Reader’s Request from Ismael Valdez: 9-11, WTC7 and BBC?

“WHY DID THE BBC ANNOUNCE WTC7 HAD COLLAPSED 30 MINUTES BEFORE ITS ACTUAL COLLAPSE??
Unless there was prior knowledge WTC7 would collapse?”
Thanks, Ismael, for submitting this great example of one of the longest lasting topics of a 9/11 conspiracy theory.
Long after the various other elements of the ‘theory’ had begun to quiet down (due to actual facts being available), the believers continue to trot out the ‘What about the BBC report predicting the collapse of WTC7?’ chant.
I have included this video that demonstrates a credible account of this event.
Anyone who subscribes to this particular conspiracy theory should ask themselves the following question:
Which is more probable?
Scenario 1: As described in the video, a combination of officials announcing the impending collapse of WTC7 combined with the confusion of the day plus the natural desire of news agencies to be first to report a significant event
OR
Scenario 2: A ‘secret’ plot that must remain ‘secret’ at all cost was in fact revealed to news agencies and their reporters, editors and anchors (who are just ordinary people, like you and me) in the hope that they’d know just how long to keep their mouths shut on each particular event
I’ll give you a hint: Pick scenario 1.
Interested in the cause of the collapse?
Here’s a nice download:
Structure Magazine explains one probable cause of the WTC 7 collapse. “Single Point of Failure: How the Loss of One Column May Have Led to the Collapse of WTC 7”
http://www.structuremag.org/…/200…/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf
https://youtu.be/zZrlNw-31R8
Thanks again for the submission!
And thanks for reading.
– Jeff

2 comments on “Reader’s Request from Ismael Valdez: 9-11, WTC7 and BBC?

  1. That’s all very well and good, but I’m afraid that unless or until you or someone else manages to break my complete prima facie empirically verifiable graphical target system analysis and conclusion arrived at by process of elimination (really just an exhaustively stated eighth grade homework assignment) by pointing out some error or needed correction…. it’s scenario 2.

    http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=49603.msg440497#msg440497

    • Thanks for posting!
      We’ve seen this objection before.
      Here’s what people do not consider when looking at the ‘free-fall’ argument:
      Any movement of a stationary object requires that a force be applied. The downward movement is easy to explain by virtue of the force applied by the Earth’s gravitational field. This is logical, and, looked at in a vacuum, would seem to leave no reason why there was no ‘tipping’ and that everything basically landed in the basement.
      However…
      Lateral movement, in any direction, would ALSO require a force to be applied. The larger the mass, the greater the force needed. Consider the mass of the object in question.
      If we’re talking about the two main towers, both were built out of steel frames, glass, and concrete slabs on steel truss joists. A single tower consists of 90,000,000 kg (100,000 tons) of steel, 160,000 cubic meters (212,500 cubic yards) of concrete and 21,800 windows. One single tower has a mass of about 450,000,000 kilograms (500,000 tons). The interior design of the World Trade Center contained 240 vertical steel columns, which were called the Vierendeel trusses.
      As no significant lateral force was applied during the collapse (wind load was very low that day, and the mass of a jet liner is statistically insignificant compared to the mass of the objects in question), Newtonian physics dictates limited or zero lateral movement.
      Has this been helpful?
      Thanks again for your post!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *