BBC Reported Building 7 Collapse 20 Minutes Before It Fell

[QUOTE=8631700]Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
[B]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.

Pictures:

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.

Originally posted by lord xyz

Pictures:

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.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.

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.

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. . .

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!

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.

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.
[list][/url]

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. [/list]
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.