Bombshell: Silverstein Wanted To Demolish Building 7 On 9/11

[Jeff]

I have yet to see or read a credible explanation for this back-to-the-future broadcast.

I haven't seen one either. Does anyone have one? Or can anyone provide a link to a credible explanation for this?

I'm not saying this is the final word, only that it was mine:

I'm not on board with demolitions and Pentagon missiles, partly because I find the physical evidence unpersuasive. Though "physical" is a misnomer, since it's almost entirely based upon selective video clips and cherry-picked testimony. (For instance, that the first thoughts of a witness in a tower's sub-basement was not unreasonably of bombs somehow becomes "proof of pre-planted explosives.") But also, and more deeply, because I'm suspicious of how these narratives have acted like cancer cells to effectively ingest, mutate and bury the chance for a credible and effective 9/11 Movement. The most recent example may be the flap over BBC "foreknowledge" of building 7's collapse, which has wound up a lot of people for, I think, some pretty poor reasons.

To many, it's an unchallenged assumption that no one expected WTC 7, and so Aaron Brown's report that "we're getting information that one of the other buildings... Building 7... is on fire and has either collapsed or is collapsing" is received as confirmation that someone pre-released the "script," rather than as evidence that its fall may be yet unexplained but was not a surprise. That is why so many cameras were fixed on it to capture its fall, and yes, that is why the fire team was "pulled." The day was full of confused, false and conflicting news, and that's the nature of reporting an unprecedented catastrophic event in real time. Yet the medium is not the message here.

[JackRiddler]

apologydue is displaying vigilant's familiar pretend-naivete and pretend-woundedness, too.

From the beginning the 9/11 truth movement was torn apart by the device of false accusations leveled at every single researcher or activist by others who purported to be activists themselves. Some of these accusations were even more ridiculous than the ones apologydue insinuated of me. After my own experiences with this form of harrassment, and after seeing so many others have to deal with it, I'm not inclined to take such accusations from a stranger (who is obviously a former RI member in a new guise) in a humorous vein. And the claim it was meant humorously was asserted after the fact. So sanction me for rules breaking, I don't care: the troll is obvious and can fuck off. apologydue should definitely stay away from me.

[Simulist]

I have yet to see or read a credible explanation for this back-to-the-future broadcast.

I haven't seen one either. Does anyone have one? Or can anyone provide a link to a credible explanation for this?

I'm not saying this is the final word, only that it was mine:

I'm not on board with demolitions and Pentagon missiles, partly because I find the physical evidence unpersuasive. Though "physical" is a misnomer, since it's almost entirely based upon selective video clips and cherry-picked testimony. (For instance, that the first thoughts of a witness in a tower's sub-basement was not unreasonably of bombs somehow becomes "proof of pre-planted explosives.") But also, and more deeply, because I'm suspicious of how these narratives have acted like cancer cells to effectively ingest, mutate and bury the chance for a credible and effective 9/11 Movement. The most recent example may be the flap over BBC "foreknowledge" of building 7's collapse, which has wound up a lot of people for, I think, some pretty poor reasons.

To many, it's an unchallenged assumption that no one expected WTC 7, and so Aaron Brown's report that "we're getting information that one of the other buildings... Building 7... is on fire and has either collapsed or is collapsing" is received as confirmation that someone pre-released the "script," rather than as evidence that its fall may be yet unexplained but was not a surprise. That is why so many cameras were fixed on it to capture its fall, and yes, that is why the fire team was "pulled." The day was full of confused, false and conflicting news, and that's the nature of reporting an unprecedented catastrophic event in real time. Yet the medium is not the message here.

I think that's helpful somewhat. I agree that there has been a lot of sloppy thinking on this topic all around and, over the years, I've contributed to some of it as I've too-quickly become enamored by "this theory" or "that one" in an effort to explain a larger deception that I remain certain was being carried out.

So, do you suppose that the fall of Building 7 was not only "not a surprise" to the BBC, but that the BBC newsroom had so expected it (for reasons that have not yet been fully explained) that the teleprompter had been prepared sometime that afternoon in preparation for this nearly-inevitable event? Something like the obituaries that are written sometime prior to the deaths of famous people?

Or something like that?

[Jeff]

So, do you suppose that the fall of Building 7 was not only "not a surprise" to the BBC, but that the BBC newsroom had so expected it that a script for it had been prepared sometime that afternoon in preparation for this nearly-inevitable event? Something like the obituaries that are written prior to the deaths of famous people?

Or something like that?

"Details are very, very sketchy," says the reporter at the top of her story. Not just sketchy, or even very sketchy. About three hours before this, the NYFD noticed the building bulging at the southwest corner, and had been telling news organizations to expect its imminent collapse.

Less than an hour before the BBC report, Aaron Brown says it's "either collapsed or is collapsing":



I expect the BBC simply picked up the CNN story and did what journalists do on the fly. Something like this.

[DoYouEverWonder]

I'd be interested in what Mac has to say, too. In fact, I'd be very interested in all knowledgeable sides of this because, more than perhaps anything else, the BBC's pre-cognitive reportage here seems extremely suspicious.

Aaron Brown on CNN, also reported that WTC 7 collapsed before it actually did.

Since there's never been a real investigation, the M$M, nor anyone else for that matter, don't have to account for their actions that day.

[Simulist]

So, do you suppose that the fall of Building 7 was not only "not a surprise" to the BBC, but that the BBC newsroom had so expected it that a script for it had been prepared sometime that afternoon in preparation for this nearly-inevitable event? Something like the obituaries that are written prior to the deaths of famous people?

Or something like that?

"Details are very, very sketchy," says the reporter at the top of her story. Not just sketchy, or even very sketchy. About three hours before this, the NYFD noticed the building bulging at the southwest corner, and had been telling news organizations to expect its imminent collapse.

Less than an hour before the BBC report, Aaron Brown says it's "either collapsed or is collapsing":



I expect the BBC simply picked up the CNN story and did what journalists do on the fly. Something like this.

That's worth thinking about.

I used to be pretty supportive of the CD theory — especially as regards Building 7 — but I no longer consider the given evidence to be entirely sufficient, and not necessary for the larger charges of 9/11 complicity by elements of the Bush Administration (and U.S. intelligence) to remain real.

Or, to quote Isaac Newton, "Normally, we are to admit no more causes of things than those that are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances."

[Wombaticus Rex]

Speaking as a self-appointed moderator who made the mistake of reading this entire thread today, I see 0% malfeasance on the part of JackRiddler. He made a reasonable call, albeit through strong ad hominem language, and subsequent events have lent more weight to his call. Considered in tandem with his extensive contributions here on multiple topics, I see no reason to sanction anything here and vote against further administrative action.

[thatsmystory]

According to the NIST Investigation, WTC 7 was structurally sound and collapsed solely due to fire.

The reason FDNY decided that WTC 7 was going to collapse was not based on anyone's evaluation of the soundness of the structure. It was based on the fact that two other steel skyscrapers just feel down for no apparent reason. Now they've got a third building that is on fire and the south side was damaged by the collapse of WTC 1. Unfortunately, they couldn't get water to this area, so they were not willing to risk any more lives until they could get the situation under control. Once they decided not to commit resources to fighting the fire, the area around the building was very dangerous because of all the glass that keep coming down from the fires that flared up.

Of course, with everyone in a state of shock all kinds of rumors were flying around. So clearing an area just in case another building collapses, becomes everyone knew the building was going to collapse. There were 3 or 4 other buildings they thought were going to collapse too, but they didn't.

Was a toppling type collapse one of the concerns? I'm not sure how anyone could have been sure that the building would have collapsed in the manner that it did (i.e. pretty close to a symmetrical collapse). One reason I question the BBC's report is because they described a collapse. As if the choices were limited to a standing building and a completely collapsed building.

[apologydue]

jackriddler
Quote:
Same polls show at most 15 or 16 percent believe in CD of towers. The way you talk, the other 85 percent work for Wackenhut and spend their lives waiting for you to post, so that they can dismiss the hyper-importance of CD. That's what you've now insinuated for nathan and for me. (We're actually the same guy here at the New Building 7. Larry's next door. Happy?)

If I had it to do over again I would not have been so flippant in my response to this. Obviously you were not amused when you wrote it but I didn't sense that at the time. Had I realized that my flippant response would have been taken so seriously I would not have written it. I never would have made a joke out of it. My response was intended to be a good natured joke. I apologize for offending you. Your beef with "vigilant" has nothing to do with me, and i'm sorry that you think it does. Obviously I have touched a nerve of some sort. I wrote something in jeff's defense after he was attacked by isacar and it was used by isacar as weapon. After reading the thread again today I suppose it was a mistake to have written that too. I didn't actually state that it was my intent to defend jeff but I thought the intent would be obvious. Maybe it wasn't. I don't know.


I do know that i'm done with this thread. It turned out to be a an experience I did not enjoy. I didn't come here to make enemies and fight. For whom I may have offended I regret it.

[23]

A couple of hours after the infamous BBC broadcast, the BBC asked Google and YouTube to pull that video from their archives. Which they did.

An out-of-the-ordinary response to a simple reporting error, for sure.

[Simulist]

That's very interesting too, 23. If you have a link confirming that suspicious detail, would you mind providing it please?

[barracuda]

A couple of hours after the infamous BBC broadcast, the BBC asked Google and YouTube to pull that video from their archives. Which they did.

I'd be interested in a link for that as well, considering that YouTube was started in 2005.

[17breezes]

A couple of hours after the infamous BBC broadcast, the BBC asked Google and YouTube to pull that video from their archives. Which they did.

I'd be interested in a link for that as well, considering that YouTube was started in 2005.

[23]

Scratch YouTube. Keep Google Video in place.

*joins the party*

[barracuda]

Try again. Google Videos was launched on January 25 of 2005.

This might be a good time to remind you that you're sitting in front of a fairly powerful reference tool, if handled judiciously. Or maybe to ask you what street corner you were standing on when you originally heard that rumor.