BBC News reported the fall of building 7 twenty three minutes before it actually happened (Page 2): No it actually was reported. But it's still BS. Fog of war and all that. BBC...

The Aardvark Is Ready

letmedance wrote:

yes

No it actually was reported. But it's still BS. Fog of war and all that. BBC explained it.

The Aardvark Is Ready

srg wrote:

I am not as good a sleuth as many are on this site. That is why I ask only one direct question.
Is it true or not true that BBC reported this before it happened.
That opens the mind to question, how did they know?

Yes it is true. They did report it. They explained the situation. People report all kinds of unverifiable stuff in these historical situations. People reported gunshots from the "grassy knoll" Doesn't make it true. Just answer a simple question. To whose benefit would it be to report it ahead of time?

mwalsh Loc: Houston

srg wrote:

You mean its bs that it was reported before it happened?

Yes

Not true

The Aardvark Is Ready

mwalsh wrote:

Yes

Not true

It is true. The BBC did report it. Now drawing wild conspiracy conclusions from that mistaken reporting is what's BS.

srg

letmedance wrote:

yes

So tell me how you know this so that I can be as certain as you are.

RichieC Loc: Adirondacks

yeah, no way jet fuel could bring down a steel structure.... had to be explosives, same with building 7....Heard it all before.

https://www.inquirer.com/science/i95-philly-tanker-truck-fire-steel-20230612.html

And finally two views of WTC... back lit so you can see just how much air was in them...

The Aardvark Is Ready

RichieC wrote:

yeah, no way jet fuel could bring down a steel structure.... had to be explosives, same with building 7....Heard it all before.

https://www.inquirer.com/science/i95-philly-tanker-truck-fire-steel-20230612.html

And finally two views of WTC... back lit so you can see just how much air was in them...

Wow, that second WTC pic says it all!

srg

The Aardvark Is Ready wrote:

Wow, that second WTC pic says it all!

The docile mind will accept any explanation so long as it does minimal disturbance to the herd.

The Aardvark Is Ready

srg wrote:

The docile mind will accept any explanation so long as it does minimal disturbance to the herd.

Why are you talking about yourself so disparagingly?

Kraken Loc: Barry's Bay

RichieC wrote:

yeah, no way jet fuel could bring down a steel structure.... had to be explosives, same with building 7....Heard it all before.

https://www.inquirer.com/science/i95-philly-tanker-truck-fire-steel-20230612.html

And finally two views of WTC... back lit so you can see just how much air was in them...

BS fear-mongering, in 1986 a gas fuel transport hit the James Snow Parkway overpass

and caught fire on the 401 highway in Ontario destroying the steel and concrete structure.

It wasn't even jet fuel.

The Aardvark Is Ready

Kraken wrote:

BS fear-mongering, in 1986 a gas fuel transport hit the James Snow Parkway overpass

and caught fire on the 401 highway in Ontario destroying the steel and concrete structure.

It wasn't even jet fuel.

No offense, but I think his post went totally over your head. Did you miss the sarcasm?

Tex-s

srg wrote:

according to this video.

https://youtu.be/HIBG_InCKKI

The claim is correct, and has been used as ‘proof’ in lots of conspiracy theories. There is actually no debate that the BBC made the claim, but the obvious reason is human error in the form of poor editing or proofreading. With many buildings in the Center, it’s not a shock someone managed to give one a wrong number.

If I’m going down a rabbit hole looking for indicators of conspiracy, there are some 20 other circumstances and events that pique my curiosity more than the BBC making live coverage errors.

smf85 Loc: Freeport, IL

I remember that at the time one of the local TV stations had a structural/physical engineer on saying that building 7 was going to fall within an hour or so - the foundation was shot. It fell about 30 minutes later.

I wonder if this was the source of the mid-reporting.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

srg wrote:

I would love to laugh along with the humorous responses. But I would like to know, is it a fact, or is it not a fact.

It is a fact that you're a tin foil cult member.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

RichieC wrote:

yeah, no way jet fuel could bring down a steel structure.... had to be explosives, same with building 7....Heard it all before.

https://www.inquirer.com/science/i95-philly-tanker-truck-fire-steel-20230612.html

And finally two views of WTC... back lit so you can see just how much air was in them...

There were explosives that took down the WTC towers, they were called two commercial aircrafts loaded with jet fuel. Did you not see the two explosions when the aircrafts hit the towers?