4um: Oops!, BBC was half an hour too early reporting on WTC7 collapse

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
9/11
See other 9/11 Articles
Title: Oops!, BBC was half an hour too early reporting on WTC7 collapse
Source: BBC
URL Source: http://BBC
Published: Feb 26, 2007
Author: BBC
Post Date: 2007-02-26 09:16:39 by RickyJ
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: None
Views: 7359
Comments: 123

Subscribe to *9-11*
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 86.
#85. To: RickyJ (#0)
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=4313
From the link above:

Timing of First Pentagon Smoke and Fire:
930-932am.
Sources: Naudet film, Barbara Honegger reporting "Seven Hours in September: the Clock that Broke the Lie" --------------------

I am talking about the first reports of explosions, attack, bombs, or fire. There was no mention of aircraft until 937 to 948 am. At 930am, or within one or two minutes, an attack occurred at location unknown within the Pentagon. CNN reported this.
What caused CNN to report that the Pentagon was on fire at 930am? and if the Naudet footage is a 'reconstruction' how to we account for the 3 other independent lines of evidence to suggest a 930-932am 'bomb' at Pentagon?

honway posted on 2007-02-26 22:12:50 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#86. To: All (#85)
http://911foreknowledge.com/staged.htm
Watching the firehouse TV, Tony Benetatos is outraged (42:29 into the DVD): "The Pentagon's on f****ing fire," he says, apparently not to the person ostensibly filming him live, Gédéon Naudet. Small problem: the clock next to the TV says it is 9.30, but the Pentagon was not hit until 9.37. It is easily explained: either the clock was at least 7 minutes slow or the scene we are watching is another reconstruction and the picture on the TV is a video recording. But what use would a wrong clock be in a firehouse? And if the scene is a reconstruction, why would they leave in a mistake as obvious as this one? How could they have him talking about something we'd know hadn't happened yet?

honway posted on 2007-02-26 22:16:12 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
Replies to Comment # 86.
#87. To: honway (#86)
Hmmmmm good question. Better ask BAC.

TommyTheMadArtist posted on 2007-02-26 22:26:53 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
End Trace Mode for Comment # 86.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

Freedom4um