BBC Reported Building 7 Had Collapsed 20 Minutes Before It

Post Reply New Topic

BBC Reported Building 7 Had Collapsed 20 Minutes Before It Fell
Revealing, shocking video shows reporter talking about collapse with WTC 7 still standing in the background, Google removes clip. Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Prison Planet Tuesday, February 27, 2007 (UPDATED 5:36AM CST
Astounding video uncovered from the archives today shows the BBC reporting on the collapse of WTC Building 7 over twenty minutes before it fell at 5:20pm on the afternoon of 9/11. The incredible footage shows BBC reporter Jane Standley talking about the collapse of the Salomon Brothers Building while it remains standing in the live shot behind her head.

Minutes before the actual collapse of the building is due, the feed to the reporter mysteriously dies.This amazing clip was on Google Video back again here), but was removed within hours of the story breaking. However, hundreds of people had already managed to download the clip and it has gone viral on the Internet and the censors won't be able to shut the lid this time. A You Tube upload is available here but we fully expect this to be removed soon. You can watch it for the time being at this link and also here. A WMV link is here (on our server) and a Quicktime here. Bit torrent versions of the file can be found here. An avi version can be found here.

To be clear, the Salomon Brothers Building is just a different name for Building 7 or WTC 7. Skip forward to around the 14:30 minute mark.

Although there is no clock or time stamp on the footage, the source claims the report was given at 4:57pm EST, 23 minutes before Building 7 collapsed at 5:20pm. While the exact time of the report cannot be confirmed at present, it is clear from the footage that the reporter is describing the collapse of WTC 7 while it clearly remains standing behind her in the live shot.The fact that the BBC reported on the collapse of Building 7 over twenty minutes in advance of its implosion obviously provokes a myriad of questions as to how they knew it was about to come down when the official story says its collapse happened accidentally as a result of fire damage and debris weakening the building's structure.As we have documented before, firefighters, police and first responders were all told to get back from the building because it was about to be brought down. It is widely acknowledged by those who were there on the scene that warnings were issued for people to evacuate the area in anticipation of the building's collapse, with some even stating that a 20 second countdown preceded the collapse of the 47-story skyscraper, again clearly suggesting that it was taken down by means of explosives as the video footage of its implosion illustrates.In a September 2002 PBS documentary, the owner of the WTC complex Larry Silverstein discusses Building 7 and states that in the late afternoon of September 11, the decision was made to "pull it." The term "pull it" is industry jargon for controlled demolition, but Silverstein denied charges that WTC 7 had been deliberately brought down.

This newly uncovered video confirms that the collapse of WTC 7 was no surprise, because television news stations were reporting on it before it happened!

This footage is absolutely amazing and should provoke a firestorm of new questions aimed both at Silverstein and the BBC. Who told the BBC that the building was going to collapse before it did and why were they reporting its fall in advance of the event actually taking place?

Many have speculated that some kind of press release was leaked too soon and AP wires, radio stations and TV news outlets prematurely reported on WTC 7's collapse.

The video also severely undermines the credibility of the BBC who recently caused controversy by airing a 9/11 hit piece that sought to debunk questions that bring the official story into doubt.

Calls have already been put through to the BBC reporting the "mistake, The BBC have promised to "look into it."
Moronic commenters on Digg are already trying to bury the story, yet none of them have an answer as to why the BBC reported the building's collapse before it happened.ACTION: E Mail the BBC and ask them to clarify exactly why their reporter is announcing the collapse of Building 7 before it has collapsed.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc[/youtube][youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3E-26oVIIs[/youtube]WTC Owner Larry Silverstein gave order to "pull" Building 7

Last edited by TheResistance on 12 Apr 2007, 2:12 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Interesting..., Eric Cartman.

There are a lot of possibilities here. It's been a long time; why is this coming out now? Perhaps the video has been edited because someone thinks it's a funny hoax. Perhaps the reporter didn't actually know which building was WTC 7, and the picture behind her is not a window but a RECORDING from earlier in the day. It does show a building down; maybe she thought the building it showed collapsed was WTC 7 but it wasn't. I'm sure at the time such ideal views of the skyline were hard to come by, so she cut corners. The report was live but the background wasn't.

Anyway there are lots of explanations more plausible than "it's a big conspiracy."

I dunno, after watching all those conspiracy videos it seems there's a lot more to explain than just that one. The falling towers (which were designed to withstand multiple plane crashes), the fact that this powerful building is the only one ever to collapse from simply fire. It made a whole lotta sense to me, and I'm not easily impressed(ok maybe I am, but it made a whole lot of sense).. The pentagon crash as well.. which left no debris of any plane whatsoever, no blackened trail from plane impact on the lawn, no engines... nothing but a teeny weeny hole in the wall.. etc.. this vid would have to be looked at from the big picture..

Having said that, it's entirely possible some people are going around having fun making up stuff, or trying to start an uprising or something. To be honest, I prefer not to think about it; if there is a conspiracy, uncovering it would throw US, and eventually the entire world into a not-exactly-stable state.. but I wouldn't quite say that ''it's a big conspiracy'' is implausible at all

If anyone has anything more than a passing interest in what happened that day I highly recommend the book
9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA by Webster Griffin Tarpley
it isnt just about 9/11 as it starts with a "state sponsored terror primer" then works its way up to the how and why of the current global political climate. Its a very scary read.

The starter question for 9/11 is what happend at NORAD - they are claimed to be bumbling idiots by the official version of 9/11 even though there where a total of FIVE excercises that day. These ensured that america had no fighter cover other than a small number of jets (the rest where running excercises far far from the action). Norad was conducting drills simulating the very thing that happend that day so as to ensure delayed responses from a system that would normally have a fighter to a problem aircraft within 10-20 minutes as they started off with no knowledge of which planes where real , which where part of the excercises.

Some of these where operation vigilant guardian , operation vigilant shield and operation tripod 2.

The other excercises also very handily featured one due to start on the 12th that meant FEMA had a full disaster team set up and ready to go in New York.

The wtc 7 being announced early video has been confirmed as geniune - it wasnt just BBC that reported it early CNN made the same mistake so people can only assume the newswire service made a booboo.

Theres a lot more to what happend than people are told by the media. After all most media is owned by only a few corporations and they certainly have an agenda.

If this isn't true, they aren't helping their case by trying to cover it up and delete all the videos.

Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if 9/11 was planned by the US government.

I reckon it's more likely that because they were in such a panic, it was stupid misreporting. There was a lot of stupidity that day revealed: the suicidal stupidity of al Qaeda, the stupidity of Dubya in not reading the reports about al Qaeda, and now the stupidity of the news, because they couldn't find any info, so they just made it up as they went along. It is hard to underestimate some people. Indeed, I think a problem is overestimation. You're thinking too highly of people who planned a war in Iraq that is yet to be over.

The image behind Jane Standly is a live view of Manhattan seen through a window. The BBC released a statement concerning the video and made no claims that the background scene was pre-recorded.

I recently learned that NORAD was conducting a huge number of exercises on Sept. 11, some of the drills involved terrorists hijacking airliners. I was shocked to learn this. What are the odds of that? Why hasn't this been reported on television?

I have also recently read an article about Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta's testimony before the 911 commission. From the hearing transcript it can only be concluded that Dick Cheney ordered the ground based anti-aircraft defenses in D.C. to stand down as the Boeing approached the Pentagon.

An interesting question the article asks is: Why didn't the 911 Commission investigate the failure of the Pentagon's anti-aircraft systems to attack the approaching Boeing? The airspace around Washington D.C. is one of the most heavily defended zones in the world. The Boeing 575 could have been easily shot down by the Pentagon's defense systems. Yet the 911 commission never examined why the anti-aircraft systems didn't even attempt to engage the incoming aircraft.

Because it's doesn't matter. NORAD is always conducting huge number of exercises. Rosie O'Donnell should be fired, BTW.



(emphasis added)

Notice that? It can only be concluded so there is no other possible conclusion. So therefor 1. I am a complete bafoon/idiot for not agreeing with you or 2. Like thousands/tens of thousands/hundreds of thousands of other people I am part of the conspiracy.

So let's look at this particular accusation to see if there is any credibility to it.



Mineta did not say that Vice President Cheney ordered anti-aircraft weapons (what anti-aircraft weapons is this a reference to before 9/11?) to "stand down" at all. Mineta reference is to the shoot down order, not to an order canceling such an order. Although Mineta's testimony makes reference to his decision being "during the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon" it appears that this is being misinterpretated becuse Mineta (who was doubtless rather many things on his mind at the time) meant after the plane had struck. At Newsweek notes in a rather critical article:



(source)



First, off the United States doesn't have an "anti-aircraft" system like the former Soviet Union, China, or Iran where anti-aircraft guns ring major cities to prevent air attacks. In addition, questions like this simply ignore, I mean literally ignore the way that the military works. I would make this suggestion: If you do not think that a super-efficient US armed forces if capable of defeating a comparatively primitive Iraqi insurgency, then perhaps you should rethink your theories on the ability on the U.S. military to overcome basic issues as bureaucracy, breaking under pressure, and the reality that a peacetime air force in year 2001 does not work even like a peacetime one in 1958, yet along one at full scale war. Of course, this takes until consideration that the article of faith of conspiratorialists that the oh-so evil military is part of a massive plot to start a war for oil may not actually be true.



Wrong by any measure.



Yes, and this is why mobile anti-aircraft guns were deployed to Washington and New York after 9/11. Also, we were so keen to shoot down civilian airliners before 9/11 weren't we? But then again it was all a conspiracy so Bush knew there were coming right?! And Jacob, do you actually believe a aircraft struck the Pentagon?



What precisely are you talking about?

...I had a break I think I can do this again for a while.

Hey, TheResistance, I love the Silverstein video.

I have argued this before, but do you actually think he "pull down" his own building? Furthermore, do you think he would then be stupid enough to admit it on PBS? Would PBS, which is taxpayer funded, then be able to air such an "admission" under a evil George Bush "regime?" Furthermore, since pull is also a term for evacuating firefighters from a given areas, and since fighters were actually evacuated from the area since the building appeared unstable isn't this umm...insane?!

Do you think, Conspiracy theorists that Mr. Silverstein should be tried for being part of 9/11?

Silverstein's explanation, after two years of stonewalling, that "pull it" meant to withdraw the firefighters is a lie. There were no firefighters in the building for hours before the building's collapse. So what did Larry Silverstein mean when he stated: "I said, 'You know, we've had such terrible loss of life, may be the smartest thing to do is, is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse." He could not have meant that they should "pull" the firefighters from the building because there weren't any firefighters in the building, at least according to FEMA, NIST, and Frank Fellini, the Assistant Chief responsible for WTC 7 at that time. And if he meant "pull the firefighters" then why did he say "pull it", with no reference to anything other than the building? The argument that "pull" is not used to mean "demolish" a building is belied by the other footage in the PBS documentary. And consider the timing: "they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse." Could it really be possible that some (nonexistent) fire brigade was removed from the building and just at that moment ("then") the building collapsed? Is there really any doubt here about what Silverstein meant? The only reasonable conclusion is that Larry Silverstein's statement is an admission that WTC 7 was brought down by a controlled demolition, meaning that the official version of what happened to WTC 7 is false, and casting serious doubt on the official story that terrorists of a foreign origin destroyed the twin towers, as well as on the rest of the official account of 9/11. Note that this admission is a statement against Silverstein's own interests (putting him at odds with the official version of events and potentially jeopardizing his insurance claims). Such statements are given great weight as a matter of law. In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. This building's collapse alone resulted in a profit of about $500 million. How concerned should we be therefore that Silverstein Properties (BOUGHT THE LEASE) from MetLife for Chicago's Sears Tower in March 2004?

The length of time that it took Silverstein to respond to these charges and the fact that his eventual rebuttal does not correspond with the facts only gives us more grounds for skepticism. But even this argument is beside the point. The building's collapse had all the hallmarks of controlled demolition.

A real, thorough, impartial, independent investigation of the collapse of Building 7 needs to take place and if the conclusions of that investigation are that Building 7 was professionally demolished, criminal charges need to be brought against those suspected of involvement.

Donnald Rumfield announced on the 10th september that the pentagon had lost several trillion dollars.

Ugh...so much nonsense. I will respond in due time.

Yep

On september 10th 2001 Rumsfeld admitted that "According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions," 2.3 trillion dollars missing from the pentagon - of course there was a very serious project to find this money and a certain wing of the pentagon was full of accountants.

A day later a plane makes a 360 degree turn round the pentagon to take a flightpath that crosses the most lamp-posts and presents the most hazardous flight path to hit the building.

and hits the building where?

From The Pittsburg Post Gazette, December 20, 2001: "One Army office in the Pentagon lost 34 of its 65 employees in the attack. Most of those killed in the office, called Resource Services Washington, were civilian accountants, bookkeepers and budget analysts. They were at their desks when American Airlines Flight 77 struck."

"And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah. 'Hear my
voice: ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain
a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt. If Cain shall be
avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold."