| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
| Bbc - Wtc7; Coming Soon | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 19 2008, 07:56 PM (4,666 Views) | |
| Headspin | Jul 8 2008, 08:33 PM Post #151 |
|
28:28 bbc interviewer "is it actually possible to have done a controlled demolition of a building like building 7 and it to have been occupied and noone to have seen anything" Loizeaux - "in a screenplay, in a movie, something with bruce willis in it". ![]() ...oi Loizeaux - put out an APB for a Mr Bruce Willis thought to be in the hollywood area. Edited by Headspin, Jul 8 2008, 08:34 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| dylan avery | Jul 8 2008, 08:35 PM Post #152 |
![]()
|
Richard Clarke makes me upset. What can I say? I let my emotions get the best of me. Edited by dylan avery, Jul 8 2008, 08:38 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Headspin | Jul 8 2008, 08:57 PM Post #153 |
|
how to detect a lie "Let's say your child ask's you for a cookie, and you ask them "well, what did your mother say?" As they reply "Mom said... yes." they look to the left. This would indicate a made up answer as their eyes are showing a "constructed image or sound. Looking to the right would indicated a "remembered" voice or image, and thus would be telling the truth." http://www.blifaloo.com/info/lies_eyes.php 37:20 http://www.911blogger.com/node/16541 |
![]() |
|
| Headspin | Jul 8 2008, 08:59 PM Post #154 |
|
did you sign anything before they filmed you, just wondering if you had any control over the footage? I was on the bbc some years ago and I signed something giving them permission to use the footage (i think). |
![]() |
|
| Headspin | Jul 8 2008, 09:51 PM Post #155 |
|
48:35 Professor Richard Sisson: "it was attacked by a LIQUID slag, we identified it as a LIQUID containing IRON, sulphur and oyxgen. You can see what it does is it attacks the grain boundary and this bit would fallen out and it continues the attack." "Liquid iron, sulphur and oxygen" - in other words thermate reactants. bbc narrater - "professor Sisson says it didn't melt, it eroded" WO!! why doesn't professor Sisson say "it didn't melt", the bbc narrater is the one announcing that "it didn't melt", lets have the damned scientist saying it!, I smell a rat. Another thing - if the steel did not melt, then where did the LIQUID iron mixture come from? if there was no melting there would be no LIQUID is he saying something else other than the steel (like thermate) produced the MOLTEN IRON LIQUID. bbc narrater - "the cause was the very hot fires in the debris after 911 which cooked the steel over weeks, the sulphur came from masses of gypsum wallboard that was pulverised and burnt in the fire" this is all speculation, did greenings gypsum speculation get a peer review? why doesn't FEMA, or NIST do a SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENT showing this speculation is possible, that is what scientists do, they do not finish their work with speculation, they finish with a repeatable experiment. Professor Sission "I don't find it surprising at all that if i have steel in this high temperature atmosphere that's rich in oxygen and sulphur this would be the kind of result i would expect" so do an experiment then, and show us than wallboard can dissolve structural steel I-beams. "rich in oxygen and sulphur" - sounds again like themate. |
![]() |
|
| Headspin | Jul 8 2008, 10:29 PM Post #156 |
|
54:26 Roberts "the entire game is PICKING little anoMOLES OUT, some of them are BIG anoMOLES but not connecting them in any coherent way, and there is no coherent hypothesis and we keep asking for one, how does this fit into a larger theory I really do not get this. not being able to give a full hive-minded account without access to the full body of evidence someone how demonstrates.....er, what does it demonstrate? that humans are not omniscient? that cointelpro people will say the opposite to reasonable people, is this the BEST response roberts has to offer? have i missed something, anybody? |
![]() |
|
| Nevermind | Jul 8 2008, 10:35 PM Post #157 |
|
Oh, you didn't know?
|
The same could be said for the 9/11 Commission. When you study all the different accounts from policemen, firemen, medics, White House officials, the military, eyewitnesses, victims, and then read the Commish, their one volume hypothesis is anything BUT coherent. We, the movement and the 9/11 familes, keep asking for the answers to some 70% unanswered questions it left us to ponder on our own but can never seem to get ONE answered, let alone all of them. |
![]() |
|
| Stundie | Jul 8 2008, 11:06 PM Post #158 |
|
This is why Gravy bailed out from debunking....because that is really the best he has to offer. If you honestly thought he had anything better than that Headspin, you obviously did miss something....a good laugh....at his expense! |
![]() |
|
| Sureshot | Jul 8 2008, 11:20 PM Post #159 |
![]()
Your glorious Loose Change Forum dictator...
|
Well damn theres no other way to explain it, I mean was that interviewer serious bout that question? |
![]() |
|
| Headspin | Jul 9 2008, 07:28 AM Post #160 |
|
I'd heard it was for a different reason. well i still can't believe he said PICKING OUT BIG MOLES on tv, and the king of abuse Wiek didn't even raise a smile. |
![]() |
|
| howie | Jul 9 2008, 08:15 AM Post #161 |
|
BBC Blog WTC7
17:15 New York time, 22:15 in London, so the BBC set their satellite feeds to switch off in the middle of the Ten O'Clock News?
|
![]() |
|
| Headspin | Jul 9 2008, 08:25 AM Post #162 |
|
this is an excellent article BBC Piece Post-Mortem: Mark Loizeaux and the Special Engineer http://www.911blogger.com/node/16565 |
![]() |
|
| Miragememories | Jul 9 2008, 08:40 AM Post #163 |
|
The biggest score they achieved with that pseudo documentary was how they destroyed Barry Jenning's original testimony. As I said in this thread, post #19; http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/374449/1/
Either Barry recanted on the important parts of his story, or the producers intentionally ignored his original statement. The producers even had the audacity to use Jennings in a 'dramatic' reenactment with his original timeline adjusted forward to make it appear that he was racing down the stairs after being alerted on the phone that it was urgent he leave immediately. What they didn't tell Jennings, or he willingly agreed to accept, was that in the new 'Official Story' corrected BBC version, he now arrives at the floor 6 stairwell just as it was supposedly struck by heavy steel debris from the most distant of the WTC Towers, the collapsing WTC 2. As you can see in the NIST illustration, the stairwells in WTC 7 were well isolated from the areas known to have sustained impacts. ![]() The BBC wants us to accept their theory that WTC 7 supposedly suffered an explosive impact of WTC 2 debris that dug deep into it's bowels and destroyed a section of the 6th floor stairwell. By not explaining this serious contradiction with the original public story told by Barry Jennings, the BBC leave themselves open to accusations of outright 'lying' in order to keep their version of the truth in agreement with the Official Story. I've heard that the BBC was once a trusted name amongst those who took pride in true investigative journalism? From the beginning of the doc and throughout, Jennings was given prominent attention. Clearly, the producers knew they had to completely undermine Barry's original testimony. Continuing with their use of 'dramatization' to control their scripted reality, they placed Jennings on a specially prepared *old wooden staircase stage set while recording him reading a teleprompter script to create an audience familiarity that they would continue reinforce throughout the production. This reinforcement, aided the producer's goal of a "really hot show" with a surprise climax where one of the 9/11 Truth Movement's supposed star witnesses crosses over and agrees with the Official Story. *It would be useful to know how the remote location of the steel and concrete stairwell was supposedly demolished by WTC 2 (the farthest away of the Twin Towers). There has been no photographic evidence that shows significant fallen debris damage in that location which might have accomplished what Barry claimed occurred as a result of an explosion that he was witness to. ![]() As can be seen in the above NIST illustration, the stairwells were well away from where collapse debris from WTC 2 would have struck. One can only assume that Barry lost his nerve and wanted to escape his notoriety by cooperating with the producers any way he could. If Barry Jennings signed a release for his original LC interview, and, if his unpublicized testimony clearly contradicts the documentary's timeline for his movements on 9/11, then YES, it should be released immediately! It's very regrettable that the issue of dead bodies in the WTC 7 lounge was introduced. Any value was primarily sensationalist because this 'would be' huge piece of information is so far not supported by anyone else's testimony. As it stands, it's use risks reducing Barry Jenning's credibility. Unless you have Barry Jennings providing details of his movements that leave no doubt that after he returned to the 8th floor, knocked out a window with a fire extinguisher (for breathable air I assume?) and stating he saw both WTC towers still standing, his LC interview is effectively worthless. This thoroughly documented fact still remains. Barry Jennings and Mr. Hess were rescued and escorted out of WTC 7 at approximately 12:15 p.m. It is illogical to assume that they would not have continued their original exit if the 6th floor stairwell had been passable. MM Edited by Miragememories, Jul 9 2008, 05:54 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Stundie | Jul 9 2008, 08:47 AM Post #164 |
|
What is not mentioned..... Is that later on in the day, after the WTC7 has actually collapsed, the satellite feed is connected again. Phil is in the studio talking to Jayne in New York. As soon as he mentions WTC 7 again.....The feed gets cut a 2nd time. No doubt another timer issue.....again!! lol I tried looking for a clip of it, but I can't seem to find it...Can anyone find it? |
![]() |
|
| Stundie | Jul 9 2008, 08:53 AM Post #165 |
|
Without drifting off topic to much......would you care to enlighten us? As for the MOLE comment, even I didn't pick up on that....lol However, I never noticed ithe mole until recently when I saw the debate with Richard Gage on Hardfire. The scruffy, bearded, bum look and style he adopted for Hardfire really accentuated it....lol |
![]() |
|
| look-up | Jul 9 2008, 10:26 AM Post #166 |
|
it is not necessary to discover a motive before discovering if a thing actually happened... discovering the motive comes second. and a lack of a motive that everyone will easily believe, is not reason to backtrack and say that the intentional demolition of building 7 never happened. This thread is about whether the collapse was intentional or not, and the way that BBC presented the info pro and con. It is not about motive for why they would do it. And like I said, because you don't buy into a particular motive, really means nothing to researchers who are looking at the physics of whether it DID HAPPEN, regardless of how believable it is to the general know it all like yourself, who actually hasn't researched hardly ANYTHING. |
![]() |
|
| JFK | Jul 9 2008, 10:34 AM Post #167 |
![]()
|
http://www.archive.org/details/bbc200109111654-1736 That is BBC coverage from 4:54 pm - 5:36 pm on 911. Edit to add - at 3:28 into that is the first mention of the collapse which has not happened yet. Edited by JFK, Jul 9 2008, 10:37 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| look-up | Jul 9 2008, 10:39 AM Post #168 |
|
exactly. the pseudo-logicians they use to twist and confuse logic for the readers/viewers alwasy do this. They say the steel didn't melt, but there is molten metal slag containing some steel, thus some steel did melt somehow, and since they already admitted that the beams in the impact areas probably did not melt or even come close, that thermite was almost certainly used, and that's without looking at the compounds discovered from samples which give even more reason to conclude some variant of thermite was used. That's why I love logic. All you have to do is fully embrace it and naturally you will always be right, because nature itself is based on logic.
|
![]() |
|
| Stundie | Jul 10 2008, 07:37 AM Post #169 |
|
Thanks for that Headspin. I wonder what there excuse is for the 2nd cut...when Phil brings up WTC7 with Jayne?? I have tried asking over at the editors blog, but none of my comments appear. Edited by Stundie, Jul 10 2008, 07:37 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Comeoutofthecupboards | Jul 10 2008, 07:57 AM Post #170 |
|
I've been watching the BBC programme and cutting back to the Barry Jennings interview on 911 blogger. This question is so obvious that I should spend more time searching for existing responses but (From the BBC - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/7437516.stm) 11 September 0646 The fire alarm system for World Trade Centre 7 is "placed on test" because of "routine maintenance". Nist notes that: "Under test conditions (1) the system is typically disabled for the entire building, not just for the area where work is being performed, and (2) alarm signals typically do not show up on an operator console." (Final Report on the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers) What does test actually mean? Were they planning on conducting fire drills that day? Would it be against any NYC fire regulations to leave a building of that size without adequate protection by carrying out 'routine maintenance' whilst employees were present? If test means to disable the system in order to carry out maintenance, surely anything that leaves the occupants of the building at risk would be better done at the weekend or in the evening. Edited by Comeoutofthecupboards, Jul 10 2008, 09:34 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Stundie | Jul 10 2008, 08:09 AM Post #171 |
|
Another question should be asked is why was Jennings and Hess were sent up to the OEM, when it appears it was already evacuated.... They couldn't get in via the elevators, so they were sent up via the freight elevator, that would mean the evacuation of the OEM must have already have happened before they arrived at WTC7. This happened after the 1st WTC was hit....and before the 2nd. So why was the WTC 7 evacuated between these times?? |
![]() |
|
| Comeoutofthecupboards | Jul 10 2008, 08:28 AM Post #172 |
|
I was thinking the same thing. I was surprised to hear that fire and police officers would let people back into a building which had been evacuated but if Barry Jennings had been told to man the OEM, I can see why they would let him up. According to Barry Jennings, Michael Hess was in the building to meet with Mayor Giuliani, he would have absolutely no reason to go upstairs unless he wanted to, why anyone would want to enter an evacuated building, I don't know. |
![]() |
|
| Flippy | Jul 10 2008, 12:15 PM Post #173 |
|
I can't believe nobody has picked up on the fact that in the BBC interview he states he was alone. In Dylans interview he states he was with his boss. Was his name Mark Price or something like that? Jennings has been exposed to be a liar. EDIT: Bosses Name is ^^ up there. Michael Hess Edited by Flippy, Jul 10 2008, 12:16 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| AnimalResource | Jul 10 2008, 01:01 PM Post #174 |
|
^ I was thinking about that aswell but I didn't wanna make a post becuase I figured I probably don't know what I'm talking about. |
![]() |
|
| look-up | Jul 10 2008, 01:10 PM Post #175 |
|
the most obvious answer, although not necessarily supported by anything but the circumstances we are already familiar with, would be that they disabled the fire alarms (which could also include the sprinklers) so that the fires could remain for hours, giving a plausible theory for how it could just suddenly collapse without a plane hitting. I seriously wonder if the fires were started intentionally as well. Having the alarms turned off certianly lends some credence to that idea. Has anyone ever published any analysis of how the fires might have been started? And don't give me the "diesel tanks" explanation, because those things were not on all of the affected floors. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The Lounge · Next Topic » |












9:23 AM Jul 11