I don't know how far its true but, I found this on google videos-

On September 11th 2001, BBC World reported at 4:57pm Eastern Time that the Salomon Brothers Building (more commonly known as WTC7 or (World Trade Building 7) had collapsed.


Video- WTC-7 BBC reporting


BBC WTC-7 Videos

Edited to add the correct videos

:blink:

Very interesting to say the least. If you watch the video, you can clearly see WTC 7 in the background of the live reporting.

What will probably happen is you'll get the old "we knew it was going to collapse anyway" excuse from the govt.

Trying to play devils advocate, but maybe it was put out that it might collapse and it's been misconstrued by reporters and once it reached the studio it became "has collapsed", but still then they would be predicting something that has never before, in the history of steel framed sky scrapers, happened, so it would still beg the question, 'HOW' did somebody know it was going to collapse ? given that steel frame buildings rarly (ever?) collapse from fires.

The collapse of wtc7 takes another twist.

What. The. Fuck.

Is this for real? First ive heard of it.

Does this coincide with the claims from people like Craig Bartmer who says he was told WTC7 was goin to be coming down?

Not to mention how did they know it was WTC 7 that was coming down. Despite how damaged you want to say it was. Wasnt WTC 5 and 6 engulfed in flames? Besides WTC 7 was further away from the towers than those others buildings

Really crazy how BBC were reporting its collapse nearing 30 minutes before its sudden 6.5 second collapse.

This isn't the first early collapse report I've run across, though it is the first from an actual news source that I've seen. In a couple of internet forums I've run across early reports-one even as early as sometime in the late morning, something like, a third building has now collapsed a fifty story building near the world trade centers. I wish I could find that one again. Some early reports show up in this thread, for instance. Looks like a pre north tower north tower collapse report and a CNN WTC 7 may well collapse report about an hour prior to the collapse.

wow..

the clip of the live shot begins at 14:50:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=14...9%2F11#014m50ss

AMazing isn't it !!!!!!!!




Updates Link:
http://www.shure.proboards19.com/index.cgi?board=bbc

;)

Uhm, it's a reporter and his studio's duty to report actual facts and correct information. So the whole maybe it was misinterpreted thing doesn't add up.

It is really weird that they report it approx. 30min. before the building actually comes down. Maybe someone leaked a copy of the script for that day?

"Who writes this shit?"

What. The. Hell ?

:blink:

That is damning footage

Did they adjust for Daylight Savings Time?

lol, I hope your not being serious :P , the building is still standing in the background.

Quoted from one of the firemen:

So they knew that the building was going to collapse at least three hours before it actually did. The BBC probably heard about the impending collapse and misinterpreted that to mean the building had already collapsed. So really its just nothing more than sloppy reporting, which isn't surprising considering how chaotic that day was.

#1 Sesshin... yer a maggot... deal with it...

#2 Who is this reporter... he's already talking about exchanging freedom for security... there is something very strange about this video.

#3 Sesshin... yer still a fvcking maggot, so shut up.

They started reporting at 4:57pm (EST) that WTC 7 had collapsed and were still reporting that it had collapsed while she was standing in front of the building with her big HEAD !

They continued to report it had collapsed all the way up to the live feed "MYSTERIOUSLY" blacking out just minutes before WTC 7 actually fell at 5:20pm (EST) !!!!!!!!

COME ON NOW !

NOBODY IS A GOOD ENOUGH LIAR TO TALK THIER WAY OUT OF THIS ONE !

--------------------------------------------------
Danny Jowenko just reconfirmed on Friday Feb. 23 2007
THAT THERE WAS NO WAY FIRE BROUGHT DOWN WTC 7 !

Danny Jowenko conversation Youtube link thanx to "einsteen"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QajDxF9uEf4

:lol:

They just kept on diggin their hole while she was blabbing on. Until some nasty party pooper wised up.
Their only possible excuse is they confused had collapsed with was going to collapse, that doesn't work because it was repeated over and over again that the building had collapsed, the lead shill even went so far as to say the building was probably empty.

It's a great video.

Here are the phone calls the the BBC inquiring about this damning Evidence !

click link below to listen or right click and save target as to download:

Phoen calls to BBC letting them know thier oops !

<_<

Wow that's awesome man, wonder if she will bother having a look.

Either way, if Alex hasn't seen this yet then someone should get the video over to prisonplanet.

I think too much is getting read into this.

Clearly this report was rushed to air before any research had been done. It's likely all the repeated 'on-the-street' reports about the imminent collapse of WTC7 eventually got distorted by a reporter, and "gonna collapse" became "did collapse."

It was a major gaff on the BBC's part for sure, especially given the fact that no one immediately identified the burning building behind their 'live' reporter as the 'still standing' WTC7 building which she was claiming had already collapsed. Since it was the last major standing structure still pouring out heavy smoke on the site, you'd think they might have checked it's identity..amazing..unbelievably poor work on their part.

You would have thought in the roughly 7 hours that passed after the collapse of WTC1, that the BBC Research Dept. would have located maps and visuals of the area so they would be familiar with what they were seeing in their 'live' feed, or, duh..had there on-the-scene people find out for them..I guess they figured that the clearly viewable smoking 47-storey building in their live feed must have been WTC7a, WTC7's twin tower?

It's also pathetic that no one at the BBC seemed to wonder why none of their satellite feeds from the major American TV networks were reporting such a major event. Did they not ask themselves how odd it was that no one but their on-the-scene reporter noticed the sudden collapse of this 47-storey building?

Talk about extremely sloppy..maybe it will damage their credibility regarding the recent 9/11 'hit piece'?

MM

this could be a fake clip - that building could easily be added with some work.. not entirely difficult... plus we don't know it's actually 20+ minutes earlier..

although, it does appear to be real.. can anybody get their hands on copies of bbc world for that day? there has to be a copy out there somewhere, it needs to be verified.

Seconded.

And this.

Aaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!! :lol: B)

BBC can honestly say now...

"We report the news before it happens." :lol:

I can imagine that the pentangon disinformation agents and the homeland of security guys are quite busy in these days. Man, lot to disinfo. :P <_<

I think this is interesting but I am not sure I think its evidence of a conspiracy. I do think the government was involved in the events of 9/11. However, I question whether this is evidence of that.

One of the arguments I hear from the debunkers over and over, is that if there was a conspiracy there would have to the "thousands" for people involved in the cover up. I don't agree with this and think the number of people with actual fore-knowledge of the governments role would be fairly small number of people. Most people involved would not understand their role, or think they were part of a drill, or just doing their normal job.

As scripted, controled and biased as the mass media is, I have to question what purpose giving the BBC a scripted list of events would serve in the conspiracy. Why not just let them report the news as they normaly would, with the normal safe guards and control factors allready in place? Certianly I can see how BBC new executives could have been giving some knowledge or at least guidelines of what is accpetible to discuss on the day of 9/11. However, I just don't see why they would need to "script" the days events for on location reporters to follow.

One aspect I do find strange, is that they reported this without witnessing it themselves. Most people that day were glued to the TV. It seems as if it were your job to report on the events and you had a birds eye view for the events, you would notice if a building (you yourself describe as one of the defining features of the NY skyline) had collapsed. I mean, when they got the "report" didnt they look out the window to see what had happend?

I dunno, it is strange but I have a hard time believing there would be any purpose in scripting the days events (for the news) or manipulating the news in this mannor. It seems unnecissary in the orchestration and execution of the conspiracy to me.

There are hundreds of thousands of people employed by the various agencies (CIA/FBI etc), it's naive to think that some of them would'nt turn bad, there is bound to be a crminal element in there, like in any walk of life.

For those who haven't seen the BBC clip ... I've reposted it to Google Video:

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=1555577918205271703

Cheers,
.andy

Just to inform you the repost doesn't seem to be available anymore. I don't get why google keeps taking this down :huh: it's not copywrite is it?

I am afraid I agree - the BBC has a very easy "get-out" here (and it may well be true):

"We made a mistake. Our reporters had heard that WTC7 was unstable and was expected to collapse soon and somehow got our wires crossed.

We simply didn't realise that the building smouldering in the background on the live feed was WTC7.

I am sure we all remember how intense and confusing the day's events were. There was a lot going on and a lot of reports flying around. It was very difficult to keep on top of the story and verify facts.

We have to admit we got this one wrong. We should have checked it out."

This could also explain the "mysterious" end to the transmission - maybe someone realised they were wrong and "pulled it" LOL.

The only thing one could say against that explanation is:

"Did you not think there would be pictures of this collapse - given the numbers of cameras filming the events? And would it not have been appropriate to have shown them alongside the report?"

But the BBC could reply:

"We didn't know which building this was or how major it was and had no reason to look for footage of its collapse. We had never even heard of the 'Salomon Building'. Had we known the size of the building we might have checked it out better."

I am afraid this does not add up to very much.

Can somebody repost this video? Youtube maybe?

This evidence is obviously too damning so Google took it down.

Here's a couple more links...

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=49f_1172526096

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/february2...07building7.htm

This story is going to get out.

I think this is the original source (apologies if it isn't):

http://www.911blogger.com/node/6458

WOW!

That's a big mug of HELLO!!!

I am still taking all of this in. I already would have bet the farm that WTC7 was a controlled demolition, but I am still in SHOCK about how the media is SOOOOOO orchestrated!

Here is another link...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlFDd5Yjn3w&eurl

Here is some additional supporting evidence...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1LetB0z8_o

Don't you guys think you are making a bit too much of this?

I think you and your ilk make too little of all this, actually...That's kinda the crux of the problem.

I don't think I emphasized it enough when I said...

You MUST see it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlFDd5Yjn3w&eurl

Here is some additional supporting evidence...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1LetB0z8_o

I tend to disagree.

Please read this post by a prisonplanet commentary:

It's from
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/febru...bbcresponds.htm

I stand by my original post and the BBC explanation is perfectly plausible in my view.

While it doesn't disprove the possibility that they had got an embargoed news release from one of the big agencies early it could very easily have been a simple mistake.

The scenario:

A reporter close to the scene hears emergency workers talking about the imminent collapse of WTC7 (as we know many were forewarned) and passes the news on. The reporter also gathers info about the building in question and relays that back (47 storeys, empty, fire damage plus damaged by falling WTC 1 + 2, etc). At some point in the passing on of the message the expected to collapse becomes has collapsed.


I am a journalist and have dealt with news releases on many occasions. I know how journalists often don't check press releases especially when they are from the more trusted news agencies and when they are under pressure to produce copy.