9/11: BBC reports WTC7 collapse 25 minutes before it happened

DPrival78

if this has been discussed already, i apologize..

if it hasn't..

go here:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/260207building7.htm

and watch the video. a BBC journalist in NYC is reporting live on the collapse of building 7. the only problem is... you can see the building standing behind her - it didn't collapse until almost a half hour later.

huh??

Abookamongstthemany

I saw this! I thought it was pretty interesting, indeed.

jlew24asu

ok so this tells me she is a idiot. what else am I supposed to ascertain from it?

Abookamongstthemany

jlew24asu wrote:

ok so this tells me she is a idiot. what else am I supposed to ascertain from it?

BBC reported the building had collapsed before 5 pm. It didn't actually fall until 5:20. Later they go to this lady in NYC for live coverage of the event and there's the building, still standing, right behind her head! Just watch the clip.

DPrival78

jlew24asu wrote:

ok so this tells me she is a idiot. what else am I supposed to ascertain from it?

well, she wasn't the only person reporting it. bbc first reported at 4:57 that WTC7 collapsed. it actually collapsed at approx. 5:20.

why would they report that when no one expected that building to come down? WTC7 came down accidentally, according to official reports. where were they getting their info from?

they report something that didn't happen yet, and something that was entirely unexpected - then it happens 20 minutes later.. that doesn't seem odd to you?

jlew24asu

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

BBC reported the building had collapsed before 5 pm. It didn't actually fall until 5:20. Later they go to this lady in NYC for live coverage of the event and there's the building, still standing, right behind her head! Just watch the clip.

ok so BBC is the idiot. if they were fed that report from some US official dont you think it would be public knowledge? that can not be kept a secret no matter gag order the government tries to put on it.

jlew24asu

DPrival78 wrote:

well, she wasn't the only person reporting it. bbc first reported at 4:57 that WTC7 collapsed. it actually collapsed at approx. 5:20.

why would they report that when no one expected that building to come down? WTC7 came down accidentally, according to official reports. where were they getting their info from?

they report something that didn't happen yet, and something that was entirely unexpected - then it happens 20 minutes later.. that doesn't seem odd to you?

yes it does seem odd. so where did they get the info from? do you think the government "took out" anyone who knew ?

jlew24asu

movie is not working btw

gue_barium

I hadn't heard about this one.

I found another BBC report, with the timestamp, reporting the collapse 25 minutes before it happened.

http://ken-hall.blogspot.com/

norm

jlew24asu wrote:

movie is not working btw

It part of the conspiracy.


The video isn't working but could it be that she was mistaken as which building she was talking about? This seems like a reach. But then the whole thing seems far fetched to me.

DPrival78

jlew24asu wrote:

movie is not working btw

here's another link:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=rlFDd5Yjn3w

DPrival78

cutback wrote:

It part of the conspiracy.


The video isn't working but could it be that she was mistaken as which building she was talking about? This seems like a reach. But then the whole thing seems far fetched to me.

i don't think she was mistaken. only 2 buildings had collapsed at the time of her report. she was very specific about describing the building, as was the desk anchor who reported the same thing 15 or so minutes before he spoke to her.

i'd love to know who told the bbc wtc7 came down.

farfromglorified

hehe...the mp3 on that link is priceless. Poor woman deserves a raise.

CJMST3K

There was a firefighter on the radio arguing with the creator of one film questioning why WTC7 came down. He said he saw the fire first hand, since he was right there, and he said in his heavy NY accent that the film's producer wasn't there and doesnt know what he's talking about.

However - the footage you are posting is intriguing about it being announced beforehand.

I was living about 25 miles away from manhattan, watching on TV. They were showing WTC7 in the footage before it came down. I recall them talking about WTC7, that it may not last much longer, from either fire or damage. So, I was aware that it was a damaged building well before it fell. They showed close up footage of the building on tv, but I wasnt paying attention to what they were showing at the time - just what they were saying about the damage to WTC7 and how it was damaged.

El_Kabong

CJMST3K wrote:

There was a firefighter on the radio arguing with the creator of one film questioning why WTC7 came down. He said he saw the fire first hand, since he was right there, and he said in his heavy NY accent that the film's producer wasn't there and doesnt know what he's talking about.

However - the footage you are posting is intriguing about it being announced beforehand.

I was living about 25 miles away from manhattan, watching on TV. They were showing WTC7 in the footage before it came down. I recall them talking about WTC7, that it may not last much longer, from either fire or damage. So, I was aware that it was a damaged building well before it fell. They showed close up footage of the building on tv, but I wasnt paying attention to what they were showing at the time - just what they were saying about the damage to WTC7 and how it was damaged.

maybe the nist will finally get around to finishing their report on it....wonder what's taking them so long?

El_Kabong

cutback wrote:

It part of the conspiracy.


The video isn't working but could it be that she was mistaken as which building she was talking about? This seems like a reach. But then the whole thing seems far fetched to me.

she said the buildings name, not just it's number

MakingWaves

DPrival78 wrote:

well, she wasn't the only person reporting it. bbc first reported at 4:57 that WTC7 collapsed. it actually collapsed at approx. 5:20.

why would they report that when no one expected that building to come down? WTC7 came down accidentally, according to official reports. where were they getting their info from?

they report something that didn't happen yet, and something that was entirely unexpected - then it happens 20 minutes later.. that doesn't seem odd to you?

This must mean we need to add BBC to the conspiracy. They were part of it.

I am thinking with the building being on fire and the condition it was in they might have warned it was going to collapse and made sure people were clear of it. As the warning spread someone along the line thought they said the building had collapsed. Sounds like a good explanation to me.

jlew24asu

MakingWaves wrote:

I am thinking with the building being on fire and the condition it was in they might have warned it was going to collapse and made sure people were clear of it. As the warning spread someone along the line thought they said the building had collapsed. Sounds like a good explanation to me.

this is what i'm thinking too. but for the others who dont buy this explaination, why wouldnt the BBC come out and say they were told this by joe doe government official?

MakingWaves

jlew24asu wrote:

this is what i'm thinking too. but for the others who dont buy this explaination, why wouldnt the BBC come out and say they were told this by joe doe government official?

That is a good question. My bet would be they just didn't think it was that big of a deal and paid no attention to it.

Abookamongstthemany

jlew24asu wrote:

this is what i'm thinking too. but for the others who dont buy this explaination, why wouldnt the BBC come out and say they were told this by joe doe government official?

There is no way you guys would have bought this kind of explanation from us. It's quite a reach and involves disregarding what was actually reported.

hippiemom

No way this is a government conspiracy. If our government was going to tip off a network and give them an early exclusive, they sure as hell wouldn't pick the freakin' BBC! Now, if it had been Fox News, we might be onto something .....

MakingWaves

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

There is no way you guys would have bought this kind of explanation from us. It's quite a reach and involves disregarding what was actually reported.

Not necessarily. It is a simple explanation in my opinion. I like to believe the most simple explanation is the correct one. In the chaos of that day as local officials saw that building burning and some damage that was done to it they probably said the building was going to collapse. Someone along the line heard it wrong and there is your report.
What is another explanation? I am very open minded and if there is a better one I would definetly change my mind.

gue_barium

MakingWaves wrote:

Not necessarily. It is a simple explanation in my opinion. I like to believe the most simple explanation is the correct one. In the chaos of that day as local officials saw that building burning and some damage that was done to it they probably said the building was going to collapse. Someone along the line heard it wrong and there is your report.
What is another explanation? I am very open minded and if there is a better one I would definetly change my mind.

It's kind of odd that a foreign correspondent would be reporting something the american media hadn't reported yet. She mentioned the Marriott building damage, so she was getting info, obviously, from somebody closer to the area...or...from the american media.

jlew24asu

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

There is no way you guys would have bought this kind of explanation from us. It's quite a reach and involves disregarding what was actually reported.

what are you talking about?

DPrival78

hippiemom wrote:

No way this is a government conspiracy. If our government was going to tip off a network and give them an early exclusive, they sure as hell wouldn't pick the freakin' BBC! Now, if it had been Fox News, we might be onto something .....

who says it was "our government" who tipped them off?

who says it was "our government" who masterminded this whole thing?

the question is: where did the bbc get the info that the buidling collapsed when it clearly hadn't?

and if the explanation is well, we heard the building was going to collapse, and it was a mistake, then i would ask why nist said wtc7's collapse was a mystery? why did they make no mention that it was expected to come down?

farfromglorified

...this is a response to this from BBC World Editor Richard Potter:

"Part of the conspiracy: Richard Porter 27 Feb 07, 05:12 PM

The 9/11 conspiracy theories are pretty well known by now. The BBC addressed them earlier this month with a documentary, The Conspiracy Files, shown within the UK.

Until now, I don't think we've been accused of being part of the conspiracy. But now some websites are using news footage from BBC World on September 11th 2001 to suggest we were actively participating in some sort of attempt to manipulate the audience. As a result, we're now getting lots of emails asking us to clarify our position. So here goes:

1. We're not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening.

2. In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had. We did what we always did - sourced our reports, used qualifying words like "apparently" or "it's reported" or "we're hearing" and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving.

3. Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I've spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn't remember minute-by-minute what she said or did - like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services.

4. We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another.

5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today "so the guy in the studio didn't quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy... ""

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/

MakingWaves

DPrival78 wrote:

who says it was "our government" who tipped them off?

who says it was "our government" who masterminded this whole thing?

the question is: where did the bbc get the info that the buidling collapsed when it clearly hadn't?

and if the explanation is well, we heard the building was going to collapse, and it was a mistake, then i would ask why nist said wtc7's collapse was a mystery? why did they make no mention that it was expected to come down?

Good questions. But from what I have read, and I think what I read came out after nist, the collapse isn't a mystery.

jlew24asu

DPrival78 wrote:

who says it was "our government" who tipped them off?

who says it was "our government" who masterminded this whole thing?

you are your buddy kabong

DPrival78 wrote:

the question is: where did the bbc get the info that the buidling collapsed when it clearly hadn't?

ask the BBC where they got the info. what do they have to loose by keeping that a secret? it actaully would benefit them to come out and say " the us government told us that"

DPrival78 wrote:

and if the explanation is well, we heard the building was going to collapse, and it was a mistake, then i would ask why nist said wtc7's collapse was a mystery? why did they make no mention that it was expected to come down?

it was no secret that the building was badly damaged.

MakingWaves

farfromglorified wrote:

...this is a response to this from BBC World Editor Richard Potter:

"Part of the conspiracy: Richard Porter 27 Feb 07, 05:12 PM

The 9/11 conspiracy theories are pretty well known by now. The BBC addressed them earlier this month with a documentary, The Conspiracy Files, shown within the UK.

Until now, I don't think we've been accused of being part of the conspiracy. But now some websites are using news footage from BBC World on September 11th 2001 to suggest we were actively participating in some sort of attempt to manipulate the audience. As a result, we're now getting lots of emails asking us to clarify our position. So here goes:

1. We're not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening.

2. In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had. We did what we always did - sourced our reports, used qualifying words like "apparently" or "it's reported" or "we're hearing" and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving.

3. Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I've spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn't remember minute-by-minute what she said or did - like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services.

4. We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another.

5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today "so the guy in the studio didn't quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy... ""

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/

Just as i suspected. Damn, I'm pretty good

Rushlimbo

4. We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another.

How convenient.

Abookamongstthemany

MakingWaves wrote:

Not necessarily. It is a simple explanation in my opinion. I like to believe the most simple explanation is the correct one. In the chaos of that day as local officials saw that building burning and some damage that was done to it they probably said the building was going to collapse. Someone along the line heard it wrong and there is your report.
What is another explanation? I am very open minded and if there is a better one I would definetly change my mind.

I don't know who could have told them or even if anyone did tell them the building had collapsed before it actually had. But with all the other things that don't add up, this just adds to the pile. I'm not going to give you a theory of how they got this info and reported it as collapsed just to fit into what I already think and I don't think you guys should either. All I'm pointing out is, things that day were definitely not as they seemed or were reported to us.