BBC News Reports Building 7 collapse 23 Minutes before it collapses.

Originally posted by ViewFromTheStars


AAhhh... so they were wrong when they said AHEAD of time that building 7 had collapsed and then IT DID. How CoNvEnIeNt!!

I'm not buying into that delusion or rationalization.

Thats your choice. You can believe it or not. News anchor reads what he sees, says WTC7 is indeed gone, later on asks the correspondent on live about WTC7, she looks around to confirm it, oops. Still there.

That's great that they used those "words" and all, and I read the Editor's Blog where he said this.

However - they still owe it to us to tell us what source told them this information. This will then either save them and solidify their story, or they will do everything in their power to keep saying what they have been saying without giving us discrete details on the source.

I haven't noticed as yet, but have we asked the question about the footage that comes after what we have seen?

It would be interesting to know at what point the BBC started to broadcast the collapse proper.

They would have to have seen/noticed the collapse of WTC 7 so soon after after the link up, did the studio go back to the link at all, post collapse?

Its a little hard to believe that no one stationed at the link site didn't notice something out of the ordinary.

Originally posted by Koka
Here is the full verbatim text to Richard Porter's Blog.

Until now, I don't think we've been accused of being part of the conspiracy. But now some websites are using news footage from BBC World on September 11th 2001 to suggest we were actively participating in some sort of attempt to manipulate the audience....

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... "

Richard Porter is head of news, BBC World

It's funny that Richard Porter feels he needs to be so defensive. I don't remember anyone, including Alex Jones, saying the BBC was part of the 9/11 conspiracy.

All Alex Jones (and most people here) is saying is that the BBC reported the collapse of WTC7 before it happened and we are simply trying to uncover how the BBC could have possibly come to that conclusion before it actually happened.

I think this is a logical and reasonable question to ask, regardless of your beliefs in any 9/11 conspiracy, and it would be nice if the BBC would take the request seriously and do some internal investigating as to why this was reported the way it was rather than simply turning it into another "crazy conspiracy theory".

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
[Im sorry, but you are being wilfully ignorant. Someone put the information out there that WTC7 had collapsed before it did...that is NOT AN ERROR, that shows that someone KNEW it was coming down before it did.

Unfortunatly, you can't dodge this bullet, and niether can the BBC.

I really don't want to be rude at this point shrunkensimon but when it comes to willful ignornace you are doing a pretty good job yourself.

If you bother to read the replies that both deltaboy and I gave to you a few pages back you will fully understand how and why the BBC, (and a whole lot of other people), knew that WTC7 was going to collapse before it did.

You my wish to believe that the eventual collapse was due to a deliberate action by someone other than a terrorist but as I said some time ago the fact that the building was going to collapse was not in question by 5.00pm EST.

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.

Richard Porter is head of news, BBC World

You got to be kidding me, one the most important events in recent history and the BBC no longer has the original tapes of their own broadcasts? Where did they go?, Did they get a visit from Sandy Berger?

Liveleak footage was too long. This one is directly related to WTC7 when both the anchor and correspondent talks about it.

Originally posted by timeless test
You my wish to believe that the eventual collapse was due to a deliberate action by someone other than a terrorist but as I said some time ago the fact that the building was going to collapse was not in question by 5.00pm EST.

If it was well known that the building was going to collapse, as you say, then why is there no official explanation for the collapse?

[edit on 27-2-2007 by r4758]

I have emailed the story to one of the beebs competitors hopefully they will give it airtime but I won't hold my breath lol

Originally posted by timeless test
You my wish to believe that the eventual collapse was due to a deliberate action by someone other than a terrorist but as I said some time ago the fact that the building was going to collapse was not in question by 5.00pm EST.

No need to wish. I know it was demolished.

There was no reason to suspect its collapse. It suffered minimal damage from WTC1/2 collapsing, and the fires within it were pathetic at best.

Your either incredabily stupid, or your just another shill.

Until now, I don't think we've been accused of being part of the conspiracy. But now some websites are using news footage from BBC World on September 11th 2001 to suggest we were actively participating in some sort of attempt to manipulate the audience....

Yes, I noticed his terminology, this maybe his way of tarring all conspiracy sites with the same brush. However, I would say that the general concensus is pushing toward the BBC being given the information as opposed to being involved in any manipulation or conspiracy.

[edit on 27-2-2007 by Koka]

Originally posted by timeless test
You my wish to believe that the eventual collapse was due to a deliberate action by someone other than a terrorist but as I said some time ago the fact that the building was going to collapse was not in question by 5.00pm EST.

Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o?clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o?clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

WTC: This Is Their Story

There is knowledge about the collapse because it was leaked out probably by someone within the Fire Crew or Silverstein's people.

This coupled with the NY police officer (recently) who says he heard bombs going off when he ran away from Bldg 7 is damning.

Its absolutely ridiculous to maintain that Bldg-- was *KNOWN* ahead of time of its collapse.

How the heck would anyone really know this? The BBC reported it as a *DEFINITE* fact and not just a speculation. They knew the report, the press release.

It seems to me, when you put together the way the Building Collapsed.
The fact NO SKYSCRAPER OF STEEL has done anything like this.
The fact it would take a global failure of all the columns at once.
The fact that the WTC-7 site was cleaned so fast.

Now, the fact that the Building collapsed after the report came.

This is damning evidence.

People are trying to debunk this with ridiculous claims, first it was a green screen etc.


This is what it is, and when you take everything together the people should demand an OPEN AND INDEPENDENT investigation into these events.


One thing to notice, look at how the BBC reporter says the Building was "WEAKENED". He is obviously giving out info that was given to him.



[edit on 27-2-2007 by talisman]

Probability states that it is highly unlikely that the BBC could have made an "error" and be correct.

1) Lots of buildings in the area; any of them could have collapsed

2) Only a few of them belonged to the WTC

3) Out of the few, they had a 1/5 chance of getting one of the remaining WTC buildings (accounting for the loss of WTC1 and WTC2; I think there were 7 in total?)

4) Not only that, but they then had to fight probability that a steel frame structure would collapse due to fire (an event that would be only the third time in history, and on the same day as the only other steel framed structures to collapse due to fire in history, namely WTC1 and WTC2)

5) The probability of a steel frame structure collapsing after a fire the same size as was in WTC7

Add that lot up, and well, I think it becomes millions to one.

[edit on 27-2-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

[edit on 27-2-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

[edit on 27-2-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

Originally posted by mister Jones
Why did the BBC news open with the collapse of the building 20+mins BEFORE the actual collapse?

Because they knew that the building was damaged to the point that it was collapsing, thats why they got everyone that was working to save the building out of it.

Did someone send out a press release a bit too early?

Why would 'they' send out a press release that it collapsed, there were people reporting on the scene, if 'they' did 911, they wouldnt make up press releases to have ready to distribute. And is this news reporter supposed to be one of 'them', who was in on the 911 conspiracy? Or was she a reporter reporting that the building was being evacuated because it was collapsing.

Originally posted by deltaboy
Well gee its not the first time that people makes mistakes in the news organization when the information is wrong.

If Standley had been reporting that morning after the first plane hit the first building, with the skyline in the background ... and she reported that a second plane had hit the second building (before it happened) then they "lost" their feed, then 5 minutes later, the second plane DID hit the second building... See where I'm going here?

Would that just be considered a "mistake" too? Because after one plane hit the first tower, we can assume a second one is possible, right? I know the thought occurred to many watching that day.

There are just so many coincidences that can be "explained away" about the events of the day and this ain't one. I mean, believe whatever you want, but I think it's a pretty far stretch to think this is just a goof. And Oops! We (a world-wide news source) also lost all our footage from the most important news event in the last hundred years. Silly us. What a cock-up...

Originally posted by mister Jones

Originally posted by Argos
14:08 to 14:49
Couls someone post a working link to the BBC archives where this vid is having bit of trouble finding it!

sure
14:08 to 14:49
14:49 to 15:31
15:31 to 16:13
16:13 to 16:54
16:54 to 17:36

Is the Us.archive.org the official bbc archive?
Is there an index for this archive i could perhaps view?

Don't forget, GOOGLE WAS taking this video off time and time again!!

The building came down right into its own foot-print at Free-Fall speed.

Can someone then explain why or WHAT CLEARED THE MASS of the floors below for the building ABOVE TO fall at that rate of speed?>?

IT has to be explosives.

That said, this is damning and people are coming up with ridiculous ways of trying to explain this.

did anyone try to contact the reporter yet. i assume this geezer has spoke to her like he said now, so she may not help much now.

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by mister Jones
Why did the BBC news open with the collapse of the building 20+mins BEFORE the actual collapse?

Because they knew that the building was damaged to the point that it was collapsing, thats why they got everyone that was working to save the building out of it.

Did someone send out a press release a bit too early?

Why would 'they' send out a press release that it collapsed, there were people reporting on the scene, if 'they' did 911, they wouldnt make up press releases to have ready to distribute. And is this news reporter supposed to be one of 'them', who was in on the 911 conspiracy? Or was she a reporter reporting that the building was being evacuated because it was collapsing.

how much are they paying you.

wake up fool