BBC News Reports Building 7 collapse 23 Minutes before it collapses.

Originally posted by WolfofWar
couldnt it just have been because they got the wrong building?

I mean they arent from america, maybe they got the name of the building wrong?

I thought the only other building to collapse that day was the church when one of the towers collapsed on it? I don't believe any other building collapsed between 4 and 6 PM other than WTC 7. How could they be mistakenly reporting on a building collapsing when no other building collapsed? Just a thought.

Originally posted by thirty3
Good work folks.

Never even knew WTC7 existed before 9/11 come to think of it never really knew the trade centre had 2 towers instead of one. Here in the UK WTC buildings are really not common news pre 9/11 are you surprised we would not know if it was still standing...lol...

[edit on 27-2-2007 by thirty3]

But youd expect the BBCs reporter in New York to get the facts right?
Right???
It actually makes no odds, if the feed had rolled on another 3-4 minutes the penny would have dropped anyway.
I dont think the sublect of 9/11 is EVER deserving of a "lol", regardless of your stance.

Actualy, I'm fairly certain half of the people in NYC don't know which building is which other then "The Twin Towers"

What would be the perfect cover to divert attention fromthis vide,


a school shooting, a terror aattack, the crash of the stock markets???

I was just thinking that...

IMO we are on the verge of something big, although im not sure what it is, whether it be a major earthquake, terrorist attack, UFO incident/revealing etc..

The next few weeks will be very interesting, if not tense.

i think this will suffice www.nytimes.com...

So then we have to ask, is that WTC7 we see over her left shoulder?
Cos i dont think anything else is up for debate.

Originally posted by theBman
i think this will suffice www.nytimes.com...

I hope not. I don't think many people care about him anyway, he's just a fat goon, or as i like to put it (along with Gordon Brown), that evil little troll that lives under the bridge in childrens fairytales.

Originally posted by shindigger
So then we have to ask, is that WTC7 we see over her left shoulder?
Cos i dont think anything else is up for debate.

As said many times already, there is no doubt that we're loooking at WTC7. The only question now is where did the BBC get the information of the collapse from?

Originally posted by shrunkensimon

Originally posted by theBman
i think this will suffice www.nytimes.com...

I hope not. I don't think many people care about him anyway, he's just a fat goon, or as i like to put it (along with Gordon Brown), that evil little troll that lives under the bridge in childrens fairytales.

Yeh i couldnt care less either, but attempted assassinations of high ranking diplomats go a long way on slow news days. So either that or another story about a failing NHS.

This reporter needs to be questioned as to whether or not one of the buildings behind her (wtc 7) collapsed just after she did this report.

She needs to be questioned soon.

[edit on 27-2-2007 by r4758]

yeah, the cheney thing is weird....


yesterday evening, when the new video came out, and everybody was all hyped about it, and its obviously real, i was thinking what news will be used to distract people from this... i woke up, and the headlines are about cheney and the bombing

and this video is a big thing, i am spreading the word on forums in my country.

Does any one have a active list of sites hosting this video, wait that might make it easier for big brother to take them down?


Seriously is today the day that bigbrother puts his hand over our preverbial mouths, and silences what could be the best single hand peice of information to blow the lid off the 9/11 coverup.

Or are we going to not befooled by the illusion that people are over the world are not aware of this and just blahblah this off...

ANOTHER THING WHY ON EARTH IS THIS THREAD SINKING!!!!!!!


START SWIMING PEOPLE!!!!!!!!

Some people said when they downloaded the clip from the BBC archives the reporters section was edited out...

Does anyone still have this sanitized clip?? If so can you upload it? maybe to mediafire or something?

cheers

edit: double post.. mods. please remove?

[edit on 27-2-2007 by nowthenlookhere]

ANOTHER THING WHY ON EARTH IS THIS THREAD SINKING!!!!!!!

I just watched the video and read all 18 pages of this thread. This does appear to be the proverbial smoking gun.

Is it coincidence that the china stock market was down 9% and just hours after the video was first released? The fall out from the china market is affecting stock markets around the world today. Again world wide sell offs in stock markets one day after the video is released. Coincidence?

Originally posted by shindigger
But youd expect the BBCs reporter in New York to get the facts right?
Right???

You would like to think so but the BBC was certainly not the only news or media organisation to get facts wrong on September 11th. I'm sure I don't need to remind anyone how confused the situation was that day and some of the specific reports that I recall from my own memory include:

1. The towers were variously struck by Boeing 737s, a 727 or a small commuter jet. They weren't.

2. The initial crash was a helicopter hitting the tower. It wasn't

3. The second tower was struck by a news station plane covering the first crash. It wasn't.

4. Additional planes were en route to the White House, the Capitol building and several other sites in New York. They weren't.

5. There were bombs on the George Washington Bridge. There weren't.

6. The Pentagon was attacked with a truck bomb. It wasn't.

7. Air Force 1 was specifically targeted. It wasn't.

Now we have the BBC reporting that WTC7 had already collapsed when it hadn't. What had happened was that senior emergency service personnel had identified much earlier in the day that it was badly damaged and probably in a dangerous state, indeed, a "collapse zone" had been established around the building within the hour preceding the BBC report.

So how did the BBC get the erroneous report on air? Did they pick up an incorrect report from the "wires", or did one of their own people provide misleading or misunderstood information from down on the street, (they had more people that Jane Standley in New York that day), had they prepared the graphics and line of questioning in anticipation of the much predicted collapse of Building 7 and simply jumped too soon on the back of a dodgy bit of information?

This may be no more than one of hundreds of erroneous bits of news reported on the day with the BBC being unfortunate or careless enough to have gone to air with the story whilst their correspondent sat in blissful ignorance of the fact that the building was still standing in full view of the camera behind her. The result is that the BBC certainly doesn't look too clever but even if the video is a genuine record of the BBC's output, (and there are a couple of minor points which nag at me as being odd), you're going to need much more than one cocked up news report to make a smoking gun no matter how damned silly the BBC looks in hindsight.

Not that any of this means that the video isn't interesting or worthy of further investigation but considering how many people on this site have criticised the official reports for being incomplete and half baked I think there should be a little caution exercised before the lynch mob starts sharpening its pitchforks.

Well this is an interesting video.

I was finally able to watch it, and don't know what to say.

I don't have time to read the whole thread, so can someone explain where this came from and why it is just now being made public?

I remember watching CNN on 9/11 when they were saying the building was going to collapse, and wondering how they knew that. They were talking about it maybe 10 minutes before it happened and had their cameras pointed at the building. Maybe someone who has time can look for footage from other news agencies. Just a thought.

yeah it's been moving pretty damn slow!
hahahah

Heres my theory. It's so tight theres nothing to argue about??
We win!

But someone had to know the building was coming down to put that piece of information out there. Full stop. Conspiracy Busted!

It is quite blatently obvious that WTC7 did not collapse due to fire. There isn't even an official line on WTC7, because they know they can't say anything, otherwise they will undoubtedly contradict the facts.

The fact that someone knew 20 minutes before it collapsed...

The fact that it was the 3rd building in history to collapse due to fire, even when there was no inferno...

The fact that is takes at least a couple of days to set up explosives for demolition...


This is the smoking gun piece of evidence for 9/11 that everyone has been waiting for, i don't understand why everyone is just sitting around on this, SPREAD THE WORD.