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.
posted by Mike @ 7:14 PM
8 comments
8 Comments:
Nice try. But your time zone map is for eastern standard time. 9/11 happened during daylight savings time, and since england doesn't do daylight savings time, they were 6 hours ahead of NY time, not 5 hours, so they actually reported the collapse AFTER it happened. Case solved.
Also, Mike, when news is breaking like crazy on a day like 9/11, it would be easy to slip up and say that wtc7 had collapsed when ALL the news stations were reporting that there was the danger of other buildings collapsing all day long. This is no big deal.
Another thing about inaccurate reporting: I was in NYC, a few blocks from the WTC when the bombing happened in 1993. The first reports of THAT was that there was a fire in the PATH Train tunnel. THAT certainly wasn't what happened! News on a day like that is so fluid and continually flowing in, that they don't always report accurately. Poo.
since england doesn't do daylight savings time, they were 6 hours ahead of NY time, not 5 hours, so they actually reported the collapse AFTER it happened. Case solved.
Actually, you're wrong. British Summer Time is the same thing as our Daylight Savings Time, and it ended on the 28th of Oct. in 2001. Therefore, Britain was 5 hours ahead of NY time, as I stated.
Case NOT solved.
when news is breaking like crazy on a day like 9/11, it would be easy to slip up and say that wtc7 had collapsed when ALL the news stations were reporting that there was the danger of other buildings collapsing all day long.
WTC 3, 4, 5, and 6 were all severely damaged, but did not collapse. In fact, they were demolished professonally during the post 9-11 cleanup.
The only buildings that collapsed on 9-11 were WTC 1, 2, and 7 ... and they all fell in the same exact manner: Uniform, at the rate of free-fall, and in their own footprint. Given that WTC 7 had no visible damage (much unlike the EXTREME damage done to the others I mentioned), it stands to reason that if there was to be a mistake, that it would have been about one of these other buildings.
The first reports of THAT was that there was a fire in the PATH Train tunnel. THAT certainly wasn't what happened!
Coming to a false conclusion or reporting on the wrong event in the middle of a crisis is not the same a predicting an event in the middle of a crisis.
Bear in mind that the BBC reports indicate that WTC 7 had collaps-ed ... past tense ... and that Aaron Brown was about to report that WTC 7 had collapsed until he noticed that it was still standing, and he changed the wording as he went along. This indicates that a report went out to all the newswires that WTC 7 had collapsed (past tense, remember?), which would have been a forecasted event.
Mike, my point was that with all the different rumors that fly around on a day like that, it would be quite easy to say, We just got a report the WTC7 just collapsed. Then, the embarassment comes when they realize they received bad information. It's not a prediction, it's just bad reporting when every network wants to be the first to break news, this happens all the time. I really don't see why this, in your opinion, means that they (mere newscasters) were given the knowledge of what was GOING TO happen in the future. Why?
Oh, and my bad on the time zone thing.
Also, that clip with the time stamp is horseshit! I could do that! Pop in a tape that shows the NYSE at 3:45PM. Add audio of me (after I find out the Closing numbers) and Have me say, "The Dow Jones Industrials lost 34 points on the day.
Then I put the video up on youtube. Conspiracies of insider info on fixing the market ensue? No. Probably not.
Aaron Brown says the buildings MAY collapse, so does the title under him. It says WTC7 on fire, may (MAY) collapse. That's exactly what I remember from watching wall-to-wall coverage of 9/11 all day and into the night. They had to clear the people out of search and rescue SEVERAL times that day and night and days after, because they were afraid of buildings around the wreckage would fall, and parts of the pile could cave in. They were freaking out about that well into the night. No one knew how badly the surrounding building were structurally. Of course Aaron Brown was ready to say the building collapsed. In fact, his exact words are:
"...building 7 in the wtc complex is on fire and has either collapsed or is collapsing..."
He used the word EITHER because he DIDN'T KNOW WHAT HAPPEND, if anything. He ends up saying there's a fire and the building MAY collapse. Foreknowledge my ass! That's CRAZY.
And if you're wondering why 3 different places "predicted" this collapse, it's because news stations piggy back on each other all the time. Ever see a news room? They have, like, 50 TVs or so tuned into news and other stuff all over the world, so if one gets faulty info, they all jump on the same mistake and it gets said on LIVE tv! They make mistakes all the time on live tv, and they were more prone to rumors and whatever else during a 9/11 event, because no one had ever seen this before and there was shock, followed by everyone being on edge wondering if more was to come. So reporting that a building collapsed on 9/11 around 4 in the afternoon makes sense to me since they were talking about the possibility of other buildings collapsing for over 7 hours at that point. It was just a matter of time.
OK, I'm done for real.
Post a Comment
<< Home