Then what would you call the flashes of light which blew multiple holes in the building, as is clearly visible at 2:04 in the video?
duh,two of them had JUST collapsed....I don't think it was unreasonable of them to expect,given it's damage and the fires raging inside,that 7 would collapse
The difference between the ones which had collapsed already and WTC7 is obvious. Planes hit the other two. Besides, even if there were an event which they KNEW was going to happen, like the sun coming up, are they going to report that the sun has already risen when it is clearly still nighttime? Now that's journalistic excellence right there.
If you can't see the flashes and the holes in the side of the building, then you must be blind. You remind me of Winston Smith at the end, when he literally saw what he was told to see. I would suggest that we wait for someone else to watch this video and see if s/he sees the explosions. But if they did, and commented on it, no doubt you would be unable to see their post.
Are you serious?.....how many times do news reports get the story wrong? 2 110 story skyscrapers were GONE,and in the chaos that came after with rescue efforts and such,they got a story wrong Even though it was expected to happen
blurry out of focus shots of wtc 7 showed NO explosions,or holes blown in the side of the building.......get an eye exam and stop reading 1984
Truthers refuse to listen to reason because fantasy makes for better woo. At around 3pm that day FDNY fire chief Daniel Nigro got reports from fire fighters and police officers that WTC7 was leaning and making creaking noises. This was on top of earlier reports which told him the building had multiple floors of uncontrolled fires, which were not being fought because the collapse of the towers severed the water mains. This also meant the water sprinklers on the bottom floors were not operating. With this in mind, Daniel Nigro made the decision at around 3pm to withdraw all rescue efforts from the WTC site and create a perimeter sufficient to minimize any casualties if the building was to collapse. At around 4pm that afternoon CNN began reporting that the FDNY had concerns about WTC7. At around 5pm the BBC picked up a report from Reuters which falsely stated that the building had already collapsed. Obviously Reuters had made a mistake, and mixed up "in danger of collapsed" with that the building had actually collapsed. http://youtu.be/vZbMfTtHkYM?t=43m No real mystery here. Furthermore, if we were to take the claim seriously, the theorists would be suggesting that for some completely unknown reason, the conspirators decided to either involved the BBC (historically the most hostile media corporation towards the US) in the events that day, or just decided to tip them off about it afterwards, and for some reason they've decided to continue with the cover up... either way you look at it, ridiculous:
Just because a conspiracy theorist says that that news story happened before the collapse of the building doesn't make it so. You obviously have a much lower standard of 'proof' than the rest of us.
Boy, you really don't pay attention, do you? I cited the BBC itself. And they admit that such is indeed the case.
Woo? Really? I swear, you troughers always use the same vernacular, like parrots. Who said the BBC was involved in the conspiracy? Not me. Right off the bat, I said their info was secondhand. As you pointed out, they just picked the story up from Reuters. - - - Updated - - - Did I say that? No, I didn't. Get that straw man out of here.
Well, put your shoes back on. Oh, wait, are you trying to say that I am someone else, despite being here for years and having thousands of posts? Well, I guess you better report me to the mods then. Just out of curiosity, who is it that you think my "main" is?
Yes and I also explained to you how, why and under circumstances Reuters made that mistake. The building was in danger of collapse, and had been for 2 hours before BBC made its broadcast. You have the explanation, I linked you the facts, but you chose woo because it makes you feel better. Not my problem your thinking is corrupt.
Very cool story indeed. And then they were so certain that this unheard of thing that had never happened before, in the history of the word, was going to happen very soon, after the BBC fail, MSNBC went ahead and sent a film crew to the scene with Ashleigh Banfield reporting to document what they were expecting to happen and Brian Williams had a ready explanation of how and why it all happened that way. And what is really really special about it is MSNBC's sound technician muffled the explosions in the video in order to fit the official NIST story that there were no explosions before the collapse. Nifty eh? MOD EDIT>>>SPAMMING <<< Very cool story indeed. Seems scripted to me. Too bad it was live in New York and not a Hollywood movie.
This is especially true since thermite cannot do what has been claimed, and no traces of thermite was found anywhere in the wreckage.
Harrit and Jones would take issue with that, but then, they can't seem to tell the difference between paint and thermite.
You might notice that the cops had already widened to evacuation zone and told people that the building was in collapse.
Oh I noticed that. They were in fear of a collapse of a building collapsing from "fires" which had never happened before in the history of the world and has not happened since. Why were they in such fear? It is irrational to be in fear of something that has never before existed. So that begs the question. If they were in fear of an event that had never before happened in the history of the world, then what did they know and when did they know it? Why did they report an event that had never happened before in the history of the world 20 minutes before it supposedly happened, and why did they send a team of photographers with a reporter to the scene of such an unlikely event to record it, and why did their sound technician disguise the obvious explosion sounds? I realize that all that fits with the official story told but I don't buy it. From my seat 9/11 appears planned like a scripted Hollywood movie while unfortunately it was live from New York. Listen for the explosions for yourself. They are distinct, witnessed, and testified and obvious to the casual observer in this video. MOD EDIT>>>SPAMMING <<<
Other than the fact that the building was already showing clear signs of imminent collapse you mean? In the order asked: 1. They garbled the report of the building's obvious impending collapse. Such occurrences are so common in real time news reporting that it would have actually been shocking (and evidence of conspiracy) only if no such mistakes occurred at all. 2. Because it would be dramatic and make for great news reporting. 3. Assumes facts not in evidence. Next? That's why we use dramatic historic events as the bases for motion pictures. True stories are always that much more gripping than fiction. Your magic ability to tell the difference between explosions and the catastrophic failure of structural elements is a great gift... essentially a super power. Perhaps you should make yourself a spandex suit and cape. The necessary explosion (were it a demolition) is not recorded anywhere on the audio of the video of the collapse, or the audio of people very close to WTC7, or even from a significant number of the thousands of people there. What people reported hearing never comes close to what they actually would have heard in the case of a planned demolition, and instead are obviously things falling or just things blowing up in the fires. In addition, the explosions reported were heard throughout the day. This is rather hard to reconcile with any notion of "sudden onset", or "a precisely-time, patterned removal of critical steel columns".
This is hillarious, tell me when in the history of the world, had two 757 jets full of fuel slammed into large buildings? TELL ME.. Ahh, i know, NEVER.. THIS HAD NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE. Explain to me how anyone knew for sure that buildings couldn't collapse after such an event? Here you are calling it just 'a fire' and claiming that everyday citizens and cops knew the exact physics involved and that a collapse was impossible? Not even experts and scientists knew what two 757s full of fuel slamming into buildings could do yet everybody present there who were in disarray, clueless knew all the answers? So basically people weary of a collapse on that day were in a conspiracy because they knew FOR SURE that two 757s couldn't bring a building down.. sure, we had A LOT of evidence on what two 757s full of jet fuel could do as it had happened so many times before. If you would've been there, you would've been the biggest coward and RUNNING away from the buildings..
Except an airplane didn't hit WTC building 7 and buildings are designed specifically to stand while burning so that firefighters have opportunity to rescue people inside burning buildings. Building 7 is clearly a classic controlled demolition. That is what building experts have proven.
