BBC reporting WTC7 fall before it happened

[_Only]

Hey, haven't been to the site in awhile, and am surprised to not see the 9/11 megathread anywhere. Maybe it wasn't in this subforum or has been moved?

In any case, I wanted to share a short video of a BBC broadcast on 9/11/2001 that has been talked about by 9/11 truth seekers to promote the idea that the attack was staged/planned.

You'll see in the video, but basically he reports on how the WTC 7 building has fallen:

Quote

More on the latest building collapse in New York; you might have heard a few moments ago, talking about the Salomon Brothers building **[WTC 7 building]** collapsing, and indeed it has. Seems that this was not the result of a new attack. It was because the building had been weakened, uh, during this morning's attacks **[the twin towers falling]**. Probably find out more about that from our correspondent, Jane Stanley..

But then when he starts talking to her, you can see the WTC 7 building (Saloman Brothers building) right behind her, and she does not reply directly to his odd question (given what is standing still behind her). Now I noticed there is a jumpcut when she is talking, so we can't know what she says in that moment, or how long it was.

But then he goes on again right after her answer to talk about how many people were in the Salomon building when it fell, and I noticed she is nodding while he talks, but stops and then gives 2 shakes of her head after he says Salomon building, and then goes back to nodding as he continues talking. And he asks her if people expected more buildings to fall, and she pauses, and then something perhaps fishy on the YouTube uploaders' side, there is a weird transition effect, which seems to try to piece together 2 sentences, which ultimately leads to her not answering his question. 

And then it seems like there may be more YouTube editing of the conversation, which ends up with her cutting out and then video leads us to believe that right after the building falls. Now I'm not sure of the actual timeline of BBC report vs. actual fall was and if this video might have made it seem like it happened right after she cut out or not, but regardless, the video does show the reporter reporting of the WTC7 falling, and then he goes to the woman, and we see the WTC7 building behind her, with him still in shot asking question, and if you look close, you will see just a bit in that view of them both the corner of WTC 7, and then see it better as it cuts to just her and we see the corner larger partially blocked by her head.

What are your guys' thoughts on how/why the BBC reported the fall of WTC 7 before it happened?

 

Edited September 15, 2019 by _Only

[Duke Wellington]

I think in 50 years it will be announced that due to the terrorist threat of bringing down a Sky Scraper than the New York fire department has fitted all of them with explosives.

A controlled demolition is better than a sky scraper falling sideward. And detonations could be heard before either tower came down.

[_Only]

Well this is better. I found a video link that isn't edited/cut, but does cut out the leading 'truth movement' style added text and ominous feel:

 

[aztek]

57 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

I think in 50 years it will be announced that due to the terrorist threat of bringing down a Sky Scraper than the New York fire department has fitted all of them with explosives.

A controlled demolition is better than a sky scraper falling sideward. And detonations could be heard before either tower came down.

do you know what it takes to prep a building for a control demo? there are many cases where 1 mistake made building fall the wrong way, despite of weeks of preparation, weakening supports, timing hundreds of small explosions,,...etc, as someone with over 20 years experience in new york high rise commercial buildings, i find that theory as ridiculous as it gets, beyond ridiculous actually .

i was looking at the towers as they fell from several blocks away, as it happened, real time,  i saw no evidence of any demo charges, none,

Edited September 15, 2019 by aztek

[Peter B]

41 minutes ago, _Only said:

Well this is better. I found a video link that isn't edited/cut, but does cut out the leading 'truth movement' style added text and ominous feel:

 

I've never been concerned by the incorrect BBC report.

Put simply, the situation was incredibly confusing, and it was hard for the media to report correctly as they'd been evacuated from the vicinity of the WTC site. I remember watching the coverage at the time, as news presenters were constantly updating, amending and correcting what they said as new information came in or incorrect stories were dealt with. Add to this, the mistake was made by a British reporter - who couldn't necessarily be expected to know which buildings were which in an American city, especially as she was reporting some distance from Ground Zero.

WTC 7 actually collapsed around 5.20pm, but I get the impression firefighters thought it was in danger of collapsing as much as three hours earlier. Presumably once the firefighting effort was ended at around 3.30pm authorities considered it was only a matter of time before the building fell. That leaves a period of nearly two hours for reports that "it's likely to fall" to be misheard as reports that "it has actually fallen".

There weren't any formal media briefings happening at the time (IIRC), and no one in the media or the emergency services had a complete understanding of the whole situation, so the media had to put together their reports on the basis of a whole lot of fragmentary bits of information. It's therefore not particularly surprising that journalists made mistakes.

[acute]

I don't know all the story of WTC7.

Why was it in danger of collapse?

[Peter B]

7 minutes ago, acute said:

I don't know all the story of WTC7.

Why was it in danger of collapse?

When WTC 1 collapsed a lot of that building's debris hit WTC 7. It ripped WTC 7 open at several points and started several fires. The building's firefighting system failed as a result of the debris damage, and the heat from the fires eventually caused parts of WTC 7's steel internal structure to fail. The inside of the building collapsed, and then the unsupported walls collapsed.

[acute]

Thanks for that ^

[Hazzard]

The BBC has stated that many news sources were reporting the imminent collapse of 7 WTC on the day of the attacks. Jane Standley, the reporter who announced the collapse prematurely, called it a "very small and very honest mistake" caused by her thinking on her feet after being confronted with a report she had no way of checking.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_controlled_demolition_conspiracy_theories 

 

[aztek]

World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest

https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/design/a3524/4278874/

[Peter B]

14 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

I think in 50 years it will be announced that due to the terrorist threat of bringing down a Sky Scraper than the New York fire department has fitted all of them with explosives.

A controlled demolition is better than a sky scraper falling sideward. And detonations could be heard before either tower came down.

So just to clarify, you think the best protection against a terrorist attack is to place explosives inside buildings. So, a terrorist could walk into any skyscraper in New York knowing it was already full of enough explosives to bring it down...?

I think you might want to rethink that idea.

As for detonations being heard before either tower came down, it'd be good if you could provide a link to an eyewitness reporting that. People certainly reported booming sounds as the buildings collapsed but not before, and this has been attributed to steel beams snapping as the collapses occurred.

[rambaldi]

22 hours ago, _Only said:

What are your guys' thoughts on how/why the BBC reported the fall of WTC 7 before it happened?

 

Welcome back to the world after you spent the last 18 years in a coma...

Given the events of the day, I don't see any reason not to believe there was some miscommunication or misunderstanding that turned "we expect the collapse" into "has collapsed" 

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a415cnnreports#a415cnnreports

What would be the alternative? Even if any of the claims spouted by truthers (Mini Nukes, Nanothermit, Energy Weapons or whatever) was true, why would the evil conspirators need to involve the news? It's not as if the news agencies would miss the collapse...

 

 

[TigerBright19]

The media could not verify any reports that were coming in and information was getting twisted.  Reporters at the scene could clearly see Building 7 was in danger of collapse and relayed that information to their colleagues.  It was only a matter of time.

 

At 3:02 we can see reporters were anticipating it was about to collapse because of its condition and likely they were told as a precautionary measure to keep away as it might collapse.

"This is it"

"Apparently getting ready to collapse"

 

3:02

 

 

 

Edited September 16, 2019 by Aaron2016

[_Only]

1 hour ago, rambaldi said:

Welcome back to the world after you spent the last 18 years in a coma...

Don't be like that. I'm not an enemy you need to defeat.

I vaguely remembered hearing about this before, but a few days ago I finally got around to watching that SF architects hour long talk about WTC 7 and thermite and all that as I was falling asleep, and I caught him mentioning the BBC thing, and I finally sought out a video of it, finding only these 2 uploaded earlier this year. I thought it was a fascinating moment, and I couldn't find talk about this in search (or the massive 9/11 thread that I remember being on here), so I shared for thoughts.

What would be the alternative? Even if any of the claims spouted by truthers (Mini Nukes, Nanothermit, Energy Weapons or whatever) was true, why would the evil conspirators need to involve the news? It's not as if the news agencies would miss the collapse.

I was actually meaning to come back to this thread to ask others what they thought about the same question. I suppose one theoretical answer could be that the planners of the event wanted to make sure that reporters reported/said exactly what they wanted them to, as opposed to whatever the news agencies chose to report themselves, so teleprompters were at the ready, and this reporter simply was fed his lines just a bit early. 

I understand this is an outlandish scenario, expecting that not only was all this meticulously planned, but scripts given out to large news agencies overseas, etc., but it's at least one hypothetical reason I came up with, and it'd make for a great movie plot at the least.

 

 

 

[bknight]

On 9/15/2019 at 10:57 AM, _Only said:

Well this is better. I found a video link that isn't edited/cut, but does cut out the leading 'truth movement' style added text and ominous feel:

 

At approximately 1:30 the reporter is talking about the building burning(still) and not collapsed.  So the main guy at BBC headquarters got his information incorrectly.  This is no big deal, unless you are a CT.  Too bad they don't look at the building and the reporter in NYC talking about it is burning.

[bknight]

Where is Derek?  This is the kind of "anomaly" he uses to prove a CT case. 

[Scholar4Truth]

Given the chaos during that day. It is not surprising there was confusion in reporting the events. 

[Robotic Jew]

 

[cjnewson88]

In the BBC documentary 'The Third Tower' on Youtube they give an explanation. Reuters had picked up a story from a local NY new agent that WTC7 was either in danger of collapse of had collapsed. They then reported the building had collapsed, BBC picked up on it and reported it as well. I believe CNN did as well. As has already been pointed out, firefighters knew for over 2 hours prior that the fires in WTC 7 were not going to be able to be controlled and had therefore pulled back from the area to either wait for the building to collapse or wait for the fires to burn themselves out. 

If you want more information on WTC, it's covered in my remastering of Screw Loose Change here: https://youtu.be/o_QPNvKVBEk?t=1037

[Scholar4Truth]

11 hours ago, cjnewson88 said:

In the BBC documentary 'The Third Tower' on Youtube they give an explanation. Reuters had picked up a story from a local NY new agent that WTC7 was either in danger of collapse of had collapsed. They then reported the building had collapsed, BBC picked up on it and reported it as well. I believe CNN did as well. As has already been pointed out, firefighters knew for over 2 hours prior that the fires in WTC 7 were not going to be able to be controlled and had therefore pulled back from the area to either wait for the building to collapse or wait for the fires to burn themselves out. 

If you want more information on WTC, it's covered in my remastering of Screw Loose Change here: https://youtu.be/o_QPNvKVBEk?t=1037

I don't think you can find it anymore but was there not a site that had an entire guide that went through each of the points in the Loose Change film?

[cjnewson88]

1 hour ago, Scholar4Truth said:

I don't think you can find it anymore but was there not a site that had an entire guide that went through each of the points in the Loose Change film?

Yeah I think that was the loose change viewer guide, not sure where it is now.

[Obviousman]

Oh course, you have to ask: Which version of 'Loose Change'? Didn't it go through three iterations, each time having to correct blatant errors?

[cjnewson88]

1 hour ago, Obviousman said:

Oh course, you have to ask: Which version of 'Loose Change'? Didn't it go through three iterations, each time having to correct blatant errors?

Would you believe about a year ago they remade their 2nd edition? So they have loose change 1, 2 and 3, plus a 2nd edition of the 2nd edition..... 

apparently it was remade from nostalgia rather than a serious truth hitting doco as Dylan Avery came back to voice it and he doesn't believe 9/11 was an inside job anymore.

Either way it gave me great HD footage to remake Screw Loose Change so I'm not complaining.

Edited September 30, 2019 by cjnewson88

[rambaldi]

15 hours ago, Obviousman said:

 Didn't it go through three iterations, each time having to correct blatant errors?

That's more than 90% of our resident conspiraholics or people like Fetzer manage... 

[pallidin]

...

Edited October 2, 2019 by pallidin