BBC News 24 Also Reporting the Collapse of WTC7 Too Early.

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
the first thing that springs to mind is to ask

EST or EDT for the collapse time

and are the BBC using BST ?


i have just awaoken - so i may have mis read , but :

scorce

states :

Eastern Time - USA + Canada (ET ~ East Coast Time)
Eastern Standard Time (EST) = GMT-5

Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) = GMT-4

there , GMT time of 21:58 minus 4 hours = 17:58 , AKA 5:58 PM

that is 20 minuties after the collapse

i have no idea how to find out what time format every ones reports / broadcast followed

but IMHO you need to establish this

because if my conjecture is correct - your conspiracy evaporates

[edit on 28-2-2007 by ignorant_ape]

Completely irrelevant.
Unless WTC7 is in a different time zone to the building the female BBC reporter was in, roughly 10 blocks away.

Originally posted by shindigger
Completely irrelevant.
Unless WTC7 is in a different time zone to the building the female BBC reporter was in, roughly 10 blocks away.

This is not the video with the BBC reporter on BBC World. This is from BBC News 24 and we have established that the announcement was at 4:54/55 EST (thanks to the clock in the botttom left) which is 25/26 minutes before the actual collapse. This shows that both these BBC channels had the same mistake made, which begs many questions.

(P.S. I'm still waiting for a reply from the people at youtube as to the source of this video)

[edit on 28-2-2007 by Xeros]

The people on location knew well in advance that the building was unstable and pulled everyone out of it because it was going to collapse. The news channels in england probably got that report, but it became garbled along the way and went from 'its unstable / is collapsing' to it did fall'.

Originally posted by Nygdan
The people on location knew well in advance that the building was unstable and pulled everyone out of it because it was going to collapse. The news channels in england probably got that report, but it became garbled along the way and went from 'its unstable / is collapsing' to it did fall'.

How did they know it was going collapse? There was nothing to suggest the structural integrity of the building was in critical condition. The fires were confined to six or so floors...that is no way enough to ensure a total collapse. As for falling debry from the towers...buildings closer to the towers had massive slices taken out of them, yet they still stood. WTC 7 suffered minimal exterior damage on one bottom corner, that was it!

There really is nothing left to cling too with the official story on WTC7.

No one can say a building is coming down when it is not even heavily damaged! That only leaves one option, controlled demolition.

Originally posted by shrunkensimon

Originally posted by Nygdan
The people on location knew well in advance that the building was unstable and pulled everyone out of it because it was going to collapse. The news channels in england probably got that report, but it became garbled along the way and went from 'its unstable / is collapsing' to it did fall'.

How did they know it was going collapse? There was nothing to suggest the structural integrity of the building was in critical condition. The fires were confined to six or so floors...that is no way enough to ensure a total collapse. As for falling debry from the towers...buildings closer to the towers had massive slices taken out of them, yet they still stood. WTC 7 suffered minimal exterior damage on one bottom corner, that was it!

There really is nothing left to cling too with the official story on WTC7.

No one can say a building is coming down when it is not even heavily damaged! That only leaves one option, controlled demolition.

This is a quote posted in another thread from Ceputy Fire Chief Peter Hayden, which would suggest prior knowledge of a possible collapse:-

"By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

...we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn't want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn't even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn't know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o'clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then."

[edit on 28-2-2007 by Xeros]

...we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn't want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn't even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn't know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o'clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then."

getting the guys out

Why does the official FEMA report say this

the development of the fires was not significantly impeded by the firefighters because manual firefighting efforts were stopped fairly early in the day.

There are alot of contradictions.

[edit on 28-2-2007 by rich1974]

Wouldn't a 'bulge in the southwest corner' almost certainly indicate that an uneven collapse was imminent? I mean, the fact that the shrapnel damage (the only thing that really even begins to explain the collapse - fires don't cut it) was almost entirely on one side of the building supports this as well. Why would one corner bulge, and then the whole building collapse in on itself?

Originally posted by TheStev
Wouldn't a 'bulge in the southwest corner' almost certainly indicate that an uneven collapse was imminent? I mean, the fact that the shrapnel damage (the only thing that really even begins to explain the collapse - fires don't cut it) was almost entirely on one side of the building supports this as well. Why would one corner bulge, and then the whole building collapse in on itself?

You're right.

What makes no sense is if the SW corner was "bulging" and the building started to collapse at this point, why did the NE corner suddenly drop straight down? Or the SE corner? How did the supports beneath these corners give way? Why didn't the building collapse inward, towars the initial structural failure that presumably would have pulled the sides inward toward the middle?

I'm at work and I just don't have time to find links right now so please forgive.

I read at least 5 and maybe more interviews with Fire Fighters regarding WTC7 last night. They were easy to find if you want to look or they may be on another thread about this general topic. There was no factual difference in what the Fire Fighters said. They realized around 2 PM that the building was going to come down at any time. The Chiefs ordered them out of the area and continued to insist even though some wanted to go back in. Remember they also had people who were entering the building reporting to them. They had both the fact that the building was visibly bulging and information from on site about the massive damage inside. All along the Fire Fighters who were actually there have said the reports about the fire being small and confined to a small area was not true. It had engulfed a large part of 6 or seven floors. They had good reason to think it would collapse and acted accordingly. One mentioned the photo's people were using to demonstrate it was a small fire were not showing you the other side were you could see that 6 or more floors were engulfed in flames inside the building.

What I think happened is that a person in the media misunderstood what they were hearing over their radios and misreported which resulted in a domino effect as the report spread from service to service. The media routinely accepts reports from other sources as validation without verifying. Nothing new here. I may be wrong but I think all this excitement is for nothing.

Time and time again, Buildings that catch fire are always feared too collapse if the Fire is strong.

However those fires usually last DAY'S. Not just 8 hours or less. Fire Fighters usually fear a building might collapse.

However, Bldg 7 did and not only did, but did so near the prediction.

I don't know how more damning it could be. People are making excuses, first it was 'green screens', 'doctored' 'wrong building', etc and etc...

This is worth repeating, the fact that the Building collapsed which in and of itself is Highly suspicious.

The fact it was predicted near its actual collapse.

And do not forget Google's actions.

[edit on 28-2-2007 by talisman]

if you go to the Arctic Beacon and read about a janitor that was in the basement of the first twin tower to be hit . He tells of his story of how people were burnt from an explotion in the basement seconds before the first plane hit. Yet no one every heard his story...The Soloman Building was "pulled" on an order from someone...They have somewhere on the net about different high rise buildings that have burnt for 26 and 19 hours and never came down. But to have "3" of them fall within hours is unheard of. As far as the reporters goes, someone hands them a report and they say it like someone wants them to. The reporters had no idea want buildings their in front of. Hell half the people of New York don't know what all the buildings are let alone a reporter from another country. But to have "2" reporters repeating the same report minutes before it happens has the same stench as the "3" buildings collapsing.

[edit on 1-3-2007 by schallb]

this is great, it is surprising to have these breakthroughs so many years later, this story will make it very difficult to prevent the truth of 9/11 from getting out. I guess people are now checking all the other news stations reports from 9/11, and there are most likely hired minions trying to destroy news recordings from that day

Originally posted by Nygdan
The people on location knew well in advance that the building was unstable and pulled everyone out of it because it was going to collapse. The news channels in england probably got that report, but it became garbled along the way and went from 'its unstable / is collapsing' to it did fall'.

You must be totally deluded, are you a paid stooge/spokesperson for the government, or was that intended to be a lame joke, and why are you making excuses for the BBC. They released a statement themselves and it didn't mention anything about the building being unstable. Did you read their statement?

If you really believe that load of garbage then you are truly one of the "sheeple". BBC news and BBC 24 and CNN all reported the building had actually collapsed, which shows that they had prior knowledge and it was all being stage-managed, this is evidence of it, so why are you making nonsense excuses for them. Major news stations don't report garbled messages, and you could remember the building fell in only a few seconds, so there wasn't time to mix up a report that it was collapsing, they reported the collapse 25 minutes in advance. That is 25 minutes in advance of the controlled demolition of wtc7

Originally posted by golddragnet

Originally posted by Nygdan
The people on location knew well in advance that the building was unstable and pulled everyone out of it because it was going to collapse. The news channels in england probably got that report, but it became garbled along the way and went from 'its unstable / is collapsing' to it did fall'.

You must be totally deluded, are you a paid stooge/spokesperson for the government, or was that intended to be a lame joke, and why are you making excuses for the BBC. They released a statement themselves and it didn't mention anything about the building being unstable. Did you read their statement?

If you really believe that load of garbage then you are truly one of the "sheeple". BBC news and BBC 24 and CNN all reported the building had actually collapsed, which shows that they had prior knowledge and it was all being stage-managed, this is evidence of it, so why are you making nonsense excuses for them. Major news stations don't report garbled messages, and you could remember the building fell in only a few seconds, so there wasn't time to mix up a report that it was collapsing, they reported the collapse 25 minutes in advance. That is 25 minutes in advance of the controlled demolition of wtc7

You are not too nice and seem near self-parody here. In fact I think something "garbled" is the most logical explanation. CNN said it too - the bulding has fallen or is about to fall. ?? It's odd they should be getting some kind of exceptionall vague reports or clues misread, but so what? make a case based on that if you like, call the reporters and ask what they were told. This is no evidence of jack crap for demolitions, folks. I don't care how much energy you waste seeding it. Viral video madness. This is gonna make the news and "we" (using the term more loosely now) will look pretty dumb.

and all you debunkers: your "building expected to collapse + building collpases = nothing amiss" equation does not address the demo Qs being posed here. How does an imminent asymetrical collapse turn into a straight-down demo-type collapse? Clue: it's a physics problem, not a question of CT psychology or of flawed news reports. But of course this isn't the thread for that, just thot I'd mention it.

there was nothing garbled about their report, they were very clear about it on the BBC. It was a clear case of the news being leaked to them by the powers that be in advance of the event. It is clear evidence that the 9/11 news reporting was being stage-managed.

Originally posted by Nygdan
The people on location knew well in advance that the building was unstable and pulled everyone out of it because it was going to collapse. The news channels in england probably got that report, but it became garbled along the way and went from 'its unstable / is collapsing' to it did fall'.

Yeah, I think you ment to say Britain, or United Kingdom. Not just "England"

Thanks

Originally posted by golddragnet
there was nothing garbled about their report, they were very clear about it on the BBC. It was a clear case of the news being leaked to them by the powers that be in advance of the event. It is clear evidence that the 9/11 news reporting was being stage-managed.

Highly unlikely. Its better to have people watch it on tv that WTC7 is collapsing instead of telling the people that it collapsed. But you know how the news media is in reporting what information they get that they believe is new.

Moving this off-topic post from the thread at Fox sanitizes 9/11 video archive to conceal perp?

posted by Curious_Agnostic
reply to post by SPreston

 

That video shows them talking about it possibly collapsing. It's clear that they didn't know everything that was going on, but they did at least know that the building was on fire and in danger. That leads me to believe that the BBC got the same report as them and simply misread it.

An hour early? Hundreds of steel frame buildings have been on fire in the past several decades and not one of them 'collapsed' from the fire. Why did Jane Standley's feed get cut when WTC7 was still standing behind her after 18 minutes, and collapsed 5 minutes later?

Jane Standley


BBC News 24 ALSO Reports WTC7 Collapse Early