How did the BBC know the WTC 7 would collapse 20 min beforehand?

Question

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNK1V6S2cbo

They reported that the building had fallen 20 minutes before it did. They even said it was because the steel was weakened.
Does this reveal prior knowledge and lend strength to the controlled demolition theory?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100
the owner of the talking about how he suggested they demolish the building

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiNK-cWt7DY&mode=related&search=

Answer 1

This was a strange one. The BBC pulled the video from their archive shortly after this came out. Thankfully the footage had been posted on several other websites.

To the guy who said the BBC serves mainly Britain, have you never heard of the world service. I receive BBC in germany and you can receive in the majority of countries. The thing was, as the reporter was saying her piece about WTC7 coming down, it was clearly visible behind her.

Here is the original report about WTC7 collapsing from the BBC. The building is behind the reporter as she talks about how it has already collapsed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxFRigYD3s&mode=related&search=

Answer 2

Because, most likely on that chaotic day, the NYFD released information that WTC 7 was eventually going to collapse. After burning diesal fuel for over 8 hours inside the building, and the structural damage done to WTC 7 after the debris from WTC 1 and 2 a reporter from the BBC was informed that WTC 7 was going to collapse and misheard it, or there was a miscommunication between the reporter and the director or producer.

Here's a better question, if the BBC reporter had inside information, a script to read perhaps, why wouldn't said reporter turn over that script and make millions? Could it be they're really committed to the lie, or that there was a miscommunication? Why would the conspirators give out "secret" information before it happened and risk being exposed instead of just blowing up WTC 7 and let it be reported with shock and awe instead? Could it be a grand conspiracy, or just a miscommunicated warning from the fire department?

p.s. Didn't that reporter say "Information is very, very sketchy"? Hmm. Leading me to believe more and more it was a miscommunication.

Answer 3

According to the BBC's website, their premature report was an error. The BBC provides no explanation as to how the error occurred, or what information led them to that error.

Beyond this fact, everything is conjecture.

Assuming, for sake of argument, that there was a conspiracy to destroy WTC7, and that WTC7 had collapsed due to a controlled explosion, it does not make sense that news releases would have been part of that conspiracy. I mean, if you destroy a building in NY, the press is going to know about it, even if you don't do a press release. Furthermore, a press release only leaves a paper trail that might expose the conspiracy, so you definitely wouldn't advise the press that the building had collapsed. So, even if there was a conspiracy, NOBODY in the conspiracy would have been telling the BBC about a building collapse.

The BBC attributes the report to error. This makes sense in light of the fact that WTC7 was burning for 7 hours and had already been given up on. Firemen had already been pulled from the building. It was widely known that day that the building's demise was imminent. Among all of the reports that the fire department had given up on fighting that fire, and amidst the confusion of that day, it is not surprising a reporter might mistate the situation.

As for Larry Silverstein, he said they decided to "pull it." Conspiracy theorists say that this phrase means to execute a controlled demolition. The Popular Mechanics documentary says that "pull it" is not a phrase used in the demolitions industry. I, personally, don't think that it matters.

Larry Silverstein isn't in the demolitions industry. He is a NY real estate developer. What's more important is what he meant by the term. And for Larry, he was told by the FDNY that his building was not salvagable and that the FDNY was pulling their firemen out. It seems more likely that "pull it" referred to the firefighters he knew were pulled from the building, rather than to the planting of demolitions.

Seriously, does it make sense that Larry Silverstein would conspire to destroy WTC7 and then announce that fact during an interview?

Answer 4

I am curious, did everyone account for the time difference (the different time zones). The BBC serves mostly Britain, so even if they were correspondents in America they may be producing on British time (and not American Eastern Standard Time).

Even if that isn't what happened (and it is only a supposition), it hardly makes sense that British journalists would know when apparently even many in our own government did not know at the time (or very soon thereafter). I got to think there is probably another reason, and that they didn't know beforehand (it may even be that someone got confused on which building collapsed, said WTC 7--then turned out to be right after all but 20 minutes beforehand).

Answer 5

I have yet to read about any hard evidence to substantiate the conspiracy theory regarding 9/11. However, the information that is available doesn't rule out the possibility of the theory being correct. Furthermore,a precedent for such a conspiracy does exist.

There is more than enough proof today for concluding that the FDR administation and cabinet conspired to get Japan to attack U.S. by ¨surprise¨,thus condemning to death and imprisonment many thousands of innocent American and foreign civilians (many ,many more than those that perished in N.Y. on 9/11!!) in order for FDR to get Congress to declare war on Germany at a time when the American mood was isolationist.

Is the BBC incident evidence? I hope,like somebody above said,that believers in the conspiracy theory will press for investigation, as did the survivors of FDR's conspiracy. Almost 70 years later they are still fighting for their right to be recognised as victims of their own country!

Answer 6

youtube is NOT the most reliable source.

As for the first one, I don't believe it. First of all, it's not likely that that's actually live footage (so it would make sense that the building was still standing). Secondly, I didn't see the initial report, so I don't know.

As for the second (Silverstein supposedly giving the order to demolish building 7), he would NOT have given the order to do so. When he said "pull it" he was referring to pulling the firefighters out, because the building was extremely unstable. Don't forget how many firefighters and rescue workers had already been killed that day. He said (in the second video) that he didn't want to see a larger loss of life.

Answer 7

nicely, that is needless to say one among 2 issues. (a million) the main secretive, complicated, inventive, and devious government conspiracy interior the historic previous of u.s., if no longer the international, grow to be foiled by a conspirator who felt the ought to leak a fact to the BBC that between the detonator-under pressure out homes grow to be approximately to implode because of the fact he/she could no longer wait that extra beneficial 20 minutes to have them, say, easily watch it implode. OR (2) A information corporation a million/2 a globe away attempting to make experience of continuous flow of confusing and conflicting comments from u.s. might have misreported something like "WTC 7 has been evacuated and is approximately to break down" by some international interest of "telephone" long previous awry on the main nerve-racking day considering Pearl Harbor. you're making the call.

Answer 8

I don't buy the conspiracy theories, I do however hope that everyone that does believe them pushes for an investigation after the next president is elected...whom ever that may be.

Answer 9

Time zones aren't 20 minutes apart.

I personally don't believe the conspiracy, but in the right hands its more fuel for their fire...

Answer 10

Because the BBC did it and wanted everybody to know it.