BBC Announced WTC7 COLLAPSE before it happened! smoking gun

[Pikey]

Could you Critics possibly explain this:-

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=7534

[marky 54]

im not a critic but ill give it a go

"the woman was clearly standing infront of a studio backdrop that was a picture of the site".

"it was a looped video being used as a backdrop and was taken from an earlier time"

"they heard reports firemen expected the building would collapse so annouced it had collapsed whilst giving the offical reasons for collapse and reporting people were nearly crushed by it" one mistake led to another

"it wasnt really there it was a cardboard cut out to fool conspiracy theorists"

"the report was pre recorded"

"it was just a mistake"

"you are just a bunch of conspiracy theorists"

"im not answering this its just a load of rubbish"

(im not going to take notice of this thread lets pretend it isnt here)

"your deluded and stupid"

(if i ignore it long enough will it go away?)

"the bbc are not american therefore not offical"

"it was the time delay you get when connecting around the globe"

(dammit its still here ill pick fault with his wording so they dont think im ignoring it)

[marky 54]

this critic thing is sooooo easy and look no evidence.

[Bongo]

Marky, we should not have that attitude... I believe there may be a few 'so called critics' changing their minds after whatching what I just saw?

[marky 54]

[marky 54]

after listening to the whole conversation the news reader asks a few questions about WTC7 to the women who is there in NY, she mentions very little about wtc7 in these conversations.

however the building is right behind her she must know at least that this building that had collapsed was near the twintowers and 47 storeys high
not hard to pick out especially if you have been there all day watching the skyline you would notice if a 47 story building dissapeared and surely she would of noticed and known which building they were refering to shes a journalist not a dimwit.

she says "but this isnt the first building that erm has suffered as a result"
so she is admiting wtc7 was effected at this point even though it is clearly stood behind her, she then adds "we know that part of the mariot hotel next to the world trade centre ALSO collapsed as a result of this huge amount of falling debris from 110 floors of the two twin towers of the world trade centre" proving beyond doubt she could only be refering to WTC7 in the first part of the sentance as it directly followed a question about that specific building.

so if it was just an error on the bbc's part why is she confirming it when she is there and it is stood right behind her. why dosnt she point out the error and tell them it has not collapsed as it is still stood right behind her.

everything else she says has nothing to do with wtc7 even though 2 questions were specifically asked about wtc7 it seemed like avoidance to even mention it and just go on about things not related to the questions apart from the bit i mention above.

if it was an error it would of been noticed and corrected a 47 story skyscrapper is a bit hard to mistake for collapsed when it is still in full view.

[Bongo]

[Busker]

You can never find a critic when you need one can you?

I don't think we should be rubbing our hands with glee too much just yet.

I have just had a couple of people come back to me who I asked "Is this a green screen background? I'd like to use a NYC skyline like that in one of my videos" I didn't mention anything about 9/11 or WTC7 still being there to try and give it as much a neutral context as possible.

One responded immediately saying no, it was a view out of glass. The other pointed to the shadow on the front of the reporter's shoulder indicating a light source behind her "outside" so he didn't think it was an artificial backdrop.

Not conclusive proof but they know more than I do.

Any erm... critics about this morning then?

[fixuplooksharp]

thats becuase they are all chatting away amongst eachother so that they can get their story straight. Or theyve gone to their superior with WTF in their head. Theyre just like us, just a little lost. Im looking fwd to what they come up with. I reon theyll go with the blue screen story and hope the majority are tards. it would probably work! heh

[KP50]

I'll go with

"But look at all that smoke, shows how massive the fires were within WTC7"

[Ignatz]

Either

Chinese whispers:

"We've heard The Salomon building is going to come down"
->
"The Salomon building's coming down"
->
"The Salomon building's come down"
->
"More on the latest building collapse .... details are very very sketchy at the moment ..."

or

The Illuminati press office was working under intolerable pressure and released the news of WTC7's collapse before it happened. The US news agencies looked at the skyline, saw WTC7 and realised the mistake, but the BBC didn't know what "The Salomon Building" looked like so they went with it.
Though, you might wonder why the Illuminati were "announcing" something that would be fairly noticeable to anybody with most of their senses still functioning.


Take your pick.

[blackcat]

[Bushwacker]

We already know that the firefighters, from their own experience and from the advice they had received from a structural engineer, were expecting WTC7 to collapse owing to the damage it had received from the collapse of the towers and the fires that had been burning in it all day. A safety zone had therefore been established round the building, so that no one should be injured in the anticipated collapse.

Having managed to see the video, I think it was a live broadcast, not a blue screen background, and that is WTC7 in the background, still standing after the reporter had said it collapsed. The reporter failed to correctly identify the building in the background.

We therefore have the possibilities that:
a) The news that the collapse of WTC7 was expected got garbled into the misinformation that it had already collapsed, or
b) What exactly? The BBC was in on a conspiracy and mistimed its pre-planned announcement? The conspirators were putting out press releases and issued that one too early?

No reasonable explanation of the mistake actually supports the CT viewpoint, and a) above is almost certainly what happened. This therefore puts another nail into the coffin of the controlled demolition theory, but showing yet again that that the people there on the day were expecting the building to collapse, and it did.

[Micpsi]

[blackcat]

[Bushwacker]

[blackcat]

[Bushwacker]

[telecasterisation]

[SHERITON HOTEL]

I must say the 'critics' are not too vocal on this one, maybe they're working on their next project... 'screw Jane Stanley'

[Ignatz]

[Bushwacker]

[locsen]

[SHERITON HOTEL]

[telecasterisation]

[Ignatz]

[Bushwacker]

[marky 54]

ok so the firemen didnt just predict the building was unsafe, they also predicted that it would be a global collapse whilst running around and building fully involved in fire with no water to extinguish it and other reports were firemen were ordered out at 11.30 am that morning.

they somehow managed to asses the building whilst "fully involved" in fire with no water to extinguish it and predict global collapse which was relayed to the bbc who mistook the reports to mean it had alrady collapsed, but then in other reports after all this had happened they report firemen were ordered out of the building at 11.30am in the morning on 9/11 which was also just another mistake.

this is what we have to believe to believe the offical story and what critics are saying.

so the building was a rageing inferno the firemen risked their lives to asses by dodging fires with no water? or the building had limited fires meaning the firemen were able to get around and see all the damage and predict global collapse from these limited fires so the bbc could report it had collapsed by mistake.

it dosnt make any sense and critics need to make their minds up, was the fire bad? or not bad allowing firemen to run around inside even though reports say they were ordered out at 11.30 am because they had no water to fight the flames etc.

somebody explain and tell you story. jesus christ somebody needs to explain the situation because it can sound a bit contridictive.

the fire and smoke were bad = why the hell would firemen risk it with no water? can you predict global collapse from the outside of the building so the bbc can report it?

[Bushwacker]

[marky 54]