http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=49f_1172526096&c=1
The BBC somehow knew that wtc7 was to collapse atleast 20 minutes beforehand. No steel framed structure has ever collapsed due to fire and five years on, NISTs only hypothesis for the collapse has a self admitted 'low probability of occurance'.
2007-02-26 20:57:42 · 12 answers · asked by mistertimgray 1 in News & Events ➔ Media & Journalism
wow. doesn't look like many of you watched the clip or did any research on this before commenting.
i'm talking about building 7, not the twin towers.
2007-02-26 22:25:20 · update #1
I saw the film of the news report last night. I can't believe it, you can see the building over her shoulder as she's saying it has collapsed!
2007-02-26 21:02:44 · answer #1 · answered by aleta_uk_0 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Stupid conspiracy theories, I am sorry just because something is on the internet means it is true. One guy says something, another guy reads it and then suddenly it becomes the truth or in this case the hidden truth.
I'm sorry but I watch the BBC coverage of the 911 live on tv in the UK. I saw the second plane go into the tower and watch well passed when the tower collapsed and I think i would have noticed if the BBC annoyed the building had collapsed while the live shots where showing the towers still standing.
Why do you need to come up with alternative theories to what happened. We know what happened, terrorists flew two planes into the twin towers, something that had been threatened years beforehand. And no, the Jews did not know before hand and escape (many Jewish people died that day) and no, the building was not blown up by the government, while no building may have collapsed due to fire but how many of those buildings has a giant hole ripped though them because an large airlines was flown into the building.
2007-02-26 21:16:40 · answer #2 · answered by Borealis83 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Just because something has a low probability of occurrence doesn't mean it will never happen. What you are referring to was clearly a mistake made by the media for whatever reason. Everyone was shocked, all kinds of unconfirmed reports were coming in and newsreaders were still trying to report as best they could. It is highly likely that a number of mistakes were made during this time and what you refer to was clearly hum error. It wasn't that they "knew before hand" I think you know this is clearly impossible, it was a mistake. Perhaps you think it was part of the huge so called conspiracy surrounding 9/11? In that case, perhaps you think that the US Government phoned the BBC to tell them they were about the blow up the building or maybe the BBC were somehow part of the plot? It is clearly a ridiculous thing to think if that's the case.
2007-02-27 04:02:42 · answer #3 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i've got watched it and this is fairly unusual that the reporter on the computer screen in no way mentions the development as teh Salomon Brothers development or WTC7. She in simple terms refers back to the give way of the towers and the Marriot. this is like the studio guy and the girl are speaking approximately extremely some issues. Like they have been spliced collectively right into a phony video strip. i could like somebody acquainted with the BBC to assert in the event that they understand the studio individual as somebody who easily declares for the BBC.
2016-10-02 01:45:23 · answer #4 · answered by dyett 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The building had massive damage and had been evacuated. People saw big bulge forming on side of building and expected the collapse sometime in afternoon. That's why the decision was made to 'pull' people out of building, but that quote is misused by people. 20 minute difference isn't bad considering they waited all afternoon for it to collapse.
2007-02-26 21:41:40 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think the BBC did report the building collapsed before it actually did. I saw it live on TV, it's not something I will forget.
Stop seeing conspiracies where there are none.
2007-02-26 22:19:38 · answer #6 · answered by seamer100 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The reason for the "Low probablilityof occurrance" is... there's a low probability of someone running a jet airliner into a super skyscraper on purpose.
Worse errors have been made by newspapers and TV stations than getting a time wrong.
2007-02-26 21:01:47 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It probablly had something to do with time zones, or they were reporting collapse of one building after a different one had already collapsed...but they most likely did not report something that had not actually happened yet....
2007-02-26 21:01:08 · answer #8 · answered by ruthzinda 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because Jade Goody told them it would-she's clever and on the BBC a lot these days-she's also a mongol!!
2007-02-26 21:07:19 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
lol thats what happens with TV. they re run it all day. i found out at 4pm my time and thought it just happened lol
2007-02-26 21:00:56 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋