BBC REPORTED BUILDING 7 HAD COLLAPSED 20 MINUTES BEFORE IT FELL
by Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
Revealing, shocking video shows reporter talking about collapse with WTC 7 still standing in background, Google removes clip
BBC Responds to Building 7 Controversy; Claim 9/11 Tapes Lost
[Transcript prepared from video by Tara Carreon, Ralph Nader Library Librarian]
BBC WORLD NEWS UPDATE: TERRORISM ATTACKS IN U.S. World Trade Centre destroyed by hijacked planes. Pentagon hit and burning. 4:57 p.m. EST, 23 minutes before Building 7 collapsed at 5:20 p.m.
There's almost a sense downtown in New York, behind me, down by the World Trade Centers, of just an area completely closed off as the rescue workers try to do their job. But this isn't the first building that has suffered as a result. We know that part of the Marriott Hotel next to the World Trade Center also collapsed as a result of this huge amount of falling debris from 110 floors of the two twin towers of the World Trade Center.
As you can see behind me, the Trade Center appears to be still burning.
We see these huge clouds of smoke and ash, and we know that behind that is an empty piece of what was a very familiar New York skyline, a symbol of the financial prosperity of this city, but completely disappeared now and New York is still unable to take on board what has happened to them today.
That was done by the Mayor Rudy Giuliani much earlier today because, of course, of the dreadful collapse of the twin towers of the World Trade Center. But New York is very much still a city in chaos.
The phones are not
working properly, the subway lines are not working properly, and we know
that down there, near the World Trade Center, there are three schools
that are being turned into triage centers for emergency treatment. I
know that over in New York Harbor where the famous Statue of Liberty is
there is a field hospital where 1,500 people are being treated and we
have heard, though it's unconfirmed as yet, that 100 New York City
police officers have been taken there as well for treatment. But we do
need to confirm those figures for the officers
We know that it's about almost 300 people on the airliners that were used in these attacks, but you've got to remember, this was 9:00 in the morning on a Tuesday morning. It's busy in downtown Manhattan in the financial district then.
The World Trade
Center itself has 50,000 workers. There are tens of thousands of
tourists that go there every day. The figures are almost too frightening
to contemplate. You can understand why nobody yet wants to put a figure
New York was
sealed, essentially. Now we do know that the Long Island Railroad has
begun running again to get people out of the city if they can, and
people who can't manage to get out and perhaps live in that area, they
are being offered accommodation in empty school buildings. But certainly
I saw earlier today huge crowds of people desperately trying to walk up
upper Manhattan to get as far away as possible. And I think nobody
really knows how to go, or where to go, and you have to remember even
now I don't think people, it can sink in to people what's happened.
There was a sense of panic, reports from the scene of people just absolutely horrified, and I've already seen some photographs that a man took down in the downtown area and it looks life the aftermath of a huge atom bomb, or something full of debris and like a white carpeting of snow from all the dust and rubbish that had fallen. I don't think people can comprehend. They certainly have lost any feeling of safety. There's still a great pride in the city, people are determined to fight back, but a great sense of shock and loss.
looking at the sky, for example, where you can see the plume of smoke
and say, when that's gone, it won't be there anymore. Our twin towers
won't be there. Such a symbol of New York.
We don't know how many people have been killed. We can't even put a figure, I think when you talk to people on they don't even say how many people might have been killed and injured. And I think that feeling of the ___ of the devastation, people don't really know what to say or what to think. I think they feel the bubble of their security being in America has definitely been popped.
This city in this country will not be the same. But they don't really know where turn.
That's the very
sad thing. I think there's going to be a lot of very, very traumatized
people. This has hit them very, very hard.
I mean, it almost sounded too far fetched.
I was wondering what it felt like for you being in Manhattan ...
This amazing clip was on Google Video (now back again here), but was
removed within hours of the story breaking. However, hundreds of people
had already managed to download the clip and it has gone viral on the
Internet and the censors won't be able to shut the lid this time. A You
Tube upload is available here but we fully expect this to be removed
soon. You can watch it for the time being at this link and also here. A
WMV link is here (on our server) and a Quicktime here. Bit torrent
versions of the file can be found here. An avi version can be found
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.
As we have documented before, firefighters, police and first responders were all told to get back from the building because it was about to be brought down. It is widely acknowledged by those who were there on the scene that warnings were issued for people to evacuate the area in anticipation of the building's collapse, with some even stating that a 20 second countdown preceded the collapse of the 47-story skyscraper, again clearly suggesting that it was taken down by means of explosives as the video footage of its implosion illustrates.
Alex Jones' film Terror Storm documents how Thermate was the likely culprit for the implosion of the twin towers and also explores the collapse of WTC 7.
In a September 2002 PBS documentary, the owner of the WTC complex Larry Silverstein discusses Building 7 and states that in the late afternoon of September 11, the decision was made to "pull it." The term "pull it" is industry jargon for controlled demolition, but Silverstein denied charges that WTC 7 had been deliberately brought down.
This newly uncovered video confirms that the collapse of WTC 7 was no surprise, because television news stations were reporting on it before it happened!
This footage is absolutely amazing and should provoke a firestorm of new questions aimed both at Silverstein and the BBC. Who told the BBC that the building was going to collapse before it did and why were they reporting its fall in advance of the event actually taking place?
Many have speculated that some kind of press release was leaked too soon and AP wires, radio stations and TV news outlets prematurely reported on WTC 7's collapse.
The video also severely undermines the credibility of the BBC who recently caused controversy by airing a 9/11 hit piece that sought to debunk questions that bring the official story into doubt.
Calls have already been put through to the BBC reporting the "mistake," click here to listen to an MP3. The BBC have promised to "look into it."
Moronic commenters on Digg are already trying to bury the story, yet none of them have an answer as to why the BBC reported the building's collapse before it happened. Click here to add your own comment and counter the debunkers.
ACTION: E Mail the BBC and ask them to clarify exactly why their reporter is announcing the collapse of Building 7 before it has collapsed.
Pathetic five paragraph blog rebuttal does not answer questions as to source of report that Salomon Building was coming down, BBC claims tapes lost due to "cock-up" not conspiracy
Paul Joseph Watson
The BBC has been forced to respond to footage showing their correspondent reporting the collapse of WTC 7 before it fell on 9/11, claiming tapes from the day are somehow missing, and refusing to identify the source for their bizarre act of "clairvoyance" in accurately pre-empting the fall of Building 7.
Here is the BBC's response to the questions about the footage that was unearthed yesterday, with my comments after each statement.
1. We're not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening.
"We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down." If this is true, then how on earth did the BBC report the collapse of Building 7 before it happened? Psychic clairvoyance? Of course they were told that WTC 7 was coming down, just like the firefighters, police, first responders and CNN were told it was coming down. They had to have had a source for making such a claim. The BBC is acting like the naughty little boy who got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. No one here is claiming the BBC are "part of the conspiracy," but their hideous penchant to just repeat what authorities tell them without even a cursory investigation (and with the Building they are telling us has collapsed mockingly filling the background shot of the report), is a damning indictment of their yellow journalism when it comes to 9/11.
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.
How do "chaos and confusion" explain how the BBC reported on the collapse of a building, a collapse that happened "unexpectedly" according to their Conspiracy Files hit piece documentary, before it happened? In one breath the BBC is claiming they were not told of the impending collapse of the Building and in the next they are telling us that all their information is sourced. Which is it to be? Did the BBC have a source telling them the building was about to collapse or not? If not, how on earth could they pre-empt its fall? Do BBC reporters have access to a time machine? What was the source of this information?
3. Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I've spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn't remember minute-by-minute what she said or did - like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services.
Trying to make sense of what she was being told? She obviously didn't make much sense of the fact that the Building she was reporting had collapsed was prominently standing behind her! Unfortunately, for a news organization that prides itself on accuracy and credibility, "she doesn't remember" just doesn't cut it as an excuse.
BBC included a screenshot of yesterday's Prison Planet article in their brief response.
4. We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another.
We are asked to believe that the world's premiere news organization has somehow lost all its tapes of perhaps the biggest news event of the past 60 years. This is a copout. Whether they have lost the tapes or not, the BBC simply doesn't want to verify one hundred per cent their monumental foul-up, because they know it would only increase the exposure of this issue and lead to further questions. What is there to clear up? The reporter is standing in front of the building while saying it has already collapsed! This is a blatant effort to try and placate people making complaints while refusing to admit a monumental faux pas that further undermines the BBC's credibility in the aftermath of the Conspiracy Files debacle.
5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today "so the guy in the studio didn't quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy... "
So now the BBC are so devoid of answers, they have to enlist the help of some moronic comment on a You Tube blog? Instead of issuing official statements and seeking the advice of legal professionals they produce a cobbled together five paragraph blog and include the testimony of some moron on a You Tube comment board. Pathetic! Answer the question BBC - what was your source for reporting on multiple occasions that Building 7 had collapsed before it had collapsed, and identify the source that enabled the anchorman to comment that the building had collapsed due to it being weakened, an explanation still unanswered by NIST five and a half years later.
If you had reported the collapse of the twin towers before it happened would that have been just an error too? This "error" translated as $800 million plus in insurance bounty for Larry Silverstein - I'm sure Industrial Risk Insurers would be interested to know the source of your "error." In addition, two seperate sources reported that Secret Service Agent Craig Miller died as a result of the collapse of Building 7. Do you think he would have been interested in the "error" that led to your correspondent reporting the building's downfall in advance?
about blue screens, inconclusive time frame of Jane Standley footage
If there was any
remaining doubt that the BBC reported the collapse of Building 7 over 20
minutes before it fell then it has now evaporated with the discovery of
footage from the BBC's News 24 channel that shows the time stamp at
21:54 (4:54PM EST) when news of the Salomon Brothers Building is first
broadcast, a full 26 minutes in advance of its collapse.
According to FEMA, WTC 7 collapsed at 5:20pm on the afternoon of 9/11. Since British Summer Time is five hours ahead of Eastern Standard Time, the BBC reported the collapse of Building 7 at 4:54PM EST, a full 26 minutes before it collapsed.
"News is continuing to come in as you can imagine. We're now being told that another enormous building in New York has collapsed. It is the 47-story Salomon Brothers building [better known as WTC Building 7] which was situated very close to the World Trade Center, right there in this financial capitol," states the anchor Gavin Estler.
controversy created by Monday's footage in which BBC correspondent Jane
Standley is seen live in New York reporting the collapse of Building 7
as it remains standing behind her, many debunkers tried to claim that
the images were inconclusive because there was no time stamp on the
footage. Others alleged that Standley was merely standing in front of a
dated blue screen image and that the shot in her background was a
recording from earlier in the day. Both these objections can now be
easily dismissed by the addition of the News 24 footage confirming that
the news that Building 7 had collapsed was prematurely reported by 26
Building 7 stood 355 feet away from the north tower. Structures closer to the twin towers that were bombarded with debris and essentially hollowed out remained standing for weeks after 9/11, until they were demolished by explosive crews, whereas Building 7 suffered relatively little damage and yet imploded hours after the towers fell. In their Conspiracy Files "documentary" the BBC said WTC 7 was a "raging inferno" when in fact fires were confined to just eight floors according to FEMA.
World Trade Center Building 3 (pictured above), known publicly as the 22-story Marriott Hotel positioned between the twin towers, was heavily damaged during the collapse of WTC 2, yet it did not experience uniform collapse either vertically or horizontally.
The BBC's pathetic excuse for not being able to confirm that they reported the collapse of WTC 7 in advance, that they lost the tapes of the BBC World 9/11 coverage, was nothing more than an attempt to make questions about this huge controversy go away. It remains to be seen if they'll issue another response now that it is 100% certified that they reported the collapse of a building 26 minutes before it happened. So far wider mainstream coverage of this mammoth story has been all but mute.
We received an interesting e mail from a CNN archivist in Atlanta who stated their utter disbelief at the notion that BBC has lost any of their 9/11 archives.
"I'm an archivist with the CNN News Library in Atlanta, and I can tell you with absolute certainty, the mere idea that news agencies such as ours would "misplace" any airchecks from 9/11 is preposterous. CNN has these tapes locked away from all the others. People like myself, who normally would have access to any tapes in our library, must ask special permission in order to view airchecks from that day. Multiple tapes would have been recording their broadcast that day, and there are also private agencies that record all broadcasts from all channels - constantly - in the event that a news agency missed something or needs something. They don't just have one copy... they have several. It's standard procedure, and as soon as the second plane hit, they would start recording several copies on other tapes machines all day long."
"The only information they need to give out is the source of the collapse claim. No one is saying the BBC is "part of the conspiracy," we're saying that someone gave that reporter the information ahead of time. The source of that information is the only thing they can reveal that would be meaningful."
Just ten days after the airing of its bias, error ridden, propagandistic hit piece against the 9/11 truth movement, the BBC's program directors are probably wishing they had never gone near the subject. The response metered out against them, bolstered by the Building 7 fiasco, has tarnished the corporation's credibility and their sophistic attempt to rebut the accusations has only made matters worse.
Suffice to say it would be a very stupid decision to re-air Guy Smith's farce of a documentary in any country ever again. Perhaps the BBC could do us all a favor and 'lose' the tapes just like they claim to have lost the tapes of their 9/11 coverage.
The BBC Building 7 farce lends about as much credibility to the official story of 9/11 as weapons of mass destruction do for justifying the invasion of Iraq
Paul Joseph Watson
The fiasco of a BBC journalist reporting in advance that Building 7 had collapsed as it loomed large behind her strikes at the very root of how the media were complicit in acting as facilitators for the official myth that was manufactured on 9/11. After this debacle, how can we trust anything we were told about September 11?
Though the video was almost immediately purged by the crowned kings of censorship - Google - it has since been re-uploaded to You Tube and feverishly copied everywhere. Watch the clip below. For an extended clip where the Building 7 farce is clearly annotated, click here, and skip forward to 14 minutes.
A central facet of the debate raging amongst 9/11 truthers and a charge leveled by moronic debunkers is that there is no time code or clock on the video, so how can we verify the BBC reported Building 7's collapse 20 minutes before it fell?
Does it matter? Does it matter if the BBC reported the collapse 23 minutes before it happened or 30 seconds before it happened? The fact remains that the building is there in the background behind the reporter's head as she is telling us that it has already collapsed! Don't get tangled up in this minutia, the building is still standing after she has reported its collapse! Debates about time stamps and time zones are irrelevant.
Others charge that Building 7 was expected to collapse before it did, which is true, and the BBC merely jumped the gun - but that begs the question - how did officials know the building was going to collapse when no modern steel building in history had collapsed from fire damage alone and why were the BBC reporting its collapse in advance with the added knowledge of why it collapsed - a question that is still being investigated by NIST five and a half years later? Whoever the BBC's source was for reporting the collapse of Building 7 were ahead of NIST by five and a half years and had already determined why the building had collapsed before it had collapsed. Is this not in the least bit suspicious?
CNN had also been told the building was about to collapse, as is made clear below.
What seems obvious is that Silverstein was getting the cover story out as quickly as possible before the building was intentionally demolished, and that's how they were so sure it was going to collapse before it eventually did. In addition, NYPD officer Craig Bartmer reported hearing bombs tear down the building as he ran away from it.
Debunkers have scoffed at our suggestion that some kind of press release had to have been issued for the BBC to report this ahead of time. Well how else do you suggest the BBC learned of the building's demise before it happened? A psychic premonition?
This goes to the very heart of why the mainstream media is stuttering and the alternative is burgeoning - the establishment press have become nothing more than ditto heads of the official version of events to the point where they don't even perform a cursory investigation of what they are being told by official sources. Their role is simply to repeat what the authorities tell them with no scrutiny whatsoever.
Nowhere was this more evident than on 9/11 when the corporate media mechanically relayed the 'Osama did it' fraud within hours of the attack, and afforded copious air time to highly suspicious individuals who just happened to know the intricate details of how each building collapsed within minutes of it occurring. This was key to solidifying the dogma of the official story, because anyone who saw the collapse of WTC 7 without having had the official propaganda drilled into them could see plain as day that it was a controlled demolition.
Indeed, controlled demolitions expert Danny Jowenko, unaware that the structure had collapsed on 9/11, immediately concluded that Building 7 had been deliberately demolished when he was shown the footage by a Dutch television crew, and maintains that position to this day.
The BBC Building 7 fiasco lends about as much credibility to the official story of 9/11 as weapons of mass destruction do for the justification of invading Iraq.
Besides the advance reporting of just the collapse itself, how could the news anchor tell us the reason for the collapse before it happened?
"This was not the result of a new attack," states the anchor, "It was because the building had been weakened during this morning's attacks."
How else could the BBC have relayed this information unless by way of some kind of press release or official statement by Silverstein, Giuliani or the NYFD? Who told them that the building had been weakened? In effect, the BBC were working to a 9/11 script and made the error of orating their lines too early.
This damning video is also a commentary on the credibility and impartiality of the BBC as a whole, especially in light of their ludicrously bias, slanted and error ridden Conspiracy Files hit piece that aired last Sunday. Perhaps debunker-in-chief Guy Smith can explain to us how his colleague prophesied the downfall of a building that, almost mockingly, appears in full view behind her head before the live feed is conveniently interrupted.
24 hours after the video first surfaced and was then unceremoniously "pulled" from Google Video (but not before it went viral everywhere else), there is still no response from the BBC and no mainstream coverage whatsoever, not even a 'look what the silly conspiracy theorists are saying' puff piece.
It seems our noble press whores are more concerned today about Helen Mirren eating a beef burger and James Cameron's fictional Jesus tomb.
What if we had unearthed footage of a CNN anchor reporting the collapse of the twin towers as he stood below them? Would that be enough to provoke any interest? How about Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld announcing a joint press conference in which they admit they ran the attack? No doubt the noisy negativists would find some harebrained reason to dismiss that also.
Where is the BBC's clarification on this? How about Industrial Risk Insurers, surely they would be interested to find out that Silverstein was rapaciously anticipating their $861 million payout before Building 7 "accidentally" collapsed?
Our sense of outrage on this matter should not be quelled by time and the stubbornness of official channels, namely the BBC and whoever their source for reporting the collapse was, to answer for, in the case of the BBC, their hideous "mistake," and the source for exactly how they were able to predict that a modern steel building that had suffered limited fire damage would suddenly collapse in its own footprint without the aid of explosive demolition.