Difference between revisions of "9-11/WTC7/Destruction"
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
[[File:Bbcwtc7.jpg|thumb|200px|BBC's Jane Standley - Live Broadcast]] | [[File:Bbcwtc7.jpg|thumb|200px|BBC's Jane Standley - Live Broadcast]] | ||
| − | Why was it demolished and how was it accomplished? Why do the FEMA and NIST reports try to explain the collapse based purely on impact damage from tower debris and randomly | + | Why was it demolished and how was it accomplished? Why do the FEMA and NIST reports try to explain the collapse based purely on impact damage from tower debris and a few randomly fires? These effects would have weakened the supporting columns asymmetrically and assuming sufficient damage - a BIG assumption - would have caused substantial tipping had they alone produced the collapse. |
==Reports of the collapse== | ==Reports of the collapse== | ||
| − | At 4:57 EST, BBC NYC correspondent Jane Standley, in conversation with Philip Hayton the BBC London Presenter, reported live on | + | At 4:57 EST, BBC NYC correspondent Jane Standley, in conversation with Philip Hayton the BBC London Presenter, reported live on air, that the building had collapsed. The 'collapse' was headlined in the 5:00pm new roundups of both the BBC and US TV channels. The video of her report has her framed against a large window with a view of the smoking WTC site in the background and building 7 (which she was reporting no longer existed) clearly and prominently visible in the background. <ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxFRigYD3s&feature=player_embedded BBC report of the collapse of WTC 7 with the building clearly visible in the background]</ref> The live video feed was severed at 5:15pm whilst Philip Hayton was still talking to her. The building collapsed shortly thereafter at 5:21pm. |
| − | ==BBC Editor's response | + | ===BBC Editor's response=== |
| − | In February 2007, in response to considerable external pressure over the report and video , Richard Porter, one of the BBC's senior editors posted two separate blog articles | + | In February 2007, in response to considerable external pressure over the report and video , Richard Porter, one of the BBC's senior editors posted two separate blog articles endeavouring to explain how it was that the BBC had reported the collapse of one of the tallest buildings in New York '''''half an hour before''''' it did eventually collapse. The posts followed the broadcast of the 9/11 episode of their feature series 'The Conspiracy Files'. They adopt a similarly patronising tone complete with de-rigeur use of the pejorative '[[Document:911_and_the_Orwellian_Redefinition_of_Conspiracy_Theory |Conspiracy theory]]' and its derivatives. As of July 2011 these blog posts are still on the BBC web site.<ref>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html BBC Editor Blog - Part of the Conspiracy]</ref> and <ref>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/03/part_of_the_conspiracy_2.html BBC Editors Blog - Part of the Conspiracy (2)]</ref> . They have also been archived on WikiSpooks. His blog contains the following |
{{QB| "We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down... We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). ... If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that. <ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html</ref>" | {{QB| "We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down... We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). ... If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that. <ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html</ref>" | ||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
<references/> | <references/> | ||
| − | == | + | ==See Also== |
| − | *[http://911truth.org/article.php?story=20100527162010811 Building What? How SCADs Can Be Hidden in Plain Sight - David Ray Griffin] | + | *[[7 Building 7 Problems]] |
| + | *[http://911truth.org/article.php?story=20100527162010811 Building What? How SCADs Can Be Hidden in Plain Sight - [[David Ray Griffin]]] | ||
*[http://www.naderlibrary.com/911.bbcreportedbldg7.htm BBC reported Building 7 had collapsed 20 Minutes before it fell] - By Paul Watson and Alex Jones. A detailed analysis of the BBC reporting of the Building 7 collapse | *[http://www.naderlibrary.com/911.bbcreportedbldg7.htm BBC reported Building 7 had collapsed 20 Minutes before it fell] - By Paul Watson and Alex Jones. A detailed analysis of the BBC reporting of the Building 7 collapse | ||
*[http://rememberbuilding7.org/silverstein-statement/] RememberBuilding7.org on Silverstein's statement | *[http://rememberbuilding7.org/silverstein-statement/] RememberBuilding7.org on Silverstein's statement | ||
| − | [[Category:Building 7]][[Category:9/11]] | + | [[Category:Building 7]] |
| + | [[Category:9/11]] | ||
Revision as of 14:25, 7 August 2011
Compared to the WTC Twin Towers, few people have seen video footage of the collapse of the 47-story WTC building seven; but the event was recorded from several different angles by the major US news networks. As evidenced by masses of video [1] the collapse is clearly a controlled demolition, and an extremely professional one at that. How else can the perfectly symmetrical collapse, at free-fall speed, into its own footprint be explained?
Why was it demolished and how was it accomplished? Why do the FEMA and NIST reports try to explain the collapse based purely on impact damage from tower debris and a few randomly fires? These effects would have weakened the supporting columns asymmetrically and assuming sufficient damage - a BIG assumption - would have caused substantial tipping had they alone produced the collapse.
Contents
Reports of the collapse
At 4:57 EST, BBC NYC correspondent Jane Standley, in conversation with Philip Hayton the BBC London Presenter, reported live on air, that the building had collapsed. The 'collapse' was headlined in the 5:00pm new roundups of both the BBC and US TV channels. The video of her report has her framed against a large window with a view of the smoking WTC site in the background and building 7 (which she was reporting no longer existed) clearly and prominently visible in the background. [2] The live video feed was severed at 5:15pm whilst Philip Hayton was still talking to her. The building collapsed shortly thereafter at 5:21pm.
BBC Editor's response
In February 2007, in response to considerable external pressure over the report and video , Richard Porter, one of the BBC's senior editors posted two separate blog articles endeavouring to explain how it was that the BBC had reported the collapse of one of the tallest buildings in New York half an hour before it did eventually collapse. The posts followed the broadcast of the 9/11 episode of their feature series 'The Conspiracy Files'. They adopt a similarly patronising tone complete with de-rigeur use of the pejorative 'Conspiracy theory' and its derivatives. As of July 2011 these blog posts are still on the BBC web site.[3] and [4] . They have also been archived on WikiSpooks. His blog contains the following
"We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down... We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). ... If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that. [5]"
Richard Porter, BBC Senior Editor
Larry Silverstein "Pull it"
Larry Silverstein took out a long lease on the World Trade Center only six weeks before 9/11[6][7]. In a 2002 PBS documentary entitled 'America Rebuilds', Silverstein made the following statement about Building 7:
I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse.'"
Subsequently, Silverstein Properties issued a statement denying that "pull it" meant "demolish building 7", claiming that when Silverstein advised the fire commander that "the smartest thing to do is pull it," what he meant was that it would be wise to pull a contingent of firefighters out of the building, although at that time, there were no firefighters in the building[8].
References
- ↑ Watch the building collapse
- ↑ BBC report of the collapse of WTC 7 with the building clearly visible in the background
- ↑ BBC Editor Blog - Part of the Conspiracy
- ↑ BBC Editors Blog - Part of the Conspiracy (2)
- ↑ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html
- ↑ http://www.icsc.org/srch/front/200104270803.htm
- ↑ http://www.panynj.gov/press-room/press-item.cfm?headLine_id=81
- ↑ http://rememberbuilding7.org/silverstein-statement/
See Also
- 7 Building 7 Problems
- Building What? How SCADs Can Be Hidden in Plain Sight - David Ray Griffin
- BBC reported Building 7 had collapsed 20 Minutes before it fell - By Paul Watson and Alex Jones. A detailed analysis of the BBC reporting of the Building 7 collapse
- [1] RememberBuilding7.org on Silverstein's statement
