FOX-5 Reports 9/11/01: WTC-7 Collapsed Before Actual Event

[CGowen]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwUJ9MhzgKI


edited to add:

It seems the footage is 5 minutes after the collapse, so it's nothing special (17:26)

http://www.archive.org/details/fox5200109111651-1733

[Bolo Boffin]

1. What difference would it make, either way?

7 World Trade was widely suspected of imminent collapse. This was as early as 12 noon. Between 2-2:30, Daniel Nigro ordered a collapse zone cleared because he didn't want to lose another life that day. It was a source of major contention, as people wanted to be looking for survivors.

In the chaos of the day, is it really so shocking that a report of an imminent collapse became a report that the building had collapsed?

Of course not. However, a year ago this month, the 9/11 Truth Movement was upset over the BBC documentary and latched onto this mistake of Jane Standley. It is one of the most petty and childish things I've seen yet coming out of this "noble" movement. They have convinced themselves out of sheer spite that the BBC "read the script early."

But keep on pumping this narrative. Debunkers can point to it as an example of just how ready to blind themselves the 9/11 Truth Movement is.

[CGowen]

2. I wouldn't trust an engineer , if I was told that 10 planes couldn't bring down the towers

and I would have to witness firefighters die in the collapse of the twin towers.

So keeping firefighters out of a building with 3 damaged floors and fire wouldn't be so surprising after the events before.



Why are you so sure that a report of an imminent collapse became a report that the building collapsed?

[Bolo Boffin]

4. Why am I so sure?

Because nothing else makes sense.

To people pushing this narrative, it makes sense to them that there was some script floating around that the BBC read early. Not me. But I do know how easy it is for mistakes to happen, especially involving information from a highly chaotic and exhausting day. It is more reasonable to suspect a simple mistake in this case.

[Ghost in the Machine]

5. Yes, it was a highly chaotic and exhausting day.. but someone seems to be overlooking the FACT

that Jane Standley was in New York, not London, on 9-11. The explanation from BBC doesn't even make sense, does it?

"Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I've spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn't remember minute-by-minute what she said or did - like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services.

Why, pray tell, would someone in New York be relying on feeds from LONDON to know what the hell was going on in New York??? Please explain *that* to me in a way that makes sense....

The BBC Bombshell

On February 26, 2007, it was publicized that the BBC had reported the collapse of the building at 4:57 PM on 9/11, 23 minutes before the actual collapse time of 5:20 PM, using excerpts which were apparently extracted from one of 417 streaming video files discovered on Archive.org just four days earlier.

The report is found in the following 1-gigabyte mpeg, which covers the time span from 4:54 PM through 5:36 PM:

http://ia311517.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109111654-1736/V08591-16.mpg

Portions of the report are transcribed below. The numbers in bold indicate times, in minutes and seconds, from the beginning of the mpeg recording.

03:15 ~4:57 PM: The anchor states:

We'll leave it there for a moment. We've got some news just coming in actually, that the Solomon Brothers' Building in New York, right in the heart of Manhattan, has also collapsed. This does fit in with a warning from the British Foreign Office a couple of hours ago to British Citizens that there is a real risk -- ah let me get the exact words -- the British Foreign Office -- the foreign part of the British government -- said it was a strong risk of further atrocities in the United States, and it does seem as if there now is another one with the Solomon Brothers' Building collapsing. We've got no word yet on casualities. One assumes that the building would have been virtually deserted. Whether this latest collapse is going to influence the President, who we heard about a few moments ago, who was expected to be heading from Nebraska back to Washington, we don't know.

06:31 ~5:00 PM: The anchor states:

The 47-story Solomon Brothers', situated very close to the World Trade Center, has also just collapsed.

13:20 ~5:07 PM: The anchor states:

Now more on the latest building collapse in New York ... you may have heard a few moments ago we were talking about the Solomon Brothers Building collapsing and indeed it has, and apparently it's only a few hundred yards away from where the World Trade Center Towers were. And it seems that this was not the result of a new attack; it was because the building had been weakened during this morning's attacks. We'll probably find out more about that from our correspondent Jane Standley. Jane, what more can you tell us about the Solomon Brothers' Building and its collapse?

14:00 ~5:08 PM: The screen is filled by correspondent Jane Standley standing in front of a window framing smoke rising from Ground Zero and a clearly erect WTC 7.

15:35 ~5:09 PM: The caption on the bottom of the screen reads:

The 47 storey Salomon Brothers building close to the World Trade Centre has also collapsed.

20:15 ~5:14 PM: The image of Jane Standley begins to break up and the anchor, remarking that they'd "lost the line" with Jane Standley, shifts to another report.

http://wtc7.net/bbc.html

So... from 4:57 until 5:14 - 17 whole minutes, NO ONE could tell this reporter that she was wrong so they could retract the statement?? I just don't buy that at all... sorry. Especially when she could look out the window and SEE the building still standing from where she was.

[Bolo Boffin]

6. If Jane Standley didn't know the Salomon Brothers Building by sight

then her mistake is understandable.

You so helpfully bolded part of what the BBC explanation said, but you minimize the other things (what she could see and what she was being told). She was getting a lot of information from a lot of places, including London. Do you think Jane was the only source for information that the BBC had about the 9/11 attacks?

In fact, looking at the actual way it went down, it looks like the initial confusion did come from London. The anchor announces the fall, and sets up a future broadcast. Minutes later he goes to Standley. If London got the wrong word and asked Jane to go on air and comment as best she could, and then you combine this with Jane's evident unfamiliarity with 7 World Trade, the mistake is easily seen as a failure of the system. How it actually went down, I don't know, but this is far more reasonable than "OMG, she read the script too early!!!!!11!!"

[Ghost in the Machine]

7. Ok, you have some valid points there about her being unfamiliar with the buildings..

But all in all, she was where she could look out a window and actually see the area in question.. wouldn't there be a large dust cloud, like when the towers fell? She couldn't look out the window and see even *that* minor detail?

Lets not forget what the anchor said here:
"5:07 PM: The anchor states:
Now more on the latest building collapse in New York ... you may have heard a few moments ago we were talking about the Solomon Brothers Building collapsing and indeed it has, and apparently it's only a few hundred yards away from where the World Trade Center Towers were."
You see, the problem with this is that the anchor, with his "indeed it has", makes it sound like they double checked and were 100% positive that the building had, indeed, collapsed. Doesn't it also seem to make more sense that the correspondent in New York would be reporting TO the home office in London, instead of the other way around?

I guess we don't know what her thoughts were, but one of my first thoughts, as a reporter, would have been "lets look out here and see if we can get a shot of this building that just collapsed". Wouldn't that thought cross *your* mind? I mean hey, yeah you're tired, but when all is said and done, you are *still* a reporter, covering the worst attack on American soil ever, and you'd want to get this story of another building collapsing on tape, right?

Just so you know.. I'm not pushing or advancing any "script theories" either... I'm interested in some of the anomalies and strange reports from that day.. like the report of a plane crash near Camp David, or the owner and employees of a marina on Indian Lake saying that they heard a plane come overhead so low, with its engines screaming, that it SHOOK the building... yet the "official" flight path of Flight 93 was 3 miles away and in the opposite direction, meaning it was nowhere near the lake and/or marina...

Granted, I do try to pick apart the arguments of OCTers way more than I do the CTers, but some of those CT's are just too stupid to even respond to. It's the holes in the official story that I'm more interested in filling in... and you have to admit, bolo, it *does* have some holes in it...

[subsuelo]

8. Nobody mistakenly reports that a building has collapsed.

Ever.

You chalk it up to a "simple mistake" on a "chaotic and exhausting day" - and claim that nothing else makes sense...

Are you kidding?

An exhausting and chaotic day -- that is the one lonely plausible theory that makes sense to you?

I've definitely seen some unreasonable posts in this 9/11 forum - from both sides. But this might just take the cake.

I'm not saying your explanation is without merit. I do challenge the idea that no other theory makes sense. Of course other explanations would make sense. One, being that BBC read off some script too early. That doesn't implicate BBC necessarily either, but it is a plausible theory. The only way you can write it off as implausible is if you begin with the assumption that CT itself is implausible.

And I don't think any honest participant here wishes to be exposed as arriving at any conclusions in advance of all considerations and evidence. We're all after the truth here, right?

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.