BBC World reported WTC7 collapse before it happened

[Bongo]

I have got some bad news guys!

Just got up after a good sleep and have reviewed the video in the light of day and I have to say this...

"9/11 WAS A F***ING INSIDE JOB"

Andrew,

Does everybody realise how important this is?

... I have spent half the night feverishly downloading, listening to Alex Jones and generally very excited... This is it... this blows the whole game wide open!

Yep dude, I think the realisation of the gravity of this will hit most people like the proverbial 'ton of bricks'.

Ps. I showed the video to my girlfreind early this morning... I dont think I have ever seen her chin hit the floor like that!

[Craig W]

This could be MASSIVE, if the tape can be verified as real and if the time can be verified as pre-WTC7 collapse.

Tell everyone you know, especially the media, and let's see what is teh official response.

This could be a MASSIVE opportunity.

Thanks to everyone posting their links.

Now get out there and spread the word.

[Graham]

they show WTC7 collapsing 3 minutes into the next section.. so about 17.40 NY time.

Also noted... FBI agents (yes in there jackets) dragging eyewitnesses away from reporters.

[IronSnot]

Tele's right.

Too easy.

[andrewwatson]

Too easy?

Too true, more like.

[Graham]

the video has been pulled all links to it dont work.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29 ... ing7%2Ehtm

[peloloco]

Amazing! How will they explain this one away?

Another truth arrow into the chest of the the beast methinks.

Building 7 is a great big smoking gun



al

[Craig W]

I don't want to pour cold water on this but is there anything to stop the BBC simply saying she had been told WTC7 was expected to collapse and got her wires crossed?

"There was a lot going on that day, journalists were overwhelmed with information, etc?"

Could she simply have made a mistake?

[Busker]

Does anyone know the legal status of BBC World as an entity?

Is it just a channel of the BBC?

Is it a commercial organisation?

I seem to remember something about a commercial arm of the BBC but I can't quite remember.

Thanks.

[andrewwatson]

I don't want to pour cold water on this but is there anything to stop the BBC simply saying she had been told WTC7 was expected to collapse and got her wires crossed?

"There was a lot going on that day, journalists were overwhelmed with information, etc?"

Could she simply have made a mistake?

Are you saying the BBC don't double check on their lead stories when they compile bulletins? Just take the word of a lone reporter? Hardly.

[Sinclair]

Some background verification info (from a search on Jane Standley/BBC).

A synopsis of a BBC programme BBC NEWS: AMERICA UNDER SIEGE BBC NEWS SPECIAL, broadcast from 8.30pm to 10pm on BBC1, in the UK on the evening of 11th September 2001 (transmission details here), lists that the programme contains Jane Standley reports live from New York , so we know that she was reporting live from New York on the day.

(Note that this is not the BBC World transmission broadcast as contained on the GoogleVideo link, but it would no doubt include some of the same footage etc)


From the summary page
http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/title/718689

BBC NEWS: AMERICA UNDER SIEGE BBC NEWS SPECIAL
(2001)

Copyright date
Not available Production start date
Not available Production end date
Not available Production countries

Great Britain
Notes
Unscheduled programme. Replaced The PHOTOGRAPHER'S CHAIR an epsiode from the MURDER ROOMS THE DARK BEGINNINGS OF SHERLOCK HOLMES series.

From the NFA Catalogue listing:

Davin Loyn reports on the events that took place in New York and Washington earlier today. Interview with Paddy O'Connell (New York Business Correspondent) and Stephen Evans (North America Business Correspondent) both recalling their experience of the events in New York today both via link from New York. [Stephen Evans was being interviewed by a film crew when one of the World Trade Center towers collapsed behind him.] In the studio Professor Ed Galea [Fire Safety Expert, University of Greenwich], based on his research into the World Trade Center bombing in 1993 discusses the possible time it would take to evacuate the buildings. David Learmount (Flight International) and Chris Hodgkinson (Former British Airways pilot) speculate on what took place on the hijacked passenger aircraft, the co-ordination of the hijackings and aviation security in America. Robert Hall reports from Heathrow Airport on the impact of the terrorist attacks on the airline industry and the suspension of transatlantic flights. Joined by Kevin Creighan (Flight Attendants' Union [and United Airlines cabin crew member]). Panel discussion on the reasons behind the attack with Jane Corbin [has reported on Osama Bin Ladin [that was quick!] for Panorama], Ehud Barak (former Israeli Prime Minister), James Rubin (former US Assistant Secretary of State), Dr Rosemary Hollis (Royal Institute of International Affairs) and Frank Gaffney (Center for Security Policy, Washington) via link from Washington. Jane Standley reports live from New York and Tom Carver reports live from Washington.

Jane Standley appears to have been the BBC New York correspondent at the time.

[QuitTheirClogs]

7 minute clip of Jane Standley on YouTube – runs up to the live link being cut

This is the interview from BBC world of Jane Standley talking with Philip Hayton, reporting the collapse of the Salomon Brothers Building(WTC 7), before it has collapsed. Notice how they are reporting that it has already collapsed, when it is clearly smoking in the background.

At 02:20 in the video, notice the bottom of the screen, it says "The 47 storey Salomon Brothers Building close to the World Trade Centre has also collapsed." Then look over her shoulder, to your right, and see the building still standing there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlFDd5Yjn3w&eurl

[andrewwatson]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/fe ... lding7.htm


these are working

[Sinclair]

Does anyone know the legal status of BBC World as an entity?

Is it just a channel of the BBC?

Is it a commercial organisation?

It is the BBC Overseas Propaganda Department

& yes, it is a Commercial organisation, (see this link)

[Busker]

It is the BBC Overseas Propaganda Department

& yes, it is a Commercial organisation, (see this link)

Ah, that rules out Freedom of Information enquiries then I think.

[Craig W]

I don't want to pour cold water on this but is there anything to stop the BBC simply saying she had been told WTC7 was expected to collapse and got her wires crossed?

"There was a lot going on that day, journalists were overwhelmed with information, etc?"

Could she simply have made a mistake?

Are you saying the BBC don't double check on their lead stories when they compile bulletins? Just take the word of a lone reporter? Hardly.

I am a journalist and I know that press releases are often very poorly checked before use (I have been guilty of this).

I would imagine that sources such as AP, PA and Reuters (who are the elite's official world PR agents) are regarded as so trustworthy by the mainstream press that checking is hardly needed.

As for it being the lead story, on a rolling news programme leads are often just the latest development in whatever the "big story" of the day was.

[telecasterisation]

I don't want to pour cold water on this but is there anything to stop the BBC simply saying she had been told WTC7 was expected to collapse and got her wires crossed?

"There was a lot going on that day, journalists were overwhelmed with information, etc?"

Could she simply have made a mistake?

I have to agree with Craig here although not completely;

The reporter on screen would not be making the mistake herself, the footer on the screen clearly states that WTC7 has collapsed, which obviously would be added via the control room. The reporter on screen will be fed info by a third party either by an earpiece, paper, auto-cue/whatever. She is simply the spokesperson relaying what has hit the newsdesk.

She obviously has no clue that the building is standing behind her in plain site (assuming this is indeed what she is standing in front of), for if people at the BBC really were on the ball and doing their jobs - they would have researched where exactly WTC7 stood and not placed her in front of it.

However;

All the BBC really have to do is say they made a mistake, the information they received was incorrect, misread/whatever and they then apologise for misleading. What do we do then? Can we prove otherwise?

People make mistakes, it wouldn't be the first time and given the enormous amount of information flowing around on the day, 'Sorry we made a mistake, we admit we were incorrect', kinda covers all bases with regard to taking this forward.

[hampton]

sorry, how will they explain not showing the collapse until after it really happened. surely with all the cameras there that day, including jane's, they would have been able to show the collapse, especially as they were forewarned.

[Skeptic]

Does anyone have any more info on this 'sister building' of WTC7?

[The Watcher]

Skeptic asked:

Does anyone have any more info on this 'sister building' of WTC7?

The Salomon Brothers building & WTC7 are one and the same. There is no 'sister building'!

See link below for confirmation:

www.nycskyscrapers.com/wallstreet.html (Scroll down to last photo)


The Watcher

[Skeptic]

Oh ok thanks.

Someone on this forum mentioned a sister building, hence my question.

Just trying to ascertain whether that is actually WTC7 in the background.

[andrewwatson]

I don't understand why there is not more interest in this story. I seem to be in a minority. I have emailed a lot of people in the UK truth movement and no-one seems to think this is worth 'having a go for' apart from Ian Crane who says we should all write as individuals.

I have just sent this email to seven national newspapers:

BBC 'predicted' fall of 3rd World Trade Center building by 30 mins

To: news@channel4.com


This is truly an astounding story.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/fe ... lding7.htm

Nobody knew that the 'Salomon Building' , or WTC7, a
47-storey skyscraper that was damaged by the fall of
the Town Towers, was going to collapse until
a few moments before. A general warning was issued
minutes before it collapsed suddenly in 6.5 seconds
that it was going to come down. It was only the third
steel-framed building in history to collapse due to
fire.

Yet this video has surfaced, showing a reporter
standing in front of the building and saying it has
already collapsed.

The BBC must explain what happened, or risk permanent
damage to their reputation for accuracy and
impartiality.

Andrew Lowe Watson

Norwich


Does no-one else think this is a huge opportunity to show their complicity? I cannot see how they could claim it was error when the building was clearly visible behind her. At the very least it shows gross incompetence, but potentially far worse.

Is this movement suffering from exhaustion/demoralization after the lack of press coverage for Rodriguez and the BBc hit-piece?

We can't afford to let go now. We need clear guidance from the leading names in UK Truth.

[tomi01uk]

Firemen and police reported in their interviews that you can read as they are archived that just after 12 noon they were informed that the wwc 7 would be "coming down" and to clear the area and keep people away. This is on record by those who were there.

So, what this mistake by BBC could show is that there was a report that the building had collapsed before it was possibly "scheduled" to collapse. Assuming the correct time line is established, it shows knowledge of a planned or assumed collapse of this building.

[Craig W]

Double posted - sorry

[Craig W]

The following is an excerpt from the Loosechange forum. The emboldened part is a quote from one member and what follows is my response.

(Here is the link: http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Chang ... ry12364606 )

QUOTE (miragememories @ Feb 26 2007, 04:47 PM)
I think too much is getting read into this.

Clearly this report was rushed to air before any research had been done. It's likely all the repeated 'on-the-street' reports about the imminent collapse of WTC7 eventually got distorted by a reporter, and "gonna collapse" became "did collapse."

It was a major gaff on the BBC's part for sure, especially given the fact that no one immediately identified the burning building behind their 'live' reporter as the 'still standing' WTC7 building which she was claiming had already collapsed. Since it was the last major standing structure still pouring out heavy smoke on the site, you'd think they might have checked it's identity..amazing..unbelievably poor work on their part.

You would have thought in the roughly 7 hours that passed after the collapse of WTC1, that the BBC Research Dept. would have located maps and visuals of the area so they would be familiar with what they were seeing in their 'live' feed, or, duh..had there on-the-scene people find out for them..I guess they figured that the clearly viewable smoking 47-storey building in their live feed must have been WTC7a, WTC7's twin tower?

It's also pathetic that no one at the BBC seemed to wonder why none of their satellite feeds from the major American TV networks were reporting such a major event. Did they not ask themselves how odd it was that no one but their on-the-scene reporter noticed the sudden collapse of this 47-storey building?

Talk about extremely sloppy..maybe it will damage their credibility regarding the recent 9/11 'hit piece'?

MM


I am afraid I agree - the BBC has a very easy "get-out" here (and it may well be true):

"We made a mistake. Our reporters had heard that WTC7 was unstable and was expected to collapse soon and somehow got our wires crossed.

We simply didn't realise that the building smouldering in the background on the live feed was WTC7.

I am sure we all remember how intense and confusing the day's events were. There was a lot going on and a lot of reports flying around. It was very difficult to keep on top of the story and verify facts.

We have to admit we got this one wrong. We should have checked it out."

This could also explain the "mysterious" end to the transmission - maybe someone realised they were wrong and "pulled it" LOL.

The only thing one could say against that explanation is:

"Did you not think there would be pictures of this collapse - given the numbers of cameras filming the events? And would it not have been appropriate to have shown them alongside the report?"

But the BBC could reply:

"We didn't know which building this was or how major it was and had no reason to look for footage of its collapse. We had never even heard of the 'Salomon Building'. Had we known the size of the building we might have checked it out better."

After my initital excitement, I now feel this does not add up to very much.

[Wokeman]

Andrew,
I believe we should show caution. Not that I'm not as thrilled as anyone that Auntie Beeb should present us with such a bumper pre-Easter gift. But just suppose it isn't? And by some means or other, we are made to look total idiots. That's what we have to consider and make damned sure that this footage is authentic.

[blackcat]

Does anyone have any more info on this 'sister building' of WTC7?

Yes, and I also mentioned ten other crappy "explanations" as to why there was nothing untoward about the BBC report. It was sarcasm directed at skeptics who will invent anything to avoid accepting the blatant truth that 9/11 was an inside job.

[Serge]

A little surprised that nobody appears to have picked up on what was happening to the WTC7 building behind her though... maybe it has been noticed, just that nobody thought to mention it, but those small explosions taking place in the exact location of where the building kinks at the time of its collapse. More evidence in the video than just the timing...

[Craig W]

Firemen and police reported in their interviews that you can read as they are archived that just after 12 noon they were informed that the wwc 7 would be "coming down" and to clear the area and keep people away. This is on record by those who were there.

So, what this mistake by BBC could show is that there was a report that the building had collapsed before it was possibly "scheduled" to collapse. Assuming the correct time line is established, it shows knowledge of a planned or assumed collapse of this building.

Or that they made an innocent mistake in thinking it had happened when the reports were simply that it was expected to happen (as confirmed by your first para).

Can anyone persuade me that this amounts to anything or that the BBC couldn't just say it was a mistake (as per my earlier post)?

I wanted this to be a breakthrough but I feel that it proves nothing. People can and do make mistakes.

[andrewwatson]

Agreed we should check on the veracity of the clip before going further.

However, it is worth asking why Google and others pulled the story off so quickly. Are they trying to lure us into a trap?

It's possible.

WTC7 is itself a huge smoking gun. Here you have a building almost the size of the NatWest Tower falling straight down in 6.5 seconds. Come on!
If this is genuine, it is inconceivable that the firemen could have expected it to fall the way it did, or indeed to collapse at all, half an hour before it did.
Just remember that no other steel-framed building has collapsed due tp fire at any other time or place in history.