CNN also jumped the gun w/ WTC7 'collapse'

The BBC footage is getting a lot of attention, as it should. Here's a clip of CNN saying building 7 "has either collapsed or is collapsing" an hour early. Strange thing to predict given that steel buildings don't fall down like that - -


That pretty much confirms people knew 7 was coming down.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

Weird thing is...

this CNN report is at 4:10pm, the BBC reports 50mins later - give or take - that the building had collapsed, 20+mins before it actually did. It's just a very strange situation.

I really wanted to get my hands on the Fox & CBS links for this time that were strangely missing from the archive. I spent quite a while at the archive itself looking for these files, they weren't there. Must be something pretty damning on those clips.

here's almost half. 40+ GB

Do You Think...

Because of the damage Building 7 sustained, that people were telling other people that they thought it was going to come down? I seem to remember building 7 was leaning. And does the fact that they thought it was coming down automatically mean it was "Controlled Demolition"? I don't think so.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

We certainly can't ignore the damage sustained

However, "odd" does not begin to describe these media reports. How many skyscrapers burned themselves into a freefall implosion, in the history of steel-reinforced skyscrapers? So, what is the precedent for reporting a burning building of this type in terms of imminent collapse?

And why did the BBC say it the building had already collapsed, as their reporter stood in front of it intact?

It's possible that someone on the ground simply misrepresented the story to the TV networks; but I must admit there are other pieces of evidence that suggest this was not the case (molten steel, freefall collapse, etc.).

The newspeople weren't

The newspeople weren't likely to be too critical of reports of the imminent collapse of WTC 7 because two other buildings had strangely collapsed that day. Everybody was through the looking glass by the time WTC 7 came down.

What we need to find out is who was behind these reports and what was their criteria to judge that WTC 7 was about to collapse. Also was the information behind these reports shared with FEMA and NIST? Finally what's the hold up with the NIST report?

I keep getting voted down

... on the other blog for even SUGGESTING that the BBC got the report wrong based on the rumors of an imminent collapse.

It is a DOCUMENTED FACT that talk of a collapse started circulating an hour before the actual event.

this does NOT mean that i am debunking controlled demolition. in fact - i believe that warnings were put out before 'pulling it' to clear the area and lay the foundation for the official story that Building 7 collapsed from damage.

Be that as it may - CLEARLY the rumor started an hour before the collapse - and the BBC got it wrong.

i would like someone to give me an alternative PLAUSABLE explaination for this video - before voting down honest speculation.

People were being told that...

Building 7 was going to be "Brought Down" on purpose between 12-1 p.m...

-Guns & Butter Radio interview - April 27th 2005:
Hosted by Bonnie Falkner
Guest: Indira Singh (Ground Zero Emergency Worker)

Bonnie: How long did you work as an emergency medical technician and exactly what is it that you were doing (at ground zero)?

Indira: ...when I got there we were setting up triage sites (at ground zero), close, very close to the area. The triage site that I was setting up was behind, well, to the east of Building 7 where Building 7 came down...
...we were setting up triages as close to the pile as possible… so what we were doing was setting up different kinds of stations… IV stations, cardiac stations, wound stations, burn stations ...just trying to have an organized space. What happened with that particular triage site is that pretty soon afternoon, after mid-day on 9/11 we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down... I do believe that they brought Building 7 down... By noon or one o'clock they told us we had to move from that triage site up to Pace University a little further away because Building 7 was going to come down or being brought down.

Bonnie: Did they actually use the word "brought down" and who was it that was telling you this?

Indira: The fire department... the fire department and they did use the word "we're going to have to bring it down."

Excerpt from above is heard approximately ten minutes into the interview.

"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!"
-Dan Wallace

we know foreknowledge of the collapse exists

we have witnesses who were there who tell us that the word on the street was that a collapse was imminent. we have video to PROVE this.

its amazing how incredibly NARROW people are when discussing some issues.

the question is whether the BBC jumped the gun and misreported the collapse EARLY based on these rumors.

i do not need to see any more proof of controlled demolition. it is not pertinent to the issue at hand.

It's pertinent to the timeline

People were told it was going to be brought down on purpose before 1 p.m..

And why do you keep making excuses for BBC? They're fecking pigs. I bet you believe they "lost" their 9/11 tapes too. Ever think that your comments are being voted down for a reason, John - because you're wrong on this one?

"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!"
-Dan Wallace

Perhaps you could cool off, stallion4?

I don't think John is making excuses for BBC. I think he's exercising a degree of caution regarding this material.

No he's being a pest & baby for calling people "narrow" and such

Well it's obvious that John's the person who's "narrow" on this issue.

To me I think it's likely he's lashing out because he's not getting all the attention on 911blogger the past few days, with his highly publicized (staged?) feud with Nico Haupt.

Well the fact is, there is no downside to this Building 7 exposure. I understand you're a member of the John A fan club and all, but kindly STFU with your "cool off "comment. You got on my shit list once before, simuvac. If you'd like to escalate things between us, keep talking smack.

"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!"
-Dan Wallace

And now the personal attacks


That's nothin', John

"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!"
-Dan Wallace


is not a popularity contest.

Furthermore - i cannot be wrong because i have not endorsed any one position. you seem to simply object to even CONSIDERING different viewpoints.

i can remember when people were foaming at the mouth over 911 Eyewitness - claiming any debate over the authenticity of its claims was a betrayal of the movement.

we now know that 911 Eyewitness was produced by the same person who now claims mini-nukes were used on 911, who shares an IP address with Nico Haupt, and who advocates space beams and no planes theories.

it seems like people get EXCITED when some new piece of evidence comes along - and IMMEDIATELY treat it like the 911 Rosetta Stone before taking the time to carefull vet the evidence and consider the source and carefully consider what the truth of the matter really is.

i am not defending the BBC. the fact that you FRAME this discussion in such a way is very immature.

This is a very important piece of evidence - and i am frankly tired of the childish emotionalism that people display when THEY DECIDE what the truth is - and demand that everyone line up and shut up - effectively shutting down all debate and sharing of ideas. That's not a truth movement. That's fundamentalism.









mass emails to nist lets do it

They were just trying to plant the seed in peoples head that it was falling so it wouldnt be a big deal when it fell . if you look at the building from that angle it looked fine there should be a mass email of this shit to nist headquaters lets get blog going with there emails and lets do it help

Devil's Advocate, pt 2.

Isn't it possible that WTC 7 was actually in bad shape, such bad shape that it appeared a collapse was imminent?

A lot of firefighters and others in the area are on the record stating so.

Why are we ignoring their statements?

Battalion Chief John Norman
Special Operations Command - 22 years

From there, we looked out at 7 World Trade Center again. You could see smoke, but no visible fire, and some damage to the south face. You couldn’t really see from where we were on the west face of the building, but at the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged.


Captain Chris Boyle
Engine 94 - 18 years

Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.


...Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did.


///////////////////// - $1 DVDs shipped - email for info

We are ignoring these statements

because the physical evidence unequivocally suggests controlled demolition. Either one can be correct, but not both.

And as it's practically impossible that it wasn't a demolition...

I'd ask to the devil's advocate...

Would you care to explain to me the total, free fall speed and symetrical collapse of this bulding?

And by the way, could you explain the perfect diagonal cut on the support column (saw picture of it here a couple of days ago)?

The truth has its advocate too. Wink

The DA would prob reply....

that the building was doing things you can't observe on the videos and the only significant part you see is the outer area of the building being pulled down by the force of what was going on inside and the weakening of the support.

it'd probably go something like that...

DHS says:
I'll wait until NIST publishes their report, and let those more qualified than me to scrutinize it, do so.

///////////////////// - $1 DVDs shipped - email for info

Yes, I'm sure NIST is going to

declare WTC7 an act of treason.

Are the loose change guys

picking this stuff up for the final cut? Essential material here!!! (including bbc clip)

With all the stuff coming out lately

they'll be hard pressed to keep it shorter than LOTR.