BBC World reported at 4:57 PM that WTC7 had collapsed, (23 minutes before it actually did).

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1471985581749234824&q=9%2F11

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.

This even made the 5pm EST headlines. What is bizarre is that the building did not actually collapse until 5:20pm EST.

9/11 was unusual enough without BBC World being able to foretell the destiny of WTC 7.

What is even stranger, is that the women reporter is telling the world that the building had collapsed when you can see it in the background over her left shoulder!

Then at 5:15pm EST, just five minutes before the building did actually collapse, her live connection from New York to London mysteriously fails.

So the question is, how did the BBC learn that WTC7 collapsed 23 minutes before it actually did?

Building Seven was 47 storys, modern in design with structural steel throughout, yet symmetrically collapsed in 6.5 seconds. Was someone leaking information out of turn? Is this the smoking gun where the coordination broke down?

Never before or since has a steel framed skyscraper collapsed due to fire. Most people who find out about WTC7, believe it was brought down by a controlled demolition, even demolition experts agree on this.

Thanks to 9/11 Blogger for this video link.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/6458

SR

good catch jackriddler

Sorry, StrictlyRockers, you may just have been taken in by this manipulative post on 911blogger.com

The editors there were not, and have already deleted it. (Check out your link).

The argument was based on a misreading of timezones that could only have been deliberate.

BBC World always uses GMT a.k.a. UTC, not BST (British Summer Time) as the falsifier claimed. Furthermore, New York on 9/11 was on EDT, not EST. So the report at 10 pm UTC was in fact broadcast at 6 pm EDT and for once there is nothing to see here, folks.

(Except maybe we should now investigate why it took BBC World a whole 37 minutes before they reported on the collapse of WTC 7? ;) )

The "member" who posted this deception had joined 911blogger FIVE HOURS before.

Another "member" was cheering the post, and urging that it be given front-page coverage. Had this happened, you can guess that ScrewLoose and Co. would have quickly put up thrilled denunciations of the gullible "troofers" etc. Which is probably coming anyway. (If a creationist farts in the woods, ScrewLoose will find a way to blame 9/11 skeptics for it.)

But come on, how the hell are you going to fool computer programmers with this kind of nonsense? 911blogger.com pulled the story before I even got to alert them myself.

The anchor and the newswoman talk about the saloman building(WTC7) collapse with WTC7 still visible behind her..

Is it complete disinformation?

Far as I know the video is the correct, original BBC World from 9/11/2001 -- except for the additional titles added to explain the time. These titles are the disinformation.

The video in question was broadcast at 9:57 pm UTC/GMT or 5:57 pm EDT, which is 37 minutes after the collapse of WTC 7. And not at 4:57 "EST", as put forth by those who are raising this false claim. The disinformation lies in the mis-labeling of the time zones, which cannot be only an honest mistake. BST is British Summer Time and BBC World is always on GMT/UTC.

...WTC 7, or not.

But we could somehow figure out if that arrow is accurate in pointing out that WTC 7 was still there. I am wide open to someone debunking this (and anything else I put up). Part of me does hope that I am wrong about this whole nightmare.

But I don't think I am. I honestly believe that there was a cabal and a conspiracy which allowed this to happen and maybe even helped it along in places.

I would say, Jack, that this "BBC knew 23 minutes before" thing does seem a little suspect to me in that it seems odd that no one ever noticed this HUGE error until now. That stretches my credulity a bit, but it is possible, I suppose.

This is something that I put up to see how people would talk about it here, not because I am married to it. I find it worthy of further discussion.

That could definitely be WTC 7 over that reporter's shoulder. It is still there while she is reporting with foreknowledge that it had already collapsed. (?!) I'm not sure. But if it is, and we certainly can find out, this seems like a bit of a smoking gun to me.

SR

I assume that's what you're talking about. So it wouldn't show anything.

I only watched it up to the beginning of the new hour (which they don't even announce) and the claims of the guy who posted it.

Showing WTC #7 still standing behind her as she reported it's prophesied collapse. Why don't you watch the Video from the 15 minute mark onward. She refers (more than once) to the NY skyline behind her, she is there. Who are we going to believe you, or our 'lying' eyes? :sarcasm: All in fun, just asking? The time line you argue is really irrelevant to the visual evidence in this clip. Again watch it from the 15 minute mark on. And try and spin that. Peace, and all the best. :hi:

I was so angry about the misleading titles (and they are misleading!) that I stopped.

Now that I've seen it - wow! The time is a separate problem: It's either before 5:20, in which case this is big. Or it's after 5:20, in which case we have caught the BBC falsifying its footage.

as you are, looking into these things for yourself, not drawing hasty conclusions, speculating, on and on .... those are all really admirable traits on your part. Anyway probably the only other thing I can't get my head around in this clip (besides what everyone else is dealing with) is .... when the Male reporter states .... "... and it seems this is not a result of a new attack but it was because the building had been weakened" ..... - It was because the building had been weakened, It was because the building had been weakened, It was ..... yea .... well like we got a story to tell and we're gonna stick to it! And the powers that be did .....

Put another way .. Odd how that 'official story' got out there so quickly that day, before the event, and is still the 'official' story today as to why WTC #7 collapsed. Peace.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc

They had to be fed the right lines even before the event took place.

I am trying hard not to stick to my point of view without considering all contrary evidence. If someone can help me figure out if there is anything to this, I appreciate it. Thanks.

I'm not claiming that there was some "terror script" for he major news media, but this video looks pretty suspicious for someone giving the BBC information that would tell them how to report this. They just gave them the information too early.

Is this a smoking gun? It could be some kind of mistake like Jack says. But Jack, your explanation does not suffice to explain the building still being there (if that is WTC7).

Thanks for help on this one.

SR

I found this at another 9/11 blog:



Source: http://rattube.com/blog1/2007/02/26/the-smoking-gun-wtc7-bbc-jumps-the-gun/

And welcome to DU!

:hi:

:beer:

Thanks for the welcome, but I've been here for some time...

... Here's the last post I submitted that is creating quite a stir:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x143425

Think nothing of it. Least I could do.

SR

as of 6:49 PM ET. Hmmmmm.....

thank you!

established an indisputable falsification. The first announcement comes just before 6 pm, not 5 pm, and the titles added by whoever added them are therefore false. False (as opposed to merely wrong) means I stop taking said source as honest.

I stopped watching it after that. I'd check your current claim, but the video is currently listed as unavailable (presumably because of the stampede).

I do have a guess: TV routinely lies. LIVE does not always mean the footage being shown behind the LIVE speaker, who may safely be in front of a studio backdrop, is actually itself live.

At any rate, if the broadcast is after 6 pm then they're not talking about WTC 7 falling before it actually did fall in real life.

that the time zones are mixed. It's a moot point anyway, there's a live shot of the building NOT collapsed while they're talking about how it collapsed.

The relevant terms are

UTC or GMT
EDT
EST
BST

These belong to the world's store of global knowledge. Very easy to learn.

When you're done, here's the quiz:

Which time zone was New York using on 9/11/2001?

Which time zone does the BBC World television service use for its broadcasts?

What's 9:00 + 8 hours?

Watch the video.

If you're on broadband, you can use the link that was shown near the beginning of the video to download the entire BBC live coverage of that day. You can time from when it starts to see if the section with the female reporter standing in front of the NY skyline -- and the original "Solomon Brothers building has collapsed" report -- does indeed take place 8hrs on from ~9am. The mpg is 1GB in size.

Jeebus H Kryst on a double-decker bus and carrying an umbrella.

So, what's this supposed to prove? Assuming it is actually real?

A.) The BBC was in on the plot and was reading from a script, but got confused?
B.) NWO Central Command frigged up and sent out the simulated building collapse video too early?

Either possibility is "bug fuckin' nuts".

Trolls make up obvious-bullshit claims to see if they can shake out some gullible assent on the one side and provide easy chum to the sharks on the other.

How do you know this isn't the work not of a 9/11 skeptic but actually a practical joke by one of your friends at ScrewLoose or the like? (And no: I don't think you'd get the memo!)

How does this help your overall viewpoint? You're the one who has to explain this. You get more irrelevent everyday.

If true (and I hope it's not because I can't believe our own goverment would kill us), it would (at the very least) tell us the BBC worked with the enemy that day... I can't think of any other explanation, can you?

By the way, I believe the video would be a lot more effective if people saw this graphic first (at 16:57)... then watched the video:



Click this link to see it larger

Ri..ii..iight!

The BBC was part of the Conspiracy!

Can you -really- not see the implausibility of this?

Really???


Is not almost -any- other explanation -more- plausible?---a prank, reporter error, time zone error, whatever.

It was clear that the building was going to collapse. Workers had been pulled back from the building for about three hours now. A press release being written before the building collapsed isn't a surprise at all. That the press release went out early just sounds like a mistake.

Why do the "helpful" propagandists who released this little gem also cut the video before the actual collapse time? Does the BBC mention that the building has now actually fallen?

They (whoever they are) sent a press release out in which they say the building is GOING to collapse? This is what they're doing while preparing for it? And does this press release accidentally say it's already collapsed? Or is it that the BBC that misreads it and ends up saying the wrong thing?

Jesus man, do I have to do your work for you? Just figure it out from the timezones, will ya? They're given misleadingly by whoever added the titles. This footage is broadcast after the collapse.

Now I haven't seen the other part yet, but let's assume IF the lady really is talking "live," with the building still standing in the back - well, this would suggest a form of TV fakery, yes. A well-known, routinely used one, in which they pretend to be live outdoors but are in fact in front of a studio backdrop (common in the Green Zone, for example!).

But I'll reserve judgement until I see the rest of this sure-to-be hot video.

That's what I'm seeing. If you haven't looked at that part of the feed, you should.

I don't know what the press release said. I don't know if it said the building had collapsed and it was released early, or if it said that the building was about to collapse and it was misinterpreted. Or if there wasn't even a press release and the reporter heard reports of the building about to fall and confused it. Does the reporter mention the press release or is it a creation of the crazy propagandists who have released this little confusing gem? I don't know.

But that looks like WTC 7 behind the reporter. I don't see anything sinister about the reporter being confused. It was a confusing day.

The "press release" talk has been injected by the liars who put together this video.

On first mentioning WTC 7 at the beginning of this video, host refers to a press release (non-specific) from UK govt. warning its nationals that more atrocities were to be expected, and how this fits in (as he is assuming WTC 7 was an "atrocity"). This is in fact nothing to do with WTC 7, but it's the host making this association and thus your statement is wrong.

The BBC says nothing about a press release concerning WTC 7. And you are the one always decrying the lack of concentration on "real" CT topics. For shame...

Google is censoring this movie in real time... every time they take this video down, another person tries to submit it.

Why would Google censor this?

The OP's link to Google Video is still working. It was uploaded yesterday (the 25th).

I just tried to the original poster's link and it comes up as unavailable.

Here's the link I tried:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1471985581749234824&q=9%2F11

But not before our intrepid Conspiracists have downloaded hundreds of copies.

Or maybe there is just a lot of demand for that video right now, being as Alex Jones is talking about it and stuff.

This is a traffic problem, presumably, since the page has not been removed.

EDIT: pm, not am!

Because of the WRONG titles inserted over the BBC footage by the Video Artist, I hadn't bothered to watch anything past the first few minutes.

Everyone here is right, both 9/11 skeptics and debunkers, insofar as everyone here agrees that at minute 15, clearly, BBC reporter Jane is talking about WTC 7 having collapsed, and it's standing there, right behind her.

However, the video titles inserted by the Video Artist remain deceptive, and I will post more on this later. I have no doubt that this broadcast was in fact AFTER 5:20 pm. It's the only thing that makes sense. She's live all right - in a studio, feeling relatively secure against the nastiness outside, while a technician plays the video behind her.

MORE LATER.

if she was in a studio at that time or if there's a building having brown indoor window frames at the place she's reporting from (or appears to be reporting from...).

The sun would have been low in the sky at that time of day. I'd think this would have been a bldg corner shot with the sun setting in the west?

Now you're just being disingenious.

She says it is "behind her".

She also actually turns around and points out the smoke..SHE IS ONE GOOD ACTRESS, EH?

"MORE LATER"

We have the drudge report over here. Admit you're wrong and move on, Jack.

Bluescreen/video projection theory has been proven wrong.

I'm waiting to see what time it turns out this segment was broadcast. If it's really before 5:20, then this is quite a revolution. We see the twisting up of the OCT crew trying to explain it! If it's after 5:20, however, you have to admit the possibility, either of blue screen or she is in front of a projection of older footage.

Um, yeah, the weatherperson is standing in space with earth behind him/her... and it's live.

15:57 min ?

because it was coming down. He is working on lining up that interview.

...from OCT land.

Seriously.

Why Does the BBC correspondent say that the building has fallen when it is shown behind her in a live shot?

She doesn't know WTC 7 by sight.

I can see it behind her???
Did she and the anchorman misspeak?
wtf, I hear her and the anchorman repeatedly say that wtc 7 had fallen, they go to her live and I can see the building?

Brace yourself. Sometimes the people on the TV? They don't always know what they are talking about.

I know; it's a shock.

Are they wrong when they say "wtc 7 has fallen" repeatedly?

or

I am wrong because I can see the building behind her after they keep saying that it had fallen?


Do you also believe that there were wmd's in Iraq?
Do you believe that we just happen to also have three carrier strike groups just hanging out near Iran?

If the government can lie about wars, why would they not lie about this attack?

She says WTC 7 fell - there it is behind her. She's wrong about WTC 7 having fallen.

I can't believe that this is difficult to grasp.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

your doing a fine job all by yourself.

Yes black is white , white is black in this place called Bizarro World

One Simple Answer She doesn't know WTC 7 by sight.

Which building collapsed that she thought was WTC7?

I'm sure you have a simple answer for that as well.

She doesn't even know what the fuck they're showing behind her, because she's safe in a studio and they're showing footage from earlier and calling it LIVE.

I do find it delicious that Boloboffin is arguing that this segment was indeed broadcast before 5:20 pm EDT, because that would mean foreknowledge and he's going into quite a few contortions to explain that as the result of some press release. Uh, yeah.

To me it looks like a window and she's standing in broad daylight. No studio technician would create such light ing conditions.

Of course they can recreate lighting conditions. Jesus H.

You can see the reflection of the buildings outside.

I've also never seen big brown window frames in front of a blue screen before.

plus I've never seen such a badly overdone "daylight effect"...

She was wrong. They knew WTC 7 was going to fall eventually. It was a confusing day, and she got the wrong end of a report.

We have always said that the fire department knew the building was going to fall down, i.e. foreknowledge. It's rather disingenuous of you to suggest that foreknowledge is something that I've ever struggled with. And the "press release" is completely an invention of the propagandists that released this video with comments. The BBC reporters NEVER mention a press release.

I am, however, happy that you find me delicious. Continue your repast.

CNN was reporting "is collapsing or has collapsed" at 4:15. There was heavy damage to the building, and when firefighters say the side of the building bulging, they set up a collapse zone and evacuated the area at 4:30.

Oh, I forgot, they were all in on it too.

I am sure there is plenty of disinfo on the internet, and that it is deliberately placed in as part of a tinfoil by association strategy. A link like this one makes it easy for people to stop questioning why WTC7 dropped like a controlled demolition. Put out enough disinfo, then the real stuff gets buried.

3 posts in, and you're already joining in on the 9/11 CT.

I think you may be breaking rules by calling my writings nonsense. I may be new to DU, but I am not new to making forum posts. I would appreciate it if you stopped making ad hominen comments about me. I could easily make the case that you are a paid disinformation agent, but I don't because it is against the rules.

Don't take the bait of the OCTs who ask the most elementary of questions, primarily to delay and dumb down discussion of this critical matter.Those theories do a good job keeping people way from the otherwise blatantly obvious reality: usa attacked iraq as part for a plan for strategic control of the region richest in oil.
Welcome aboard.

Thanks for the welcome. I agree that we both have a point as regards to tinfoil by association being a primary reason how we get snookered. A real conspiracy was the White House Iraq Group, and how they were intent on starting a war. While it would be nice if the whole truth could be revealed, e.g. with 9/11, there is plenty that is obvious and is not tinfoil in the least, be it illegal wiretapping, illegal wars, the stripping of constitutional rights, the signing statements, etc..

That being said, I was wrong to assume that this story was tinfoil. I have been researching chemtrails and am no expert on 9/11. When I was young I did a paper on the JFK assassination, so I am openminded about ct. While my point is valid about tinfoil by association, I shouldn't have assumed, because I ended up making an ass out of u and me, well me anyway.

That is fairly bizarre how that reporter said the WTC7 had fallen, and there it was still standing right behind her. The put options, the NORAD stand down, the lack of the black boxes, that passport, the woman from New Jersey who alegedly forged drivers licenses and died soon there after, the Michael Moore type point of how the Bin Ladens were flown out of the USA while there wasn't supposed to be any flying, Bush sitting in that classroom when it was known he would be there, the way the buildings fell, especially wtc7, how the suspects turn out to be alive, how there were drills happening the same day for the same scenario, these to me stand out as not making any sense. I think the best chance for 9/11 truthers who are for real is to stick to these main points.

I recently looked into the words of Jim Garrison. He was no fruitcake himself. Stuff does happen, and stuff does get covered up, but hey, American Idol is on, Graceless is doing another show on Anna Nicole..........

Google video- Aaron Russos - America from Freedom to fascism

"The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself."
- Archibald Macleish

Here the original

ftp://ia311517.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109111654-1736/V08591-16.mpg (1 GBfile)
I'll have to make space on my harddisk






Thank you very much for it :bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce:

No matter the parsing of exact times, etc, the bottom line is that the reporter is reporting the collapse as having ALREADY happened while it is clearly in view. Then the guy in the studio is ALSO talking about it.

The reporter clearly reports thing she has heard but not confirmed (hospitalized emergency workers), but the collapse itself is NOT reported as unconfirmed.

Any story the BBC tries to concoct to cover for this will have very low credibility, especially in light of all the video and reports of imminent collapse from on-the-scene emergency personnel and others. See this clear CNN video, for example:

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

This is big.

BBC can try to argue that she's green-screened in front of that shot, but it sure doesn't look like it.

She's standing in front of a window, not a video screen.

Prouty had been sent as the military escort for a group of international VIPs. It had nothing to tit1 with Special Operations: it was deemed a "paid vacation." It was on his way back, during a stopover in New Zealand, that Prouty heard of Kennedy's murder. Immediately, things didn't fit. New Zealand's Christchurch Star carried a full story about Lee Harvey Oswald, an unknown 24 year old, complete with a studio picture and detailed biographical data including his trip to the Soviet Union. But Oswald had hot yet been charged with Kennedy's murder.

"Who the hell wrote the story before the police had charged him?" asks Prouty.

"It was a put-up job. It was a worldwide cover story being put out".

http://www.prouty.org/giamarco.html



http://library.christchurch.org.nz/Heritage/Newspapers/Star23Nov1963/output/thumbnails/Thumbs1.asp

When Prouty returned to the Pentagon where he had access to newspaper, special reports and hot wires from around the world, he was stuck again by the "packaged'' Oswald story.

"I knew immediately the story was written before the shots were even fired... Oswald was a designated patsy whether he shot or not."






It reminds of the BBC situation, the guy is talking about the collapse of the Salomon Brothers building while it's still standing in New York.

He assures us that it wasn't the result of a new attack, because the building had been weakened during this mornings attacks.

if it could be the sun that's reflecting on the reporters left cheek? Would be further confirmation she is standing in front of a window. It definitely doesn't look like studio light in that room.

I don't see where it is so difficult to understand that a foreign reporter who is playing whisper-down-the-lane with the rampant rumor mill that day might report "it is falling" or "it is in danger of falling" as "it fell", in view of the fact that firefighters had already pulled back from the building in view of the massive damage and the bulge indicating that it had become unstable.

There were reports of all sorts of things that day. Anyone remember the car bomb at the State Department? I was in Philly, and most everyone bugged out of our offices when someone said something about "a hi-jacked plane headed toward Philadelphia" on the radio.

These talking heads were on all day, and their job is to keep talking. She obviously wasn't familiar with the WTC if that was indeed a live report (video unavailable here).

Who's a "conspiracy theorist" now?

It was all just a huge misunderstanding..Just a big coincidence..Also the loss of the live feed 5 minutes just before the actual collapse is not troubling at all.

Get real people.

then whe would have noticed it hadn't collapsed yet, don't you think? In which case she wouldn't have made the report. Or are you suggesting she spent the entire time with her back to the event?

rrrrrright.

keep the wool firmly in place over your eyes.

Quicktime, 84MB: http://www.mediafire.com/?bjwgkiyzmuq

WMV, 16MB: http://www.mediafire.com/?5j2yjmycyty

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a430wtc7evacuated#a430wtc7evacuated
(4:30 p.m.) September 11, 2001: WTC Building 7 Area Is Evacuated

The area around WTC Building 7 is evacuated at this time. New York fire department chief officers, who have surveyed the building, have determined it is in danger of collapsing. Several senior firefighters have described this decision-making process. According to fire chief Daniel Nigro, “The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged . A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building’s integrity was in serious doubt.”

---------

Notice that it is the guy in the UK studio who has the garbled report which he relays to the woman in front of the window, who (a) is not looking, and (b) wouldn't know the building if it bit her in the arse.

Be that as it may, FDNY chief officers surveyed 7 WTC and determined that it was in danger of collapse. Chief Frank Cruthers, now the incident commander, and Chief Frank Fellini, the operations commander, both agreed that a collapse zone had to be established. That meant firefighters in the area of the North Tower had to be evacuated. This took some time to accomplish because of terrain, communications, and the fierce determination with which the firefighters were searching. At 5:30 p.m., about 20 minutes after the last firefighters evacuated the collapse zone, 7 WTC collapsed. It was the third steel-frame high-rise in history to collapse from fire—the other two had collapsed earlier that day. FDNY shrugged it off and went back to work to begin a long, continuous night of searching for brothers and other lost people on the longest day in the history of the fire service.



If they were so smart why did they go inside of wtc 1 & 2? They shrugged it off?

http://www.onderzoek911.nl/media/tijdschrift/fire_engineering_wor.shtml

...was CNN reporting that WTC 7 was in danger of collapse at 4:15?

He is referring to WTC 7, if CNN and BBC are referring to the same report, someone familiar with the complex could have changed the description from Salomon Brothers Building to WTC 7.
But it's unlikely and the CNN report is much earlier.

He says: "Has either collapsed or is collapsing" then the graphic appears Building 7 at WORLD TRADE CTR. ON FIRE, MAY COLLAPSE

Then he starts talking about the complex (where trains come in from NJ)
"and now we are told there is a fire there and that building can collapse as well as you can see"


I think they had a similar initial report that it has collapsed or is collapsing and they changed it live to may collapse. Probably they were familiar with the building, the reporter obviously was not.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1LetB0z8_o

The bottom line appears to be that people were talking about whether WTC 7 was in danger of collapse for quite a while, and it seems the BBC garbled that.

I wouldn't say the BBC garbled that

You see there has to be only one or two news wire reports out and all news stations are reporting it.
Everybody participating in propagating the wtc 7 info is unknowing, and not all of them are checking the facts.


Who wrote the wire that wtc 7 collapsed? That's the question.

that wrote about the car bomb outside of the State Dept. and all of the other unchecked stuff that day.

At least Aaron Brown had the good sense to look out of the window:

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

We really need more interviews with firefighters, talking about bombs the 20 second countdown, or the npr report that day, etc. to convince people.

A New Jersey EMT has gone public on how emergency workers were told that Building 7 was going to be "pulled," before a 20 second demolition countdown broadcast over radio preceded its collapse. The ground zero rescue worker also blows the whistle on how he witnessed multiple underground support columns of the WTC towers that had been severed before the buildings imploded.

http://www.drudge.com/news/90291/emt-saw-wtc-7-pulled

Then a pair of firefighters run over to tell them the building is going to go down.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnbpz9udYus&mode=related&search=

WTC7 NIST Study

The building fire alarm system was placed on TEST for a period of 8 h beginning at
6:47:03 a.m. on September 11, 2001. Ordinarily, this is requested when maintenance or other testing is being performed on the system, so that any alarms that are received from the system are considered the result of the maintenance or testing and are ignored.

"Finding 2.25: The fire alarm system that was monitoring WTC 7 sent to the monitoring company only one signal (at 10:00:52 a.m. shortly after the collapse of WTC 2) indicating a fire condition in the building on September 11, 2001. This signal did not contain any specific information about the location of the fire within the building.

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/chapter1.pdf (pg28)

So what was going on here? Did someone expect problems on 9/11? Was this another of those incredible coincidences?
Who had the fire monitoring system shut off and why?

Nice find

It is, and I cannot stress this enough, very common, to put the system in standby. They may have had fire pump preventative maintenance scheduled, or perhaps they were working on the suppression system, I do not know, I wasn't there. However I was the Chief Maintenance Engineer for a high rise and over the course of one year I paid $48,000 in false alarm fees to the fire department, expensive learning curve. Needless to say, after that, If I even thought the system might be tripped I put it into standby. It takes about 30 seconds on the phone with the monitoring company.

Yes, if those fire alarms had been turned on, then the attack would have been prevented.

Larry Silverstein needs to be charged for INSURANCE Fraud.

...why?

has trouble gaining credibility.

QED.

:thumbsup:

Digging it's way to the front page of Digg
http://digg.com/politics/BBC_Reported_Building_7_Had_Collapsed_20_Minutes_Before_It_Fell


Prison Planet's latest on this story:

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


Copies:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7392653980310709553&q=BBC+wtc+7+Salomon

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=BBC+wtc+7+Salomon

Better copy

Google video DIVX AVI copy downloaded before it was taken down (183 MB):
http://conspiracycentral.net:6969/stats.html?info_hash=bd83725eb328a0f6e8a6ae0b9b21c558235331e8


Well, I still don't know if there is anything to it for sure, but the video has attracted a lot of interest. This thread has gotten 2600 hits since it was posted 16 hours ago.

In addition, there is lala_rawraw's post, which has gotten another 400 hits.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x143825

As well as Elwood P Dowd's thread "Holy Shit Look at This", which has gotten close to 600 hits.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x143753

The video was eventually convincing enough to JackRiddler for him to post a retraction of his "disinformation alert" comment and apologize here on the boards. (May we all learn such admirable humility and grace.)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x143824

And there are other threads on this, too.

Now there is video evidence that CNN also had foreknowledge that WTC 7 was going to fall.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x143915

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


Someone was feeding the news organizations on that day and coordinating the message. That's not the most important point to me.

The important point is that the BBC video, the CNN video and the Silverstein "pull it" video all back each other up. They corroborate the circumstantial evidence and lead one toward a logical conclusion. Someone had foreknowledge that WTC 7 was going to be "pulled" that day in a controlled demolition of the building.

SR

I can't be sure if the BBC care but they are now aware of the amazing discrepancy between their reporting and reality.

Below is a phone call to the BBC making them aware of their error, lets hope they dont send in Guy Smith to investigate!

http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/bbc_oops.mp3

More to come on this I am sure.

SR

Any day that starts with a new Rob Balsamo recording of him calling people with better things to do and ranting about wacked-out CT nonsense is a great day!

Take action on this story and request that the BBC explain how they made this magic premonition. You can email them here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/help/3281777.stm

:rofl:

Too funny.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/6458#comment-119447

BBC's WTC7 Early Warning Updated.
Submitted by 911veritas on Mon, 02/26/2007 - 9:12am.
OK....

Not had much sleep, whilst verifying and double / triple checking the numbers etc... I have now narrowed down the maximum margin of error to 1 minute and can confirm that the BBC first reported WTC7's collapse at 5pm (plus or minus 60secs) New York time LIVE on 9/11, a full 20 minutes before the actual collapse happened !!!


I am working on presenting this info with a V2 of above vid and 911blogger exclusive blog, which will take some time, verification is very important and to aid this.

I please ask as many people (with high speed internet) and 5GB of spare disk space to download the following BBC originals. These are what I used to confirm the timings (you can too) and have the damning footage etc.


All times are local "New York", the ranges are pretty accurate, but following my calculations are approximately 3 mins earlier than the actual time.

Each file is MPEG format and 1GB in size - To Download - "Right Click / Save Target As"


BBC World 9/11 Footage - 14:08 to 14:49

BBC World 9/11 Footage - 14:49 to 15:31

BBC World 9/11 Footage - 15:31 to 16:13

BBC World 9/11 Footage - 16:13 to 16:54

BBC World 9/11 Footage - 16:54 to 17:36



I have produced a medium res WMV file that shows time sychronized continuous footage from 14:40 to 17:18.

This file is approx 700MB and starts at the Pataki conference with an accurate timestamp of 14:40 Eastern Time (gotta find a home for it online, DZ ?).


Maybe Guy Smith can do some research for us... LOL

Best wishes and good luck

Props to Gangster for the initial heads up on the 9/11 realtime news footage archive on archive.org.

Continuous realtime footage from 9/11 by ABC, CNN, BBC, NBC, FOX etc...

Good starting Link : http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=title%3A%28Sept.%2011%29&sort=-date

As stallion4 kindly mentioned....

More info in this blog : http://www.911blogger.com/node/6400#comment-119070

Please help us with this fight.

SR

http://stage6.divx.com/content/show/1133782?user_id=245557



Please be active and help spread this around. It looks like it is a legitimate find.

http://stage6.divx.com/content/show/1133782?user_id=245557




SR

Thanks to our legion of debunkers and apologists for the government's ludicrous fairy tale, no one here is interested in learning the truth. Good thing we have them here to think for us. Their diligence prevents anyone who is curious about this subject from broaching it all by themselves, free of bias and with an open mind which can think critically on its own.

If not for the people who refuse to see any point of view but their own, we might actually be able to have a productive debate here. I am quite willing to bend over backward to see the position of someone who is willing to bend over backward to see my side of things. That's how you get to the truth of a matter - mutual honest debate.

I wish I saw more of it here. This forum could be a tremendous resource. Mostly what I see is people hiding behind big castles they have built up over time. It's lame. I have no use for posters who are inflexible and can only see one side.

The people who are open and honest and willing to help me research...you are truly my heroes and I love you for it. I just want to know the truth.

SR

or desperation? In reading the threads devoted to this topic, it is desperate debunking that jumps out at me.

Listen folks, you shouldn't strain yourselves trying to think for yourselves. NO! That's hard work! Leave all that thinking to us. We'll do it for you. No need to bother with figuring out complex problems on your own. We'll tell you what's what in a jiffy, because we already know. We're so smart we don't even need to examine new evidence. And you won't have to worry about accidentally messing up your critical thinking skills by getting a sprain in your brain. We do all your thinking for you.



We're the:

BONKERS DEBUNKERS

hehehe

Please refrain from talking about me.

Spidey and Jake look like a couple of way cool cats to me. And I am so jealous! I love kitties!

SR

but, they turned out to be the nicest cats imaginable.

Thanks, SR!

LOL away.

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

My opinion is that there was much confusion as to what was actually happening, and news organizations reported unconfirmed and erroneous information throughout the day.

WRT the BBC, perhaps a combination of an unconfirmed report and unfamiliarity with the WTC buildings led to them reporting and then continuing with the story much longer than CNN. Aaron Brown reported the building as "collapsed or collapsing", but then recognizes that the building is still (temporarily) standing, and adjusts his reporting to match what he sees. The BBC reporter may not have had that local knowledge to adjust her report on the fly.

Sid

Obviously the media are incapable of human error in reporting news on a particularly dramatic day.

conspiricy theory. Coincidence or...? :evilgrin:

is that too much to ask?

Charlie Brown sprawled flat on his back, for the 135th time.

This is, by my entirely precise count, the 547th Smoking Gun, irrefutable PROOF(!), beyond a doubt, without question feeding frenzy in Truther World since its inception.

A moment's rational thought will show that there is not even the remotest possibility that the most absolutely idiotic, incompetent fool of a Vast Conspiracy would write a script and send it to the BBC ahead of time. None. Makes no sense any direction you look at it.


It's not clear -how- this particular Smoking Gun Football will be yanked away, but it is dead certain the Truthers will wind up flat on their backs.

How many of them will be aware of this---well, that's a different question.

somebody could have imagined using an airplane as a missile.

And to think that it was known that Bin Laden was determined to strike within the U.S. -- just beyond silly.

It's so embarrassing, being on our backs all the time, looking up at you smart people.

Just keep kicking, OK.

--One-- of these days, she'll not pull the ball away.

I wouldn't bother with poor, poor Charlie Brown. He only gets what he expects to get. If the football did not get pulled away, he would still trip himself, fly up in the air and land flat on his back wondering how he could have not seen the ball.

Anyway, the rest of us can see the ball. The truth-ball deniers won't stop us from scoring a touchdown, either!

YAYYY team!!! Go truthers!!!

:thumbsup:

SR

Those "smart people" are just addicted to their blue pills, and the mass media is more than happy to shovel the stuff into their throats for free. They're like alcoholics bullying sober people, because the existence of sober people makes them scared.

I'm not joking. Is that the sort of thing they have to do in order to believe the media and the government?

Or are they allowed to jump on the bandwagon of reality after a few years?

it wasn't a big secret.

I think BBC just jumped the gun a bit.

That is the kind of mistake that reporters are paid to not make. I don't see how that mistake could have happened here, either. You have to watch the complete video.

The video argues the whole thing very strongly on its own. This was not a case of error or exaggerating the status of a building expected to fall.

SR

I'm saying BBC jumped the gun by saying it happened.

All the OCTers know it.

And the way they are scrambling to put out this fire is incriminating in itself.

SR

I had the video in my cache for over a day and now it's gone.

http://stage6.divx.com/content/show/1133782?user_id=245557


See also how the BBC News 24 (UK domestic channel) ALSO reports WTC7 collapse early. This one has a time stamp. The voice-over factually reports another 'collapse', identifying it as the Salomon Brothers building, with an on-screen clock time of 21.54 (this is British Summer Time, an hour ahead of GMT, five hours ahead of Eastern Daylight Time, i.e. 4:54 pm EDT)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUjvsAHY_38