BBC REPORTED COLLAPSE OF WTC BUILDING 7
BEFORE IT FELL!
But that may not mean what you think
Analysis by G. Edward Griffin © 2007 March 2
In the final week of February, 2007, the Internet was ablaze with a video tape that showed news commentators for the BBC on the morning of 9/11 stating categorically that Building 7 at the World Trade Center had collapsed, but the announcement was made at least twenty minutes prior to the event. In one scene, reporter Jane Standley is seen saying that Building 7 had collapsed, all the while it is clearly visible in the skyline behind her.
WAS THE PICTURE IN THE BACKGROUND LIVE OR RECORDED?
Skeptics assumed that the video was recorded sometime after the collapse of Building 7 and that the background view was taken from previously recorded images and added electronically for dramatic effect. That is easy to do with modern technology, and it is commonly done with news programs to create the impression that reporters are on the scene of action when, in fact, they are in a studio standing in front of a blue screen. I have used this technique myself, and I am familiar with the process. However, when I looked at the BBC footage, there was no doubt in my mind that Standley was really where she appeared to be: in front of a window looking at the Manhattan skyline. First, the lighting on her face and other elements of the set were consistent with the real thing. Second, there was no reason for her not to be there. Other news networks had similar vantage points that day. I was convinced.
In addition to the blue screen theory there was a problem confirming broadcast time. The BBC video did not have a time stamp appearing on the screen, so there was no way to prove exactly when the remarks were recorded. So, the skeptics had a double out. The appearance of Building 7 in the background didn’t prove anything and there was no way to confirm the time of broadcast anyway. Just another conspiracy theory shot down by plausible denial.
BBC PLEADS INCOMPETENCE
BBC could have clarified the exact time of broadcast but chose, instead to plead incompetence. On February 27, it issued a press release stating that, somehow, it lost the tapes of its broadcast that day. Imagine that. One of the most valuable historical records of all time, and they lost them. Shuure! (www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors
The next day, someone at 911Blogger.com located a privately recorded video tape from BBC-24, a local affiliate of the BBC network, which also had covered the events of 9/11. Lo and behold, there it was: A time stamp! It was twenty minutes before Building 7 collapsed, and BBC-24, taking its news feed from the BBC network, was telling its viewers that it already had happened. (The broadcast by BBC and the one by BBC-24 can be viewed at this link: www.prisonplanet.com/
GOOGLE TAKES THE VIDEOS OFF THE INTERNET
To add to the excitement of the week, Google pulled both video links from the Internet. Bloggers, who previously had downloaded them to their own computers quickly got them back up on their own servers and on You Tube. By Thursday, March 1, they were everywhere, although it was speculated that the powers-that-be eventually would track all of them down and assign them to the memory hole.
The Internet went wild. Although a few adherents to the official version of 9/11 claimed that the videos were fakes, most of the traffic was jubilant over what was perceived as the final and incontrovertible proof that there was prior knowledge of the terrorist attacks and that even BBC was in on it – or at least someone was in on it who was in a position to feed information to the BBC. Case closed! Or was it?
SOMETHING SEEMED WRONG WITH THIS SCENARIO
As I pondered these facts, something didn’t feel right about the direction the story was taking. I am no fan of the official version of 9/11, but I also try to be careful not to let my inner convictions get in the way of rational analysis. It didn’t seem logical for anyone with prior knowledge of 9/11 to prepare press reports ahead of time. In fact, it would be wise to have as few people in on the plot as possible so that, when it happened, everyone would respond in the most normal manner possible, complete with confusion, panic, and shock. Why would anyone want to prepare press releases ahead of time when the press is quite capable of finding out everything for itself. Monitoring and manipulating the flow of information after an event like this would be expected, but to do so before hand, just didn’t make sense.
I started poking around the Internet to see what else I could find in the way of news reports on 9/11. It didn’t take long before I came across a highly significant report from CNN. The reporter, standing in front of a window looking at the Manhattan skyline similar to the BBC location (and with Building Seven clearly visible in the background), says:
We are getting information now that one of the other buildings, Building Seven, in the World Trade Center complex is on fire and has either collapsed or is collapsing. … We are told that there is a fire there, and that building may collapse as well, as you can see. (www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1LetB0z8_o.)
With that statement, everything snapped into focus:
A REASONABLE HYPOTHESIS
1. BBC and CNN simultaneously received a report that Building Seven was on fire and was expected to collapse. It is probable that other networks received the same information.
2. The CNN reporter said that Building Seven was on fire and ”has either collapsed or is collapsing.” He concluded with the more conservative view that it “may collapse.” The BBC reporter, or whoever prepared the dispatch for her to read, went for the more dramatic interpretation and said the building was on fire and had already collapsed. These were merely different interpretations of the same dispatch.
3. Jane Standley, from the UK, was not sufficiently familiar with Manhattan’s buildings to know that the rectangular shape far behind her was the same building she was telling viewers had already collapsed. Very few Americans would have known that, either.
4. The BBC was embarrassed by the blatant inaccuracy of its report and wanted to put the issue to bed with as little public attention as possible. It hoped that no private copies of the broadcast would surface and that “losing” the tapes would likely leave the issue unresolved.
5. Google, in its proven obedience to the government of whatever nation its network services, complied with a request from the federal government (possibly reinforced by a request from BBC) to pull the videos from the Internet to minimize embarrassment to BBC and avoid adding to the groundswell of public suspicion of government complicity on 9/11.
To my mind, this is a more plausible explanation than that some news manager had prior knowledge and stupidly jumped the gun with his report. However, it must be emphasized that, if I am correct in this analysis, it still does not strengthens the case for the official version of 9/11. To the contrary, hidden behind the more dramatic elements of this episode is the fact that someone in the Mayor’s office or in the Fire Department issued a report to the networks that Building Seven was expected to collapse!
CONSIDER THESE FACTS
Prior to 9/11:
1. No steel structure had ever collapsed from fire.
2. Building Seven was not hit by an aircraft.
3. Fires in Building Seven were relatively minor compared to nearby buildings that did not collapse.
4. There were no historical or technical reasons to anticipate a collapse.
5. Professionals in the building demolition industry have said that Building Seven could not have been destroyed by fire.
6. Scores of firefighters, rescue workers, and civilians reported hearing and seeing sequential explosions near the base of Building Seven the instant prior to collapse.
7. Building Seven collapsed all together into a small footprint, exactly as happens with controlled demolitions, rather than unevenly with the most damaged areas falling first.
8. Rescue workers have said that they were told ahead of time to get away from Building Seven because it was going to be demolished.
Considering these facts, the issuance of a report to the press that Building Seven was expected to collapse indicates that some people actually did have prior knowledge – not necessarily of the 9/11 attacks, but prior knowledge that Building Seven was going to be brought down by controlled demolition. Since it takes many weeks of prior planning to bring down a building like that by controlled demolition, preparations would have started long before 9/11. That fact, alone, is all we need to unravel the whole shoddy fabric of lies.