9/11 changed the world, so why the hell can't the BBC explain why it reported the collapse of WTC7 30 minutes

Question

too early? They reported it had collapsed at 4:58pm New York time but it didn't collapse until 5:20:33pm. Only complete retards would dismiss this information as irrelavent.

3 minute clip for people with not much time to spare
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNZCG_Cpz9g

Complete footage from BBC World from 4:54pm New York time until 5:36pm New York time
1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEtqN04Hl7w
2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqCW3d63ug8
3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7bRmHm0Obo

The fact that the BBC lawyers have issued a video take-down notice to the respectable website http://www.archive.org
creates even more suspicion because they showed the time stamps

Answer 1

You WTC conspiracy "people" should form a club.... a secret club so we don't have to keep seeing the same postings day in and day out.

Answer 2

Ok, your question is, why can't the BBC explain why it reported the collapse of WTC7 a half hour early.

The answer is: it would destroy the worlds of all the ignorant masses, like the ones on here who can't wrap their minds around the implications of this BBC video. So I will ATTEMPT to break this down for the lesser-witted among us.

First of all, steel frame buildings had never collapsed from fire before 9/11. Three, we are told, collapsed from fire on 9/11. While it was believable that the towers could have collapsed from the damage they received, upon examining the details surrounding the collapse of WTC7, it becomes clear that the collapse really cannot be explained. Well, it cannot be explained if you only want to consider that it was hit by some debris and that's what made it fall. Even the government's report on the collapse of WTC7 found that explanation unlikely.

And then, in 2002, before many people were aware of all the inconsistencies in the "official version" of 9/11, the owner of the WTC - Larry Silverstein - gave an interview where he admits to having the building "pulled". This obviously meant that the building was destroyed by explosives. But there remained too many stupid people to understand that, so the debate went on.

There are only 2 ways that WTC7 could have fallen: either a decision was made by someone to bring it down, or it fell down on its own. If a decision was made to bring it down, then the only explanation is that the building already had explosives in it. If it fell on its own, then there is no reason why anyone would have known when it would collapse.

About the BBC video. It is problematic for many reasons. One is that over 5 years have gone by. Another is the fact that as she is talking about WTC7 having already collapsed, WTC7 is clearly visible behind her. But the most intriguing problem of all is how her feed mysteriously broke up, only a few minutes before the actual collapse.

But wait, what's even more intriguing than that is that BBC World claims to have LOST that very same video shortly after 9/11. That's the reason we're only learning about it now.

The funniest thing to me is that all this could have been explained away if the right things were said at the right time. But they weren't. And this is why the intelligent among us know beyond any shadow of doubt, that 9/11 was a staged event. The details surrounding that are beyond the scope of this question.

Now, the real answer to the question is that since we know 9/11 was an inside job, do we really want the truth from the BBC? Do we really want that cat out of the bag? If the BBC told us who told them WTC7 had collapsed, then what? Then the endgame begins, and I'm not sure any of us are quite prepared for that yet.

Answer 3

stupid conspiracy theories, i'm sorry merely because of the fact some thing is on the cyber web skill that's real. One guy says some thing, yet another guy reads it and then all promptly it turns into the actuality or for this reason the hidden fact. i'm sorry yet I watch the BBC coverage of the 911 survive television interior the united kingdom. I observed the 2nd airplane bypass into the tower and watch properly handed while the tower collapsed and that i think of i might have observed if the BBC aggravated the construction had collapsed jointly as the stay pictures the place showing the towers nonetheless status. Why do you would be able to desire to come again up with determination theories to what occurred. all of us recognize what occurred, terrorists flew 2 planes into the twin towers, some thing that were threatened years previously. And no, the Jews did no longer recognize previously hand and get away (many Jewish human beings died that day) and no, the construction replaced into no longer blown up by way of the government, jointly as no construction could have collapsed via fireplace yet how lots of those homes has a good sized hollow ripped regardless of the indisputable fact that them because of the fact an large airways replaced into flown into the construction.

Answer 4

This makes no sense.

Let's say 9-11 was some conspiracy. Since secrets are nearly impossible to keep, you would want to keep the plan as simple as possible, and involve as few people as possible.

Therefore, it is illogical for conspirators to complicate their plot, because everything they do is another opportunity for them to make the one fatal mistake that would reveal their involvement.

Also, it makes no sense why they would report the building collapsed at a given time. How would anyone know the PRECISE time the building was going to collapse? Some people claimed there were explosives planted in WTC 1 & 2, but that theory has been disproven because it would require thousands and thousands of feet of cable that could not be hidden, plus other detonation devices.

Then we have the nut jobs who claim a missile hit the Pentagon, but they never explain, if it wasn't flight 77, then what happened to all the people on board that aircraft? If you were a passenger on board that flight, and you read in the paper that it had hit the Pentagon, you'd be calling the newspapers!

Nothing here makes sense.

Answer 5

Okay, so my question to you is why...if you have this info, and so many others have this kind of info, why has it not been acted upon? Really? I'm not doubting your legitimacy...but I am dumbfounded as to why - if there is such overwhelming evidence that it was all a conspiracy - there has not been any action against those responsible. Thats where the whole thing loses credibility. We live in a sophisticated time, with sophisticated minds. How have they all allowed this to be 'covered up in plain sight' for so long?

Answer 6

Look, the BBC is over run with Muslims and I don't trust them for the simple reason they do nothing unless it helps their religion.

Oh and the youboobs doesn't help your possession, they take away from it. Youboobs are just people opinions and serve as no materialistic form of truth.

Answer 7

Because, after the first two towers fell, it was determined that they couldn't save WTC7. So they set up an demolition for that building. That is what was reported, since they knew about the demolition before it happened. But they probably got mixed up on what time it was supposed to be demolished.

Answer 8

Media makes mistakes. For example the Titanic was reported under tow with all passengers safe. Then it was reported to have sank but all the passengers were safe. Guess the media was wrong?

Answer 9

9/11 changed America. America's reaction changed the world's view of America.

I don't be live the statement that 9/11 changed the world its generally accepted as accurate outside of Republican circles.

Answer 10

That is strange, I remember hearing about it on the radio about an hour before it happened! I just figured I was mistaken about the time.