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

Originally posted by shrunkensimon

Originally posted by Muppetus Galacticus
Now, just for a second, forget what the building was made of, what damage was done, etcetera. Do emergency services and experts generally know when a building is in trouble and that there is nothing they do can stop it coming down? Any experts on this subject out there that can comment?

Im not an expert, but i would say they would be informed if a building was suspected of collapsing..

Havign said that, there was no reason to suspect WTC7 would collapse. It sustained minimal damage from falling debry, and had puny little isolated fires...to think it would collapse perfectly, who da thunk it?

I remember seeing video footage of a police woman who knew that one of the main towers was coming down ahead of time.

Evidently someone planted the idea that they were all coming down before the fact had actually occured.

I agree.

As I said back on p.36:

a. The BBC (somehow) knew in advance that it was going to come down - they just reported it prematurely!

Actually, is that so surprising now:

i. Silverstein has admitted he gave the OK to "pull it" - i.e. to demolish the building (see youtube.com...). (And note he said "pull it" - not "pull them", i.e. the firefighters, etc. out of or away from the building.

ii. There is evidence (I can't locate it now) from several people at the scene that they knew in advance that the building was going to come down.

So, the BBC knew (from hearsay, from people at the scene?) that the building was going to come down. But maybe the message got garbled or misunderstood on the way to London and those feeding the news anchor thought that it has already come down.

So, my personal conclusion:

This helps to corroborate the idea that WTC7 was intentionally demolished, since its "collapse" was known in advance.

Although this differs from the 'official' reason that WTC7 collapsed because it had been weakened by fire, it's not a smoking gun, because there is already evidence that it was deliberately demolished

Incidentally, I do think it important to give the credit for discovering this footage to the right person, which I believe to be 911veritas, some 3 days earlier than Prison Planet mentioned it.

More on this in my post at:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So, the BBC knew (from hearsay, from people at the scene?) that the building was going to come down. But maybe the message got garbled or misunderstood on the way to London and those feeding the news anchor thought that it has already come down.

I very much doubt the information got garbled, for BBC to report something as having happened they usually use two seperate reliable sources, especially if they are going to do a live broadcasting from the scene!!!

It was most likely scripted in advance and mistakenly reported at the wrong time or there sources lied about it for some unknown reason.

Toby,

I didn't derail this discussion to demolition so if you indeed did read all the posts first before responding then you would have easily have seen that.

I the "debunker" (as you called me) posted regarding the video. I have noticed that there is another GLARING mistake on the BBC video that no else was even hitting on. Why? My estimation is because this GLARING mistake doesn't support their tidy conspiracy theory. No, no, the BBC checks and double checks their facts. They never report on anything that hasn't been sent to them over the wire. They had to have known about the collapse before it happened to be reporting on it.

My point was that they obviously didn' t have the correct information at all during that time since they were still reporting President Bush as being in Nebraska when we had pictures already over the wire at 4:33 of Air Force One taking off from Offutt AFB.


Now if someone still wants to say the BCC and CNN had pre-knowledge of the collapse and use this video as proof then fine. But attacking me personally isn't proving anything at all. And I also fail to see why me being a wife is now suspect? I speak from what I know. I realize that is a new concept to some on this thread. And some of what I know was related to me that day by my husband as I had never been to WTC site before 9/11.

I now understand the stance of some people on this thread. They aren't at all interested in the truth. They just want to name call anyone who happens to be trying to point out things that don't fit inside their little box of conspiracy.

If you are interested in the truth then you are open to all ideas and then weigh them accordingly. You don't sweep certain facts under the rug because it makes your arguement more difficult.

I used the Universal "YOU" in this post.

there are 3 video's all showing the reporters announcing the building has collapsed .

GTFO

[edit on 28-2-2007 by tombangelta]

Identified,

Being late with a story update is a standard event in rolling news. Course its hard to get everything right when you're churning out continuous live reports. Million and one reasons this can happen.

Reporting an event BEFORE it happened is another matter entirely. Someone knew it was going to collapse. Onlly two reasons this could have happened. Either a 'building doctor' diagnosed structural instability and accurately predicted the collapse, or someone knew it was going to be demolished. Somebody predicted it.

The only relevant questions are who predicted the collapse, how, and why does the BBC seem to be uninterested/defensive regarding this intriguing revelation.

Also bear in mind that whoever the source was, they were respected enough for the BBC to run with the information without checking it thoroughly.

[edit on 28-2-2007 by Giordano Bruno]

Originally posted by Giordano Bruno
Identified,

Being late with a story update is a standard event in rolling news. Course its hard to get everything right when you're churning out continuous live reports. Million and one reasons this can happen.

Reporting an event BEFORE it happened is another matter entirely. Someone knew it was going to collapse. Onlly two reasons this could have happened. Either a 'building doctor' diagnosed structural instability and accurately predicted the collapse, or someone knew it was going to be demolished. Somebody predicted it.

The only relevant questions are who predicted the collapse, how, and why does the BBC seem to be uninterested/defensive regarding this intriguing revelation.

Also bear in mind that whoever the source was, they were respected enough for the BBC to run with the information without checking it thoroughly.

[edit on 28-2-2007 by Giordano Bruno]

BBC wasn't just late with the story. They were still reporting it as "moments ago" they were told that the president would be "expected" to leave Nebraska. When in fact moments ago the president was already reported by other news agencies to have left Offutt AFB 30 minutes prior.

I still don't see how anyone can look at this video and say that BBC had to respect their source enough to run with it. Either their source was way off on where the president was and what STANDING building they were talking about or they didn't use a source other than what was rapidly coming over the wire.

My point again is that the BBC makes mistakes. They made one right there just a few minutes after making a mistake about the collapse of WTC7. Same video and everything.

It isn't as if the BBC said that the building was going to collapse at such and such time and then we waiting and watched as it happened. They got wind as did other news agencies that the collapse of WTC7 was going to happen. They evidently weren't too interested in facts before going with their "very very sketchy" story of the collapse or they would have noticed the building was still standing during their reports. If that doesn't scream mistake after mistake I don't know what does.

BBC clearly wasn't the only station to know this building was going to collapse and now other videos are coming out showing this. Just because BBC reported incorrectly 20 minutes prior doesn't mean CNN or FOX or any of the others didn't get the same report 20 minutes earlier. It just means they were busy reporting other things not the story that one of the building was going to fall sometime that day or the next or next.

Now who sent the report to all the stations? Does it matter? If it does to you or anyone else then track it down. I don't need to know who sent it to know that there was information flying all over the place that day. Firemen were doing live on-air interviews all day. The FAA, NORAD, NEADS, FDNY, Whitehouse, DOD, NYPD, MTA, etc were all giving out information and sending out newsbites. Silverstien who's very words are used as proof by some was evidently called by someone who knew it was structurally unsound. Who called him? Were they speaking in a vaccuum? I doubt it. I would imagine dozens of people knew what was going on with WTC7 that day and knew from their own experience that a building with a gaping hole on one side and multiple fires on the bottom floors and no water pressure to fight the fires, with evidence that the penthouse region had already collapsed inside the building that this building wasn't going to be long standing.

All the "evidence" given on this thread and others still doesn't point to anything other than the BBC got the same newsfeed that this building was going to collapse and they ran with it prematurely.

Originally posted by Identified
I have noticed that there is another GLARING mistake on the BBC video that no else was even hitting on. Why? My estimation is because this GLARING mistake doesn't support their tidy conspiracy theory.

What exactly IS that glaring mistake? If it's so obvious, then why don't you throw it out to the forum and see if it stands up to scrutiny?

If you're interested in the truth, that would be logical course of action, no?

Originally posted by nowthenlookhere

Originally posted by Identified
I have noticed that there is another GLARING mistake on the BBC video that no else was even hitting on. Why? My estimation is because this GLARING mistake doesn't support their tidy conspiracy theory.

What exactly IS that glaring mistake? If it's so obvious, then why don't you throw it out to the forum and see if it stands up to scrutiny?

If you're interested in the truth, that would be logical course of action, no?

Read the thread. I have already pointed it out numerous times.

I even pointed it out on the same post you are quoting.
How's that for comprehension?

CLue: President Bush's wherabouts when the reporter made his statement regarding them.



[edit on 28-2-2007 by Identified]

Originally posted by Identified
Read the thread.

oh the irony.. maybe you should do the same.

CLue: President Bush's wherabouts when the reporter made his statement regarding them.

Being LATE with news is common place. being EARLY is not, particularly about a specific event.

As you yourself have argued, plenty of people seemed to have bene aware that the building looked like it MAY come down... but that is not the same as knowing exactly WHEN, or indeed IF it WOULD come down.. . and the two are hardly going to be mixed up..

For the BBC to go live with the news that a build HAD collapsed, they must have recieved this info from at least TWO sources... as seems to be the case in the video... (you have watched the video right? you know, the bit where the newscaster looks down at his screen, and confirms that is HAS collapsed)..

So the question, which everyone is asking, and you are trying to avoid addressing, is , WHO told the BBC that the building HAD collapsed, and WHY would that source say it HAD collapsed, when it obviously HADN'T at the time?

Late knowledge of the whereabouts of Bush, on a day when he spent most of the day flying around and hiding anyway, is not relevant, and certainly not the proof that the BBC accidentally garbled THIS story.








[edit on 28-2-2007 by nowthenlookhere]

[edit on 28-2-2007 by nowthenlookhere]

Originally posted by nowthenlookhere

Originally posted by Identified
Read the thread.

oh the irony.. maybe you should do the same.

CLue: President Bush's wherabouts when the reporter made his statement regarding them.

Being LATE with news is common place. being EARLY is not, particularly about a specific event.

As you yourself have argued, plenty of people seemed to have bene aware that the building looked like it MAY come down... but that is not the same as knowing exactly WHEN, or indeed IF it WOULD come down.. . and the two are hardly going to be mixed up..

For the BBC to go live with the news that a build HAD collapsed, they must have recieved this info from at least TWO sources... as seems to be the case in the video... (you have watched the video right? you know, the bit where the newscaster looks down at his screen, and confirms that is HAS collapsed)..

So the question, which everyone is asking, and you are trying to avoid addressing, is , WHO told the BBC that the building HAD collapsed?

Late knowledge of the whereabouts of Bush, on a day when he spent most of the day flying around and hiding anyway, is not relevant, and certainly not the proof that the BBC accidentally garbled THIS story.








[edit on 28-2-2007 by nowthenlookhere]

Where do you get your information that the BBC had to have two sources?
Please provide me this evidence.

THe BBC had no idea of when the building was going to come down. Can you show me proof of this. Do they say.the building collapsed at 5:20 EDT all the while it is still standing and not yet 5:00?

Where President Bush on that day is a FACT that was easily verified if they had bothered to get even one source before claiming he was "expected" to leave. If the BBC has to have two sources then they need to fire those two who told him that the President was "expected" to leave when he already left 30 minutes ago!

My point is that the BBC was wrong. Wrong on a lot of things. And them saying something happened that didn't happen "yet" doesn't prove anything other than they were wrong and garbled a lot of stories.

CLue: President Bush's wherabouts when the reporter made his statement regarding them.

that has nothing to do with the building falling. or the other 2 video clip

YOU SAID

"My point is that the BBC was wrong. Wrong on a lot of things. And them saying something happened that didn't happen "yet" doesn't prove anything other than they were wrong and garbled a lot of stories."


there is being wrong and there is being wrong my friend , and saying a building has collapsed when in fact it still stands for another 25 minutes is not wrong , its crystal ball #.

3rd building in history to collapse due to fire.

so the BBC said bush was in the wrong place. did they say 20 minutes b4 bush is having a big mac for his lunch and then sure as day 20 minutes later he does.

NO......

More facts regarding the video.

"We have some news coming in [...] The Saloman Building [...] has collapsed. This does fit in with a warning from the British Foreign Office [...] that there is a real risk [...] Strong risk of further atrocities in the United States. [...] It does seem there is another one with the Saloman Brothers Building."

It seems to me that the BBC knew of this British Foreign Office statement saying there was a risk of futher atrocities. And when they got news that WTC7 was likely to collapse in the near future they remembered this statement and took that to mean that the "atrocity" had already happened and the prediction from the foriegn office was correct.

Perhaps we should implicate the Foriegn office now because they knew further atrocities would happen before WTC7 even collapsed.

Originally posted by tombangelta

CLue: President Bush's wherabouts when the reporter made his statement regarding them.

that has nothing to do with the building falling. or the other 2 video clip

No it doesn't but it clearly shows the BBC is fallible. And was fallible in the same two minute clip.

Saying they made a mistake about one aspect but would never make a mistake about being told that WTC7 was going to collapse doesn't make sense. They can't be allowed to be fallible for some things and not for others.

you are just moving the thread further and further away from the magnitude of the 2 news stations making the claim wtc7 had collapsed.

2 being BBC world & BBC news 24

the other being CNN



[edit on 28-2-2007 by tombangelta]

Originally posted by tombangelta
YOU SAID

"My point is that the BBC was wrong. Wrong on a lot of things. And them saying something happened that didn't happen "yet" doesn't prove anything other than they were wrong and garbled a lot of stories."


there is being wrong and there is being wrong my friend , and saying a building has collapsed when in fact it still stands for another 25 minutes is not wrong , its crystal ball #.

3rd building in history to collapse due to fire.

so the BBC said bush was in the wrong place. did they say 20 minutes b4 bush is having a big mac for his lunch and then sure as day 20 minutes later he does.


Using the argument that the BBC reported something correctly before it actually happened is flawed. It was already known that the building was failing. It was known. There were holes. fires. The penthouse had already collapsed down. Firefighters said there was metal moaning and collapsed floors and other noises suggesting structural failure. They had already pulled back. They called the owner of the building to tell him it was a lost cause.

Common sense would say that building was likely to collapse. ESPECIALLLY after we had just witnessed two building fall into rubble just hours before.

Whether they reported it 20 minutes before, 2 minutes before or 2 years before doesn't matter because they were wrong about it having already happened and they were basing it all on the common sense assumption that it would.

You can't claim the BBC can make a mistake in one way and not the other. There is no "being wrong and then being wrong" here. The BBC was wrong. They were wrong about many things that day and other days. It happens.

Originally posted by Identified
Where do you get your information that the BBC had to have two sources?
Please provide me this evidence.

The BBC new policy has always been to use two, intentifiable, verifiable sources for any news item, to check that one corroborates the other. It's common knowledge amongst those who are familiar with the UK media. I don't have a link to a policy document, but I'll be out there.. if I come across it I'll post. You may have noticed plenty of other posters refering to this policy... so like I say, it's common knowledge.

That's why, in breaking news, the often use the term" we are getting unconfirmed reports that xyz has happened" etc. If you've grown up with BBC news over 30 odd years, the terminology would be familiar..

So, when newscaster looks down at a monitor, and then says the building HAS collapsed, it at least appears to be that the news room has recieved the confirmation.

THe BBC had no idea of when the building was going to come down. Can you show me proof of this. Do they say.the building collapsed at 5:20 EDT all the while it is still standing and not yet 5:00?

Quit the straw man arguements will you? NOBODY is saying the BBC knew when the the building would collapse. They said is had ALREADY collapsed.

being LATE reporting events is normal... being EARLY isn't.

Where President Bush on that day is a FACT that was easily verified if they had bothered to get even one source before claiming he was "expected" to leave. If the BBC has to have two sources then they need to fire those two who told him that the President was "expected" to leave when he already left 30 minutes ago!

I repeat.... being LATE reporting events is normal... being EARLY isn't.

My point is that the BBC was wrong. Wrong on a lot of things. And them saying something happened that didn't happen "yet" doesn't prove anything other than they were wrong and garbled a lot of stories.

I repeat.... being LATE reporting events is normal... being EARLY isn't.



[edit on 28-2-2007 by nowthenlookhere]

Originally posted by tombangelta
you are just moving the thread further and further away from the magnitude of the 2 news stations making the claim wtc7 had collapsed.

2 being BBC world & BBC news 24

the other being CNN



[edit on 28-2-2007 by tombangelta]

This is a living discussion. If you want to discuss why having additional sources proves something then discuss it. I am not moving this discussion anywhere except where it goes.

All the additional sources tell me is that all news agencies were reading the wire and got the same message regarding the structural failure of WTC7 and figured it was about to happen.

you said

"Common sense would say that building was likely to collapse. ESPECIALLLY after we had just witnessed two building fall into rubble just hours before."


lol


ok mate you got me. yeh it was just a mistake.