Pre-knowledge of WTC 7 Confirmed

Continuing from my previous post regarding a BBC reporter announcing the collapse of WTC 7 over 20 minutes prior to its actual collapse, there is now cross-referenced proof that a report did indeed go out announcing the collapse of WTC 7 as much as an hour before it actually did fall.

The question is, how did they know?

It has been asserted that the video I wrote about in my previous post may have been somehow faked. If it is faked, then all the BBC had to do was produce the original footage to denounce the claim. However, instead of producing any original footage, they claimed that they had lost ALL of their video footage of 9-11 (which is highly doubtful) and referred to their sister station BBC channel 24.

So, in searching for BBC channel 24 and WTC 7 footage, I found this clip announcing the collapse of WTC 7 with a time stamp of 21:54. 21:54, of course, is 24 hour time for 9:54 PM, and being that England is 5 hours ahead of NY time, that places the report at 4:54 ... 26 minutes before the actual collapse of the building (WTC 7 collapsed at 5:20 PM).

But that wasn't all that I found. In case anyone was so skeptical as to believe that that footage, too was doctored, I found this video footage of Aaron Brown, from CNN News announcing that "we are getting information that building 7 ... is on fire (looks down at his prompter) and has either collapsed or is collapsing ..." I would like to point out that WTC 7 was prominently displayed in the background behind him, and the camera even switched to a closeup shot of WTC 7 standing straight as an arrow.

Since the prompter was obviously feeding him incorrect information, he immediately switched gears by saying, "And I—I—You, to be honest, can see these pictures more clearly than I, but building number 7, one of the buildings in this very large complex of buildings that is that is the trade center."

Clearly, Brown, slicker than the BBC reporter, caught the errors in the script during live coverage and revised his words, saying instead-- as he looked at the standing structure:
"And now we are told that there’s a fire there and that building may collapse as well as you can see."

And the time of the report? The clip ends with him giving the time as 4:15 Eastern Daylight Time.

So ... we have three clips from three different sources announcing the collapse of WTC 7 about 20 minutes, 26 minutes, and about an hour and 5 minutes ahead of time. With the extreme collateral damage to WTC 3, 5, and 6 it stands to reason that if there should have been any false reports regarding the collapses of ANY of the other buildings, it would be one of them. As it stands, what we do know is that a report went out well in advance of the collapse of WTC 7.

The question is, how did they know,and who sent out the report?

When one considers the nature of the collapse (straight down at the rate of freefall), the Silverstein quote claiming that WTC 7 was "pulled", and the pre-reports of the collapse of WTC 7, reason would suggest that it was a planned demolition.

BBC reports WTC collapse 20 min before actual collapse

This can definitely be marked under the "WTF??!!?" file.

An astounding video shows the BBC reporting on the collapse of WTC Building 7 over twenty minutes before it fell at 5:20pm on the afternoon of 9/11. The incredible footage shows BBC reporter Jane Standley talking about the collapse of the Salomon Brothers Building while it remains standing in the live shot behind her head (as you watch the video, you can see WTC 7 [aka Salomon Brothers Building] clearly has not collapsed).
Minutes before the actual collapse of the building is due, the feed to the reporter mysteriously dies.

Here, you can see the arrow in the background, pointing out WTC7 while she is discussing it's having collapsed.

The fact that the BBC reported on the collapse of Building 7 over twenty minutes in advance of its implosion obviously provokes a myriad of questions as to how they knew it was about to come down when the official story says its collapse happened accidentally as a result of fire damage and debris weakening the building's structure (even though WTC 5 and WTC 6 sustained so much damage, you can see gaping holes all the way through the centers and they had to be bulldozed and WTC 7 had NO visible exterior damage whatsoever).

But what I find to be of particular interest is the fact that the reporter's signal gets weak (as if being hit with interference ... being jammed perhaps) just 5 minutes before the collapse was to ensue.

Best I can figure is that the collapse (which no doubt was the result of demolition charges) was leaked and reported on too soon. The BBC reporter, not being familiar with the area didn't know which building was WTC 7, and so reported on the smoke she saw in the background, thinking it was from the building she was talking about..

Test

This is a test of the internet blogging system. This is only a test.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA...

This has been a test of the internet blogging system. Had this been a real blog, the annoying display of the letter "A" would have been followed by something worth reading.

We now return you to do whatever the hell you want. I have no hold over you.




Why are you still reading this? Get out of here already!