BOMBSHELL: 9/11 COVER-UP UNRAVELING

[StrictlyRockers]

http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/270207_bbc_lost_response.html
BOMBSHELL: 9/11 COVER-UP UNRAVELING
CNN, BBC 24 Reports Conclusively Prove Media Prior Knowledge and False-Start Scripting of Building 7 Controlled Demolition

Aaron Dykes and Alex Jones /Jones Report | February 27, 2007

It has now been discovered that BBC 24 also reported the Building 7 collapse before it fell. Furthermore, CNN’s Aaron Brown reported that Building 7 "has collapsed or is collapsing" over an hour before it fell.

These clips both reinforce the shocking, newly discovered BBC coverage wherein Jane Standley reports the collapse early-- with the building still standing behind her.

The early timing of these reports is now verified twiceover-- the BBC 24 report is time stamped at 21.54-- or 4:54 P.M. Eastern Standard Time Secondly, CNN's Aaron Brown states the time as "4:15 Eastern Daylight Time," announcing Building 7 has fallen-- more than one hour before its actual collapse.

Furthermore, both the BBC report with Jane Standley and the CNN report with Aaron Brown clearly show Building 7 still standing, 'billowing with smoke' as the collapse is reported-- so premature reporting is confirmed visually as well.

There is no longer any doubt they were all reading off the same script. Reports mirrored testimony of scores of fire fighters, police and emergency workers who were told to get back from the building in the 2 hours before Salomon Brothers building (better known as WTC 7) fell at free-fall speed.

Rescue workers were told the building was to be brought down in a controlled demolition.

The group that carried out the demolition of Building 7 was in a position to feed the media and local authorities an official story. We have the controlled demolition of Building 7 hidden in plain sight-- including an admission by the building's 99-year lease holder Larry Silverstein.

We are witnessing the unraveling of the 9/11 cover-up.

New video and audio clips of emergency workers who were told the Building 7 was to be purposefully brought down are coming out on an hour-by-hour basis as thousands of 9/11 researchers investigate publicly available archives.

Alex Jones in his car on the afternoon of 9/11 also heard ABC News report that the government was considering demolishing Building 7. Jones didn't’t realize what he was hearing for several weeks. Now the evidence is coming out.

Ayup, the official story is unraveling and we get to watch it happen in real time. Anyone who had even a passing interest in this subject now finds themselves riveted. Over 15,000 people have visited the threads on this subject at DU in the past 48 hours. This, despite being kept off the Greatest page by being disallowed from receiving any votes. It seems that people are VERY intersted in this story...and becoming ever more so over time. People can stick fingers in the dyke all they like. It won't matter much when the flood waters sweep you aside.

The story has been up on the front pages of DIGG for days now. Here is the latest, a link to this story. The original story has 1700 Diggs. Digg it up!:
http://www.digg.com/world_news/BOMBSHELL_9_11_COVER_UP_UNRAVELING

http://www.digg.com/world_news/BBC_Response_to_Recent_WTC7_Video_from_BBC_World

http://www.wtc7.net/foreknowledge.html#ref2

SR

[CJCRANE]

1. It's unravelling

in the eyes of bloggers. But it's a start. Maybe it'll snowball.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

2. Ales Jones reported on this on Coast To Coast AM last night. C2C has the largest

overnight radio audience in the country.

[MervinFerd]

3. Snort.

No comment. I just can't think of a comment on this.

Except to note that Alex Jones is not exactly a reliably progessive individual.

[Nabia2004]

4. "not exactly a reliably progressive individual"

I have yet to do an in-depth study on the individual, please share what you know. Has his work been debunked, any links?

[rman]

9. even if true, it's irrelevant in this case because Jones is not the source

I haven't looked into all this yet, but i'd venture to guess that the original MSM reports speak for themselves.

In addition, Jones not being progressive is irrelevant at any rate. Not to mention that these days he supports Hugo Chavez.
Otoh i think Alex is being an idiot when it comes to peak oil and global warming - but so is Greg Palast.
My biggest problem with Jones is that he associates with Marrs, who does UFO/alien stuff.

[StrictlyRockers]

55. His name is Marrs and he does alien stuff?

okkkkkk

[Twist_U_Up]

5. Its amazing to see how far people rationalise for this,

it is like a gambler losing all his money, car, house, wife and kids because he believes he will make it all back and more in the next roll of the dice.

[Devon77]

6. I'm all in with 8 2 offsuit nt

[Bolo Boffin]

7. In other news: we have received a raise of chocolate rations, comrades

We have always been at war with Eurasia.

[MervinFerd]

8. And, don't -anybody- notice that the Admin is illegally funding...

radical terrorist groups associated with al Qaeda.

Just don't notice that. Keep working on this BBC angle.

The BBC is your enemy. We have -always- been at war with the BBC. The BBC is part of the Conspiracy.

We have always been at war with the BBC.

[CJCRANE]

19. Ok, let's also look into who funded al-Qaeda on 9/11.

If you're so concerned about who's funding al-Qaeda why don't you start a thread about it?
(You could even start it in GD, why waste time down here in the basement).

[MervinFerd]

21. Unfortunately, a thread about al Qaeda funding would wind up here.

--That's-- the effect of 911 "Bug fuckin' nuts" conspiracists. Rational and important things simply cannot be discussed.

[Contrite]

53. Merv, the suggestion was a good one.

You can talk about Sy Hersh's reporting on illegal funding of support groups for al Qaeda in GD. This "rational and important thing" IS being discussed in other forums.

Here is just one discussion: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=299104

Here's another--he was on Democracy Now today. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=308102

[BuyingThyme]

23. Really sad fallacy.

This topic has not taken attention from the topic you cite, and if it had, it wouldn't make for a logical argument against discussing it.

So, we're left with the question: Why do you have to go so far to attempt to stifle debate? And why do you project your shortcomings on others.

[Bryan Sacks]

10. Jones IS engaging in confirmation bias. This does not prove scripted response

The source(s) of the two reports is/are still needed. When a building is falling apart , one can say what Aaron Brown said quite plausibly. The BBC reporters have not done their homework, and were fed bad information. That bad info could have come from lots of places, but they are responsible for it.

We need the sources. People can speculate endlessly, but it won't prove anything without the source. Two news agencies reporting somewhat similar incorrect things (the BBC reported it as fact - perhaps on the basis of the CNN report for all we know - while the CNN report was wishy-washy) does not prove coordination, and bad information does not prove conspiracy. Jones is jumping the gun - but it's possible he IS right. He just doesn't care if he's wrong.

[Celebration]

11. weird coincidence

I agree that Alex sometimes connects dots that aren't there. But in this case, he claims to have talked to dozens of firefighters that were TOLD the building was coming down. Now I think the firefighters are prevented (national security?) from coming forward publically on this. Building 7 being a controlled demolition is, in my view, one of the top three or four facts that the Alex Joneses of the world have going for them. Others are the put options, warnings given to some people prior to the event, and the war games on 911. I really do not understand how knowing these things wouldn't at least raise most people's suspicions, especially combined with gag orders!!

Still, I don't think the commission even addressed Building 7. But that is pretty weird if it was a controlled demolition (let those firefighters TALK, please), because controlled demolitions must be planned ahead of time. We need to get to the bottom of this.

[Bryan Sacks]

12. Agree

But I don't like the argument that "dozens of firefighters know it's a controlled demolition, but can't say so publically". They supposedly said so to Alex Jones, who has the biggest mouth in the world. How is that consistent with national security?

I understand the reply would be, "the firefighters don't care about the silly national argument, but still don't want to run afoul of the law". I have less sympathy for that. Firefighters are getting sick and dying from the government's cover-up of the environmental damage at the WTC. They are getting stonewalled by the city and the feds when they cry for help. If there are people who know WTC 7 was in fact a controlled demolition, it will only take a few to come forward, who would become instant heroes to millions. Their lives would potentially be destroyed, of course, as well. But people are dying right now because of the government's lies. People need to come forward, or else it goes nowhere.

Or, it could be no one is 100% certain that what they know indicates CD. That seems more likely to me.

[Beam Me Up]

13. Yes and we won't get the damn sources until we get an open

investigation -- we're talking a criminal investigation with subpoena power.

HOW ARE WE GOING TO GET THAT? HOW ARE WE GOING TO GET THAT FROM A GOVERNMENT AND MEDIA THAT ARE IMPLICATED IN MASS MURDER, TREASON AND WAR CRIMES?

Don't give me "coincidence until proven otherwise." How many coincidences does it take to make a story not credible? Come on, tell me? 2? 5? 10? 50? 100? You tell me! We have over 100 significant "coincidences" that shred the official story -- which has been used to numb the body politic, subjugate the Constitution and launch aggressive war in the Middle East.

Wake up!

[mhatrw]

14. How do you suggest we get any further information on this without

assuming the worst and making a big stink about it?

Any suggestions?

[Bryan Sacks]

15. making a big stink is just what should be done.

Assuming the worst doesn't really help or hurt - just beware of 'honey pots'.

911T will have a demand for explanation up today, if I have my way.

[mhatrw]

16. WTC-7 is not a honey pot.

Buildings don't implode that way unless:

1) they were purposefully designed to, or

2) explosive charges are carefully set.

Phone call to controlled demolition expert Danny Jowenko: http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/danny_jowenko_022207.mp3

http://www.wtc7.net/foreknowledge.html#bbc

[Bryan Sacks]

17. Here's ultimately where I think this has to go:

The BBC look like idiots here. I think it's because, on this story, they were. They are reporting bad information and lack the situational knowledge to even fact-check it themselves.

So, the question becomes: who or what was the source of the claim that WTC 7 had collapsed? But as we know, it HAD NOT collapsed. So. to be generous, we are asked to accept that the BBC erroneously reported a building that was SOON going to collapse as already collapsed. Fine. But that gets them in more trouble: now the question that both the BBC and their source needs to answer is: what SPECIFICALLY, prior to 4:57 EDT warranted the conclusion that WTC 7 was about to undergo total collapse?

I mean specifically. It won't do to say, well, this fire chief thought it was possible or that engineer felt the building was lacking in structural integrity. No good. No speculation. Speculation will just fuel the belief in conspiracy, since the building DID IN FACT fall pretty much straight down rioght afterwards. What ACTUAL EVIDENCE was there? Who made an examination of the building sufficient to conclude that collapse was imminent.

The reason this matters should now be obvious. If WTC 7 hadn't collapsed for a few more days, what would have happened to those predictions of its "imminent collapse" on the afternoon of 9/11? They would have gone away, just like the reports of a bomb at the State Department went away. But since WTC 7 did collapse, all the reports from that day that 'collapse was imminent ' are collected as evidence of its inevitability. But that doesn't mean anything by itself. We need to reinspect the specific BASIS for the claims, and specifically the basis for the claim that reached the BBC AT THE TIME OF THE REPORT. Undoubtedly, we will be told this is unavailable, or some story will be concocted that will then have to be parsed on its own.

At the bare minimum, the BBC is guilty of false reporting. Add to it the fact that WTC 7 did in fact collapse soon afterwards, and that the cause of the collapse has come to be a point of legitimate controversy, and you have a potentially very revealing slip. But it is still 'potentially'.

The BBC needs to explain:

a) exactly how it 'knew' (wrongly) with assurance that the WTC COLLAPSED, before it had
b) who provided that information (because standard practice or not, it is disgraceful and highly dangerous to public trust to report news before it happens)

[MervinFerd]

22. You haven't actually read the NIST document on WTC7, have you?

Or the CounterPunch report (by an actual scientist) on the collapse of WTC7.

That's your assignment for the afternoon. You can google the reports as well as I.

And faint criticism of Alex Jones is the damning of rationality by faint praise.

[BuyingThyme]

24. What "document" do you speak of, MervinFerd?

[Devon77]

25. Well, first they have to produce them

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

14. Why is the NIST investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 (the 47-story office building that collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, hours after the towers) taking so long to complete? Is a controlled demolition hypothesis being considered to explain the collapse?

When NIST initiated the WTC investigation, it made a decision not to hire new staff to support the investigation. After the June 2004 progress report on the WTC investigation was issued, the NIST investigation team stopped working on WTC 7 and was assigned full-time through the fall of 2005 to complete the investigation of the WTC towers. With the release and dissemination of the report on the WTC towers in October 2005, the investigation of the WTC 7 collapse resumed. Considerable progress has been made since that time, including the review of nearly 80 boxes of new documents related to WTC 7, the development of detailed technical approaches for modeling and analyzing various collapse hypotheses, and the selection of a contractor to assist NIST staff in carrying out the analyses. It is anticipated that a draft report will be released by early 2007.

The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 is described in the June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (Volume 1, page 17, as well as Appendix L), as follows:

*

An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;

*

Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, and as the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and

*

Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors) resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.

This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.

[MervinFerd]

41. You've found the interim report. Good work. + 5 pts.

Now, if you will actually read it, you will see that there is no reasonable basis for supposing that explosives were needed to cause that collapse or that there is anything at all suspicious about that collapse.

Because of the "bug fucking nuts" theories about bombs, NIST will consider explosive scenarios. It's always good to be thorough.

The CounterPunch article is more dramatic, less carefully phrased, and offers a compelling scenario for the damage and collapse.

[Devon77]

42. To me it looks like they are dragging their feet

I heard a rumor that the guy writting the counterpunch article Manuel Garcia works for Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
(where explosive thermite was invented)

Has this basis in fact?

[MervinFerd]

44. No, they are being careful and responsible and professional.

There are issues that are not clear, so they will do further work.

If they were doing a cover-up, they would put out a slick report with multi-colors and computer graphics immediately. Wouldn't they?

You heard a rumor?
Has -that- any basis in fact?

Garcia once worked for Lawrence Livermore?
Has that any relevance, if true? Ever heard of the "argument ad hominem"? It's a logical fallacy. This is a technical and scientific issue; you have to impugn the arguments, not the author of them.
(The article provides a reasonable and compelling narrative of the sequence of events leading to collapse. Once you read and understand it, you will see how silly the bomb claims are.)

Explosive thermite?
Is there really such a thing? Lawrence Livermore is a nuclear bomb laboratory. I've no idea if they ever invented "explosive thermite". (See "argument ad hominem" above.)

[Devon77]

46. here a patent but I don't know if it's the same

http://v3.espacenet.com/origdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=US3297503&F=0&QPN=US3297503

[MervinFerd]

49. That patent was issued in 1967. It would hardly be a secret to anyone.

It -was- assigned to the US Government.

So?

Buildings -can- be brought down by many kinds of incindiary devices; there is simply no rational basis for thinking that WTC7 collapsed for any reason except structural damage aggraved by fire.

If you will actually read the Counterpunch and the NIST descriptions of the collapse, you will understand that a bomb (or thermite) is not a likely cause of the collapse. The building fell in several stages and its pretty well understood what was going on during each. A bomb just doesn't fit in anywhere.

[Devon77]

52. Did I say it was a secret ? you were asking me if such a thing exists. nt

[Contrite]

48. Yes, there is such a thing. It's "superthermite". Google it.

http://www.wistech.org/2005/01/superthermite_b.html

https://www.dodsbir.net/selections/sttr1_02.htm

http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA419512

http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=14105&ch=nanotech

I would like to point out that Sandia Labs is also involved--see the "father" of thermite, Jonathan Mohler, who worked there since the 1960s.

[MervinFerd]

50. I'll take your word for it.

I doubt I will be needing any right away.

[Contrite]

51. LOL. Yes, it is hard to imagine an urgent need for it myself. n/t

[SidDithers]

18. ROFL...

:rofl:

no other response is really appropriate. You people are reading way too much into this. You're jumping to conclusions without having all the facts.

It's gold, Jerry! Gold!

Sid

[truthpowertruth]

20. And the irrelevancy grows...

[BuyingThyme]

26. Why does Alex Jones keep pinning this on Jane Standley?

I haven't seen anything to indicate that any of this came from her.

Has anybody?

[Bolo Boffin]

27. Because it's about payback for the documentary, not the truth.

I mean, he put on a nice tie for his interview and everything, and they made him look foolish (by letting the tape run).

Now he has some tape to run that makes the BBC look foolish, and it's payback time.

[BuyingThyme]

28. Well, he's got the words right, but he's attributing them to the wrong

hack. It's the anchor, in Britain, who parroted something from somebody whose identity is being concealed.

[Bolo Boffin]

34. The probability is that Standley gave the anchor his information.

Although the possibility exists that he got information from another source plus Standley. Standley is clearly familiar with what the anchor is saying.

But who Alex blames really isn't important, as long as he is blaming anyone else for anything else besides himself for his spanking in the BBC documentary. That is what's going on here. That's why Dylan's on board -- anything to keep people from watching him pick at his scabs while getting an English lesson from a BBC reporter. The BBC embarrassed the hell out of the "truth" movement personalities, and now it's payback time. If the need to salvage egos wasn't so pressing, this story wouldn't be an eighth of what it is right now.

edit: typos

[BuyingThyme]

35. It's pretty clear that Standly is only familiar with the "story"

to the extent of the report which preceded hers.

If you haven't seen the first 14+ minutes, you might want to take a look.

[Bolo Boffin]

38. I've seen the whole thing, thanks. n/t

[Bryan Sacks]

37. Standley cannot be the origin of the story, bolo, for an obvious reason

She could see WTC 7 from where she reported the story. She would not have said it had collapsed if she knew which building was 7, because she could have visually confirmed it was still standing at any time. Thus, if she told the anchorman about the story, it came from someone else.

The fact that this also means she didn't know which building was WTC 7, and yet felt competent to report on the matter, suggests a rather sorry state of affairs at BBC news, but that's hardly going to shock anyone.

The important point is that whether or not Standley told the anchor that 7 had collapsed, she cannot reasonbly be said to be the original source of the claim it collapsed.

[Bolo Boffin]

39. I'm saying she's a probable source for the announcer, not source of the story altogether.

Of course she's not the source of the story altogether. I thought that went without saying.

[Devon77]

40. She may know WTC 7 but the report is naming Salomon Brothers building

[Bolo Boffin]

43. WTC 7 is the Salomon Brothers building. Same thing.

You can google it and everything.

[Devon77]

45. What if she heard only the name WTC 7 and didn't know its name?

[Bolo Boffin]

47. I believe she calls it the Salomon Brothers building.

What is your point? Whether it's WTC 7 or the Salomon Brothers building, it's right behind her head.

[truthpowertruth]

29. Good talking point.

Nice spin.

Good of you to totally disregard ACTUAL troubling questions about WTC7/BBC.

[Bolo Boffin]

32. The truth is always the best talking point, and that's why I've used it here.

The only people troubled by these questions are people who require troubling in order to ignore that man behind the curtain.

"That man" being the righteous spanking administered to the 9/11 "truth" movement by the BBC's documentary.

The reporter on the spot clearly didn't know what the building looked like, or she wouldn't have run with the story. It would be a Monty Python skit if it weren't about the 9/11 attacks. And the actions of Jones and others have continued the Orwellian-Pythonesque feel to the whole situation. Alex Jones stands revealed as the infantile paranoid he is.

Enjoy your rise in chocolate rations, comrade! Love that Alex Jones!

[Devon77]

30. I think the visual effect is overwhelming

Furthermore, both the BBC report with Jane Standley and the CNN report with Aaron Brown clearly show Building 7 still standing,




But I would say both have the report so it doesn't really matter.



She says details are sketchy... etc

[BuyingThyme]

31. I think it matters in that the false (future) information seems to have

been supplied to the BBC in Britain, but Jones is making it appear that it was supplied to somebody in New York.

[Devon77]

33. It could have been written by Aaron Dykes

and the sentence These clips both reinforce the shocking, newly discovered BBC coverage wherein Jane Standley reports the collapse early-- with the building still standing behind her.

She reports on the collapse of WTC 7, or not?

The guy in the studio is quicker but nowhere does it say that she was first.

[BuyingThyme]

36. As far as I remember, she does not report that at all.

Well, except to the extent that she doesn't say, "What the fuck are you talking about?"

Well, again, to be fair, she does say something about details being sketchy.

[Twist_U_Up]

54. unbelievable

Kick