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

I think the current Bush flight/WTC7 argument is a valid one. The point I believe people are trying to make is that if two or more sources said Bush had not left when he had, is little different to the sources who said the building had collapsed when it hadn't. Past/present/future, it's all the same to me. I see sources being incorrect all over the shop as they will be with any major, live event. I haven't seen any evidence yet of why this just isn't a piece of mis-reporting by BBC and CNN as a lot of things that were "reported" by a lot of people turned out to be wrong on that day (bombs on the bridge etc).

So, I think if you do believe otherwise then we all need to figure out what is required to dismiss the "theory" of the news stations jumping the gun/having the wrong info.

So, what do people want to see in order to prove (or at least question from the other side) that the news reports on WTC7 collapsing prior to it's demise were 100% based on the sources/BBC being in on it, and not just jumping the gun on sources/the wire?

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.
NO......

All of which is utterly irrelevant.

There should be no dispute that the BBC ran the collapse story before the building fell and neither should there be any dispute that they had foreknowledge of the collapse. The only question is where did that foreknowledge come from?

Some will say that it came from dark and nefarious sourrces who had rigged the building for demolition and were simply biding their time before pressing the button, (why were they waiting by the way?).

Others may point out that it came from firefighters and emergency workers who had been warning since early to mid afternoon that the building was in a dangerous state and would collapse sooner or later.

Either way the journos screwed up and ran the story early.

So what have we learnt from 40 pages of posts?

1. We have learnt that some people think the building was demolished and others think it was terminally damaged and fell of its own accord

2. We have learnt that several news organisations and, in particular, the BBC screwed up some of the news on September 11th. (Some may agrue that this was fairly common knowledge anyway).

End result? After 40 pages of comment and debate we have learnt nothing new of any significance and the posters on the thread have largely polarised into two opposing camps with very few actually changing sides and lots simply ignoring rational argument and pursuing their own agendas or preferring to insult those from the opposing camp.

What a pity.

edit to add "largely" in order to give credit to those who did actually try to make something better of it.

[edit on 28-2-2007 by timeless test]

Originally posted by nowthenlookhere

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.

Your arguement regarding two sources doesn't matter here because two knowledgable sources couldn't have told them a standing building was collapsed.

Whether other people posted this "two source rule" or not doesn't matter. A lot of people hear something and then think it is the gospel; especially if they think it suits their arguement.

They qualified their report by saying this was "very very sketchy" Doesn't sound to me like they had two knowledgable sources.

As I have stated before I lived in the UK for many years and I am married to an Englishman so I am also familiar with the BBC and SKY and the UK news scene in general and I would never use the arguement that they had to have to sources to go with a report.


[edit: clipped quote relevant portion]
Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 28-2-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

if you were told a building is likely to collpase given the circumstances you would not say it has already done so.


and for 2 other stations to do the same ?????

Originally posted by Muppetus Galacticus
I think the current Bush flight/WTC7 argument is a valid one. The point I believe people are trying to make is that if two or more sources said Bush had not left when he had, is little different to the sources who said the building had collapsed when it hadn't. Past/present/future, it's all the same to me. I see sources being incorrect all over the shop as they will be with any major, live event. I haven't seen any evidence yet of why this just isn't a piece of mis-reporting by BBC and CNN as a lot of things that were "reported" by a lot of people turned out to be wrong on that day (bombs on the bridge etc).

So, I think if you do believe otherwise then we all need to figure out what is required to dismiss the "theory" of the news stations jumping the gun/having the wrong info.

So, what do people want to see in order to prove (or at least question from the other side) that the news reports on WTC7 collapsing prior to it's demise were 100% based on the sources/BBC being in on it, and not just jumping the gun on sources/the wire?

I too haven't seen any evidence that this isn't just mis-reporting.

If someone could provide anything I would be happy to read it.

Originally posted by Identified
They qualified their report by saying this was "very very sketchy" Doesn't sound to me like they had two knowledgable sources.

The anchorman clearly states that the Salomon Brothers building (aka 7 WTC) has collapsed, and Jane Standley (the correspondent) confirms his statement. She does not qualify her report by saying that the story is "very, very sketchy". She says the "details are very, very sketchy".

Originally posted by Identified
More facts regarding the video.

"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.

It seems like something else to other people. And you probably have less evidence of that assumption, than we have evidence of preknowledge of the attacks as a whole.

I'm sorry I attacked you a little but I was speaking my mind.
I mean you seem to know an awful lot about these things, simply from information relayed back to you from your husband.
That and you're new. We oft don't trust new people that come out of nowhere at times like these, that try to counter things in your fashion.
I have read your points, and understand them, but you are not taking other things into consideration.
Also, the points you come up with are those of someone who has actually done quite abit of research on this matter. Regardless of whether they are relevent.

Why would you care to do research on these matters, if our theories hold no weight?

And this is why i singled you out. Sorry.

Well none of this matters anyway because it will never be shown on any of the major news publications , hell 99% of my friends and family don’t even know that there was a WTC 7 or that it collapsed.

Just like 99% of people don’t know that there was a training exercise the very morning of the 7, 7 London bombings using the very targets where the bombs went off.

Just like yesterday 99% of people don’t know that the Iraq government has basically handed power of there oil over to the US administration.

Nothing matters FFS.

Even if there is no conspiracy, it’s a crime that no one pays for mistakes these days.

Especial when it leads to the death of near enough a million people ( WMD’s )



[edit on 28-2-2007 by tombangelta]

Originally posted by Muppetus Galacticus
I think the current Bush flight/WTC7 argument is a valid one. The point I believe people are trying to make is that if two or more sources said Bush had not left when he had, is little different to the sources who said the building had collapsed when it hadn't. Past/present/future, it's all the same to me. I see sources being incorrect all over the shop as they will be with any major, live event. I haven't seen any evidence yet of why this just isn't a piece of mis-reporting by BBC and CNN as a lot of things that were "reported" by a lot of people turned out to be wrong on that day (bombs on the bridge etc).

So, I think if you do believe otherwise then we all need to figure out what is required to dismiss the "theory" of the news stations jumping the gun/having the wrong info.


So, what do people want to see in order to prove (or at least question from the other side) that the news reports on WTC7 collapsing prior to it's demise were 100% based on the sources/BBC being in on it, and not just jumping the gun on sources/the wire?

But you have to remember that the two other towers collapse was unprecedented. So, who became the experts, so quickly, at the scene to determine that 7 would collapse in the same manner as 1 and 2. Especially when 7 wasnt subjected to impact of a plane, or a huge fireball.
(these are the reasons given for 1 and 2's demise right?)
The day was packed full of "unexpected events" yet 2 seperate news stations predicted it a maximum of 23 minutes before it happened.
Who appointed themselves as the buildings experts amidst the chaos, to categorically state, that based on what theyd seen, that 7 would collapse in the same manner?

Another thing to bear in mind as you will know in the UK, Sky News ALWAYS beat the BBC to the punch. The BBC HAD a reputation for accuracy above speed. But not on that day.

Personally i think they should start a horse tipping service.

[edit on 28-2-2007 by shindigger]

Identified,

It seems regarding my earlier post you are going for option 1, that at least one person on the scene knew it was going to collapse because of structural damage, and they told the emergency workers and the media found out and passed it on. The mistake that was made was to interperet 'going to collapse' as 'already has collapsed'.

If that is the case then all that needs to be answered is how did the source know the building was going to collapse? It looked fairly stable to me in the BBC's video behind their reporter just 5 minutes before it came down. Had it been deteriorating through the day? Were sections buckling? You mention that the 'penthouse' section had already collapsed. Can you provide evidence for this statement as it is highly relevant and shows that the building was indeed unstable, and had already undergone partial collapse.

And even if it is the case that due to a survey of the damage that it was correctly predicted that it was going to collapse, how did they get so close to the actual time? Was it obvious that the collapse was imminent? What signs do buildings give that they are about to implode in such a dramatic way?

These questions are MASSIVELY relevant. If the building was not demolished intentionally, then whoever predicted the collapse must have noticed what structural defects were going to cause it, and could clear up the whole demolition argument. Hypothetical example: "Yeah I could see on the south and west side that the core vertical supports were beginning to buckle due to fire and debris damage on floor 7". Why hasn't this person told NIST, the 911 comission and co. exactly why the building collapsed, since they were so keen eyed to have known beforehand?

Three words.
Find the feeder.
Sadly I doubt anyone ever will.

Originally posted by Identified
Your arguement regarding two sources doesn't matter here because two knowledgable sources couldn't have told them a standing building was collapsed.

and it's THAT assumtion that seems to be why you're missing the point of this thread. You are begging the question.

If both those sources were working off the same "script", then if one accidentally releases the collapse story early, then when the BBC look for confirmation, the other(s) confirm too, knowing it will be coming down soon anyway...

and that's the whole point. Someone was SO sure that the building would come down, that they had prepared a statement that is HAD collapsed.

This does not fit with the official story that the building came down on it's own, and since the story that it had collapsed must have been sourced from someone within the sealed off zone, it must have been some sort of official source..

And since they were both "official" sources, how could THEY BOTH have ACCIDENTALLY said it HAD collapsed, when was still only threatening to collapse, and may not have sone so for hours, if at all?....

..unless they were working from a pre-prepared script?



[edit on 28-2-2007 by nowthenlookhere]

This afternoon I've tried calling the BBC on no less than 6 occasions, and each time I have been treated with uttter contempt and dismissed as quickly as possible. People have hung the phone up on me, told me I'm being ridiculous and irrational and that there will be no further explantion issued for this at all.

Before today I believed that the BBC were just puppets and mouthpieces for a larger agenda but their refusal to explain what's happened and the disgusting manner in which they've treated people looking for a simple answer is just incriminating them more and more.

Frankly I'm at my wits end, it seems so wrong that we're so powerless to do anything about this when the evidence of foul play is in plain sight. There just doesn't seem to be anything we can do. We've let control overtake us and now all we can do is sit and watch a corrupt system push us further and further into submission.

The worst thing is that hardly anybody I've spoken to outside of the net is even interested. What do we do guys? What do we do?

Toby,

Your attack was what it was. An attempt to throw off a discussion by discussing the person rather than the topic. You are doing it again by bringing up what you think I seem to know as relayed from my husband.

>>"It seems like something else to other people. And you probably have less evidence of that assumption, than we have evidence of preknowledge of the attacks as a whole.

Originally posted by catchtwentytwo

Originally posted by Identified
They qualified their report by saying this was "very very sketchy" Doesn't sound to me like they had two knowledgable sources.

The anchorman clearly states that the Salomon Brothers building (aka 7 WTC) has collapsed, and Jane Standley (the correspondent) confirms his statement. She does not qualify her report by saying that the story is "very, very sketchy". She says the "details are very, very sketchy".

Pedantics which you may use to bolster your arguement and which I may use to bolster mine.

If they had two sources why not just state it. Why claim the details are sketchy. What is sketchy about a standing building while claiming it has already collapsed?

ID'd,

If you're not going to respond to my previous statement could you at least provide a link to your 'penthouse collapse' statement please? I have not heard that before.

Also, not to get too off topic, can you elaborate on what got you so interested in this topic that you join this site and begin posting profusely? If you dont find it interesting then why the interest?

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

Giordano,

By source do you mean the person who told the BBC it was going to collapse? If you do then I still am not sure there was any source other than a newswire to that affect.

I wasn't on the scene that day so I can't speak for how a fire marshall or engineer might know that it was likely that WTC7 was going to collapse.

I do know after the fact that there were interviews with fire-fighters that day before the collapse where they said there was a lot of damage to one side of WTC7 from the debris of the towers collapse.

We also had hours of various news video showing that there was a great deal of smoke coming from in and around WTC7. We also knew at some time before it fell that the area was being evacuated or had been evacuated. And the news had been reporting all day (I remember this) that the water pressure was very low in lower manhattan so firefighting was difficult.

We had fire-fighters saying there was a great deal of "moaning" coming from the building. That floors had already collapsed. And we could see that the penthouse had already fallen into the roof.

Now if you add to all this that people who fight fires know a thing or two about how structurally sound a building is and that they had called the owner to tell him it was not going to be saved then I think it fair to assume that it was known at least to some people that day that WTC7 was going to collapse. I am sure there was no way to know the exact manner it would come down but to be safe they cleared the area. This information would have easily have been given to the newswire.

My point regarding this video is that the BBC didn't know the exact time it was going to collapse. This video and nothing else I have been shown shows they knew anything about the time of collapse. They just happened to jump on a newswire story that the building would collapse due to the degree of damage it has suffered. I think they might have done it because they had this Foreign Office report saying more was likely to happen and this fit right into that.

If the BBC had done this report at 4:57 and building didn't collapse for another 7 hours would that matter to this discussion?

As to why no one had told the NIST why they suspected the collapse I do believe there was many people in the report who told about the gash in building, the amount of rubble around the front entrance and damage there. The collapses floors, the collapsed penthouse. The lack of water to fight the fire and the sounds the structure was making.

How much of that information got beyond the people in charge of that area that day I don't know. But enough that the owner was called and the news was alerted. At least that is all I can concur currently without more evidence.

Sorry, I rambled a bit but I hope I answered your questions.

Nowthenlookhere,

Without more evidence this is all too much conjecture for me to be wagon jumping.

We don't know if there was a script.

We don't know if the BBC confirmed anything with anyone much less an "official source".

A lot of good replies and insight here.

But, I still think that a lot of people are missing the BIG smoking gun and that is that the BBC not only told us that the building had collapsed but they ALSO RELEASED THE OFFICIAL REASON FOR THE COLLAPSE.

THEY RELEASED THEIR VERSION OF EVENTS.

Building 7 had yet to collapse and they are telling us WHY it collapsed.



[edit on 28-2-2007 by r4758]

PULL IT, THEN WE WATCHED IT FALL