BBC World reported WTC7 collapse before it happened

[brian]

I saw QuitTheirClogs picked up on it but am surprised how little attention is being given to the blatant foreknowledge that has been well known for years and how it is not being tied in with the latest example from the BBC.


The OEM Issued a WTC Collapse Warning

How did the OEM know something that firefighters in WTC 2's impact area didn't?

Why weren't all firefighters warned?

"I said, ‘Chief, they're evacuating the other building; right?’ He said, ‘No.’ . . . I said, ‘Why not? They blew up the other one.’ I thought they blew it up with a bomb. I said, ‘If they blew up the one, you know they're gonna blow up the other one.’ He said, ‘No, they're not.’ I said, ‘Well, you gotta tell them to evacuate it, because it's gonna fall down and you gotta get the guys out.’ .He said, ‘I'm just the Battalion Chief. I can't order that.’ . . . I said, ‘You got a * radio and you got a * mouth. Use the * things. Empty this * building.’ Again he said, ‘I'm just a Battalion Chief. I can't do that.’ . . . Eventually this other chief came back and said, ‘They are evacuating this tower.’ . . . And sometime after that . . . I watched the north tower fall."

[William Reynolds - Firefighter]

http://whatreallyhappened.com/oem_wtc.html

[AJ]

1) The date of first episode (although Guy Smith's remarks at the beginning are also worth noting).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6368341.stm

and

2) the end of the link (a few paragraphs from the end to be precise):

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20070228173157804

What happened *there* on the 18th February? What was that about a hit job *by* the BBC?

Have another look at the other pointers I've given, and for now, suspend belief until there's more evidence.

Good (forensic) science is disciplined paranoia

[EmptyBee]

Ok we're still left with a number of incongruities.

Let's go back to Larry Silverstein's 'Pull it'. From what we know WTC7 was evacuated at 11:30. Therefore there were no people there to 'pull' so the comment makes no sense in the context of withdrawing a non-existent firefighting team. It's still ambiguous.

Then there's the fact that FDNY chiefs apparently came to the conclusion that WTC7 was in danger of collapse due to 'appraisals' made on the structure. It's not clear from what I've read who made these appraisals. Was it FDNY themselves, or some other group attached to the OEM? Remember it was apparently the OEM that issued the belated warning to Guiliani that WTC2 was in danger of collapse.

Given NIST's difficulty in finding a probable explanation for a progressive/catastrophic collapse of WTC7, even assuming substantial (and largely uncorroborated) structural and fire damage it seems a little odd to say the least, that anyone could have expected WTC7 to collapse at all.

Now if we were to come up with a hypothesis for the demolition of WTC7 then the next question has to be 'how much time would they have needed to bring the building down?'
It's interesting to note that CD expert Mr. Jowenko (from Holland?) seemed to think that it was in fact possible to hastily bring about the collapse of WTC7 with a few dozen men with cutting torches and explosive charges.

See the Jowenko interview:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sep-HDZoEBM

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

So it seems plausible that the 'insurance job' hypothesis is possible - that given the state of WTC7, Silverstein somehow got official approval to demolish WTC7. The 'appraisals' of the building to the effect that it was expected to collapse might then have been conducted by civilian contracters - perhaps the same Controlled Demolition company that was later responsible for removing the steel at ground zero. It's interesting to note that some of the last people around WTC7 that appeared to warn of its imminent collapse in this video don't look like regular FDNY.

[Serge]

[ian neal]

This from Fintan Dunne posted FYI

http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=15935#15935

9/11 Campaigners: Beware the BBC-WTC7 Sucker Play

by Fintan Dunne, Editor http://BreakForNews.com
1 March 2007

Leading CIA-run 9/11 Fake websites are running hard with the story
that the BBC announced the colllapse of World Trace Center Building 7
well before it's eventual demise, and are touting this supposed gaffe as
a major embarassment for the official version of events, and a shot
in the arm for the 9/11 Truth movement.

Of course, it's the complete reverse, but don't expect the CIA Fakes
to point that out to 9/11 campaigners hungry for any gain in their
battle to expose the grisly truth of September 11th.

Many of the truth campaigners, already sitting on a veritable raft of
incriminating evidence that the official tale is bogus, are keen to add
what Alex Jones' Prison Planet website has called the BBC's "Psychic
clairvoyance" to their list of gripes against the mainstream version.

Writing on Prison planet, Paul Joseph Watson bluntly says: "Of course
they were told that WTC7 was coming down", and presses the BBC to
reveal the source of it's misinformation.

The BBC has responded that if they misreported, it was "an error, no
more than that". They quote a blogger saying "so the guy in the studio
didn't quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves
conspiracy..."

SWINGS AND ROUNDABOUTS

There is admittedly some wry humor in the sight of a reporter advising
that WTC7 has collapsed, while it stand proudly in the background. But
the real joke is on the truth movement.

Understanding why requires an appreciation for political dynamics,
something of which the cover-up team are keenly aware, but which
comes harder to those unversed in the slimy tricks of the trade of public
opinion management and manipulation.

The CIA Fakes, who espouse 9/11 truth -while continually undermining it,
are steadfastly keeping the movement focussed on the misdeeds of it's
"enemies" in the mainstream media and the political establishment. It's
a clever emotional tactic which neuters the effectiveness of the whole
movement.

The reason why, is known to every media manager in every political party
which has a support base larger than the relatives of it's own members.

Rhetoric about how nasty the other guys are is great fodder for the true
believer membership, but is of little use in attracting the huge group
known as the 'swing voter'. The process of public persuasion is one of
steadily winning over the middle ground. One percent here, two percent
there eventually leads to gaining a clear majority.

One of the most potent tactics in winning that ground is to try engineer
situations where the 'other guys' seem to be the extremists while one's
own party is portrayed as a bastion of sensibility. Of course the media
managers in the 'other guy' party are as aware of this and are as adept
at refusing bait and 'spinning' thing the opposite direction. In modern
politics this produces a balanced tug-of-war where gains are hard to
come by.

JOKE BACKFIRES

That kind of appeal to the middle-ground is exactly the clever game
being played by the engineers of the BBC-WTC7 'controversy'.

To the undecided, the question of the BBC calling it wrong on the WTC7
collapse seems like no big deal. Two skyscrapers had already fallen that
day, and word had been circulating for some hours prior to the BBC
misstatement that the burning Building 7 was in imminent danger of
collapse. The question of why that kind of word was circulating is
another issue entirely, by the way.

So, on the face of it, as far as the undecided are concerned, making a
big deal about the BBC error can be protrayed as the raving of fanatics.

Which is exactly how the BBC are portraying all this. Expect other media
to follow suit in due course. And expect the BBC to chalk this down in
their book of lunatic fantasies of the 9/11 truth Movement, to be
wheeled out at every suitable occasion to deem themselves as the
afforementioned bastion of sensibility.

Meanwhile, expect the CIA Fake websites to rail against the BBC and
keep pushing their demands for the organization to come clean. All of
that will build a nice file of quotable quotes from the CIA-controlled
luminaries in the 9/11 truth movement to be used by the mainstream.

Really, all this might well have been a storm in a teacup, were it not
for a couple of things used to hook the interest of the 9/11 truthers.

A video of the BBC broadcast went mising on Google, and now the BBC
has apparently 'lost' it's tapes of their own transmission. Both of
these were smokescreening lures to try convince the 9/11 campaigners
that there really was something of advantage to them being suppressed.

Actually, the whole thing, triggered by the original 'discovery' of
video of the BBC transmission, has been carefully timed to follow
hard on the heels of the BBC's own one-sided 'Conspiracy Files' episode
attacking the 9/11 Truth Movement.

It designed to copperfasten perceptions carefully built up in that
programme, that 9/11 campaigners are lunatics who tread insentively on
the memories of the bereaved while propagating wild allegations.

And so, as if on cue, in fact precisely on cue, comes a pagkage of
wild assertions wrapped in suspicious circumstance and pushed by
CIA-controlled personalities and websites --designed to prove the BBC
right in their recent demonization based on carefully selected 'facts'.

So the BBC lost their 9/11 tapes, did they? I think not. The only
thing lost in this case is yet another round of the clever courting
of middle ground opinion over the true nature of the 9/11 attacks.

But then, you hardly expect the 9/11 truth campaigners to win in a
mainstream arena where the opposition is playing one-sided, dirty
PR games and is aided and abetted by the CIA-engineered leaders and
spokerpersons for the 9/11 truth movement.

Even if ordinary 9/11 truth campaigners wise up to the latest devious
episode in this information war, it will matter little. The CIA Fakes
will shrill on relentlessly, providing more and more quotable quotes
to be used against the people they nominally represent.

USE THE INTERNET

The only arena where this battle for minds will be won is the internet.

It's as stacked a deck as the mainstream media, due to the vast army
of well-funded CIA Fake 9/11 websites. But at least the ordinary
9/11 truth campaigners can articulate a more balanced view in forums
and on blogs. Sans the simplistic booby-trapped sloganeering of their
own CIA-chosen 'leadership'.

Only by exposing the deeper manipulations such as the one detailed
here, can any ground be gained. In truth, the numbers are vast who are
deeply suspicious about the official tale of 9/11. Given the facts,
their suspicions would soon harden into convictions.

The 9/11 campaigners have a vast array of facts much more convincing
that mere bitching about the accuracty of a staged BBC error.

But, they'll never get those facts into the mainstream. Where even
as I write a travesty of fact is being passed of as a legitimate 9/11
controversy, and an elaborate farce is being played out to try hold
the line on the crumbling edifice of the official account of 9/11.

We must expose the CIA Fakes. Unless and until we do, they will
continue to play fools to the gallery of public opinion.

Spread the word.

Fintan Dunne, Editor
BreakForNews.com

Discuss or comment on this article at:
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=15935#15935

Read "The CIA Fakes":
http://www.BreakForNews.com/TheCIAInternetFakes.htm

[blackcat]

[telecasterisation]

[Mark Gobell]

BBC Covers Pearl Harbour - 2001 style.

[brian]

Fintan Dunne is either a deliberate obfuscator or is that far down the rabbit hole he is thinking like a rabbit.

That was utter nonsense.

The fact of the matter is the BBC broadcast an event that has never in history taken place BEFORE IT OCCURRED.

Not only that - the BBC footage of this historical event showed the building standing looking structurally sound and by no stretch of the imagination on fire minutes before it fell in a perfectly controlled demolition manner due supposedly to structural damage and fire.

Foreknowledge is blatant and combined with the OEM/Giulani foreknowledge damning.

Dunne wants us to concentrate on outing shills and ignore the evidence that EVERYONE can see with their own eyes. Give us a break and stick to the facts.

[Anthony Lawson]

Re: EmptyBee's Post, Thu Mar 01, 2007 10:42 pm Post subject: (no subject)

[Micpsi]

[hampton]

i agree wtc7 & silverstein is a major weak link.

but then so is the pentagon once you've watched "pilots for truth pandora's box chapter 2"

why weren't other buildings "pulled", or were they?

it's strange, the insurance biz normally gives you a hard time over a few quid but ask for a few billion and they don't seem to care.

[hampton]

according to breakfornews.com we're all cia!

it's amazing that any high profile truthers & insiders who dare to speak the truth are cia!

[AJ]

Given the hostility towards the BBC (in the wake of their 18th February programme), surely more caution is warranted given the doubts about authenticity of the source file(s) (see my earlier posts).

The original file(s) at the heart of this issue haven't been authenticated by the BBC and it's still unclear a) who uploaded them, b) when they were uploaded, and c) that they haven't been edited. How do we know that the original 1GB BBC file wasn't audio/video dubbed/spliced just to discredit the BBC? Listen to the exchange between anchor and reporter and just ask yourself *whether* it could have been malciously edited. For a start, the NY scene, the reporter's piece to the anchor, and the 'Live' text bar might be separate elements.

Anyone really interested in pursuit of truth would press the BBC for authentication of the 1GB source file, suspending any inferences based on clip content until a) the BBC authenticated it and b) the query about possible xml file edit on the 18th was resolved by staff at the archive site.

As to the more recently discovered BBC NEWS 24 clip, the fact that it has a time-stamp doesn't authenticate it.

[EmptyBee]

[EmptyBee]

[guzman]

Hi, I'm new to the forum. I tried to post the following on the BBC blog but it didn't get through:

[FintanDunne]

9/11 Campaigners:
Beware the BBC-WTC7 Sucker Play

by Fintan Dunne, Editor http://BreakForNews.com
1 March 2007

Duplicate. See:
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=58512#58512

[EmptyBee]

[blackcat]

So many words. So little said.

[fixuplooksharp]

fintan is an iiiiiiidiiaaaaattttttttttttttt

[Eckyboy]

If it is indeed possible to have rigged and brought down Building 7 in the space of a few hours it would have been sloppy and rushed. The actual collapse of Building 7 was the neatest and most controlled demolition I have ever seen.

[EmptyBee]

[Eckyboy]

Controlled Demolition Inc were only cleaning up their own dirty work Emptybee. More likely to be messy is also like saying that it was likely Building 7 would collapse when there is zero reason it should have without displaying any signs of a normal collapsing building like sagging etc. Check 100 standard controlled demolitions from around the world and see how many were as neat and tidy as WTC7. A professional job from a professional company who are the governments finest.

[EmptyBee]

[Eckyboy]

I have seen no sagging damage to Building 7 and if there is a picture or footage of it it has never been released to the public. Raging fires do not bring a steel framed building down neatly into it's own footprint. Fireman testimony or not without any evidence to back it up it cannot be taken as fact. It is the reason I have a problem with the Scott Forbes comment about the WTC power down and the reason why much of the 911 commission report is nonsense as it relies on single source testimony without any other sources or corroborating evidence to back it up.

[EmptyBee]

[tomi01uk]

To Whom It May Concern at the BBC,

I have a suggestion, it's not too outside the perameters of consideration. I hope it will be considered by those who may be able to make constructive use of it, so please forward this to those parties if this suggestion passes the judgement of those initially reading this email.

If BBC is truely not a puppet media machine and is capable since 2004 of again produceing and airing documentaries such as "The Power of Nightmares", it can surely prove it by using this suggestion. I also think my suggestion would add higher interest value to all viewers.

Here's my suggestion: Take a choice selection of people from the 911 Blogger and the British site http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/ and use them as investigative journalists along with another crew and go after certain issues brought up by the 911 truth movement. You would then have a very unbalanced and much more unchallengeable platform in order to do some serious reporting on the findings. This is novel and in view of the new media outlets we have today, such as those mentioned above, incorporating them into the fold will add the credibility and interest necessary to bring to light the truth on this very serious subject.

By the way, my husband who has always been on the fence with the 991 controversy has been very much changed in his perspective by viewing this excellent short clip showing explosions and relatively little known reports by the FBI. Here is the video. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5182535448932065917&hl=en .

Yours truly,

[blackcat]

Any damage to WTC7 still requires explanation. How can a building falling by gravity (WTC 1 or 2) hurl so much debris with such force that it smashes into WTC 7 and causes what turns out to be the complete destruction of WTC 7? Remember it was hundreds of feet away and there were towers in between. Also buildings adjacent to WTC 7 (either side) suffered such minor damage they were up and running within weeks. It stinks!

[Eckyboy]

I'm impressed Emptybee you have obviously done your homework and make some great points. What this movement needs is people who look at all sides and then weigh up the evidence fairly and impartially. We need VERIFICATION more then anything else though and without this numerous oddities and coincidences can just be explained away by both parties.

I don't know if anyone has ever suggested this before but what if structural engineers were handed information about Building 7 and how it collapsed but the details of the building and how it was related to 911 were not mentioned. Would their conclusions support the government version which does not allow the controlled demolition theory to even be considered or would they agree the building was brought down in a Controlled demolition?