BBC Reported Building 7 Had Collapsed 20 Minutes Before It Fell

Delete Double Post.

 

Hahaha, Pepik, I could just imagine what you would say if I showed you Katie Couric reporting WTC2 fell before it did. I could see it now:

"Well...everyone KNEW it was going to fall..."

The point is that people hold the BBC to a journalistic integrity that doesn't include reporting what they "think" might happen, and if they do, they report it in that way...not "the solomon brothers building HAS collapsed"...So your the kook because your just ignoring what's in your face.

 

Moving right along, are we Rat? Lets forget the 96 seconds, and all your other blunders.

Lets even forget that you were telling us Verizon wasn't damaged either and that it was "a few feet" away. And "MIT's" Jeff King... oh should I go on? The melted steel? "All the concrete" turned to dust? Pyroclastic flow? Contradictory witnesses? So much crap you can't back up.

But OK. you want to know that WTC 7 was damaged by WTC 1. Never mind that you seem totally incapable of finding this readily available information on the web. Here you go:

"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski

​

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/
Banaciski_Richard.txt

"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department

​

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/
Nigro_Daniel.txt

"Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed." - Chief Cruthers

​

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/Cruthers.txt

"Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 [o'clock], that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, [we've] got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. (Q. Initially when you were there, you had said you heard a few Maydays?) Oh, yes. We had Maydays like crazy.... The heat must have been tremendous. There was so much [expletive] fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you [couldn't] see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and [that's] when 7 collapsed.... Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess." - Lieutenant William Ryan

​

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/Ryan_William.txt

"Firehouse: Did that chief give an assignment to go to building 7?

Boyle: He gave out an assignment. I didn’t know exactly what it was, but he told the chief that we were heading down to the site.

Firehouse: How many companies?

Boyle: There were four engines and at least three trucks. So we’re heading east on Vesey, we couldn’t see much past Broadway. We couldn’t see Church Street. We couldn’t see what was down there. It was really smoky and dusty."

"A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So wego there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn't look good.

But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.

So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag...e/gz/boyle.html

​

This proves there was a big hole on the south side of the building. From the photographic evidence and these quotes which aren't meant to be technical, I suspect there was a large hole in the center of the building which may have gone up 10 stories connected to a large rip on the left side of the building which continued up another 10 or more stories. Together they would make a hole 20 stories tall.

Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?

Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it.That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.

Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out?

Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. At that point in time, it seemed like a somewhat smaller event, but under any normal circumstances, that’s a major event, a 47-story building collapsing. It seemed like a firecracker after the other ones came down, but I mean that’s a big building, and when it came down, it was quite an event. But having gone through the other two, it didn’t seem so bad. But that’s what we were concerned about. We had said to the guys, we lost as many as 300 guys. We didn’t want to lose any more people that day. And when those numbers start to set in among everybody… My feeling early on was we weren’t going to find any survivors. You either made it out or you didn’t make it out. It was a cataclysmic event. The idea of somebody living in that thing to me would have been only short of a miracle. This thing became geographically sectored because of the collapse. I was at West and Liberty. I couldn’t go further north on West Street. And I couldn’t go further east on Liberty because of the collapse of the south tower, so physically we were boxed in.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag.../gz/hayden.html

​

WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after the WTC Towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene. Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there. [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]

​

Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, "At the edge of the south face you could see that it is very heavily damaged." [Firehouse Magazine, 5/02]

Heavy, thick smoke rises near 7 World Trade Center. Smoke is visible from the upper floors of the 47-story building. Firefighters using transits to determine whether there was any movement in the structure were surprised to discover that is was moving. The area was evacuated and the building collapsed later in the afternoon of Sept. 11.

http://www.firehouse.com/911/magazine/towers.html

​

 

There was a fairly decent programme on the other day.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/6160775.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/

 

The reason I find this funny is this is part of the conspiracy that denies logical thinking. Why leak details of something to the press, that they will report on anyway? IF the government where behind the attacks, why bother telling the BBC that building 7 had collapsed? They will find out about it through their own reporting. They would just be drawing attention to the building collapsing. Why not let it go unreported, that building 7 was brought down?

Basically - why does this need to be a part of the plan? It doesn't. Simple as that.

Theres no time on the report, suspicious in its own right considering BBC always have it. Theres no bar at the bottom which BBC new always has. It could easily have been editted. Theres plenty of reasonable explanations as to why this happened.

Or how about this one. On the day where the world was rocked by the biggest terrorist operation in recent history, in the confusion of the day in new york - it was misreported. No? Too far-fetched?

And on WTC7 being demolished, counterpunch and popular mechanics among others have already shown how it is scientifically viesable.

 

Ok gravity, please indulge us with this Scientifically viesable proof...

 

One of the gouges was more then 10 stories.

The south face was gashed all the way up the building. The southwest corner closer to the ground level was also gashed. There are reports from firefighters and videos and photos that show it. 'Truthers' will claim that the photos and video are all faked or will try to downplay the damage.



All of that dark smoke is coming from nearly every floor of 7WTC. The 'truthers' don't know what to do about this one. Some have claimed that federal agents disguised themselves as firemen and hooked up the sprinkler system to the diesel system.







.

 

It's funny that people like Pepik will ignore the countless numbers of people reporting bombs or explosions in the buildings, yet it's all right to use testimony alone to "prove" that WTC-7 had a "huge gouge" in it, and that is what caused it to collapse perfectly into a neat little pile. Even more perfect, they knew the building was going to collapse 25 minutes before it did.

I haven't seen any pictures of any gouge.

Of the pictures Shaggie provided, one is conveniently grainy to the point where nothing can really be made out in the picture. What he claims is a gouge could just as easily be a shadow. I can't tell because for whatever reason the picture is of poor quality. It reminds me a bit of the Pentagon video, in which they show us these pathetic little camera frames that shows NOTHING resembling a 757, and expect us to believe that's what it is.

The second picture Shaggie provided shows the south face of WTC-7, shrowded by smoke, which he claims is coming from WTC-7. It looks to me that smoke could be coming instead from the rubble of the towers. What's suspicious about that picture is that we see all this smoke, which according to Shaggie is coming from the south face of WTC-7. However, we see no smoke coming from any of the windows on the east/west side of the building (except for maybe one), even the windows closest to the south face, which would include some of the same offices on the south face which appear to be spewing smoke. How convenient is it that the smoke also perfectly obscures the entire south face of the building so none of the alleged "massive damage" can be seen. So why is there is no smoke to be seen coming out of the windows on the side of the building if the fires we bad enough to bring the entire 47-floor building down in 6.5 seconds? How come there is no smoke coming from Bankers Trust building, which was even closer to the towers?

 

I saw it. It was good piece of propaganda, but that's about it. Alex Jones had the producer of the show on his radio show, and he couldn't answer a single question given to him.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/200207producerstruggles.htm

 

http://www.counterpunch.org/darkfire11282006.html

Thats about building 7, they have a few good links in there too.

 

People said they heard explosions. That doesn't prove a CD, you would expect to hear things like that in a blazing inferno in a giant tower. Google 'sounded like a bomb going off' and you will get a lot of things that aren't bombs going off - one person described a large air conditioning unit crashing on the ground as 'sounding like a bomb'. Its called a simile. Nobody is claiming these witnesses are lying when then said they heard something that "sounded like a bomb going off".

Contrast this to to you, where numerous eyewitnesses all saying exactly the same thing - no similes - explicity saying that they saw a large hole and that they thought the building looked unstable - which you are claiming must be a a coordinated lie, every single quoted firefighter lying to cover up a conspiracy which killed hundreds of their friends not to mention thouands of other people.

This is why you are a conspiracy theorist Rat. Just a few posts ago you said that, and I proved conclusively that you were lying. You even admitted it - the perfect pile was so neat and little that it damaged buildings across the street in three different directions. Now that's already all forgotten and you can go back to repeating the lie. That's how conspiracy theorists work - prove them wrong and they just change the subject before going back to the same lie later, pretending nothing has changed.

They predicted it hours beforehand, as my quotes showed. But you aren't paying attention, that's not how conspiracy theorists debate. Think about it - two buildings which had been heavily damaged and were on fire had already collapsed, killing hundreds of firefighters. Another building is heavily damaged and on fire... hmmm ya think maybe the firefighters would be a bit worried?

I haven't seen any pictures of your brain. How do we know it exists?

Well Rat, they've solved the mini nukes, supernanothermate and remote controlled airplane problems, but they can't figure out how to fake a photo yet. Or so your logic implies.

Flowing upwards out of the rubble and into WTC 7 in perfect little lines, one for each floor? Are you this desperate?

A huge gouge in the south side, the fires started in the south side, the smoke comes out of the south side... hmmm what part confuses you?

If there is were 10 to 20 storey gouges in the front of building, spanning nearly a third of its width, why would the smoke go out the back door?

Because its coming out the huge gouge in the front. The buildind didn't burn down, it was damaged by the collapsing WTC and subsequent fires further weakened it to the point of collapse.

Again repeating the same false logic only a day after it was disproved. Why does being closer matter more than how directly it was hit? Who is saying that any building touched by the WTC must catch fire and fall down? Are all these building architecturally idential?

Yes, for example he called Dylan Avery a film school dropout when he was actually a film school reject. These and other things led Alex 'sucker born every minute' Jones to conclude that a documentary which made Alex Jones look like an idiot was no good.

 

Pepik, do me a favor and keep wasting your time with your long drawn out worthless posts, they humour me, and it's helping our side because you make yourself look ignorant.

 

Bankers Trust didn't have large diesel tanks and pressurized diesel lines like 7WTC did.

There are various pics and videos of the damage and smoke coming from 7WTC. All of that dark smoke across the photo is from 7WTC. The lighter smoke in the lower right is from the remains of the towers.



Video of smoke billowing from 7WTC:

http://s154.photobucket.com/albums/s274/34richard/7wtc%20wtc7%20video/?action=view&current=wtc7fire.flv

No, they're not faked. The firefighters were the first to know it was likely to collapse. They measured it with a transit and found the building to be shifting. They reported the gouges in the south face and noted that the building was making noises as it shifted. All of that agrees with the photos and videos.

The media reported that One Liberty had collapsed or was about to collapse, which turned out to be a rumor. The original report of the impact of the north tower by some of the TV news stations was that it was done by a small commuter plane.

The truther groups are upset about the 911 piece that the BBC recently did on its Conspiracy Files program. This latest hoopla from truthers is an effort to try to get even with the BBC because its program didn't come down on their side.

.

 

how the buildings got knocked down and how it was able to be done are two entirely seperate questions and i don't see obscuring that fact as anything other then confusing the issue. how they were knocked down, i don't see any problem with most of what we've been told. how it came about that these guys were able to rip off those planes and do what they did, that's what we're being flimflamed and kept in the dark about.

and like all the other 'palace intrigues' that have taken place in america in my lifetime, i have serious doubts we'll ever know the whole truth.

=^^=
.../\...

 

Very well said...

 

Thanks for the link - Yeah i know it [the programme] was a tad biased - Alex Jones is a tad biased. What are we to do !.

I liked the bit about the plane and the spread of the wreckage. I'd not thought of it like that before.

I't was a wasted opportunity and to put it in this type of genre TV was insulting imho.

 

Physics is not biased. That is about the only sure thing. Which is why some refuse to accept it when it contradicts what something may have "looked" or "sounded" like.

 

I guess the BBC and South Park are in on the conspiracy to discredit the "truth" movement.

 

Haha another typical ad hominem attack with no facts or intelligent thought involved pepik. South Park is a great show, but they made up their mind about 9/11 truth and don't believe it. They make fun of everything so I don't think they are part of any conspiracy. They have a right to their opinions, but atleast they can make a funny show about it and make fun with some substance, unlike you who can't even compose a legitimate thought and somehow allow it to travel outside of your mouth.

 

Maybe instead of being such a whiner you can try reponding to the things I said in post #108? You sure are hard to find when it comes time to debate things, instead you just show up to complain when I point out the south park creators think you guys are sad idiots.