw the huge fires and said, holy crap look at that building its going to fall just like WTC 1 and 2 did. so the emergency commanders spoke to the emergency command center and said WTC 7 is probably coming down, so they reported to the news that WTC 7 might come down, and BBC accidently read that as it has come down so they reported that. thats all that happened, there was no media scripting


Why were the firefighters and police officers saying get back the building is going to blow up seconds before it blew up?


because after the emergency command center got the orders that WTC 7 might come down, the police officers and firefighters on the ground had to tell people to move back and the most effective way to do that was to say get back that damn building is going to blow up. also its street lingo to say blow up instead of get destroyed or coming down its all the same message. no conspiracy here.

Source?
Or is that your opinion?

[TC329]

Why was the BBC reporting that WTC 7 fell before it did?

because some people and the firefighters and police officers were on the ground near WTC 7 saw the huge fires and said, holy crap look at that building its going to fall just like WTC 1 and 2 did. so the emergency commanders spoke to the emergency command center and said WTC 7 is probably coming down, so they reported to the news that WTC 7 might come down, and BBC accidently read that as it has come down so they reported that. thats all that happened, there was no media scripting


Why were the firefighters and police officers saying get back the building is going to blow up seconds before it blew up?


because after the emergency command center got the orders that WTC 7 might come down, the police officers and firefighters on the ground had to tell people to move back and the most effective way to do that was to say get back that damn building is going to blow up. also its street lingo to say blow up instead of get destroyed or coming down its all the same message. no conspiracy here.


Proof?

Sounds like a baseless conspiracy theory to me.

[oahuoahu]

uhh this isnt a conspiracy

a conspiracy is when people plan to commit a crime

firefighters looking at giant fires and a damaged building and thinking that this is a bad situation is not a conspiracy... its just common sense. it was obvious that the building was going to fall.

[twinstead]

Source?
Or is that your opinion?

With all due respect, that's a pretty ironic question coming from you. ;)

[Par]

Oahuoahu: You might want to just use the search feature instead of starting all these new threads.

[pomeroo]

Source?
Or is that your opinion?


Do you believe that we must consider the merits of the competing opinion, i.e., that the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy selected the news outlet it regarded as most implacably hostile and handed it a script describing an event that was going to happen in any case? You are, of course, prepared to explain what benefits the IVC expected to derive from providing a smoking gun to one of its shrillest ideological foes.

Show us the merits of the competing opinion, if only to silence those who think that there couldn't possibly be any.

[Devil's Advocate]

With all due respect, that's a pretty ironic question coming from you. ;)

How so?
When have I stated anything as a fact that I did not provide proof for?
I'll clearly state if something is my opinion.

[Devil's Advocate]

Do you believe that we must consider the merits of the competing opinion, i.e., that the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy selected the news outlet it regarded as most implacably hostile and handed it a script describing an event that was going to happen in any case? You are, of course, prepared to explain what benefits the IVC expected to derive from providing a smoking gun to one of its shrillest ideological foes.

Show us the merits of the competing opinion, if only to silence those who think that there couldn't possibly be any.

He made a claim...I asked if there was a source or was it his opinion.
The double standards here are ridiculous at times.

[e^n]

He made a claim...I asked if there was a source or was it his opinion.
The double standards here are ridiculous at times.

The reason you believe there are double standards is simply that the majority of us have already researched and addressed these claims many MANY times. If you want to read the appropriate firefighter quotes they're linked directly on 911myths.com and debunk911myths.org I believe.

These are by far the most plausible explanations, and it's important to mention that at least CNN (or CBC, I forget the TLA) and FOX announced WTC7 had collapsed before it had. Not only that the BBC has explicitly stated that as far as they're concerned it was a simple mix up on the day, considering the amount of quotes from firefighters concerning the danger of WTC7 failing on video and in post event interviews what other explanation is remotely plausible?

[Devil's Advocate]

The reason you believe there are double standards is simply that the majority of us have already researched and addressed these claims many MANY times. If you want to read the appropriate firefighter quotes they're linked directly on 911myths.com and debunk911myths.org I believe.

These are by far the most plausible explanations, and it's important to mention that at least CNN (or CBC, I forget the TLA) and FOX announced WTC7 had collapsed before it had. Not only that the BBC has explicitly stated that as far as they're concerned it was a simple mix up on the day, considering the amount of quotes from firefighters concerning the danger of WTC7 failing on video and in post event interviews what other explanation is remotely plausible?

Thank you. That is all someone had to say. I found nothing on the issue.
I do not have the 'prove it' attitude like some here have when I seek a source. I am cautious when someone is making statements about facts like that that do not provide sources or make it clear if that is opinion or backed up.
I'm sure you understand.

[e^n]

Thank you. That is all someone had to say. I found nothing on the issue.
I do not have the 'prove it' attitude like some here have when I seek a source. I am cautious when someone is making statements about facts like that that do not provide sources or make it clear if that is opinion or backed up.
I'm sure you understand.

That's fine, you have to understand from our perspective that one of the 'common truther tactics' is to fake uncertainty and ask for clarification, then attempt to 'burn' the responder by aggressively stating a 'fact'. An example would be:
CT: Hey guys, can you tell me what happened to the core columns in collapse?
R: Here's pictures of the spires, blah blah blah
CT: AHA BUT DID YOU KNOW THAT STEVEN JONES FOUND THERMITE RESIDUE AND HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THE MOLTEN IRON AROUND THIS CORE COLUMN HERE etc

In your case however you seem to be simply taking the devil's advocate viewpoint wherever possible and not relaying your actual opinions. This is fine from my point of view but could easily get tiring, I obviously suggest you do your own research but as the topic is so incredibly broad can I ask if you have any specific questions?

[leftysergeant]

Having fought a few fires myself, I would say that there is always some confusion during the action as to what exactly is going on. The old "fog of war" thing.

There were secondary explosions going off. Command had determined earlier that the building was in danger of collapsing. I doubt that there was a lot of time to inform all of the fire fighters on site WHY it was going to collapse. Maybe not all the first responders, to include police and EMTs knew what the secondary explosions were. (Evidence points to backdrafts and vehicles coooking off in some of the spot fires.)

It is, to say the least, unusual to see a building of any size turn to a pile of rubble in less than twenty seconds, and not at all unusual, once the crap settled down, to ponder what might have caused it to do so. Having seen buildings brought down by controlled demolition, it is not a great leap for some of them to conclude that that was what they had just witnessed.

Thus, having been informed that the collapse was coming like now, some of them would have assumed that it was going to be purposely blown, and spread that word.

The news agencies had been expecting the towers to fall as well, because the fire department had been spreading that word. So, picture yourself in a news room not in direct line of site with the building, or, like the BBC people, looking at an unfamiliar skyline, unaware that you are looking directly at the building that you are expecting to fall. You recieve the word "Collapse is in progress. " Would you not likely assume that it would collapse like the other buildings you have seen collapse in the last five hours?

Communications are not always crystal clear in what most people would consider an "OH BLEEP! we're all gonna BLEEPIN' die" scenario.

[Devil's Advocate]

That's fine, you have to understand from our perspective that one of the 'common truther tactics' is to fake uncertainty and ask for clarification, then attempt to 'burn' the responder by aggressively stating a 'fact'. An example would be:


In your case however you seem to be simply taking the devil's advocate viewpoint wherever possible and not relaying your actual opinions. This is fine from my point of view but could easily get tiring, I obviously suggest you do your own research but as the topic is so incredibly broad can I ask if you have any specific questions?

Well, I play the Devil's Advocate with theory, opinion, and speculation...never with facts. I'll never claim to know everything. And am not too proud to ask questions about things I do not understand or have not found much information on.
I've been through the proverbial ringer with the whole 'suspect CT' paranoia. It started on the first question I asked. That was 150 posts or so ago and I'm still suspect to some. ::cue spooky music::
:)

[e^n]

(Evidence points to backdrafts and vehicles coooking off in some of the spot fires.)

While I don't raise issue with any of your post, I wish to bring up the question of how plausible are backdraft 'explosions' within the towers? From what I know there were very few sections that were well isolated, especially after impact. The fires were fuel rich but from the design of the towers I can't (from my uneducated POV) see any potential for backdrafts.

Well, I play the Devil's Advocate with theory, opinion, and speculation...never with facts. I'll never claim to know everything. And am not too proud to ask questions about things I do not understand or have not found much information on.
I've been through the proverbial ringer with the whole 'suspect CT' paranoia. It started on the first question I asked. That was 150 posts or so ago and I'm still suspect to some. ::cue spooky music::
That's entirely fair enough, but I am wondering whether your motivation for posting here is simply to play Devil's Advocate, or whether you have unanswered questions and you believe the best way to answer these is to be as critical as possible to both sides. If it is the latter could you please list some of the unanswered questions or at least the areas they are in? I ask because I was able to find answers to almost every question I have had.

[BigAl]

The description associated with this bbc TV news clip claims that the reporter is talking about WTC7 in the past tense while the building is visible in the background.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc

Somewhere I read the assertion that the building was "photoshoped" in.

Were it not for what looks like WTC7 in the scene, the words they say makes a clear case that everyone knew that WTC7 was at risk all day and that the collapse was no surprise.

[The Doc]

BBC made a ridiculous amount of mistakes on 9/11. I wouldn't have expected any different, and I think it would be unfair to expect anything different.

At one point I was going to create a video that detailed all of the BBC's mistakes, to show that the WTC7 report was just another simple inaccuracy. I was going to show everything from their confirmed report of a blast at the state department, to the WTC7 screw up. I didn't end up going through with it though.

Maybe I will when I have some time though.

[Arus808]

BBC made a ridiculous amount of mistakes on 9/11. I wouldn't have expected any different, and I think it would be unfair to expect anything different.

At one point I was going to create a video that detailed all of the BBC's mistakes, to show that the WTC7 report was just another simple inaccuracy. I was going to show everything from their confirmed report of a blast at the state department, to the WTC7 screw up. I didn't end up going through with it though.

Maybe I will when I have some time though.


actually, it would be best to address all the misstatements made by the media that day. that way, if someone ignores the BBC statements, they dont end up pulling up another media statements.

[leftysergeant]

Back drafts are always a possibility in any structural fire, especially if there are a lot of service conduits, heating conduits, and that sort of thing. There were, at any rate hundreds of possible sources of secondary blasts, to include computer monitors, soda machines and other refrigerating devices, power transformers, fiore extinguishers and what have you. Ever see what happens when you throw a can of computer air duster in a fire? BAM!

There were probably a lot of small explosions in WTC 7 as the diesel fuel leaked into various spaces, either as a liquid or vapor and was somehow ignited. I remember seeing one conspiracy theorist video on Google of fire fighters, post-collapse, around a pay phone. Something explodsed near them on the street. It sounded to me like a vehicle fuel tank cooking off.

The more one knows about fire science, the less "science" one sees in any of the MIHOP theories.

[steve s]

Why was the BBC reporting that WTC 7 fell before it did?



For the exact same reason that the media reported that the miners in the Sago mine were all alive. It's called "making a mistake."

Steve S.