BBC World reported WTC7 collapse before it happened

[CrazyBlade]

[QuitTheirClogs]

Push it back onto the BBC by asking them to explain the anomaly. See what they come up with. The Conspiracy Files stated the following:

[Ussa1]

I can see why some people are starting to get a bit downbeat about this but one question still remains . How did they know it was gonna collapse? OK the twin towers collapsed but planes had been flown into them (and still no-one expected them to collapse) - so they`ve got a get out on those. But how could they be so certain of the WTC7 collapse that they had press releases already prepared? It doesn't make sense. I know this question has been asked already but i have never seen an answer and this clip just brings it up again. I for one am still excited about it.

[Skeptic]

[blackcat]

The biggest point from this story is that it was known that building 7 was going to fall. How could anyone know this? It was not hit by a plane and fire has never brought down a steel framed tower and certainly not in 8 hours and most certainly not at freefall speed. NIST cannot explain its collapse and its best effort after investigation leads it to speculate that its best theory has a low probability of being correct. Yet we are to believe that on the day someone had the expertise to assess that it was going to fall. Who????? Where is this brilliant mind???? Why did he not testify at the 9/11 enquiry????? This story is wide open in spite of all the people pouring cold water on it now.

[scar]

You can come up with all the excuses in the world but she is stood in front of WTC7 talking about how it had collapsed when it hadnt, the repeater in the studio says it several times along with the official 'reason' for it. Implanting the myth that is still trotted out today.

Of course the BBC will squirm out of it with any number of possible excuses. That they received a press release saying it had 'collapsed' when it hadnt is evidence it was known that it was coming down, which isnt possible. Its something which many firefighters have said since, that locals have reported as being said on local radio, something we all know anyway. Noone could have known it would collapse, therefore no excuse stands up or matters.

That it fell in 6.6 seconds 'straight down' is evidence it was not structural failure due to fire/debris, unless you can believe that fire weakened all columns at the same time, that debris from 1+2 dislodged fireproofing equally and that santa is alive and well along with the easter bunny.

Officialdom was (and still is) stuck between a rock and a hard place.
Either you claim it came down from fire (before it fell) which had never happened before in history before 911, or you say it was demolished and admit foreknowledge of the attacks to prewire the building.

Officialdom has had to resort to 5 years of debunking lies to cover their ass with all the 'critic' dupes along for the ride. The myth, once created, must be protected at all costs. One lie leads to another, and another.

With all the confusion on the day, someone messed up i agree, revealing the foreknowledge in more ways than one.

And some say 'how could such an incompetent administration get away with such an elaborate conspiracy'

They didnt.

[hampton]

just spoken to bbc world 0208 433 2221

they are well aware of the issue & are feverishly investigating.

i was told "we don't know who uploaded it. but on first inspection it looks like it's not our live feed."

although i don't know how they can say this when it's from a reputable web archive along with footage from other channels.

[Skeptic]

^ I think it was FEMA who said the best fire/ damage hypothesis had only a low probability of occuring.

No doubt the best explanation we'll get is someone from Popular Mechanics saying 'if you knew about the way the building was designed, you'd know it was very likely to collapse'.

Maybe that guy from Fox News with the baseball cap told them - he was probably out on the street saying 'the intense heat from the diesel fires is weakening the structural steel, she's gonna collapse!'.

[CrazyBlade]

[Craig W]

[QuitTheirClogs]

Building 7 is definitely an Achilles heel for the official theory – and this is a really good story for putting the focus on Building 7. Getting the BBC to explain what they knew, when they knew it and how they knew it, will help keep that focus.

[tomi01uk]

It occurs to me that researchers should start to download all of those news footage archives. The ones from bbc, cnn, cbs, etc. This issue with the Wtc 7 bldg will possibly make all the broadcasters on that day take down their archives. Someone posted the link where the archives are stored. I say get them saved to harddrives soon for future research.

[Craig W]

[Eckyboy]

If this is true it is very important even if everyone near building 7 seemed to know it was going to collapse that day. In the book TERROR TRACKER by Neil Doyle I think, there is a very interesting little story about WTC7. Apparently one of this guys engineer friends told him that certain government buildings are fitted with safety charges in the event that the buildings are damaged by terrorist attacks and they can then be demolished safely. If this is true then it would explain how a lot of people near building 7 and Larry Silverstein knew it was going to collapse but it still implies complicity in the attacks as the government has never admitted this. If building 7 was fitted with so called safety charges then it stands to reason the more high risk twin towers would have been fitted with them too. For me Building 7 was brought down in a controlled demolition no matter how hot or fierce the supposed fires were but was it pre-planned or taken down as a safety measure?

[blackcat]

[Serge]

[Skeptic]

Nice one.

[Craig W]

[hampton]

i was out the other day and i did a particularly loud fart and much to my surprise a nearby building started creeking and then just fell down.

on a more serious note.
were the twin towers due for expensive asbestos removal?

forgotten 911 heroes:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6606909833563454569
talks about bush ordering the epa to lie about the air being safe to breath and how people should return to the city. it also shows how victims were left without help.

[scar]

True dat Blackcat, i heard it was made out of cardboard actually. Termite infested cardboard at that. Obviously termites are the real culprits here.

@Eckyboy/Craig W:
Why would they detonate the charges before everyone got out?
A helpful wave of indignation?
How would these charges be kept secret with so many working to build the towers?
Explosives dont have an infinite life either so presumably they would have to be checked and restocked?
Ive heard this idea before and it is surely a ludicrous one?. It changes nothing at the end of the day.

@Serge: Well spotted!

[Craig W]

[Eckyboy]

It is not my idea of a safety precaution either Craig W! If I worked there I would be to scared to sneeze in case I accidentally triggered them off! Its like using a samurai sword to trim your nose hair.

In answer to your intelligent questions.
1. The charges would obviously not be in plane site (no pun intended!) although as you say there would still be a chance they would be discovered however a high security building has many restricted areas and its possible that most people would not know what they were looking at.
2. The charges could be set but not activated or primed. On 911 all they had to do was prime them and they would be good to go. I am no expert in explosives or demolition work though so I could be way off course.

I am not saying this is what happened but it is plausible and I think the government could end up trying to use this excuse at some point in the future.

[Craig W]

[Skeptic]

[Craig W]

[Skeptic]

I think it is pretty well known that some buildings are built with cavities for demolition charges already installed. Whether any have had the charges pre-installed is dubious.

[QuitTheirClogs]

[Eckyboy]

This is how Controlled Demolition Inc the company who carried out the clean-up work on WTC1,2 and 7 describe themselves.


"A two thousand ton skyscraper collapses like a house of cards, crumbling in on itself - a waterfall of well-fractured steel and concrete debris. It lasts only seconds, and buildings within a few meters stand untouched. The very essence of Controlled Demolition, Inc. is in our name: CONTROL.

CDI demolishes structures with the kind of precision and planning usually associated with their creation. Each project is handled by a world-renowned team of experts drawing on backgrounds in environmental remediation, engineering, dismantling, traditional demolition, explosives, material handling and the latest technology to guarantee complete predictability.

Having imploded, worldwide, more buildings, chimneys, towers, bridges, and other structures than our competitors combined, Controlled Demolition, Inc. has the technical expertise and track record to take on projects of any magnitude.

This experience is used to select precisely the best equipment, materials, and methods for every project, and the best strategic communication plan to ensure acceptance by community groups and regulatory agencies. In an industry where experience is everything, CDI stands alone in its pioneering vision, innovative spirit, and decades of leadership."


"Department of Defense (DOD)
Controlled Demolition Incorporated (CDI) has the appropriate experience and expertise to assist Department of Defense (DOD) agencies and contractors in demolition operations on sensitive projects, domestically and internationally. Through the support of our international network of offices and agent relationships, Controlled Demolition Incorporated can respond promptly for defense-related consulting and performance requests on short notice."

It is irrelevant though as WTC7 was clearly brought down by raging fires for the neatest collapse I have ever seen.

[brian]

[Serge]