Difference between revisions of "9-11/WTC7/Destruction"
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
'''Compared to the WTC Twin Towers, few people have seen video footage of the collapse of the 47-story WTC building seven;''' but the event '''was''' recorded from several different angles by the major US news networks. As evidenced by masses of video <ref>[http://www.911truth.dk/first/en/keypoints.htm Watch the building collapse]</ref> the collapse is clearly a controlled demolition, and an extremely professional one at that. Nothing else can explain the perfectly symmetrical collapse, at free-fall speed, into its own footprint. | '''Compared to the WTC Twin Towers, few people have seen video footage of the collapse of the 47-story WTC building seven;''' but the event '''was''' recorded from several different angles by the major US news networks. As evidenced by masses of video <ref>[http://www.911truth.dk/first/en/keypoints.htm Watch the building collapse]</ref> the collapse is clearly a controlled demolition, and an extremely professional one at that. Nothing else can explain the perfectly symmetrical collapse, at free-fall speed, into its own footprint. | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[File:Bbcwtc7.jpg|thumb|BBC's Jane Standley - Live Broadcast]] | ||
Why was it demolished and how was it accomplished? Why do the FEMA and NIST reports try to explain the collapse based purely on impact damage from tower debris and randomly distributed fires? These effects would have weakened the supporting columns asymmetrically and, assuming sufficient damage - a BIG assumption, would have caused substantial tipping had they alone produced the collapse. | Why was it demolished and how was it accomplished? Why do the FEMA and NIST reports try to explain the collapse based purely on impact damage from tower debris and randomly distributed fires? These effects would have weakened the supporting columns asymmetrically and, assuming sufficient damage - a BIG assumption, would have caused substantial tipping had they alone produced the collapse. | ||
Revision as of 18:16, 9 June 2010
Compared to the WTC Twin Towers, few people have seen video footage of the collapse of the 47-story WTC building seven; but the event was recorded from several different angles by the major US news networks. As evidenced by masses of video [1] the collapse is clearly a controlled demolition, and an extremely professional one at that. Nothing else can explain the perfectly symmetrical collapse, at free-fall speed, into its own footprint.
Why was it demolished and how was it accomplished? Why do the FEMA and NIST reports try to explain the collapse based purely on impact damage from tower debris and randomly distributed fires? These effects would have weakened the supporting columns asymmetrically and, assuming sufficient damage - a BIG assumption, would have caused substantial tipping had they alone produced the collapse.
Contents
Reports of the collapse
At 4:57 EST, BBC NYC correspondent Jane Standley, in conversation with Philip Hayton the BBC London Presenter, reported live on the air, that the building had collapsed. The 'collapse' was headlined in the 5:00pm new roundups of both the BBC and US TV channels. The video of her report has her framed against a large window with a view of the smoking WTC site in the background and building 7 (which she was reporting no longer existed) clearly and prominently visible in the background. [2] The live video feed was severed at 5:15pm whilst Philip Hayton was still talking to her and the building collapsed shortly thereafter at 5:21pm
BBC Editor's response the Jane Standley report and video
In February 2007, In response to considerable external pressure over the report and video Richard Porter, one of the BBC's senior editors, posted two separate Blog articles endeavoring to explain how it was that the BBC had reported the collapse of one of the tallest buildings in New York fully half an hour before it did eventually collapse. The posts followed the broadcast of the 9/11 episode of their feature series 'The Conspiracy Files'. They adopt a similarly patronising tone complete with de-rigeur use of the pejorative 'Conspiracy theory' and its derivatives. At the time of writing (June 2010) these blog posts are still on the BBC web site. [3] and [4] . They have also been archived on WikiSpooks.
