[–] bdmthrfkr [S] 0 points 42 points (+42|-0) ago 

[–] InyourfaceNancyGrace 5 points 32 points (+37|-5) ago 

Just devil's advocate here: It's possible (probably, even) that the woman was broadcasting in front of a green screen with video playback behind her (and not actually live on the scene). So it's possible that WTC 7 had collapsed, but the video played behind her as she was reporting was delayed.

However, given that the collapse looked exactly like a controlled demolition/implosion, there's no fucking way that was a chance collapse. I remember thinking how amazingly controlled the whole thing looked, all three towers, how they collapsed so absolutely cleanly... I legitimately thought at the time that they brought them down intentionally to avoid having them collapse in an uncontrolled manner (like falling over and crushing city blocks next to them). The official story has never sat well with me.

[–] Vvswiftvv17 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

This. Some of you guys were probably too young to remember. It was pretty common to have "play back" over and over and over and over that day. The event was traumatic, but watching the news dwell on it for 4 days straight UNINTERRUPTED was even more damaging. No commercial breaks, no old reruns, certainly no prime time TV, just every station replaying footage from different angles. I was 20 at the time so I remember it very vividly. I'm still trying to wrap my mind around it being almost 20 years ago. Its messing with my mind.

[–] Mikel777 3 points 3 points (+6|-3) ago 

Read my post of this same thread. Flight 93 was supposed to hit WTC7 but it did not because it got shot down over PA. So they blew the building to kill all the evidence of placed demo charges.

[–] archvile7 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago  (edited ago)

An easy way to prove/disprove would be to find the exact time of that broadcast vs. when Building 7 actually fell.

Seeing as everything I’ve seen about this “mishap” says 27 minutes, I’m betting many people have already looked into this.

Edit, never mind, I misread your post. I’m a dumb

[–] Doglegwarrior 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

So in your mind maybe the fire fighters and some bomb experts where somehow planting bombs after the planes hit and they pulled them to avoid worse out comes? Im just trying to mentaly wrap my head around what you are saying.

[–] Durm 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

Were they just showing an old feed, or was the broadcast time really early?

[–] bdmthrfkr [S] 4 points 29 points (+33|-4) ago 

I am spamming this all over the place to piss off the JIDF, I put this in my tiny sub v/presstitues and had 2 DVs within 5 minutes. When you are over the target you start taking flack and those kikes don't want this post to exist (this actually happened btw).

[–] Hand_of_Node 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

When you are over the target you start taking flack

That was true, but you also take flack when you're a mundanematt on youtube, or offend a third world village so intensely that you're featured in a "mob burns criminal in the street" video.

As far as the building goes, I don't know. I remember hearing the guy say something about "pulling it", or "we need to pull it". Both (or all) sides of the debate have been such a dumpster fire that I haven't bothered rooting around in there for an old half-eaten cheeseburger that someone might have missed. The video looks weird, but I've seen a lot of weird videos that appear to defy explanation.

[–] Captain_Faggot 2 points 16 points (+18|-2) ago 

I remember that.

I also remember seeing small explosions going off in a circle around the building right before it conveniently fell straight through itself.

I also remember hearing 'planes' when only one tower was hit.

[–] mostlyfriendly 2 points 14 points (+16|-2) ago 

IMHO, this is less proof than some of the other issues.

CNN / BBC / etc are all terrible and lazy people. (I won't even call them 'journalists' ... because they aren't that.) They do lots of things in front a green screens to pretend they are 'on the scene'.

They were just using hour old footage in front of a green screen to pretend they had a reporter 'on the ground' during the attack. No different than when CNN pretended that they were in Baghdad for the Gulf War air strikes. And unfortunately for them ... they didn't know enough about the buildings they were reporting on to catch the error.

This doesn't prove / disprove the 9/11 falsifications... This just (once again) proves that the BBC is dishonest and lazy. But, we all know that...

[–] dukey 1 points 12 points (+13|-1) ago 

No it was live, that was the actual backdrop. The BBC admitted it was live, then just claimed it was a series of errors. Then they conviently lost all the footage of that day.

[–] Alopix 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

live broadcasted host != not using a greenscreen in a studio

[–] prairie 1 points 13 points (+14|-1) ago 

That video at the end. People spend years learning and honing their skills to collapse a building that cleanly. Somehow chance pulled it off that day... THREE FUCKING TIMES.

[–] Doglegwarrior 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Go look up failed demos!! I mean people who plan go take a building dowm fail sometimes.. the way those building blew the fuck up makes me think they put 3 or 10 times the explosives needed... i mean how much thermite do you need to create rivers of fucking molten steel.

[–] BlackGrapeDrank 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

and even a kindergartner knows that the way to topple a tower of blocks is to pull from the bottom. not knock over a few on the top.

...and the official WTC7 story is that shit from WTC2 or 1 flung over and blew shit up at 7...LOL...

and they all came down in perfect demolition like order.

I'm indifferent about all the other shit, about who or why. but clearly the "muh jet fuel melted columns" government story is dog shit.

[–] another_dot 1 points 8 points (+9|-1) ago 

I hate people who believe the official story and don't question the absurdity of it all.

[–] Vvswiftvv17 2 points 3 points (+5|-2) ago 

I hate people who believe all the insane stories that would have to happen for it to be "an inside" job.

[–] Doglegwarrior 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Ya you kinda have a point.. kinda.. if the official story was legit and it was not an inside job then why did the bush crime family fight releasing info every step of the way??? Why did they only spend 25 million on the investigation??? I hear you how the fuck could they have pulled that shit off with out a whistle blower??? If it was truly not an inside job the acting president should have been ramming through an investigation budget like we have never seen before.. instead that year we probably sent 20 billion to isreal and 20 billion to saudi arabia??? So can you answer those questions in a reasonable manner??

[–] Hand_of_Node 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Since we're hating, I hate all the shills and crazies that make it impossible to research the topic. There's a guy right up above claiming only one plane hit a building...

[–] Tedfromthewoods 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

Crazy isn't it?

[–] Mikel777 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago  (edited ago)

The best explanation I heard about this is as follows:

This is one of a series of fuckups that the false flagger terrorists had happen on 9/11.

The broadcaster was actually following an already prepared broadcast script as part of the overall fictitious narrative, the reason was because it was by this time the WTC7 was supposed to have already been HIT BY A PLANE then collapsed but had not.

No one of the "inside job" terrorists called BBC and told them to call off the preplanned scripted broadcast, so BBC reporter just followed what they were told to do.

From my reading of work of people who researched this, it is speculated that flight 93 was part of the false flag narrative, it was supposed to have hit WTC7, but ended up getting shot down over Pennsylvania instead. The reason it was shot down is because the pilot was able to regain control over the aircraft (planes were apparently remotely hijacked, more than likely the transceivers through which this hijacking was happening was disabled allowing pilot to regain control of the aircraft) so it had to be shot down to eliminate the witnesses on that front. Again, the reasons for the shoot down of flight 93 is speculative theory.

The problem was that with flight 93 was shot down, nothing hit WTC7 creating a whole huge bag of worms for the 9/11 false flag terrorists.

They already had demolition charges planted in the building, so it would not do to just risk those being found, so they blew up the building ("pull it"), they just did it too late as BBC had already followed their narrative script with the building still standing in the background. Because by by BBC scheduling, it was supposed to be smouldering rubble in the background by the time they reported their preplanned piece of fiction.

[–] EngelbertHumperdinck 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

To the best of my knowledge, this is entirely accurate.

load more comments ▼ (11 remaining)