BBC Reported Building 7 Had Collapsed 20 Minutes Before It Fell — This is an interesting twist on the mysterious collapse of WTC 7. This blog covered this mystery back in 2005 — click here.
An astounding video uncovered from the archives today shows the BBC reporting on the collapse of WTC Building 7 over twenty minutes before it fell at 5:20pm on the afternoon of 9/11. The incredible footage shows BBC reporter Jane Standley talking about the collapse of the Salomon Brothers Building while it remains standing in the live shot behind her head.
Minutes before the actual collapse of the building is due, the feed to the reporter mysteriously dies.
found by Mark McCullough
In 1999 Payne Stewart died in a plane accident. There were fighter jets there shadowing that plane about 10 minutes after they lost radio contact.
Another lie.
It took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach Stewart’s jet.
Here’s the problem never addressed. No building merely on fire ever collapses like this. The other two collapsed because the plane full of burning fuel over-heated the inner structure from intense heat, not a normal fire. I wouldn’t even think of working in a building if they are this subject to collapse from a simple fire.
Same issue involved here, if you would bother to read. It wasn’t a “simple fire”. In Building 7, there were millions of gallons of diesel fuel, for an emergency generating station in the building. These were ignited during the course of the fire, which was ignited by tons of burning debris from the collapsing towers. And the bottom of the building was a “transfer truss” – a bridgelike structure built over an existing ConEd substation. This “bridge” became severely weakened by the heat of the fire – losing up to 90% of its strength – and could no longer support the weight of the building above it. When that happened, the building collapsed in a matter of seconds, at the speed of gravity.
#32
Actually, this is a perfect example of why you should not trust wikipedia.
Wiki says one hour twenty minutes.
But the NTSB report that wiki claims it references has it at substantially less.
http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/aab0001.htm
hahah, no conspiracy my ass!!!
Apparently you don’t know the difference between EDT and CDT, #34.
Frank IBC is right. And lets not forget about the many tons of the Two Towers gouging a big hole in the side of building 7 further weakening the structure as seen from Jon’s Debunking911 link
BTW Screw Loose Change (Google Video)
TJGeezer: Thanks for the BBC link, I hadn’t seen that yet. At least they’ve made an attempt to hypothesise what might have occured. It’s just a shame they couldn’t say for certain where the suggestion came from. When they said before that they’d lost all the tapes of their output that day, they really should have qualified that by saying “all the tapes from BBC World”.
Frank IBC: I still think the elegant collapse of WTC7 doesn’t fit the uneven damage, however severe, that it sustained.
[awaits inevitable insult]
#10…named….the same company ran ALL of the nations security at ALL of the nations airports prior to 9/11
37,
Good. Now which company was it?
JCD, the kind-a-captcha is still fucked. I haven’t posted for a couple of hours, but it still says slow down cowboy. And for the record, my wife has never said that to me yet…
#34…GregA…..hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha….looks like ole Frank burned your butt on the EDT and the CDT point.
Andy –
Have you ever heard of gravity?
Government is way too incompetent to perform such an operation. CNN also report that WTC7 fell one hour before collapse. Then the BCC reported it about 20 minutes before collapse. The thing is WTC7 had major damage due to one of the towers. Plus the added fires and fuel tanks inside the building led to people at ground zero thinking the building will collapse.
Photo of the damage before collapse.
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html
Did you even look at the price of planes? Those things are not cheap. And the insurance you would need to do it would suck a ton of money. What if it misses, the amount of damages would be untold. Also the towers did not fall on their own footprint like many of the CTs like to claim. If that were true, than WTC7 would not of had the damage that it did. ( http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html ) It looks to me like you didn’t think hard on your idea. Which I doubt is your’s given the amount of times CTs have repeated it like it was some new found insight. Everytime they do, they don’t even write out the costs. CTs just say it’s true without proof.
I pulled it 😛
Some have FAITH in conspiracies. They will accept whatever they are told as gospel. Simply because it could not have happened as seen, there just has to be a master guiding conspiracy. Their leaders have the prettiest and most frequented web sites that raise a lot of questions, give some possibilities, but are very short on answers.
Others look for evidence. They will use engineering principles, physics, chemistry, and related science to understand what happened.
Gee, I wonder if this phenomenon ever happens elsewhere?
Brew Kline –
Sure, if you can get thousands/millions of gallons of kerosene (as in the towers) or diesel fuel (as in Building 7), and have the building, wich weighs millions if not billions of tons, already heavily damaged from planes (as in the Towers), or tons of falling, burning debris (as in Building 7), and have a large section of the building burn in excess of 1800 degrees, such that 90% of the strength of the structural steel, then.. why, you too can bring down a building like those were.
But seriously, do you have the slightest idea of what the phrase “down on its own footprint” means?
And as I asked “Andy” earlier, have you ever heard of gravity?
The question also arises, why even bring down building 7 in a controlled demolition in the first place? So Silverstein could claim an insurance payout? Does that mean that the government answers to a real estate mogul? Others say to destroy the evidence of planning the attack because a number of federal agencies were housed in the building. Of course the simplest way to cover up any plot is to blow up a building and then have thousands of people sift through the debris for several months. Much more efficient than paper shredders and a large magnet. If you look at how the buildings were constructed and what happened to them that day it is pretty evident what brought them down. Has the Bush administration capitalized on the tragedy to push their agenda through? Yes. Did they plan it? The success rate of all their policies since should give you the answer. It’s no by the way if there is any question.
Coincidence that Marvin Bush was head of security at WTC?
As a former national radio network news anchor, who worked for years in the Trade Center neighborhood, I followed the events on 9/11/2001 very closely.
I do recall broadcast reports that afternoon of speculation that Building-7 was about to collapse. I then remember listening closely to see if it had happened. Given the understandable confusion of various media reports that day it is possible someone in the chain of sources,reporters, writers, editors, producers or the on camera BBC anchor made the mistake of reporting that Building-7 had fallen, rather than was “expected to fall.” And probably none of those folks would have recognized Building-7 if they were standing in front of it.
While news organizations like the BBC do their best to be as accurate as possible, in the heat, pressure and confusion of a day like 9/11 mistakes like a lost word “expected” are bound to happen.
I don’t see any chance of this kind of error having any significance. If there are any reasons to see a conspiracy theory this isn’t one of them.
#51 … yes it is a coincidence
I really wish that all the people who spent so much time trying to uncover “The Truth” about 9/11 and all sorts of government conspiracies would spend their time working on the things that we KNOW the government has done since 9/11. There are so many things that the government has admitted to doing from “enemy combatants,” no-warrant wiretaps to invading countries because of WMD’s that don’t exist that there is more than enough material for us to be mad about. We don’t need to “uncover the truth” because the truth that is already uncovered is scary enough.
51 –
No coincidence, just conspiracy-twit bulls**t.
55. Yeah, your right Frank, its all nonsense. Like John said, whatever they told us is the truth. So we should stop asking questions and just accept that.
So I guess the fact that Marvin Bush was not “head of security at the WTC” and had left the Board of Directors of Securacom/Stratesec over a year before 9/11, is irrelevant and immaterial?
But why let the facts spoil a good conspiracy theory?
What makes more sense to you:
“We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just [blow the building up].? What in the world would a terrible lose of like have to do with blowing the building up?
or
“We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull [the rescue operation so we don’t lose any more life.].
A rescue operation is an “it”[singular], not a “them” [plural]
Their total evidence for Silverstein being a mass murderer is the word “It”. Heh!
Think of it this way: Most things that government does, it does poorly. What makes you think that it would be any better at planning a conspiracy this large and then keeping it secret? Also, it would have required the cooperation of FDNY and I’m sorry, but I just have enough faith in those guys to feel that they would never have played a part in it. Alex Jones is the kind of person that makes sure that by throwing the outlandish ideas out there, the simpler reasons are ignored. 9/11 was a case of ineptitude and hubris. All of the B-2 bombers in the world didn’t stop a bunch of determined evil men with box cutters, so why are we still focusing our efforts in the same stupid directions as we were then?
Most things that government does, it does poorly. What makes you think that it would be any better at planning a conspiracy this large and then keeping it secret? Also, it would have required the cooperation of FDNY and I’m sorry, but I just have enough faith in those guys to feel that they would never have played a part in it. Alex Jones is the kind of person that makes sure that by throwing the outlandish ideas out there, the simpler reasons are ignored. 9/11 was a case of ineptitude and hubris. All of the B-2 bombers in the world didn’t stop a bunch of determined evil men with box cutters, so why are we still focusing our efforts in the same stupid directions as we were then?
58. In the March, 2005, issue of Popular Mechanics, Dr. Shyam Sunder of the National Institutes of Standards and Technology, which investigated the collapse of Building 7, is quoted as saying: “There was no firefighting in WTC7.” The FEMA report on the buiding’s collapse, dated May 2002, says: “No manual firefighting operations were taken by FDNY.” And, on November 29, 2001, the New York Times reported: “By 11:30 a.m., [six hours before Silverstein said he decided to “pull” firefighters from Building 7] the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chef Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons.”
#60 — You’ve got the logic backwards. The government is incompetent and if sone outside agency pulled off the stunt they would never get caught. Nobody really thinks Bush was in on it.
Ok…you idiots…ever consider that the building they point at ISN’T WTC 7? Oh…wait…it isn’t. Its whichever building is in front of the site of WTC7 on Murray St & Greenwich St. Gee…any idiot with google earth can see for himeself now. Too bad I had to waste the 5 minutes it took to look it up…
Yes, there were rumors on 9/11 about the WTC-7 coming down, but who was spreading these rumors? It is very unlikely that a rumor would be reported as an accomplished fact, and the anchorman would never have misread the info or altered a speculative story to “has indeed collapsed.” Now add the fact that at least 3 BBC live broadcasts (plus CNN) got the same information and that they all trusted this information so much that they (except CNN) did not even bother to verify it. Even further, the source of this information had the casualty details (that there weren’t any) and the explanation of why the building collapsed as well as other “facts” which later formed the official account. Note that when the NIST report finally comes out six years after the fact, it will explain WTC-7’s collapse EXACTLY like BBC explained it before it ever happened. How could the BBC get this report so wrong yet so right?
Furthermore, the BBC and all of its competitors must have realized that at least three BBC outlets reported blatant misinformation when WTC-7 actually collapsed just over 3 minutes after the BBC World News reporter’s transmission was cut. So why didn’t the BBC correct their obvious mistake when they saw that “another” building had collapsed? Or if they still could not figure out that they had just made a huge mistake, then why didn’t they report that a fourth building had just collapsed? Remember that WTC-7 must have collapsed right in front of them. It would have been impossible for them not to know about it.
How long did it take before the BBC figured out their huge mistake? Why didn’t they ever correct themselves? Why didn’t a single competitor ever point out this glaring journalistic error, not then and not even now as this story rages across youtube and the blogosphere?
Concerning the whole idea of “knowing in advance” when a building is going to collapse, ask yourself this — if the BBC had reported the first tower’s collapse 23 minutes early, what would you have thought then? Why didn’t anybody see that one coming?
There is no video or photographic evidence of WTC-7 shaking or swaying or even being engulfed in flames. What we see instead are minor disparate fires burning on a few floors here and there along with minor facade damage.
Furthermore, not a single steel-framed high rise had ever collapsed in the history of the world before 9/11 — including buildings that were entirely engulfed in flames for more than 24 hours.
How could anyone have any expertise in determining when a steel frame building’s collapse was imminent when none had ever before collapsed in history?