VegyRex !!! Please Help !

google · #1 03-02-2007, 08:45 PM

VegyRex, please help me.

The following is a video of a BBC reporter reporting on the collapse of WTC buiding #7, 20 minutes before it happened.

Please tell me how people like you rationalize this.

I need to sleep better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc

Wildwoman · #2 03-02-2007, 09:01 PM

I don't understand how that would bolster your theory at all. It was chaotic, the reporter got the wrong information and went on the air with it. She used the phrase 'the area is completly sealed off' twice, she didn't have any special access. It's not even like she said they were about to demolish it, she said it fell on its own. I was in New York then, and rumors about all sorts of things were running around because people were desperate for any information, the way I would assume it always is in those kinds of situations. It means nothing, one way or the other.

Little Fury · #3 03-02-2007, 09:04 PM

this is right up there with Kurt and Marilyn, under the category

"dead horses people are never going to stop kicking"

Rotten Berry · #4 03-02-2007, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wildwoman

I don't even understand how that would bolster your theory at all. It was chaotic, the reporter got the wrong information and went on the air with it. She used the phrase 'the area is completly sealed off' twice, she didn't have any special access. I was in New York then, and rumors about all sorts of things were running around because people were desperate for any information, the way I would assume it always is in those kinds of situations. It means nothing, one way or the other.

I agree.

Not that 9/11 conspiracies don't fascinate me, because they do.

But I remember watching the news that day and how just straight-out dumbfucked everyone was. There was so much misinformation reported and there was so much confusion...and I felt this in a little town in Wisconsin.

I cannot even imagine what a reporter with a job to do in NY would have felt like.

Little Fury · #5 03-02-2007, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rotten Berry

I remember watching the news that day and how just straight-out dumbfucked everyone was. There was so much misinformation reported and there was so much confusion...

Considering on one station there was a 2 1/2 minute shot of just half a wall and a studio window with people screaming "FUCK! FUCK! HOLY FUCK WHAT IS HAPPENING" in the background, it's not surprising that the media wee'd the bed just a bit on this one.

Wildwoman · #6 03-02-2007, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rotten Berry

I cannot even imagine what a reporter with a job to do in NY would have felt like.

I don't know about this particular one, but there were reporters who had to run for their lives. I had NY1 on while Mr. W. and I took turns hanging out the bathroom window to watch the towers burn and then fall, and the reporter on the scene cut off the anchorman with 'Oh my God I think the building's coming down! I have to get out of here!'

Touting every tiny discrepency, no matter how obviously and easily explained, as 'proof' does not do much for credibility.

vegyrex · #7 03-02-2007, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by google

VegyRex, please help me.

The following is a video of a BBC reporter reporting on the collapse of WTC buiding #7, 20 minutes before it happened.

Please tell me how people like you rationalize this.

I need to sleep better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc

LOL!!!

Google, dude, how does this vid help your cause? Like Kittenskathi pointed out in past threads: Were is the paper trail? What concrete evidence supports your case that 9/11 was an inside job? The Bush administration has blundered on Iraq, screwed up the hunt for Osoma Bin Ladin, possibly goofed on North Korea as well, not to mention their history of information leaks. How is it 9/11 conspiracy theorists can't come up with better evidence again a government run by him? If Bush or any part of the US government played a role in the 9/11 attacks (outside of being incompetent) lets see it.

vegyrex · #8 03-02-2007, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wildwoman

Touting every tiny discrepency, no matter how obviously and easily explained, as 'proof' does not do much for credibility.

Conspiracy theorist only use information that came out the day of the attacks. They hardly ever use information that came out days after the attacks, when people were better able to see what exactly happened.

Wildwoman · #9 03-02-2007, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vegyrex

Conspiracy theorist only use information that came out the day of the attacks. They hardly ever use information that came out days after the attacks, when people were better able to see what exactly happened.

The only conspiracy theory that I've really looked into in depth is the Kurt one, and it's just full of assumptions that easily explained inaccuracies have some great import most people are too dumb to pick up on. 'The media said he barricaded himself in the greenhouse, but it was just a tiny little stool that wouldn't have kept anyone out....' Duh, it's the fucking media, they exaggerate. Putting anything in front of a door is going to be called 'barricading' if the incident at hand becomes a media circus. Plus, the same web site that was making a big deal about that (I think it was Tom Grant, but I'm not sure) also insisted that Kurt was hiding in fear for his life after he awoled from rehab because he knew his wife wanted him dead. Then why the hell didn't he barricade the door? I also remember seeing a claim that Courtney using the expression "blew his head off," somehow was proof of guilt, because his head was still attached to his neck. 'Blew [one's] head off,' is a generally accepted phrase for dying of gunshots to the head, and if you want to be really pedantic about it, the exact casual expression for the specific type of head gunshot wound he died of is 'ate a gun.' If she'd used that expression, would that have somehow been better? I assume that this is a tendency common to most, it not all, conspiracy theories.

Rotten Berry · #10 03-02-2007, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wildwoman

The only conspiracy theory that I've really looked into in depth is the Kurt one, and it's just full of assumptions that easily explained inaccuracies have some great import most people are too dumb to pick up on. 'The media said he barricaded himself in the greenhouse, but it was just a tiny little stool that wouldn't have kept anyone out....' Duh, it's the fucking media, they exaggerate. Putting anything in front of a door is going to be called 'barricading' if the incident at hand becomes a media circus. Plus, the same web site that was making a big deal about that (I think it was Tom Grant, but I'm not sure) also insisted that Kurt was hiding in fear for his life after he awoled from rehab because he knew his wife wanted him dead. Then why the hell didn't he barricade the door? I also remember seeing a claim that Courtney using the expression "blew his head off," somehow was proof of guilt, because his head was still attached to his neck. 'Blew [one's] head off,' is a generally accepted phrase for dying of gunshots to the head, and if you want to be really pedantic about it, the exact casual expression for the specific type of head gunshot wound he died of is 'ate a gun.' If she'd used that expression, would that have somehow been better? I assume that this is a tendency common to most, it not all, conspiracy theories.

This kind of tendency is what makes conspiracy theories fun.

Wildwoman · #11 03-02-2007, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rotten Berry

This kind of tendency is what makes conspiracy theories fun.

It makes me crazy! At least try and make some goddam sense! (Um, there is no smiley that seems to me to correctly indicate that my exclamation points are indicating frustration with this tendency in general, and are not meant to give the impression that I'm yelling at you. But if there was one, I would use it, because I'm not meaning to yell at you.)

Rotten Berry · #12 03-02-2007, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wildwoman

It makes me crazy! At least try and make some goddam sense! (Um, there is no smiley that seems to me to correctly indicate that my exclamation points are indicating frustration with this tendency in general, and are not meant to give the impression that I'm yelling at you. But if there was one, I would use it, because I'm not meaning to yell at you.)

If there was a smilie to express such an emotion, it would be a really wonky combination of a bunch of other smilies.

I have always had some kind of weird fascination with things that are really preposterous. Maybe that is why I found myself at KR to begin with.

Wildwoman · #13 03-02-2007, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rotten Berry

I have always had some kind of weird fascination with things that are really preposterous. Maybe that is why I found myself at KR to begin with.

Hee, hee. I suppose my desire to pick these things apart indicates the same sort of fascination just coming from a different angle. I don't really do the conspiracy thing, but I spend way too much time here carefully assembling arguments against something that nobody sane would have claimed in the first place. I get so angry I don't think of it as something I enjoy, but I guess this is a good example of what people mean when they accuse me of looking for things to be unhappy about.

vegyrex · #14 03-03-2007, 02:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wildwoman

The only conspiracy theory that I've really looked into in depth is the Kurt one, and it's just full of assumptions that easily explained inaccuracies have some great import most people are too dumb to pick up on. 'The media said he barricaded himself in the greenhouse, but it was just a tiny little stool that wouldn't have kept anyone out....' Duh, it's the fucking media, they exaggerate. Putting anything in front of a door is going to be called 'barricading' if the incident at hand becomes a media circus. Plus, the same web site that was making a big deal about that (I think it was Tom Grant, but I'm not sure) also insisted that Kurt was hiding in fear for his life after he awoled from rehab because he knew his wife wanted him dead. Then why the hell didn't he barricade the door? I also remember seeing a claim that Courtney using the expression "blew his head off," somehow was proof of guilt, because his head was still attached to his neck. 'Blew [one's] head off,' is a generally accepted phrase for dying of gunshots to the head, and if you want to be really pedantic about it, the exact casual expression for the specific type of head gunshot wound he died of is 'ate a gun.' If she'd used that expression, would that have somehow been better? I assume that this is a tendency common to most, it not all, conspiracy theories.

Grrr, at the Courtney killed Kurt conspiracy theory.

Thats another example of a conspiracy theory that lacks any legs. Yet many people believe in it. Last year at Starbucks one of the counter people saw my Courtney Love tshirt and he just had to tell me he thought Courtney killed Kurt.

I told him was a fool for thinking such a thing.

osho · #15 03-05-2007, 12:32 PM

Thanks google for thinking outside of the box. People will get the message that you can't pull the wool over everyone's eyes.

I seems like quite a coincidence that all that worked out the way it did at that time, and how it allowed the world elite to evade the focus of other important issues of the day ie. Arthur Anderson Accounting practices, the dot.com crash, negative balance of trade, the wealth gap, political finance reform, and crop circles.

vegyrex · #16 03-05-2007, 12:39 PM

Crop circles??

Hahaha!!!

osho · #17 03-05-2007, 12:49 PM

google · #18 03-07-2007, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wildwoman

I don't understand how that would bolster your theory at all. It was chaotic, the reporter got the wrong information and went on the air with it. She used the phrase 'the area is completly sealed off' twice, she didn't have any special access. It's not even like she said they were about to demolish it, she said it fell on its own. I was in New York then, and rumors about all sorts of things were running around because people were desperate for any information, the way I would assume it always is in those kinds of situations. It means nothing, one way or the other.

You don't find it to be very coincidental ?

"..... building 7 was the furthest away in the WTC complex from the twin towers. Buildings much closer sustained massive amounts of damage from the collapse of the towers and did not come anywhere close to full scale symmetrical collapse.

Given all this information it is quite clear to surmise that if you were going to "predict" the collapse of any building in the WTC complex following the destruction of the towers, building 7 would have most certainly been BOTTOM of the list. "

Why was buiding 7 the *only* 'mistakenly' reported collapse by BBC and CNN ?

http://infowars.net/articles/march20...07BBC_WTC7.htm

google · #19 03-07-2007, 08:27 AM

What the heck, here's the whole article ......

Quote:

Why No One Could Have Predicted The Collapse Of WTC 7
Building was specifically designed to have floors removed without collapsing

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Thursday, March 1, 2007

This week has seen a cornucopia of news come pouring forth with regards to what happened to World Trade Center building 7 on September 11th 2001. The catalyst for this has been the discovery that the BBC reported the building had collapsed a full thirty minutes before it actually fell on 9/11.

The BBC, instead of attempting to explain how it could have reported this, has attempted to both evade and cloud the issue. The truth is that no one could have possibly predicted the building would collapse and here's why.

Aside from the fact that previous to 9/11 no steel framed building in history had ever collapsed due to fire damage, Building 7, otherwise known as the Salomon Brothers building, was intentionally designed to allow large portions of floors to be permanently removed without weakening the structural integrity of the building.

In 1989 the New York Times reported on this fact in a story covering the Salomon leasing of the building which had been completed just two years earlier.

Salomon had wanted to build a new structure in order to house its high-technology operations, but due to stock market crash in 1987 it was unable to. The company searched for an existing building that they could use and found one in Larry Silverstein's WTC 7.

The Times reported:

BEFORE it moves into a new office tower in downtown Manhattan, Salomon Brothers, the brokerage firm, intends to s