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.
posted by Mike @ 9:14 AM
13 comments
13 Comments:
Photoshop, perhaps?
Sorry, but it's easier to believe than conspiracy . . .
Unless photoshop is the conspiracy!
Oh. Here's an easy answer:
They're BRITISH. BRIT. ISH.
But for you, I'll spell it out: British people would GET THE NAME OF THE TOWERS MIXED UP. ALSO THEY WERE AN EMPIRE AND AREN'T ANY MORE.
Did you know that the Rockefeller Family had some executives that were a big part of the Salomon Brothers Company? So....if the Rockefellers are in cahoots with Bush and his other Secret Society friends, then why would they blow up their buddies?
1) Photoshopping a picture is one thing. You can't photoshop a video.
2) The BBC actually responded to the video, and have said nothing about the video being a fraud. Not calling the video a fraud is a strong indication to its authenticity.
3) If you watch the video, they reference the collapse of the twin towers, meaning they didn't get those confused with some other building. Since they weren't talking about the twin towers, they were talking about some OTHER building that collapsed. The Salomon Brothers bldg (WTC7) is the only other building to collapse that day and they mendioned it BE NAME as having collapsed well in advance to its having done so. Either someone told them ahead of time, and they throught it had already happened (indicating forknowledge) or it was scheduled to fall and they simply made the report too soon. Either way, the official story falls completely apart, since according to FEMA, WTC 7 fell as a result of fire (something that has "officially" happened only 3 times in the history of steel framed buildings ... all on 9-11-01) they wouldn't have been expecting the building to fall. Parts may crumble, perhaps, and you can almost see that happening, but symetrical, uniformed implosion collapsing at the rate of free-fall? You can't predict that.
Oh, I know ... she's psychic. I'll bet that's easier to believe than conspiracy, too.
4) Rockefellers, eh? That actually makes the whole mess even more suspicious, not less. I don't care if anyone agrees with me on Bush and co., but the Rockefellers are E-V-I-L.
Mike,
Here's the thing. I agree with you that there's an aweful lot of strangeness surrounding the events. I agree with you that the implosion/uniform collapse is awefully awefully fishy. Okay?
But this report is one of those things that is just too complicated. The simple solution is that the lady just isn't familiar with the bildings and got the names mixed up. Yes, a coincidence that in her name mixup she would name the only other building to collapse, but a coincidence does not a conspiracy make.
Otherwise the conspiracy has to be so SO big that the BBC reporters are INVOLVED. And that's so big that it's just one teensy step from EVERYONE IN THE WHOLE WORLD BEING 'IN' ON the CONSPIRACY EXCEPT YOU.
Poor poor mike. They told me about it but not you.
Ben Said: But this report is one of those things that is just too complicated. The simple solution is that the lady just isn't familiar with the bildings and got the names mixed up. Yes, a coincidence that in her name mixup she would name the only other building to collapse, but a coincidence does not a conspiracy make.
Ben, I agree with you, that coincidence doesn't make a conspiracy. That's been one of my lines for an awful long time. :)
However, the coincidence is a bit more complex. If she was confusing the Salomon Brothers Building with some other building, which other building could she have been commenting on that had just collapsed that was not the Twin Towers?
We know she isn't talking about the Twin Towers because in the video, they reference the collapse of the Twin Towers as having already happened.
No other building collapsed that day, so which building was she confusing?
Since a mix-up isn't the simplest explanation (it can't be because no building had collapsed yet to be mistakenly called the Salomon Brothers Building), what is?
To hit on a point made earlier, there is speculation that the video may be fake. Here is the problem with this assertion.
If the video posted on youtube is fake, then where is the original?The easiest means of discounting doctored video evidence as a fake is to produce the original.
Should be pretty simple.
The BBC claims they "lost" all of their video files covering 9-11. ALL of them??!!? That's like CBS, 5 years after the Jap assault on Pearl Harbor claiming that they lost all of their footage of the assault. Not gonna happen, and something like that happening would have been big news in and of itself.
Ben,
Also ... if it is a mix up, and she was talking about some other building, then the coincidence expands even further since she mentioned that the building was 47 stories tall (which it was).
Got the building by name, got the height correct, but reported it before the fact.
Either the footage is a fake (possibility which can be argued with presentation of the original footage), or it is authentic and she was reporting on the event prior to its having happened. Those are the only two explanations.
The question is, if the footage is authentic, how did she report on something that hadn't happened yet?
Mike--
Dude, your wacky conspiracy theories never cease to interest me. I have yet to have a strong opinion of any of them, one way or another, but they still interest me.
Glad to know you've joined the league of blogs!
--Your Bro,
Joe
You can't photoshop a video.
I thank Bob for that clip proving Mike's statement wrong.
Also, why do we give the BBC any credit? I suppose you also buy into that French guy that wrote a book that states the Pentagon was hit with a missile. Idiot french.
Also, WTC7 wasn't the only other building to collapse besides the Twin Towers.
Mike said, "If the video posted on youtube is fake, then where is the original?The easiest means of discounting doctored video evidence as a fake is to produce the original."
What? That wouldn't prove any thing. Who the heck cares enough to go to the BBC and find the originial. The whole point of faking a video, is that you can take elements from SEVERAL videos to create a fake. Bleh.
Why do you want to believe the BBC "footage" anyway? Or any of this 9/11 stuff, for that matter.
Bridge,
My next Blog post addresses the whole fake vs. not fake footage issue rather conclusively.
As far as BBC is concerned, it wouldn't matter WHO made the claim, the fact that the collapse of WTC 7 was reported in advance of its actual collapse is heavily significant. The fact that I have now found 3 seperate sources announcing the collapse of WTC 7 before it happened indicates forknowledge of the event ... one that was HIGHLY unlikely.
In regards to why I "want" to believe any of this stuff, I might ask you why you want to believe the official version, especially when it flies directly in the face of reason. I don't "want" to believe any of this and more than I "want" to believe that there are criminals in the world who d bad things, or any more than I "want" to believe that abortion is murder and that there are doctors out there committing mass murder throughout this country every day.
If you saw an autopsy report of a young man who had died as a result of decapitation, would you not question the "official" story that he died of natural causes (as in a specific case related to Gov. Bill Clinton)?
Mike, are your other sources from the internet too? I mean, really. You can't believe all the bullshit that's out there. Were there not airplanes that slammed into these buildings? Also, keep in mind what I said earlier, WTC7 wasn't the only other building to collapse besides the towers. I think there were at least 3, possibly 4 after the towers came down. What would be the point of doing all that? I've yet to see any real proof that these other buildings were demolished. So, yeah, I'm going with the story I saw. Freeking terrorists took out the towers, and that pile in the WTC site burned and smoldered for WEEKS. All you need is for steel to get weak, bend and you have entire structural failure, i.e. collapse. It's not as complicated as these conspiracy nuts want everyone to believe.
The owners of BLD 7 in the WTC have said the building was "pulled" or demolitioned. The announcement and BBC is not a mystery. What is a mystery is what company prepared the building 7 for demolition--when was it done--and who paid for it. The fact that this evidence has not been pursued, or anyone interviewed on TV for the public is all strong evidence of something is wrong in NYC and Washington.
Post a Comment
<< Home