FOX-5 Reports 9/11/01: WTC-7 Collapsed Before Actual Event

www.youtube.com...
Not sure if this a repost but heres Fox news reporting that world trade center 7 had collapsed before it fell

Wish I could hear it right now. What is their reaction when it actually falls while they are filming it?

The FOX anchors did indeed report the collapse before WTC 7 collapsed. However, they did not do so as those in England did so much earlier. Was there a time warp in England we did not know about?

I will attempt to present it as accurately as possible. They are running video behind the anchors:

Female: "We are now getting reports another building has collapsed. Is that smoke of collapse....?" Yet WTC-7 is still standing without any sign of collapsing.

Male: Agreeing with female.

A long few seconds later WTC 7 drops right in its own footprints straight down. That would never happen to a building designed like a trapezoid, without conventional controlled demolitions. Silverstein PR people continuing to earn their pay the hard way on 9/11/2001. It is always much more difficult to tell lies, while perpetually being forced to cover-up lies, than tell the truth. 9/11/2001 one is historical living proof of that.

reply to post by OrionStars


Tower 7 was pulled by Silverstein.

It made more sense for him to cut his losses and go for the insurance money rather than wait it out.

The building had been previously evacuated though.

No one was there. I have a family friend who worked in Building 7 and he said no one was there when it collapsed.

They were told to go home.

reply to post by biggie smalls


The highly interest part of that is this. The excuse was the fires were so out of control raging hours earlier that firefighters could not control them.

Did your friends confirm or deny that? The reason I ask is there is no physical evidence that was true.

Yeah it was all part of the plan. Report WTC7's collapse about half hour before it really collapsed. Its not a good idea to report its collapse when its collapsing. It spreads the conspiracy.

Except for people claiming to be psychic or threatening to commit an act sometime in the immediate future, who reports incidents before they happen and would they do it?

Here is the irony. The "official" reports cite conspiracy. Those embracing those reports go around telling everyone else they are "conspiracy theorists", without personal consideration of what they embrace of unproved conspiracy hypothesis.

There was a conspiracy to commit what occurred on 9/11/2001. No doubt about that.

All other factors are proving who actually committed the conspiracy and exactly how.

The why has been long known and had nothing to do with Islamic extremism. The reasons are posted all over the Internet, as to the actual legitimate why of it all - autocratic controlling power over the international money and business trade, with David Rockefeller at the head of the executive board table.

reply to post by biggie smalls


yeah biggie.... silverstein wantedto "cut his loses" ... so he sent a demo team into a burning building to plant explosives.

That makes sence.

You're missing the point here.

Building 7 wasn't on fire.

The structural integrity was intact.

This is before Tower 2 (I believe it was 2, could have been 1) fell.

Tower 2 fell, then 7, then 1.

Originally posted by biggie smalls
You're missing the point here.

Building 7 wasn't on fire.

The structural integrity was intact.

This is before Tower 2 (I believe it was 2, could have been 1) fell.

Tower 2 fell, then 7, then 1.

but some parts of the debries of the falling tower ripped of a chunck of build7






[edit on 8-2-2008 by dracodie]

[edit on 8-2-2008 by dracodie]

[edit on 8-2-2008 by dracodie]

Apparently, as some people posted in that thread, it was not live.

Originally posted by dracodie

Which one of those is supposed to be the actual WTC 7? They look like graphics in three different colors. None of them the actual correct color of WTC 7 red granite facade.

en.wikipedia.org...:Wtc7_from_wtc_observation_deck.jpg

The above photo resembles the damage on the building photo at the following link which is not WTC 7 but the American Express Building (WTC 3) instead:

911research.wtc7.net...

I just located the following website. It is an analysis, by the Scholars for 911 Truth, concerning WTC 7. It also explained why that photo I questioned, in a recent previous post, looked so clearly questionable:

www.studyof911.com...

I apologize it if has been recently posted. However, I have not seen it recently posted.

could the pictures have been modified in some way to give the impression that the building was severely damaged?

Originally posted by dracodie
could the pictures have been modified in some way to give the impression that the building was severely damaged?

Actually, it is not WTC 7 as NIST claims. I have no idea what building that is supposed to represent, except possibly WTC 3. The front design is wrong for WTC 7, as evidenced at the website links I provided in previous posts.

reply to post by OrionStars


i found this discussion about the possible alteration of build7 photos
www.911blogger.com...

[edit on 8-2-2008 by dracodie]

Originally posted by dracodie
reply to post by OrionStars

 

i found this discussion about the possible alteration of build7 photos
www.911blogger.com...

[edit on 8-2-2008 by dracodie]

From what is presented on that blooger site, it looks like another Purdue Homeland Security Institute disinformation graphic simulation, and used NIST to force fed it to the general public.

www.purdue.edu...

Originally posted by OrionStars
The FOX anchors did indeed report the collapse before WTC 7 collapsed. However, they did not do so as those in England did so much earlier. Was there a time warp in England we did not know about?

I will attempt to present it as accurately as possible. They are running video behind the anchors:

Female: "We are now getting reports another building has collapsed. Is that smoke of collapse....?" Yet WTC-7 is still standing without any sign of collapsing.

Male: Agreeing with female.

A long few seconds later WTC 7 drops right in its own footprints straight down.

Just thought it was worth bearing in mind that there is always a delay of at least 3 seconds on live feeds from USA to UK. The reporters would most likely be getting an internet press feed with the information which would explain why they reported the collapse a few seconds prior to it appearing on the 'live'video feed.

Originally posted by venusd
Just thought it was worth bearing in mind that there is always a delay of at least 3 seconds on live feeds from USA to UK. The reporters would most likely be getting an internet press feed with the information which would explain why they reported the collapse a few seconds prior to it appearing on the 'live'video feed.

Here is the problem. The FOX anchors were in their own studio broadcasting local feed. BBC reporter was supposed to be in the US feeding back to England through some network in the US.

At FOX, the building was still standing for several seconds, showing no signs of collapsing. Yet was reported as in the process of collapsing as they were reporting it. They never turned around to verify what was running on the screen behind them showing 7 still standing and not collapsing.

In the case of BBC, WTC 7 was stilling for many minutes and showing no signs of collapse. She turned around and pointed at 7, and said it was gone, when it was obviously still there, and obviously not collapsing until many long minutes later.

reply to post by CaptainObvious


One thing I notice about you, you seem to have a knack for putting words into peoples mouths. Your avatar is fitting. For someone to believe that on that day, they went in and rigged up the demolition, is not only impossible, but to believe that you would have the scope of a jellyfish.

Stop assuming this point. It is daft.

The DEMOLITIONS of 911 were due to months if not years of planning.

watchZEITGEISTnow