The Conspiracy Files

[MacG]

I don't believe that is a back drop. The CNN guy looks to be stood on a roof.

His body language hints otherwise. He make big and hasty movements. Like he was in front of a huge screen of some kind. Not the kind of movements you do on a mountaintop with a huge view.

Are we crazy, or what? Just take a step back and look at our conversation! OK, maybe not you, but I feel crazy...

[EmptyBee]

Ok here's yet another video announcing the collapse of WTC7, this time by BBC news24. This time it is time stamped at 21:54 BST, or 4:54 EST, which is 26 minutes before the collapse.

BBC News 24 clip

So how did this prescient "error" make it on to the newswire?

Actually that's a rhetorical question. It's obvious it made it on to the newswire because a bunch of people somehow knew that WTC7 was going to come down. How did they know this? It was on fire, there were loud bangs and bursting windows, but how did they know the core was going to fail, an event which NIST describes as a "low probability event"?

[dr_doom]

Part of the conspiracy?

* Richard Porter
* 27 Feb 07, 05:12 PM

Read the comments on this blog, which it looks like he's had to lock.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2 ... iracy.html

EVERY SINGLE ONE blasting him for this completely feeble,
and further incriminating response.

I think this may damage the BBC brand somewhat,
over and above what their appalling hitpiece has already done.

Nice knowing you BBC.

[Bozzio]

Are we crazy, or what? Just take a step back and look at our conversation! OK, maybe not you, but I feel crazy...

I used to be sane but then I discovered the 9/11 theories and peak oil. Need I say more?

[MacG]

Ok here's yet another video announcing the collapse of WTC7, this time by BBC news24. This time it is time stamped at 21:54 BST, or 4:54 EST, which is 26 minutes before the collapse.

BBC News 24 clip

So how did this prescient "error" make it on to the newswire?

Actually that's a rhetorical question. It's obvious it made it on to the newswire because a bunch of people somehow knew that WTC7 was going to come down. How did they know this? It was on fire, there were loud bangs and bursting windows, but how did they know the core was going to fail, an event which NIST describes as a "low probability event"?

Ah! That's more like it - a timestamp!

So, what do we have this far? Buildings like these might very well -for insurance reasons- be rigged for controlled demolition already when they are built. For very intuitive reasons, such arrangements are not announced on signs in the elevators or anywhere else. Silverstein was completely honest in the interview, and the decision to "pull" was made at a rather late stage. NY Fire Dept can be assumed to hold the button, and have some procedure written down (not revised since 1975 I dare to guess), which include announcing the upcoming destruction in a couple of channels.

Canned backdrop or not, I dont find the recent videos revolutionary in any way. The picture was pretty clear already. Buildings dont collapse spontaneously and symmetrically at free-fall speed.

[Bozzio]

Ok here's yet another video announcing the collapse of WTC7, this time by BBC news24. This time it is time stamped at 21:54 BST, or 4:54 EST, which is 26 minutes before the collapse.

BBC News 24 clip

So how did this prescient "error" make it on to the newswire?

Actually that's a rhetorical question. It's obvious it made it on to the newswire because a bunch of people somehow knew that WTC7 was going to come down. How did they know this? It was on fire, there were loud bangs and bursting windows, but how did they know the core was going to fail, an event which NIST describes as a "low probability event"?

Ah! That's more like it - a timestamp!

So, what do we have this far? Buildings like these might very well -for insurance reasons- be rigged for controlled demolition already when they are built. For very intuitive reasons, such arrangements are not announced on signs in the elevators or anywhere else. Silverstein was completely honest in the interview, and the decision to "pull" was made at a rather late stage. NY Fire Dept can be assumed to hold the button, and have some procedure written down (not revised since 1975 I dare to guess), which include announcing the upcoming destruction in a couple of channels.

Canned backdrop or not, I dont find the recent videos revolutionary in any way. The picture was pretty clear already. Buildings dont collapse spontaneously and symmetrically at free-fall speed.

Don't forget, regardless of what the fire department or Silverstein said, the official story does not accept that any demolition took place. NIST says it was fire and structural damage.

[MacG]

Don't forget, regardless of what the fire department or Silverstein said, the official story does not accept that any demolition took place. NIST says it was fire and structural damage.

Oh yes, but some people have a tendency to lie all the time. If it is as I suspect, that many high-rise buildings are rigged for destruction already when they are built, very nasty things might happen to the attractivness of them as workplaces if this became widely known. A lot of people have a lot of reasons to keep quiet.

And dont forget the religious value of these buildings - they are manifestations of our religious belifs in Science, Economy and Growth. If it become known that very pragmatic people have rigged them for destruction, they could lose a lot -if not all- of their rligious content.

I remember that Dmitry Orlov wrote that the Chernobyl disaster could have had an important role for the fall of the Soviet Union - a lot of people lost their belif in the system, and acted accordingly.

[dr_doom]

MacG...is there something very wrong with you?

Most high-rise buildings are probably secretly rigged with explosives by "pragmatic" people? To protect their religious content?

Lord give me strength.

Chances are there will no longer be a 9-11 truth movement in a years time, as this thing is already blown wide open, the emperor has no clothes.

[MacG]

MacG...is there something very wrong with you?

Most high-rise buildings are probably secretly rigged with explosives by "pragmatic" people? To protect their religious content?

Lord give me strength.

Chances are there will no longer be a 9-11 truth movement in a years time, as this thing is already blown wide open, the emperor has no clothes.

You did not read the entire scentence! Try again!

Put yourself in the shoes of someone who own a skyscraper. You want insurance? Right? Even if your building happen to cause damage to property of others. Now put yourself in the shoes of an insurance guy who is approached by an owner of a skyscraper who want an insurance policy. How do you calculate the premium? I think that it is impossible. The insurance must be limited to the building only. Where does the owner end up with that?

[EmptyBee]

MacG...is there something very wrong with you?

Most high-rise buildings are probably secretly rigged with explosives by "pragmatic" people? To protect their religious content?

Lord give me strength.

Chances are there will no longer be a 9-11 truth movement in a years time, as this thing is already blown wide open, the emperor has no clothes.

You did not read the entire scentence! Try again!

Put yourself in the shoes of someone who own a skyscraper. You want insurance? Right? Even if your building happen to cause damage to property of others. Now put yourself in the shoes of an insurance guy who is approached by an owner of a skyscraper who want an insurance policy. How do you calculate the premium? I think that it is impossible. The insurance must be limited to the building only. Where does the owner end up with that?

You know it's funny, I can't find any reference to Silverstein suing for a payout for building 7. Maybe it was a seperate policy to the one covering WTC1 and 2, or maybe it wasn't insured against terrorism at all.

He did however successfully get a double payout based on the interpretation that the attacks on the twin towers represented two seperate incidents.

EDIT: I found a reference to the WTC7 insurance:

In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. So: This building's collapse resulted in a profit of about $500 million.

Also Insurance Journal article.

[Bandidoz]

Put yourself in the shoes of someone who own a skyscraper. You want insurance? Right? Even if your building happen to cause damage to property of others. Now put yourself in the shoes of an insurance guy who is approached by an owner of a skyscraper who want an insurance policy. How do you calculate the premium? I think that it is impossible. The insurance must be limited to the building only. Where does the owner end up with that?

If I put myself in the shoes of the insurer, if a building manager told me he'd rigged the building with explosives I'd probably feel compelled to not insure him. Accidents do happen!

Bridges in Switzerland have recesses for fitting explosives so they can self-destruct them during an invasion. They don't actually have explosives there!

[MacG]

Put yourself in the shoes of someone who own a skyscraper. You want insurance? Right? Even if your building happen to cause damage to property of others. Now put yourself in the shoes of an insurance guy who is approached by an owner of a skyscraper who want an insurance policy. How do you calculate the premium? I think that it is impossible. The insurance must be limited to the building only. Where does the owner end up with that?

If I put myself in the shoes of the insurer, if a building manager told me he'd rigged the building with explosives I'd probably feel compelled to not insure him. Accidents do happen!

Bridges in Switzerland have recesses for fitting explosives so they can self-destruct them during an invasion. They don't actually have explosives there!

Well, just exclude intentional demolition from the insurance policy then.

All our bridges over here are engineered and prepared for destruction also, although not "charged" in times of peace. Can be "charged" in a couple of hours if need arise.

[Vortex]

I don't like the way this story is panning out ...

[clv101]

Response to video by head of news at BBC World, Richard Porter:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2 ... iracy.html

This is great - especially the 200+ comments.

[MacG]

Response to video by head of news at BBC World, Richard Porter:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2 ... iracy.html

This is great - especially the 200+ comments.

Quite some "pressure" in this thing! Impressive.