Newsmedia Controlled by 911 Criminals!
BBC Reported Building 7 Had Collapsed 23 Minutes Before It Fell!
Revealing, shocking video shows reporter talking about collapse with WTC 7 still standing in background, Google removes clip
Prison Planet | February 27, 2007 (UPDATED 5:36AM CST)
Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
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.
Watch for yourself, and see how the newsmedia had prior knowledge...
This amazing clip was on Google Video (now back again here), but was removed within hours of the story breaking. However, hundreds of people had already managed to download the clip and it has gone viral on the Internet and the censors won't be able to shut the lid this time. A You Tube upload is available here but we fully expect this to be removed soon. A WMV link is here (on our server, right mouse click to download).
To be clear, the Salomon Brothers Building is just a different name for Building 7 or WTC 7. Skip forward to around the 14:30 minute mark.
Here are some further screenshots from the video.
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.
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!
Paul Joseph Watson
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
The fiasco of a BBC journalist reporting in advance that Building 7 had collapsed as it loomed large behind her strikes at the very root of how the media were complicit in acting as facilitators for the official myth that was manufactured on 9/11. After this debacle, how can we trust anything we were told about September 11?
Though the video was almost immediately purged by the crowned kings of censorship - Google - it has since been re-uploaded to You Tube and feverishly copied everywhere. Watch the clip below.
A central facet of the debate raging amongst 9/11 truthers and a charge leveled by moronic debunkers is that there is no time code or clock on the video, so how can we verify the BBC reported Building 7's collapse 23 minutes before it fell?
Does it matter? Does it matter if the BBC reported the collapse 23 minutes before it happened or 30 seconds before it happened? The fact remains that the building is there in the background behind the reporter's head as she is telling us that it has already collapsed! Don't get tangled up in this minutia, the building is still standing after she has reported its collapse! Debates about time stamps and time zones are irrelevant.
Others charge that Building 7 was expected to collapse before it did, which is true, and the BBC merely jumped the gun - but that begs the question - how did officials know the building was going to collapse when no modern steel building in history had collapsed from fire damage alone and why were the BBC reporting its collapse in advance with the added knowledge of why it collapsed - a question that is still being investigated by NIST five and a half years later? Whoever the BBC's source was for reporting the collapse of Building 7 were ahead of NIST by five and a half years and had already determined why the building had collapsed before it had collapsed. Is this not in the least bit suspicious?
CNN had also been told the building was about to collapse, as is made clear below.
What seems obvious is that Silverstein was getting the cover story out as quickly as possible before the building was intentionally demolished, and that's how they were so sure it was going to collapse before it eventually did. In addition, NYPD officer Craig Bartmer reported hearing bombs tear down the building as he ran away from it.
Debunkers have scoffed at our suggestion that some kind of press release had to have been issued for the BBC to report this ahead of time. Well how else do you suggest the BBC learned of the building's demise before it happened? A psychic premonition?
This goes to the very heart of why the mainstream media is stuttering and the alternative is burgeoning - the establishment press have become nothing more than ditto heads of the official version of events to the point where they don't even perform a cursory investigation of what they are being told by official sources. Their role is simply to repeat what the authorities tell them with no scrutiny whatsoever.
Nowhere was this more evident than on 9/11 when the corporate media mechanically relayed the 'Osama did it' fraud within hours of the attack, and afforded copious air time to highly suspicious individuals who just happened to know the intricate details of how each building collapsed within minutes of it occurring. This was key to solidifying the dogma of the official story, because anyone who saw the collapse of WTC 7 without having had the official propaganda drilled into them could see plain as day that it was a controlled demolition.
The Internet leader in activist media - Prison Planet.tv. Thousands of special reports, videos, MP3's, interviews, conferences, speeches, events, documentary films, books and more - all for just 15 cents a day! Click here to subscribe!
The BBC Building 7 fiasco lends about as much credibility to the official story of 9/11 as weapons of mass destruction do for the justification of invading Iraq.
Besides the advance reporting of just the collapse itself, how could the news anchor tell us the reason for the collapse before it happened?
"This was not the result of a new attack," states the anchor, "It was because the building had been weakened during this morning's attacks."
How else could the BBC have relayed this information unless by way of some kind of press release or official statement by Silverstein, Giuliani or the NYFD? Who told them that the building had been weakened? In effect, the BBC were working to a 9/11 script and made the error of orating their lines too early.
This damning video is also a commentary on the credibility and impartiality of the BBC as a whole, especially in light of their ludicrously bias, slanted and error riddenConspiracy Files hit piece that aired last Sunday. Perhaps debunker-in-chief Guy Smith can explain to us how his colleague prophesied the downfall of a building that, almost mockingly, appears in full view behind her head before the live feed is conveniently interrupted.
24 hours after the video first surfaced and was then unceremoniously "pulled" from Google Video (but not before it went viral everywhere else), there is still no response from the BBC and no mainstream coverage whatsoever, not even a 'look what the silly conspiracy theorists are saying' puff piece.
It seems our noble press whores are more concerned today about Helen Mirren eating a beef burger and James Cameron's fictional Jesus tomb.
What if we had unearthed footage of a CNN anchor reporting the collapse of the twin towers as he stood below them? Would that be enough to provoke any interest? How about Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld announcing a joint press conference in which they admit they ran the attack? No doubt the noisy negativists would find some harebrained reason to dismiss that also.
Where is the BBC's clarification on this? How about Industrial Risk Insurers, surely they would be interested to find out that Silverstein was rapaciously anticipating their $861 million payout before Building 7 "accidentally" collapsed?
Our sense of outrage on this matter should not be quelled by time and the stubbornness of official channels, namely the BBC and whoever their source for reporting the collapse was, to answer for, in the case of the BBC, their hideous "mistake," and the source for exactly how they were able to predict that a modern steel building that had suffered limited fire damage would suddenly collapse in its own footprint without the aid of explosive demolition.
Something to Seriously Think About
There is a mountain of overwhelming evidence indicting the Bush Administration, clearly showing that they had prior knowledge and involvement in the attacks of September 11, 2001 against the World Trade Towers. But I want you to think about one fact that is so simple, and yet profound, that it clearly shows the entire official 911 story to be a lying crock of garbage. In the history of skyscraper fires, and even where planes have struck skyscrapers in the past, not one has ever fallen (nor even partially fallen). Yet our government expects us to believe that not one, but two skyscrapers, imploded in perfect symmetrical fashion to the ground, just 20-minutes apart. BULL!
If you are stupid and gullible enough to believe that 2 planes caused two giant 100-story buildings to both totally collapse, without partially collapsing, nor even falling sideways onto other buildings... then you are retarded! It's not even plausible that one building would crumble, let alone two buildings. And don't forget, building 7 also collapsed in perfect symmetrical fashion after 5 p.m. later that afternoon. No plane ever struck WTC 7. So how do 2 planes bring down 3 buildings? WTC 7 imploded in just 6.5 seconds, but no plane ever struck the building. There is no debate, 911 was an INSIDE JOB. There were explosives in those buildings. Marvin Bush, President George W. Bush's young brother, was on the board of directors of the electronic security company that oversaw the Trade Towers 2-years prior, and leading up to 911. I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried.
It is tragic that so many lying and dishonest radio talk show hosts and other scum-of-the-earth liars, have blindly supported the government's cover-up of the crimes to make a buck. The official 911 story is a ridiculous bunch of nonsensical mumbo-jumbo which doesn't explain anything. Those who support the criminals behind 911 are in trouble with God for selling their souls, instead of pursuing THE TRUTH.
It's not hard to see why elite Globalists caused 911 to happen. It gave them a pretext for war against Afghanistan and Iraq, exploiting America's resources and youth in the military to do their evil deeds. Our children are dying for their profit. It was the criminal banking cartel who created the criminal Federal Reserve scam (fractional reserve banking) in 1913. The dishonest system allowed the bankers and politicians to recklessly borrow money in the name of the American people, to finance World Wars I and II. They bankrupt our government in 1933, causing The Great Depression, and now our economy is near bankruptcy as well. They're thieves I tell you, rotten criminal thieves! The worst gangsters of the 20th century weren't Al Capone and Bugsy Malone, it was Wall Street bankers.
The TRUTH is the TRUTH even if no one believes it; and a LIE is a LIE even if everyone believes it!
Watch WTC 7 Implode in 6.5 Seconds (fire? No way!)ENDGAME (shocking 2:19 hour documentary)911: The Road to Tyranny! (shocking 2:24 hour documentary)