BBC's Jane Standley?

[Pietro_Mercurios]

...

If that were the case then we'd expect other news agencies to have made the same reports at the BBC. As far as i can make out there's no evidence of this. In any case why would they need to leak the collapse of the building if they'd already being briefing why it was liable to collapse. That simply doesn't add up. I really can't see what significance the BBC report has now.

You Tube: WTC 7 Foreknowledge
Added February 26, 2007
From BigD822

Over an hour before the WTC 7 demolition at 4:10pm, Aaron Brown [reporting for CNN] reports - "building 7, in the wtc complex, is on fire and has either collapsed, or is collapsing".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1LetB0z8_o

 

[Rrose_Selavy]

[quote="Pietro_Mercurios

You Tube: WTC 7 Foreknowledge
Added February 26, 2007
From BigD822

Over an hour before the WTC 7 demolition at 4:10pm, Aaron Brown [reporting for CNN] reports - "building 7, in the wtc complex, is on fire and has either collapsed, or is collapsing".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1LetB0z8_o

[/quote]


Demolition? Someone's obviously already mind their mind up!
In fact this supports the view that it was expected to collapse and there was confusion about whether it had.

-

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

[quote="Pietro_Mercurios]

You Tube: WTC 7 Foreknowledge
Added February 26, 2007
From BigD822

Over an hour before the WTC 7 demolition at 4:10pm, Aaron Brown [reporting for CNN] reports - "building 7, in the wtc complex, is on fire and has either collapsed, or is collapsing".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1LetB0z8_o

Demolition? Someone's obviously already mind their mind up!
In fact this supports the view that it was expected to collapse and there was confusion about whether it had.

-

[/quote]
Or, you could look at the video clip, from CNN News.

 

[Jerry_B]

It does seem that she is an extremely competent reporter and comfortable in dealing with major events that have had an effect on the world stage you will note.

But can still make mistakes, as she is after all human - and was dealing with a very hectic event and discussing it live during what was confusing circumstances.

 

[Jerry_B]

Or, you could look at the video clip, from CNN News.

Which says, as you've pointed out, that ' "building 7, in the wtc complex, is on fire and has either collapsed, or is collapsing" '. Which means it's not clear to the reporters what is going on, seeing as they apparently don't have any access to the area.

As has been mentioned before, to try and engineer this into some sort of conspiracy is very much scraping the bottom of the barrel.

 

[Anonymous]

Richard Porters response is wobbly. He said there was info given by a "fire officer" ( in retrospect) who was it then? And how come this fire officer knew the building was going to collapse well in advance and his fellow officers never? Secondly why is Porter dragging CNN into this? CNN probably got the info from the same person/persons. Porters response doesnt stand up.

And he has still not clarifed who gave Standley the info. In fact he has ignored all attempts to address Standleys position.

 

[Rrose_Selavy]

And he has still not clarifed who gave Standley the info. In fact he has ignored all attempts to address Standleys position.

LET ME PUT IS AGAIN FOR THE THIRD TIME FOR THE HARD OF HEARING _ STANDLEY DOES NOT ANNOUNCE THE COLLAPSE OF THE SALMON BUILDING . SHE HAS NO FURTHER INFORMATION TO GIVE ON IT.THE LONDON BBC STUDIO ANCHOR PHILLIP HAYTON DOES. PERHAPS YOU WOULD CARE TO INVESTIGATE HIS BACKGROUND INSTEAD?

JEEZ!

-

 

[Rrose_Selavy]

[quote="Pietro_Mercurios]

You Tube: WTC 7 Foreknowledge
Added February 26, 2007
From BigD822

Over an hour before the WTC 7 demolition at 4:10pm, Aaron Brown [reporting for CNN] reports - "building 7, in the wtc complex, is on fire and has either collapsed, or is collapsing".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1LetB0z8_o

Demolition? Someone's obviously already mind their mind up!
In fact this supports the view that it was expected to collapse and there was confusion about whether it had.

-

Or, you could look at the video clip, from CNN News.

[/quote][/quote]

I did, that's what I was referring to in my second sentence.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1LetB0z8_o

Demolition? Someone's obviously already mind their mind up!
In fact this supports the view that it was expected to collapse and there was confusion about whether it had.

-

Or, you could look at the video clip, from CNN News.

I did, that's what I was referring to in my second sentence.

I see. By the phrasing, I took your second sentence to be referring to the content of your first sentence.

There seems to be no doubt that some of the fire chiefs were predicting the collapse of Building 7, all that afternoon.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/130207building7.htm

How Did They Know Building 7 Was Going to Collapse?
9/11 Blogger. Tuesday, February 13, 2007

"That building is never coming down, that didn't get hit by a plane, why isn't somebody in there putting the fire out?"

- Comment by a firefighter, September 11, 2001.

World Trade Center Building 7 was a 47-story skyscraper, located a few hundred feet from the twin towers. No plane hit it, yet at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001 it collapsed entirely to the ground in the space of just 6.6 seconds. No building like it, a modern, steel-framed high-rise, had ever collapsed because of fire before. In fact, photos indicate that the fires it did suffer were relatively minor, particularly when compared to other building fires that have not caused such a total collapse. If the official explanation is correct--that WTC 7's collapse was not due to pre-planted explosives--then this was the biggest scientific anomaly of all time. People must surely have been astonished when this massive building suddenly fell to the ground late in the afternoon of 9/11.

Yet this was not the case.

As the dozens of witness accounts below show, many people were warned in advance to evacuate the area surrounding WTC 7, because of the "imminent" collapse. Indeed, a specific "collapse zone" was set up and, consequently, there were no casualties when WTC 7 eventually fell. Furthermore, a small number of senior firefighters have claimed they could tell beforehand that this building was going to come down, even though such an event would have been totally unprecedented.

So how did they know Building 7 was going to collapse?

WITNESSES WHO WERE WARNED OF THE IMPENDING COLLAPSE

...

WITNESSES WHO APPARENTLY KNEW IN ADVANCE OF THE COLLAPSE

1) Fire Chief Frank Fellini: "The major concern at that time at that particular location was number Seven, building number seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. ... We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing. So for the next five or six hours we kept firefighters from working anywhere near that building, which included the whole north side of the World Trade Center complex. Eventually around 5:00 or a little after, building number seven came down." (Interview, 12/3/2001)

2) Fire Chief Daniel Nigro: "The biggest decision we had to make on the first day was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story building heavily involved in fire. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt. I issued the orders to pull back the firefighters and define the collapse zone. It was a critical decision; we could not lose any more firefighters. It took a lot of time to pull everyone out, given the emotionalism of the day, communications difficulties, and the collapse terrain." (Daniel Nigro, "Report from the Chief of Department," Fire Engineering, 9/2002)

Daniel Nigro (in another account): "I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we wouldn't lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was given, at 5:30 in the afternoon, 7 World Trade Center collapsed completely." (Interview, 10/24/2001)

3) Fire Chief Frank Cruthers: "Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area ... be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it." (Interview, 10/31/2001)

Frank Cruthers (in another account): "Of primary importance early on in the operation was the structural condition of 7 World Trade Center. Assistant Chief Frank Fellini had been approached by several chiefs who were concerned about its stability. It had been heavily damaged in the collapse and was well-involved in fire. Chief Fellini had looked at it and described to us some damage to its south side; he felt that structural components of the building had been comprised. So when Chief Dan Nigro arrived at the command post, he convened a meeting of staff chiefs, and this was a major subject of the meeting. We were all in accord about the danger of 7 WTC, and we all agreed that it was not too conservative of a decision to establish a collapse zone for that building, move the firefighters out of the collapse area, and maintain that strategy." (Frank Cruthers, "Postcollapse Command," Fire Engineering, 9/2002)

4) Fire Captain Ray Goldbach: "There was a big discussion going on at that point about pulling all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center. Chief Nigro didn't feel it was worth taking the slightest chance of somebody else getting injured. So at that point we made a decision to take all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center because there was a potential for collapse. ... Made the decision to back everybody away, took all the units and moved them all the way back toward North End Avenue, which is as far I guess west as you could get on Vesey Street, to keep them out of the way." (Interview, 10/24/2001)

5) Fire Engineering magazine: "FDNY chief officers surveyed 7 WTC and determined that it was in danger of collapse. Chief Frank Cruthers, now the incident commander, and Chief Frank Fellini, the operations commander, both agreed that a collapse zone had to be established. That meant firefighters in the area of the North Tower had to be evacuated. This took some time to accomplish because of terrain, communications, and the fierce determination with which the firefighters were searching. At 5:30 p.m., about 20 minutes after the last firefighters evacuated the collapse zone, 7 WTC collapsed. It was the third steel-frame high-rise in history to collapse from fire--the other two had collapsed earlier that day." ("World Trade Center Disaster: Initial Response," Fire Engineering, 9/2002)

 

[Jerry_B]

Why is it any sort of mystery that firefighters thought that the building would collapse? Prison Planet banging on about it being 'the biggest scientific anomaly of all time' is rather wide of the mark. The seem to be ignoring firecrews saying things about the 'severely damaged 7 World Trade Center'.

The more Prison Planet comes out with such stuff, the more stupid the site seems. I assume that they can read, but it seems that they cannot understand what they're reading.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

...

If that were the case then we'd expect other news agencies to have made the same reports at the BBC. As far as i can make out there's no evidence of this. In any case why would they need to leak the collapse of the building if they'd already being briefing why it was liable to collapse. That simply doesn't add up. I really can't see what significance the BBC report has now.

You Tube: WTC 7 Foreknowledge
Added February 26, 2007
From BigD822

Over an hour before the WTC 7 demolition at 4:10pm, Aaron Brown [reporting for CNN] reports - "building 7, in the wtc complex, is on fire and has either collapsed, or is collapsing".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1LetB0z8_o

Unfortunately I can't get sound on my works computer and Youtube is on the prohibited list. I wonder if it would be possible to get a transcript or confirmation that CNN announces WTC7 is "either collapsed or is collapsing" around 40 minutes before the BBC? And if this is the case then would theorists be able to tell me what significance there is to the BBC report?

 

[tilly50]

What I meant in my previous post is that any black ops would be liable to create as many red herrings as they could to obscure their path, assuming there was any path to obscure.

What if the black ops brigade did not start off the events off 9/11 but mearly added their own (maybe having had prior info of the events to come)?

There are enough anomilies in the events of that day to lead you to think that there were more than just the one acency involved.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

What I meant in my previous post is that any black ops would be liable to create as many red herrings as they could to obscure their path, assuming there was any path to obscure.

What if the black ops brigade did not start off the events off 9/11 but mearly added their own (maybe having had prior info of the events to come)?

There are enough anomilies in the events of that day to lead you to think that there were more than just the one acency involved.

The number of anomalies involved that day lead me to believe that the fallability of rapid news coverage and the unpredictability of any combination of events is more likely than black-ops, tbh.

Also the problem of creating a red herring in this way is that you would actually be giving away far too much information when in reality there is no evidence to suggest that people would have needed softening up regarding the WTC7 story.

If you're suggesting that the black-ops operation had prior info but were not responsible for what happened at 9/11 you'd have to abandon the theory that the various buildings could not have collapsed in the manner detailed in the official version. If that is the case then what is the basis for the conspiracy?

 

[Dingo667]

Ok, I read the whole thread now. Phew. Intersting. I myself believe that the twn toers were NOT brought down by the aeroplanes...BUT, this is something else.
I really think that this was a genuine mistake due to the events. If you don't know your buildings and new info is virtually streaming in every few minutes, it seems very possible to get this one wrong. If this was a less important recording, it would have ended up on "Its all right on the night" or whatever program shows "slip ups" and we would all laugh at it.

I really have to bend my imagination here to come up with a CT. The only thing that might have happened is that someone got the timing wrong. Lets say they had a script, big man says:" Release the news of building 7 asap", meaning as soon as it happens, some greenhorn might have mistaken that for "go go go" and told the BBC earlier...

Sad, really because I love a good argument FOR the destruction of all buildings but this one isn't it I'm afrait.


Does this not show that some of us CTs can be selective and actually THINK before taking it all on board? If every CT supporter could be like this, then we might get taken a little more serious.
Don't muck it up by blindly jumping on every bandwagon!

 

[crunchy5]

More tv stuff found to be suspiciously like media scripting.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/ma ... ipting.htm

Yet more archive news footage unearthed from broadcasts on 9/11 offers further evidence that the media were being fed a script in which a cover story was quickly groomed to offset questions about the highly suspicious collapse of the twin towers.

Two weeks ago we highlighted BBC World footage from September 11 in which a correspondent reports the collapse of Building 7 as it remains standing in the live shot behind her head. New footage unearthed from Britain's Channel 5 news coverage provokes more questions about 9/11 scripting in a similar vein.

"Sections of the other tower are also crumbling - now the reason this is happening, according to the website for the World Trade Center, they're actually telling us that the structure, the outside cladding of this building is integral to the safety and security of it," states the news anchor following the collapse of the south tower.



"Once you penetrate that apparently the very structure of the building is under threat and that's why one tower has already collapsed."

The suspicious rapidity of the instant press release aside, why did the World Trade Center's website carry such a blatantly fallacious explanation for the collapse of the first tower? Even the layman knows that any modern building is anchored by core columns, not "outside cladding," and the twin towers were no different. To rest a building's integrity on its "outside cladding" is a reversal of all commonly accepted architectural knowledge. Why was the World Trade Center website peddling this nonsense in contradiction with the words of the twin tower's own designers?

Included in over a dozen examples compiled here, Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, said that the towers could sustain "multiple impacts of jetliners" without collapsing.

In addition, Leslie Robertson, one of the two original structural engineers for the World Trade Center, stated that, “The twin towers were in fact the first structures outside the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airplane.”

The twin towers were desgined to absorb airliner impacts by means of their 47 huge core columns. The twin towers could not be compromised simply by damaging their "outside cladding," such a claim is patently absurd and why it was immediately peddled as an explanation for their collapse is highly suspect.

Later in the clip, the anchor comments, "It is completely enveloped in smoke, it is on fire, and we understand that this other tower is also in a situation of near collapse."

Based on the testimony of the experts who designed and built the twin towers, how on earth could officials and the media be so sure that the towers were going to collapse unless they were being fed a script by individuals who knew they were about to be imploded and were carefully preparing the cover story?



Another video that was shot before the first tower had even collapsed shows people on the street telling others to get back from the towers because they are about to "explode." Since no modern steel building had collapsed from fire damage alone and the fires were almost out, as described in the firefighter tapes, to forecast that the towers were about to crumble, a fortuitous act of clairvoyance that was also enjoyed by Rudy Giuliani, was an impossible prediction to make unless a pre-planned script was already circulating.

 

[Rrose_Selavy]

Two weeks ago we highlighted BBC World footage from September 11 in which a correspondent reports the collapse of Building 7 as it remains standing in the live shot behind her head

No they didn't.

With that lack of attention added to wishfiul thinking I would take everything that follws as the usual barrel scraping and desparate CT shock horror spin -

 

[Jerry_B]

Hardly scripting - Prison Planet are simply choosing to ignore a few things or paint things in a way that supports their agenda. Note, for example, the references to the buildings being able to survive plane impacts - the buildings did in fact survive the impacts. What they didn't survive were the subsequently huge fires, structural failures, etc. that came later on as a result of those impacts.

Such sites continue to churn out the same mistakes they've been maiking for years now, simply because they have no proof for any of their somewhat wild claims

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

They also selectively quote from the likes of Leslie Robertson who, in the link provided by their site, points out that there was no planning for the fire that occured after the planes struck, that he supports the findings of the NIST report and that the towers were NOT built to withstand the kind of strike that they took. :?