BBC Reported Building 7 Had Collapsed 20 Minutes Before It Fell — This is an interesting twist on the mysterious collapse of WTC 7. This blog covered this mystery back in 2005 — click here.

An astounding video uncovered from the archives today shows the BBC reporting on the collapse of WTC Building 7 over twenty minutes before it fell at 5:20pm on the afternoon of 9/11. The incredible footage shows BBC reporter Jane Standley talking about the collapse of the Salomon Brothers Building while it remains standing in the live shot behind her head.

Minutes before the actual collapse of the building is due, the feed to the reporter mysteriously dies.

found by Mark McCullough

  1. MikeN says:

    How many broadcast media corrections have you seen stickdog? Even newspapers hide theirs in some back page. If this had been a Fox News broadcast, I’m sure Keith Olbermann would have run with it for weeks. But not too many media hate the BBC like that.

  2. MikeN says:

    >Some have FAITH in conspiracies. They will accept whatever they are >told as gospel. Simply because it could not have happened as seen,
    >Gee, I wonder if this phenomenon ever happens elsewhere?

    Fahrenheit 9/11 comes to mind, as well as the whole BushLied to go to war theory. How hard would it be to plant some WMDs, especially if you know ahead of time none will be found?

  3. Frank IBC says:

    If this mixup was due to a “rumor” that the building was going to collapse, it wouldn’t be too surprising. Several buildings other than the two towers and building 7 collapsed that day, and there were fears that several others, which were heavily damaged and burning, would collapse, but did not. A case in point being the Millenium Hilton, across the street from the WTC complez, which sustained heavy damage from falling debris and fire, and was feared to be on the verge of collapse. But fortunately it didn’t and it was repaired and reopened several months later.

  4. Mr. Fusion says:

    #68, Frank

    You make some very good arguments here. I wish you would visit DU more often. We don’t always agree but I appreciate someone that can make a good argument.

  5. Frank IBC says:

    There is no video or photographic evidence of WTC-7 shaking or swaying or even being engulfed in flames. What we see instead are minor disparate fires burning on a few floors here and there along with minor facade damage.

    Did you even bother to look at the pictures linked in #42?

    The second picture clearly shows HEAVY damage on the south side.

    The last picture shows HEAVY smoke coming from all parts of the building.

    You might want to take that blindfold off.

    Or have that lobotomy reversed.

  6. Frank IBC says:

    Aw… we really have to stop meeting like this, Mr. Fusion. 😛

  7. Get a room, you two.

  8. Frank IBC says:

    The newsreader has a spooky resemblance to Cindy Sheehan.

    Now there’s a conspiracy for you…

  9. sh says:

    That’s PROVES it.

    Where’s my tinfoil hat.

  10. stickdog says:

    No other buildings except WTC-1 AND WTC-2 collapsed ON 9/11 and there are no photos or videos that show heavy structural damage to any part of WTC-7.

  11. Jon says:

    Stickdog stop parroting the same thing. I will post this again

    down the page is a video of a man named Steve Spak who took video and photos of WTC 7. What no CTer can answer in a logical and reasonable way is why bring down WTC7?

  12. d says:


  13. Mister Mustard says:

    [I get no SPAM]

  14. David says:

    Since no steel framed building has EVER collapsed due to fire or structural damage, how likely is it that with WTC 7 (witch btw. had only relatively minor fires and damage) anybody could think that “collapse was imminent? That would only make sense if it was a wooden building.

    Now, if the building was demolished on purpuse then the idea that people knew it was going to collapse and consequently BBC’s mistake s much easier explained.

    Also, any natural damage hypothesis is debunked by the almost perfect symmetry of the collapse. Any damage or fire would have caused the building to topple, even if it could collapse the building, which has never happened in history.

    It’s sad that people who defend the natural collapse do it FOR NO OTHER REASON than only becouse it conflicts with the official story and has implications they don’t like.

  15. David says:

    Jon: It’s clear you haven’t done your homework.

    There were plenty of reasons to demolish WTC7, and they have been talked about ever since the start of the movement. Starting with the fact it could have been a command center for the entire operation (destruction of evidence), also there were documents inside about Enron, etc, possible CIA black operations etc.

  16. flora says: a vpn service. VPN services are more reliable than proxy and never restricted. It hide your identification to surf a blocked site.


Bad Behavior has blocked 5749 access attempts in the last 7 days.