The bottom line is that there were news reports stating that WTC-7 had collapsed before the event took place meaning that the most likely explanation is that the building was brought down in a controlled demolition.
Heres the video. The reporter is telling you it has collapsed and it is still standing in full view behind her!
Another great video on this strange collapse.
The BBC which just recently aired a hit piece on people asking questions about the events of 9/11, also posted an editorial by Mike Rudin on their web site attempting again to rationalize how they managed to report that WTC-7 had collapsed before the building actually fell. WTC-7 is the third building that collapsed on September 11th, 2001 at approximately 5:20 PM EST despite the fact that no plane crashed into the building. Amazingly, BBC reporter Jane Standley reported on the building’s collapse even though WTC-7 clearly stood in the New York City skyline while she gave her report. The editorial claims that the BBC received incorrect information from Reuters which lead them to report this news in advance of the collapse. Rudin doesn’t even question how this supposedly erroneous news report from Reuters managed to accurately predict a future event. As a professional journalist, Rudin should know full well that this warrants further investigation. A statement Rudin quotes from Reuters has them citing a local news story as the original source of information but he doesn’t even bother to follow up and find the original source. According to Rudin, it is enough just to say that Reuters incorrectly reported the story even though this fails to answer a ton of questions. The bottom line is that there were news reports stating that WTC-7 had collapsed before the event took place meaning that the most likely explanation is that the building was brought down in a controlled demolition. It is impossible to predict that a building is going to collapse before it does unless it is brought down intentionally. Not only that, but the building came down in 6.5 seconds at close to the speed of gravity, had light fire damage prior to its collapse and there is no historical precedent for a building to collapse in its own footprint due to fire damage. Considering that it is impossible to load up a 47-story building with explosives in 7 to 8 hours for the purposes of demolition, explosives had to have been planted in advance indicating certain people had foreknowledge of what was going to happen on that day. Of course, the conspiracy theorists at the BBC are going to do everything in their power to make sure that all information they report fits in line with their 9/11 conspiracy theory that they blindly support.
What’s really interesting about this whole situation is that right when this news came out, the BBC claimed that they lost the video footage of Jane Standley’s report.
Here’s what Richard Porter from the BBC said about the missing tapes back in 2007.
I should also mention the missing tapes. As you’ll see from the details above, the absence of the BBC World tapes hasn’t made much difference to our ability to look back at what happened. We have all the tapes of other BBC channels (and I now know that quite a few of you have your own copies of BBC World, which is an interesting discovery… ).
Some of you find it hard to believe we didn’t keep the BBC World tapes… but we had several streams of news output running simultaneously on the day, both on radio and television as well as online and we have kept all the tapes from BBC News 24 and Radio Five Live, as well as all the BBC One bulletins. Obviously I wish we’d kept hold of the World tapes alongside all the others, but we didn’t… and I don’t know whether they were destroyed or mislaid. But as a result of this week’s events, I have asked our archivists to get hold of copies of our original material from the organisations which do have them.
And just to be clear, the BBC policy is to keep every minute of news channel output for 90 days (in line with the Broadcasting Act in the UK). After that we are obliged to keep a representative sample - and we interpret that to mean roughly one third of all our output. We also keep a large amount of individual items (such as packaged reports or “rushes” - ie original unedited material), which we use for operational reasons - such as when we come to broadcast fresh stories on the subject. We do not lack a historical record of the event.
Amazingly a year later they have managed to find the tapes.
The following is taken from Rudin’s editorial talking about how they finally found them.
The mystery of the missing tapes didn’t last that long. One very experienced film librarian kindly agreed to have another look for us one night. There are more than a quarter of a million tapes just in the Fast Store basement at Television Centre. The next morning I got a call to say the tapes had been found. They’d just been put back on the wrong shelf - 2002 rather than 2001. Not so sinister after all.
These people are a bunch of liars. How could Porter say that they didn’t have copies of the original material and a year later, Rudin makes an entirely different excuse saying that the tapes had been misplaced and put on the wrong shelf? Not only that but how does video footage of one of the most important events of the 21st century get misplaced on a shelf designated for 2002 rather than 2001?
The BBC has pretty much admitted that they were being dishonest about the whereabouts of these video tapes, so how can they be trusted to give an unbiased view on the events of 9/11? If they are not being dishonest, than they must be incompetent, take your pick.
Here’s what Rudin said about Reuters being the source of the information they used in Standley’s news report.
It turns out that the respected news agency Reuters picked up an incorrect report and passed it on. They have issued this statement:
“On 11 September 2001 Reuters incorrectly reported that one of the buildings at the New York World Trade Center, 7WTC, had collapsed before it actually did. The report was picked up from a local news story and was withdrawn as soon as it emerged that the building had not fallen.”
Rudin doesn’t even think that it is worth following up on this to find the real source. What sort of journalist would stop there and not dig deeper? The most ridiculous thing about this is that Rudin proves what many have accused the BBC of doing which was reading off of a pre-packaged media script. He admits that the BBC retrieved this information from Reuters which gives validity to what many were saying about this news being planted in advance of the event.
This is just one aspect of the BBC engaging in an incredible amount of deception. As hard as this might be to believe, this is nothing compared to the insane amount of lies and deceit that is packaged in their new documentary “The Third Tower” that attempts to prove the insane conspiracy theory that WTC-7 was brought down due to fire damage. It is so incredibly biased and misleading that several articles if not a small book would be necessary to fully analyze the pathetic debunking attempts. Look for my complete analysis of the documentary shortly.
Forgot this:
This building in Madrid, Spain burned all night long. . . .
Same building next day!
The Madrid, Spain building fire shows steel buildings will stand even after massive fires. Not on 9/11, 3 buildings collapsed at near free-fall speed on that day.
Before 9-11, no modern steel framed building had ever collapsed due to fire.
It's simple, flames in a building fire do not melt steel!
Try to find video any another steel framed building collapsing due to fire.
You cannot, because it never happened before or since 9/11.
That's a fact. Prove otherwise.
