Reporter tells of WTC 7 collapse BEFORE it happens??

Question

A real interesting story has broken on the web today.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/260207building7.htm

A BBC archive from 9/11 has been discovered showing the reporter Jane Standley reporting on the collapse of WTC 7, 20 minutes BEFORE it actually collapses!!

She is describing what happened in the collapse, yet the building can clearly be seen right behind her still standing!

This has sent waves all over the web and raises all kinds of questions, in particular: how could the BBC have possibly known this building was going to collapse, 20 minutes before it does?

Here is the BBC's official response.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html

On it, they dismiss alleged claims of being 'part of the conspiracy' even though no-one has suggested this, all that has been asked is how the BBC could possibly have known about this in advance.

Seems a little strange to me. What do you think?

REnate - I can tell you haven't even looked at the video because you responded within seconds!

It's not a case of 'something I've read' at all - this is actual video footage of a BBC reporter telling of a building collapsing when it is in fact standing right behind her and doesn't collapse until 20 mins later!!

How do you explain that?!

Answer 1

Some 6 hours after the attack it was reported that the owner of the building was going to have it "Pulled"
Every one was evacuated from the structure and the building came straight down into its foot print, picture perfect and on cue.
In the insurance litigation that followed, the owner "Larry Silverstein" who had purchased the complex a few months prior to 9/11 and subsequently reinsured the complex for a higher premium with a clause for compensation in the event of a terrorist attack, claimed that when he said that the building was going to be "pulled” he meant, in that the structure was unsound, they were going to "Pull" all personnel out of and away from the building. Subsequently Silverman was awarded full compensation for his losses and profited in the millions for his original investment.
Seem shady?
Now this report comes out that shows BBC so competent that the building was going to collapse that they were reporting that it had already collapsed 20+ minutes before the fact.
Next question. In that the collapse was as perfect a collapse of a building of this type of structure that has ever been witnessed how long would it take to lay the groundwork to accomplish this had it not accomplished it all by it’s lonesome?
IMHO and just from watching the coverage of the day as it was reported it is obvious the collapse of 7 was controlled and the primary reason for recanting that fact may well not be so much for insurance purposes as it was that this feat with this precision could not be executed in 2 or 3 days let alone 2 or 3 hours which would be about all the time they would have actually had considering the tumultuous events of the day.
They would have had to taken considerable time to make the decision locate the demolition personnel load and deploy to the scene , unload and re deploy into the building before they could even begin the actual work.
Skeptics must need to look at the still pictures before the attack from all sides , consider the type and shape of structure that it was, review the video of the collapse and then look at the foot print of the rubble taken after the event before making the argument that :
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, smells like a duck and walks like a duck it must be a Black and White Holstein cow.

Answer 2

The twin towers..
Other buildings around the world of the same design have suffered far more damage than the twin towers..and they did not collapse.
One of the towers collapsed around 20 minutes after being hit.
The second tower to collapse did so within minutes of the first.
I would have thought it would have taken a little longer..if at all.

WTC 7 ..was rigged for demolition, but it is still a mystery to me how it was done in so short a space of time.

Ok..I know it was demolished with explosives because it was deemed 'unsafe'.
But to do in a couple of hours what it would take a skilled demolition team several weeks to do..?
ie..go into an 'unsafe' building, drill large holes in the support walls and beams of this 'unsafe' building, lay the explosives, connect up all the cables for the firing sequence, check its all done properly, then BOOM and down it comes.
That don't ring true and never will.

The BBC knew about it because they was probably told before hand that the building had been rigged for demolition.
Jane Standley was probably rehearsing and this has mistakenly been taken as the actual news item.

To add to that..
There were 2 other buildings between WTC 1 & 2...and WTC 7.
So..where did the damage to WTC 7 come from..?

Answer 3

The fact that Google and the BBC got rid of this video as soon as the story broke is a dead giveaway that something is wrong.

The fact that you can pull up story after story after story on the internet, but you can't find one mainstream news outlet that will talk about this bomb is pretty much a dead givaway that something is not kosher.

The truth is out. Watch the cockroaches scurry as a nation wakes up and the lights are turned on! The people who continously deny the truth about 9/11 are going to be considered with the real terrorists and therefore treasonists.

Answer 4

on bbc news 24 there's always the time clearly displayed on the screen - why isn't there in this case? because someone has removed it i presume & i don't think it was the bbc........

eta. ok , just read the bbc thing and it was on the news not news 24 but still think that the bbc didn't know what was going to happen before it did. those lost tapes must be really exciting the conpiracy theory people though

Answer 5

There was a lot of information and misinformation flying around that day. She probably didn't know what or where building 7 was. Until 9-11 I thought there were only the two towers. I didn't know there were other buildings in the complex.

Answer 6

Thanks for bringing this subject out, I wonder how the BBC had lost the original copy or whatever. It may be abit too strong to accuse them of something, but too much of co incidence too is often planned and often a sign of something fishy. So i think it is worth investigating further, I wish someone very smart would do that. Something shocking or surprising to the world might come up !

Answer 7

Easy. This wasn't a conspiracy, it was a complicity. The BBC and all the rest of them were fed this info by the US government, who knew it would happen.

Answer 8

i saw the videos and it looks very fishy business to me. why did Larry silverstein blow up his building, eve if it didn't have any severe damage? maybe because he had a $7 billion insurance policy on it.

Answer 9

Totally false. Do not believe everything you read, my dear.

Answer 10

THANKS i'M GOING TO CHECK THAT OUT