It has now been discovered that BBC 24
also reported the Building 7 collapse before it fell. Furthermore,
CNN's Aaron Brown reported that Building 7 "has collapsed or is
collapsing" over an hour before it fell.
These clips both reinforce the
shocking, newly discovered BBC coverage wherein Jane Standley
reports the collapse early-- with the building still standing behind
witnessing the unraveling of the 9/11 cover-up.
The early timing of these reports is
now verified twiceover-- the BBC 24 report is time stamped at
21.54-- or 4:54 P.M. Eastern Standard Time [See World Time Zones]
Secondly, CNN's Aaron Brown states the time as "4:15 Eastern
Daylight Time," announcing Building 7 has fallen-- more than one
hour before its actual collapse.
Furthermore, both the BBC report with
Jane Standley and the CNN report with Aaron Brown clearly show
Building 7 still standing, 'billowing with smoke' as the collapse is
reported-- so premature reporting is confirmed visually as well .
There is no longer any doubt they were
all reading off the same script. Reports mirrored testimony of
scores of fire fighters, police and emergency workers who were told
to get back from the building in the 2 hours before Salomon Brothers
building (better known as WTC 7) fell at free-fall speed.
The group that carried out the
demolition of Building 7 was in a position to feed the media and
local authorities an official story. We have the controlled
demolition of Building 7 hidden in plain sight-- including an
admission by the building's 99-year lease
holder Larry Silverstein .
We are witnessing the
unraveling of the 9/11 cover-up.
New video and audio clips of emergency
workers who were told the Building 7 was to be purposefully brought
down are coming out on an hour-by-hour basis as thousands of 9/11
researchers investigate publicly available archives.
Jones in his car on the afternoon of 9/11 also heard ABC News report
that the government was considering demolishing Building 7. Jones
didn't't realize what he was hearing for several weeks. Now the
evidence is coming out.
CNN'S REPORT IN-FOCUS
AARON BROWN QUESTIONS SCRIPT ON-AIR, UNLIKE BBC
is interesting to note that Aaron Brown seems to realize the
incongruity of his reporting as he looks over his shoulder at
Building 7-- still standing and emitting massive trails of smoke.
after announcing that WTC 7 "has collapsed or is collapsing," he
lets onto his confusion, stating:
"And I—I—You, to be
honest, can see these pictures more clearly than I, but building
number 7, one of the buildings in this very large complex of
buildings that is that is the trade center."
Clearly, Brown, slicker
than the BBC reporter, caught the errors in the script during live
coverage and revised his words, saying instead-- as he looked at the
"And now we are told
that there's a fire there and that building may collapse as well
as you can see. "
BBC 24 REPORT
IN-FOCUS Time-Stamped BBC Broadcast Seals Media
Foreknowledge of Building 7 Collapse and Use of Scripting
An alternate local BBC report-- which included a live
time-stamp-- now positively establishes that BBC reported the
collapse of WTC Building 7 at least 25-minutes prior to the actual
collapse of the building.
The feed seen above (at top) reports at 21.54 London
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.
21.54-- 5 hours earlier in New York-- is 4:54 p.m.,
well before the actual collapse at 5:20 p.m.
This live feed did not show WTC 7 standing during the
announcement, as it was showing B-roll of rescue workers on the
The words used are very similar to the BBC report with
Jane Standley, who also reported the WTC 7 collapse prematurely--
with the building visible in the live frame beyond the window. The
latter coverage also included an explanation by the co-anchor that
the building was not attacked, but, rather, was "weakened"--
perfectly in line with the official story even before the collapse
BBC'S ABSURD RESPONSE
IN-FOCUS BBC Claims 9/11 Tapes Lost; CNN
Archivist Contradicts This, Citing Multiple Copies Recorded
BBC responded to news of the early report on Building
7's collapse, claiming, amongst other excuses, that their 9/11 tapes
have been lost.
A CNN archivist in Atlanta, and Infowars reader,
corrected this erroneous notion:
"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
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."
WTC COMPLEX IN-FOCUS
WTC 3 Was Structurally Destroyed by Falling
Debris, Yet Did Not Uniformly Collapse at Free-Fall Speed Like WTC 7
Trade Center Building 3 -- 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-- but rather a
crater of inconsistent breakage.
WTC Building 3 Was Heavily Damaged by the
Collapse of Tower 2, Yet Did Not Collapse Uniformly.
Yet, Building 7, which was comparably far removed from
the two buildings hit by airliners, suffered only minor fires and
sudden, uniform collapse-- typically indicative of a controlled
Clearly, the difference in damage between the two
steel buildings is baffling and untenable under the explanation
offered by the government's official story.
MORE INFORMATION TO COME AS THESE NEW DEVELOPMENTS
CONTINUE TO SURFACE THROUGH INDEPENDENT 9/11 RESEARCH.
BBC Responds to Building 7
Controversy; Claim 9/11 Tapes Lost 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
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 preempting 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.
The Internet leader in
activist media - Prison
Planet.tv . Thousands of special reports, videos,
MP3's, interviews, conferences, speeches, events,
documentary films, books and more - all for just 15
cents a day! Click
here to subscribe!
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?
something that should be seen by everyone, no matter
what their stance/affiliation/political bent.
" - Rich Rosell, Digitally Obsessed UK Get
TerrorStorm on DVD today