• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged BBC WTC7 Programme

wooooody64 said:
:D I give in, whats the answer?
Click to expand...


The answer is, those who insist that significant numbers of Truthers realized "on the day it happened" that the BBC reported WTC 7 as collapsed when it was actually standing behind the BBC reporter, are lying.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Myriad said:
The answer is, those who insist that significant numbers of Truthers realized "on the day it happened" that the BBC reported WTC 7 as collapsed when it was actually standing behind the BBC reporter, are lying.

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

What difference does it make when the "truthers" actually realised that the BBC reported WT7 as collapsed when it was actually standing?

The BBC still reported WT7 as collapsed, when it was actually standing.

"keeping it real" ;)
 
wooooody64 said:
What difference does it make when the "truthers" actually realised that the BBC reported WT7 as collapsed when it was actually standing?

The BBC still reported WT7 as collapsed, when it was actually standing.

"keeping it real" ;)
Click to expand...


The difference it makes is, when people make claims that are shown to be deliberate lies, it makes all their claims less credible. Even when -- especially when -- the lie was about something that, as you've just pointed out, doesn't really make any difference.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Myriad said:
The difference it makes is, when people make claims that are shown to be deliberate lies, it makes all their claims less credible. Even when -- especially when -- the lie was about something that, as you've just pointed out, doesn't really make any difference.

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

We've established that it cannot be proved whether or not that people realised on the day that the BBC reported WTC 7 as collapsed when it hadnt.

This does not mean that people who watched that news report on the day didnt actually realise, just that there is no proof of this.

I havent read any claims with regard to this, that have been shown to be deliberate lies, have you?

:)
 
wooooody64 said:
Strange, most people who believe the BBC to be "in on it" thought that on the day it actually happened, when the BBC reported WTC 7 as collapsed when it was actually standing behind the BBC reporter.
Click to expand...

Note the absence of any qualifier along the lines of "as far as I know", "I think" or "it seems to me that". This is not presented as a piece of speculation, but as a claim based on certain knowledge of the thoughts of "most people who believe the BBC to be 'in on it'".

wooooody64 said:
We've established that it cannot be proved whether or not that people realised on the day that the BBC reported WTC 7 as collapsed when it hadnt.

This does not mean that people who watched that news report on the day didnt actually realise, just that there is no proof of this.

I havent read any claims with regard to this, that have been shown to be deliberate lies, have you?
Click to expand...

To take Myriad's point a little further, when someone makes a claim based on the implied assertion that he possesses certain knowledge, then when challenged admits that he possessed no such knowledge, yet persists in claiming that what he originally said is not a lie on the technicality that his original claim cannot be categorically disproven, that too makes all his claims less credible.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Yet every single one of them kept quiet about it until after the BBC aired the Conspiracy Files documentary. Why would they do that?

Dave
Click to expand...

When someone makes a claim based on the implied assertion that he possesses certain knowledge,yet persists in claiming that what he originally said is not a lie on the technicality that his original claim cannot be categorically disproven, that too makes all his claims less credible. Source: #165
 
I doubt most Truthers even knew or realized that there even was a Bldg 7 "on the day it happened."

Bldg 7 was not even part of the traditional "Inside Job" lore until 2005 or so.

From the BBC

But the lead investigator at NIST, who heads up their World Trade Center inquiry, Dr Shyam Sunder, says that two-and-a-half years is typically how long an aeroplane crash investigation takes. He added that only in the last few years did they begin to hear criticism from the "truth" movement.

"It's only at the very end in 2005 that this group became more vocal and we found them coming to some of our meetings. But for a long time they were not even present. It wasn't the delay that really caused them, they just woke up one morning and decided to take this on as an issue."
Click to expand...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7488159.stm
 
Last edited:
Not super high resolution, but for those who are interested in the content and would prefer not to download the 1.2GB avi transcode doing the rounds via torrents, here is a direct rip of the file being served up via the BBC iPlayer online catch-up service, weighing in at a mere 224MB:

http: //w ww.megaupload.com/?d=VDL1FUZ3 (Remove the spaces)

(For those who haven't used Megaupload before, enter the three letters towards the top right in the box as instructed, click "Download". On the next page you will have to wait 45 seconds, then the "free download" button will appear, click that to start the download)

Video: libx264, 480x272px, 25fps, Millions of colours
Audio: AAC, Stereo, 48.000KHz
 
wooooody64 said:
When someone makes a claim based on the implied assertion that he possesses certain knowledge,yet persists in claiming that what he originally said is not a lie on the technicality that his original claim cannot be categorically disproven, that too makes all his claims less credible. Source: #165
Click to expand...

Gaah. Look, could you please break this up into, say, 3 complete and separate sentences? (Rather than a "when ... yet ... that" sentence, which is probably not sanctioned by the rules of formal English grammar.) I'm sorry to be difficult, but I don't trust myself to untangle it properly.
 
Gage gets Silverstein's quote wrong again. The typical substitution of "we" into "they". I can't take this anymore. How many times can they make this mistake.
 
wooooody64 said:
When someone makes a claim based on the implied assertion that he possesses certain knowledge,yet persists in claiming that what he originally said is not a lie on the technicality that his original claim cannot be categorically disproven, that too makes all his claims less credible. Source: #165
Click to expand...

OK, I'll freely admit that my post was intended as ironic in tone; that is to say, a form of lie in order to demonstrate the absurdity of the assumptions from which that lie is derived. How about yours?

Dave
 
Mancman said:
<snip>
And the commentator said the fires in WTC7 were not as hot as the Cardington Tests - based on what? :confused:
Click to expand...

Just a note, it looked to me as if the clip shown was from one of the smaller tests done on the Cardington steel building.

Also, as I have noted before in one of the numerous threads here, remember that the structural integrity of the Cardington steel building was not compromised by mechanical damage.

Dave

ETA The fires in the Cardington steel building were timber cribs, from memory, 1m square by 1m high, built from 50mm square softwood. They were spaced 1m apart on most, if not all of the tests.
 
Last edited:
Wow, i know this is wrong.. but that fire in madrid in 2005(16:10 in the video).. damn that is beautiful.

No no, relax, i'm not going to go out and light a public building on fire.

But damn, that is beautiful
 
I watched this program, and thought it was rather good and impartial. Didn't spend to much time on the ridiculous theories, but got straight to the point. They let all the conspiracy theorists say the main things that they wanted to, and countered each with the official explanation. At least no one in a sane state of mind can say that this was a 'cover up' by the BBC, as they addressed pretty much everything from what I saw, in quite an unbiased way.

The question should be asked though, should you approach C' theories such as this in an unbiased way in the first place? does that lend them more credence than they deserve? Not sure about that one.
 
Is everyone stateside able to get hold of a torrent or whatever of this now?
 
TobiasTheCommie said:
At least they have no reason to complain, so that is a plus.
Click to expand...
Yet they will and I can't wait to see the first truther that claims Dylan's f-bombs were either because he was paid off or someone played a jedi mind trick on him. He alone in those few fleeting seconds showed what type of moronic scum that entire movement is.
 
Well, that turned out fantastic! Better than I'd even expected. They certainly addressed and answered all the main questions about WTC7 ("pull it", BBC's and CNN's early reporting, sounds of explosions), but they also went on to thoroughly squash all of the remaining minor claims as well, like whether the smoke was coming from WTC7 or rising up from WTC6, leaving the truthers with absolutely nothing to stand on.

Is it just me or did Dylan Avery come off as a whiny little brat in his final interview, saying "so what" and "of course he's going to f'ing say that", etc.? I love his line, "He's part of the system, man!" LOL.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom