How did BBC News report the collapse of building 7 on 9/11 twenty-three minutes before it fell?

Question

Or Why, Who, What in the h**l happened there? This lady is reporting building 7 as collapsed from fire or something-Before it even happened! Building 7 is right behind her head its a live news feed. I mean, the public definately wasn't aware of a planned demolition. This is a critical question here-Why did they say building 7 had collapsed when there were only fires in it at the time. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNK1V6S2cbo

Answer 1

All sorts of nonsense and errors were reported that day, it was, to put it mildly, a rather exciting and confusing day. No one knew what the h**l was going on. So of course one misstatement among thousands means absolutely nada. Unless of course one is obsessively searching for "proof" of a "theory" about which one has already made up their mind.

And why would plotters blow up WTC7 anywise? Who the h**l ever heard of WTC7?

Oh, to answer your question: She was mistaken. It happens.

Answer 2

I think the BBC got the pre-planned newsfeed, to broadcast at 6:00p NY time, 10:00p London time, but the confused journalists thought it was 6:00p in NY when it was only 5:00p. They thought the event had already occured so they reported it as having been about 20 minutes ago.

"..maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. So they made that decision, to pull, and we watched the building collapse". quote by the WTC leaseholder Silverstien about building 7. He collected 7 billion from insurance claims.

Answer 3

Ignore the other foolish answers. This building was not expected to collapse and came as a complete surprise, except for those involved in the planned demolition, when it did. There were only a couple of small fires. Nothing even close to enough damage to cause it to collapse into it's own foot prints. (9/11 was a false flag. Obviously, in the case of building 7, the cover story that had been prepared for public consumption was released too early.

Answer 4

Possibly error, but more likely the Pentagon was controlling the news agenda, IMO.

I saw a taped interview with the anchor, Phil Hayden, about that, and it seemed rather obvious that he was lying.

It could be an honest mistake, and it should be treated with suspicion.  

It is quite possible that people panicked after hearing the explosions.  Considering that two towers had already collapsed that day, you can see how, in the shuffle, the message "about to collapse" could morph into "has collapsed".  If the same reporter heard some of the explosions at the twin towers, you can certainly understand how she may have honestly believed another building was coming down.

Don't forget .... the media did report the explosions on the morning of 9/11, although they are now in denial.

Answer 5

This is such a old story. The building was evacuated and people were basically waiting for its collapse. Late in afternoon it did. Because people were expecting it to collapse from heavy damage and all the chaos among news crews its likely something got lost or misinterpreted in communication between the reporter and people on the ground.

Its live report and I've seen worse mistakes before. For example 2 to 3 reporters were contradicting each other on live TV one time when I was watching a live story about some shoot out last year on local TV.

I think seeing building in the background actually proves these British people had no clue they were making a  mistake. I mean if such a obvious mistake shows up in carefully coordinated event someone can easily cut away or pull the plug on whole thing. But these calm British people just keep going with their report because they have no clue one of the building in the background is one they're talking about. Most likely because they're not from NY City.

Answer 6

Normally I'm not the kind of person who believes in coincidences...

Like the coincidental hijacking exercise going on, same time, same scenario, same place as the attacks on 911. (The kind of scenario Condi Rice said no-one could defend against because it couldn't possibly be envisaged... the coincidence of which was not worthy of any investigation whatsoever by the 911 commission.)

And the coincidental counter terror exercise run on 7/7 - same time, same scenario, same stations... i.e. exactly the same! (Google 'Peter Power' - I heard the radio broadcast.)

BTW That was the day a certain Mr Blair was supposed to be announcing UK troop withdrawal from Iraq... another coincidence?

And the coincidence that the company running the 7/7 exercise has a certain Mr Guiliani on the board of directors?

The odds on that little lot must be trillions to one - the equivalent of a 3-legged elephant winning the Kentucky Derby.

I won't put faith in a cut-price 911 report worth a fraction of the investigation of Bill Clintons 'cigar' - instead of a former Italian Prime Minister, former German Foreign Minister (boss of their secret service), former UK Minister, former US generals, NSA, FBI, CIA officials and even 911 staffers... all of whom have gone public to state that the US government was up to its neck in it. All of whom have had top secret clearance at some stage in their lives...

How can anyone trust that bargain basement 911 report even though it said following the money trail was not relevant to it's objectives... !

BUT... : ) ... being British I have enormous faith in the BBC, so the only other rational explanation is obviously the phenomenal power of their psychic reporters!

No one likes to believe in too many coincidences do they? - that would just be plain silly.

Answer 7

They were briefed. They were working to a script, and just got out of sync.

Of course it is nonsense to suggest that it was obvious it was going to fall, those sorts of buildings never before have collapsed like that.

It is a bit scary seeing some of the answers, people defending the lies about 911, as if they were their own lies, just like any good mindless citizen should.

Answer 8

There was no confusion, no mis-interpretation. This plainly and simply the f**k up of the day. Who ever in the whitehouse press office who was in charge of the press releases to the worldwide media knew precisely that WTC7 was coming down that day. They unfortunately for them released the statement 23 minutes too early. I wonder now if they are still alive after that gaff? No confusion over the building numbers because they announced the fall of the Salomans building, not WTC7 so there was no mistake

You can see in the live streaming from NY that the building is still there, the BBC wouldn't have had a notion what they were looking at behind the reporter regards which building was which, but somebody did. Somebody was monitoring transmissions and realised the blunder and cut the live feed from the States side only 5 minutes before we would have seen the building demolished behind her

The 911 report has nothing in it about building 7 funny enough

The press did originally report explosions before the planes hit because they got eye witness reports from on the spot reporters live and from firemen, police and tower workers. The story was changed afterwards because they had jumped the gun and not followed the Administrations "official story" of melting steel (even though the fire was only burning at less than half the temperaturerequired to do this)

Yes indeed. Anyone who still thinks it wasn't an inside job is just too afraid to find out the truth because it scares them too much. But pretty soon it will be all to late to reclaim your liberty so make a stand now before you are looking down the barrel of a homeland security rifle.