Can somebody confirm that the building in the background is really Building 7?

Question

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAgi4Z5ImRU

Have there been experts who said it was Building 7?

Answer 1

Your question seems to imply that the BBC coverage was faked by the truth movement.  Its validity is not in dispute.

The coverage was time stamped (before the building collapsed) and its validity is not disputed by the BBC or the so-called "9-11 debunkers".

BBC wasn't the only news outlet to jump the gun on WTC7.  Aaron Brown of CNN slipped up there too.

The common explanation you hear from so-called "debunkers" is that "miscommunication" explains why the BBC reported the collapse of building 7 before it occurred.  It is possible.  I find the assertion to be difficult to believe but am willing to give the benefit of the doubt.

There is a taped interview with the BBC anchor Phil Hayton about that.  He is not a convincing liar.  Watch the interview and judge for yourself

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzMlFFQ2o...

At first, he claims he was not in the studio on 9-11.  When that was proven false, his memory suddenly improves.  It seems more than a little strange that an top TV news anchor could "forget" being at the anchor desk on 9-11, and forget reporting the collapse of 47 story building on the day that changed the world.  Those are events that don't happen every day.

Anyway, it is just another detail.  There is a mountain of evidence showing foreknowlege of 9-11.  The premature report of the WTC7 collapse is not necessary to prove the lies.  Let's give the benefit of the doubt and call it "miscommunication" is you can hold your nose and do so.

What is more important is the substantial and compelling evidence for government foreknowledge and complicity.  That alone is enough to warrant a new investigation.  The 9-11 Commission investigation was a whitewash and anyone who cares to research the Commission can plainly see that.

It is interesting that we still await the government's official explanation of the collapse for WTC7.  The 9-11 Commission report excluded it.  NIST could not explain it so they left it out.  Some government supporters argue that WTC7 is not relevant because it wasn't hit by a plane.  I find it curious then, that the owner Silverstein was able to collect under his insurance policy that included coverage for acts of terrorism.  He even took it to court to attempt to seek double payout on the basis that there were two acts of terrorism - two planes.  Silverstein made billions from the world trade centre collapses, and for that reason, we deserve to hear an official explanation for the collapse of building 7.

EDIT

Sorry, I didn't think you meant to imply what I suggested but I mentioned it because the question came across that way.

I don't think the BBC advance report is good evidence to show others as an example of foreknowledge.  It adds to the pile of evidence, but by itself is fairly weak because there is potential for "mis-communication" to be a valid explanation.  

After watching Phil Hayton backpeddle in the interview, I very much doubt mis-communication was the cause but, to be credible in your arguments I recommend you give the benefit of the doubt where reasonable.  In this case its reasonable, in my opinion.

Answer 2

its a building

Answer 3

of course its building 7... and these pigs didnt do a good enough job of keeping there plans a secret..

write in RP.< for a real investigation of this blatant cover up