BBC Reported That WTC 7 Collapsed Before it Occurred, Caught on Video? Anyone Care to Explain ?

Troy Perkins
posted at www.patriotbeliever.com

A peculiar piece of video appeared on Google Video yesterday and sent parts of the Internet into a scramble. Reports are that Google "took the video down" several times throughout the day yesterday. The footage is from a live BBC report on the afternoon of September 11, 2001. The studio anchor is seen reporting the collapse of the Salomon Brothers Building (which was World Trade Center building 7) and discusses it with an on location BBC correspondent named Jane Standley in New York City. The report is all true except that the building that they are reporting having collapsed is still standing directly behind the reporter in the live feed and remains standing throughout the video clip until the feed suddenly begins to digitally degrade and then is suddenly lost. Listen carefully to their words in case you think they were confused about the building in question… Click here to see the clip on YouTube.com.
Read more below...

screenshots from www.prisonplanet.com

A source has claimed that the report takes place at 4:57pm EST, but this has not been confirmed yet. What is undeniable is that the building being reported to have collapsed is standing in the live shot directly behind the reporter's head throughout the report. World Trade Center Building 7 or the Salomon Brothers Building did in fact collapse at 5:20pm EST, about 23 minutes from the claimed 4:57pm time that afternoon and presumably just after the live feed goes dead. This raises huge questions about an already inconsistent story that has been all but blacked out.

To be clear, the official story about the collapse of WTC 7 (a huge 47 story building that most people are not even aware collapsed that day) is that it collapsed due to debris damage from the tower collapses and fires, having not been struck by an aircraft. This was already an unbelievable story that is seldom discussed. A media blackout on showing actual collapse footage of building 7 is implied due to interviews like the one between Tucker Carlson and Physics Professor Steven Jones on MSNBC in which the professor asks for the clip of the collapse he supplied to be played several times, to no avail.

This new video of BBC's "pre-report" raises serious questions about scripting of the reporting and foreknowledge of the impending collapse and therefore brings all aspects of the story of that day into question.

WTC 7 has been the center of a lot of attention for 9-11 researchers as it was not hit by a plane like the towers yet collapsed in 7 seconds into a neat pile in perfect controlled demolition style. This building housed offices for the city and just about every federal agency you can think of including the Secret Service, FBI, CIA, ATF, IRS, and FCC among others and housed the Mayor's "emergency command center", a hardened bunker like space designed to withstand many types of disasters. When that building fell, case files for major corporate and criminal investigations were also said to have been destroyed, like evidence in the Enron case for example. This is the same building that the owner, Larry Silverstein discussed in a 2002 PBS documentary when he said he decided to "pull it" and then he watched the build come down. Controlled demolitions typically take at least weeks to plan and prepare properly. Based on video of the collapse of WTC 7 many have stated it was a text book controlled demolition causing little to no additional damage to surrounding structures just a few feet away from where the debris pile landed, especially for a 47 story steel structure.

There are emergency worker statements from the scene that there were warnings to get back, including a 20 second radio countdown just before it came down. Some also have stated "low level flashes" being seen and hearing explosions and pops preceding the collapse. 1300F degree Molten metal existed in the basement area of building 7 like the towers, for some time after the collapses. Yet the official story remains that the building collapse was accidental, and unexplainable.

A brand new, bright and shiny, 52 story WTC 7 building stands today as the first new skyscraper to be rebuilt on the World Trade Center site since 9-11-01 while the families of WTC victims still await the constructing of the promised memorial to those who perished there. We need to remember this is the burial ground for a couple thousand American people.

So ask yourself, what are the implications that the BBC reported that WTC 7 had already collapsed about 20 minutes earlier than it actually did? Then ask yourself why the 9-11 Commission report failed to even mention the collapse or that building at all, not a single word? This all highlights the fact that there has yet to be a true investigation into the attacks of 9-11-01, and most people have accepted this.

If you have read this far you may as well listen to some phone calls made by this Canadian yesterday to the BBC about this new video footage. (phone calls to the BBC.)

I'll be waiting to hear any explanation anyone cares to give.

***UPDATE***

An, uh, explanation has been posted by BBC editor Richard Porter at the BBC blog site.
Read the comments, they are catching some serious flack for the feeble attempt at explaining this away with everything from "we lost the 9-11 tape" to "we were just reporting what we were hearing" (paraphrasing him.)

Now as much flaming that he's getting, I can tell you that they are not showing all comments because at least as of today, my comment that I posted last night is still not there.

This is interesting...

***UPDATE***
Another update,
There is now confirmation with a timestamp of the pre-collapse time this report took place, as reported on PrisonPlanet.com here.

Now is the Time – Don’t Be Fooled in 2008

Giuliani vs. Paul

By Troy Perkins

I want to state this loud and clear before too many Christians and conservatives fall under the spell being broadcast across the country already about possible 2008 GOP presidential candidates. Already, major “conservative” talk show hosts have begun the process of glossing over Rudy Giuliani’s pro-homosexual, pro-abortion and anti-gun views in an attempt to justify him as the best choice for the Republican presidential candidacy in 2008, because he might be “the most electable”. What a ridiculous idea. At best he might be a political chameleon. If this does not prove a larger agenda is afoot to you, then you might want to ask yourself what you really know about the leaders you help elect. When you consider the views mentioned above alone, Giuliani looks more like Hillary Clinton than he does a conservative Republican. Let me repeat for those calling yourselves “conservative” Christians out there: In America, WE THE PEOPLE are responsible for those we elect and the actions or inactions they take.

While Rush, Hannity, O’Reilly and other supposed “conservative” talking heads (whom many Christian conservatives nearly regard as prophets nowadays) already are beginning to slobber all over Rudi as a possibility (despite his views), none of them as of yet even acknowledge that Ron Paul is even running and is the ideal conservative candidate from a Christian conservative perspective. Yet somehow a John McCain or a Mitt Romney is a contender too?

Representative Ron Paul of Texas is quite possibly the single most qualified truly conservative candidate to have started an exploratory committee this year. I challenge anyone to find a more conservative, credible candidate than Ron Paul (Hint: you’d have to look back a couple hundred years in our country’s history for starters). To learn more about his record and stances go to www.ronpaul.org for a good list of starting links. If you look into him, you cannot deny that for a Christian, he is the only choice.

Evidently what it takes to be a good conservative presidential candidate today is to have run a strictly policed city where personal fire arms are banned and to “help the economy” while being tolerant toward untraditional (=immoral) viewpoints. That’s what Giuliani accomplished as mayor of New York City in general. Oh, I almost forgot, and he happened to be mayor when New York was attacked on September 11, 2001. I mean not to criticize Mr. Giuliani or any legitimate deed he may have ever accomplished except to emphasize that he is not conservative.

Please do not let the “lesser of two evils” lie dictate your thinking through another election. That way of thinking has eroded what little political influence Christian conservatives may have had to almost nothing. It is early enough now for believers to actually break out and make a difference as a group of people in our elective process. But we have to be concerned, educated and involved. Begin to educate yourself about who Ron Paul is and what he believes and then start talking about him with others you know. You consider yourself a conservative, now prove it.