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
I guess BBC has a true psychic on their hands.
On PrisonPlanet, the site so loony it got banned from Digg.
nothing surprising there.. when i watched it go down the first time
i thought it was a “demo” job. it went down in a perfect column, -just like a standard demolition job. – seemed odd, save for a fire or two from a few windows, it looked like it was still pretty sound to me.
the only question that begs is, how did they rig a building of that size to collapse on its footprint in just a few hours (7-8hrs was it?) – i thought it takes a few days at least…
then again… the towers looked like they fell too clean too… but thats a can of worms i’ll leave be…
guess silverstein was lucky to take out insurance that covers terrorist acts a few months prior, lol 😡
-maybe growing up in Manhattan has made me too jaded…*shrug*
-s
And we’re sure that this video hasn’t been altered by someone? I’m not accusing this of being a false story, but I’m sure everyone here knows how easy it would be to put the building back in behind her.
#4,
Actually this is a bit of clever redirection. The video is totally legitimate. It is that bogus breaking news scroll at the bottom of the video that is confusing you.
4. This was not photoshopped. The video is time stamped.
http://tinyurl.com/2982ns
What is more likely? That a miscommunication to the BBC about Building 7’s collapse being imminent being mistaken at their news desk that it has collapsed? Or a grand plot to run two planes into very large skyscrapers to destroy several city blocks in order to start a war and claim some insurance money.
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
Though it will do nothing to quell conspiracy theorists, the BBC has already stated that, amid the confusion of the day and the myriads of conflicting reports, they simply made a mistake.
Have any of you hear about “The fog of War”? Haven’t any of you people ever played “Telephone”?
By the time this is aired, the twin towers had already collapsed, and there was chaos in New York. Rumors were rampant, news was coming from every direction and from multiple sources.
Building 7 had been evacuated and abandoned by then, with the expectation that it would collapse.
Someone in the news office receives a rushed and garbled message about building 7 possibly about to collapse, misreads it, transcribes it, and passes it on to the newscaster, which then announces that building 7 has collapsed.
It would be completely different if someone had announced that the twin towers had been hit 20 minutes before any of the towers had been hit, but in the mess that was New York after the first tower came down, misread information should be expected.
7
One thing to remember… when vast amounts of money and power are involved, no act is too great. Look up the company that ran security at the airports involved in the flights during 9/11. Same company ran them.
Also, the BBC had an editorial comment that claims they lost the original tapes from the broadcast. Due to a “cock up”. I guess news corps covering such and event just leave the tapes on the desks at the office and wait for the maintenance clean up crews to file them?
2,
The source your reading it from is one thing. The BBC admitted to the broadcast. So it doesn’t really matter where it’s from.
Now, has anyone noticed that Frank IBC only shows up when conspiracies are discussed? He’s an operative for sure.
OK so why had Google AND DIGG pulled it. Who made these guys the official dispenser of information. Who makes the decision to pull it, and why?
#7
I’m with you, Jon. This story is just another nutcase conspiracy story. The lady and her crew obviously misinterpreted the information.
#11,
Because there was an actual conspiracy on 911. Bogus crap like this makes the ultimate truths harder to get at… If not impossible.
At the start of the video right before the male correspondent hands off to the female reporter, and he is looking away while talking, watch his jaw move up and down.
I think you will agree that this is a mashup and nothing more.
That and add in the bogus news scroll…
Why do the “Truthers” think that gravity would act in anything other than a straight line down?
I always knew the evil BBC were at the centre of it all. I’ve never trusted them since the Teletubbies.
14,
In 1999 Payne Stewart died in a plane accident. There were fighter jets there shadowing that plane about 10 minutes after they lost radio contact.
Please remind me how long it took NORAD to respond on 911.
What happened there?
#10
> One thing to remember… when vast amounts of money and power
> are involved, no act is too great.
I’m having a Sneaker’s flashback. “What? Are you telling me that the CIA caused an Earthquake?” I know this may come as a shock, but yes there are limits even with unlimited money and power.
The main reason that conspiracy theory rants fall on deaf ears is that they all attempt prove their conspiracy by showing anomalous evidence rather than evidence of specific people conspiring to commit their acts.
16 –
What on earth does that have to do with gravity?
Old-time steeplejacks used to fell chimneys by removing a small selection of brickwork from one side and setting a fire at its base so that it would topple in a straight line in the desired direction. They didn’t have access to the explosives and timing electronics they would have needed in order to make a stack fall vertically.
I’m not a “Truther”, by the way. Just saying…
[Oh and by the way, Silverstein admitted on camera that WTC 7 was pulled]
the only question that begs is, how did they rig a building of that size to collapse on its footprint in just a few hours (7-8hrs was it?) – i thought it takes a few days at least…
Apparently the gravity here is a lot stronger than on the planet on which you live – on Earth, the acceleration of gravity is 9.81 m/sec(2). On this planet, once a large structure starts to fall, it will reach the ground within seconds. And since gravity on this planet acts in a straight line, most of the debris will fall within the “footprint”.
i dont really care about this bbc thing. it doesn’t really matter because either case 9/11 was setup for the ones who most benefit from it.
just look at how many laws have been passed since 9/11. the patriot act is nearly identical to hitler’s *enabling act that he imposed after the reichstags-fire which was set by the nazis themselves when they blamed “terrorists”. what happened then everybody knows.
history repeats itself. from cesar, napoleon, hitler/ stalin to bush/ blair.
sheeps have always been fooled and fucked around with. unfortunately this will go on as long as the masses stay ignorant.
20 –
No, you lying moron – he said to “pull” the firefighters out of the doomed structure.
Wow. Moron. I guess we found your level pretty quickly.
Frank IBC,
I think we might be saying the same thing about WTC 1,2 & 7. They fell down because planes flew into them. Since then there have been patently absurd claims that they were blown up. Now we are getting extra absurd with these claims that the medai was in on ‘it’.
However, That does not omit the possibility of an actual conspiracy… Payne Steward is interesting, because that one case pretty much blows the governments version of events out of the water.
*sigh* more fodder for conspiracy nuts… kenny was right, 1/4 of america are retards
23.
Actually he said “maybe the smartest thing is just to pull it [singular] and we made that decision to pull and we watched the building, collapse”. He said that on a PBS documentary, America Rebuilds – a recorded programme where he could have gone back and re-recorded that segment if his statement had come out wrong, or he stumbled over his words, etc. But no, he was presumably happy with that take.
He let that comment lie for years, before issuing a statement that actually he meant pull the firecrews [people, plural] out of the building. There were no fire-crews in the building, they had already evacuated the building and were presumably concentrating on rescuing people from the WTC1 and 2 collapse site.
Recently footage has been found of police and fire fighters moving bystanders back from the building because “it’s about to come down”. Who told them it was going to come down and how why did they think it would? Buildings closer to the towers (e.g. Bankers trust) sustained more damage.
The BBC’s own response to this is hilarious – “we lost the tapes”? “Cock-up, not conspiracy”? How to stir up even more suspicion! In my view, the point of the video was not to accuse the BBC of being part of a wider conspiracy (the idea that the whole establishment press could be “in on it”, is of course ridiculous) but merely to invite them to name their source.
BS. People who make this claim only bother to look at pictures of the north side of Building 7, which was facing away from where the towers had stood. The south side of Building 7 was heavily damaged by falling and burning debris from the towers.
Personally, I think Frank IBC did it. Nobody thought to look up what IBC stands for, but I did. It stands for International Building Conspirator.
C’mon, Frank. ‘Fess up. You did it, right?
PS – There’s a detailed chronology from the BBC’s Richard Porter in response to this particular kerfuffle, if anyone’s interested. It’s at http://tinyurl.com/3ampdv
Make sure to read the comments there..very entertaining.
Here’s the problem never addressed. No building merely on fire ever collapses like this. The other two collapsed because the plane full of burning fuel over-heated the inner structure from intense heat, not a normal fire. I wouldn’t even think of working in a building if they are this subject to collapse from a simple fire.
But that’s ok, it’s all bullshit. Let’s forget it. Whatever we are told is the answer and that’s that.