Monday, January 21, 2013
Further evidence of foreknowledge of WTC 7's collapse was provided by premature news reports, in which this building's collapse was announced before it actually occurred. These reports evidently began "at about 4:15," when CNN's Aaron Brown said: "We are getting information now that... Building 7... has either collapsed or is collapsing." This was over an hour before the building actually did collapse (at 5:21).
Additional premature announcements came from the BBC.
[Look at the building behind her for yourself... if you're not too lost in "official sources say."]
At 4:53pm, the BBC's Radio Five Live said it had reports "that another large building has collapsed just over an hour ago." At 4:54, the BBC's domestic television news channel announced the collapse. Then at about 5:10, BBC World repeated this announcement. It even provided an explanation of why the building had collapsed, saying: "[T]his wasn't the result of a new attack but because the building had been weakened during this morning's attack." Finally, at 5:14, BBC reporter Jane Standley was seen announcing the collapse of the Salomon Brothers building—the other name for WTC 7—while it could still be seen standing in the background.'*
In February 2007, a video containing some of this news footage, especially of the BBC's premature reporting, was placed on the internet. After it had evoked an enormous amount of discussion and "lots of emails" to the BBC, Richard Porter, the head of news for BBC World, responded on his blog, writing:
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.... If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error—no more than that.
This was a manifestly inadequate response (as shown by viewers' responses to it, which numbered almost 600 by the end of 2007). It was obvious that the BBC's announcement was "an error." The question was: How could such an error—announcing the collapse almost 30 minutes before it happened—have occurred?[...]
...why would such agencies have been reporting the collapse approximately 30 or even—in the case of CNN-60 minutes before it happened? Porter's only explanation was to "point to [the] confusing and chaotic situation on the ground." This second blog entry by Porter evoked over 600 responses, most of which found his explanation inadequate.
Porter could have offered a somewhat plausible explanation by suggesting that the rumor that WTC 7 was going to collapse, which had been circulating for several hours, at some point became changed, through misunderstanding, into the rumor that it had already collapsed.
If we accept this explanation, which the BBC could have offered, we might conclude that the premature announcement of the collapse by the news media adds nothing to what we have already established, namely, that Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management had spread the word several hours in advance that WTC 7 was going to collapse.
Even with that interpretation, however, the premature announcements were not insignificant, because they revealed in a dramatic and memorable fashion the fact that someone knew in advance that Building 7 was going to collapse. This is important because, given the salient facts—that WTC 7 had not been hit by a plane, that no steel-framed high-rise building had ever collapsed because of fire alone, that WTC 7 had fires on only a few floors, and that some of the other still-standing WTC buildings had suffered far worse damage—there should have been no reason to expect WTC 7 to collapse. (The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Final Report about 9/11 is Unscientific and False by David Ray Griffin: 114-116)(Emphasis added)
*A satire: "Excuse me Jane but is that the Solomon building there in the background? I'm speaking in my best, most intelligent British accent about the destruction of wisdom between the Right and Left now. So that means it has already taken place, correct?" Etc... just kidding, believe them when they say they know nothing of conspiracy.
Indeed, you can believe everyone in "the base" that's been incorporated into low levels of the pyramid scheme (inc.) when they look at you with their wide little lemming eyes and say that the know nothing about the birds of prey circling above them. (For that matter, I don't know anything either... except when I do.)
Side note, if you're in "the club" then note that the closed source pyramid scheme type of organization or programming that you're typically initiated into, itself trails off into an occult/hidden ruling class above you too. So even by the super dooper, elite and esoteric "top secret" logic typical to such schemes, you're usually just another lemming.
So you may as well stand with us (even the poor, the prostitutes and the crazies) and not the various species of birds of prey that keep fighting each other over their meal. We are all equal before the law in their eyes.