BBC was half an hour to early reporting the collapse of WTC7

[PussyWellington]

On September 11th 2001, BBC World reported at 4:57pm Eastern Time that the Salomon Brothers Building (more commonly known as WTC7 or World Trade Building 7) had collapsed.

This even made the 5pm EST headlines, what is bizarre is that the building did not actually collapse until 5:20pm EST.

9/11 was unusual enough, without BBC World being able to foretell the destiny of WTC 7.

What is even stranger, is that the women reporter is telling the world that the building had collapsed when you can see it in the background over her left shoulder.

Then at 5:15pm EST, just five minutes before the building did actually collapse, her live connection from New York to London mysteriously fails.

So the question is, on 9/11 how did the BBC learn that WTC7 collapsed 23 minutes before it actually did.

Building Seven was 47 storeys, modern in design with structural steel throughout, yet symmetrically collapsed in 6.5 seconds, was someone leaking information.

No steel framed skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire, before or after 9/11, most people who find out about WTC7, believe it was brought down by a controlled demolition, even demolition experts agree.

LiveLeak.com - VIDEO: BBC WAS HALF AN HOUR TOO EARLY REPORTING ON WTC7 COLLAPSE

This is vanishing quickly - see it now. It's about 25 minutes long but worth the view

 

[agnslz]

Good God.

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

Vanishing quickly? As if the Illuminati or the Knights Templar are out there shutting down all the sites who host it? Why is it that conspiracy theorists always use that line? It's never true. This video is still up and nobody's taking it down except maybe the person who put it up. If the Servants of Cthulu or whomever is really out there taking these videos down they're doing an extremely crappy job because there are only about five billion mirror sites for that idiotic loose change video.

 

[jakeatolla]

Vanishing quickly? As if the Illuminati or the Knights Templar are out there shutting down all the sites who host it? Why is it that conspiracy theorists always use that line? It's never true. This video is still up and nobody's taking it down except maybe the person who put it up. If the Servants of Cthulu or whomever is really out there taking these videos down they're doing an extremely crappy job because there are only about five billion mirror sites for that idiotic loose change video.

You took the words right out of my mouth !!!!:wink:

 

[PussyWellington]

Vanishing quickly? As if the Illuminati or the Knights Templar are out there shutting down all the sites who host it? Why is it that conspiracy theorists always use that line? It's never true. This video is still up and nobody's taking it down except maybe the person who put it up. If the Servants of Cthulu or whomever is really out there taking these videos down they're doing an extremely crappy job because there are only about five billion mirror sites for that idiotic loose change video.

I won't respond to your other comments but I will say, this is not the loose change video.

This is from the BBC! Until this afternoon it was archived on the BBC site.

 

[SpoiledPrincess]

It didn't collapse just from fire did it, a plane crashed into it too.

 

[No_Strings]

It didn't collapse just from fire did it, a plane crashed into it too.

Bizarre as it would seem, you're one of the few people I've seen who mention this in these inevitable consipracy threads which appear on every forum... I imagine a 300,000 lb piece of metal travelling at 500mph would affect the structure of a building so tall fairly significantly, "collapsed from a fire" indeed

I've researched a lot surrounding this in great detail (not fuelled by my opinion on it either way, rather the buddng historian in me), and the amount of bias and pure invalid 'evidence' in these videos is astounding

If I have the energy to disect this video, as I haven't seen this before, I'll post about it here too

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

I won't respond to your other comments but I will say, this is not the loose change video.

This is from the BBC! Until this afternoon it was archived on the BBC site.

The footage might be from the BBC. The story is not. Pretty big difference. One source (The BBC) has standards of journalistic integrity. The other (random person making videos on the internet) does not. However, that's beside my point.

I was only saying that nobody is going to be shutting down this site or taking down the videos. It's weird that the conspiracy videos always warn against that, as if it makes them seem more credible? They say the same thing on the loose change video sites, but like I mentioned, there are literally thousands of places out there from which to download that video and nobody is out shutting them down.

 

[madame_zora]

Um no, building 7 is several blocks away from buildings 1 and 2, and wasn't hit by shit. Pretty odd indeed for it to fall in a few seconds.

Building 7 Collapse WTC - 9/11 Review

 

[madame_zora]

The footage might be from the BBC. The story is not. Pretty big difference. One source (The BBC) has standards of journalistic integrity. The other (random person making videos on the internet) does not. However, that's beside my point.

I was only saying that nobody is going to be shutting down this site or taking down the videos. It's weird that the conspiracy videos always warn against that, as if it makes them seem more credible? They say the same thing on the loose change video sites, but like I mentioned, there are literally thousands of places out there from which to download that video and nobody is out shutting them down.

BUT, in 2002 I could easily research george bush's high school transcripts, try to find that shit now.

Of course no one's shutting down this site, I'd guess she meant the site on which the video is posted, no? I know how much you hate this conspiracy theory shit, but just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean "they're" not out to get us. You can't really believe that the NSA has to authority to monitor phone calls, and has spybots surfing the web, but they're not doing it for any particular reason, other than to fight terrorism?
As much as you hate whacko theories, I get frustrated by those who automatically reject ANY theory of wrongdoing without giving the argument even a serious listen.

Suppose, against all odds, there really is something amiss- wouldn't you want to know? I mean, we've "uncovered" story after story of these republifucks doing wrong, both illegal and immoral. We've seen story after story of no one taking responsibility, but just proclaiming miracle cures, but still we have trouble understanding that many people simply are not who they claim to be. In fact, it's very often the ones claiming moral superiority who have their hands in the cookie jar.

This is all very abstract, but it's part of considering the whole picture.

You are a rational one, so I'll leave the science to you. Why would WT7, two city blocks away and not hit with anything but flying debris collapse in a few minutes, earthquake? Why didn't everything four blocks surrounding collapse? I'm sure there is an explanation, but I can't find one that satisfies. Help out?

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

It didn't collapse just from fire did it, a plane crashed into it too.

No plane crashed into the WT7 building (one of the smaller buildings very near the two main WTC towers that also collapsed after the attack). There were extensive fires in that building, in addition to many many thousands upon thousands of tons of debris falling hundreds of feet to the ground near it. No planes, though.



Oh, and the Adepts of Hermes working in cahoots with the CIA and the Elders of Zion and probably Halliburton set off bombs in the building. Apparently now we're also to believe that the BBC was in on the entire plot as well, which makes perfect sense, because the best way to pull off the most extensive conspiracy in history would of course be to tip off the news media. Naturally, nobody credible has leaked anything about what really happened in the building, even though it looks like virtually everyone in the US, British, Israeli and Saudi governments and media were all in on it, and of course so were all the people on the planes who "died"... as it wasn't really commercial airliners that crashed into the WTC or the Pentagon, even though we have video of one and photos of the other. For instance, Leslie Whittington, Public Policy professor at Georgetown University where she instructed classes attended by at least two of my high school friends, and who also was on the Flight 77 that the news media wants us to believe crashed into the Pentagon. She didn't die and I guess is living comfortably on some island paradise subsidized by the government for her complicity in the vast conspiracy of 9/11. At least she wasn't as heartless as some of the "victims" of 9/11, many of whom left family members behind, as Whittington's husband and two young children also "died" on Flight 77. :biggrin1: Clever girl, she got to take her whole family with her to her secret new life. Wonder what they did with the plane, though. Oh right, everyone at air traffic control over at Herndon was in on the plot, too. It probably just landed in the Bahamas. Wow! This really does make sense, now that I think about it. I wish I knew what happened to my friend Adam Tepes' dad. He was reportedly in the Pentagon when he got cut in half by the giant aircraft plowing through his office. I mean missle. Or military plane. Or orbital laser. I guess the jury's still out on that. Hm...

 

[zgrog2000]

Servants of Cthulhu

There are hidden messages on this website that prove beyond doubt that it was all a plot by the gorgons who live in the catacombs under NYC. They were in cahoots with Mayor Rudy Giuliani who was the 107th Mayor of NYC. 9/11/2001 (9+1+1+2+0+0+1=14) 107 (1+0+7=8) 14+8=22. There were 47 floors in the building. 47-22=25. Twins are 2. Twin Towers =2. 25-2= OH MY GOD 23. Maybe Jim Carey did it!!!!

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

Zora, that's my whole point, maybe the government does have power to go after certain websites. But if they do, they clearly don't give a shit about this "truth" leaking, as it's all over the place.




FEMA's initial report:

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

NIST's working hypothesis:

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_.../appendixl.pdf

Counterpunch article:

Manuel Garcia, Jr: The Fall of WTC 7

911 Myths WTC7 page:

WTC7 and Silverstein

Screwloosechange blog entry on WTC7

Screw Loose Change: WTC 7

Debunking911.com on WTC7

Home

Gravy's WTC7 Paper (skip part one for the time being)

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.doc (Microsoft Word version)
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf (Adobe Acrobat PDF version)

Finally, some threads that are relevant to at least some of your questions

JREF Forum Database Error
JREF Forum Database Error (gets going once Russell Pickering arrives)
JREF Forum Database Error

already linked to the site but this one is good for you video-oriented people:
Debunking 911 Conpiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - WTC 7

 

[madame_zora]

NIC, I agree that they really don't give a shit about "truth" leaking. IF there actually is something to hide, how better than to let us nutjobs loose? We'll shoot ourselves in the foot far easier than they ever could.

A couple of things come to mind. I watched the video, and unless there is some dispute as to the time the newscast actually aired, it IS compelling. It's not a conspiracy thing, it's just the BBC news that day- watch it. They report the Saloman Building as being collapsed while it's still in the picture! That's weird.

No, I would not expect that the BBC is "in" on anything! That's absurd. If anything, the story of WTC7 being collapsed was probably called in to them, uh perhaps the mysterious caller could be the problem.

Here's a conspiracy theory for ya- what's missing from the picture? Oh yeah, there WAS that one plane that got waylaid from its intended target by the passengers- since the other three hit their targets, might I assume the fourth plane was intended for WTC7? I just thought of that myself, I don't know if it's already been asked.

I looked for a response from the BBC on this, but all I found was this:

BBC NEWS | Programmes | Conspiracy Files | Q&A: What really happened

They just refer to FEMA's report, I couldn't find anything specific about the claim that the BBC's report was too early.

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

NIC, I agree that they really don't give a shit about "truth" leaking. IF there actually is something to hide, how better than to let us nutjobs loose? We'll shoot ourselves in the foot far easier than they ever could.

A couple of things come to mind. I watched the video, and unless there is some dispute as to the time the newscast actually aired, it IS compelling. It's not a conspiracy thing, it's just the BBC news that day- watch it. They report the Saloman Building as being collapsed while it's still in the picture! That's weird.

No, I would not expect that the BBC is "in" on anything! That's absurd. If anything, the story of WTC7 being collapsed was probably called in to them, uh perhaps the mysterious caller could be the problem.

Here's a conspiracy theory for ya- what's missing from the picture? Oh yeah, there WAS that one plane that got waylaid from its intended target by the passengers- since the other three hit their targets, might I assume the fourth plane was intended for WTC7? I just thought of that myself, I don't know if it's already been asked.

I've already seen it (that question) posted. Seems highly dubious. Who gives a crap about WT7? Why would they expect anyone to believe the terrorists wanted to take out that building? I'll admit the BBC video may be a curiosity, but as far as I know it's something fairly new. I expect that they'll probably respond to it eventually, if there is enough public interest, and then point out something to the effect that it was taken out of context or there was reporter error or the timestamp was wrong. I don't know yet as I haven't seen the explanation. But ANY of that seems FAR more plausible than what the "nutjobs" would have us believe. Given all of the far more compelling evidence and arguments in my above post that I linked to, and everything I already said here about the enormous holes in conspiracy theory logic (far bigger than any purported holes in the official story) I'm left to believe you have to want to see a conspiracy here in order to see one.

Last I'll comment on this thread as these always irritate me and it's not worth my time or frustration... I shouldn't have to dig up evidence for people who are too lazy and/or disinterested to go looking for it themselves... back to packing...

 

[madame_zora]

Haha, sorry I caught you on your way to packing.

Anyway, Guiliani's Emergency Command Center was there, so that could make it a target. It would make it harder to respond to the emergency without the back-up plan.

I've read some, I asked for what YOU found compelling. I recognized some of the info I you posted as sources for things you have said before, especially the equations. As for the rest, I found several holes in the story. I'm not claiming to have unlimited time or resources to investigate myself, but the two pieces of evidence being cited are the FEMA and NIST reports, both of which are government agencies.

I'm not saying these agencies are "in on it", I'm saying they are in some ways compelled to give reports that bush wants. The EPA sure knows this.
Additionally, they both approached it as an outside terrorist attack and nothing more. People don't often find what they're not looking for. The 9/11 Commission Report raised some questions and accusations, they are not beholden to the Whitehouse for their paychecks.

Rarely if ever have we had a government so full of unqualified cronies, at the very least there was massive neglect. But it looks like Plame was indeed a cover-up (I got called a whacko for that too), Haggard was every bit the liar and fraud he appeared to be- close friend of ol george, and bush himself swore he had no idea this could happen, then we saw the video of him being briefed that Al quaeda planned to attack the WTC with airplanes. Yeah, lying about knowing anything made bush look guilty.

I don't know that this was a planned demolition, but I watched my government do nothing for five fucking days after Katrina- bush apparently does not own a tv set. Apparently human life is not very important to him, so why would I be surprised if there was an agenda here? I saw the horrific rotting conditions of the stadium and cringed each day, sure that help was on the way. It was not.

Oh yeah, the BBC will have great difficulty explaining why they announced that WT7 had fallen while it's still in the background of the LIVE coverage! As I said, unless someone is claiming that the time it aired is false, it's going to be hard to refute. I want to hear it, even if you don't.

 

[Male Bonding etc]

Tell you what, folks, let's focus on the things for which this administration is more clearly responsible:
* Aggression against a sovereign nation without support of evidence or the UN.
* Dropping the ball in the pursuit of Al Qaida in Afghanistan to take on the above ill-conceived aggression.
* Wasting and losing many billions of dollars in Iraq.
* Allowing cronies to profit in both countries.
* Sending troops into harms way ill-prepared and poorly supplied so that 3,100+ of them have come home dead and many times that have come home seriously wounded, their lives permanently changed.
* Treating prisoners and suspects in this "War on Terrorism" as if we had never heard of human rights.
* Taking actions that have resulted in the deaths of untold numbers of Iraqi citizens.
* Promoting a culture of disrespect that has led to abuses of prisoners in Abu Gareb and other prisons in Iraq, which in turn has further eroded US credibility in that part of the world... hell, in the world at large.
* Abusing the constitutional rights of American citizens right here in this country.
* Basically sending this country spiralling backwards in ways that may haunt us for generations.

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

Alright, I lied, because I'm back here.

Male Bonding: EXACTLY!! There is so much real stuff wrong with this administration, why not focus on that? Seems more worthwhile than making shit up. I know there are a lot of people out there who feel Bush is evil incarnate and so they are willing to pin anything they can on him, and willing to accept any story, no matter how bizarre, if it paints him in a bad light. but if you go reaching at elaborate fantasy you end up detracting from people who wish to aim real criticism at the executive branch.

Zora: alright, a few points.

Yes, I know the FEMA and NIST reports could have been compromised, especially if 9/11 really was a vast government conspiracy. I don't buy it, but whatever.. those two reports represent the "official story", and then all the links below those two represent the tons of evidence mostly from independent sources corroborating the "official story." Taken all together, there are no unexplained holes. You have the official story, you have the sites like loose change claiming that the official story is not accuracte, and then you have the rebuttals explaining why the criticisms of the official story don't hold water. Click on some of the other links after the first two. This BBC story is something new, though.

It's not that I'm disinterested in hearing an explanation about the BBC video. That's not it at all. It's that you and anyone else who already believes that 9/11 was a conspiracy is going to take this video as further proof of your preconceived notion. On the other hand, in my mind, all of the conspiracy theories up to this point have already been very satisfactorily disproven, and all of the questions raised satisfactorily answered. So when some new bit of "evidence" pops up- it's not one more nail in the coffin- rather it's just a curiosity because it's not supported by any other evidence, because none of the other "evidence" has stood up to serious scrutiny. To me this story is about as compelling as if someone posted on YouTube video they shot of a big red flying sleigh being pulled by eight reindeer on Christmas Eve. If there was no immediately available explanation for the video, it would be an interesting curiosity... but since up to this point in my mind the existence of Santa Claus as he is perceived in contemporary myth has been pretty much disproven, I will assume that this new evidence that he does exist is also false until something else corroborates it. You're right that people don't often find what they are not looking for (sometimes they do, kudos on including the qualifier "often")... and that's the crux of this issue. The conspiracy believers look at every new thing they can find as potential evidence for what they already believe. They're obviously obviously not looking to find evidence that 9/11 was in fact not a conspiracy.... and so they don't find this.

 

[PussyWellington]

For those that are interested, here is the link to the BBC's response. It is important to note that the footage that I posted yesterday was only discovered yesterday morning.

The official response was posted less than 24 hours later.

BBC NEWS | The Editors

 

[madame_zora]

For those that are interested, here is the link to the BBC's response. It is important to note that the footage that I posted yesterday was only discovered yesterday morning.

The official response was posted less than 24 hours later.

BBC NEWS | The Editors

Okay, so they don't have a copy of their own newscast? Oh, mothefuckingchrist. Apparently, they don't have your link either.

See, this is what I hate. Rather than just say "Well, that's what our source told us" which is most likely what happened, they claim they don't have the newscast to review, but we're supposed to take their word that they're not part of a scam. Well fine, I never thought that anyway, but denying that they're part of a cover-up diverts attention away from the fact that they reported a building being collapsed about a half hour too early, while it was still in the backgroud.

I'm not surprised the newscaster didn't notice, I wouldn't have known what WTC7 looked like either before now. I think she was honestly just reporting what she was being told. WHO told her is vitally important, but I bet she'll forget that too. Bullocks.


NIC, I did read several pages deep, and even read most of the responses- I had a free day yesterday. To bring out every point to which there was a possible objection would take more time than I've got, but there were several. However, the most convincing argument for the official story was the structural history of the building. The amount of fuel being stored in the upper floors was not known to me before yesterday, nor the fact that the building had undergone so many serious renovations over the years. At least it helps explain why WTC6 didn't collapse even though it was between 1 and 7.

You're wrong about me being convinced of a government conspiracy, or even being directly complicit. What I am convinced of is that the government has not been very forthcoming with the facts, and that usually means there is a problem. Unlike you, I am not satisfied to a certainty of the rebuttals, and many of those making them are just saying "This is what really happened, so stop being nutjobs" but their versions are not leak-proof either. Scientists and engineers are not seeking the reasons for human motivations, they are looking for information on what happened, not why. We know what happened, they buildings collapsed. They looked for factual information on what caused it, and they looked for scientific reasons why. I read absolutely nothing about possible political motivations, or opportunity. Detectives look for motive and opportunity, then seek physical evidence to support it. In every investigation, there first has to be a premise before there can be an answer.

Watch any cop show or follow any ongoing real investigation of a crime, and you'll note that several theories are reviewed and disproven before they arrive at the right one, this is just part of the process. I'm sure there are elements of the "true story" in print a lot of places, even the whackiest sites. My strongest tendency is to believe that our government is giulty mostly of gross negligence, but if there's any possibility that there is more involvement there than that, I want to know. It's interesting to me because whatever the "truth" is, we really should know if our leader slung us headlong into a planned war. That does not seem outside the realm of possibility, for an extraordinary list of reasons. Like his entire presidency.
Saddam IS dead, compliments of bush, and he vowed to go after him before 9/11.

I would like to know who called the BBC newsteam and told them WTC7 had collapsed before it actually had. If that call could be traced back to someone from our government, that would be an important bit of information.

I still wonder what flight 93's original target was intended to be.