BBC made a boo-boo

[Seved]

Ok, so I am not going to give 100% accuracy just yet, but this is VERY interesting.

A lot of us know, that on Sept 11th, 3 building collapsed, WTC 1 and 2, along with Building 7. Now, in this news report made by the BBC, they acknowledge that Building 7 collapsed due to fire. But here is the problem, they annouced it 20 some minutes before the building EVER collasped. Now seeing -NO- modern Steel structure has ever collapsed due to fire, this is very odd. The video I will be linking, along with the time, shows the reporter telling the camera that Building 7 collasped, along with news stamps below her. Yet, Building 7 is STILL standing behind her in the video feed! You can clearly see it behind her. Then the feed gets cut, and the news agencies says sorry that we lost the connection, 5 minutes later, from that time, Building 7 Collapses.
People are now demanding the official time stamps from the news show from the BBC to verify all of it. So, watch the video, if you want to just see the part I mostly depicted, begin watching at 15 minutes, Where you will vividly hear them say it collasped, and then when you see the news lady, You will see Building 7 behind her!

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=49f_1172526096&c=1

The official story says that it collasped at random, due to structural failure.

So I posted this to spark more interest, in a issue, that is clearly now becoming even more and more questionable.


Opinions?

Like I said before, I cannot 100% confirm this, and I will when I read up on more news. Some are saying that its just bad reporting, or misplacing of words, etc.. However, in time, there will be more information on the subject.

[Weston]

While I don't believe the government's story on what happened (all they ever seem to do is lie and manipulate), I don't see how/why the news media, especially the BBC, would be involved in a conspiracy and also be told the news before it happens.

Keep in mind how inaccurate live or "breaking news" reporting is... I've seen many such things pretty poorly reported, but then later corrected, on both minor and major stories.

[chrisbarnett01]

Now seeing -NO- modern Steel structure has ever collapsed due to fire, this is very odd.

retarded statement of the year.

[Weston]

retarded statement of the year.

eh? I would be interested to know of any modern steel structures that collapsed due to fire. That is one thing that the anti-conspiracy people, or the government, hasn't adequately explained, IMO.

[Seved]

retarded statement of the year.

Examples please, and don't refer to the 2 story building that burnt down, that was nothing like Building 7.

[stu]

Maybe they were practicing one of the scenarios they thought might happen. Then it did, so they ran it to be first.

[Seved]

While I don't believe the government's story on what happened (all they ever seem to do is lie and manipulate), I don't see how/why the news media, especially the BBC, would be involved in a conspiracy and also be told the news before it happens.

Keep in mind how inaccurate live or "breaking news" reporting is... I've seen many such things pretty poorly reported, but then later corrected, on both minor and major stories.

I completly understand what you are saying, and also is the reasoning as to why, I said that I am not 100% sure. I also understand how retarded new agencies can be. This clearly could be a fuck up, like I stated in my first post, but when more on the subject surfaces, I will be happy to retract my statements if they turn out to be false.

[Seved]

Maybe they were practicing one of the scenarios they thought might happen. Then it did, so they ran it to be first.

Yeah, many people have suggested that, however, the building is standing right behind her in the feed. In the video, it shows, that they clearly suggest that it has collasped already, multiple of times.

[myshtern]

Examples please, and don't refer to the 2 story building that burnt down, that was nothing like Building 7.

Steel trusses collapse in fires all of the time. It's the only major downside to using them. The whole point of using them is to make them as lightweight as possible so they arent dense at all. They heat up very fast and lose all strength.

I think I heard somewhere saying that collapsing steel trusses are the number 1 fire related cause of death for firemen.

[Seved]

Examples please.

[Slow96GSR]

Examples please.

Google it, we ain't your bitches! Lol!

Also are you sure she knew what building number 7 was?! She might have though it was the tool shed out back!

[Seved]

Google it, we ain't your bitches! Lol!

Also are you sure she knew what building number 7 was?! She might have though it was the tool shed out back!

if they are going to tell me I am wrong, let them do it.

Yeah, eairler in the clip they call it the "Salmons (Sp) brothers building" and later they refer to it as Building 7.
Edit: The 47 floor building, is also another clue.

[john]

Bldg 7 was pulled.

[chibianh]

Taken from somewhere else..

So . . . the BBC was involved in a conspiracy with the Bush administration . . . which had some reason to let the BBC know, ahead of time, that it was going to destroy building 7 of the World Trade Center . . . because, presumably, the attack on the Pentagon and bringing down the two huge towers and killing 3000 people wouldn't be enough of an excuse to start an illegal, immoral war of imperial aggression.

And, since, for some reason, the Bush administration had to let some reporters know about the secret conspiracy, the picked the right-wing, ultra-conservative . . . BBC. Wow, this just makes so much sense.

Because it would be so important for the BBC to know that that extra building was going to be blown up by the US Government in order that the Commander and Chief of the United States to mobilize the US Military, which he could do at any time, pretty much at whim, as defined by the U.S. Constitution. But wait! He would be worried that just going to war without first engineering the largest, most complicated conspiracy in the history of the world, involving all levels of government, the US military, Tony Blair, Fox News, the BBC, the New York Port authority, and a large number of complicit Muslims, that it might affect it's poll numbers . . .

Even if there was a conspiracy, the things most of you folks point to as proof of conspiracy fail any kind of logical test, as they are entirely pointless. Why would the BBC know a building was supposed to collapse, and why would they be incompetent enough to report that it had collapsed, when it had not, while having the camera on the building that had not yet collapsed? And why would the government want to take out building 7? An attack on the Pentagon alone would, quite frankly, be enough to justify war. Add the World Trade and, heck, why not? And where did they get the Muslims of hijack flight 93, and did they intend for flight 93 to crash in a Pennsylvania field from the beginning? And were all the members of airport security complicit in the conspiracy, or just select ones? And certainly, no one at the BBC would want to break ranks with the ultra-conservative, right-wing BBC and report the biggest news story of the year, that the Bush admin engineered 9/11, because that would only made them some of the richest, most powerful, most sexed-up-by-hot-liberal-groupies-everywhere journalist ever on the entire planet.

In other news, I've recently learned that the planes that flew into the World Trade Center were unmanned, and filled with additional explosive material, and that the people supposed to be on those flights were diverted, murdered by Dick Cheney--who used a great deal of buckshot--shipped over to Iraq and buried in mass graves in order to frame Saddam, who only wanted his citizens to be able to picnic and fly kites in peace, and never cut out a single tongue from a dissidents mouth, or a harmed a single finger on any political enemies hand, or put a single bullet through anybody's head. He was framed! With the real bodies that were supposed to be on the unmanned flights that hit the World Trade Center. It's the most incredible conspiracy of all time, with all major networks and both political parties involved at some level.

[smithz]

^ :rofl:

[myshtern]

Examples please.

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2005-132/

[Nate]

Green screen.

[Seved]

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2005-132/

So what buildings have? They just explains how trusses can fail. And while scanning through it speaks mostly of WOODEN trusses, which I can see why those fail due to fire. Maybe I missed the section.

Not an entire 47 story building comming down in 6.5 seconds. Firefighters, first aid responders, policeman, all have accounted to stand back, because teh building was going to be blown up, and larry silverstein said it was "Smartest to just Pull the building." Those 100% contradict that it collasped due to fire, which is givin in the NIST and 9/11 Commission report.

But like I said, I will give more information on the BBC clip when more information comes about.

[chrisbarnett01]

examples? Anyone remember WTC 1 & WTC2?

[Weston-work]

examples? Anyone remember WTC 1 & WTC2?

Those are allegedly part of the same conspiracy, and they also had jets crash into them.

In any case, I did find this in myshtern's link...

CONCLUSIONS
More than 60% of the roof systems in the United States are built using a truss system. By design, wooden truss systems contain a significant fuel load and are often hidden from sight. Fires in truss systems can burn for long periods before detection and can spread quickly across or through the trusses. Steel trusses are also prone to failure under fire conditions and may fail in less time than a wooden truss under the same conditions.

I'd still be very interested to see real world cases of this happening though...

[Seved]

For everyone, just watch from Google Video "9/11: Mysteries" it will be able to explain everything Reguarding the 2 WTC and Building 7, then I could ever dream. It's about a hour and a half, but it has 3 segments, so if you have the time, watch it.

Chris, i meant PRIOR to 9/11 no modern steel building has collasped due to fire, typo. Three just so happened on that day. The account of the "Pancake" collaspe, Pancake collaspes don't fall at free fall speed, they slow down.

And especially do NOT leave liquid Molten steel 3-4 weeks after the collaspe.

[Seved]

Well, here is one of the answers that the BBC has now released due to the video.

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.

A response

We are asked to believe that the world's premiere news organization has somehow lost all its tapes of perhaps the biggest news event of the past 60 years. This is a copout. Whether they have lost the tapes or not, the BBC simply doesn't want to verify one hundred per cent their monumental foul-up, because they know it would only increase the exposure of this issue and lead to further questions. What is there to clear up? The reporter is standing in front of the building while saying it has already collapsed!

[Seved]

Here's another video of it, BBC sister channel News 24, also annoucing that it collasped, 23 minutes before it really did. Wasn't the slip up of one news anchor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lWQ5cJ5XYY

People are demanding the SOURCE of the BBC who told them it collasped, however, no one has come forward quite yet.

[myshtern]

I'd still be very interested to see real world cases of this happening though...

It's absolutely true. I've seen several videos showing it and it was preached in my commercial building courses. Lightweight wooden trusses have several support points because they arent nearly as strong as lightweight steel trusses. The fire can take out on or two beams to weaken the truss but the truss will still have the remaining supports until the fire gets big enough to get encompass them too. This just means that the wooden truss will take longer to completely fail. With other kinds of trusses, there are fire blocks in between the framing to slow down the fire.

If you're thinking of just heavy lumber like in a log home, think about throwing a big stump in a fire. It takes hours and hours for the stump to burn all the way through and even then it still has a huge amount of strength.

With the steel truss, as soon as it's heated up to the temperature its rated for, you don't have much time.

Seved, ask any fireman. It's what they have been taught for the last 30 years, it has nothing to do with 9/11.

[myshtern]

And especially do NOT leave liquid Molten steel 3-4 weeks after the collaspe.

TNT doesnt have that effect either. But I guess you'll just say the government invented a special bomb that does that.

[-=[Juztin]=-]

There's conspiracy theories and then there's fucking retarded conspiracy theories, and this ranks #1 on the latter LOL :rofl:

[nxbrennan]

Thermite could under the right circumstances, I suppose.

[lswhitecivic]

Aahhhh! The freemasons are taking over the world.

Illuminati for lyfe!

[ryanman]

It's absolutely true. I've seen several videos showing it and it was preached in my commercial building courses. Lightweight wooden trusses have several support points because they arent nearly as strong as lightweight steel trusses. The fire can take out on or two beams to weaken the truss but the truss will still have the remaining supports until the fire gets big enough to get encompass them too. This just means that the wooden truss will take longer to completely fail. With other kinds of trusses, there are fire blocks in between the framing to slow down the fire.

If you're thinking of just heavy lumber like in a log home, think about throwing a big stump in a fire. It takes hours and hours for the stump to burn all the way through and even then it still has a huge amount of strength.

With the steel truss, as soon as it's heated up to the temperature its rated for, you don't have much time.

Seved, ask any fireman. It's what they have been taught for the last 30 years, it has nothing to do with 9/11.

:werd:

Seems like anyone with half a brain would think about this for a second and realize it's true.

[Seved]

Thermite could under the right circumstances, I suppose.

Ding.


It's quite funny that so many people think "it's just a bunch of conspiracy theoriest" when in actuality, it isn't.

http://www.wanttoknow.info/officialsquestion911commissionreport

Look at those people and their credentials.

It truly is sad, that only 3 million dollars was spent on the 9/11 commision report. When 58 Million was spent on Clintons BJ.

[saN]

Controlled demolition!!

[Seved]

This is just 1 of the many people on the site listed above.

Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Ford and Carter. Air Force fighter pilot, over 100 combat missions. PhD in Aeronautics, Nuclear Engineering.


And he states:

"A lot of these pieces of information, taken together, prove that the official story, the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 is a bunch of hogwash. It’s impossible. … There’s a second group of facts having to do with the cover up. Taken together these things prove that high levels of our government don’t want us to know what happened and who’s responsible. Who gained from 9/11? Who covered up crucial information? And who put out the patently false stories about 9/11 in the first place? I think the case is pretty clear that it’s highly placed individuals in the administration with all roads passing through Dick Cheney. I think the very kindest thing that we can say about George W. Bush and all the people in the U.S. Government that have been involved in this massive cover-up ... is that they were aware of impending attacks and let them happen. However even that is high treason and conspiracy to commit murder."

Ryanman, if people on HAI had half the brain of some of these people, HAI would be Yale or Harvard.

[chibianh]

There's also many highly regarded and highly educated people who have written documents and have explained how and why the towers collapse.. not just them, but also independent engineering firms whose engineers have have explained how the towers collapsed under those conditions.

[lswhitecivic]

This just goes back to the fact that you can find people who support whatever theory you want to believe all over the internet.

[chibianh]

This just goes back to the fact that you can find people who support whatever theory you want to believe all over the internet.

+1

not just the internet, but anywhere.

[DrJones]

The following issue has been ignored as well. IMO it's far more important.

We’ve all heard the “official conspiracy theory” of the Death Star attack. We all know about Luke Skywalker and his ragtag bunch of rebels, how they mounted a foolhardy attack on the most powerful, well-defended battle station ever built. And we’ve all seen the video over, and over, and over, of the one-in-a-million shot that resulted in a massive chain reaction that not just damaged, but completely obliterated that massive technological wonder.

Like many Americans, I was fed this story when I was growing up. But as I watched the video, I began to realize that all was not as it seemed. And the more I questioned the official story, the deeper into the rabbit hole I went.

Presented here are some of the results of my soul-searching regarding this painful event. Like many citizens, I have many questions that I would like answered: was the mighty Imperial government really too incompetent to prevent a handful of untrained nerf-herders from destroying one of their most prized assets? Or are they hiding something from us? Who was really behind the attack? Why did they want the Death Star destroyed? No matter what the answers, we have a problem.

Below is a summary of my book, Uncomfortable Questions: An Analysis of the Death Star Attack, which presents compelling evidence that we all may be the victims of a fraud of immense proportions.


Uncomfortable Questions about the Death Star Attack

The cover of Uncomfortable Questions: An Analysis of the Death Star Attack


1) Why were a handful of rebel fighters able to penetrate the defenses of a battle station that had the capability of destroying an entire planet and the defenses to ward off several fleets of battle ships?

2) Why did Grand Moff Tarkin refuse to deploy the station’s large fleet of TIE Fighters until it was too late? Was he acting on orders from somebody to not shoot down the rebel attack force? If so, who, and why?

3) Why was the rebel pilot who supposedly destroyed the Death Star reported to be on the Death Star days, maybe hours, prior to its destruction? Why was he allowed to escape, and why were several individuals dressed in Stormtrooper uniforms seen helping him?

4) Why has there not been an investigation into allegations that Darth Vader, the second-ranking member of the Imperial Government, is in fact the father of the pilot who allegedly destroyed the Death Star?

5) Why did Lord Vader decide to break all protocols and personally pilot a lightly armored TIE Fighter? Conveniently, this placed Lord Vader outside of the Death Star when it was destroyed, where he was also conveniently able to escape from a large-sized rebel fleet that had just routed the Imperial forces. Why would Lord Vader, one of the highest ranking members of the Imperial Government, suddenly decide to fly away from the Death Star in the middle of a battle? Did he know something that the rest of the Imperial Navy didn’t?

Emperor Palpatine fails to act after being informed of the attack


6) How could any pilot shoot a missile into a 2 meter-wide exhaust port, let alone a pilot with no formal training, whose only claim to fame was his ability to “bullseye womprats” on Tatooine? This shot, according to one pilot, would be “impossible, even for a computer.” Yet, according to additional evidence, the pilot who allegedly fired the missile turned off his targeting computer when he was supposedly firing the shot that destroyed the Death Star. Why have these discrepancies never been investigated, let alone explained?

7) Why has their been no investigation into evidence that the droids who provided the rebels with the Death Star plans were once owned by none other than Lord Vader himself, and were found, conveniently, by the pilot who destroyed the Death Star, and who is also believed to be Lord Vader’s son? Evidence also shows that the droids were brought to one Ben Kenobi, who, records indicate, was Darth Vader’s teacher many years earlier! Are all these personal connections between the conspirators and a key figure in the Imperial government supposed to be coincidences?

8) How could a single missile destroy a battle station the size of a moon? No records, anywhere, show that any battle station or capital ship has ever been destroyed by a single missile. Furthermore, analysis of the tape of the last moments of the Death Star show numerous small explosions along its surface, prior to it exploding completely! Why does all evidence indicate that strategically placed explosives, not a single missile, is what destroyed the Death Star?

[marcrx5]

:rofl:

[nicklk]

I think a missile took out WTC 7 http://smiliesftw.com/x/hsugh.gif (http://smiliesftw.com)

http://911review.org/Wget/wtc7.batcave.net/7.html

[nicklk]

This is my theory to as why WTC collapsed.......did everyone forget that WTC#2 got hit on the SE corner and collapsed in the direction of WTC6, leaving 110 stories to fall on #6 and #7......at the angle #2 fell, it would have landed all the stories that were burning and melting to land right on #7.

The other thing is that all footage of #7 collapsing is from the other side of the building, not the front side where it got damaged....its much like the Alfred Murrah building that got blown up in Oklahoma City...the other side of the building had some blown out windows and thats about it, where the other side had its complete face ripped off. Now just do the same thing on WTC #7 and the other side just had some windows blown out, but the other side and all the intense burning materials in it from #2

Here is a picture of the damage and how the buildings are layed out to kind of explain
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v154/nicklk/Picture70copycopy.jpg

[myshtern]

Ding.


It's quite funny that so many people think "it's just a bunch of conspiracy theoriest" when in actuality, it isn't.

http://www.wanttoknow.info/officialsquestion911commissionreport

Look at those people and their credentials.

It truly is sad, that only 3 million dollars was spent on the 9/11 commision report. When 58 Million was spent on Clintons BJ.

Maybe that just means that the facts are pretty straight forward.

[nicklk]

And another aerial image, showing the extent of damage to #6 and how it could of placed as equal amount of damange on #7

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/ground_zero_arial2_ort.jpg

[nxbrennan]

IMO there are many odd holes in the official story and there's clearly more to it than we know, but that's the same for almost everything in government.
As to the fall of WTC 1 and 2, I saw one analysis that discussed the steel trusses in the floors sagging as they heated, pulling the outer support beams (which bore most of the structure's weight) in. This resulted in some of them snapping, which started the collapse. Makes sense to me.

[Seved]

Why the towers fell: Two theories

By William Rice

Posted March 1, 2007

Having worked on structural steel buildings as a civil engineer in the era when the Twin Towers were designed and constructed, I found some disturbing discrepancies and omissions concerning their collapse on 9/11.

I was particularly interested in the two PBS documentaries that explained the prevailing theories as determined by two government agencies, FEMA and NIST (National Institute of Science and Technology). The first (2002) PBS documentary, Why the Towers Fell, discussed how the floor truss connectors failed and caused a “progressive pancake collapse.”

The subsequent 2006 repackaged documentary Building on Ground Zero explained that the connectors held, but that the columns failed, which is also unlikely. Without mentioning the word “concrete,” the latter documentary compared the three-second collapse of the concrete Oklahoma City Murrah Federal Building with that of the Twin Towers that were of structural steel. The collapse of a concrete-framed building cannot be compared with that of a structural steel-framed building.

Since neither documentary addressed many of the pertinent facts, I took the time to review available material, combine it with scientific and historic facts, and submit the following two theories for consideration.

The prevailing theory

The prevailing theory for the collapse of the 110-story, award-winning Twin Towers is that when jetliners flew into the 95th and 80th floors of the North and South Towers respectively, they severed several of each building’s columns and weakened other columns with the burning of jet fuel/kerosene (and office combustibles).

However, unlike concrete buildings, structural steel buildings redistribute the stress when several columns are removed and the undamaged structural framework acts as a truss network to bridge over the missing columns.

After the 1993 car bomb explosion destroyed columns in the North Tower, John Skilling, the head structural engineer for the Twin Towers, was asked about an airplane strike. He explained that the Twin Towers were originally designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 (similar in size to the Boeing 767). He went on to say that there would be a horrendous fire from the jet fuel, but “the building structure would still be there.”

The 10,000 gallons of jet fuel (half capacity) in each jetliner did cause horrendous fires over several floors, but it would not cause the steel members to melt or even lose sufficient strength to cause a collapse. This is because the short-duration jet fuel fires and office combustible fires cannot create (or transmit to the steel) temperatures hot enough. If a structural steel building could collapse because of fire, it would do so slowly as the various steel members gradually relinquished their structural strength. However, in the 100-year history of structural-steel framed buildings, there is no evidence of any structural steel framed building having collapsed because of fire.

Let’s assume the unlikelihood that these fires could weaken all of the columns to the same degree of heat intensity and thus remove their structural strength equally over the entire floor, or floors, in order to cause the top 30-floor building segment (South Tower WTC #2) to drop vertically and evenly onto the supporting 79th floor. The 30 floors from above would then combine with the 79th floor and fall onto the next level down (78th floor) crushing its columns evenly and so on down into the seven levels below the street level.

The interesting fact is that each of these 110-story Twin Towers fell upon itself in about ten seconds at nearly free-fall speed. This violates Newton’s Law of Conservation of Momentum that would require that as the stationary inertia of each floor is overcome by being hit, the mass (weight) increases and the free-fall speed decreases.

Even if Newton’s Law is ignored, the prevailing theory would have us believe that each of the Twin Towers inexplicably collapsed upon itself crushing all 287 massive columns on each floor while maintaining a free-fall speed as if the 100,000, or more, tons of supporting structural-steel framework underneath didn’t exist.

The politically unthinkable theory

Controlled demolition is so politically unthinkable that the media not only demeans the messenger but also ridicules and “debunks” the message rather than provide investigative reporting. Curiously, it took 441 days for the president’s 9/11 Commission to start an “investigation” into a tragedy where more than 2,500 WTC lives were taken. The Commission’s investigation also didn’t include the possibility of controlled-demolition, nor did it include an investigation into the “unusual and unprecedented” manner in which WTC Building #7 collapsed.

The media has basically kept the collapse of WTC Building #7 hidden from public view. However, instead of the Twin Towers, let’s consider this building now. Building #7 was a 47-story structural steel World Trade Center Building that also collapsed onto itself at free-fall speed on 9/11. This structural steel building was not hit by a jetliner, and collapsed seven hours after the Twin Towers collapsed and five hours after the firemen had been ordered to vacate the building and a collapse safety zone had been cordoned off. Both of the landmark buildings on either side received relatively little structural damage and both continue in use today.

Contrary to the sudden collapse of the Twin Towers and Building #7, the four other smaller World Trade Center buildings #3, #4, #5, and #6, which were severely damaged and engulfed in flames on 9/11, still remained standing. There were no reports of multiple explosions. The buildings had no pools of molten metal (a byproduct of explosives) at the base of their elevator shafts. They created no huge caustic concrete/cement and asbestos dust clouds (only explosives will pulverize concrete into a fine dust cloud), and they propelled no heavy steel beams horizontally for three hundred feet or more.

The collapse of WTC building #7, which housed the offices of the CIA, the Secret Service, and the Department of Defense, among others, was omitted from the government’s 9/11 Commission Report, and its collapse has yet to be investigated.
Perhaps it is time for these and other unanswered questions surrounding 9/11 to be thoroughly investigated. Let’s start by contacting our congressional delegation.

William Rice, P.E., is a registered professional civil engineer who worked on structural steel (and concrete) buildings in Boston, New York, and Philadelphia. He was also a professor at Vermont Technical College where he taught engineering materials, structures lab, and other building related courses