Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

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

the most discussed video on youtube at themoment.

An astounding video uncovered from the archives today shows the BBC reporting on the collapse of WTC Building 7 over twenty minutes before it fell at 5:20pm on the afternoon of 9/11. The incredible footage shows a BBC reporter talking about the collapse of the Salomon Brothers Building while it remains standing in the live shot behind her head.

Wow, this is really old. Deano, you should just start one big WTC 7 thread instead of making several threads on one subject. We have too many 911 threads.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Wow, this is really old. Deano, you should just start one big WTC 7 thread instead of making several threads on one subject. We have too many 911 threads.

i know. just thought id bring it up in a new thread because it is being debated a lot right now

it can be moved if need be

Originally posted by Deano
i know. just thought id bring it up in a new thread because it is being debated a lot right now

it can be moved if need be

Oh, ok

so the building's still visible behind the guy in the shot?

I guess BBC just needs to hire better reporters......someone who will be able to distinguish between the 7 buildings of the site when reporting to the world. Must have made the him look like a jackass.......

"hey guys.......this building standing behind me just fell"......

An interesting article.

http://aftermathnews.wordpress.com/2007/02/27/bbc-reported-building-7-had-collapsed-20-minutes-before-it-fell/#comment-12981

don't just look at the article itself, see the comments. Pretty great stuff if you ask me.

HOW can this still be going?

The BBC received garbled reports after the building became damaged and there was some comment that it 'might' collapse. By the time the BBC got to it they thought they were reporting a collapse, and it was just a spectaculary amusing moment that the BBC broadcast this with the damn thing still up in the background, to highlight what a mistake they had made.

Anyone trying to turn this into a conspiracy theory is utterly desperate. Very silly indeed.

It was just one of hundreds of inaccurate reports that day.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
HOW can this still be going?

The BBC received garbled reports after the building became damaged and there was some comment that it 'might' collapse. By the time the BBC got to it they thought they were reporting a collapse, and it was just a spectaculary amusing moment that the BBC broadcast this with the damn thing still up in the background, to highlight what a mistake they had made.

Anyone trying to turn this into a conspiracy theory is utterly desperate. Very silly indeed.

It was just one of hundreds of inaccurate reports that day. Damn, I was hoping this would get at least two pages before it was debunked.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
HOW can this still be going?

The BBC received garbled reports after the building became damaged and there was some comment that it 'might' collapse. By the time the BBC got to it they thought they were reporting a collapse, and it was just a spectaculary amusing moment that the BBC broadcast this with the damn thing still up in the background, to highlight what a mistake they had made.

Anyone trying to turn this into a conspiracy theory is utterly desperate. Very silly indeed.

It was just one of hundreds of inaccurate reports that day.

A voice of reason rings clear in a forum that is often clouded with a fog of willful ignorance. Thank you. I wish you visited more often.

So, how exactly did the BBC reporter know the official explanation of the collapse before it happened? The first reporter said the building fell not because of anotherattack but, becuase it was weakened from this mornings attacks. How did he know that, who told him that?

Well, literally speaking, as is already mentioned by the most hardened of theorists here, thwey got it from NBC who made the report first.

Secondly, I don't understand the thrust of your question. The building WAS damaged from the morning's attacks. That was hardly a secret, it was clear to all.

Because of the damage, some experts had expressed a fear it would collapse. One set of chinese whispers later and it got picked up by news organisations that it HAD collapsed. That's all.

You guys can't be this bad: http://tvnewslies.org/phpbb/index.php

Originally posted by Ushgarak

Secondly, I don't understand the thrust of your question. The building WAS damaged from the morning's attacks. That was hardly a secret, it was clear to all.

I don't get youyr post, you just stated that there was alot of confusion that day. But, now it was clear to all what specifically made the building fall that day?


Originally posted by Ushgarak

Because of the damage, some experts had expressed a fear it would collapse. One set of chinese whispers later and it got picked up by news organisations that it HAD collapsed. That's all.

Experts, what experts were there, please name them. Because I find it weird that experts new the buildings structure would fall with out explaining the strucutural behavior of building near collapse till this day.

Err, they saw the building had been hit and had suffered widespread damage, and the message definitrely got out that a collapse was possible. This is really not a difficult concept.

I can;t even get my head around your first objection; just read my post again.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Err, they saw the building had been hit and had suffered widespread damage, and the message definitrely got out that a collapse was possible. This is really not a difficult concept.
Where was this stated besides the BBC and who this?


Originally posted by Ushgarak

I can;t even get my head around your first objection; just read my post again.
I've read your post and doesn't really add up IMO. Reports that day were difficult to get, yet, one thing was sure. Building seven was going to fall?

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

One person I believe is a firemen in the vid says "the building is going to blow up".

Somehow on 911 despite many gargled reports, one thing was clear as day. WTC 7 was hit by debris from the initial attack and was going to collapse. Who made is the original author of this claim and how did they come to this conclusion. Because WTC 7 was nowhere near as damaged as the Deutsche Bank Building

http://www.debunking911.com/Bankers.jpg

I've heard reports that state the Deutsche Bank Building ahd another building fall on it. Yet, I've heard no reports that it might collapse.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Wow, this is really old. Deano, you should just start one big WTC 7 thread instead of making several threads on one subject. We have too many 911 threads.

agreed.also I already made that point and provided that link on Ashtars thread.The link shows that CNN reported that the building collapsed an hour before it fell and that BBc reported it collapsed 20 minutes before it fell.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Somehow on 911 despite many gargled reports, one thing was clear as day. WTC 7 was hit by debris from the initial attack and was going to collapse. Who made is the original author of this claim and how did they come to this conclusion. Because WTC 7 was nowhere near as damaged as the Deutsche Bank Building

http://www.debunking911.com/Bankers.jpg

I've heard reports that state the Deutsche Bank Building ahd another building fall on it. Yet, I've heard no reports that it might collapse.

The thing is the experts have said that damage done to it there was not enough damage to make it collapse also the building should have toppled over sideways,it shouldnt have fallen in freefall manner within seconds the same way buildings are that are purposly set off to bring buildings down.again thats what all the independent experts have said.Thats just logic and common sense.Also if you look at that pic,the main structures are still there,there is only one missing,No way in hell should that building have collapsed.something else to consider is its all just a little too coincidental that all 3 buildings owned by ONE man,just happen to go down that day.The odds of that happening are just crazy not to mention that none of the other buildings nearby collapsed even though they were hit MUCH worse. I just now noticed you pointed that out about the bank building Ashtar,well done.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Where was this stated besides the BBC and who this?



I've read your post and doesn't really add up IMO. Reports that day were difficult to get, yet, one thing was sure. Building seven was going to fall?

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

One person I believe is a firemen in the vid says "the building is going to blow up". It was clear it was going to collapse to the people who were there. Whether it h ad or hadn't when the BBC got it is the confusion. Moron.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Somehow on 911 despite many gargled reports, one thing was clear as day. WTC 7 was hit by debris from the initial attack and was going to collapse. Who made is the original author of this claim and how did they come to this conclusion. Because WTC 7 was nowhere near as damaged as the Deutsche Bank Building

http://www.debunking911.com/Bankers.jpg

I've heard reports that state the Deutsche Bank Building ahd another building fall on it. Yet, I've heard no reports that it might collapse. There are many pictures of Building 7's hole. You know, that 20 story hole? Strange how you don't mention it. It's the reason it was able to collapse.

Originally posted by lord xyz
It was clear it was going to collapse to the people who were there. Whether it h ad or hadn't when the BBC got it is the confusion. Moron.

How was it clear the damage to the Solomon building is not as bad as the Bankers Trust building. Plus it was the farthest away, yet, is was suddenly clear to the fireman without a shadow of a that the building would collapse?

And, don't start with the insults, I know your a minor but, doesn't mean you have to act so immature. I'm not interested in having a flame war with a minor or on the online period.


Originally posted by lord xyz

There are many pictures of Building 7's hole. You know, that 20 story hole? Strange how you don't mention it. It's the reason it was able to collapse.

Funny, the bankers trust building has a hole as well and yet there were no reports indicating it might collapse.

And, please post this 20 story hole.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
How was it clear the damage to the Solomon building is not as bad as the Bankers Trust building. Plus it was the farthest away, yet, is was suddenly clear to the fireman without a shadow of a that the building would collapse?

And, don't start with the insults, I know your a minor but, doesn't mean you have to act so immature. I'm not interested in having a flame war with a minor or on the online period.


Thats what he always has to resort to when he's losing an argument.Sad because he had been acting mature latley and I was beginning to enjoy my discussions with him just recently. should have known he couldnt last long without them.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Where was this stated besides the BBC and who this?

I've read your post and doesn't really add up IMO. Reports that day were difficult to get, yet, one thing was sure. Building seven was going to fall?.

Good lord you become easily confused in an argument.,

The BBC DIDN'T state it. The BBC got it wrong, saying it HAD collapsed. This has been shown to be a garbled interpretation of earlier reports saying it MIGHT collapse- reports that seemed to be pretty accurate, as it turned up. But no, it was not certain at all, you just made that up. There were hundreds of rumours and ideas going around that day,. The fact that some of them were TRUE is hardly weird, seeing as so many were not.

Stop making stuff up, that's feeble.


In the end, you have two possiblities here

1. The BBC is part of a massively convulted conspiracy operation that requires amazing pixel-perfect timing at thousands of different points, yet fails to notice that one of their targets has caollpased before issuing the news that it has

or

2. The BBC cocked up.

If you think 1 is more likely than 2, you have no connection with rationality or reality.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Good lord you become easily confused in an argument.,

The BBC DIDN'T state it. The BBC got it wrong, saying it HAD collapsed. This has been shown to be a garbled interpretation of earlier reports saying it MIGHT collapse- reports that seemed to be pretty accurate, as it turned up. But no, it was not certain at all, you just made that up. There were hundreds of rumours and ideas going around that day,. The fact that some of them were TRUE is hardly weird, seeing as so many were not.

Again, your ignoring the point, the BBC did not get the report wrong since many firemen and policemen at the scene were claiming that building seven was about to collapse. I never implyed that the BBC wrote the report, infact more than likely the report came from ground zero since that's where these rumours originated. So, many people that day claimed the building was going to fall. What did they observe that made them come to that conclusion? It's not a difficult question ushgark, and what did I make up? I just posted a video showng you firemen and police officers exclaiming that the building was going to fall or "Blow up". What did these men observe that made them realise the building would fall.

Originally posted by Ushgarak

Stop making stuff up, that's feeble.


In the end, you have two possiblities here

1. The BBC is part of a massively convulted conspiracy operation that requires amazing pixel-perfect timing at thousands of different points, yet fails to notice that one of their targets has caollpased before issuing the news that it has

or

2. The BBC cocked up.

If you think 1 is more likely than 2, you have no connection with rationality or reality.

Stating an opinion is not irrational and I have not "made anything up" as you put it. You can avoid my question all day long but, it will not go away until it is answered.

EDIT: Link me to this report that claims the building "Might-Collapse". So far I haven't seen anyproof to support the exsistence of such a report except hearsay.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
How was it clear the damage to the Solomon building is not as bad as the Bankers Trust building. The fact that I didn't say that shows you have reading problems.

Pictures: http://www.kolumbus.fi/av.caesar/wtc/wtc7_2.jpg
http://www.rense.com/general65/WTC7_sw_after_1.jpg

Link: http://www.wtc7.net/damageclaims.html

Originally posted by lord xyz
The fact that I didn't say that shows you have reading problems.
I never claimed you did, it was a question that I was asking you FFS.


Originally posted by lord xyz

Pictures: http://www.kolumbus.fi/av.caesar/wtc/wtc7_2.jpg
http://www.rense.com/general65/WTC7_sw_after_1.jpg

Link: http://www.wtc7.net/damageclaims.html

At it's widest point, the damage can be seen to extend from column 5 to column 1. I seriously doubt that the damage done here is even comparable to the bankers trust building.The photographic evidence and analyses herein suggest that the major damage to the building caused by WTC1 debris was away from the trusses and columns which are critical to the official stories collapse hypothesis, or that damage to that region was not deep enough to affect those assemblies, and would therefore seem to invalidate that hypothesis unless alternative reasons for failure are considered, such as thermal load alone which is highly unlikely since the NIST has concluded that the jet fuel was not enough to weaken the trusses.Furthermore,The location of the soot mark is confirmed as being either at the 19th or 22nd floor by NIST's description of the south west corner damage being from floors 8 to 18, not 20 stories as you claimed.

http://www.studyof911.com/articles/winstonwtc701/Images/Fig7_01.jpg

http://www.livevideo.com/video/genghis6199/98A6183C3FE545C2A99164528D26AD7F/pancake-theory-debunked.aspx

If your not satified, I'll look through the NIST for the results of their "Paint Deformation Test"

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
I never claimed you did, it was a question that I was asking you FFS. Then speak clearer to avoid confusion. Rather than asking a question irrelivant to the part you quoted, talk about what you quoted, then state you are changing the sobject. A useful phrase would be "But what about..."
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
At it's widest point, the damage can be seen to extend from column 5 to column 1. I seriously doubt that the damage done here is even comparable to the bankers trust building.The photographic evidence and analyses herein suggest that the major damage to the building caused by WTC1 debris was away from the trusses and columns which are critical to the official stories collapse hypothesis, or that damage to that region was not deep enough to affect those assemblies, and would therefore seem to invalidate that hypothesis unless alternative reasons for failure are considered, such as thermal load alone which is highly unlikely since the NIST has concluded that the jet fuel was not enough to weaken the trusses.Furthermore,The location of the soot mark is confirmed as being either at the 19th or 22nd floor by NIST's description of the south west corner damage being from floors 8 to 18, not 20 stories as you claimed.

http://www.studyof911.com/articles/winstonwtc701/Images/Fig7_01.jpg I meant to say 10, my bad. Anyway, there are more pictures, but they are from a PDF document on the internet, which I cannot copy. However I can send you the link: www.lolinfowars.co.nr

Click on "open the PDF document" and search through the pages to see the stuff about Building 7 all or most would be there.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Then speak clearer to avoid confusion. Rather than asking a question irrelivant to the part you quoted, talk about what you quoted, then state you are changing the sobject. A useful phrase would be "But what about..."

Please do not correct me to save face, the question was very relevant considering that the Bankerstrust Building was hit by debris and suffered legitimate damage. This is a sharp contrast from the solomon building, which seems to be victim of extreme hyperbole when it comes to analysis regarding it's damage. And, do not correct me if you can't even spell irrelevant properly.

Originally posted by lord xyz
www.lolinfowars.co.nr



Thank you. . .

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Please do not correct me to save face, the question was very relevant considering that the Bankerstrust Building was hit by debris and legitimate damage. This is a sharp contrast from the solomon building, which seems to be victim of extreme hyperbole when it comes to it's damage. And, do not correct me if you can't even spell irrelevant properly. Also, it would be phrased: "But, what about" do not forget the comma.



Thank you. . . Hallelujah, he does understand English!

Building 7 had petrol tanks and other flamable stuff inside it causing large ignitions which made the metal to soften and bend inwards etc. It's all to do with what inside that caused it to fall.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Hallelujah, he does understand English!
Again, Stop with the ridicules off-topic insults.They do not help your argument in anyway, Never did in anyway. =/

Originally posted by lord xyz

Building 7 had petrol tanks and other flamable stuff inside it causing large ignitions which made the metal to soften and bend inwards etc. It's all to do with what inside that caused it to fall.

So, what petrol fires ignite quickly and burn out fast. there is no way the steel would have been heated fast enough for it to soften, and your ignoring what I posted about the NIST.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Again, Stop with the ridicules off-topic insults.They do not help your argument in anyway, Never did in anyway. =/



So, what petrol fires ignite quickly and burn out fast. there is no way the steel would have been heated fast enough for it to soften, and your ignoring what I posted about the NIST. NIST confirmed what I said. A big hole. Furthermore, NIST states the chronological order of how and why it collapsed.

An initial local failure at the lower floors (below Floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event), which supported a large span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet.
Vertical progression of the initial local failure up to the east penthouse, as large floor bays were unable to redistribute the loads, bringing down the interior structure below the east penthouse.
Horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of Floors 5 and 7, that were much thicker than the rest of the floors), triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, resulting in the disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_keyfindings.htm

Ashtar's response to Ush is making my head hurt...

Originally posted by lord xyz
NIST confirmed what I said. A big hole. Furthermore, NIST states the chronological order of how and why it collapsed.


You obviously did not read the report, they claimed there was a big hole in the south face. Without a clear photograph showing the lowest portion of the south face, we can never be 100% sure that there is no damage to the area of the 6th floor where truss#2 was located, nor whether any such imagined damage was deep enough and far east enough to affect the assembly in question. However there is simply no basis for such an assumption based on the evidence available to NIST. The fact remains that NIST does not possess a photograph of that area either, and hence their estimations are based solely on evidence that we the public have, i.e eye witness testimony.


Furthermore the hole was on the southwest corner, as shown here:

http://www.studyof911.com/articles/winstonwtc701/Images/Fig7_01.jpg

Originally posted by lord xyz

An initial local failure at the lower floors (below Floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event), which supported a large span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet.
Vertical progression of the initial local failure up to the east penthouse, as large floor bays were unable to redistribute the loads, bringing down the interior structure below the east penthouse.
Horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of Floors 5 and 7, that were much thicker than the rest of the floors), triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, resulting in the disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_keyfindings.htm

Acouple of localized collapses does not explain how the entire building fell. And, there is no visual proof that the damage was where the NIST says it was.

It's not like the British had eyewitness reporters on scene. They were doing their news according to the news of the States, all playing a game of telephone...

Originally posted by Captain REX
It's not like the British had eyewitness reporters on scene. They were doing their news according to the news of the States, all playing a game of telephone...

But, that isn't my question, where did the BBC get those reports from and how did the source of the reports know the building was going to fall? There is nothing difficult about that question, it's a really simply question.

Ush mentioned NBC news, and he also mentioned that they did not know; it was a game of telephone, where the American news channels said 'It might fall!' and the British filtered it down to their people who heard it as 'It has fallen.'

Originally posted by Captain REX
Ush mentioned NBC news, and he also mentioned that they did not know; it was a game of telephone, where the American news channels said 'It might fall!' and the British filtered it down to their people who heard it as 'It has fallen.'

Ush, claimed that there were rumours that claimed the building "Might Fall". And, that the BBC misread the rumours/reports and consequently claimed it did fall. That is a false claim, since I've seen no reports claiming the building "Might" fall. Instead, I heard and posted a video indicating that it was going to collapse for more than a half an hour before the actual collapse. So, how did they know it would fall?

Nobody said that the report was made, did they?

They didn't know! You have to get your mind off of that. Unless the British all have premonitions.

Originally posted by Captain REX
Nobody said that the report was made, did they?

They didn't know! You have to get your mind off of that. Unless the British all have premonitions.

That does not change the fact that virtually everyone predicted wtc 7 would fall several minutes before it actually happened. So, again , how did they know?

EDIT: So, if no report was made, how did the british even know what was happnening to building 7?

They didn't. Get over it.

Not hard to phone up a news station here in the States. Ush mentioned NBC, I repeat.

Originally posted by Captain REX
They didn't. Get over it.

They did as I proved. . .


Originally posted by Captain REX

Not hard to phone up a news station here in the States. Ush mentioned NBC, I repeat.

Show me this NBC, report, hell show me something that suggest such a report even exsist. Because, right now you have nothing but "what ush said".

EDIT: Again, show me proof of the exsistencet of a magical report/rumour that the BBC allegedly misquoted.

You only proved that you think that the British can tell the future.

Go ask Ush, then. The news isn't 100%, as you apparently expect it to be.

Originally posted by Captain REX
You only proved that you think that the British can tell the future.

Go ask Ush, then. The news isn't 100%, as you apparently expect it to be.
Well, it's obvious I'm wasting my time. I asked you to show me this magic report that the BBC misquoted in their reported and you simply avoid it. Forget what ush says, until he post the original report he has no proof.Bottomline is, ush's conjecture is not evidence, period.

And, your ignoring the fact that several people predicted the fall of wtc 7, but whatever man.

And I'm wasting my time, because you're just plain paranoid. Thank you for reminding me why I never try to debate in here.

Originally posted by Captain REX
And I'm wasting my time, because you're just plain paranoid.
Questioning the government when the president of the united states lies makes me paranoid. It never ceases to amze me how people can ignore the obvious, but whatever.

Obvious to a conspiracy theorist only. That's an opinionated point of view, not a fact.

Originally posted by Captain REX
Obvious to a conspiracy theorist only. That's an opinionated point of view, not a fact.
Actually, it is a fact, the president claimed he had no idea this would happen . Yet, was given multiple warnings in advance, I covered it in another thread. I'll post it for you.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar


After 9/11 president George W. Bush and Secretary of State Condolezza Rice claimed according to the Washington Post that they had no idea somethng like this could happen. Yet, prior to 911 president bush was given several warnings by the FAA,CIA, and several foreign intelligent agencies.

Here are all the articles pertaining to Bush being warned:

http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/02/05/Bush_knew.html

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/05/15/bush.sept.11/index.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,718312,00.html

Yet claimed this:


"I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile."
-- Condoleeza Rice May 16 2002 Press Conference

So, even if you think willie browns warning was a coincedental, it doesn't change the fact that bush had prior knowledge of 911 and claimed he had no idea that this would happen. Combined with the fact that several hours before 911 people were told not to fly (Coincedental or not) is very incriminating evidence.

So, based on the evidence we can come to conclusions.

Conclusion 1: Bush let 9/11, despite having prior knowledge
Conclusion 2: Bush and other government / Big business individuals planned 911.

You can argue the specifics, but it doesn't change the fact that 911 is no longer a conspiracy theory. It's a conspiracy fact, the only thing left to question is why it was done. Because the argument that 911 was a mistake is , and no one knew is bullshit.

EDIT: NORAD apparently had an idea, since they ran drillss simulating attacks on the pentagon and twin towers 2 years before 911. So, there difinetly was not a failure in intelligence.

And here are news articles about individuals being warned about 911:

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
pentagon officials cancel flights

“NEWSWEEK has learned that while U.S. intelligence received no specific warning, the state of alert had been high during the past two weeks, and a particularly urgent warning may have been received the night before the attacks, causing some top Pentagon brass to cancel a trip. Why that same information was not available to the 266 people who died aboard the four hijacked commercial aircraft may become a hot topic on the Hill.”


Washington Post

Brian McWilliams, Newsbytes News Network (a division of The Washington Post Company), September 27, 2001:

“Officials at instant-messaging firm Odigo confirmed today that two employees received text messages warning of an attack on the World Trade Center two hours before terrorists crashed planes into the New York landmarks.”

Didn't you mention that you were wasting your time? ermm

Originally posted by Captain REX
Didn't you mention that you were wasting your time? ermm

Yeah, I'am, Good Luck with your report man, farewell.

dont waste time with the ignorant ashtar. they are a waste of time.

Originally posted by Deano
dont waste time with the ignorant ashtar. they are a waste of time. Says the guy who thinks the WTC was brought down by a controlled demolition.

and what did bring it down?

and lord xyz says........

Originally posted by Deano
and what did bring it down?

and lord xyz says........ Weight.

you heard it from the man himself ladies and gentleman.

conspiracy over