BBC Covers WTC 7 Collapse Before it Happened!

[PhantomWolf]

I was giving an example of something else that has been officially ignored despite the eye witnesses

All completely ignored by the 9-11 Whitewash Omission. Why?

How about because it wasn't part of what the Commission was looking into? The Commission wanted to know how it happened, not what happened. The question of what happened has been left up to the NIST reports. Saying a report about why something happened, how things went wrong and how they could be changed, didn't cover what happened, when that is a separate report from a separate body, is really clutching at straws. It's like claiming that a report into the ATC handling of an air crash was a whitewash because it didn't cover hoew the airframe handed the stress of the crash and why passangers couldn't get out one of the emergency exits.

[nomuse]

Heh. I was living in San Francisco during the Loma Prieta quake. When the quake struck I was at rehearsal across the Bay, in Berkeley. The local news were pretty careful about what conclusions they made -- although I recall them hinting pretty broadly that the transbay tube (used by the BART transit system) had collapsed.

National news, and news stations elsewhere in the country, though, were reporting the Golden Gate bridge had collapsed. It took them a few days to get even close to the right facts.

[twinstead]

911truth said:

Poor mainstream media...so misunderstood. They never tell lies or half-truths, just honest mistakes.

Despite your desperate strawman, nobody here is saying the mainstream media never lies or tells half-truths.

We are submitting that in this case, the most rational explanation is that they made a mistake.

And here's a strawman for you: " Dastardly evil mainstream media, they never make honest mistakes, every apparent anomaly is indeed evidence of conspiracy and in need of immediate investigation"

see how fun that is?

ETA: I think it's funny that upon every opportunity, when CTs latch on the latest 'smoking gun' like this that at the end really isn't the rock-solid evidence they thought (like they all are) instead of admitting that a CT is far-fetched in this case, their response is to immediately start throwing additional mud on the wall to see what sticks.

"my CT isn't the most likely explanation, huh? Well, what about THIS? HUH, answer THIS. OH, not the most likely, huh? WEL WHAT ABOUT THIS?!!!"

I think you folks should stay on topic and start another thread about your 'this'.

[Jason Thompson]

I've looked at the video, and at the moment I am leaning heavily on the 'mistake' idea, largely because, as is so often the case with conspiracy theorists, I await the arrival of the complete footage.

I would be most interested in seeing the news coverage of the time of the actual collapse and what the reporters said about it then. Of course, the CTs don't give us that, they just end the uninterrupted footage as the feed from New York breaks down, but before WTC 7 collapses, and then think their view is irrefutably demonstrated. Give us the rest of the evidence. You wouldn't convict a man of killing someone just because he was seen heading towards their appartment carrying a baseball bat, so I won't convict the BBC or draw any conclusions about a conspiracy until and unless the rest of that footage turns up for analysis.

[PhantomWolf]

You wouldn't convict a man of killing someone just because he was seen heading towards their appartment carrying a baseball bat

Most of the CT's around here would, especially if he had motive.

[LunarOrbit]

What I suspect may have happened is that the BBC had been listening to police and fire department radio. They likely heard them say something about the building's collapse being imminent and misheard it as having collapsed already.

Or maybe they were simply reporting an unconfirmed rumour... nah, the media has never done that before, right? You know how rumours work: it starts out as "it appears building 7 may collapse" and then by the time the information has passed through a dozen people it has become "building 7 has collapsed!" and that is what the media reports.

I doubt the BBC waited for a clearly written press release announcing the building had collapsed before they report it. The media is always interested in beating their competition to a story.

[911: Inside Job]

Update: CNN, BBC 24 Reports Conclusively Prove Media Prior Knowledge and False-Start Scripting of Building 7 Controlled Demolition

Posting a copy here, but best read from the above source.

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 [See World Time Zones] 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.

CNN'S REPORT IN-FOCUS
AARON BROWN QUESTIONS SCRIPT ON-AIR, UNLIKE BBC

It is interesting to note that Aaron Brown seems to realize the incongruity of his reporting as he looks over his shoulder at Building 7-- still standing and emitting massive trails of smoke.

Just after announcing that WTC 7 "has collapsed or is collapsing," he lets onto his confusion, stating:

"And I—I—You, to be honest, can see these pictures more clearly than I, but building number 7, one of the buildings in this very large complex of buildings that is that is the trade center."

Clearly, Brown, slicker than the BBC reporter, caught the errors in the script during live coverage and revised his words, saying instead-- as he looked at the standing structure:

"And now we are told that there’s a fire there and that building may collapse as well as you can see."

BBC 24 REPORT IN-FOCUS
Time-Stamped BBC Broadcast Seals Media Foreknowledge of Building 7 Collapse and Use of Scripting

An alternate local BBC report-- which included a live time-stamp-- now positively establishes that BBC reported the collapse of WTC Building 7 at least 25-minutes prior to the actual collapse of the building.

The feed seen above (at top) reports at 21.54 London time that:

News is continuing to come in as you can imagine. We're now being told that another enormous building in New York has collapsed. It is the 47-story Salomon Brothers building [better known as WTC Building 7] which was situated very close to the World Trade Center, right there in this financial capitol.

21.54-- 5 hours earlier in New York-- is 4:54 p.m., well before the actual collapse at 5:20 p.m.

This live feed did not show WTC 7 standing during the announcement, as it was showing B-roll of rescue workers on the ground.

The words used are very similar to the BBC report with Jane Standley, who also reported the WTC 7 collapse prematurely-- with the building visible in the live frame beyond the window. The latter coverage also included an explanation by the co-anchor that the building was not attacked, but, rather, was "weakened"-- perfectly in line with the official story even before the collapse took place.

BBC'S ABSURD RESPONSE IN-FOCUS
BBC Claims 9/11 Tapes Lost; CNN Archivist Contradicts This, Citing Multiple Copies Recorded

BBC responded to news of the early report on Building 7's collapse, claiming, amongst other excuses, that their 9/11 tapes have been lost.

A CNN archivist in Atlanta, and Infowars reader, corrected this erroneous notion:

"I'm an archivist with the CNN News Library in Atlanta, and I can tell you with absolute certainty, the mere idea that news agencies such as ours would "misplace" any airchecks from 9/11 is preposterous. CNN has these tapes locked away from all the others. People like myself, who normally would have access to any tapes in our library, must ask special permission in order to view airchecks from that day. Multiple tapes would have been recording their broadcast that day, and there are also private agencies that record all broadcasts from all channels - constantly - in the event that a news agency missed something or needs something. They don't just have one copy... they have several. It's standard procedure, and as soon as the second plane hit, they would start recording several copies on other tapes machines all day long.

The only information they need to give out is the source of the collapse claim. No one is saying the BBC is "part of the conspiracy," we're saying that someone gave that reporter the information ahead of time. The source of that information is the only thing they can reveal that would be meaningful."

WTC COMPLEX IN-FOCUS
WTC 3 Was Structurally Destroyed by Falling Debris, Yet Did Not Uniformly Collapse at Free-Fall Speed Like WTC 7

World Trade Center Building 3 -- known publicly as the 22-story Marriott Hotel positioned between the Twin Towers-- was heavily damaged during the collapse of WTC 2, yet it did not experience uniform collapse either vertically or horizontally-- but rather a crater of inconsistent breakage.


WTC Building 3 Was Heavily Damaged by the Collapse of Tower 2, Yet Did Not Collapse Uniformly.

Yet, Building 7, which was comparably far removed from the two buildings hit by airliners, suffered only minor fires and sudden, uniform collapse-- typically indicative of a controlled demolition.

Clearly, the difference in damage between the two steel buildings is baffling and untenable under the explanation offered by the government's official story.

SEE ALSO: Another Smoking Gun? Now CNN Jumps the Gun: On 911 CNN Announced WTC 7 "Has Either Collapsed or is Collapsing" Over an Hour Before it Fell

MORE INFORMATION TO COME AS THESE NEW DEVELOPMENTS CONTINUE TO SURFACE THROUGH INDEPENDENT 9/11 RESEARCH.

BBC Responds to Building 7 Controversy; Claim 9/11 Tapes Lost

Pathetic five paragraph blog rebuttal does not answer questions as to source of report that Salomon Building was coming down, BBC claims tapes lost due to "cock-up" not conspiracy

Paul Joseph Watson / Prison Planet | February 27, 2007

The BBC has been forced to respond to footage showing their correspondent reporting the collapse of WTC 7 before it fell on 9/11, claiming tapes from the day are somehow missing, and refusing to identify the source for their bizarre act of "clairvoyance" in accurately preempting the fall of Building 7.

Here is the BBC's response to the questions about the footage that was unearthed yesterday, with my comments after each statement.

1. We're not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening.

"We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down." If this is true, then how on earth did the BBC report the collapse of Building 7 before it happened? Psychic clairvoyance? Of course they were told that WTC 7 was coming down, just like the firefighters, police, first responders and CNN were told it was coming down. They had to have had a source for making such a claim. The BBC is acting like the naughty little boy who got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. No one here is claiming the BBC are "part of the conspiracy," but their hideous penchant to just repeat what authorities tell them without even a cursory investigation (and with the Building they are telling us has collapsed mockingly filling the background shot of the report), is a damning indictment of their yellow journalism when it comes to 9/11.

BBC Slip-up

2. In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had. We did what we always did - sourced our reports, used qualifying words like "apparently" or "it's reported" or "we're hearing" and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving.

How do "chaos and confusion" explain how the BBC reported on the collapse of a building, a collapse that happened "unexpectedly" according to their Conspiracy Files hit piece documentary, before it happened? In one breath the BBC is claiming they were not told of the impending collapse of the Building and in the next they are telling us that all their information is sourced. Which is it to be? Did the BBC have a source telling them the building was about to collapse or not? If not, how on earth could they pre-empt its fall? Do BBC reporters have access to a time machine? What was the source of this information?

3. Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I've spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn't remember minute-by-minute what she said or did - like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services.

Trying to make sense of what she was being told? She obviously didn't make much sense of the fact that the Building she was reporting had collapsed was prominently standing behind her! Unfortunately, for a news organization that prides itself on accuracy and credibility, "she doesn't remember" just doesn't cut it as an excuse.

BBC included a screenshot of yesterday's Prison Planet article in their brief response.

4. We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another.

We are asked to believe that the world's premiere news organization has somehow lost all its tapes of perhaps the biggest news event of the past 60 years. This is a copout. Whether they have lost the tapes or not, the BBC simply doesn't want to verify one hundred per cent their monumental foul-up, because they know it would only increase the exposure of this issue and lead to further questions. What is there to clear up? The reporter is standing in front of the building while saying it has already collapsed! This is a blatant effort to try and placate people making complaints while refusing to admit a monumental faux pas that further undermines the BBC's credibility in the aftermath of the Conspiracy Files debacle.

5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today "so the guy in the studio didn't quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy... "

So now the BBC are so devoid of answers, they have to enlist the help of some moronic comment on a You Tube blog? Instead of issuing official statements and seeking the advice of legal professionals they produce a cobbled together five paragraph blog and include the testimony of some moron on a You Tube comment board. Pathetic! Answer the question BBC - what was your source for reporting on multiple occasions that Building 7 had collapsed before it had collapsed, and identify the source that enabled the anchorman to comment that the building had collapsed due to it being weakened, an explanation still unanswered by NIST five and a half years later.

If you had reported the collapse of the twin towers before it happened would that have been just an error too? This "error" translated as $800 million plus in insurance bounty for Larry Silverstein - I'm sure Industrial Risk Insurers would be interested to know the source of your "error." In addition, two seperate sources reported that Secret Service Agent Craig Miller died as a result of the collapse of Building 7. Do you think he would have been interested in the "error" that led to your correspondent reporting the building's downfall in advance?[/size]

[LunarOrbit]

Is it really necessary to use a red font? It's hard on the eyes, so I'm not even going to bother reading the whole thing.

[twinstead]

Alex is an idiot. Everything from his lame conjecture, his condescending attitude to the BBC even though he has no real evidence at all it wasn't a mistake, and his false idea that Larry Silverstein came away with an $800 million insurance 'bounty' is pure unadulterated crap.

But he is right about the insurance companies being on any hint of conspiracy like white on rice. The fact they are not is telling. Oh, but wait till Alex gets a hold of them. LOL

911 inside job I really wish you used the same anal-retentive scrutiny you give to the official story to Alex Jones; maybe then you wouldn't look so biased.

[PhantomWolf]

Alex is an idiot. Everything from his lame conjecture

Well when he repeats the oft used, but demonstratably incorrect lines that:

1) The collapse was at freefall speed (it wasn't the entire collapse took at least 14 secs, not the 6.5 the CT sites edit the video to show. This is when the Eastern Mechanical Penthouse goes, and the indications are that the collapse is already well underway at that stage, so the internal collapse could have already bee going for several seconds prior to this.)

2) That it was sudden. (It wasn't, the firecrews and emergency crews had been pulled off rescue operations over 2 hours eariler, and witnesses had been saying they thought it was coming down well before that occured.)

3) It was symetrical (It wasn't, the debris damage to nearby buildings shows it, and the collpase itself is quite obviously not because the internals at the eastern end of the building collapsed at least 7 seconds before any of the rest of it went. The only part of the collapse that was symetrical was the North facade, but that fell 7 seconds after the first visible signs of collapse.)

4) Building 7 wasn't damaaged and only had light fires. (Shown to be obviously wrong by video of the fires and smoke pouring from the building, even though our resident pretzel tried to deny that blatently obvious fact in the other thread.)

If he can't get these 4 major points right, why should we give any of the rest of his speculation, and that is all it is, any merit?

[Grand Lunar]

I realize something.

Just as it is with Apollo, the main reason it sees 9/11 conspiracy theories are abundent are because of the scale of it all.

Where are all the conspiracy theories of past acts of terror?
Where are the "USS Cole Scholars for Truth"?

When you think about it, one can see how selective CTers of any type are.

[PhantomWolf]

Perhaps we should start them up?

How about the following?

Gemini was filmed in a sound studio

The USS Cole was blown up by the US Navy (warning: music in weblink)

The US Blow up its own Embassy in Kenya and Tanzania

The US invaded Somalia to get its oil

The US Government blew up PanAm 103 to blame Lybia

Israel blew up the Australian Embassy in revenge for allegations of Mossad obtaining fake New Zealand and Australian Passports just months eariler

[911: Inside Job]

None of you find it curious that at least 3 major news channels were all reporting the same story too soon? That the story was quite accurate, just premature? That doesn't strike anybody as odd? I realize that to defend a position, it's best to say nothing if that's all you've got.

They were so sure WTC 7 was going to collapse, they gave out press releases ahead of time? And they call CT's gullible.

[gorgonian]

What press release?

[PhantomWolf]

They were so sure WTC 7 was going to collapse, they gave out press releases ahead of time

I have to echo gorgonian. What press release?

The BBC stated that they got the information off the wire, basically an information system that is availible to all media and if being constantly updated from sources on the ground, often with little checking. Several media outlets could easily have picked up the same incorrect information, or the others could have picked up on information that the first delievered incorrectly.

What I think is being gullible is believing that the news surrounding such an event is going to be 100% accurate and mistake free. As I already pointed out, early reports had a truck bomb being detonated outside the Capitol in Washington D.C. Was that all covered up by the MIB's or was it a mistake that got into the mix and was reported, then retracted later on?