BBC Reported Building 7 Had Collapsed 20 Minutes Before It Fell

Prison Planet | Feb 26, 2007  

Revealing, shocking video shows reporter talking about collapse with WTC 7 still standing in background, Google removes clip

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 BBC reporter Jane Standley 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 was on Google Video, but was removed within hours of the story breaking. You can watch it for the time being at this link and also here. A WMV link is here.

We are attempting to compile numerous mirrors of the video file. Skip forward to around the 14:30 minute mark. We expect the surviving links to quickly disappear, so we’ve uploaded an FLV file to our own server.

To be clear, the Salomon Brothers Building is just a different name for Building 7 or WTC 7.

Although there is no clock or time stamp 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.

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.

[Youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9b4D-aO3zY]

Silverstein Spills The Beans About WTC Building 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.

10 responses to “BBC Reported Building 7 Had Collapsed 20 Minutes Before It Fell

  1. I agree with you, I have seen the clip of Jane Standley reporting the collapse of Building 7 a supposive twenty-three minutes before the actual collapse of the building. I think this whole part of the article is great, but I think many assumptions are being made. Don’t get me wrong I am with you on this one, but it could be very possible that in all of the excitement Standley got flustered and mixed up what she was saying. I bet a lot people were saying a lot of different things around her and all the noise and chaos may have messed her up. Also you talk about how the Video was removed from Google, and while it could be to protect the government, it could be to protect Standley from humiliation and the idea she was part of the conspiracy. The report claims it happened at 4:57 EST, but there are alot of claims being made today and many are based on assumptions. Provide some evidence to assure the readers of these claims.

  2. All the evidence you need is right behind over her left shoulder. There stands the “Solomon Brothers” building 7 as they talk about its (imminent) collapse. Then, realizing the fact that they were ahead of the script, Standley’s transmission was stopped before the building could be seen imploding behind her. THAT, would have proven to be very embarrassing indeed.

    PW

  3. I know PW I am not arguing the WTC-7 building being there, I am arguing that she may have been reporting on one of the other two towers that collapsed and mixed up what she said. If she was trying to say the WTC-7 building then yes, that is all the evidence anyone would need with it in the background. I just think that is a big assumption given the circumstances she was in.

  4. Nick, I recommend you download the Windows media WMV file above and watch it. Watch it a couple times. There is no mistaking that they are talking about the Solomon Brothers building in the past tense (“post collapse” according to the script) and in detail saying “the building had been weakened”, that the people had been evacuated before the collapse.

    Jane Standley is not a conspirator. She was obviously just saying what she was told to say regarding building 7. Not being famiiar with the WTC, she did not recognize that WTC 7 was still standing, but someone in the control room did, so her plug was pulled. So there are no “assumptions” being made. Only observations. The only logical conclusion any rational person can make is that they had been given the story before it happened and the only mistake that they made was to announce it 20 minutes before it happened. Hence, as it was realized that they were ahead of schedule, the satellite feed was cut off to avoid the obvious contradiction.

  5. Sanity For Sale

    agree with vous pj

  6. Your argument is thought provoking, but I disagree with your assumption that Larry Silverstein knew the industry jargon on demolishing a building and he wanted it demolished. When Larry Silverstein said that he wanted to “pull it” to the fire chief you are assuming that what he meant to say was that he wanted the building to be brought down by demolitions. What Mr. Silverstein could have meant is that he wanted the firemen inside the building pulled since he saw the previous buildings collapse with firemen inside. By “pull it” he could mean the fire mission of the firemen going inside Building 7 to fight the flames. So he wanted them to get out of the building since they could not control the fire.

  7. You make a legitmate point. Just about everyone first asks this obvious question: “Did he mean pull the fire mission?” However, “pull” is also a demolition term, so it is an equally valid opinion to say he could be talking about demolishing the building. You could then ask, “But why would he reveal it was a controlled demolition?” The answer to that is that the perpetrators have left a trail of similar slips.

    Bush said he watched Flight 11 hit the north tower on TV when no one was watching that on television anywhere on earth, or so we are told. He said this not once but twice to two different audiences when asked what he was doing on the morning of 9/11.

    Rumsfeld let it slip that Flight 93 was shot down.

    A FEMA employee let it slip that they were there in New York the night before, ready for something.

    The BBC let slip that they were told building 7 had already collapsed 20 minutes before, and CNN’s Aaron Brown announced it an hour before it collapsed.

    The slip ups on the official story just keep on coming out. So that is my point there.

    Anyway, it now does not matter whether Silverstein (who collected a tidy $7 billion on the deal) meant pull the building or pull the mission because we have it proven in spades that it was indeed a controlled demolition:

    1. Just a simple viewing of the collapse video reveals a perfectly symetric demolition with the classic “crimp” that lets the building fall inward on itself. Any professional explosives expert will tell you that. There is a documentary that shows of a Dutch expert watching the video clip for the first time. He says it was a perfectly executed demolition. When told it happened on 9/11, his expression turned to disbelief asking, “You sure?” about four times because he assumed it was done later since it takes days to wire up a 47 story building (more than a few hours), and impossible in a smokefilled building with spot fires.

    2. The spot fires in the building could not bring the building down, period. It is a physical impossibility in an steel frame building, especially this one which was hardened as a command center.

    3. We now have videos of construction workers walking away from the building, saying “keep and eye on that building, it’ll be coming down soon.” Another video shows a cop telling people to “Get back. It’s gonna blow up.” All were calm, knowing it was a controlled situation.

    I could go on, but those are some of the main points. It’s proof enough for me and I am sure more proof will come out to make it iron clad.

  8. The term “pull it” does not mean demolish. Yes it’s used in demolition terms but it means to literally pull the building over. Silverstein meant for the firemen to “pull” as Garret says. I believe there is a conspiracy behind the 9/11 attacks, and possibly Building 7, but I’m not fully convinced or as gullible as some conspiarcy theorists are.

    Oh and the thing about the insurance claim, his insurance money wasn’t even enough to rebuild the building. Some “profit”.

  9. FOX news also reported the collapse prematurely. It actually fell just after the news anchors reported it. As they watch it fall they offer no explanation and do not seem unduly surprised.

  10. Of course, because the whole goddamn event was scripted by the elites. But who cares right? Let’s all just go back to sleep, give up our rights, our sovereignty and any chance at living in a peaceful, prosperous and free society.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s