Whats your take on this Jimbeux

[pete a]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQJF2hK9WBY&fea...

seems strange???


watch at 2 min 40 seconds

Edited by pete a on Wednesday 8th September 13:50

[Parrot of Doom]

News organisation in "makes mistake on hectic and busy day" SHOCKER.

[pete a]

so busy they report a 47 story skyscraper has collapsed and talk about it in the past tense 23 minutes before it has collapsed, even though it is clearly still visible in the background of the reporter.

note to add, a steel structured skyscraper had never collapsed due to a fire before the twin towers that morning,(or since) which made it unlikly to happen just because it was ablaze.

[Parrot of Doom]

You're assuming that they know which building WTC 7 was. They clearly didn't.

As for the latter part of your post, its hilarious. Grow up.

[odyssey2200]

here we go again..

[Colin 1985]

pete a said:

note to add, a steel structured skyscraper had never collapsed due to a fire before the twin towers that morning,(or since) which made it unlikly to happen just because it was ablaze.

Maybe these didn't collapse just due to some fire, maybe something else happened that day.

Can anyone think of something else that might have damaged a building on Sept' 11th?

[JB!]

Colin 1985 said:

pete a said:

note to add, a steel structured skyscraper had never collapsed due to a fire before the twin towers that morning,(or since) which made it unlikly to happen just because it was ablaze.

Maybe these didn't collapse just due to some fire, maybe something else happened that day.

Can anyone think of something else that might have damaged a building on Sept' 11th?

[tinfoil hat]

the controlled demolition and staged "attacks" on 2x very tall buildings nearby?

[/tinfoil hat]

[Dixie68]

pete a said:

so busy they report a 47 story skyscraper has collapsed and talk about it in the past tense 23 minutes before it has collapsed, even though it is clearly still visible in the background of the reporter.

note to add, a steel structured skyscraper had never collapsed due to a fire before the twin towers that morning,(or since) which made it unlikly to happen just because it was ablaze.

Of course not, despite a quick Google coming up with the McCormick Center in Chicago, the Kader toy factory in Singapore, the Sight and Sound Theater in Pennsylvania... and more. All steel-structured buildings that collapsed as a result of fire and all of which didn't even have as many floors, (and therefore less stresses), than that building.
I don't know what Jimbeux's take on this is but I can guess it's similar to mine: do at least a little bit of research before spouting drivel.

[pete a]

Dixie68 said:

pete a said:

so busy they report a 47 story skyscraper has collapsed and talk about it in the past tense 23 minutes before it has collapsed, even though it is clearly still visible in the background of the reporter.

note to add, a steel structured skyscraper had never collapsed due to a fire before the twin towers that morning,(or since) which made it unlikly to happen just because it was ablaze.

Of course not, despite a quick Google coming up with the McCormick Center in Chicago, the Kader toy factory in Singapore, the Sight and Sound Theater in Pennsylvania... and more. All steel-structured buildings that collapsed as a result of fire and all of which didn't even have as many floors, (and therefore less stresses), than that building.
I don't know what Jimbeux's take on this is but I can guess it's similar to mine: do at least a little bit of research before spouting drivel.

none of those buildings were steel structured SKYSCRAPERS!!! of a similar design as the three that collapsed on 9/11, if you are going to preach about research you should at least do it properly.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/f...

Edited by pete a on Wednesday 8th September 19:01

[Dixie68]

pete a said:

Dixie68 said:

Of course not, despite a quick Google coming up with the McCormick Center in Chicago, the Kader toy factory in Singapore, the Sight and Sound Theater in Pennsylvania... and more. All steel-structured buildings that collapsed as a result of fire and all of which didn't even have as many floors, (and therefore less stresses), than that building.
I don't know what Jimbeux's take on this is but I can guess it's similar to mine: do at least a little bit of research before spouting drivel.

none of those buildings were steel structured SKYSCRAPERS!!! of a similar design as the three that collapsed on 9/11, if you are going to preach about research you should at least do it properly.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/f...

Calm down Susan. Read the bit of my post I highlighted - the fact that the buildings I found have less floors than WTC7 goes AGAINST your argument, not FOR it. The stresses exerted on a skyscraper are huge when compared to a building of just a few floors, surely you can see that? Or at least get an adult to explain it to you.
Because you can link to an article showing your side of the argument doesn't mean you're right you know?

Here's a link from me - what do I win?

[heebeegeetee]

I don't think images of the twin tower disaster should be shown anymore.

[grumbledoak]

I don't tend to watch BBC World, but it does say 'Update' - could they be replaying a previously shown live interview, but actually putting live subtitles over it?

[pete a]

Dixie68 said:

pete a said:

Dixie68 said:

Of course not, despite a quick Google coming up with the McCormick Center in Chicago, the Kader toy factory in Singapore, the Sight and Sound Theater in Pennsylvania... and more. All steel-structured buildings that collapsed as a result of fire and all of which didn't even have as many floors, (and therefore less stresses), than that building.
I don't know what Jimbeux's take on this is but I can guess it's similar to mine: do at least a little bit of research before spouting drivel.

none of those buildings were steel structured SKYSCRAPERS!!! of a similar design as the three that collapsed on 9/11, if you are going to preach about research you should at least do it properly.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/f...

Calm down Susan. Read the bit of my post I highlighted - the fact that the buildings I found have less floors than WTC7 goes AGAINST your argument, not FOR it. The stresses exerted on a skyscraper are huge when compared to a building of just a few floors, surely you can see that? Or at least get an adult to explain it to you.
Because you can link to an article showing your side of the argument doesn't mean you're right you know?

Here's a link from me - what do I win?

of course you don't win, your site is written by the CIA, i'm off to find my tinfoil hat now.

[Dixie68]

pete a said:

of course you don't win, your site is written by the CIA, i'm off to find my tinfoil hat now.

Nice one, I genuinely laughed at that

[EDLT]

grumbledoak said:

I don't tend to watch BBC World, but it does say 'Update' - could they be replaying a previously shown live interview, but actually putting live subtitles over it?

Now that is just crazy talk. Repeating interviews on the news was only invented after 9/11.

Whats any of this got to do with Jimbeux, is he a skyscraper demolitions expert?

[Colonial]

EDLT said:

grumbledoak said:

I don't tend to watch BBC World, but it does say 'Update' - could they be replaying a previously shown live interview, but actually putting live subtitles over it?

Now that is just crazy talk. Repeating interviews on the news was only invented after 9/11.

Whats any of this got to do with Jimbeux, is he a skyscraper demolitions expert?

What these sensible types are saying.

I wish this forum had an ignore button.

[Jimbeaux]

EDLT said:

grumbledoak said:

I don't tend to watch BBC World, but it does say 'Update' - could they be replaying a previously shown live interview, but actually putting live subtitles over it?

Now that is just crazy talk. Repeating interviews on the news was only invented after 9/11.

Whats any of this got to do with Jimbeux, is he a skyscraper demolitions expert?

Not sure why the thread was directed at me, but I go with the theory of the footnotes being current while the film clip was run over and over.....very common practice. I do believe not all theories are conspiracies; however, this 9/11 tinfoilery is past tedious; it is only surpassed by fake moon landers.

[MX7]

The BBC destroyed it, obviously.

[pete a]

it wasn't a dig Jim just seeing what your opinion was in the light of the video footage posted, it was a live feed though, maybe the BBC are psychic?
i'll be in bunker if you want me.

[Bill]

I think you wanted this thread.