The Famous BBC WTC7 Video viewable at LiveLeak

Direct download, 911podcasts mirror:

Edit(s): Changed title and text to "Famous" from "Infamous" - added Digg for PrisonPlanet story.

PLEASE NOTE: This is NOT a tacit or overt endorsement of the veracity of the claims made in the linked video by

Please stop submitting blogs on this! Message received!

You can currently view the video at LiveLeak:

Let's proceed with caution, this has all the earmarks of being too good to be true. Please reference the comments by "911veritas" in the comments section at the bottom of Drakey's original blog, as I believe this is his video, and he gives some background as to how he came to his conclusions.

Would have linked this earlier, but somebody said "pull it" over at - and I couldn't tell what was in the video. The LiveLeak link is seemingly stable. This is also why Drakey's blog post wasn't bumped to the front page.

UK residents should be demanding a video with a time-stamp from the BBC to verify these claims.

Here is Paul Watson and Alex Jones' cautious report;

BBC Reported Building 7 Had Collapsed 20 Minutes Before It Fell

Paul Watson & Alex Jones / Prison Planet | February 26, 2007 (UPDATED 3:00PM CST)

An astounding video uncovered from the archives today 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 a BBC reporter talking about the collapse of the Salomon Brothers Building while it remains standing in the live shot behind her head.

Minutes before the actual collapse of the building is due, the feed to the reporter mysteriously dies.

This amazing clip is currently carried on Google Video and you can watch it above but many expect it to be removed shortly. We are attempting to download an original copy from the source.

Although there is no clock on the footage, the source claims the report was given at 4:57pm EST, 23 minutes before Building 7 collapsed at 5:20pm. While the exact time of the report cannot be confirmed at present, it is clear from the footage that the reporter is describing the collapse of WTC 7 while it clearly remains standing behind her in the live shot.

Here are some further screenshots from the video. (...)

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.


Carpenter Marlene Cruz Proves Pre-planted Explosives in WTC

On September 12, 2001, Peter Jennings interviews Marlene Cruz, a carpenter injured in one of the pre-collapse explosions in the WTC sub-basement level B long before the planes hit the towers. She was the first casualty of 9/11 admitted at Bellevue Hospital. Cruz is a living witness whose testimony proves that pre-planted explosives were used to weaken the foundations of the towers as part of a well-planned controlled demolition.


There are numerous diggs on this same subject. Too bad they cannot be combined.

I wonder how well the Bush crime family is sleeping tonight. Members of the whitehouse "in-crowd" do seem tense these days.

High Quality DivX of Version 2 (450MB) - NOW AVAILABLE

Just finished version 2.

More info in this blog post :

Very tired, so I'll be brief...

New info

- Timings now within +/- 60 seconds margin of error.
- DVD Quality
- Contains info how to verify, timings etc.
- Looks a bit tidier
- Has host and reporter names

CLICK PICTURE to download file at (25 second wait time)

Get it here     ------->

Hope you all like it, if you do, please feel free to upload to Google video, youtube, liveleak etc... Share, torrent, binary newgroups.... whatever you can....


uploaded it to google again..

lets see how long it lasts :-)

a little something I noticed; is spurts of dust/smoke appear from top of building in the middle - right where the kink happens - 16mins 3 secs in...

Capitol Hill Blue

This story is starting to break...

correction: ITS EXPLODING!!!

what I said

Hey, this Capitol Hill Blue article makes a connection between the Jesus tomb and Bldg. 7 stories, which is what I was alluding to last night here on blogger. Could the author have read my post? Many of you may be aware of the theory that Bush and Christianity must be discredited in order to move us forward to the New World Order. What a coinkydink that these two stories break on the same day. I wonder if will have anything to say about this when they publish at the end of the week. This is a religious website that discusses bible prophesy, NWO, 9/11, Illuminati, depleted uranium, etc. This fits right in with what they have been saying.

I have seen the Video: This looks Legitimate

You can see a woman who reports that she is in New York. In the background is a "live" shot of Ground Zero. She is shown in several live clips.

In one of them you can clearly see in the text:
"The 47 storey Salomon Brothers building [aka WTC7] close to the WTC has also collapsed"

In the video you see the woman talking and WTC7 STILL STANDING... on LIVE TV.

I guess Silverstein told the BBC what was going to happen a little early.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

The implications are incredible..!

Just think, here they are reporting that something has happened which, if the official story is to be believed was an accidental occurance, a full 20 minutes EARLY!!!

And this when never before in history, except for the twin towers, had a steel structured building EVER collapsed due to fire.


How is the BBC going to respond to this?

Can can the MSM not cover it, this story.

What an amazing story. Of course it's legit. The woman was talking to the anchor, with WTC7 right behind her head in the background.

Some sceptic cried "BLUE SCREEN" but that can be ruled out by simply analyzing the film.

This is wonderful!

THANK YOU BBC! And thank you whoever discovered this!

to play devil's advocate

there were many reports throughout the day that wtc7 was in bad shape and could come down

with the confusion it is possible that the bbc reporter was misinformed about it, as there was worry that other buildings in the area might collapse.

like i said, devil's advocate... this can just be chalked up to ill reporting unless we press to find out who made the initial report and where it came from.

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

That is the ONLY way they can spin it.

Sure looks like they were working from a script however, and got the news too early!

or the demo job was due around...

5pm and for whatever reason ran late, the fact is he says "Just in", which to me implies on a wire or press release system or similar...

Who knows.

I am 100% certain of the validity and timings that the BBC reported "LIVE" at 5pm Eastern Time on 9/11 that WTC7 had collapsed (within +/- 60 seconds margin of error)

I have created a V2 film, which I'll somehow make available online, with instructions how to verify, tidied up the text and the timings following hours and hours of verification and triple checking.

Everyone can validate this data by visiting the following two blog posts.



I have been through the entire BBC day (started at 9:16 Eastern Time) and they have shots through that open window throughout the day and into the night also.

This is 100% legit, verify it for yourselves.

Best wishes

I agree it could have been a mistake

someone says "WTC7 is going to collapse"

And people in the studio think they heard that WTC7 has collapsed.

Remember, it wasn't common knowledge that there had been no steel structure building that collapsed due to fire until we all started researching 9/11. Probably not even among firefighters. So I think it can be (at least will be after the fact) explained away as confusion about what kind of shape WTC7 was in.

News editor at The Watchman Report,, delivering 9/11 truth to the Christian community

The point is WTC-7 was in fine shape until it was imploded in

a controlled demolition. It was 350 feet from the nearest tower, had some superficial damage from debris propelled out of the exploding tower, and it had flames in 5 or 6 of its 2,000+ windows. So why was there any "confusion" about what shape it was in before they obviously "pulled-it"???

through all that smoke they

through all that smoke they couldn't be confident that the damage was just superficial, nor could they say, there was only fire coming out of 5 or 6 windows. There was an ongoing fire and a large amount of smoke coming from a damaged building.

No one on 9/11/01 in the afternoon would say, "that building is in fine shape".

The reason its obvious that they pulled it is HOW it came down, as a controlled demolition.

Not much smoke coming from the pile...

If you skip to 4mins 33secs into the video...

as Philip Hayton, the London BBC host is saying... "We've got some news JUST coming in"

The background picture is not live, but you can get an idea how much smoke IS coming from the pile.

WTC6 front center, wind blowing north-north-east

Best wishes

I understand the caution, but

I finally got a chance to see the video myself. Thanks, PrisonPlanet.

I think it is good to be cautious, but these reporters seem completely certain that the building is down. Usually during breaking stories, the reporters qualify early information with phrases like "There are reports that...", or "We are getting word that...". BBC doesn't use anything of the sort here. (Note that they are more careful about the number of injured policemen.)

Remember also that the time is several hours after the attacks, and although news stations are still scrambling, it's not like the chaos at the beginning.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month


The reporters do NOT refer to a WTC 7 collapse at any point as probable, imminent, possible, etc. They say that it HAS collapsed, numerous times, as does the graphic.

In the same report, the woman DOES qualify her statements about numbers of injured emergency personnel, saying the numbers are unconfirmed.

To say that they were treating such a HUGE aspect of the story so carelessly while treating another aspect so carefully... it would defy belief.

As long as the video is genuine, I don't think it even matters what the time stamp says. They obviously are unfamiliar with WTC 7 to the extent that they don't even recognize it in their own shot as they describe it as having already collapsed.

The video is only uninteresting if it can be proven to be a fake, and it certainly appears pretty genuine. I'd like to hear what the reporter recalls about it.

We need to find what the

We need to find what the source of report was and what criteria they were using to determine that the building would collapse. Another good question would be why didn't the experts who could see that WTC 7 was about to collapse explain the collapse mechanism to FEMA?

Deja Vu all over again

I share Mike Ruppert's distrust of video evidence without a clear chain of custody. No matter how good it looks, you can't take it to the DA.

However, this harkens back to the notorious gaffe by the Christchurch (New Zealand) Star in 1963. They published the detailed articles about Oswald's personal history intended for 23Nov63 US publication on that same calendar date in New Zealand - on the other side of the date line. Unfortunately, when the papers hit the Christchurch streets, Dallas police did not even know the identity of the man they had arrested. So maybe this BBC gaffe story is also true.

Why was it presented with caution?

And referred to as the "infamous" BBC video?

Why the crappy presentation of this on the front page?


You're right.

Dropping the infamous, but still proceeding with caution!

Could you jazz it up a bit?

Maybe add some pics? Screenshots?

Good call

Good call on dropping the "infamous". This is no time to be glib.


Let me use Jones and Watson's words...

"While the exact time of the report cannot be confirmed at present..."

Nobody wishes to be sandbagged.

exact time?

BBC reported the collapse at least 15 minutes earlier - and wtc7 is standing in the background - so how on earth could this story be something else than THEEE HOT NEWS?

How is the time relevent?

if the reporters are shooting LIVE footage out the window showing WTC 7 still standing, while at the same time describing it as collapsed??

Why the hang-up on the time? It seems to me the primary questions are:

1) Is the footage genuine?

2) Is the scene through the window blue-screened? It looks completely live, to me, and I think any video expert should be able to tell.

I think the exact time is almost a red-herring. At best, it's almost a tertiary question.

Or am I missing something obvious?

She was probably just ignorant about the wtc complex

Do you believe a young reporter from Briten would have known which is wtc7? To be honest, bevore 911 i was not even aware of the fact that there was such a thing as a wtc7! Europe is not NY dude. I bet she just became the script and started talking without knowing what is going on.

Good work btw who ever finally got the news on the front page!

"in the end deceivers deceive only themselves"
- Mahatma Gandhi

phentermine 15

Why now?

While the BBC clip seems legit, I wonder why it took so long for this to surface. Was it because no one saw the building in the background? The whole time issue is perhaps easier to explain, but I would not break out the champagne quite yet.

Check out this KOS link to the White House web site scrub, where old interviews etc. are no longer available. Old footage may have more sulphur traces than we think.


The BBC news anchorman in the studio looks at a clock -- while he's talking to the Reporter who has Building 7 still standing over her shoulder -- and says "it's been some 8 hours since the attack".

That would put the filming of this BBC report very close to 5 p.m New York time, because the first plane hit at 8:46 a.m. NYC time (2nd plane at 9:03 a.m.) . "Some 8 hours" after the attack would be approximately. 5 p.m..

17:30 into the Google vid:

2:38 into the Youtube vid:
"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

new Google Video upload (edited version, 26 min.)

Let's see how long this one will last... ;)

It would be nice if that was

It would be nice if that was posted on the front page.. ?

Then if it goes down just remove it...

Well, I guess they've pulled

Well, I guess they've pulled this upload... let's see how fast they can pull the other 23618 versions on the net. ;)

Downloading it now.

The Google video in the post above has already been pulled.
They're not gonna get away with this.


Downloading, backing up, burning copies and mailing copies.

It will be a cold day in hell before they manage to destroy this evidence, which is just part of a much, much bigger case against "them." 

Reality got you down? Read the La Rochelle Times:

7 minute clip now up on Youtube

"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

This is pretty HUGE!

I have been studying this, trying to soak it all in. I understand the caution by 911blogger, but looking at this objectively, there is no downside to us blowing this thing up (excuse the pun).

Everybody here already knows that WTC7 was brought down by explosives. That is accepted as fact here.

The only real question as it concerns the BBC report is whether or not that is actually a shot of WTC7 over her left sholder. It damn sure looks like it to me.

During the "live" interview, she makes several references to the NYC skyline behind her. Not once does she point out that the "Salomon building" is still standing. Clearly it appears that she is unaware that it is still standing.

The guy interviewing her makes a time reference when he says 8 hours have passed since the attacks. Further along, they point out that the attacks took place at around 9am. That places the time of the "live" broadcast at 5p. Twenty minutes before the collapse of WTC7.

They don't give themselves much room to explain this away. They are pretty bloody well boxed in, if you ask me.

We've covered all our bases here. BBC has some serious explaining to do. This is a HUGE discovery for the 9/11 Truth Movement!!! It should be front page news. The fact that it won't be only reaffirms that we have stumbled onto something incredible.

Google pulling the video!?!? What the hell is that about!?!?! "Do no evil" my ass!!!

"Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum"

Will the "beeb" be responding to this?

One would THINK that there would be MSM coverage of this...

There's a frick'n STORY here. Even 911blogger is afraid of it...

You would THINK that this story would be all over the net, in the bloggosphere, on MSN, Google News, Yahoo News, PR Web etc.

How do you submit a story to PR Web? Usually from there it gets picked up by Yahoo News..

Let's get this story just EXPLODING tomorrow.

Push it, don't pull it. ;-)

WRH catious too?

Here is how WRH is treating this story:

**PLEASE TREAT THIS STORY AS UNCONFIRMED AT THIS TIME. I am concerned that this story has popped up just when the BBC most needs to embarrass the 9-11 truth movement and take some of the heat off of their recent 9-11 "trust the government" show. **

Again, I don't get all the caution? Worst case scenario, it shines a huge spotlight on WTC7, which has always been our smoking gun. Regardless of how this BBC story turns out, we WANT more attention focused on WTC7... don't we?
"Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum"

All the caution

Maybe it's just a matter of seeming "too good to be true", as the original poster wrote.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

maybe the bbc have faked it

I doubt it but I would not put it past them to embarrass 911 truth.Is it technically possible to digitally manipulate images and put together a fake report?

It would require BBC skills

It would require BBC skills to fake it.
I don't believe they would do this though.
Research on it is done as we write...

Why all the caution

hello Chris Rose

I totally agree with you.
I saw the video.
I can see building 7 in the background, its still standing.
I can hear what the announcer is saying that WTC 7 has collapsed.
I respect people who want to be cautious. That is there right.

But as for me. I don't need someone's approval or someone's saying its OK now to not be cautious.
Sorry, that is someone else being cautious NOT ME.

The enlightenment was all about having the courage to go with what you see and hear and reason despite the friction it causes with others. Trust your senses more than the authority. This is some of the reason we are in the mess we are in, we don't trust our senses. We have been conditioned to play it safe, don't stick out, wait for the "leaders" to say its OK.

The dark ages were all about waiting for some authority to now say yeah you did see and hear this and yeah your brain is working correctly.

I respect Alex Jones immensely.
I read his website all the time and listen to a couple of his radio shows each week.
He is great source of information.
BUt once the information comes out I decide for myself what it means.
I only need Alex for information. I don't need his eyes, ears and brain. I have my own. And their adequate enough.

If he wants to be cautious. Fine.
I am not responsible for him.
I am responsible for myself.

Let's remove the cautious stuff.

I am sure no revolution was ever won being cautious.


I seriously feel like...

No one here is actually attending to the data.
The time stamp is completely irrelevant. The correspondent begins her interview by describing WTC7's collapse, while it stands right behind her!
The paradox is complete regardless of time stamp.
Think about it: what if the video were actually filmed during the afternoon, before WTC7 really fell? Then how the fuck does she know in advance its going to collapse and how?
And what if it's really shot after the collapse?
Then you've got a harder question: how the fuck is it standing right behind her?!
The time-stamp is a goofy, nit-picking wild-goose chase that clowns like Albanese (who always prefer shifty-eyed innuendo to hard evidence) are going to try to get the entire forum to focus on. It doesn't matter in the least. The paradox is as plain as Albanese's pronunciation is stunted.


There's no need for a "time stampt". It's apparent. They're CAUGHT!

Agreed too

We have them caught with there pants down! And it's the best possible revenge i could think of for the filth about 911and the truth movement the BBC dared to call "documentation". Today is a day to celebrate.

Infowars - The Truth Strikes Back!

"in the end deceivers deceive only themselves"
- Mahatma Gandhi

Who did subtitles on new BBC WTC 7 clip?

Anyone know?


Focus on the botched crash scene at Shanksville.

KT, tell Quest to reinstate me at the LC forum


Rob Rice
aka Arrowhead

This is the real deal

Lets get one thing straight I already have a feeling this will be one of the tatics the spooks, neocons, 9/11 deniers will use, that she was talking about a different building because most people don't know the name of WTC 7 was the Salomon Brothers building. And before anyone tries to say otherwise.......

Lets get some things straight, while there where reports of the damage to building 7 in the oral histories, NO ONE!!! could of know WTC 7 was going to come down because WTC 7 was not hit by an airplane now you can say that some people on the day of 9/11 where thinking " I wonder if they'll collapse" me personally the thought only crossed my mind after the second plane hit but after a couple minutes I had figured the airliner impact wasn't enough(which it wasn't) it was the dang jetfuel that did her in rofl *sarcasm there might of been SPECULATION about WTC 7 pre-collapse but it was just that speculation the same could of been said about other building around WTC 1&2, but did other buildings that took the same if not More damage from the WTC 1&2 collapse? No they didn't because fire does not cause steel skyscrapers to collapse symmetrically , and WTC 7 was much further away from the towers than other buildings and the damage to the SW corner was no where near enough to cause that building to collapse like that.

And at the end of the video minutes before WTC 7 collapses they mysteriously loose her connection, thats not suspicious *more sarcasm

"NO ONE!!! could of know WTC

"NO ONE!!! could of know WTC 7 was going to come down because WTC 7 was not hit by an airplane now you can say that some people on the day of 9/11 where thinking " I wonder if they'll collapse"

I completely disagree. There was reports all during that day that the destruction and damage caused by the collapse of the two towers may cause other buildings to come down.

I think a lot of people are getting overly excited because of what we know is impossible NOW. There were rumors all over the place on 9/11/01 that other buildings on the site were going to come down. After watching WTC1 and WTC2 come down, people were (justifiably) believing that other damaged building could come down. Its not like people were walking around that afternoon saying, "well you know, even though WTC7 is damaged from debris and has a fire, I KNOW that it can't come down because it wasn't hit by an airplane."


But why so much speculation on WTC 7 in the media, why not any of the other buildings? In the two clips from from the BBC and CNN they where talking about WTC 7 and not any of the other buildings why WTC 7? What where they being told? and by who?

All the speculation was due

All the speculation was due to all the smoke coming out of WTC 7.

Yes, thermate/thermite do produce loads of smoke as they burn

numerous cuts into steel beams!!! Then the building was "pulled" with conventional explosives.

we are talking about the

we are talking about the large amount of dark smoke coming from the fire in the building that burned all day long.

That smoke isn't from the thermate/thermite. You should know that.

Uploading CNN backup to BBC right now.

You're gonna love this. I'm uploading it to Youtube at the moment. I assume you need an account to upload at LiveLeak? I have a feeling it's not gonna' last long at the tube.

Edit: Get it while it's hot.


Nice find Big_D! I have never seen this footage before!?!?! What the hell is going on???

Thanks for embedding it.

I had a little brain fart there.

Thank You, Big_D!

You did extremely well, Big_D.

Actually, embedding is alright, but the link to the video should always be provided so that people can download it, otherwise people have to search through the HTML of the page.

As we've just seen, the government's minions are working hard to censor these videos. It's not enough to simply have them at, YouTube, or Google Video, as the government will have its highly-placed agents in such organizations simply censor such highly incriminating evidence. Hence, whenever some vital media like this comes up, I strongly recommend people to save these important videos (or audios) to their hard drive.

With videos on YouTube and Google Video (and indeed, any other website with streaming videos), one can download them if one can find the URL that the video is streaming from. Below are free online streaming media downloaders for these websites:




See also URL Snooper (which is free):

Websites such as YouTube and Google Video use the FLV (Flash Video) file format, so one will need a media player that can play FLV files in order to play them from one's hard drive. The best media players are K-Lite Mega Codec Pack and MPlayer (both of which can play the FLV format).

K-Lite Mega Codec Pack (for Microsoft Windows):

When installing K-Lite Mega Codec Pack, when you get to the "Select Components" section, choose the Profile that says "Lots of stuff."

MPlayer + Frontend (for Microsoft Windows):

From the above webpage, below is the file one should get (until a newer version of the full installation package is released, of course):


MPlayer uses its own codecs, and so it can be installed along with K-Lite Mega Codec Pack (or the QuickTime or RealPlayer media players, for that matter) without causing any conflicts between codecs.

On some websites, the URL of the streaming media file will begin with mms or rtsp, etc., in which case one needs a downloader that can handle said transfer protocols. Such software for this task are Offline Explorer, HiDownload, StreamBox VCR Suite, etc. See the below website for more on that:

Streaming media recording:

The free Opera browser ( ) automatically saves all http streaming files (while renaming them; but they remain bit-identical). Look in the following directory before clearing the browser's cache:

C:\Program Files\Opera\profile\cache4

"Terrorism is the health of the State."--James Redford, author of "Jesus Is an Anarchist," June 1, 2006

A really nice free converter... called Media Coder. I just picked it up and like it a lot, so far. The EXE is only 324kb and is reported to work under WINE.

MediaCoder is a FREE universal audio/video batch transcoder distributed under GPL license, which puts together lots of excellent audio/video codecs and tools from the open source community into an all-in-one solution, capable of transcoding among different audio/video formats. With many extra features and a expandable architecture, MediaCoder is more than a GUI of a bunch of command line tools.

Feature Highlights
Convert to and from many audio and video compression formats and re-multiplex into various container formats, on the fly, in batch
Give you the control over the transcoding process and all the parameters of the transcoded files, so you can learn about, compare among and play with various codecs
Specific user interfaces for specific devices with device plug-ins and extensions
Fully standalone, no dependent on any media player, filter or codec, no registration of any components into system
Extensions to expand custom features and user interfaces

Typical Applications
Improving compression / reducing file size
Converting for audio/video portable devices (digital audio player, MP4 player, mobile phone, PDA, PSP, VCD/DVD player etc.)
Extracting audio tracks from video files
Ripping audio/video discs

Supported Fomats
MP3, Ogg Vorbis, AAC, AAC+, AAC+V2, MusePack, WMA, RealAudio
FLAC, WavPack, Monkey's Audio, OptimFrog, AAC Lossless, WMA Lossless, WAV/PCM
H.264, Xvid, DivX, MPEG 1/2/4, H.263, Flash Video, 3ivx*, RealVideo*, Windows Media
AVI, MPEG/VOB, Matroska, MP4, RealMedia*, ASF/WMV, Quicktime*, OGM*
CD*, VCD*, DVD*, CUE Sheet*

The true threat to liberty comes not from terrorists but from our political leaders whose natural inclination is to seize upon any excuse to diminish them.
~~ Walter Williams, Nightly Business Report, September 2001

This is some crazie s*it

But in this clip he said might collapse, he was just speculating and he actually knows what building he's talking about cause he's looking at it, as for her,she was saying the building directly behind her had collapsed WTF is going on here someone on the day of 9/11 was going around to the media saying things about WTC 7, man 9/11 is the rabit hole that never ends

It's just like an actor who's given the cue...

And he stands awkwardly waiting for that drunken a-hole of a co-star to finally stumble onto stage right.

A lot of smoke!

I've never seen video of so much smoke around WTC 7 before. If the building itself was really on fire, it is understandable that people would predict a collapse after previously seeing it happen twice.

(In case the video is yanked, the CNN reporter said the time was about 4:15)
The Eleventh Day of Every Month

It makes perfect sense that

It makes perfect sense that people were worried about WTC 7 coming down that afternoon.

There is nothing wrong with that.

The smoking gun isn't that WTC 7 collapsed, it is HOW it collapsed. Symmetrically and at close to free fall speed like a classic controlled demolition.

If it had sagged to the side facing the towers, and fell over/down that way, the 9/11 truth movement would be much smaller.

we're in agreement

I just want to caution against reading too much into the CNN video. Of course the smoking gun is the symetrical free-fall collapse.
The Eleventh Day of Every Month

No Tall Steel Building Had Ever Collapsed Due to Fire

WTC 7 wasn't hit by a plane. From the pictures of its damaged front and side that I've seen, the extent of the damage was relatively quite small and mostly to the outer structure (since again, one didn't have a jetliner smashing deep into it, but rather falling debris hitting its outside).

As well, the few fires in it weren't that large and were oxygen-starved, as can be told from the fact that flames aren't seen to be reaching out (except during the early phase of the fire, before it started billowing smoke, but even then the flames were relatively very small and only in a few spots) and from the smoke billowing out that can be seen in pictures of its side facing WTC 1 and 2 during its latter phase.

There was no good reason to think that WTC 7 would collapse due to fire, especially since there has been far, far more intense skyscraper fires than that which lasted for far longer and gutted out pretty much the enitire structure, yet they still stood. Presumably there would be people in New York City who would know a great deal about skyscraper fires who would have been consulted by the government.

"Terrorism is the health of the State."--James Redford, author of "Jesus Is an Anarchist," June 1, 2006

you are still analyzing

you are still analyzing things from a post-9/11 research knowledge, 2007 frame.

Think back to 9/11/01.

2 of the tallest buildings in the world had just collapsed, with the official story being it was due to fire.

Then you have a damaged building billowing smoke like crazy, WTC7.

There is EVERY GOOD REASON to worry that it would collaspse too.

The Government and Its Minions Consider it Incriminating

The government and its minions consider this video incriminating, otherwise they wouldn't have censored it from The same goes with the BBC video censored off of Google Video and apparently some yet-to-be-found incriminating Fox and CBS videos along these lines censored off of for the same time period (i.e., before WTC 7's collapse).

What is seen on the CNN video is Aaron Brown saying "... building 7 in the World Trade Center complex is on fire" then CNN cuts to the building (without Brown in the picture) and Brown continues "and has either collapsed or is collapsing ..." off-camera as he is apparently just starting to realize that WTC 7 is still standing tall from having looked for himself. After that he goes into a spiel as if he was a bit surprised to see WTC 7 still standing, and only mentions WTC 7 again in reference to its collapse 36 second later when he says "and now we're told that there is a fire there and that building may collapse as well ..."

In other words, it's as if he got told what he originally stated, and then when he found out that that wasn't true (because it hadn't yet happened) he changes it to "may collapse" after going though a 36 second spiel to collect himself and figure out how to spin what he originally said. (And I'm not saying Brown is one of the criminal insiders, but rather that he got told one thing, found out that it wasn't true, and attempted to go on without skipping a beat by eventually spinning it to "may collapse").

"Terrorism is the health of the State."--James Redford, author of "Jesus Is an Anarchist," June 1, 2006

No, back then the planes

No, back then the planes impacts were thought to be crucial with the fires only finishing the job.
No reason for believing modest fires of building 7 would make it fall !

no, that came later when

no, that came later when people started coming up with explanations.

Initially, it was the fire being so hot, it caused the building to fail. There were even experts who initially said the fire had melted the steel.

On the day the 9/11 attacks occurred, there weren't people in NYC calmly analyzing, "hey, it was the impact of the planes that probably deformed the structure of the twin towers, and then the fire weakened it to a point of failure, that is why we don't have to worry about that other smoking 47 story skyscraper that is on fire."

There were many buildings, just as far away,...

and a few much closer they should have been worried about too. Yet, only three 'collapse'.

Your right on about that

"The smoking gun isn't that WTC 7 collapsed, it is HOW it collapsed. Symmetrically and at close to free fall speed like a classic controlled demolition."

But its still suspicious as hell that out of all the buildings that where damaged all the focus was on WTC 7 the one other skyscraper that collapsed that day.

I really don't think it is

I really don't think it is that suspicious, considering all the smoke that was coming out of it. I mean just look at the video right there, Smoke coming from the lower floors of WTC 7 like crazy.

If I had been a reporter at midday and early afternoon on 9/11/01, I would focus my attention on WTC7 too.

The Smoke Is Mostly Coming from the WTC 1 & 2 Collapse Pile

Look at where the smoke is coming from in that CNN video. We already know that WTC 7 only had a few relatively small fires (relative to WTC 1 and 2). Most of that smoke appears to be coming from the collapse pile.

"Terrorism is the health of the State."--James Redford, author of "Jesus Is an Anarchist," June 1, 2006

Incendiaries like thermate/thermite emit tons of smoke as they

angle-cut steel beams like scores of blowtorches. After that is done, explosives can blow the beams apart, "pulling" down the building.

White Smoke

Diesel fire would produce a very dark black smoke.

thermite on the other hand
Ignorance is NOT Bliss

Clearly somebody in

Clearly somebody in authority alerted the press that WTC 7 was "collapsing" or about to collapse. The questions are 1)who sent out the alert and 2) how did they know the collapse was coming? An inquiry to CNN on the source is necessary.

It's spreading around the

It's spreading around the internet like crazy now. A couple more uploads to Google Video were just added. Here's an Italian example:

It's a beautiful early morning here on the other side of the Atlantic.

I'm sold

This is BIG!!!


You may or may not like Michael Ruppert but he spoke of the Pentagon as a 'honey pot' - meant to draw you into a trap (psyops wise) . He predicted there would be others.

Whether you like him or not, the argument has salience. I see a lot of enthusiasm and promoting this film all over the place (so much excitement). I am always suspicious of so much excitement. I would like the film to be true. Too much I would like the film to be true.

Do your damn homework. Verify. Verify. Verify. Anybody in the truth movement who excitedly promotes the dissemination of unconfirmed and unanalyzed data does the movement a disservice.

I'm sure this video is

I'm sure this video is authentic, and I can't even blame the British for not having recognised WTC-7 in the background. No European journalist would have ever recognised it like an American reporter would.
Sh*t happens when you're trying to get your black-op of the millennium live on international tv, I guess... ;)

Read you loud and clear

I support Ruppert too, but face it, this looks worse than the Pentagon ever did..

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

By the way, it would of

By the way, it would of course be very interesting to get more parallel video footage from other tv stations from the US, UK (Sky News?), Europe, Australia, Asia, you name it. I wouldn't be surprised if this BBC f**ck-up is not a stand-alone thing at all, if you know what I mean... the CNN footage already shows this. There's gotta be more. Much more.

What's very curious...

is that the Fox & CBS links for this time were 'missing'.

I can try and get you some

I can try and get you some full LexisNexis-transcripts from CBS and other tv stations' live footage at the exact time (plus before and after) when WTC-7 came down. Easy. I'll do that later though. Gotta sleep.
(I've just checked some of 'em already. Nothing shocking so far, but you never now. In the hour before the collapse of WTC-7 there was a lot of talk and speculation about the building's possible imminent collapse, evacuation etc. Again, I can post full transcripts if anyone would like me to, but right now it may not really be needed? Let's first wait and see how the BBC is gonna respond to this live footage, I'd say...)

I don't trust transscripts.

Too easily altered, thanks anyway. I'm content knowing, for a fact, that someone knew, at least an hour before hand, that WTC was going to 'collapse'. Someone at ground zero knew a lot more than FEMA & NIST have figured out in the last six years.

Its good to be cautious

But come on the field reporter and the anchor work for the BBC, she's in New York on 9/11 the only thing that so called 9/11 debunkers can say is that the BBC made a mistake, the real question is who told them WTC 7 collapsed before it happened? Good luck with that one LOL

Yeah, but the Pentagon is NOT a "honeypot" because

AA77 did NOT disappear into a 16' hole.

I wonder what the process

I wonder what the process would be to inquire after the sourcing of an article or television program. Whatever the process is we should request that the BBC turn over the name of the source of the premature WTC 7 collapse.

So who actually uncovered

So who actually uncovered this today and where was it first posted and who was the first person who notified prisonplanet? it didn't just mysteriously appear somewhere. i'm aware it was at, but from there, someone found it and put it out there, the fact that there is no first source on this is kind of troubling.

-"911veritas", if I remember

-"911veritas", if I remember correctly.

up on google video

I don't think the BBC knew any better.

Aaron Brown - the CNN tool - knew damn well he couldn't say building 7 had 'collapsed' when it was still standing over his shoulder. Especially after going on & on earlier about the "huge second explosion" that preceded the first towers (WTC 2) 'collapse'.

Play it again Big_D...

...then play the one you posted earlier, "WTC 7 Foreknowledge". It looks as though the smoke Aaron Brown is talking about at 4:10 PM is coming mostly from the pile, not WTC 7.

The true threat to liberty comes not from terrorists but from our political leaders whose natural inclination is to seize upon any excuse to diminish them.
~~ Walter Williams, Nightly Business Report, September 2001

The pile & wtc 5 & 6.

Mostly five, (which housed no damning evidence so why mention it.) although there is black smoke coming from wtc 7, it was far from an inferno.

"Unfortunately, I believe we've lost the line"

How friggin' convenient that the connection to Jane was lost ... just minutes before building 7 actually did crumble!
This video is damning evidence that the details of the plan were reported hastily. Keep in mind, the government agencies housed at 7 World Trade Center were the Secret Service, the Department of Defense, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Mayor's Office of Emergency Management, the Internal Revenue Service Regional Council (IRS), and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

If the original story

If the original story supposedly was "WTC 7 *may* collapse" then we must demand whoever reported this to BBC should talk to NIST because this person knew something about WTC 7 that NIST hasn't figured out to this day *after the fact*.


Credit goes out to 911veritas, this was found and researched well by him, i was only lucky enuff to stumble upon his findingds in this blog

full credit to him for blowing the truth wide open - lets all work together and push this further!

- Drakey

This story has almost a 1000

This story has almost a 1000 diggs and yet it still cannot be reached from the start page.

This is an obvious case of censorship. It is an illusion that users get to choose the news on digg.

Continue to digg this story and totally discredit them in the eyes of the Internet community:

Jane Stanley

Can anyone find a contact address for Jane Stanley,the reporter in the piece?

We have to ask her directly.Key witness!

Jane StanDley is her name

ane Standley - Biography

Jane Standley joined the BBC as a graduate trainee (for domestic news) in 1989 - and learnt the ropes in local, regional and national radio and TV.

Having always wanted to be a foreign correspondent, she quickly progressed to foreign news reporting with the World Service (first radio then TV) in 1992.

She had spent several years freelancing and backpacking around Asia, Africa, the Middle East between university and the BBC traineeship. "So you could say I was well-trained for the job here - which often feels like backpacking with a lot more silver cases of TV and radio satellite equipment!" she says.

Jane took up the East Africa correspondent's job in mid-1994 - as the Rwanda genocide was coming to an end.

Alex Jones should get a hold

Alex Jones should get a hold of Jane Standley for an interview.Maybe she could explain it all.


It's some kind of a prize to be ranked with the likes of the beer launching fridge, the Awesome Long Exposure Escalator Photo, and This billboard sign cannot be displayed?

I don't get it. I just don't see the point of wading through sewer effluent in the hope that a Twinkie will float by within grasp.

I did digg one evening to understand the hubub. I don't digg it. There's just too much I'd rather do with my time.

Gotta go. American Idol's comin' on.

The true threat to liberty comes not from terrorists but from our political leaders whose natural inclination is to seize upon any excuse to diminish them.
~~ Walter Williams, Nightly Business Report, September 2001

We Need a "give away" DVD of Nothing But Bldg. 7 Evidence

We Need a "give away" DVD of Nothing But Bldg. 7 Evidence.

I will venture to say that a majority of us out there waking people up view the Bldg 7 anomaly to be the most powerful. I hope someone with with the know-how is creating a "give away" DVD that focuses on all the Building 7 Evidence.

My take on it is that this was the script given out in advance so that when 7 imploded "speculation", "outrageous Conspiracy Theories", comments like those made by Peter Jennings and Dan Rather would be MINIMIZED. And indeed BBC jumped the gun.

Somewhere a while back I saw a short video clip of someone with PBS reporting on 7's collapse in the morning many hours before the implosion.
Does anyone have that clip?

I give away 911 Mysteries?Terrorstorm on a single disc.

David Ray Griffin The Myth and the Reality

Loose Change2E

Sept 11 Revisited(Mugford)

What's The Truth (Thanks Bruce Lee Styles)

Pandora's Box

BLDG 7 SMOKING GUN! (not yet, can't wait)


CNN footage about same time confirms the news was released too early.

BBC News begins always on the hour (4:00, 5:00, 6:00, ...). This started 5:00 PM because the news was fresh. It could not be 6:00 PM and somebody put figure of WTC7 there. There is no way to imagine this is a hoax.











How can this incontrovertible evidence of foreknowledge regarding the DEMOLITION of WTC7 continue to be ignored by the world? Again, this should be front page news!

Can someone please explain what the hell is going on? Why hasn't Aljazeera jumped on this? It all but exonerates the arabs from responsibility in 9/11. Does it not?

Clearly this was made to happen on purpose, but by who? Who had the means to pull it off? Who had the means to get press releases into the hands of CNN and BBC? Who had the power to get the story of the collapse of WTC7 read LIVE on air before it even freakin happened???? Certainly not Osama Bin Laden!!!

Who!?!?!?! Why are we, the only ones asking this question???

Damn I'm getting PISSED all over again! Five and a half years later, and these goddamned wounds are still fresh!!!
"Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum"

lets see how long it lasts

lets see how long it lasts :-)

Forget digg, they are

Forget digg, they are obviously censoring this story.

I suggest boycott digg and use other websites such as newsvine or wikio.

Here's the newsvine bit:

Watch Closer

There are far more things to analyze in this news video. True they made a major slip up which leads one to thing that this was almost scripted...the reading of the report prior to the happenings....

If it was you must look at the rest of the script.

In the first three minutes of the broadcast they discuss something very interesting.... they put out the possibility that this was a state sponsored terrorist event. The imply that the government may have had a hand in this.... they then spin it to place the blame on bin Laden. They dangled a carrot in front of us all then yanked it away just as we were about to get the prize. When the spun it they removed those thoughts from the minds of the casual observer who most likely was in complete shock from the days events.

Listen to their commentary further. They are planting seeds in our heads as to what the consequences of this event are going to be to the way Americans live their lives. They discuss the changes which will take place as far as security and it's intrusion upon our freedom. They have it all layed out and they are spoon feeding it to us.

They speak about Pearl Harbor....again..... and basicly told us how we should react to these attacks.... how we responded in the past to Pearl Harbor.... .they spoke about how Japan expected us to react by retreating from the attack on Pearl Harbor.... but we did not... and we responded the way that we did.

This whole news piece could be broken down to it's base intent without the obvious error pertaining to WTC 7.

The script goes far beyond the obvious.
Ignorance is NOT Bliss


They also plant the "blowback" meme into the lexicon from day one by talking about how the CIA funded bin Laden and the mujahedeen. They also talk about the "revenge" that they treat as inevitable. With these two points, they've circumscribed the outer boundaries of interpretation to set up the perfectly manageable fake debate. It's meticulous mind control all the way through.

[Note: The "state-sponsored" reference is not implicating an "inside job," but instead opens up the possibility of pointing the finger at a convenient "rogue state" like Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, France, etc....]

Compliments of The Tavistock Institute

Compliments of The Tavistock Institute

2/16/07 BBC report on WTC 7...

Source: BBC

Last Updated: Friday, 16 February 2007, 13:01 GMT
Q&A: What really happened

Was WTC7 deliberately demolished by explosives?

In the afternoon of 11 September 2001, World Trade Centre Building 7, a 47 storey office block close by the Twin Towers collapsed without even being hit by the planes.

The building had been evacuated and there were no casualties and with so much else happening that day, ITS COLLAPSE WAS BARELY REPORTED [emphasis mine].

WTC 7 was home to local offices of the CIA, Department of Defense, the United States Secret Service and the city's Office of Emergency Management, among others.

Sceptics of the official account, including those at Scholars for 9/11 Truth argue that the building was deliberately destroyed in a controlled demolition, perhaps in order to conceal important information about a pre-9/11 plot by the authorities.

The collapse of WTC has been investigated by FEMA. Their interim report found that when the North Tower collapsed, debris crashed into Building 7.

This was the likely cause of fires which quickly took hold. The sprinkler system did not work effectively because the water main in Vesey Street had been knocked out when the Twin Towers came down.

With the intense fires burning unabated, the steel structure supporting the building was fatally weakened. But the FEMA investigators conceded that this hypothesis had a low probability of occurring.

In their final report, due to be published later in 2007, FEMA is expected to back its original hypothesis substantially - the collapse of WTC7 was accidental, not deliberate.

Contact the reporter?

Maybe someone should contact Jane Standley (the BBC reporter) to find out her take on this? I would suggest being respectful and courteous. She probably has no idea how controversial her appearance has become.

BTW, I have no idea if this info is valid, but it's worth a shot:

Jane Standley, Chief Correspondent :
Phone: 212-501-1556;

(obtained from

She won't understand

She's a talking head.... simple!
Ignorance is NOT Bliss

Jane Standley won't remember this report from six years ago.

And if she did, she likely wouldn't have anything intelligent to say about it.

But she needs to be contacted and interviewed anyway. This IS a huge story, and we need to push it far and wide. It opens up fresh new debate and fresh interest in the 9/11 Truth Movement. It can only be a good thing.

This is a huge boon to our movement. Spread this info far and wide.

I don't know...

If she turned around right after the feed cut, and saw the building collapse, she'd probably remember that.
Now, whether she'd talk about it, that's another story...


EXACTLY!!! But since she reported on it, she has an obligation to comment on it. The BBC governs itself by a different set of rules then most other media organizations. Supposedly they are responsive to their citizenry. She needs to be called on this.

Still nothing to loose...

I say we all e-mail her. The bloody twit just may respond.

Dear Jane:

Quite a bit of activity has erupted surrounding your 9/11/01 report of the eminent collapse of the Salomon Brothers Building in NYC.

My question is, were you aware that at the time of your report, the Salomon Brothers building was actually still standing behind you? In fact, your feed was suddenly disrupted approximately 5 minutes before the Salomon Brothers building actually collapsed. Did you witness the collapse? If so, what was your reaction?

How did the BBC come to report the sudden collapse of a steel and concrete building twenty minutes before the actual collapse? This whole thing seems rather incredible, don't you think? Please help me understand.

Your reply is most greatly appreciated.

Good day,

Chris Rose

Why is she a "bloody twit" ?

Remember she's just reporting the news as she sees / hears it.

Did you know what the "Salomon Brothers Building" (aka WTC7) looked like from behind on 9/11.

Remember it's the BBC London host "Philip Hayton" who breaks the report first at 5:00pm New York time (4:33 into the vid).

With the words...

"We've got some news JUST coming in"

Are you serious?

She's a bloody twit because she is a "Chief Correspondent" based in NYC reporting to the BBC on matters of extreme international importance.

It's not my job to know what the Salomon Brothers Building looks like from behind. IT'S HERS!

It's called due dilligence and this "bloody twit" failed to conduct any. Nevertheless, she reported the collapse as fact. That's why!

But why am I telling you this? Aren't we on the same side?

Just more evidence...

that those who work in the MSM didn't/don't get there because of their journalism skills.

Show "I LOVE ALL YALL" by UUUUUU777777

I agree and disagree...

Alex Jones broke this BIGTIME yesterday - Thanks Alex, so I don't go along with your criticism there.

I cannot understand on a 9/11 site (especially that the top two stories are "Anti-War".

Who knows...

There's no stopping this getting out, coz we are the SWARM :-)

Great work on this 911veritas

Can you provide any more of a narrative on how you went about reviewing the tapes and discovering this huge error?

There is no stopping us. We are the swarm. We are all of us leading this movement.

I emailed BBC. I encourage everyone else to do likewise. Call them, too, if you like.


I am 100% certain of the validity and timings that the BBC reported "LIVE" at 5pm Eastern Time on 9/11 that WTC7 had collapsed (within +/- 60 seconds margin of error)

I have created a V2 film, which I'll somehow make available online, with instructions how to verify, tidied up the text and the timings following hours and hours of verification and triple checking.

Download Info :

Everyone can validate this data by visiting the following two blog posts.



I have been through the entire BBC day (started at 9:16 Eastern Time) and they have shots through that open window throughout the day and into the night also.

This is 100% legit, verify it for yourselves.

Best wishes

For posterity...

This was the first post I made....

But basically, it was down to spending many, many hours going through the archived "live" footage for 9/11.

The error jumped out when I spotted it... then I spent days validating and verifying the timings, offsets to a margin of error of +/- 1 minute.

Best wishes

Hey Veritas

When the dust settles so to speak, could you possibly do a pure WTC7 video, with those firefighter and/or policement saying to clear the area because the building was coming down, was going to "explode", along with anything else revelatory about WTC7's demise?

It could be a one parter for Google and a two part video for Youtube.

This HUGE story points an arrow directly at WTC7, and that Zogby Poll commissioned by indicated that of all those who'd even SEEN Building 7 go down, that 90% believed in "inside job".

Thus, all we need do is get the building 7 info swirling around the Net, and we could win over countless millions more..

"There is no stopping us. We are the swarm."

Zergling Rush! ^_^

I found it suspicious how John Albanese was bending over

backwards to try to downplay this huge error yesterday. This from a guy who made a 9/11 "truth video" with zero physical evidence in it.

Albanese also supposedly worked for the same company as Nico Haupt (a/k/a CB_Brooklyn) some time ago. Were the initials of this company CIA, NSA, or CFR?

(And yes, I think 9/11 Blogger dropped the ball on this one. Otherwise, they are very good.)

We need to rally around Alex Jones & stop this Neocon madness!!! Our rights & freedoms are in great jeopardy!!! (I believe these wars & other insanity may be stemming from the Federal Reserve's inability to continue the Ponzi-scheme they concocted in 1913--and the world elite are frantic over it and are taking desperate measures!)

What Albanese said was

What Albanese said was this:

"Another legitimate questions could be: Is it possible the BBC just got it wrong? Its true that word was being widely circulated that Building 7 was in danger of collapse."

In light of the CNN footage in this thread I'd have to say this is the most likely explanation. What we need to do is track the source of both the CNN and WTC 7 reports and then discover what evidence there was that WTC 7 was about to collapse, and why those that could spot the mechanism for the collapse before the building fell didn't get in touch with FEMA or NIST about what they saw.

It's also important to compare the collapse at the Marriot to the collapse of the WTC 7. Here they were compared sharing the same cause. What was the character and the manner of the Marriot collapse?

I think the CNN

video is no disproof. They got probably the same press release, but as they acknowledged that WTC7 was still standing, they were confused and did show this.

We don't need to rally

We don't need to rally around Jones. We need to take to the streets for each other and ourselves.

Show "i didnt get to hear the" by alexjonesisashill

Dude How much does the CIA pay you

Im looking for a new job, do you get health benifits????

Kudos to 911veritas

GJ buddy, Infowarrior taking the enemy head on full speed.Ive got a hypothesis on how the BBC knew WTC7 collapsed before it actually did..............

Sylvia Brown!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! rofl:)

BBC: We're not part of a conspiracy.

"Until now, I don't think we've been accused of being part of the conspiracy. But now some websites are using news footage from BBC World on September 11th 2001 to suggest we were actively participating in some sort of attempt to manipulate the audience. As a result, we're now getting lots of emails asking us to clarify our position." Pasted from:


#"2. In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had. We did what we always did - sourced our reports, used qualifying words like "apparently" or "it's reported" or "we're hearing" and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving."

I do not remember "qualifying" words. Seemed pretty absolute to me.


While enthusiasm is contagious, I confess I haven't been quite as excited as most of the other posters here. It's not as if anyone who's already convinced the official story is a big lie needs this BBC screw-up to convince them further. Apologists for the official story, meanwhile, go on claiming that there's nothing suspicious about the collapse of building 7; that just because a skyscraper collapses exhibiting all the characteristics of a controlled demolition doesn't mean it was a controlled demolition; that just because fire had never had such effects upon a steel-framed skyscraper before, there was nothing suspicious in the rumors circulating prior to its collapse that this was what was going to happen in this case. For people who accept (or claim to accept) all these premises, it doesn't take much to suppose that rumors the building may collapse somehow got contorted along the way into a report that it had already collapsed.

We know better than to accept this explanation, of course; but somehow, I doubt the task of breaking down the wall of denial for those who still accept the official story is going to get any easier as a result of this finding.

For those who reject the official story, what this does is indicate that the web of complicity with respect to 9/11--and not just complicity in covering it up after the fact, but also prior to and day of--extends to at least some people in these news organizations--probably not the on-camera people, but people in a position to shape what gets said on the air. Someone knew what was up at WTC7 and therefore knew that its eventual collapse was not a matter of mere speculation, but a certainty, so they had a report to this effect written up and ready to go...only to have it go out over the air prematurely.

It also points again to things possibly not going as planned; perhaps those with inside information knew that the demolition was supposed to take place shortly before 5PM, but there were unforeseen delays, and the demolition was held up by about a half-hour--by which time, BBC had already spilled the beans.

"Smoking..Jump the Gun" video doing well on YouTube

Unlikely people would expect WTC7 collapse ahead

To all of you who say that there was wide suspicion that WTC would collapse before it actually did: How can this be, if no other steel framed building in HISTORY has ever collapsed due to fire? It's not a wooden building for god's sake! The damage was minimal as it is seen from variuos pictures with fire burning. The only argument official story defenders have is that pictures of weak fires were taken before it spread.

IF Building 7 collapsed due to it being weakened then it HAD to collpase totally unexpectedly, becouse it would have been the first time in history. People, owners and experts shoud have been shocked and dissapointed.

Even if the physical damage beside fire WAS big, then it would probably be assymetrical (more damage would be on the side facing the Twin Towes) therefore making it impossible to collapse symmetricaly, witch it obviouslly did.

It is also very unlikely that BBC had confused WTC7 with some other building since no other exept the Twins and WTC7 had collapsed :)