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

Don't forget that Larry Silverstein is on record as saying he had made the decision to "pull" the building earlier in the day!

[edit on 27-2-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

Originally posted by Rotator

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?

I downloaded all the videos above...and the part where she is reporting in front of wtc7 has been cut out...deleted....gone. Hmmmm interesting.

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.

This is not going to work, you are spinning your wheels.

"Because they knew that the building was damaged to the point that it was collapsing, "


'they'?

I guess "they" also knew that building 7 would collapse perfectly and fall at nearly free fall speed.



I wonder if "they" knew that building could possibly fall like this:

www.news8austin.com...

Most of the building collapsed and crumbled in the implosion. BUT large pieces are sticking up or are piled on one another near the site's outer edges, looming over sidewalks.

I'm growing weary of these moronic debunking attempts..


Perhaps a break from ATS is in order.

[edit on 27-2-2007 by ViewFromTheStars]

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.

they did not say it was going to collapse, they clearly say several times that it has collapsed already. My guess is it was a miscommunication - reporters on the scene reporting about wtc7 about to collapse got misinterpreted.

But then again, why is google and the bbc going through so much trouble to censor the footage if its just a mistake? Does that make sense to anyone?

Originally posted by talisman
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.

With respect talisman we don't want to derail the thread, which can happen all too easily, there are many threads where this detail is covered.

[edit on 27-2-2007 by Koka]

Originally posted by tombangelta
how much are they paying you.
wake up fool

Enough to get me warning points for stating the obvious, that him, deltaboy and possbily others aswell are quite blatently shills (i dont believe they are just stupid, no one is that stupid...)

Originally posted by ViewFromTheStars
I guess "they" also knew that building 7 would collapse perfectly and fall at nearly free fall speed.

Why wouldn't a builidng collapse at 'free fall speed', its a massinve building that has lost its support, of course its going to collapse 'unobstructed'.

I'm growing weary of these moronic debunking attempts..

Perhaps a break from ATS is in order.

When you're calling other posters morons, yeah, its usually time for a time out dude.

Not only do they report that building 7 has collapsed (past tense) but they go on to explain why it collapsed.

This is evidence of a pre-planning.

We are told that the reason building 7 collapsed was because it had been weakend from falling debris by a reporter who is standing in front of the still standing building 7.

[edit on 27-2-2007 by r4758]

the pollice and fire men didnt say its going to collape due to fire.

they said get back there going to pull it

and get back the building is going to blow up.

FFS how blind are some people , even moderators on ATS.

watch the god damn video

thats me done im not arguing with people who are supposed to be for the truth.

jesus

[edit on 27-2-2007 by tombangelta]

Originally posted by tombangelta
FFS how blind are some people , even moderators on ATS.

watch the god damn video

Look, you guys. If you can't keep from talking about other posters, you need to take a break.

THe most important job of a CT is to explore ALL angles of the story, ESPECIALLY the one you don't believe.

Chill out. Have some chamomile tea. Your emotions are getting the best of you. (And not just you, a few of you.)

Deep breaths...

My God, he's right!

I have yet to have any Tea today! What the hell am i thinking! Anyone else fancy a brew?

Nygdan

Why wouldn't a builidng collapse at 'free fall speed', its a massinve building that has lost its support, of course its going to collapse 'unobstructed'.

"It's a massive building that lost it's support".. well horky dorky borky.. HOW in the hell did it loose ALL of it's supports all at the same time allowing it to fall symetrically? Your gross oversimplification is typical and it's not going to work on me and I assure you ALOT of other people as well.

As far as taking a break? Yea.. we'll see. I didn't mean to call anyone a moron directly but I'll call certain debunking attempts/methods as they fall.



[edit on 27-2-2007 by ViewFromTheStars]

Originally posted by r4758
Not only do they report that building 7 has collapsed (past tense) but they go on to explain why it collapsed.

This is evidence of a pre-planning.

They proceed to tell us that the reason building 7 collapsed was because it had been weakend from falling debris, (even though it wasn't in the debris path, but I digress) and this is the same explanation used to this day even though NIST and UL have since backed away from this explanation.

Why is it just the BBC World Service (that we currently know of) that reported a collapse before the event? It is hardly evidence of pre-planning when a branch of an international broadcasting company is talking about the information before domestic networks.

Originally posted by Nygdan
Why wouldn't a builidng collapse at 'free fall speed', its a massinve building that has lost its support, of course its going to collapse 'unobstructed'.

Because all of the support columns have to be scientifically removed in order to achieve this. It takes weeks of planning to pull off a textbook demolition where the building falls at free fall speed into it's own foot print.

It is highly unlikely that falling debris from the other towers caused damage at the exact points on wtc 7 that would allow for a perfect symmetrical collapse at free-fall speed.

Originally posted by Muppetus Galacticus

Originally posted by r4758
Not only do they report that building 7 has collapsed (past tense) but they go on to explain why it collapsed.

This is evidence of a pre-planning.

They proceed to tell us that the reason building 7 collapsed was because it had been weakend from falling debris, (even though it wasn't in the debris path, but I digress) and this is the same explanation used to this day even though NIST and UL have since backed away from this explanation.

Why is it just the BBC World Service (that we currently know of) that reported a collapse before the event? It is hardly evidence of pre-planning when a branch of an international broadcasting company is talking about the information before domestic networks.

It most certainly is evidence especially if they were reporting off a 'press release'.....

r4758

It is highly unlikely that falling debris from the other towers caused damage at the exact points on wtc 7 that would allow for a perfect symmetrical collapse at free-fall speed.

Thank you but I'll go one step further..

It's not only highly unlikely but I'll venture to say it's IMPOSSIBLE!

Originally posted by tombangelta


how much are they paying you.

wake up fool

There is no need for that. Some people use denial as a security blanket, they know that no matter how many smoking guns there are, there is nothing that they can really do about it.

Koka

Good point on derailing. I was just showing that the when everything is considered together the case if very compelling.

Your correct however, it is easy to derail so sticking to the topic is better

Having said this;

I think we can all agree that the screen in behind the lady is definitely a live shot which is usually done when LIVE events are huge.

That Blg-7 is clearly standing in the background when she spoke of a collapse in the past tense.

That Google kept taking the video off.

That the BBC lost its live feed at a very convenient point.

Originally posted by Muppetus Galacticus

Originally posted by r4758
Not only do they report that building 7 has collapsed (past tense) but they go on to explain why it collapsed.

This is evidence of a pre-planning.

They proceed to tell us that the reason building 7 collapsed was because it had been weakend from falling debris, (even though it wasn't in the debris path, but I digress) and this is the same explanation used to this day even though NIST and UL have since backed away from this explanation.

Why is it just the BBC World Service (that we currently know of) that reported a collapse before the event? It is hardly evidence of pre-planning when a branch of an international broadcasting company is talking about the information before domestic networks.

It is not that BBC reported the event before it happened, it's that they had the explanation for the collapse pre-planned.

The building is still standing and you are being told "WHY" it collapsed!!!

The explanation was pre-planned.