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
#60 — You’ve got the logic backwards. The government is incompetent and if sone outside agency pulled off the stunt they would never get caught. Nobody really thinks Bush was in on it.
Ok…you idiots…ever consider that the building they point at ISN’T WTC 7? Oh…wait…it isn’t. Its whichever building is in front of the site of WTC7 on Murray St & Greenwich St. Gee…any idiot with google earth can see for himeself now. Too bad I had to waste the 5 minutes it took to look it up…
Everything about this video has been 100% confirmed, naysayers!
Here are the details: http://www.archive.org/details/bbc200109111654-1736
The WTC-7 building housed the CIA, the Secret Service, the SEC, the DOD, the IRS and Rudy Giuliani’s NYC emergency bunker. On 9/11 it became the first steel-framed high rise to collapse due to fire in the entire history of the world. Why? Well, all the hard physical evidence to answer the question of exactly why WTC-7 collapsed was just sitting on the ground in Manhattan. However, a grand total of TWO PIECES of this evidence was ever recovered for analysis. Strangely, both pieces showed unexplained signs of “high temperature sulfidation.” See: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm
A well-known controlled demolition expert agrees that the building was definitely brought down via controlled demolition: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgoSOQ2xrbI
Finally, we have BBC reporting that WTC-7 had already collapsed 23 minutes before it collapsed. Nobody, including BBC, mentioned this glaring fuck up at the time, and nobody in English language corporate media is touching it now even though more than a million people have seen this stunning clip less than a week since this story exploded across hundreds of highly alternative internet sites. The BBC won’t answer how they came upon this little bit of prescient information, and they want us to believe that they lost all their video feeds of the defining event of the 21st century.
Who was the source putting the advance info on WTC-7 out? The BBC reported this news without verifying the truthfulness of the information because they TRUSTED THEIR SOURCE! This sort of report would certainly not get to the anchorman without it having come from a trusted source that the BBC had used before. And THAT source would not report a mere rumor as “has indeed collapsed.” The most important thing about this is the identity of this source. Why won’t the BBC come clean with this critical bit of information? Why are they instead telling lies and trying to cover the whole thing up? Is it just another coincidence that all other corporate media outlets are suppressing this story as well?
Yes, there were rumors on 9/11 about the WTC-7 coming down, but who was spreading these rumors? It is very unlikely that a rumor would be reported as an accomplished fact, and the anchorman would never have misread the info or altered a speculative story to “has indeed collapsed.” Now add the fact that at least 3 BBC live broadcasts (plus CNN) got the same information and that they all trusted this information so much that they (except CNN) did not even bother to verify it. Even further, the source of this information had the casualty details (that there weren’t any) and the explanation of why the building collapsed as well as other “facts” which later formed the official account. Note that when the NIST report finally comes out six years after the fact, it will explain WTC-7′s collapse EXACTLY like BBC explained it before it ever happened. How could the BBC get this report so wrong yet so right?
Furthermore, the BBC and all of its competitors must have realized that at least three BBC outlets reported blatant misinformation when WTC-7 actually collapsed just over 3 minutes after the BBC World News reporter’s transmission was cut. So why didn’t the BBC correct their obvious mistake when they saw that “another” building had collapsed? Or if they still could not figure out that they had just made a huge mistake, then why didn’t they report that a fourth building had just collapsed? Remember that WTC-7 must have collapsed right in front of them. It would have been impossible for them not to know about it.
How long did it take before the BBC figured out their huge mistake? Why didn’t they ever correct themselves? Why didn’t a single competitor ever point out this glaring journalistic error, not then and not even now as this story rages across youtube and the blogosphere?
Concerning the whole idea of “knowing in advance” when a building is going to collapse, ask yourself this — if the BBC had reported the first tower’s collapse 23 minutes early, what would you have thought then? Why didn’t anybody see that one coming?
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.
Furthermore, not a single steel-framed high rise had ever collapsed in the history of the world before 9/11 — including buildings that were entirely engulfed in flames for more than 24 hours.
How could anyone have any expertise in determining when a steel frame building’s collapse was imminent when none had ever before collapsed in history?
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.
>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?
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.
#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.
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.
Aw… we really have to stop meeting like this, Mr. Fusion.
Get a room, you two.
The newsreader has a spooky resemblance to Cindy Sheehan.
Now there’s a conspiracy for you…
That’s PROVES it.
Where’s my tinfoil hat.
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.
Stickdog stop parroting the same thing. I will post this again
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
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?
BOOBIES!
[I get no SPAM]
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.
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.