well, having publicly claimed no prior knowledge or being tipped off or whatever, the bbc has now been proven to have reported an event before it happened. twice!

you would think that there would be some 'real' investigative journalists within the bbc that would want to investigate how this could have happened to clear their name. because however you look at it, it shows somebody had insider knowledge that wtc7 was about to 'collapse' and that means the big 'C' word. here is PROOF that somebody knew and therefore there is a conspiracy that warrants proper investigation into who knew what.

somehow i don't think we are going to see any brave volunteers appearing

ps - i wonder what the producer of that 911 hit piece in the bbc conspiracy files has to say about it....

justyc- yep why doesn't someone write guy smith an email to see what he says now. i believe if you go to the bbc site for that conspoiracy show, you may get his email.

you also have to remember that the owner of wtc7 got an awful lot of money in a insurance payoff also from it.

ignorant_ape- if you look at the other thread, you see that this is discussed, and whether bbc uses bst, or gmt on there news.

if they use gmt, then it is 5 hours behind.

in windows vista, i have just put my clock back to sep 11 2001, and in london. vista allows to clocks, and i put the second one to new york, then i changed my time to 21:58, and it shows that new york time would be 16:58, so its 5 hours behind, london time. bbc i assume broadcast with london time.

[edit on 2/28/2007 by andy1033]

I don't understand what all the fuss is about? Confusion and misreporting happens in every major news event and you can almost guarantee that the evening news will carry a completely different story than the "breaking" news reports throughout the day. CNN reported that there were fears the building would collapse, somewhere in the news feeding frenzy it turned into a story that it already happened and a station across the globe reported it as fact. If they were a local news agency, they would have known it was the building they could clearly see standing in the video feed. Notice no local news services made the mistake.

Really, it's not proof of any conspiracy. Just typical bad journalism.

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
because if my conjecture is correct - your conspiracy evaporates

How would confusion over time zones explain the building standing intact in the background while a reporter is discussing how it collapsed?

Originally posted by nowthenlookhere

How would confusion over time zones explain the building standing intact in the background while a reporter is discussing how it collapsed?

because the picture is NOT live , that is obvious - the presenter is having a convo with a " expert " the picture is just " background "

the caption is a LIVE " ticker tape " - but the images are " stock " footage from earlier in the day - just after WTC 1 + 2 collapse

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
because the picture is NOT live , that is obvious - the presenter is having a convo with a " expert " the picture is just " background "

the caption is a LIVE " ticker tape " - but the images are " stock " footage from earlier in the day - just after WTC 1 + 2 collapse

Which video are we talknig about here? I'm refering to the BBC World one, whith the reporter standing in front of the window with the bulding behind her. THATS the critical clip.. have you seen it?

If you had, you'd clearly see it's not just a "background".

nowthenlookhere hes talking about the video in this thread, where it is showing footage of the day, but the bottom of the screen shows text at 21:54 that there has been another collapse. breaking news at 21:55, of the soloman building.

Originally posted by andy1033
nowthenlookhere hes talking about the video in this thread, where it is showing footage of the day, but the bottom of the screen shows text at 21:54 that there has been another collapse. breaking news at 21:55, of the soloman building.

figured that. What I don't uderstand is how confusion over the time shown in this clip, can "evaporate" the whole conspiracy, as he puts it.

At the very most, one could argue that the clip on this thread doesn't prove anything either way.

The BBC blog has started inputting posts again they added another 11 comments upto 10:15pm last night uk time. They must be finding it hard to keep up!

Originally posted by T0by


The only issue theres been with this whole thing is where the info came from, and that's going to be damn hard..
But find it, and BooOooOOm.....

There's one other very important issue that must not be forgotten!

Not only did the source say the building fell, but the source said *WHY* the building fell -from fire and damage.

How could anybody have *KNOWN* on the afternoon of 9/11, in the middle of a day filled with terror attacks, that the building didn't collapse from another terrorist attack, e.g., bombs in the building? So this is more than a mistake -it's a mistake that includes a conclusion as to the cause of the collapse.

The premature report of the collapse *might* have a reasonable explanation. The premature conclusion as to what caused the collapse, combined with the premature report of the collapse, defies any reasonable explanation.

This would be like reporting Kennedy was assassinated 20 minutes before he arrived in Dealy Plaze, and also saying that he was shot by a lone gunman.

Originally posted by Argos


Exactly!! You also have to ponder where did CNN get there information at 4:15pm EST that WTC7 might collapse due to fire?

I mean it was unprecedented that fire would bring down a 47 storey building before 9/11 so what source provided CNN with the prediction it might come down due to fire? I smell a rat inside that sealed off zone on 9/11!

I believe it was when the firefighters and police were telling everybody to get the hell out of there.

I think I know what you're saying,
but wasnt it fairly established in the mediarooms there were fires in the building beforehand anyway?

I suppose you could then say that the media would not have known if it collapsed due to terrorist strikes, or fires though.
4 am im sleepy.

But it's not surprising that someone would jump the gun.

If someone knew a head of time, they might easily jump the gun to get better ratings. I bet that guy got a ear full or some cement shoes

Guys, there is always fear of a buildings collapse in large fires.

Its standard to move everyone back from a building where the situation isn't contained.

What isn't standard is predicting the collapse so close the actual collapse!

That is unusual, highly improbable given that super steel structures are simply redundant beyond what you think.


The prediction of such an unlikely event so close to the actual time is highly suspect.



[edit on 28-2-2007 by talisman]

Originally posted by talisman


The prediction of such an unlikely event so close to the actual time is highly suspect.

Excellent point! That's *exactly* what makes this whole story so suspicious.

It reminds me of the C130 story. Not only was the C130 at both the Flight 93 and Flight 77 locations, it was there *WHEN* both planes crashed.

This isn't the only time the BBC have pre-empted an event. Following the 2005 7/7 suicide attacks on London's underground system the news (or a discussion program) on Radio 2 reported the discovery of unexploded nail bombs. This was never mentioned again on subsequent reports and I thought it was just speculation on their behalf. 5 days after the attacks the police found the bomber's car parked in Luton. It contained the nail bombs that the BBC had mentioned several days earlier.

I actually emailed Radio 2's Jeremey Vine show regarding this strange prediction when the attacks were being discussed the week after the event but it wasn't read on air!

From their own words

Silverstein

"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

"just pull It" why does he refer to firefighters as "it"

No delay implied; he made his decision and watched as the building collapsed.

Debunking View(from Silverstein's spokesman)

"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."

He spoke with the fire department commander "in the afternoon" to pull firefighters.

From FEMA report below,"manual firefighting efforts were stopped fairly early in the day"

Official report

With the limited information currently available, fire development in this building needs additional study. Fires were observed to be located on the lower levels for the majority of the time from the collapse of WTC 1 to the collapse of WTC 7. It appears that the sprinklers may not have been effective due to the limited water on site, and that the development of the fires was not significantly impeded by the firefighters because manual firefighting efforts were stopped fairly early in the day.



These "conspiracy theories" would stop if they could get their stories straight.







[edit on 28-2-2007 by rich1974]