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

Originally posted by mecheng

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic...In the confusion of clearing the building using radio communications, somebody heard that it was "coming down". An affirmative Press Release was issued. "Building 7 IS collapsing or has collapsed". And that went out over the wire.

BBC read it as fact before the detonation could take place.

Very good BH. I was thinking the same thing from the CT side. But, if an AP release was made wouldn't you think someone at BBC with half a brain would have said "hey, wait a minute... the building is right there!... this report is bogus!"?

Dude, I'm willing to put money on it that not even half the people in NYC knew what building 7 was or which out of the twin towers was 1 or 2.

How the hell would you expect a bunch of Brits to know what people that lived there all their life most likely don't even know.

Originally posted by mecheng
But, if an AP release was made wouldn't you think someone at BBC with half a brain would have said "hey, wait a minute... the building is right there!... this report is bogus!"?

IMO, hence this thread.

No assertions as to BBC involvement, just more the "Hmmm-factor" that it continued to be reported and shown over an extened period of time - with never a recant or correction.

Originally posted by mecheng
Thanks. I was hoping someone would come up with another theory besides "reporting mistake". However, it still doesn't make sense as to why release the news prior to it happening.

Becuase they didn't know any better, the error is that no one seemed to know which building was WTC 7 else it would not have gone out.

Not a deliberate error, a mistake due to lack of local knowledge.

The f'n thing is right there for everyone to see. The building was going to come down in another 25 minutes so why not just wait awhile? I think you'd get the same effect without exposing yourself to scrutiny later.

We know the story has to have a source and that source knew that WTC 7 was definitely going to fall, the reporters did not know when it would fall.

They had no idea it was going to fall so would not know how long to wait, unless you are actually saying that they knew it was going to be demolished or maybe just the source knew?

[edit on 27-2-2007 by Koka]

Originally posted by Identified

Originally posted by r4758

Originally posted by Identified
"We decided to pull it."

All that man meant was that they had sustained a loss of many firemen during the collapse of the twin towers, were having a hard time containing the fire in WTC7 and felt it was just best to stop fighting it and get the men out. Assuming that the phrase "Pull it" means to bring it down by means of explosives or whatnot is just a sweeping assumption. The men having that discussion that day are not demolition men and to assume they would be using demolition terms is again a sweeping assumption.

Except that there were no firefighters in building 7 when Larry Silverstein made the famous "pull it" statement. They had left WTC 7 several hours earlier.

I thought this thread was about the video? Anyway.... I don't know where you got info that WTC7 was cleared hours earlier. And by cleared I mean a wide area around it where people were safe from collapse.



[edit on 27-2-2007 by Identified]

Yes, this topic is about the video, but nevertheless, the Fema report states that the WTC7 and area was evacuated of firefighters at 11 am and FDNY has stated that no fire manual operations were performed on building 7. Even popular mechanics, in their debunking efforts, is quoted as saying "There was no firefighting in WTC 7."

Story with sources linked.

So here is your conundrum. Larry Silverstein says that "pull it" meant pull the firefighters from building 7, but this contradicts the official report and many other reports that state that no firefighters were in WTC7 to be "pulled"!!!

[edit on 27-2-2007 by r4758]

Originally posted by Koka

Originally posted by mecheng
Thanks. I was hoping someone would come up with another theory besides "reporting mistake". However, it still doesn't make sense as to why release the news prior to it happening.

Becuase they didn't know any better, the error is that no one seemed to know which building was WTC 7 else it would not have gone out.

Not a deliberate error, a mistake due to lack of local knowledge.

You don't give the beeb enough credit.

Originally posted by thematrixHow the hell would you expect a bunch of Brits to know what people that lived there all their life most likely don't even know.

True. Perhaps that's why they were the only ones (that we know of) that reported it that way.
Ok, fine. So cops tell everyone its coming down. Some reporter get wind of it and mistakenly reports the building has collapsed and releases an AP and the BBC picks it up and runs with it.
Does that still implicate Silverstein or anyone else? After all, we still are saying that a reporter made a mistake, right?

[edit on 27-2-2007 by mecheng]

Originally posted by mecheng
But, if an AP release was made wouldn't you think someone at BBC with half a brain would have said "hey, wait a minute... the building is right there!... this report is bogus!"?

Read the first part of my post. Why should British people (even if stationed in NYC) know which building in the skyline was WTC7 if a guy who worked in NYC doesn't even know?

[edit on 27-2-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by r4758
Yes, this topic is about the video, but nevertheless, the Fema report states that the WTC7 and area was evacuated of firefighters at 11 am and FDNY has stated that no fire manual operations were performed on building 7. Even popular mechanics, in their debunking efforts, is quoted as saying "There was no firefighting in WTC 7."

Story with sources linked.

Pay close attention to the word "IN". There were certainly many firefighters on the outside of WTC7 working around that building. Pull it simply meant. That they couldn't save it. It wasn't worth it. Let it go and do it with out getting anyone else killed. Why would anyone interested in insurance money or in purposely bringing down a building for whatever reason send out a warning 20 minutes before doing it? Were they just asking to be caught on tape?

Logically it is because it wasn't brought down on purpose and there was no 20 minute pre-acknowledgment either.


[cut Big Quote to relevant portion]
Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 27-2-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

You are assuming that during the chaos Silverstein knew where all the firemen were located as well.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
In the confusion of clearing the building using radio communications, somebody heard that it was "coming down". An affirmative Press Release was issued. "Building 7 IS collapsing or has collapsed". And that went out over the wire.

BBC read it as fact before the detonation could take place.

Ok, fine. So cops tell everyone its coming down. Some reporter get wind of it and mistakenly reports the building has collapsed and releases an AP and the BBC picks it up and runs with it.

Does that still implicate Silverstein or anyone else? After all, we still are saying that a reporter made a mistake, right?

Originally posted by Identified
Pay close attention to the word "IN". There were certainly many firefighters on the outside of WTC7 working around that building. Pull it simply meant. That they couldn't save it. It wasn't worth it. Let it go and do it with out getting anyone else killed. Why would anyone interested in insurance money or in purposely bringing down a building for whatever reason send out a warning 20 minutes before doing it? Were they just asking to be caught on tape?

Logically it is because it wasn't brought down on purpose and there was no 20 minute pre-acknowledgment either.

Pay attention to the words "away from it."

And an article by James Glanz in the New York Times on November 29, 2001 says about WTC 7: "By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons."


[cut Big Quote to relevant portion]
Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 27-2-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

Originally posted by kuhl
You don't give the beeb enough credit.

I use to, and my statement is more "maybe" than confirmed.

But the ultimate goal of this video would be to be the catalyst which explodes the 9/11 conspiracies.

Explodes in a good way, opens it wide, or a bad way, debunked and closes the door tighter.

If what we see is true, and that source was found, what would their story be?

Would we learn of the demolition?

This is the question at the end of the day, and what it will lead to.

Edit: grammar

[edit on 27-2-2007 by Koka]

My husband periodically had meetings in the WTC in the same office everytime and on 9/11 (he was not there that day) he couldn't even tell me what building his meetings were in. Whether North or South building. WTC1 or WTC2. I bet many people had no idea what WTC7 was.

Guys, sorry I have to go. Unfortunatly by the time I get back this thread will probably be 100 pgs long! Very good arguements on both sides. looking forward to the outcome either way.

Originally posted by mecheng

Originally posted by thematrixHow the hell would you expect a bunch of Brits to know what people that lived there all their life most likely don't even know.

True. Perhaps that's why they were the only ones (that we know of) that reported it that way.
Ok, fine. So cops tell everyone its coming down. Some reporter get wind of it and mistakenly reports the building has collapsed and releases an AP and the BBC picks it up and runs with it.
Does that still implicate Silverstein or anyone else? After all, we still are saying that a reporter made a mistake, right?

[edit on 27-2-2007 by mecheng]

for a live, news caster to make a mistake like

'' I heard it was 'going' to come down, so i told the world it HAD come down ''

thats a pretty big mistake.....
almost tooo much of a mistake for an experienced news person.

Are Silverstien and Felini the same person? I don't think they are. It doesn't matter what another person said or did if I don't have knowledge of that when making a statement at the spur of the moment.

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c

Originally posted by mecheng
But, if an AP release was made wouldn't you think someone at BBC with half a brain would have said "hey, wait a minute... the building is right there!... this report is bogus!"?

IMO, hence this thread.

No assertions as to BBC involvement, just more the "Hmmm-factor" that it continued to be reported and shown over an extened period of time - with never a recant or correction.

Yup. BBC= Mouthpiece.

Find the feeder.

By the way, everyone in the UK knows that Sky News are the news channel that rushes stuff out, and, to be fair, normally get there (whatever that is) first.
The BBC normally, has a reputation for verifying everytrhing first and are generally slower to break stuff.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
for a live, news caster to make a mistake like

'' I heard it was 'going' to come down, so i told the world it HAD come down ''

thats a pretty big mistake.....
almost tooo much of a mistake for an experienced news person.

I remember the day Pope John Paul II died they had him dead on the AP and major news agencies several times before he was dead.

Same with Arafat. In fact Arafat was dead for several days before he was dead according to some new agencies who ran with a story they misunderstood.



[edit: Big Quote]

[edit on 27-2-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

Originally posted by Identified
Pay close attention to the word "IN". There were certainly many firefighters on the outside of WTC7 working around that building. Pull it simply meant. That they couldn't save it. It wasn't worth it. Let it go and do it with out getting anyone else killed. Why would anyone interested in insurance money or in purposely bringing down a building for whatever reason send out a warning 20 minutes before doing it? Were they just asking to be caught on tape?

Logically it is because it wasn't brought down on purpose and there was no 20 minute pre-acknowledgment either.

And collapse it in 6 seconds flat, straight in to a tidy heap.


[edit: Big Quote]

[edit on 27-2-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

Originally posted by shindigger
Yup. BBC= Mouthpiece.

Find the feeder.

By the way, everyone in the UK knows that Sky News are the news channel that rushes stuff out, and, to be fair, normally get there (whatever that is) first.
The BBC normally, has a reputation for verifying everytrhing first and are generally slower to break stuff.

I lived in the UK for many years and I am married to a Englishman and neither of us would catagorize BBC as the "wait and verify" sort any more or less than SKY, CNN, FOX or anyone else.

In fact they did wait and verify a little to late in regards to when Pres. Bush left Nebraska. 30 minutes to be exact! They were all over the place on that day as was all news agencies.


[edit: Big Quote]

[edit on 27-2-2007 by 12m8keall2c]