BBC reported WTC7 collapse 20 minutes before it fell
February 28, 2007 9:51 AM Subscribe
Here we are, on 2/27/07, and the BBC is in a bit of a sticky wicket for reporting the collapse of the WTC7 building on 9/11/01 (with the building standing behind the reporter) 20 minutes before it actually collapsed. Many have found the explanation for why WTC7 collapsed problematic (previously), but this is the first I have heard of it being reported before the event even happened (links to Google Video of the BBC report in question). PBS NOVA: on the building's collapse (but this does not answer the question of the timing of the "report", which is interesting to a population beyond simply the "conspiracy crackpots").
This post was deleted for the following reason: The equivalent of a "typo" on a horrific day doesn't constitute crazy conspiracy theories. - -- mathowie
Drawing in the time travel crackpots is guaranteed to elevate the quality of debate.
posted by ardgedee at 9:58 AM on February 28, 2007
posted by ardgedee at 9:58 AM on February 28, 2007
The real tragedy has always been a media that has ignored George W. Bush's family and business connections to the Saudi royal family since the 1970s, that Saudi nationals were given a free pass to leave the country without interrogation shortly after 9/11, and the Bush administration's brash and illegal disregard for the 9/11 Commission.
Worse still is the media's continuing culpability in not questioning the administration about its role in allowing 9/11 to happen, in its disregard for critical intelligence collected during the summer of 2001.
In these real and numerous other disappointing ways, there is a body of circumstantial evidence for a cover-up and subsequent clean-up work.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:03 AM on February 28, 2007 [2 favorites]
Worse still is the media's continuing culpability in not questioning the administration about its role in allowing 9/11 to happen, in its disregard for critical intelligence collected during the summer of 2001.
In these real and numerous other disappointing ways, there is a body of circumstantial evidence for a cover-up and subsequent clean-up work.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:03 AM on February 28, 2007 [2 favorites]
All very interesting, but what is actually being alleged here? That the BBC was jumping ahead in the script handed to them by "shadow government operatives"? Or that the BBC confused repots that WTC7 was going to collapse with reports that it had collapsed? The latter seems more likely to me.
Also, isn't this only really confusing to people who already believed in the "conspiracy theory" version of events? The conspiracy theorists would have us believe that the collapse of WTC7 was in some way unexpected or sudden, when in fact the FDNY knew that its collapse was almost certain for a long time before it actually fell - it was burning uncontrollably and there was no water to put it out. So in the confusion of the day, the BBC mixes up "collapse certain" with "has collapsed".
posted by WPW at 10:06 AM on February 28, 2007
Also, isn't this only really confusing to people who already believed in the "conspiracy theory" version of events? The conspiracy theorists would have us believe that the collapse of WTC7 was in some way unexpected or sudden, when in fact the FDNY knew that its collapse was almost certain for a long time before it actually fell - it was burning uncontrollably and there was no water to put it out. So in the confusion of the day, the BBC mixes up "collapse certain" with "has collapsed".
posted by WPW at 10:06 AM on February 28, 2007
Hey nurse! Could we do something about this gruel?
Too thin, I say.
posted by stirfry at 10:17 AM on February 28, 2007
Too thin, I say.
posted by stirfry at 10:17 AM on February 28, 2007
Then there's JFK II - one and a half hours of unadulterated conspiracy enjoyment.
posted by phaedon at 10:19 AM on February 28, 2007
posted by phaedon at 10:19 AM on February 28, 2007
What's weirder - watching a reporter talk about a building falling with the building in the background, or reading the head of news for BBC World quote a youtube comment?
posted by pinespree at 10:21 AM on February 28, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by pinespree at 10:21 AM on February 28, 2007 [1 favorite]
Jesus, I live here and I worked down there and even I can't figure out which building is WTC 4, 5, 6,7 or whatever.
posted by spicynuts at 10:22 AM on February 28, 2007
posted by spicynuts at 10:22 AM on February 28, 2007
... is interesting to a population beyond simply the "conspiracy crackpots"
That's, uh, not really true.
posted by mzurer at 10:24 AM on February 28, 2007
That's, uh, not really true.
posted by mzurer at 10:24 AM on February 28, 2007
Oh man, I just saw this somewhere else like 30 minutes ago and then thought "well, there's probably nothing to it--I didn't even see it on MetaFilter!".
posted by DU at 10:30 AM on February 28, 2007
posted by DU at 10:30 AM on February 28, 2007
The reporting was so messed up on that day that this slip up from the BBC isn't even the most inaccurate. Remember those car bombs outside the State Dept???
News shows were going crazy. I remember one of the first people they had on CNN was Tom Clancy because he theorised a 747-Into-The-Capitol-Building attack in one of his novels.
posted by PenDevil at 10:30 AM on February 28, 2007
News shows were going crazy. I remember one of the first people they had on CNN was Tom Clancy because he theorised a 747-Into-The-Capitol-Building attack in one of his novels.
posted by PenDevil at 10:30 AM on February 28, 2007
How about the realization that they "lost" their broadcasts from quite possibly the most televised human disaster ever.
For the record, I don't think a straightforward conspiracy is that likely - there's too many mouths and ears, even circa 2001. You'd think someone would have to have a conscience, no? But, you can put me down strongly in the "coincidence theory" column. There are too many interesting things, connections between people, money being shuffled about, and of course, the "official" 9/11 Report to chalk everything up as random chance and/or bad luck.
posted by rzklkng at 10:31 AM on February 28, 2007
For the record, I don't think a straightforward conspiracy is that likely - there's too many mouths and ears, even circa 2001. You'd think someone would have to have a conscience, no? But, you can put me down strongly in the "coincidence theory" column. There are too many interesting things, connections between people, money being shuffled about, and of course, the "official" 9/11 Report to chalk everything up as random chance and/or bad luck.
posted by rzklkng at 10:31 AM on February 28, 2007
You know, on the evening of 9-11, I was watching ABC, and I distinctly remember Peter Jennings saying something to the effect that WTC 7 was being brought down deliberately because it suffered some structural damage and made it unsafe for all the rescue operations that were being conducted at the time.
Here's the ABC clip of WTC 7 collapsing, but the clip is so short hat the part where Peter Jennings explained what just happened is cut out. I never thought the building collapsed on it's own, and I never thought that the official story was that it did.
posted by Pastabagel at 10:31 AM on February 28, 2007
Here's the ABC clip of WTC 7 collapsing, but the clip is so short hat the part where Peter Jennings explained what just happened is cut out. I never thought the building collapsed on it's own, and I never thought that the official story was that it did.
posted by Pastabagel at 10:31 AM on February 28, 2007
Let me not be the first to say that if Al Gore were President, 9/11 would have never happened.
Not by some love of Al Gore, but anyone with more than an idiot's interest in their job would have acted if they received intelligence that motherfucking bin Laden was going to hit the US.
posted by four panels at 10:32 AM on February 28, 2007
Not by some love of Al Gore, but anyone with more than an idiot's interest in their job would have acted if they received intelligence that motherfucking bin Laden was going to hit the US.
posted by four panels at 10:32 AM on February 28, 2007
I don't care if it was a controlled demolition. After New Orleans, it can't make this administration any more morally reprehensible anyway.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 10:32 AM on February 28, 2007 [2 favorites]
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 10:32 AM on February 28, 2007 [2 favorites]
There are too many interesting things, connections between people, money being shuffled about, and of course, the "official" 9/11 Report to chalk everything up as random chance and/or bad luck.
posted by rzklkng at 1:31 PM EST on February 28
The thing is those connections are misleading. Most longstanding rich families know one another. How many families are there in the world like the Bushes, the Sauds, the Rockefellers, etc. not many, and the tend to move in the same social circles, same political circles etc.
posted by Pastabagel at 10:34 AM on February 28, 2007
posted by rzklkng at 1:31 PM EST on February 28
The thing is those connections are misleading. Most longstanding rich families know one another. How many families are there in the world like the Bushes, the Sauds, the Rockefellers, etc. not many, and the tend to move in the same social circles, same political circles etc.
posted by Pastabagel at 10:34 AM on February 28, 2007
The thing is those connections are misleading. Most longstanding rich families know one another. How many families are there in the world like the Bushes, the Sauds, the Rockefellers, etc. not many, and the tend to move in the same social circles, same political circles etc.
Even more damning.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:38 AM on February 28, 2007
Even more damning.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:38 AM on February 28, 2007
WPW Exactly.
As for the Bushes and their ties to the Sauds, yup, its awful. Its also true that rich people tend to know each other. But still, if you and your family choses to do business with vile, dictatorial, thugs who run a nation where women are prevented from fleeing burning buildings if they aren't properly dressed, you deserve all the flack you get. Just because they're rich doesn't mean they have no choice in who to deal with.
posted by sotonohito at 10:46 AM on February 28, 2007
As for the Bushes and their ties to the Sauds, yup, its awful. Its also true that rich people tend to know each other. But still, if you and your family choses to do business with vile, dictatorial, thugs who run a nation where women are prevented from fleeing burning buildings if they aren't properly dressed, you deserve all the flack you get. Just because they're rich doesn't mean they have no choice in who to deal with.
posted by sotonohito at 10:46 AM on February 28, 2007
Everything I have ever known to be true is a lie.
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:48 AM on February 28, 2007
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:48 AM on February 28, 2007
We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy).
Oh, well in that case, if you say so, rectify BB speech doubleplusgood.
posted by kuujjuarapik at 10:52 AM on February 28, 2007
Oh, well in that case, if you say so, rectify BB speech doubleplusgood.
posted by kuujjuarapik at 10:52 AM on February 28, 2007
Not by some love of Al Gore, but anyone with more than an idiot's interest in their job would have acted if they received intelligence that motherfucking bin Laden was going to hit the US.
posted by four panels at 1:32 PM EST on February 28
And done what, exactly? Read your link again, and when you read it, recall that before 9-11, "hijack" implied flying the plane somewhere and holding the prisoners hostage in exchange for something. The intelligence did not give peoples names or photos or anything like that.
So in one month's time, what exactly would the crack US government under Al Gore's leadership have done to identify, locate, and arrest 20 people spread across the US? There are 87,000 flights per day in the US, of those 30,000 are commercial airlines. Per day. There are 27,000 private plane flights per day. That's one commercial flight taking off every 2.9 seconds. Add in the cargo and other private flights, you get a flight every second. 5000 planes are in the air over the US at any given moment.
What does the govt do? Play the odds? Focus on the busiest airport? That would have put them on Ohare, and would have been wrong. How about LAX, that was the target of an earlier plot, if you recall. Nope, nothing happened that we know about in LAX. Do you concentrate your focus on commercial airlines, or private? Are you using hindsight? Wouldn't it be more logical for them to get a private plane, or a cargo plane, because getting control of one would be easier?
Should they have rounded up people for questioning? Should they have assumed it was going to be an inside job, and started investigating pilots? What about flights coming in from overseas? Pre 9-11, the FBI was not allowed to enter mosques covertly (not that that would have helped anyway). There was no way for them to identify all 20 and not inadvertently round up hundreds of innocents at the same time. So what would Gore have done?
I think a lot of people don't appreciate the scale at which the US operates. It is simply impossible to individually monitor the passengers boarding every plane in the US. Impossible.
And by reading this, you should appreciate how staggeringly impossible it is to prevent 10 people from loading 10 semis with explosives and taking out every tunnel and bridge into Manhattan. Even if you know with certainty something is going to happen, it doesn't mean you have the ability to do anything about it.
posted by Pastabagel at 10:54 AM on February 28, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by four panels at 1:32 PM EST on February 28
And done what, exactly? Read your link again, and when you read it, recall that before 9-11, "hijack" implied flying the plane somewhere and holding the prisoners hostage in exchange for something. The intelligence did not give peoples names or photos or anything like that.
So in one month's time, what exactly would the crack US government under Al Gore's leadership have done to identify, locate, and arrest 20 people spread across the US? There are 87,000 flights per day in the US, of those 30,000 are commercial airlines. Per day. There are 27,000 private plane flights per day. That's one commercial flight taking off every 2.9 seconds. Add in the cargo and other private flights, you get a flight every second. 5000 planes are in the air over the US at any given moment.
What does the govt do? Play the odds? Focus on the busiest airport? That would have put them on Ohare, and would have been wrong. How about LAX, that was the target of an earlier plot, if you recall. Nope, nothing happened that we know about in LAX. Do you concentrate your focus on commercial airlines, or private? Are you using hindsight? Wouldn't it be more logical for them to get a private plane, or a cargo plane, because getting control of one would be easier?
Should they have rounded up people for questioning? Should they have assumed it was going to be an inside job, and started investigating pilots? What about flights coming in from overseas? Pre 9-11, the FBI was not allowed to enter mosques covertly (not that that would have helped anyway). There was no way for them to identify all 20 and not inadvertently round up hundreds of innocents at the same time. So what would Gore have done?
I think a lot of people don't appreciate the scale at which the US operates. It is simply impossible to individually monitor the passengers boarding every plane in the US. Impossible.
And by reading this, you should appreciate how staggeringly impossible it is to prevent 10 people from loading 10 semis with explosives and taking out every tunnel and bridge into Manhattan. Even if you know with certainty something is going to happen, it doesn't mean you have the ability to do anything about it.
posted by Pastabagel at 10:54 AM on February 28, 2007 [1 favorite]
Let's assume for argument's sake that the government was behind 9/11-the American govt--and that the BBC (and lord knows who else) was also in on it. Now we know we have been lied to and taken in.
Question: what will YOU DO NOW that you would not have done if you thought 9/11 was done as we were told it was done?
posted by Postroad at 11:01 AM on February 28, 2007
Question: what will YOU DO NOW that you would not have done if you thought 9/11 was done as we were told it was done?
posted by Postroad at 11:01 AM on February 28, 2007
There's a difference between reporting through the confusion of a breaking news story, and standing in front of a building telling an audience it collapsed 20 minutes before. And that's before looking at the other question surrounding that collapse.
The BBC response is just laughable.
posted by fire&wings at 11:01 AM on February 28, 2007
The BBC response is just laughable.
posted by fire&wings at 11:01 AM on February 28, 2007
And done what, exactly? Read your link again, and when you read it, recall that before 9-11, "hijack" implied flying the plane somewhere and holding the prisoners hostage in exchange for something. The intelligence did not give peoples names or photos or anything like that.
I would have been happy if they say... held meetings with the previous administration's security advisers, or did their job with something resembling an interest in the nation.
It might not have helped, but the only way to guarantee failure is to do nothing.
If this happened under Democratic watch, does anybody think that the GOP would have done anything other than launch a 24/7 campaign to have all the Democrats thrown out of office?
posted by PEAK OIL at 11:07 AM on February 28, 2007
I would have been happy if they say... held meetings with the previous administration's security advisers, or did their job with something resembling an interest in the nation.
It might not have helped, but the only way to guarantee failure is to do nothing.
If this happened under Democratic watch, does anybody think that the GOP would have done anything other than launch a 24/7 campaign to have all the Democrats thrown out of office?
posted by PEAK OIL at 11:07 AM on February 28, 2007
There's a difference between reporting through the confusion of a breaking news story, and standing in front of a building telling an audience it collapsed 20 minutes before.
OK, let's say it wasn't a result of confusion. What's the other explanation? What is being alleged?
Like many of these 9/11 conspiracy theories, it seems like there's not much going on behind the spooky music and sinister insinuations.
posted by WPW at 11:11 AM on February 28, 2007
OK, let's say it wasn't a result of confusion. What's the other explanation? What is being alleged?
Like many of these 9/11 conspiracy theories, it seems like there's not much going on behind the spooky music and sinister insinuations.
posted by WPW at 11:11 AM on February 28, 2007
Shorter Pastabagel---
NO ONE COULD HAVE FORESEEN...
posted by hexatron at 11:14 AM on February 28, 2007
NO ONE COULD HAVE FORESEEN...
posted by hexatron at 11:14 AM on February 28, 2007
There's a difference between reporting through the confusion of a breaking news story, and standing in front of a building telling an audience it collapsed 20 minutes before.
It's not like WTC 7 was a famous landmark or anything. The number of people who would know they were standing in front of it is tiny. It doesn't even seem like part of the WTC -- it's across the street.
posted by smackfu at 11:16 AM on February 28, 2007
It's not like WTC 7 was a famous landmark or anything. The number of people who would know they were standing in front of it is tiny. It doesn't even seem like part of the WTC -- it's across the street.
posted by smackfu at 11:16 AM on February 28, 2007
Penn Devil:
News shows were going crazy. I remember one of the first people they had on CNN was Tom Clancy because he theorised a 747-Into-The-Capitol-Building attack in one of his novels.
I remember that very well. As far as I could tell, Tom Clancy was actually plugging his book. At the minimum, he seemed to be gloating an "I told you so". I swore I would never again read one of his books nor go to one of his movies. Now, since he seems to have killed his editor or something a few books in, that has not been a terribly difficult promise to stick to, but still, I was pretty horrified.
As to the reporters following along in some script and getting ahead of it .... yeah, that is more likely then a simple mistake, sure.
posted by Bovine Love at 11:18 AM on February 28, 2007
News shows were going crazy. I remember one of the first people they had on CNN was Tom Clancy because he theorised a 747-Into-The-Capitol-Building attack in one of his novels.
I remember that very well. As far as I could tell, Tom Clancy was actually plugging his book. At the minimum, he seemed to be gloating an "I told you so". I swore I would never again read one of his books nor go to one of his movies. Now, since he seems to have killed his editor or something a few books in, that has not been a terribly difficult promise to stick to, but still, I was pretty horrified.
As to the reporters following along in some script and getting ahead of it .... yeah, that is more likely then a simple mistake, sure.
posted by Bovine Love at 11:18 AM on February 28, 2007
There are too many interesting things, connections between people, money being shuffled about, and of course, the "official" 9/11 Report to chalk everything up as random chance and/or bad luck.
That's idiotic. There are always going to be tons of coincidences, And the fact that someone made a mistake on the BBC newscast
And done what, exactly? Read your link again, and when you read it, recall that before 9-11, "hijack" implied flying the plane somewhere and holding the prisoners hostage in exchange for something. The intelligence did not give peoples names or photos or anything like that.
Not fired Richard Clarke, implemented the anti- Al Quada plan that Clinton had ready to go that was ignored by the bush administration, not ignored PDBs, and so on and so on. Come on, these are the same people who dealt with Katrina. They sucked at it and they almost certainly fucked things up before 9/11. Would 9/11 have happened with gore as president? I don't know, but I think it would have been less likely.
Remember, people knew what was going on, we had that laptop from "the 20th hijacker". There were enough people in government who had the pieces to the puzzle to prevent it, and if there had been a top down pressure to analyze things it could have been prevented.
posted by delmoi at 11:20 AM on February 28, 2007
That's idiotic. There are always going to be tons of coincidences, And the fact that someone made a mistake on the BBC newscast
And done what, exactly? Read your link again, and when you read it, recall that before 9-11, "hijack" implied flying the plane somewhere and holding the prisoners hostage in exchange for something. The intelligence did not give peoples names or photos or anything like that.
Not fired Richard Clarke, implemented the anti- Al Quada plan that Clinton had ready to go that was ignored by the bush administration, not ignored PDBs, and so on and so on. Come on, these are the same people who dealt with Katrina. They sucked at it and they almost certainly fucked things up before 9/11. Would 9/11 have happened with gore as president? I don't know, but I think it would have been less likely.
Remember, people knew what was going on, we had that laptop from "the 20th hijacker". There were enough people in government who had the pieces to the puzzle to prevent it, and if there had been a top down pressure to analyze things it could have been prevented.
posted by delmoi at 11:20 AM on February 28, 2007
« Older Free Moon Over Morocco Podcast! | O Superman! Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
wasn't there an FBI office in wtc7?
posted by quarter waters and a bag of chips at 9:58 AM on February 28, 2007