digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

BBC Reported Building 7 Had Collapsed 20 Minutes Before It Fell

prisonplanet.com — 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. The incredible footage shows BBC reporter talking about the collapse of the Salomon Brothers Building while it remains standing in the live shot behind her head.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • STONECRUSHER420, on 10/30/2007, -39/+113I listened live while the CIA operatives took this off google as alex mentioned it. I had the page up and it refreshed without my permission, and without the video. But not before my download had started!!! HAHAHAHA bastards!!!! The info-war is real folks!!!
    • Ahnubisaki, on 10/25/2007, -35/+84Prior knowledge has just been proven.
    • dogster, on 10/25/2007, -25/+64It would be nice to interview Jane Stanley to track down the source of her prior knowledge.

      Also, the reaction of the defrauded insurance company would be of interest.

      Score 1 for the good guys!!!!
    • MrAuer, on 10/25/2007, -4/+32Here is a direct link to an archive hosting a 1 GB version of the whole BBC program:
      http://ia311517.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109111654-1736/V08591-16.mpg
      Downloaded it already and wathced it. Un-flippin believable. The reporter is standing there explaining how the building has collapsed, a big LIVE sign on the screen, and the building can clearly be seen still standing!

      Good job...And good luck trying to bury the video after this. I bet thousands have it on their harddrives already.
    • joeshlub, on 10/21/2007, -25/+18Do none of you even acknowledge the possibility that the video being put onto the blue screen is actually not live, and that the live symbol is there incorrectly? I mean sure, she could be giving a press report before it actually happened, but it's at least logical that somebody ***** up either the live symbol or the video feed being displayed.
    • MrAuer, on 10/25/2007, -1/+30As of today, Archive.org has also removed the video / does not let you download it. You get just this:
      --19:12:46-- http://ia311517.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109111654-1736/V08591-16.mpg
      => `V08591-16.mpg'
      Resolving ia311517.us.archive.org... 208.70.29.221
      Connecting to ia311517.us.archive.org|208.70.29.221|:80... connected.
      HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 403 Forbidden
      19:12:47 ERROR 403: Forbidden.
      Nice! They had it on their archives for years, and now suddenly, no more!
    • BillDouglas, on 10/12/2007, -6/+32The BBC's original hit piece on 9/11 truth seekers was hideous. Somehow they "avoided" speaking to the high level military and intelligence experts who believe 9/11 was an inside job. See:
      http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

      They spent a God awful amount of time "psycho-analyzing" anyone who questioned the events of 9/11, using not one real psychologist . . . and the lay people they chose to speak all concluded that anyone seeking real answers to 9/11 was delusional.

      Now, perhaps we know why. On 9/11/2001 the BBC SCREWED UP ROYALLY, when reporting WTC 7 had gone down 20 minutes plus BEFORE it actually fell, when no one else in the world except the BBC and whoever told them that it was going to happen. It is irrefutable, the time code, and the live shot of the WTC over the BBC reporters shoulder as she said it just collapsed (while it still stood) proves it.

      It is also apparent that "someone" at the BBC knew they had screwed up BIG TIME, because they abruptly cut away from the reporter to avoid the odd visual of the WTC 7 collapsing behind the reporter who 15 minutes earlier had said it had already collapsed.

      Someone at the BBC is practicing a pathetic case of CYA (Cover Your *SS), and their hit piece on 9/11 truth seekers was probably part of their CYA a week ago. THE TRUTH WILL COME OUT. IT HAS COME OUT. HOW LONG WILL CORPORATE MEDIA PARTICIPATE IN THIS CRIME OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE REGARDING 9/11??
    • rattstiak, on 10/12/2007, -2/+38NOT A BLUE OR GREEN SCREEN (in response to joeshlub and others...)

      I'm a cameraman and editor. I can tell you from my professional expertise - they would not zoom into a blue screen. You would be able to tell. The timing would be almost impossible to replicate. The zoom would have to executed on the reporter's camera and the video being played on the blue screen at the same time in the exact same way. A blue screen is not like you are projecting it on a screen behind the reporter (like a movie theater) and when you zoom in with the camera, you zoom into the image on the blue screen. It is an image that is keyed in afterward. It is completely separate. If they zoomed in on a blue sceen, the background image would actually stay the same, with no zoom, unless the keyed in "blue screen" image was also running a zoomed in image at that exact time. Let me know if that explanation makes sense. I work with blue and green screens, so I know how they work, but it might not be the best explanation. Bottom line is - the zoom proves NO BLUE or GREEN SCREEN.

      Also, in the wider shot, you can see a reflection of downtown off of some glass on the right side of the shot. This is after they zoom in, when the reporter steps aside, they cut to the anchor and then cut back out to her. It's pretty clear that she's in a building overlooking the scene.
    • LesPaul75, on 10/12/2007, -10/+6I'd like to ask the obvious question here... Can someone please provide some visual verification that the building in the video is actually WTC7? Or maybe everyone but me has the entire NYC skyline (from over 5 years ago) memorized?

      I'm not saying it is or isn't WTC7, I just don't understand why no one is even questioning it. I looked at the Wikipedia article on WTC7, and there are no pictures there that show the building from a similar angle to the shot in the video. The pictures on Wikipedia and elsewhere show a pinkish/beige building. The picture in the video looks grey.

      Of course, the lighting and the angle are different, but it should be fairly easy to tell what building is shown in the video based on the surrounding buildings and their relative heights and relative positions.
    • thinkfree2020, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15"Can someone please provide some visual verification that the building in the video is actually WTC7?"

      http://www.911truestory.com/wtc7.gif

      There you go, WTC7 "collapses due to weakness" as the reporters read from their script.
    • LesPaul75, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4Again, that's a completely different angle and there is no similarity between that image and the video. Well, aside from the fact that both buildings appear to be roughly rectangular, which doesn't narrow it down a lot.

      Which direction is the camera facing in the video? What are some of the other buildings in the shot? Pictures of NYC's skyline must be easy enough to come by...
    • vhold, on 10/20/2007, -9/+18Uhm, can anybody come up with a remotely sane reason that somebody orchestrating such a conspiracy would clue in a foreign media agency to it?

      Shadow government leader: "So.. the explosives are set.. erm uhh.. oh yea, has anybody told the media yet? You know, the people who talk a lot and to many people.. it's always good to get them involved in these international conspiracies.."

      It's not like they had to make sure this would get on the news. This is by far the most nonsensical proof of conspiracy I have ever seen consumed by this many people.
    • BurninH3ll, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Breaking News: Truth hits stock Market!
      http://www.slate.com/id/2160823/

      "Posted Wednesday, Feb. 28, 2007, at 5:59 AM ET

      The New York Times, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times lead with, and the Wall Street Journal devotes much of its Page One space to, the worldwide plunge in stock markets yesterday. It all started in China, where stock prices fell almost 9 percent, causing a ripple effect as markets opened in Europe and then the Americas. By the end of the trading day yesterday, the Dow Jones industrial average was down 3.3 percent, or 416 points. In terms of percentage, it was the worst decline since March 2003, and in points it was the steepest drop since the first day of trading after the Sept. 11 attacks. "

      Coincidence? I don't think so!


      Truth - Accountability - A Better World!
    • MrEguy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
      -- Arthur Schopenhauer
    • rawferal, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14This Digg had been BURIED AND REMOVED FROM SEARCH and TOP STORIES.

      Digg this story, so others can see - http://digg.com/world_news/BBC_CNN_Employ_Magical_Psychic_News_Announcers
    • bruce1337, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10LesPaul,

      the camera is facing south. You can get good visual verification from the Naudets' shot of the collapse.

      vhold,

      it would have been important to associate the explanation - fire did it - with the event as soon as possible, to preempt unbiased questions and thoughts about its highly conspicuous implosion, uh, "collapse". It is for the very same reason that OBL and his 19 flunkies were framed so extraordinarily quickly, despite allegedly having no clues before. And then, either the timing of the news or the timing of the demolition was cocked-up, apparently.
    • voodoomojo, on 10/12/2007, -12/+10Kevin Rose is a TRAITOR to the United States of America, his Friends, Fans and DIGG users
    • donkadonk911, on 10/12/2007, -8/+8We have to realize at this point who has their foot in this fire because of 9/11. Among the many are the Mainstream Media.

      This battle has just begun.

      They have just as much riding on this as any other guilty of conspiring to destroy the WTC and kill thousands of innocent citizens of this country in order to take us into a never ending war against an invented enemy that we created.

      They know where they stand on this issue. They are far more than just a witness to this crime. They are currently participants and contributors. They are just as guilty as any other.

      In a war of information they have the perfect soapbox. So we come here, to the Internet where we all have a voice. We all bring something to the table in this fight.

      We communicate.
      We learn.
      We speak!

      We have the greatest tool of the 21st century at our fingertips. The greatest invention possibly in the history of humanity as we know it.
      Do we need cars when I can work from home?
      Do we need airplanes when I can talk to someone across the world in a minutes time?
      Do I need a television to know reality?

      Do I need a bullhorn to spread my message?

      We need to use this resource. It may be the most powerful weapon we have. Our words can change this world. We can move minds.

      We can and will overcome those who are desperately trying to suppress the truth. We must look at all those who have taken part in this crime and consider what they may be willing to do to continue to keep this buried.

      We know why the Mainstream Media is doing their part. They are doing it because they were doing it from the time the first plane hit. They have been asked to answer to this and they can not. They will not expose this because they are all guilty.

      It's up to us!

    • aldentedante, on 10/20/2007, -7/+8Heh yeah nice one, I listened to it live too!

      So hey, has no one else here realized that BBC World was (at the time of 9/11) being run by a woman called Dame Pauline Neville-Jones? BBC World is also not funded by the British state, which many people won’t know, but is funded by corporate donations and other “sponsors.”

      Anyhow, Dame Pauline once headed the Joint Intelligence Committee in the UK, a body which brings together the heads of the various British intelligence bodies with political leaders. She went from intelligence, to running the BBC World Service (radio) from which BBC World was spun off in 1995.

      Since leaving the BBC World Service, she has taken up a role on the board of QinetiQ (a corporation spun off from the UK defense establishment, from the privatization of which the Carlyle Group recently made a killing). She is also on the advisory board of the Intelligence Summit – where she joins Richard Perle, Kenneth Timmerman, Alrezi Jafarzadeh (the source of the U.S. “intelligence” on Iranian nuclear weapons programs).

      If anyone here doesn’t understand the implications of this, then may I suggest a class in critical thinking 101?

      Oh lovely caring “Auntie” Beeb and Big Brother… YOU are the Weakest Link, goodbye!

      To every normal real person on here like us (I mean aside from the fake-moronic operator paid trolls), Love and Peace, and Strength and Honour! I stand with Alexander “The Great” Jones and www.prisonplanet.com! And I can’t wait until all you fake blogger agent provocateur NSA scum are sold out by your crime-boss masters faster than you can bleat your weirdo catchphrase “tin foil hat”. Yeah, YOU are the only ***** weirdoes here, you scared little fat *****. You're the sort of slime who enjoy getting off on your bullying and you can’t even get a real job! Even the REAL Mafia has a certain amount of honour and respect – you have NONE. So carry on what you’re doing, that's it, carry on. Keep trying to silence and censor our voices some more. Carry on digging your holes... I’ll leave the next move upto you.

      ........................ /´¯/)
      ......................,/¯ ..//
      ...................../... ./ /
      ............./´¯/'...'/´¯ ¯`•¸
      ........../'/.../..../... ..../¨¯
      ........('(...´(..´...... ,~/'...')
      ........................ ../..../
      ..........''............ . _.•´
      ........................ ..(
      =|FCUK THE NEW WORLD ORDER|=
    • rockbysea, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4we will win...keep up the good fight my brother
  • NickSpinner, on 10/30/2007, -32/+72cant wait to see how the Ministry of Truth (newspeak for the BBC) tries to spin this one
  • 4Horsemen, on 10/30/2007, -31/+66BBC just got busted again. If it's BS, why did Google pull the video? They got so much other crap on the net. The tin foil hat comments don't work anymore, you come up with something better than that.
    • MrEguy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16One can now say the BBC is effectively part of the conspiracy, by virtue of their spreading disinformation on 9/11 and their present attempts to obfuscate the truth.

      dis·in·for·ma·tion (dĭs-ĭn'fər-mā'shən)
      n. 1. Deliberately misleading information announced publicly or leaked by a government or especially by an intelligence agency in order to influence public opinion or the government in another nation: "He would be the unconscious channel for a piece of disinformation aimed at another country's intelligence service" (Ken Follett).
      2. Dissemination of such misleading information.

      http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=disinformation
  • RuneX2, on 10/12/2007, -78/+13ahh the troofers at it again. Stupid. Stupider. Troofer.
    • TruthUpYourAss, on 10/12/2007, -24/+46isn't there an AMERICAN IDOL rerun on you could be watching? let the grown folks talk here, son.
    • robbh66, on 10/12/2007, -41/+12I have a feeling that if you believe the crap this guy spews you're a fan of American Idol.
  • ownedpwned, on 10/30/2007, -22/+53Typical, looks like google took down this shocking video already.
    • refugeechris, on 10/12/2007, -9/+28why would you bury a comment that merely mentions that the video has been removed.
  • wuff, on 10/25/2007, -21/+66they can't stop it... for the record you can use http://www.erightsoft.com/KVk.html to capture video directly from sites and that'll make archiving things like this much easier in the future
    • 4Horsemen, on 10/12/2007, -19/+22Thanx for the info.
    • shamancola, on 10/12/2007, -19/+24cool thanks, it works great, I needed something like this.
    • spartansblade, on 10/12/2007, -7/+26I cant believe the debunkers are so upset that they would bury this quote.
      "they can't stop it... for the record you can use http://www.erightsoft.com/KVk.html to capture video directly from sites and they'll make archiving things like this much easier in the future"

      Thanks for the info, everyone please help to undigg this comment
    • d3ejmz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18Fast Video Downloader works easier and better IMHO. Firefox plugin.

      https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/3590/
  • InspSherlock, on 11/05/2007, -37/+58Oh this is just a coincidence!!!
    Basically what happened was that the building was on fire, and it was damaged by falling debris from the twin towers, the word was put out that it was unstable.
    So what happened then was that they knew it was going to fall - because there was a quick scientific structural survey of the 47 story sky scrapper and they knew it was coming down. You know it was soooooooooo obvious. So basically then the news media was told to tell the world that the building was going to fall. And then the building fell. You know, buildings like that just happen to fall in 6-7 seconds every other day man.

    End of story, there is nothing else to report here. Go back to sleep people. Get read to bomb IRAN, that is the big story.

    Now where is my psychotropic medicine, I need to finish putting up that rubber wall paper.

    - Quite literally this isn't a smoking gun, IT'S A SMOKING BUILDING!!!

    • 4Horsemen, on 10/12/2007, -36/+55Buildings don't don't fall like that from fires unless it was on Sept. 11, 2001.
    • spartansblade, on 10/12/2007, -30/+29Building 7 was to far away from the twin towers to be hit by anything. Look at a map and it is obvious to anybody willing to do the research for themselves. Then there’s video of Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC complex admitting on a September 2002 PBS documentary, 'America Rebuilds' that he and the NYFD decided to 'pull' WTC 7 on the day of the attack.
      This video, the report from Silverstein, the reports from firefighters and the FACT that no other building of this type has ever fallen from fire damage. The only three EVER were on 9/11.
      Spread the word everyone and refuse to allow those blinded by lies and undercover ops posting to forums like this to get the better of you. It not a theory anymore its fact and we are not going to stand for it!
    • robbh66, on 10/12/2007, -70/+60Whine whine "no building like this has ever fallen like that" whine whine whine "no building that tall ever fell from fire" whine whine whine "building 7 was too far away to get hit by anything" whine whine whine.

      OH gee whiz, how do i reply to that? Oh yeah - THEY GOT HIT BY A ***** PAIR OF 757's JACKASS. Now why don't you go pull me some evidence of 100 story towers getting hit by 100 ton jets and getting burned by jet fuel for a couple of hours- then we'll talk.

      As for ***** hitting building 7 - I suppose the exterior dmage was caused by glass and stone spontaneously falling off for reasons other than millions of tons of falling ***** next to it.

      I would believe aliens from Omnicron Pesei 8 destroyed the WTC before i believe the US government did it.
    • skyfire1, on 10/12/2007, -15/+40This isn't "news." The dude that owned the building wanted it pulled.
    • evilesttoast, on 10/12/2007, -12/+6Look up at that massive wall of gray blocks.
    • Herkimer56, on 10/12/2007, -22/+6Larry Silverstein did not own the World Trade Center, he had leased it. Ownership of the buildings remained with the Port Authority. And he had held that lease for a grand total of seven weeks before the buildings were destroyed. Due to the fact that he was not the owner of the buildings he would not have been consulted about "pulling" the building. If you people cannot get as simple a fact as the proper ownership of the building correct then how in the world is anyone supposed to believe anything else you state as fact?
    • shig, on 10/12/2007, -0/+24@Herkimer56

      I know the Port Authority didn't get millions in insurance payouts.

      Six months before the 9/11 attacks the World Trade Center was "privatized" by being leased to a private sector developer (Larry Silverstein). The lease was purchased by the Silverstein Group for $3.2 billion.

      "A federal jury on Monday ruled that the assault on the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center was in fact two occurrences for insurance purposes. The finding in U.S. District Court in Manhattan means leaseholder Larry Silverstein may collect up to $4.6 billion, according to reports." - Forbes 12/06/04

      So, that makes you to be the ignorant one.
    • numptydumpty, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1"So, that makes you to be the ignorant one"

      er.... do you actually think that sentence sounds correct?
    • Avataren, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@skyfire1: He wanted it pulled? It will take *at minimum* weeks to set up the detonators to pull a building of this size, and a massive amount of planning. If what you say is true, it means it was already rigged.. why would it be?
      If it was already rigged, is this a common practice? Were the other WTC already rigged?
    • RackAttack, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@Avataren

      Surprisingly, for you, it is common practice. Go watch the movie "The Andromeda Strain" (1971), http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066769/ And just substitute the "biological danger" in that movie, for the amount of "sensitive information" - (falling into the 'wrong hands') - danger that that building contained. Now, I don't know for sure whether WTC7 was built rigged for demolition, but it's not out of the realm of possibility. Especially considering that the "Enron" thing was taking place around that time, and other investigations into "Insider Trading" were also taking place; and that, coincidently, that building housed the SEC among many other "three letter" organizations. So: Common practice=Yes. - Why? = "just in case" & for your last question, you need to do some research for yourself... I'll give you a hint: Marvin Bush, was the head of security until 9/*10*/2001, when he retired from that position, a few weeks prior to 9/11, it was noted that the regular "security" practices were not maintained, and that unusual people were allowed to enter and exit the building after hours. (I'm drawing on this information from memory (so I could be 'off' on some of it) ... YOU do the research, I used to site quotes & links to just about everything I posted, but the speed at which this story is traveling, if I stopped to double check everything I said, and post supporting links, I'd never be able to sift through all this material that I want to get to. ... I'm just trying to get you started, and I make no claims that I'm 100% accurate in this post... I don't have time for that now, I want to keep up on the developments with this story, ... if I want to write a book, or my own blog, I will make sure things are 100% - with sources. Until then, please do some research yourself. I'm not trying to only pick on you here, but sometimes people ask questions here, when they could easily research the questions themselves before they ask them.)
  • vabech311, on 10/12/2007, -36/+39How can ANYONE doubt a 911 conspiracy when the BBC has knowledge BEFORE the event even happened? Seriously, wouldn't you like to know WHO told the BBC? I guess someone was "late" in setting off their bombs, someone screwed up!
    • foamcow, on 10/12/2007, -26/+15That page itself says, "Although there is no clock on the footage, the source claims the report was given at 4:57pm EST, "

      The 'source' could just have easily said it was filmed the day before. That's not proof. That's just some guy saying the report went out 23 minutes 'early'. Well, hey, I watched it on the BBC and I say it actually went out 3 hours after. There, it's all ok again.

      There is no actual evidence WHEN the report went out.
    • oddjobsbowler, on 10/12/2007, -9/+38But the reporter is talking about the collapse of the building even though you can clearly see building 7 standing behind her in the shot.
    • stallion4, on 10/12/2007, -9/+30@ foamcow

      The anchor in the BBC studio looks at a clock -- while he's talking to the Reporter who has Building 7 over her shoulder -- and says "it's been some 8 hours after the attack".

      The first plane hit at 8:46 a.m. NYC time. That would put the filming of this BBC report near 5 p.m. NYC time. Building 7 fell down at 5:20.
    • spartansblade, on 10/12/2007, -18/+18And I quote

      "That page itself says, "Although there is no clock on the footage, the source claims the report was given at 4:57pm EST, "

      The 'source' could just have easily said it was filmed the day before. That's not proof. That's just some guy saying the report went out 23 minutes 'early'. Well, hey, I watched it on the BBC and I say it actually went out 3 hours after. There, it's all ok again.

      There is no actual evidence WHEN the report went out."

      What are you kidding me? This is amazingly ignorant. Its stated during the video and you still cant do the math?
    • stallion4, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20@ spartansblade

      What part of my previous post don't you understand?

      The news anchor in the BBC studio clearly says (live) that the report was going out "some 8 hours" after the attack while he's interviewing the female reporter who's in NYC and has Building 7 still standing over her shoulder. That would place the time of the broadcast very close to 5 p.m. New York time.

      Here's a new link to the video that Google keeps censoring:
      http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=49f_1172526096

      Here's a pic of the reporter and Building 7:
      http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/1557/bbcworld1710estwtc780pcbr4.jpg
    • stallion4, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12@ spartansblade

      I think I read your post wrong, and you weren't disagreeing with me. My bad.
    • MrEguy, on 10/12/2007, -7/+20Definition of a "conspiracy theory":
      Nineteen amateur pilots who could barely fly single-engine Cessnas, lead by a cave-dwelling Muslim on kidney dialysis, commandeer four commercial jumbo-jets with box-cutters and fly them into US targets with pin-point accuracy while the entire US military stands-down for over an hour. Three concrete and steel buildings are pulverized and melted, collapsing straight down into their own footprints at free-fall speed, defying the laws of physics.
    • DrMojoPhD, on 10/12/2007, -7/+17"Some eight hours" doesn't mean eight hours on the dot. It means "around eight hours". Eights hours and 20 minutes after the attack is still "some eight hours" after the attack, you ***** idiot.

      And yeah, I'm sure the building collapse *DEFIED THE LAWS OF THE PHYSICS*.

      Go ahead, think about what you said there you moron. Apparently in your world the US government can *DEFY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS*.

      No even God can do that, you ***** rube.
    • bruce1337, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Mojo, of course no one can break the laws of physics, as far as we know. However, within the constraints of the Official Conspiracy Theory, these laws must have been broken. That is exactly why we propagate alternative explanations, such as demolitions.
    • drew34, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8@DrMojoPhD

      8:46am + 8hrs 20 mins = 5:06pm
      Thats still 14 mins before the collapse. Learn some math.

      Then we have another idiot foamcow...
      "That page itself says, "Although there is no clock on the footage, the source claims the report was given at 4:57pm EST, "

      The 'source' could just have easily said it was filmed the day before. That's not proof. That's just some guy saying the report went out 23 minutes 'early'. Well, hey, I watched it on the BBC and I say it actually went out 3 hours after. There, it's all ok again.

      There is no actual evidence WHEN the report went out."

      Does it matter when EXACTLY the report came out? The fact of the matter is the BUILDING IS STILL STANDING AND THEY SAID IT HAS COLLAPSED. So yea, you say a report on a building collapsing went out 3 hours after it collapsed but now it is standing peacefully there in the background. YOU. ARE. A. RETARD.
    • deleven, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Perhaps what went wrong was that flight 93 never arrived (for whatever reason). Makes sense to me that WTC7 was the third target (Pentagon, the forth) and had to be prewired. Since plane never arrived, they (the conspirators) had to "pull" it as a 47 story building filled with shape charges, etc. would have been a bit more difficult to explain to the unwashed. Throw in the AIG insurance debacle along with ENRON files in the SEC and you have perfect motive for not only the "New Pearl Harbour", but dumping much evidence. Oh, but just a conspiracy theory, of course.
  • spope, on 10/12/2007, -20/+47I was in the "bathroom" when I heard Alex and the gentleman from Canada speaking about this video..Immediately went to download the video and lo and behold IT WAS GONE! Another way to deny the TRUTH.........Plausable Deniability!
  • Kenada, on 10/12/2007, -11/+14Can Some one who was able to download the video please upload it some where or give us a new link?
    I have open web space I can store it on if needed.
  • ghstofbillhicks, on 10/12/2007, -30/+48anyone who spouts TIN FOIL HAT BS knows deep in their hearts they are LYING to themselves. Think about it...

    the BBC, Google, etc are all BUSTED BIG TIME on this one.

    what did i tell ya? LIARS & MURDERERS
    • SultanTravi, on 10/12/2007, -28/+25You're so right, dude. Workers at Google, cameramen and news reporters at the BBC, and all sorts of thousands of people are all in on it. They aren't talking though, because secrets are easy to keep.

      If the government couldn't keep Abu Grahib a secret amongst their military personnel, how the ***** do you think they got the folks at Google and British reporters to shut up?

      Occam's razor, kids. Occam's razor.
    • pudro, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16sultantravi wrote: "You're so right, dude. Workers at Google, cameramen and news reporters at the BBC, and all sorts of thousands of people are all in on it. They aren't talking though, because secrets are easy to keep.

      If the government couldn't keep Abu Grahib a secret amongst their military personnel, how the ***** do you think they got the folks at Google and British reporters to shut up?"

      You are right that Google and the BBC are not part of some big conspiracy. I bet the BBC just didn't know that WTC 7 was right behind them the whole time (well, someone noticed at the last minute there).

      As far as keeping secrets go, there was no tight lid on Abu Ghraib to keep those "secrets" in. The administration was doing what they had always done, and they didn't adapt for technology (digital cameras and email).

      You want to know how many people can be in on a secret? The Manhattan Project was a secret kept by 100,000 people, and they even kept it from the Vice President until shortly before they were going to use it. Not only can a lot of people keep a secret, but any "key" person could be out of the loop as well.
    • jon3k, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3Yeah, Google, the BBC, they're all in on it.

      Sure.

      Also Chuck Barry, the Transformers and John Cougar Mellancamp.

      ...

      And the entire Chicago Bears defensive line.

      In fact everyone knows. I'm not even sure how it qualifies as a conspiracy theory anymore. You whack jobs should just move on. At least I don't have to listen to you prattle on about how we never landed on the moon anymore, that's kind of my silver lining I guess.
  • 4Horsemen, on 10/12/2007, -27/+37Why did they pull it? Why did they pull it? Why did they pull it?

    Wake up Amerika!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    • robbh66, on 10/12/2007, -39/+24Because it's ***** taken out of context for a retard named Alex Jones personal benefit.

      Why don't you wake up and learn how to spell?
    • shig, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15@robbh
      The context came 20 minutes after the report. That's the problem.
    • MrAuer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12robbh6 - and its not a Alex Jones video, its a BBC video! I downloaded it straight from the archives...Jones has nothing to do it except reporting it. Get your facts straight plz. And watch the video before whining.
    • voodoomojo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Kevin Rose is the person responsible HERE !!!

      Kevin Rose is a TRAITOR to the United States of America, his Friends, Fans and DIGG users
  • 4Horsemen, on 10/12/2007, -25/+18They tin foil hat sayers are the real enemy!
    • one0them, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0congrats, u made like a penny with your broken English you pay sayer.
  • slickrick8, on 10/12/2007, -15/+24Video is not pulled here..... Only in America?

    try this link http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1471985581749234824&hl=en
    • ownedpwned, on 10/12/2007, -14/+22That one just got pulled too.
    • cyborg, on 10/12/2007, -14/+16nope, that doesn't work either. Hope someone had a backup of the video.....maybe you should throw it on a p2p network?
    • DocXango, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3No it wasn't, I'm watching it now.
    • ISIfunded911, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3It works!
    • ISIfunded911, on 10/12/2007, -6/+21I am watching it now. It is really incredible. Watch it:
      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1471985581749234824&hl=en
      It reminds me of JFK. A newspaper reported about the assassination before it happened, as is shown in the movie by Oliver Stone.
      Of course, in the case of an inside job, controlling the information/disinformation is crucial. It has to be prepared before. The goal of state-sponsored terrorism is to control the minds of the people in a democracy to convince them of the validity of a violent course of action by the government that would not have been approved by the population without this act of terrorism.
      It happened in Italy to break the huge strikes in 1969, and several other times for many years after that. Just research gladio and Bologna in google for example. NATO and the Italian secret services did kill hundreds of Italians to help right-wing politicians stay in power, by blaming the acts of terrorism on leftists. They later managed to manipulate some stupid leftists into becoming terrorists, but the secret services were pulling the threads, and paid some fascists to do the biggest killings.
    • ISIfunded911, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13Of course if you ignore that hundreds of "journalists" are on the payroll of the secret services in the US, in the UK,...you cannot understand anything.
      It is all a theater play. But not as truthful as Shakespeare. On the contrary.
      The Society of the Spectacle. Guy Debord and the Situationists explained it best.
    • dogster, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Still works at 5:58 pm EST, 2/26/07
    • mcduckov, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Both are gone, 2/28/07 3:46 EST
    • LesPaul75, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2The fact that the videos are there for some people, at some times, and then not there for other people, at other times, probably means that Google isn't "pulling" anything. They're probably just getting tons of traffic and are having problems dealing with the bandwidth. Videos are big.

      On the other hand, the fact that the BBC's original copies of the video have disappeared due to a "*****-up" (that's what they said in their official response) is hilarious. Now *that* is tough to explain.
  • jackspace, on 10/12/2007, -9/+45Has anyone attempted to make a usable time-line in all this? Seems like a tool such as the TIMELINE feature on http://simile.mit.edu/ would be useful for keeping all this stuff straight in our heads.

    Regardless of what actually happened on 9/11, I want to know why the Bush Administration ignored warnings of credible terror threats throughout the summer of 2001. I also want to know why he started snooping on our phone calls prior to 9/11 (and it didn't seem to thwart the attack did it?).

    • maxhrk, on 10/12/2007, -14/+10Everybody has motives for one or other. So do bush.

      Why Bush or washington ignores the warning? That was on purpose(prehap..) in order to prompts a war with iraq or iran or any other country. They want a reason to find a place to go war with. So 9/11 is an answer.


      Okay.. i dont believes in conspiracy theory myself.. oh well. :)
    • shig, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6You're right, maxhrk. The PNAC documents alone prove at least that much is true.
    • XcelR8ed, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Viva La Truth Movement
      Truth to Power
      Never Forget
    • healthynerd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4To jackspace: Since you've brought up the Simile project by MIT, there's a site that features the complete timeline of 9/11 from the beginning till present - no physics debate, just pure hard facts. You might want to collabarate and make the grassroots investigative effort into visual timeline: http://digg.com/political_opinion/The_Complete_911_Timeline

      I hope we do all stop debating about the Physics part of the issue because it attracts conservative/liberal views, instead as a whole, as Americans let's look at the non-debatable facts (see above link) and have the people responsible be accountable!!
  • miked123, on 10/12/2007, -32/+17Oh god this is pathetic... why the hell would the BBC know about some huge government conspiracy, especially all the way down to their reporters?
    • InspSherlock, on 10/12/2007, -20/+29Psychological defensive reaction formation, cognitive dissonance on your part I feel. Pull your head out of your arse hole for a few seconds sit down and try and think for yourself.
      No one is saying that the BBC knew about the conspiracy or the so called 'reporter'. We are saying how the hell did they know that the building was going to fall 20 minutes before it actually did. Who put the word out to the media to start reporting the proposed collapse, obviously that person who was disseminating that news was aware that this building was rigged and was going to be pulled. The BBC inadvertently reported it before the fact.
    • dogster, on 10/12/2007, -19/+14Smoking gun evidence of a CONSPIRACY !!!!!!!!!!!!!
    • foamcow, on 10/12/2007, -9/+7They had a press release of course.

      Hey, maybe the BBC did it to generate some news on an otherwise quiet day.
      That must be it, it all makes sense now!
    • GatorDawg, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13They didn't. A single mole working for AP or some other wire service has pre-prepared releases to go out over the service. He screws up and releases one early. Because of the rush to get breaking news out on that day, BBC tears it off the wire and goes with it trusting the wire service to have done the fact checking.
  • fightnwo911, on 10/12/2007, -20/+35Tinfoil hats, moonbats?? Sounds like someone takes the words right out of the mouths of Quinn and Rose. It is really sad that people stick to catch phrases and personal attacks rather than science, evidence, and common sense. It really only shows that you folks criticizing those of us trying to expose the truth about 911 have absolutely no argument what-so-ever. The fact that you who blindly accept the "official" 911 conspiracy theory can not debate the truth movement on the facts makes clear that you have no intellect or reasoning behind what you say but only a clouded and deluded appeal to emotion. That will not hold up in court or in the realm of science.
    • dogster, on 10/12/2007, -14/+15Yes, inside job!!!!
    • Arcanaut, on 10/12/2007, -27/+12America is the most litigious society in the history of our planet. If there was a court case to be made, lawyers would have been making it, and would be suing the government right now. Common sense? It's common sense that radical Muslims cooperated with the US Government to bring down the WTC? That the Bush Administration involved reporters at the BBC in the conspiracy? For what possible reason? Why would the government would risk have crews of multiple people who would need the support of even more people to wire the buildings with explosives? Especially given that they could cooperate with radical Muslims and just have them fly another plane into Building 7, if it was that important it be taken down. But why would the government care if Building 7 collapsed, after having successfully brought down both towers and the Pentagon? And why crash a plane into a field in Pennsylvania? And why not have a plane fly into Capitol Hill, after advising all Jews and Republicans not to come to work that day? Wouldn't that accomplish more for the Bush Admin and the neocons that flying a plane into the Pentagon? Or detonating a bomb there? And why do they supposedly care about the video of the BBC chick--obviously, one the hundreds or perhaps thousands of people in on the 9/11 conspiracy that the Bush admin has managed to keep quiet about their role in the conspiracy (perhaps through mind control drugs)? What does it mean that a BBC reporter reported the building collapsed before it did? Either she has second-site or she's a moron, but, either way, the government would have plausible deniability: look, we have no control over what reporters for the BBC, many of whom probably had no idea which building was which, said. Or perhaps that reporter misspoke in the heat of the action, as is, in fact, quite common.

      Besides, isn't Bush supposed to be too stupid to pull all this off? Must have been Cheney. Or Karl Rove! Damn you, Karl Rove, you handsome evil genius, you!
    • eatasandwich, on 10/12/2007, -11/+10It's important to note that just because someone isn't willing to run with so called "evidence" from a well known conspiracy theorist, does not mean that they accept the official story. This is not black and white and it is not a case of "us against them".

      If you want to be taken seriously don't jump on every new piece of so called evidence as if it's a revelation. What are you? Tabloid reporters?

      This subject is awash with and diluted by so much nonsense that the truth will never be known. It's hard for me to even bother to read these articles now.
    • shig, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11"If there was a court case to be made, lawyers would have been making it"
      They are, and have been. That doesn't mean it will ever see the light of a courtroom, but the fact still stands.

      "It's common sense that radical Muslims cooperated with the US Government to bring down the WTC?"
      Emad Salem? Oh, wait, different WTC bombing, same scenario. Who is Emad Salem? Your waiter at Denny's perhaps, because he was put in Witness Protection after he played FBI informant, and detonated a bomb which killed 6 people in the basement of the WTC. So yes, "Muslims cooperated with the US Government to bring down the WTC" before, and it was common sense to those in the know before 9-11.
    • sega88, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@ dogster
      Not really a inside job but a Israeli Job...
      http://www.iamthewitness.com/
    • bruce1337, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5While I believe Mossad were rigging the property of Netanyahu's buddy Lucky Larry as "Urban Moving Systems", the NORAD standdown and cover-up implicate none other than US insiders. Sure, half of PNAC & friends are dual citizens, but still. This is not about countries...it is about justice.
    • deleven, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So true. Attack the messenger when the message is too painful..

      check out:

      911mysteries.com

      improbablecollapse.com
  • MikeyMayhem, on 10/12/2007, -22/+22hey everyone
    i'm new, but don't let that stop you debunkers out there from attacking me....anyone who still believes that building WASN'T brought down with explosives is delusional.... I have my tinfoil hat on,...it seems to help me when actually USING my brain...nist gave us "5" different explanations on how WTC 7 fell, and if THEY can't give us an explanation i know you can't either....Plain and simple it's a CRIME, insurance fraud at the very least. and murder at the worst....government is NOT good, it takes GOOD people to make GOOD governmnet, and we have not had that in MANY decades....

    the building was "pulled".....

    9/11 was an inside job
    • dogster, on 10/12/2007, -12/+4Insurance fraud definitely!!!!!! What company was defrauded?
    • UnFriendlyFire, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14REPLY TO DOGSTER:

      From www.whatreallyhappened.com

      As reported in The Washington Post, the insurance company, Swiss Re, has gone to court to argue that the 9/11 disaster was only one attack, not two and that therefore the insurance payout should be limited to $3.55 billion, still enough to rebuild the complex.
  • Arcanaut, on 10/12/2007, -41/+35So . . . the BBC was involved in a conspiracy with the Bush administration . . . which had some reason to let the BBC know, ahead of time, that it was going to destroy building 7 of the World Trade Center . . . because, presumably, the attack on the Pentagon and bringing down the two huge towers and killing 3000 people wouldn't be enough of an excuse to start an illegal, immoral war of imperial aggression.

    And, since, for some reason, the Bush administration had to let some reporters know about the secret conspiracy, the picked the right-wing, ultra-conservative . . . BBC. Wow, this just makes so much sense.

    Because it would be so important for the BBC to know that that extra building was going to be blown up by the US Government in order that the Commander and Chief of the United States to mobilize the US Military, which he could do at any time, pretty much at whim, as defined by the U.S. Constitution. But wait! He would be worried that just going to war without first engineering the largest, most complicated conspiracy in the history of the world, involving all levels of government, the US military, Tony Blair, Fox News, the BBC, the New York Port authority, and a large number of complicit Muslims, that it might affect it's poll numbers . . .

    Even if there was a conspiracy, the things most of you folks point to as proof of conspiracy fail any kind of logical test, as they are entirely pointless. Why would the BBC know a building was supposed to collapse, and why would they be incompetent enough to report that it had collapsed, when it had not, while having the camera on the building that had not yet collapsed? And why would the government want to take out building 7? An attack on the Pentagon alone would, quite frankly, be enough to justify war. Add the World Trade and, heck, why not? And where did they get the Muslims of hijack flight 93, and did they intend for flight 93 to crash in a Pennsylvania field from the beginning? And were all the members of airport security complicit in the conspiracy, or just select ones? And certainly, no one at the BBC would want to break ranks with the ultra-conservative, right-wing BBC and report the biggest news story of the year, that the Bush admin engineered 9/11, because that would only made them some of the richest, most powerful, most sexed-up-by-hot-liberal-groupies-everywhere journalist ever on the entire planet.

    In other news, I've recently learned that the planes that flew into the World Trade Center were unmanned, and filled with additional explosive material, and that the people supposed to be on those flights were diverted, murdered by Dick Cheney--who used a great deal of buckshot--shipped over to Iraq and buried in mass graves in order to frame Saddam, who only wanted his citizens to be able to picnic and fly kites in peace, and never cut out a single tongue from a dissidents mouth, or a harmed a single finger on any political enemies hand, or put a single bullet through anybody's head. He was framed! With the real bodies that were supposed to be on the unmanned flights that hit the World Trade Center. It's the most incredible conspiracy of all time, with all major networks and both political parties involved at some level.

    Oh, and Bush is an idiot. A chimp!

    Sheesh.
    • TruthUpYourAss, on 10/12/2007, -15/+19never underestimate the power of DENIAL...
    • Arcanaut, on 10/12/2007, -21/+19Denial? I'm agreeing! It just makes sense that the Bush administration would inform the world's major news organizations about 9/11 ahead of time, in order to make sure they all reported it according to the script, rather than just waiting for events to unfold, because . . . well, it just wouldn't be evil enough.

      Because, as we all know, the entire War on Terror and the Iraq War of Imperial Oppression hinged on the collapse of Building 7. As Hillary said when she voted for war, and as John Kerry said when he voted for the war before voting against it, "We were willing to let 'em blow up the Two Towers and the Pentagon. But when Building Seven collapsed? That was it. We had to go to war."

      Didn't Haliburton get a clean-up contract for Building 7? I'm just saying.
    • card51short, on 10/12/2007, -18/+21Yeah, because the BBC reporter had to be in on the entire plan since they were reporting on one building falling 20 minutes before it did.
      The question is how did they know?
      Are you denying this video's authenticity?

      I love the denial from the official conspiracy nuts.

      Anyone who is really for the truth would be questioning this video (whether an official conspiracy nut or a truther), not just writing it off as nothing.
    • Arcanaut, on 10/12/2007, -27/+19I'm not denying anything. I told you. I agree with you, 100%. ***** is an idiot, normally, except when he becomes an evil genius and pulls off the most elaborate conspiracy of all time, with pretty much everybody but you involved in it, and nobody says anything, so all we've got left is the wise ruminations of Noam Chomsky and this BBC video to prove . . .

      If I were to disagree with your wise and reasoned stance, I would do it on the basis that the only real conspiracy that might explain 9/11, outside of it being an organized attack on the infidel courtesey of inflamed Islamofascists, would require that George Bush be a Muslim. Or that he be sympathetic with the idea of destroying the West. As there has been no real benefit to the Bush administration, or Bush personally, regarding 9/11.

      Additionally, if there was a conspiracy to engineer 9/11, informing the BBC, or involving news agencies at all of any kind, would be unnecessary and counterproductive. Therefore, the idea that the misreporting of some BBC reporter--most of whom are uniformly anti-American, and certainly anti-Bush--proves something would be questionable. To say the least. The news would cover the destruction of the WTC without any kind of script. Or any foreknowledge. The attack would almost certainly be filmed at one of the most photographed, and videotaped, locations in the world. Additionally, the attack itself would be sufficient--there would be no need to intentionally bring the buildings down, if they did not naturally fall, simply based on the extreme damage and dramatic footage achieved by flying airplanes full of fuel into both towers.

      If you want to believe it all, lock, stock, and barrel, go right ahead. I would never want to argue a matter of religious faith with a person. But the entire idea appears to me to be absurd on the face of it.

      Additionally, you can be entirely opposed to war, imperial aggression, American hegemony and unilateralism, cutting taxes, and the free market without believing in elaborate conspiracy fantasies.
    • DeejayLupo, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10@arcanaut: Thank you for the hilarious rant. It's a breath of fresh air in a thread filled with a lot of ugly and a lot of dumb.
    • donkadonk911, on 10/12/2007, -7/+42You speak but you have not done your research.... have you?

      Do you have any knowledge of phsyics?

      Do you know how this operation was comprised? .... many people were unknowing accomplices to this crime and had absolutely no idea untill the deal was done. These people just realized that they participated in an operation which killed three thousand Americans.... and you think that they are going to speak?

      Speak out against those who just did this.... where do you think their loyalty lies? I'll tell you. It lies in keeping themselves and their families out of harms way.
      Speaking out would just put them in a very bad spot. So they choose to go with the flow and hope that the truth doesn't surface. Silence equals survival. While a whistleblower with intimate knowledge would be grand we do not require their testimony untill this goes to trial.

      Are you aware of the many drills being run that day which mimiced these attacks. Many of these people who participated had no idea what was really happening and by the time they did it was far too late. The deal was done and they knew exactly where they stood on this matter.

      If you did your research and had any common sense you would see right through their weak ass story.

      Why did they implode WTC building 7? Just take a lookie look at what was stationed there. This building was home to several world banking leaders whom all greatly benefit from war.... but that wasn't the real reason that building had to fall..... It was home to the SEC.... the Securities and Exchange Commission... do you know what they do? The investigate Fraud, Insider Trading, and Illegal Wire Transfers.
      What were they investigating that needed to be pushed under the rug? ..... ENRON... a company which many in the Bush administration had made big $$$$ off of... after ENRON went kaput many of the heads went to work directly for the Bush administration being paid with your tax dollars.... but you probably didn't know that either.
      So we have $2.3 TRILLION missing from the Pentagon coffers.... and the office which was investigating that lost cash.... gets hit with something on 9/11?
      And we have WTC 7 which is investigating many cases which involve Bush and all his buddies.... suddenly crashes down at near freefall speeds into it's own footprint from fire.... the first time in history.

      Stop being foolish.... making excuses will not make any of this go away.
    • foamcow, on 10/12/2007, -15/+3Nobody is questioning the video exists. Hey I watched it live.

      But where is the evidence that it was shown 23 minutes too early?
      It's just someone saying so.

      Well, by that token I can instantly disprove it by saying it went out at the proper time.
      There, case proven. Why believe 'him' and not me? It's plain nonsense just to take some random stranger's word for it.

      Did it occur to people that its also entirely possible that the BBC were mistaken in referring to a building as WTC 7? Maybe they just got the wrong building in that particular report. There was alot going on that morning and alot of confusion. I certainly remember that.
    • BurningFIREs, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Well for one thing your arguement only holds water if the SO called BBC is Actually liberal.
      You should look into Operation Mocking Bird. You see they planned to take over the worlds media a long time ago. When you watch the news you are actually looking at secret agents who only read off of scripts.

      Somone writes the story line and you follow! Good little sheep!
    • RackAttack, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22WTC 1 & 2 were full of asbestos. How much do you think it would have cost to properly take those buildings down, piece-by-piece? Because they wouldn't be able to "legally" 'implode' the buildings, because of all the asbestos, etc. ... And the sicknesses that would have come from it (AND DID, by the way). They were a lost cause of buildings. Money losers. Their time was up.

      But instead of COSTING tons of money to "bring them down properly" they "killed many birds" with a few "stones."

      > They brought the building down with less expense.
      > MADE money in the process.
      > Had an excuse to start wars.
      > Had an excuse to set laws to take away liberties.
      > And for WTC 7 ... Many damaging documents were in that building... So BOOM! ... They covered the evidence up for a myriad of crimes there also.

      And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

      Go here for other good stuff:

      http://www.infowars.com/sept11_archive.htm

    • Graflok, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19Just look at the video in question. The only point being made here is that the fall of Building 7 was reported before it occurred. The video shows a reporter standing in front of Building 7 but saying that Building 7 has already collapsed. Look at the video. It is real news footage.

      As for the rest of your conjecture above, that is for you to decide. Explain it any way you like. But, don't dismiss one piece of evidence simply because it opens a can of worms that you would rather not think about.

      graflok
    • Buddogfree, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17Try all you want to debunk the truth of 911 you right and left gatekeepers.
      You all can't handle the truth, well you know what
      stop your crying and your keyboard commando techniques and go do your own
      investigation.
      I can't believe all you peasants would want to protect
      the evil elitists and their evil agendas.
      This BBC video just shows more complicity, it is completely undebunkable.
      They knew building 7 was coming down so reported it in an untimely manner
      there mistake is just more ammunition
    • KenfromDublin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Just ignore that lie laden post folks, WE KNOW...GOOD KNOWS and GOD KNOWS!
    • deloyd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6You seem to know alot. Amazing you have no common sense!!!!!!
    • somekindofname, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8You know, I'm not sure if I want to digg or bury this comment. I mean the sarcasm is priceless... and Bush is definitely a chimp, so I digg that much. But you're still trying to write this all off as 'conspiracy theory' and I'm sorry but regardless of who else might have known, the fact is those buildings were blown up with explosives. Our dictator's younger brother was head of WTC security... to quote Dave Chappele "things don't just happen. People (mostly white people) MAKE things happen"
    • ZZeke, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7donkadonk911 wrote: Why did they implode WTC building 7? Just take a lookie look at what was stationed there. This building was home to several world banking leaders whom all greatly benefit from war.... but that wasn't the real reason that building had to fall..... It was home to the SEC.... the Securities and Exchange Commission... do you know what they do? The investigate Fraud, Insider Trading, and Illegal Wire Transfers. What were they investigating that needed to be pushed under the rug? ..... ENRON... a company which many in the Bush administration had made big $$$$ off of... after ENRON went kaput many of the heads went to work directly for the Bush administration being paid with your tax dollars.... but you probably didn't know that either.

      Here's another little-known fact about "lost evidence" in the WTC "attacks": Someone very close to me was working on a BIG potential lawsuit against Morgan Stanley, and this person was actually scheduled to meet with people at MS at 9:30 on the morning of Sept 11th, in one of the towers. The case was sparked by a lawsuit filed by a Ms. Schefflin(?), alleging gender inequity at MS, as well as other issues. Many current and ex-employees of MS were scheduled to file suit, possibly resulting in a class-action suit that would have cost MS multiple millions and possibly hurt the company and it's value on the market. However, ALL of MS's files pertaining to this case were destroyed in the "attacks", leaving the plaintiffs empty-handed, killing off the suit. The only case that was tried was the Schefflin case, and she won hands-down to the tune of tens of millions of dollars. All of the other suits wered dropped due to lack of evidence.
      I'm not sure if the name is spelled correctly, but the Schefflin case was reported in NYT, WSJ, etc., etc., as a landmark wall street sexual discrimination case. What a shame all the other evidence was "lost" in the "attacks". With all we know about prior knowledge of 9/11, it wouldn't surprise me if MS left the files at WTC for a reason - according to my source, the files were supposed to have been moved to another office at an earlier date - that's why this person had an appointment at WTC that morning - To pick up the files!!!! Just to clarify - my source was working FOR MS through a big NYC law firm - not for the plaintiffs.
      I know this is off topic and I won't hold a grudge if you bury it. It's just another example of who might have benefitted from prior knowledge of the "attacks". I'm sure this is just one of many corps. that benefitted from the events of that day, like the airline put options, and Silverstein trying to collect double insurance money.
      Just my 2 cents - Digg is BS - people are going to read and believe the stories they want to read and believe in, regardless of some stupid internet rating.
      Zeke
    • deleven, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yeah. The same Controlled Demolition that cleared the Murrah building in OKC before any reasonable investigation could take place.
  • MountAthos, on 10/12/2007, -25/+6I would like to say something to all the people who are so AGAINST the truther movement revealing what "really happened" on 9/11.

    Please open your mind and reconsider a little.
    Hear me out.

    Did it ever occur to you what these people would be doing if this nuttery was taken away from them?
    Something much worse for society, that's for sure.
    That's right, this movement is in everyone's interests.
    Just don't let them in on the conspiracy that started it among them, okay?
    It's in your interest to "digg" this story!
    • deleven, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The only way that this "nuttery" could be taken away is exactly by how it is being taken away. Via Patriot Act, Omnibus Crime bill. Obvious erosion of The Bill of Rights by those like yourself who have more confidency in your government's integrity than in your own ability to inspect.

      The only real nuttery is complacent little citizens believing in a long line of conspiracy theories such as 19 ill trained hijackers making precision suicide runs into skyscrapers all masterminded by some evil renegade billionaire from a cave in Pakistan.
  • Kenada, on 10/12/2007, -13/+21That is not what they are saying. The reporter is a mindless drone, reading what is placed in front of her.
    The reported doesn't know anymore than the people she is reading it to. Also this shows pre-recorded!
    She is reading a report of something that hadn't happened yet! Don't for one second try to claim this woman is the
    next Silvia Brown! It proves that there was a script to the whole days events!
    • Arcanaut, on 10/12/2007, -19/+19The BBC had a script for 9/11, so they--presumably almost the entire news network--knew that 9/11 was engineered by the Bush Administration in order to justify an illegal and immoral war and, with the script, presumably had some evidence of it. Which would only have been the biggest news story of all time, which they could have broken at some other, non-BBC network, since the BBC was in on it all. And certainly, we all know how pro-Bush and pro-America the BBC is. And always have been. They just love Bush. At the BBC. And, certainly, would never want to break the biggest news story about American and conservative corruption and duplicity ever in the history of anything, which is why the Bush administration trusted them with the 9/11 script.

      This all makes so much sense. You guys are really opening my eyes. Because we know how important it was that reporters would have pre-prepared scripts. How in the world could Bush justify his illegal, immoral war, unless the BBC reported the Bush administration script? Just having reporters at the scene cover it as it happened . . . that would be much too risky. Much better to prepare a script for the days events, as scheduled, ahead of time, and distributed to the world's major news networks.

    • broomett, on 10/12/2007, -13/+3Wow....That is the most pathetic thing I have ever read.

      I am a government agent. I have gathered your IP adress, and will be coming to murd...uh...silence you now.
  • JebBlack, on 10/12/2007, -11/+7This is great!
  • dogster, on 10/12/2007, -8/+7Jane Stanley - what does she have to say these days. What was the name of the guy talking to her?
  • jeremiasx, on 10/12/2007, -9/+16I just got it on Google Video guys...it's still there. I hope it stays up long enough for people to watch it...it seems to be less than credible when the guy posts the timestamps in superimposed formats HOWEVER it is interesting to note that the BBC reporter is talking about the event with WTC 7 STILL STANDING behind her...I'm pretty interested in the whole 9/11 investigation process...there is serious evidence being offered here. It's ALSO interesting that there was a news conference the day of 9/11 with a Taliban spokesman who denied Bin Laden's involvement...and Bin Laden's name was certainly slung around quite a bit as the towers burned.

    http://jeremiasx.wordpress.com/2007/02/02/re-open-911-investigation/
    • BrutusCato, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0I watched this until about 5:05 EST and I didnt see any reporter in from of WTC7, I couldn't even tell which was WTC 7, and alot of it looks like rerun footage from earlier in the day. Not convinced.
  • UNSCleric, on 10/12/2007, -15/+31Incredible job guys, this is very hard-hitting. WTC7 is their biggest weak spot.
  • xxjuanitaxx, on 10/12/2007, -19/+27BUSTED!! BUSTED!! BUSTED!!

    BIGGEST 911 SMOKING GUN

    ON THE MEDIA YET!!

  • PghOldtimer, on 10/12/2007, -18/+29I get a kick out of the twits that are still trying to hang on to the "Official" story.
    They've lost and they know it!
    • broomett, on 10/12/2007, -20/+7You've lost the game of life. And you know it.
  • tj256, on 10/12/2007, -10/+28I wonder how they'll explain this one away. To me, this is a smoking gun in it's own right. Add that to the few dozen other smoking guns.

    When will people wake up?
  • brivapor, on 10/12/2007, -13/+32To all the people screaming tin hat, ask you selves 1 question.

    "Why would google pull the video? Who told them to pull it?"
    • Arcanaut, on 10/12/2007, -25/+11Ask yourself a question: why would the US Government, or Google, care about one inaccurate BBC reporter who clearly didn't know what she was talking about? Or why would anyone part of the conspiracy try to pull a video that is already widely available elsewhere?

      Maybe someone reported it as spam. Bet you will see it come back. Or BBC could have complained about copyright. They do that, occasionally.
    • sonofdy, on 10/12/2007, -20/+10@arcanaut: These guys don't care about logic. If they did perhaps they might notice that nobody ever noticed anyone planting the explosives onto the support beams of these buildings despite that fact that it would have taken hundreds of charges all placed directly onto the beams requiring the removal of walls to get to these beams. You would think someone would notice people smashing holes in the walls and planting charge after charge. And thats only one of thier points. Tin foil hat time.
    • Arcanaut, on 10/12/2007, -19/+5I believe there has been someone who reported that they saw secretive government crews putting suspicious black boxes in the stairwells a few days before 9/11. And that person had to be entirely credible.

      I know they are immune to logic. But it's fun! I like to see what they say. "Denier!" I notice that, as with The First Church of Climate Change, the True Believers in the 9/11 Conspiracy love to call "denier" as a secular form of "heretic". As a former atheist turned crappy Christian, I miss being on the dissenting side of religious debates, and when I argue with the 9/11 Conspiracy Faithful, I get my fix.
    • broomett, on 10/12/2007, -14/+5They didn't.
    • cuddl3s, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2Could it possibly be that posting 26 minutes of BBC video goes far beyond "fair use"?
    • caketank, on 10/12/2007, -14/+4*****, I just dug you up because on first reading, I thought you were riffing on the "building 7 was pulled" idiocy, and that was funny.

      Then I realized you weren't kidding. I want my digg back.
    • somekindofname, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13@ sonofdy. How about the unusual amount of evacuation drills in the weeks before 9/11. Or the people who worked in the building that reported hearing power tools in abandoned floors. Or the dust spewing from the air vents days before. Do you REALLY believe the bogus pancake collapse theory? Cause it doesn't explain were the INTERIOR columns went. Not to mention that in a pancake collapse, the aftermath is piles of floors stacked on top of each other, not the complete disintegration we saw at ground zero. One of the firefighters going through, looking for people said he didn't find anything, not a desk, or a chair, or a phone and the biggest piece of a phone he found was about two inches of a keypad. Stop kidding yourself.
  • 911isalie, on 10/12/2007, -14/+28If the NWO rip it down off Google it matters not...I'm sure I'm not the only one who has a screen capture recording of it, on my hard drive. It was the first thing I did, man - copied that mofo to my drive.

    It would be interesting to corner this reporter and anchor on the issue.

    And the BBC had the nerve to run "The Conspiracy Files" on 911 Truth - LOL.

    They are pathetic liars...the BBC, as CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, The NYT, The WP....all bought and paid for whores. I've given up on listening to them anymore. The only reason to listen to them is to know what they are up to and how they are spinning it...other than that...I get my real news and facts elsewhere.

    The are part of the problem, not the solution.

    When the day comes....one thing we may need to do is occupy those stations and put the Truth back on the air.

    And what will you do when George W. Bush declares martial law?
    • Arcanaut, on 10/12/2007, -23/+14When George Bush declares martial law, I'm going to marry Jessica Alba, who will worship me as a god, and we'll both roll around in my trillions of dollars of cash, and then I will use my super powers to fly in outerspace, because my fantasy world is more interesting and positive than yours.

      If Bush was going to declare martial law, why hasn't he already done it? What is he waiting for? Why didn't he declare it before the last presidential election, to ensure his continued despotic rule?

      Wouldn't it make more sense to presume he intends to engineer the next presidential election and rule by proxy, rather than to think he's going to declare martial law--something there would be no point in him doing, and would probably decrease and jeapordize his despotic reign rather than help him and his unquenchable thirst for power?
    • somekindofname, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@ arcanaut. Did you finish high school? A president isn't allowed to serve more then two terms... unless martial law is declared. Start cutting your underwear in preparation for the greatest melvin in nerd history.
    • semperignavus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@somekindofname: Arcanaut clearly said Bush would "rule by proxy," so I think he knows exactly what the presidential term limits are in the US. Ad hominem attacks like this don't help, especially when people who advocate this theory are already dismissed by many as crazies.
  • sonofdy, on 10/12/2007, -30/+10It was really Bigfoot who in conjunction with the UFOs piloted by Elvis, who took down the towers. They did this because they got sick of riding 40 foot dinosaurs on mars. The men in black in alliance with the Illuminati also had a hand.

    Get real.
    • Herkimer56, on 10/12/2007, -9/+7You forgot the Freemasons, the IMF and the Trilateral Commission.
    • sonofdy, on 10/12/2007, -19/+4Well they are a given, who do you think runs the men in black and "unit 5"???

      oooppsss they are coming for me nowww, i've said too much!!!
    • elvisB, on 12/07/2007, -0/+1Fluoride, aspartame, and MSG conspired to make you dumber then ***** on a stick, mission accomplished.
  • R0cc0, on 10/12/2007, -9/+24i'd like to think that i am equally skeptical of both sides of an issue, so my question is this.
    Why after six years am i just now reading this...? Either millions of people failed to notice this or it fake.
    any thoughts people?
    • donkadonk911, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2150% of Americans still have not seen the collapse of WTC building 7... why do you think that they would have noticed this blunder?

      especially being that they cut her feed before the building did actually collapse.... they covered their asses on that one.
    • R0cc0, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6i get your point. i was only thinking that perhaps there was someone watching who knew the building and
      noticed the 'mistake'... i'm having trouble understanding how ridiculous this is single day is in terms of how much speculation there is, on both sides of who did it.
    • 911isalie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19Fake?

      Come on!

      This is the world we live in now - when we question this. If it proved WTC7 collapsed as a result of "whatever" the current explanation is, then I guarantee you you would have seen it; and seen plenty of it. The fact that you haven't seen it is the interesting thing...I've never seen it, indeed, I would suspect that most people haven't.

      To it's being fake - if it's fake then it's been put out by the Truth side. I was unaware that we had the resources to produce this type of content and then disseminate it, and to do so without the mass media and every blogger on the planet who hates the Truth movement, picking it up and running with it. It can't even be government operation to discredit the Truth movement, because it does not do that; it merely bolsters the argument(s).

      To it being real - you know it's real. You know it' real by what you see with your own eyes; no one is out there denying it; the simple fact that you haven't seen it means it's either been suppressed or they and everyone else have been unaware of it's location, and it's just now been stumbled upon; consider the fact that the main stream media will not touch this story; and finally, consider how quickly it went off Google.

      It's not fake...it's very, very, real.

      Thank GOD for it coming out.
    • ennealogic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5My guess is the audience for the BBC report was ... folks who live in Great Britain. How many would know the layout of the WTC complex? I sure didn't and I've been in NYC dozens of times. I studied maps over the last few years, putting everything in place.

      Someone did notice, however, and pulled the plug on her report before the building was demolished though! Bet their faces were red!
    • deleven, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2People will not gravitate to that which makes them uncomfortable. It takes a certain amount of courage to face a tyrant
  • Nsixqatsi, on 10/12/2007, -25/+10Google hasn't pulled the video you ***** tards...

    When a lot of people at the same time suddenly start downloading the same video at the same time obviously bandwidth issues can/will happen.

    Hit refresh retards...
    • ghstofbillhicks, on 10/12/2007, -14/+7This idiot is a government operative. the sad thing is he/she/it is probably not even paid for it...
      lying disinfo spreading whores.
    • tcell, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7Did you say pulled?

      What got pulled?
    • broomett, on 10/12/2007, -17/+5ghst..you are sad. seriously.
    • Valleye, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1Your leg.
    • stallion4, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16@ nsixqatsi

      Wrong. Google did pull the video. It was gone just before the story broke on Alex Jones' show. It's not a joke. The BBC video is real. Here's the link to the original footage if anyone want s to try to download it:

      http://ia311517.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109111654-1736/V08591-16.mpg - "right click / save target as"

      It's a 1G file.

      Also, the timing checks out. The anchor in the BBC studio looks at a clock -- while he's talking to the Reporter who has Building 7 over her shoulder -- and says "it's been some 8 hours after the attack".

      The first plane hit at 8:46 a.m. NYC time. That would put the filming of this BBC report near 5 p.m. Building 7 fell down at 5:20.
  • ghstofbillhicks, on 10/12/2007, -9/+10its taken the govt operative internet thugs a little while to show up--guess they were watching OPRAH or something...
  • quakerorts, on 10/12/2007, -8/+17I think I found it as a torrent. If it's the right file I'll upload it to esnips and post a link to it. For now try downloading it here
    http://www.torrentspy.com/torrent/1069394/BBC_WTC_7_Collapse_Anounced_20_minutes_before_it_happened
    Good luck!
  • slapshot24, on 10/12/2007, -11/+24This is a great thread to use to fill your block-list. Whatever your politican leanings, you can find people to block.
  • ghstofbillhicks, on 10/12/2007, -9/+23sonofdy: you want to talk logically? the WTC was closed a few weeks prior to 9/11 for undisclosed 'maintenance' issues. who had the authority to this? the company in charge of security for the WTC--which was headed by a Bush brother. his contract expired on 9/11/01 that's a fact. there are plenty more where that came from, but maybe you'd prefer to go back to the Shaved Head Britney News.

    Zzzzzzzz.....
    • JoeyDeacon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Britney shaved her head? Does no-one post real news anymore?
  • Sxeptomaniac, on 10/12/2007, -26/+17Sorry guys, not terribly convincing. If there is a cover-up, this doesn't help your case much.

    With all the speculation and confusion that day, it's quite likely that someone misinterpreted the predictions that WTC 7 would fall. I remember seeing footage and hearing speculation regarding the viability of WTC 7 for quite a while before it fell.

    Second, sending out some kind of fake press release before the fall would be just plain stupid. Ask yourself: why would it be necessary, and what would be gained? It would be an incredibly risky move, since just one or two reporters could blow the whole thing open (and they would have good reason to, since it would gain them massive fame). They wouldn't need a press release anyway, since the building's fall would be self-evident, and the currently accepted story would be sufficient cover.

    No, it is extremely unlikely to be the result of any cover-up (whether or not one actually exists), and is probably just a screw-up.
    • ghstofbillhicks, on 10/12/2007, -13/+16keep telling yourself that...
    • philcozz, on 10/12/2007, -8/+25The anchor and reporter DON'T just "misinterpret the predictions that WTC 7 would fall.." The anchor repeats 3 "bullet points" in the course of the video a couple of times: 1) The building has collapsed, 2) The explanation [it had been weakened by the earlier collapses], and 3) no one was in the building.

      That's not just a rumor being "jumped on;" that is reporting the event, the reason, and the result 23 minutes before it happened.
    • dogster, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17
      Your analysis fails because fire couldn't (didn't) cause the building to fail. Explosives did.
  • broomett, on 10/12/2007, -9/+16Yeah..there was a lot of confusion that day. The point?
  • orvtech, on 10/12/2007, -14/+3So.. does Jack Bawer knows a bout this ??????
    • everfresh59, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12It's Bauer you genius....
    • orvtech, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1that is what you think ... hes real name is Jack Bawer and at the end he works for the cuban intel department
    • JoeyDeacon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Jack Bow wowa is his dog
  • everfresh59, on 10/12/2007, -15/+9It's better that the American people, and the world, never find out about the real events that occured on 911. Imagine if the truth were to come out. No Gov't would be trusted, the economy would come to a halt. Questions would need to be answered, and people would have to be blamed.

    Keep the secret for another 50-60 years, much like the JFK assassination.

    • andrewgreve, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16Simply rediculous. Truth out now is the only way. Google 'Market Anarchy' or search for it on youtube.
  • elbxmatatan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Alternative link out there? videos are unavailable right now..
    • Kenada, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I found it in bit torrent, hope it is the real video, if so I will put it in the newsgroups.
  • HDHNTR77, on 10/12/2007, -5/+21This thing has checked out, and the time zone debunk is utter nonsense and disinfo intended to try to hide the fact that the BBC announced twenty minutes early, that an accidental happening was going to occur. Something obviously went out on the AP wire and got picked up early. Somebody ***** up big time HUGE, and now it's on the BBC - what on EARTH are they every going to do?

    This story is HUGE!
    • Arcanaut, on 10/12/2007, -13/+3It's the BIGGEST EVER! At LOW, LOW Prices! The 9/11 Conspiracy is GOING OUT OF BUSINESS! And this will be YOUR LAST CHANCE to enjoy these GREAT CONSPIRACY SAVINGS!!!

      The first clue that something is not "HUGE!!!" is when someone says "This is HUGE!!!"

      If something is actualy "HUGE!!" it doesn't need the big red "Applause" sign so the unwashed masses can figure it out.
  • spartansblade, on 10/12/2007, -7/+25Clasic. How about debating the facts instead of spamming. You show me two things and I will shut up.
    1. How building 7 was able to catch fire in the first place given it position relative to the twin towers.
    2. Any other steel structure, not owned by Larry Silverstein, especially one that was as over engineered as building 7 that collaped from fire in short time as building 7.

    If you are unable to explain JUST these two things then keep your mouth shut and do some research first. AT THE LEAST reguardless of goverment involment or anything like that there SHOULD be an investigation to why that building fell. If it was brought down due to explosion, and only on fire for that short of a time then how did they have time durring the fire to go into the building and set up the explosives. It would take a week of prep for a small building to be brought down and a month to prep a larger building. If Silverstein knew about the attacks and bought purchased the buildings to cash in on this tradegy then first we have to send him to jail. Then we must find out how he discovered that the buildings were going to be attacked reguardless of any real involvment.
    • tcell, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3Know your scheez before you start arguing freind.
      Building 7 deffinatley was on fire.
      That fire brought it down? Not so conclusive. But it deffinatley was on fire.
    • sonofdy, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2Probably because the back half of the building was destroyed and the huge fuel tanks for the emergency center were on fire. DUUHHHH.
    • donkadonk911, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16I know you guys think you are smart and all but Diesel Fuel is still a HYDROCARBON... just like jet fuel and paper and carpet and plastic and concrete.

      Does not burn nearly hot enough to cause a structure to catastrophicly and symmetricly collapse from the fires whic we all saw in the time that they burned.

      SORRY!
    • spartansblade, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12I didn't say that it wasn't on fire. I asked HOW did it catch on fire given its relation to the twin towers?
  • imightbewrong, on 10/12/2007, -14/+5we all know who really plotted 9-11
    it was the southern fundamentalist christians, the same people who are responsible for everything bad in the world
  • cracker42, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Wow, that's a lot of buried comments.
    • biggbrother, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6I put it more like "wow, that's a lot of imbeciles writing comments that need to be buried".
    • MrEguy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7It's called "cognitive dissonance". Basically, it's when people are frightened by something which challenges the security of their beliefs, whether right or not, and they try to block it out. Like when a child plugs his ears and sings, "LA, la, la lala.." Me no like, mommy--make the bad go-way!!

      Cognitive dissonance is a psychological term which describes the uncomfortable tension that comes from holding two conflicting thoughts at the same time. More precisely, it is the perception of incompatibility between two cognitions, where "cognition" is defined as any element of knowledge, including attitude, emotion, belief, or behavior.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
  • ghstofbillhicks, on 10/12/2007, -9/+18i love how these chickensh*ts on here have such vigorous responses. their DENIAL is showing. they are truly terrified. thanks for the confirmation, guys. i am sad. sad that you are all so brainwashed & afraid. go back to your x boxes. go back to your sit coms. go back to your pathetic little lives where the only way you 'win' is if you collect the most stuff.

    i AM really sad because i know when your silly little lives wink out of existence you won't have brain power to lift your spirits over the threshold of eternity. you will be trapped.

    sorry. i am feeling superior today. i love catching liars in the act.
    • sonofdy, on 10/12/2007, -18/+8Actualy i have check out all the conspiracy thoeries, and not one holds up. Sorry.
    • stallion4, on 10/12/2007, -5/+33@ sonofdy

      Have you looked in to these reports about Building #7?


      -Guns & Butter Radio interview - April 27th 2005:
      Hosted by Bonnie Falkner
      Guest: Indira Singh (Ground Zero Emergency Worker)

      Bonnie: How long did you work as an emergency medical technician and exactly what is it that you were doing (at ground zero)?

      Indira: ...when I got there we were setting up triage sites (at ground zero), close, very close to the area. The triage site that I was setting up was behind, well, to the east of Building 7 where Building 7 came down...
      ...we were setting up triages as close to the pile as possible… so what we were doing was setting up different kinds of stations… IV stations, cardiac stations, wound stations, burn stations ...just trying to have an organized space. What happened with that particular triage site is that pretty soon afternoon, after mid-day on 9/11 we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down... I do believe that they brought Building 7 down... By noon or one o'clock they told us we had to move from that triage site up to Pace University a little further away because Building 7 was going to come down or being brought down.

      Bonnie: Did they actually use the word "brought down" and who was it that was telling you this?

      Indira: The fire department... the fire department and they did use the word "we're going to have to bring it down."

      Excerpt from above is heard approximately ten minutes into the interview.
      Audio: http://www.gunsandbutter.net/archives.php?si=78

      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Former Air Force Special Operations for Search and Rescue, Kevin McPadden

      Sep 20, 2006
      Pacifica Radio's Guns & Butter
      New York Stories: 9/11 First Responders

      Audio stream:
      http://www.gunsandbutter.net/archives.php?si=142

      Show archive page is here:
      http://www.gunsandbutter.net/archives.php?page=3

      McPadden's speech begins at 46 minutes in

      @ 48:14 he makes the following comments about what he witnessed while at Ground Zero on 9/11...

      "They said you know you've got to stay behind this line because they're thinking about taking this building down, they're not sure if it's stable or not, so they were holding a line off because they had knowledge that something was gonna happen. Well, they pushed us back a little bit....a couple of minutes later they started coming down....people started coming back out to the street, I watched five New York City buses jam packed with people wanting to do search and rescue head down there towards Building 7 - people walk out into the middle of the street to see these people off, like bon voyage and right then Building 7 came down."

      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Former NYPD Officer & 9/11 First Responder Craig Bartmer:

      "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. I didn't see any reason for that building to fall down the way it did -- and a lot of guys should be saying the same thing. I don't know what the fear is coming out and talking about it? I don't know -- but it's the truth."

      [...]

      "I walked around it (Building 7). I saw a hole. I didn't see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though. Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn't hear any... I didn't hear any creaking, or... I didn't hear any indication that it was going to come down. And all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone started screaming 'get away, get away, get away from it!'... It was at that moment... I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. The thing started pealing in on itself... Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the *****'s hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... Yeah it had some damage to it, but nothing like what they're saying... Nothing to account for what we saw... I am shocked at the story we've heard about it to be quite honest."

      Speaking Out: An interview with Craig Bartmer:
      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2283625397351664218&q

      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      -Reporter Al Jones: "People started to run away from the scene [WTC7] and I turned in time to see what looked like a skyscraper implosion -- looked like it had been done by a demolition crew -- the whole thing just collapsing down on itself and another big huge plume of gray and white smoke shooting up into the air and then more of the smoke billowing up the street here... so that’s number one, number two, and now number seven that have come down from this explosion."

      Live 9-11 Report from 1010 WINS NYC News Radio, presented in the documentary "911 Eyewitness" (Forward to 28:25)
      Video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=65460757734339444&q

      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      -Emergency worker: "We were watching the building [WTC7] actually ‘cause it was on fire… the bottom floors of the building were on fire and… we heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder… turned around -- we were shocked to see that the building was ah well it looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building and the windows all busted out… it was horrifying… about a second later the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that… we saw the building crash down all the way to the ground… we were in shock."

      Live 9-11 Report from 1010 WINS NYC News Radio, presented in the documentary "911 Eyewitness" (Forward to 31:30)
      Video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=65460757734339444&q
  • dukeeeey, on 10/12/2007, -7/+16can anyone say, smoking gun ? :)
  • capriceclassic, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18Oh how poetic that someone had the smarts to get this from the released archives! Great job from the guy in Toronto who got onto the Alex Jones Show today to let everyone know. This is amazing and one of the biggest smoking guns yet!

    The fake propaganda bloggers are really out in full force on this one lol! You won't stop the truth with your tinfoil hat comments. The video speaks for itself! The same network with the new hit piece on "911 Conspiracy Theories" just had a big one blow up in their face! How perfect.
    • Herkimer56, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4 After six long years this piece of tape suddenly appears to discredit the BBC just after the BBC spent an hour making you conspiracy people look stupid. Coincidence? I sense a conspiracy here. Hand me the tin foil, Margaret!
  • hawkspur, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8Heaven forbid 9-11 be a horrendous, unforseen terrorist attack.

    /sarcasm
    • RackAttack, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4This building housed a lot of "3 Letter" govt. agencies. With a lot of sensitive information. This building would have been pre-rigged to blow, right from the very start, so that such sensitive material would never fall into the "wrong hands" -- As a security measure. -- A "self destruct" mechanism, if you will.

      This mechanism would also have been "fire proof," so that only an intentional decision to blow it up, would have caused it to implode.

      The only problem here is, instead of "blowing it" to keep it falling into "enemy" hands... they blew it up in order to cover up every bit of corruption FROM OUR HANDS!

      It wouldn't have to have been wired by the NYPD, NYFD or anyone else... It was BUILT with explosive, demolition charges already within it.

      It just needed someone to say: "Pull it!" (pun intended)

    • jon3k, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2@RackAttack