| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| rubylith |
Posted - 02/27/2007 : 5:30:50 PM
My friends...please take this into consideration...Wwhile the lapdog mainstream media plays endless clips of Britney shaving her head and Cheney's near encounter with a bomb in Afghanistan, the independent alternative media run by average American citizens go into action. We will bring the criminals to JUSTICE.
BBC Reported Building 7 Had Collapsed 20 Minutes Before It Fell
Revealing, shocking video shows reporter talking about collapse with WTC 7 still standing in background, Google removes clip
WATCH THE VIDEO HERE:
http://www.youtube.com/v/C7SwOT29gbc
Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
Prison Planet
Tuesday, February 27, 2007 (UPDATED 5:36AM CST)
RELATED: After This Fiasco, How Can We Trust Anything They Told Us About 9/11?
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 at 5:20pm on the afternoon of 9/11. The incredible footage shows BBC reporter Jane Standley talking about the collapse of the Salomon Brothers Building while it remains standing in the live shot behind her head.
Minutes before the actual collapse of the building is due, the feed to the reporter mysteriously dies.
This amazing clip was on Google Video, but was removed within hours of the story breaking. However, hundreds of people had already managed to download the clip and it has gone viral on the Internet and the censors won't be able to shut the lid this time. A You Tube upload is available here but we fully expect this to be removed soon. You can watch it for the time being at this link. A WMV link is here (on our server) and a Quicktime here. Bit torrent versions of the file can be found here. An avi version can be found here.
To be clear, the www.nycskyscrapers.com/wallstreet.html%2BSalomon%2BBrothers%2BBuilding&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1" target="_blank">Salomon Brothers Building is just a different name for Building 7 or WTC 7. Skip forward to around the 14:30 minute mark.
Although there is no clock or time stamp on the footage, the source claims the report was given at 4:57pm EST, 23 minutes before Building 7 collapsed at 5:20pm. While the exact time of the report cannot be confirmed at present, it is clear from the footage that the reporter is describing the collapse of WTC 7 while it clearly remains standing behind her in the live shot.
Here are some further screenshots from the video.
The fact that the BBC reported on the collapse of Building 7 over twenty minutes in advance of its implosion obviously provokes a myriad of questions as to how they knew it was about to come down when the official story says its collapse happened accidentally as a result of fire damage and debris weakening the building's structure.
As we have documented before, firefighters, police and first responders were all told to get back from the building because it was about to be brought down. It is widely acknowledged by those who were there on the scene that warnings were issued for people to evacuate the area in anticipation of the building's collapse, with some even stating that a 20 second countdown preceded the collapse of the 47-story skyscraper, again clearly suggesting that it was taken down by means of explosives as the video footage of its implosion illustrates.
In a September 2002 PBS documentary, the owner of the WTC complex Larry Silverstein discusses Building 7 and states that in the late afternoon of September 11, the decision was made to "pull it." The term "pull it" is industry jargon for controlled demolition, but Silverstein denied charges that WTC 7 had been deliberately brought down.
This newly uncovered video confirms that the collapse of WTC 7 was no surprise, because television news stations were reporting on it before it happened!
This footage is absolutely amazing and should provoke a firestorm of new questions aimed both at Silverstein and the BBC. Who told the BBC that the building was going to collapse before it did and why were they reporting its fall in advance of the event actually taking place?
Many have speculated that some kind of press release was leaked too soon and AP wires, radio stations and TV news outlets prematurely reported on WTC 7's collapse.
The video also severely undermines the credibility of the BBC who recently caused controversy by airing a 9/11 hit piece that sought to debunk questions that bring the official story into doubt.
Calls have already been put through to the BBC reporting the "mistake," click here to listen to an MP3. The BBC have promised to "look into it."
Moronic commenters on Digg are already trying to bury the story, yet none of them have an answer as to why the BBC reported the building's collapse before it happened. Click here to add your own comment and counter the debunkers.
ACTION: E Mail the BBC and ask them to clarify exactly why their reporter is announcing the collapse of Building 7 before it has collapsed.
|
| 24 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| dan p. |
Posted - 03/01/2007 : 3:37:01 PM
no offense taken, man. i know i'm not asleep, so it didn't really bother me that much. and hey. i'm in no place to complain about someone getting emotional.
i think that labeling people who believe this as crazy conspiracy nuts or whatever and dismissing it is intellectually lazy. i've said this before, i think, but i guess i'll say it again. it is true that steel high-rises never collapsed due to fire before building seven. but that doesn't really mean anything. what are you trying to say? that something that never happened before can never happen? everything has to happen for the first time. it's weird, sure, but it doesn't point to anything specific. as for reporting the collapse of building 7, it's entirely possible that whatever sources reporters were using on the ground thought building 7 collapsed. it was pretty confusing down there at the time. maybe they just got some bad information, and then building 7 fell anyway.
as for the infowars article, they also said the titanic couldn't be sunk, and look how that turned out. all it did was hit some ice. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 03/01/2007 : 3:13:44 PM
Read these articles if you can:
New WTC 7 Blockbuster One Of The Biggest Stories Of All Time
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=20588
Why No One Could Have Predicted The Collapse Of WTC 7
http://infowars.net/articles/march2007/010307BBC_WTC7.htm
|
| rubylith |
Posted - 03/01/2007 : 1:37:30 PM
Thanks Robin, and Arthen good luck on your midterms. The official story has WAY more holes in it then Loose Change. The most popular factual error in Loose change has error when they claimed a B-52 bomber hit the Empire State Building, when it was a B-25. I mean they found 3 intact I.D.s in the debris that managed to ascape through the fire and plane debris unscathed? And what about the NSIT backing off that pancake video. If the pancake theory was true, it would have taken it 66 seconds to collapse. We want the truth, and god dammit, we will get it. |
| Robin |
Posted - 03/01/2007 : 1:15:40 PM
[quote]Originally posted by rubylith
Sorry for the "alseep" comment, I got too emotional. I hope You guys know I meant NO disrespect to any of you, I love you guys  . I get frustrated when bringing up very valid points in my opinion I get stamped as some sort of goon or nut just for asking real serious questions.
At least you're not afraid to ask thought provoking questions and that is worthy of respect IMO. Peace, Robin |
| Arthen |
Posted - 03/01/2007 : 1:02:50 PM
They don't need to censor Loose Change because it is riddled with abuses of fact, logic, and reason. Rife with inaccuracy and distortion, as I've pointed out several times before.
I'm not avoiding the other questions, I have to run, but will answer them later Dave, fucking midterms! |
| rubylith |
Posted - 03/01/2007 : 12:35:17 PM
Sorry for the "alseep" comment, I got too emotional. I hope You guys know I meant NO disrespect to any of you, I love you guys . I get frustrated when bringing up very valid points in my opinion I get stamped as some sort of goon or nut just for asking real serious questions. I mean it happens all over the mainstream media. it is a conditioning thing I think of a defense mechanism. Anyway, how in the hell could they have reported Building 7 as collapsed with it behind them a whole 26 minutes on BBC and on CNN one hour before? Better yet their explanation was taken directly from the pages of the official story...how could this happen when a steel high rise NEVER collapsed due to fire up til that day and Building 7 collapsed neatly in 6.4 seconds, when Building 4 which was HEAVILY damaged by debris remained standing, with random hunks of the walls destroyed?
Why google would censor this and not Loose Change I can't answer that but it happened. Maybe perhaps whoever is censoring knows that this is the big one that will break the dam, maybe it is a conincidence but not both YouTube, Digg AND Google have censored the story. Google censors all kinds of stuff in China.
Getting back on track, what do you guys think about the BBC report? |
| dan p. |
Posted - 03/01/2007 : 12:17:13 PM
look, i'm not saying everything about this theory is nuts. all i'm saying is that you can talk about google censoring material, but not without taking into consideration how long the loose change video has been availible. if you agree that "they" can censor massive amounts of information on it, pull off a terrorist attack on their own country and keep it under wraps, for the most part, then you have to admit, using good old common sense, that they can and would have stopped that video from reaching public eye.
this isn't a out "being asleep," but if saying that makes you feel smarter or something, fine. this is about applying reason and logic. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 03/01/2007 : 12:05:31 PM
I never mentioned anything about the moon landings, etc...please don't throw me into some pile of random "conspiracies" like the mainstream media does, I was waiting for the "holocaust denier comment".
Let's get back to the actual subject, that being the BBC reporting the collapse of a building which fell at the speed of gravity onto it's own footprint. You got the owner Larry Silverstein who made a record profit from the collapses admittign they "pulled" the building. It takes months of preperation to set up a controlled demolition.
Don't you think with the mountains of evidence we deserve a real investigation?
What I want to know is what part of the official story do you believe? I mean are their ANY facts left in it? To my knowledge even the leading Bin Laden expert has just came foward stating that the "confession video" is a fake. Google it.
There is just so much coming out, the official story is crumbling at an incredible rate all while Google and Digg are censoring this MASSIVE story so I'd expect either some indictments or another terrorist attack this week.
If you get a chance read this great summary on the BBC video, the censorship and response by BBC. Oh and also there is a video from CNN now ONE HOUR before the collapse stating it collapsed with it standing in the background.
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20070228173157804 |
| Arthen |
Posted - 03/01/2007 : 11:45:40 AM
quote:
Originally posted by rubylith
It's all a theory, goto sleep...
You know, as often as all of you bitch about the "tinfoil" comments, you sling idiotic phrases and titles at people who don't support your side just as often as they do. Does not help your case.
So MLKjr was assassinated by the Govt? So was JFK? And the moon landing was falsified? Was Hurricane Katrina created by a secret weather machine that the Govt uses, ala The Avengers? Pearl Harbor was a conspiracy as well right? I read some article that claimed, beyond a doubt, that FDR knew it was going to happen. Bullshit. You cannot claim something like that in such definite terms. You have to use qualifying statements, "this points to", "apparently", "making it likely that", et al.
Now, I have referred from using phrases like "crackpot", "insane", and "tinfoil" because I don't necessarily believe they are correct, please extend the same courtesy, otherwise you will never get anywhere with your arguments.
|
| rubylith |
Posted - 02/28/2007 : 11:32:43 PM
Oh sorry...I'm not sure how they've kept it under wraps, I can’t answer that…they’ve kept those directly involved in MLK and JFK under wraps for the most part for this long. As far as 9/11 goes, those involved is the most important and the most difficult thing to uncover without some sort of actual investigation. However, if we actually had an investigation into the attacks, perhaps we could have some indictments handed out. There is a small problem when everyone is so conditioned to label anyone asking questions as “conspiracy nuts”, I mean it is understandable with the amount of propaganda spewed to everyone, and the fact that EVERY mainstream article or newscast that briefly touches the topic or 9/11 truth contains some snide X-Files music or Grassy Knoll reference. WHY? Because then they would be held accountable as accomplises after the fact. Nonetheless, people know and more evidence mounds up everyday. With half of America, the majority of the 9/11 families, thousands of scientists, physicists, scholars, and former government officials all coming out saying that 9/11 had to be an inside job for it ever to occur, we are making ground. So I cannot answer your question, but if we had an investigation (the 9/11 Commission was headed by Thomas Kean who had business ties to the Bin Laden family so I think that negates that “investigation”) we might be able to throw some of these inhuman scum behind prison.
Now one thing I can answer is that it would be IMPOSSIBLE for a new organization to predict building 7’s collapse without some of prior knowledge. HOW CAN ANYONE STILL DENY THAT WHAT WE WERE TOLD IS NOT THE TRUTH!? I think those who do are the crazy ones…
|
| Arthen |
Posted - 02/28/2007 : 10:33:06 PM
My questions aren't worthy of an answer? Or is one not available? |
| rubylith |
Posted - 02/28/2007 : 9:04:49 PM
It's all a theory, goto sleep...news organizations always predict the collapse of a steel building due to fire 26 minutes before it happens with it standing behind them...no prior knowledge there...let's also just dismiss every firefighter's testimony (never forget huh?), video evidence, insider trading, FEMA being inside NYC on 9/10, bomb sniffing dogs removed, hijackers still being alive, Larry Silverstein admitting they "pulled" builging seven (which apperently only takes hours to setup a safe controlled demlition (which only ONE person died) during a chaotic emergency. Maybe he should have gotten the advanced warning the building collapsed.
Pff the only conspiracy theory is the official story.
The offical story was released on 9/12 and hasn;t changed. FUCKING LAUGHABLE. |
| therippa |
Posted - 02/28/2007 : 6:49:25 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHdt7wRQtaY&eurl= |
| dan p. |
Posted - 02/28/2007 : 6:33:17 PM
i wasn't so surprised to that maddox's opinion on it mirrored my own. i didn't find the article particularly funny, though. |
| Arthen |
Posted - 02/28/2007 : 6:26:27 PM
quote:
Originally posted by dan p.
a conspiracy theory can exist for as long as people who want to believe it, believe it hard enough. it has little to do with "they" being unable to keep it quiet.
think about it. if "they" can orchestrate something that big and execute it with "military precision," it would laughably easy to find and eliminate some college kid's. . .presentation of creepy music and evidence that consists of unclassified documents and grainy video on the internet within hours, if not sooner. the loose change video disproves itself by simply existing. don't you think if they took the trouble to secure the secrecy of their plan, they would have a plan in case some guy figures it out? i would suggest that yes, they would.
That's exactly my point, as Maddox himself so articulately pointed out in his article.
I also enjoy that South Park episode, where the Bush administration wants the conspriacy theories to exist so people will think he's more powerful than he is:
Kyle: So then, who was responsible for 9/11?
Stan: Whattaya mean? A bunch of pissed-off Muslims.
|
| dan p. |
Posted - 02/28/2007 : 6:18:06 PM
a conspiracy theory can exist for as long as people who want to believe it, believe it hard enough. it has little to do with "they" being unable to keep it quiet.
think about it. if "they" can orchestrate something that big and execute it with "military precision," it would laughably easy to find and eliminate some college kid's. . .presentation of creepy music and evidence that consists of unclassified documents and grainy video on the internet within hours, if not sooner. the loose change video disproves itself by simply existing. don't you think if they took the trouble to secure the secrecy of their plan, they would have a plan in case some guy figures it out? i would suggest that yes, they would. |
| Arthen |
Posted - 02/28/2007 : 4:14:47 PM
The question that I see continually raised, and that I have as well:
How has this vast and expansive conspiracy held up for so long? "They" couldn't even keep it under wraps that they leaked the information about Valerie Plame, yet they've managed to keep the lid on the whole 9/11 story? How is that credible or likely? |
| jsemon2 |
Posted - 02/28/2007 : 3:23:40 PM
she probably believes in jesus |
| rubylith |
Posted - 02/28/2007 : 3:12:01 PM
They didn't screw up Katrina, they pulled of "urban renewal" just fine.
This is smoking gun evidence of prior knowledge of the building's collapse, which never happened before in history. Coupled with the MOUNDS of evidence, the official story is dead.
|
| therippa |
Posted - 02/28/2007 : 2:07:35 PM
As much as I love a good conspiracy theory, I find it hard to believe that 9/11 was done by Bush & Co.
They couldn't even deal with Katrina, how could they plan something this big...and keep everyone quiet about it.
Also, the head of news for the BBC responded to this - http://digg.com/world_news/BBC_Response_to_Recent_WTC7_Video_from_BBC_World
 |
| rubylith |
Posted - 02/28/2007 : 09:55:25 AM
Time Stamp Confirms BBC Reported WTC 7 Collapse 26 Minutes In Advance
Debunkers' claims about blue screens, inconclusive time frame of Jane Standley footage eviscerated
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
If there was any remaining doubt that the BBC reported the collapse of Building 7 over 20 minutes before it fell then it has now evaporated with the discovery of footage from the BBC's News 24 channel that shows the time stamp at 21:54 (4:54PM EST) when news of the Salomon Brothers Building is first broadcast, a full 26 minutes in advance of its collapse.
According to FEMA, WTC 7 collapsed at 5:20pm on the afternoon of 9/11. Since British Summer Time is five hours ahead of Eastern Standard Time, the BBC reported the collapse of Building 7 at 4:54PM EST, a full 26 minutes before it collapsed.
"News is continuing to come in as you can imagine. We're now being told that another enormous building in New York has collapsed. It is the 47-story Salomon Brothers building [better known as WTC Building 7] which was situated very close to the World Trade Center, right there in this financial capitol," states the anchor Gavin Estler.
Following the controversy created by Monday's footage in which BBC correspondent Jane Standley is seen live in New York reporting the collapse of Building 7 as it remains standing behind her, many debunkers tried to claim that the images were inconclusive because there was no time stamp on the footage. Others alleged that Standley was merely standing in front of a dated blue screen image and that the shot in her background was a recording from earlier in the day. Both these objections can now be easily dismissed by the addition of the News 24 footage confirming that the news that Building 7 had collapsed was prematurely reported by 26 minutes.
Since the BBC obviously had a source for this information, though they refuse to acknowledge exactly what that source was, it can be surmised that the news took a few minutes to make its way to the on air anchor, therefore we can approximate that someone knew Building 7 was going to collapse at least half an hour before it fell. However, if we factor in CNN's Aaron Brown reporting that Building 7 "has collapsed or is collapsing" at 4:15PM EST, then that's over an hour before the building imploded into its own footprint.
First responders, firefighters and police are all on the record as stating they were told Building 7 was to be "brought down" and many took that to mean that it was going to be intentionally demolished by means of explosives. Some even reported a 20 second countdown preceding the building's collapse, which can only mean one thing - that it was deliberately imploded according to a pre-determined schedule.
Building 7 stood 355 feet away from the north tower. Structures closer to the twin towers that were bombarded with debris and essentially hollowed out remained standing for weeks after 9/11, until they were demolished by explosive crews, whereas Building 7 suffered relatively little damage and yet imploded hours after the towers fell. In their Conspiracy Files "documentary" the BBC said WTC 7 was a "raging inferno" when in fact fires were confined to just eight floors according to FEMA.
World Trade Center Building 3 (pictured above), known publicly as the 22-story Marriott Hotel positioned between the twin towers, was heavily damaged during the collapse of WTC 2, yet it did not experience uniform collapse either vertically or horizontally.
The BBC's pathetic excuse for not being able to confirm that they reported the collapse of WTC 7 in advance, that they lost the tapes of the BBC World 9/11 coverage, was nothing more than an attempt to make questions about this huge controversy go away. It remains to be seen if they'll issue another response now that it is 100% certified that they reported the collapse of a building 26 minutes before it happened. So far wider mainstream coverage of this mammoth story has been all but mute.
We received an interesting e mail from a CNN archivist in Atlanta who stated their utter disbelief at the notion that BBC has lost any of their 9/11 archives.
"I'm an archivist with the CNN News Library in Atlanta, and I can tell you with absolute certainty, the mere idea that news agencies such as ours would "misplace" any airchecks from 9/11 is preposterous. CNN has these tapes locked away from all the others. People like myself, who normally would have access to any tapes in our library, must ask special permission in order to view airchecks from that day. Multiple tapes would have been recording their broadcast that day, and there are also private agencies that record all broadcasts from all channels - constantly - in the event that a news agency missed something or needs something. They don't just have one copy... they have several. It's standard procedure, and as soon as the second plane hit, they would start recording several copies on other tapes machines all day long."
"The only information they need to give out is the source of the collapse claim. No one is saying the BBC is "part of the conspiracy," we're saying that someone gave that reporter the information ahead of time. The source of that information is the only thing they can reveal that would be meaningful."
Just ten days after the airing of its bias, error ridden, propagandistic hit piece against the 9/11 truth movement, the BBC's program directors are probably wishing they had never gone near the subject. The response metered out against them, bolstered by the Building 7 fiasco, has tarnished the corporation's credibility and their sophistic attempt to rebut the accusations has only made matters worse.
Suffice to say it would be a very stupid decision to re-air Guy Smith's farce of a documentary in any country ever again. Perhaps the BBC could do us all a favor and 'lose' the tapes just like they claim to have lost the tapes of their 9/11 coverage
|
| Arthen |
Posted - 02/27/2007 : 10:43:23 PM
quote:
Originally posted by dan p.
haha. cock-up.
That's how my lady friends prefer it... |
| dan p. |
Posted - 02/27/2007 : 7:48:02 PM
haha. cock-up. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 02/27/2007 : 5:36:36 PM
BBC Responds to Building 7 Controversy; Claim 9/11 Tapes Lost
Pathetic five paragraph blog rebuttal does not answer questions as to source of report that Salomon Building was coming down, BBC claims tapes lost due to "cock-up" not conspiracy
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
The BBC has been forced to respond to footage showing their correspondent reporting the collapse of WTC 7 before it fell on 9/11, claiming tapes from the day are somehow missing, and refusing to identify the source for their bizarre act of "clairvoyance" in accurately pre-empting the fall of Building 7.
Here is the BBC's response to the questions about the footage that was unearthed yesterday, with my comments after each statement.
1. We're not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening.
"We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down." If this is true, then how on earth did the BBC report the collapse of Building 7 before it happened? Psychic clairvoyance? Of course they were told that WTC 7 was coming down, just like the firefighters, police, first responders and CNN were told it was coming down. They had to have had a source for making such a claim. The BBC is acting like the naughty little boy who got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. No one here is claiming the BBC are "part of the conspiracy," but their hideous penchant to just repeat what authorities tell them without even a cursory investigation (and with the Building they are telling us has collapsed mockingly filling the background shot of the report), is a damning indictment of their yellow journalism when it comes to 9/11.
2. In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had. We did what we always did - sourced our reports, used qualifying words like "apparently" or "it's reported" or "we're hearing" and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving.
How do "chaos and confusion" explain how the BBC reported on the collapse of a building, a collapse that happened "unexpectedly" according to their Conspiracy Files hit piece documentary, before it happened? In one breath the BBC is claiming they were not told of the impending collapse of the Building and in the next they are telling us that all their information is sourced. Which is it to be? Did the BBC have a source telling them the building was about to collapse or not? If not, how on earth could they pre-empt its fall? Do BBC reporters have access to a time machine? What was the source of this information?
3. Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I've spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn't remember minute-by-minute what she said or did - like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services.
Trying to make sense of what she was being told? She obviously didn't make much sense of the fact that the Building she was reporting had collapsed was prominently standing behind her! Unfotunately, for a news organization that prides itself on accuracy and credibility, "she doesn't remember" just doesn't cut it as an excuse.
BBC included a screenshot of yesterday's Prison Planet article in their brief response.
4. We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another.
We are asked to believe that the world's premiere news organization has somehow lost all its tapes of perhaps the biggest news event of the past 60 years. This is a copout. Whether they have lost the tapes or not, the BBC simply doesn't want to verify one hundred per cent their monumental foul-up, because they know it would only increase the exposure of this issue and lead to further questions. What is there to clear up? The reporter is standing in front of the building while saying it has already collapsed! This is a blatant effort to try and placate people making complaints while refusing to admit a monumental faux pas that further undermines the BBC's credibility in the aftermath of the Conspiracy Files debacle.
5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today "so the guy in the studio didn't quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy... "
So now the BBC are so devoid of answers, they have to enlist the help of some moronic comment on a You Tube blog? Instead of issuing official statements and seeking the advice of legal professionals they produce a cobbled together five paragraph blog and include the testimony of some moron on a You Tube comment board. Pathetic! Answer the question BBC - what was your source for reporting on multiple occasions that Building 7 had collapsed before it had collapsed, and identify the source that enabled the anchorman to comment that the building had collapsed due to it being weakened, an explanation still unanswered by NIST five and a half years later.
If you had reported the collapse of the twin towers before it happened would that have been just an error too? This "error" translated as $800 million plus in insurance bounty for Larry Silverstein - I'm sure Industrial Risk Insurers would be interested to know the source of your "error." In addition, two seperate sources reported that Secret Service Agent Craig Miller died as a result of the collapse of Building 7. Do you think he would have been interested in the "error" that led to your correspondent reporting the building's downfall in advance? |
|
|
