BBC was half an hour to early reporting the collapse of WTC7

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

For those that are interested, here is the link to the BBC's response. It is important to note that the footage that I posted yesterday was only discovered yesterday morning.

The official response was posted less than 24 hours later.

BBC NEWS | The Editors

Thanks for posting, de.

It wasn't much of an explanation, but they did point out several of the possibilities I already mentioned as being far more likely than they were in on it or getting insider tips. Maybe they got a report that the building was likely to fall down and that got confused into meaning it had already fallen. That would make perfect sense, with the huge gaping hole at the base of one side of WTC7, the raging untended fires going on inside the building, and the massive amount of structural damage the building sustained upon the collapse of WTC2, firefighters already were speculating that the building could collapse before it actually did, and were quick to evacuate it completely for this very reason. In the chaos of 9/11, it makes sense that they could have got something like that wrong. That's a MUCH more sensible explanation than what the theorists are offering. Occam's Razor...

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

You're wrong about me being convinced of a government conspiracy, or even being directly complicit.

okay, sorry.

What I am convinced of is that the government has not been very forthcoming with the facts

well, yeah. d'uh. No need to win me over on that point.

Unlike you, I am not satisfied to a certainty of the rebuttals... but their versions are not leak-proof either.

No, they're not perfect, of course, as none of this was performed in a controlled lab or anything. I still find the scientific and engineering reports of what caused the towers to collapse on 9/11 that support the official story to be far FAR more compelling than the conspiracy explanations, many of which are armchair engineer assessments of video along the lines of "well, it looked like a controlled demolition to me"

Detectives look for motive and opportunity, then seek physical evidence to support it. In every investigation, there first has to be a premise before there can be an answer.

Why do so many conspiracy theorists (not necessarily you) have such a hard time getting their head around the idea that Saudi terrorists, upset with American support of Israel, repulsed by American decadence, enraged by American hubris at setting up military bases on Muslim holy land... would seek to target the WTC and the Pentagon on their own? That seems so perfectly reasonable. Why isn't that a good enough motivation? It's amazing it hasn't happened more often (and it DID happen twice before- at least attacks against the WTC did. They just were not as successful). Also, when virtually nobody was expecting an attack of this nature to occur, when nothing like this had EVER occured before (planes had been hijacked before, but usually to ransom the passengers, not to use them as weapons, not on this scale, with simultaneous attacks happening in U.S. airspace, this was completely unprecedented and unplanned for)... why do they insist that it was impossible for the terrorists (and at this point they usually break down into racist slurs, calling them primitive cave dwellers or something to that effect) to execute this plan themselves? It wasn't that difficult of a plan. Hijack 4 planes, crash them into huge buildings. Easy. SOOOO much simpler and more elegant than the conspiracies involving multiple pan-national government, military, terrorist and civilian groups and organizations. Yet the conspiracy theorists say that the former explanation is IMPOSSIBLE. They do all sorts of mental acrobatics to try and arrive at the MORE difficult and complicated explanation, and then dismiss the easier more reasonable as IMPOSSIBLE. The motive, the key players, everything is there in the official story. and the US not responding in time? Also perfectly reasonable. Doesn't anyone remember how chaotic and confusing and scary that day was? I certainly do. I'd recommend watching Greengrass's United 93 if you haven't already, it recreates everything in pretty painstaking detail and it all fits.

I still wonder what flight 93's original target was intended to be.

Since they were headed for Washington it seems like The Capitol or the White House would have been more likely targets than WT7. Evidence points most strongly to the the Capitol. The WTC = symbol of American economic power and the decadence the terrorists disprove of. The Pentagon = symbol of American military power and the bases we have constructed on the land of the Prophet Muhammed. The Capitol = symbol of American political power and representative of the US foreign policy that Arabs of course see as biased toward their hated enemy, Israel. WT7 doesn't fit in here, it symbolizes absolutely nothing.

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

btw, read the comments on the WT7 piece that Dirtyde linked to at the BBC. These are the kind of rabid nutjobs that give anyone looking for alternate explanations a bad name.

 

[kamikazee_club]

.....Doesn't anyone remember how chaotic and confusing and scary that day was? I certainly do. I'd recommend watching Greengrass's United 93 if you haven't already, it recreates everything in pretty painstaking detail and it all fits.

I do, very well.

On that theme, and the suggestion of the BBC 'advance' knowledge all I can add is that having worked, very briefly in a media role some years ago I can confirm that in the heat of an event the mere suggestion of a possibility of something happening can become a firm confirmation that it has (and back again) so quickly it makes your head spin. Surely in the immediate aftermath of the events of 9/11 everyone must have been so emotionally charged ('cept for GW maybe) it's surprising more such anomalies haven't surfaced.

I agree with MZ that unless the reporter was familiar enough with WTC7 and its surrounding area and, under such stress even then perhaps to question her copy she would most likely just report what she had been given. I went to the area many times pre 9/11 and I only remember the main towers.

Shame they 'lost' the tapes......

 

[madame_zora]

Well, Dirtyde found them. Perhaps we should send them a link.

NIC, I have no problem accepting the Al-quaeda had enough hatred for us based on our foreign policies to do such a thing. The problem I have is that they clearly leveled this threat in advance, just as bush clearly threatened to go after Saddam in advance, of 9/11. So here's where we are- they threatened to shoot down our towers with airplanes, and they did. We threatened to depose their leader, and we did. Well, he DID try to kill my Daddy.

While I appreciate all the scientific information on what happens to the structure of a building, and whether or not it's possible for something seemingly improbable (to me) to have occured, what's probably really bothering me is I have too many "whys" left over.

I always get flustered by unanswered questions, things don't tie up nicely in real life like they do in the movies, and I want my fucking closure. I don't know why we never went after Saudi Arabia, why we ran with flimsy evidence of wmds into Iraq, why we support sending even more troops into a quagmire, years after it's clear that we are only making things worse. Why is the government trying so fucking hard to justify this war? That's what's really bothering me. They're too fucking eager- why?
Why is nobody rioting over the staggering loss of billions of dollars lost in both Iraq, and the Katrina projects, both of which can be traced back to Haliburton? Why aren't people upset about the bush-Bin Laden partnership in the Carlyle Group?

I don't like the Occam's Razor argument, because it presupposes that if you find a body, and you think his brother killed him, you'll probably discover you're right.

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

I don't know why we never went after Saudi Arabia, why we ran with flimsy evidence of wmds into Iraq, why we support sending even more troops into a quagmire, years after it's clear that we are only making things worse. Why is the government trying so fucking hard to justify this war?

This seems like a completely different argument. 9/11 may have been a convenient excuse for Bush to do whatever he wants, and they've invoked it in that sense several times, but I really don't think that means they caused it. It could have just as easily, no, more easily, and more probably, been a happy twist of chance and circumstance for the administration. They were gearing up to attack Saddam before 9/11, already positioning him as a threat, 9/11 was very nearly entirely peripheral to the present war in Iraq. If anything, the war in Afghanistan, which actually was probably a direct response to 9/11 (yes, i know they have important pipelines there) may have delayed the Iraq war by a few months.

We never went after Saudi Arabia because they are one of the closer things to an ally we have in the region and if we did go after the Saudi royal family they have already taken measures to completely destroy their oil reserves. It would collapse the global energy market and end in death, war and suffering on a Biblical scale the world over. Not to mention if U.S. troops ever marched on Mecca... hard to even imagine the level of backlash that would cause.

We're still funnelling troops and cash into Iraq for a few reasons, the threat of even more overt outright civil war erupting once the US pulls out there is very real and valid, Bush doesn't want to admit defeat, and a more probable reason for us going in there in the first place was to set up permanent military bases the same as we have in Saudi Arabia. The bases in the Saud peninsula make us feel better about the stability of the energy market and ensure that we have a big hand in anything that takes place over there, and we wanted to extend that sphere of influence to Iraq. But our efforts to set up a friendly government there like we did in Japan have not gone as smoothly as we had hoped. We say the war is about terrorism and making the country safer, because this is a good sound byte and it keeps the simpletons who swallow this crap happy. and even a few of the not-so-simpletons, who argue for US foreign policy much more effectively and intelligently than any White House press secretary ever has. War Watch - The Ornery American Most agree that the war hasn't really helped in the war on terrorism, and if we do succeed in setting up permanent military bases in Iraq, even if that does increase stability and US influence in the region, it certainly won't make Americans safer. A huge part of Osama's rationale for attacking us in the first place were the bases we had set up in Arabia.

 

[madame_zora]

Yes, I agree with all of that. I also agree that when we do pull out of Iraq, it will leave a huge mess, but I still think it's the right thing to do, for America anyway.

I have a hard time believing that bush, who was so hell-bent on going to war with Iraq, could have gotten a briefing about Al-quaeda threatening to blow up the World Trade Center with airplanes, and he just did absolutely nothing about it but go fishing. THAT is a stretch my brain just won't allow. While I doubt sincerely that he thought it would be as big a deal as it was, at the very least, he is complicit because he allowed it to happen, most likely as a reason to justify the war he wanted to start anyway.

When I feel like putting on my tinfoil hat, I can even seeing him making sure it WAS a big deal, so he could justify the war. I don't support investigating to see if the Big Spaghetti Monster is responsible, and I can appreciate how annoying it is to listen to every moron on earth speculating on what the hell happened, but I do hope all reasonable possiblities get looked into. I'd rather have too much investigation than not enough, that's all.

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

I agree that more should have been done prior to 9/11 to prevent such an attack, including in the Clinton administration as well as the first Bush term. But I also think his critics sometimes overemphasize the significance of the intelligence we had regarding Al-Qaeda. Having several friends in the intelligence community, I know it's really not quite as simple as Bush neglected to act. He could have done more. We still could. Personally I think the misallocation of funds from the Dept of Homeland Security since 2001 has been deplorable and a bigger sin than the laziness in our efforts to combat terrorism prior.

 

[tripod]

I've been thinking a lot about Irag, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and 9/11 lately. It seems to me that we have had a strange hatred of the Shiite Muslims in the world ever since the Islamic revolution and the subsequent hostage crisis. We have been bending over backwards to kiss the asses of the Sunni Muslims in the world in order to weaken and ultimately destroy the Shiite power structure that resides in Iran and Lebanon. Iraq holds a potential Shiite power base that holds the power balance between the Arabs and the Shiites in the region.

Pakistan is a Sunni Muslim country, Saudi Arabia is one also (with a Shiite minority), so is Egypt, and strangely, Syria is Sunni as well. Syria is unique because Hezbollah (Shiite) holds a great deal of political power there and Sheik Hassan Nasrallah (head of Hexbollah) is EXTREMELY popular there, as well as in the region. The Sunnis have been talking about a rise in Shiite Power, a "Shiite Crescent" if you will, that threatens to mobilize the 140 million Shiites that currently reside between Lebanon and Pakistan, upsetting the balance of Sunni power in the region.

9/11 at it's very least was a HUGE embarassment to the administration because of their ties to Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt (the supposed civilized Muslim nations). We have been aligned with the Sunnis (Al Queda is a Sunni organization) since the very beginning of our involvement with the middle East and have been the Sunni's enforcers trying to weaken the Shiite power structure ever since the war between Irag and Iran, which caused HUGE casualties (large companies of soldiers would just rush each other daily... it was VERY bloody... over 2 million were killed). The United States was using Iraq as a proxy in that war! As it is no news to anybody... Saddam was our guy in Iran, and Osama was our man in Afghanistan, fighting another proxy war between us and the Russians using the Mujahideen as our "guys" (that was to get back at the Russians for Vietnam, and it succeeded in that goal).

When our CIA assets like Osama and Saddam went "bad", it was a massive embarassment to the administration. Granted Clinton was no angel and was sidetracked by Monica-Gate and the impeachment, he had NO part in arming the Mujahideen, arming Saddam Hussein, sending tons of military aid to Pakistan... does anyone remember Iran Contra? All of this stuff is PURELY Republican insanity, W's father was complicit as was the Reagan and Ford administrations.

Now Israel, has teamed up with the Sunni nations in trying to put their decades long plan of crushing the Shiites into effect. De-stabilizing Iraq might have been part of a plan in order to draw Iran into the fight so we would have a justification for retaliation, but the administration might be just a group of fuck ups and didn't intend to throw the entire region out of balance. Iran was too smart to take that bait, so the Nuclear thing will have to be pursued in order for the bombs to start dropping. Isreal already tried last Summer to soften up Hezbollah's defenses and to draw out the fighters into a ground war slaughter. Israel got their nose bloodied in spite of dropping more cluster bombs in three weeks in Lebanon then the US did during the entire hostilities in Iraq. That was a failed experiment. Israel will not be invading the Shiite power structures anytime soon.

We are now arming Sunni death squads through funneling money to the Lebanese government (cedar revolution anyone?). These groups are Al Quedas in the making... WE ARE DOING IT FUCKING ALL OVER AGAIN!!!!!!! All of the "black" money that is floating around the Middle East (9 billion missing from Iraq's oil revenues... I wonder where it went?) is revving up the impending Shiite/Sunni clash that will threaten to destabilize the entire world... and Saudi Arabia has their fingerprints all over it. It is a systematic destruction of the Shiites that has revealed itself to be the primary basis for the underlying causes of 9/11, and we are engaged in funneling money to Sunni death Squads ALL OVER AGAIN... it's total deja-vu... this administration couldn't run a fucking Burger King during a late night drive thru rush!!!!!