9/11, le fiasco de la BBC et le WTC7
La dernière bombe à frapper la théorie officielle du 9/11 est une pièce de reportage réalisé pas la BBC durant les événements du 11 septembre à New-York.
La journaliste rapporte en direct que le WTC 7 s`est écroulé dû aux dommages causés par les feux dans le bâtiment (mais qui n`a pas été frappé par aucun avion), alors qu`en arrière plan se tient encore le WTC 7!!
La question est celle-ci: de qui provenait cette incroyable information que le WTC 7 était pour s`écrouler, nouvelle aussi rapportée sur CNN?? Car qui pouvait savoir ou prévoir qu`un bâtiment de cette taille, qui n`était pas très endommagé, et sans compter qu`aucune structure d`acier ne s`était écroulé auparavant de toute l`histoire à part cette journée fatidique, était pour s`écrouler???
La BBC et CNN ont annoncé plus de 26 minutes d`avance l`écroulement du WTC 7, ce qui est très troublant. De plus, les équipes de secours, les pompiers et les policiers de la NYPD ont reçu l`ordre, juste avant l`écroulement, de s`éloigner du bâtiment car il était pour s`écrouler. Plusieurs parmis ces derniers ont d`ailleurs témoigné avoir entendu des bombes exploser.
Le bâtiment s`est ensuite effondré sur lui-même dans une belle pile de débris qui n`ont même pas traversé la rue ou presque, et ce, en environ 6 secondes, vitesse de la chute libre. Un effondrement symétrique, sans résistance, uniforme et total.
Mais qui donc savait d`avance????
Note: Tous les commentaires en bleu sont de Michael Rivero du site WRH
At 21:54 GMT on 9/11 the BBC announced that WTC 7 had collapsed. There was just one problem with this news: WTC 7 did not collapse until 22:20 GMT.
The videos below show the BBC World broadcast.
The two screenshots below show WTC 7 behind the reporter.
Both the announcer in the clip and the lower third banner report the collapse of WTC-7. The time stamp shows 21:54, or 9:54 PM British Time. (During the summer, British "summer" time is one hour ahead of
What seems to be emerging here is that Flight 93 was planned to crash into WTC-7. When Flight 93 had to be shot down instead because the crew regained control, WTC-7 still had to come down or the pre-placed explosives inside would have given the whole game away. What seems likely is that a time was set for the demolition and sent out to agents in the media, but there was an unexpected delay to clear responders from the building, which is why WTC-7 is seen still standing behind the female announcer even as she reports the building as destroyed.
Yet another video from 9-11. In this one, Aaron Brown reports that WTC-7 has either collapsed or is about to. Now, given that WTC-7 is still visible behind Aaron, clearly it has not already collapsed, so where did this report come from?
Remember that before 9-11 (and since) no steel-framed building had ever collapsed from fire. For example, the Los Angeles First Interstate Bank building had burned clear down to the empty frame and remained standing. Yet here on 9-11 the collapse of WTC-7 (which pointedly fell just like a controlled demolition) is being announced ahead of time, even though the actual fire in the building is rather minor.
WTC 7 Foreknowledge
Over an hour before the WTC 7 demolition at 4:10pm, Aaron Brown reports - "building 7, in the wtc complex, is on fire and has either collapsed, or is collapsing".
He says, “OEM says the buildings are going to collapse; we need to get out.” (OEM is the Mayor’s Office of Emergency Management, which has its headquarters in WTC 7.) Fire Chief Pete Ganci’s response is, “who the f___ told you that?”
That narrows it down to Rudy Giuliani's OEM staff.
So, given that in the 100 year history of skyscraper construction, no steel-framed building had ever collapsed from fire, how did Rudy's people KNOW that WTC-7 was going to come down?
Rudy himself says that he was told that the towers were going to collapse before they did. Who was the source of that warning to Rudy?
(Before 9:59 a.m.) September 11, 2001: EMT Worker Given Message That WTC Towers Are Going to Collapse; High-Level Officials Evacuate Lobby of North Tower
I am looking for confirmation of the broadcast times, and confirmation that this really is a live (versus prerecorded) shot of WTC-7 behind the BBC announcer woman reporting that the building has already collapsed (at 15:00 into the clip).
9/11 Building 7 Collapse - WTC7 23 Minute Warning - Salomon Brothers Building
I am looking at the photo of the WTC-7 fired Paul uses in this article and alarm bells are going off. As long-time readers know my "day job" is in film and TV visual effects, and frankly those fires look like the fires we intentionally set up to make a building LOOK like it is on fire. Now, those are real fires, and stuff is really burning, but those fires are all up against the windows. There does not appear to be any fire deeper inside the building. A real fire would have blown through the tunnels from the towers, gone up the elevator shafts, and spread out from the core. The more I look at THESE fires in the photo I get the sense they were deliberately set to create a reason for the building to come down.
I know there is no way to prove that, of course. But that is what they look like to me. It does not make sense that fire supposedly blown up through the elevator shafts would just plant itself in a few offices up against the glass and leave the rest of the floors uninvolved.
ATTENTION READERS: BBC is pulling out all the stops to get these videos yanked from the web. So please make local copies, burn then to CD-ROM, and hide them in a safe place. This is the proof that 9-11 was a war-starting hoax and that the mainstream media was a willing participant in the lie.
SAVE COPIES TO SHARE WITH YOUR FRIENDS IN THE COMING MONTHS.
The "Gummint huggers" are trying to dismiss the BBC video announcing the collapse of WTC-7 by pointing out that the
"It was a simple goof. That's all. Honest!" -- BTN
The key thing about this non-denial denial is that they in no way claim that the footage is inaccurate or faked. It really does show a BBC reporter announcing the collapse of the WTC-7 while the building is clearly still standing behind her.
This latest excuse-o-gram from Richard Porter amounts to a "they were all doing it" justification for their premature report, perhaps in the hope we mean old bloggers will go pick on someone else.
But Porter has simply reiterated what we already knew, EVERYONE got a report that the building was going to come down ahead of time. That is not the point. The point is that in a 100 year history of skyscraper construction., no steel-framed building had ever collapsed from fire prior to 9-11. So, WHO was telling the news media that the Saloman Brothers Building, aka WTC-7, was about to collapse when there was zero historical precedent for it?
I don't care what Richard Porter says to get BBC off the hook for this. What Richard Porter needs to tell us all is WHO was planting the story of the impending collapse of WTC-7 with all the media?
"Pay no attention to that still-standing building behind the reporter. Trust us!" -- Mainstream Media
Media Blacklists BBC Fiasco; Google, Digg Censor 9/11 Truth
News 24 'timestamp' video disappears from Google Video
Follow the trail of the advance warnings. Who was warned? Who warned them? In the case of the Odigo warnings, the FBI had the IP of the computer that sent the warning, but never followed up.
The BBC is a nexus at the heart of the establishment, for all intents and purposes, it IS the establishment. Their number one priority with regards to 9/11 was to ignore the truth at all costs. Only when the truth would not go away, did they lend their enormous credibility to the 'official' conspiracy to try to shut up, once and for all, the so called conspiracy nutters.
The problem is, the people who made sure that 9/11 happened, left far too many clues and we are now living in an age where the information is available. We surfs are not stupid, and can make our own minds up. BBC take note, the truth movement will never let this go and after your inteventions in this subject area, you are either part of the solution, or you are part of the problem. You can decide which.
the facts remain. the BBC announced the collapse of a building with pre-prepared, detailed, specific talking points before the actual building collapsed.
These where not, "a source tells us", or "we are hearing that" sort of qualifications. this was reported as established fact with talking points.
Where did the talking points come from?
Who prepared them?
How did they know the building was going to collapse before it actually did?
How did they know the cause of the collapse five and a half years before NIST?
Did they provide talking points for wtc 3, 4, 5 , (which where closer to the two towers), Just in case these buildings also fell down? if not, why not?
Why did the BBC not check this story at all? even to the extent of a glimpse through the window?
The BBC obviously trusted the source implicitly, or was following orders from ? whom?
If the source was trusted, then it must be part of the mainstream media, or the Government. first responders on the scene are not trusted enough to provide information, without it being checked, or attributed to them as a source. This story was niether checked, nor attributed. it was reported as established fact.
BBC, we are coming after you!