BBC World Caused 9/11

Some people call it Eastern Standard time throughout the year.

It must have been absolute mayhem on that day - I think the BBC was simply its normal sloppy self multiplied many times.

However, the question I find interesting is the whole area of media management of the BBC and other news organisations. Given the catastrophic damage to many buildings after the twin towers came down, how did they manage to report from 26 minutes in the future the only building that fell down?

The question is, which two sources supplied the information that the BBC could report it as fact and how did they know the future? I've been looking around some of the alternative sites and apparently CNN pretty much said the same thing, but not going as far.

There is a story there, I'm sure, but I haven't got a clue what it is.

Are you sure you have your time zones right?

Anyway, I posted a comment on the blog, and if it's published I totally expect to have my head bitten off. I explained that World did use a BOTH sequence like the TOTH sequence.

I just hate it when people do this and completely ignore the evidence against a conspiracy theory.

I stand to be corrected, but isn't New York Time 5 hours behind British time? So if it was 4.54pm in NY, it would have been 9.54pm in London (corrected).

4.54pm NYT was 26 minutes before WTC7 collapsed.

I am quite open to hearing alternative explanations behind many of the events behind 9/11 so I am not trying to prove or disprove anything. In the way many "conspiracy theorists" cling to their position regardless of the facts, so do many who believe completely the official version.

I feel the truth is somewhere inbetween, but where, I really don't know.

AFAIR World and News24 did no silmulcasts that day. They each did their own thing. Interestingy I think News24 tookdiscussion programme from TC7 at the time, they switched back to N8 at 2130.

I remember News24 showing pictures of the buliding collapsiong at around 2155. It had defently collapsed by then as I saw the pictures

I have just listened to the clip & Gavin Ester does give the name of the building as "the 47-storey Salomen Brothers Building..."

Thanks for that, steery. I watched it at work and didn't have the sound on - I was just going by what was on the captions.

So BBC News 24 and BBC World apparently reported the collapse of the specific and only building other than WTC 1 and 2 26 minutes before they occured?

The key to finding out this mystery is the source or sources. Who told them this apparent falsehood and how long did it take the BBC to get it to air from the time they first heard it? 2 minutes, 5 minutes, 10 minutes - I don't know as I've never worked in a newsroom.

I think it's a far stretch to assume that there was any malicious intent at any point on the chain of information. It could have been something as simple as a misunderstood communication - "Salomon Brothers building is close to collapse", "WTC7 may collapse", which an overzealous wire copier decided to translate into news that the building had already collapsed.

WTC7 had a massive fire raging through it which spread quickly from shortly after the first impact sent flaming debris into its facing superstructure and into the offices beyond. This is well documented on many established news sources. Someone may have called one of the news organisations to say that it looked liked WTC7 was going to collapse any minute; with the sheer chaos of the day, and the massive confusion and high emotions raging across America, and indeed across the world, it wouldn't be a huge leap to suggest that such a call could have been miscommunicated, in much the same way that many other "facts" were broadcast and later corrected, including the types of aircraft involved (which some outlets reported as 'two jumbo jets'), and the number of fatalities within the building (with reporters on the day predicting upwards of 10-20,000 at some points).

To even entertain the possibility that there is any credibility to the idea that someone deliberately informed news outlets of the collapse of WTC7 before it happened is as extraordinary as it is nonsensical. Why on earth would any mysterious dark player in this tale inform news bureaux that WTC7 had collapsed before it had? What possible reason were there be this?

Moreover, why on earth would such a third party even bother reporting it to news bureaux after it had collapsed? The whole world was watching the area - it wouldn't exactly have gone unnoticed.

I agree that there are many, many issues surrounding the events of that day that remain extremely questionable, and deserving of more substantial answers than those that have been provided, but come on - this really isn't one of them.

I personally think that the BBC just simply got their facts wrong. As said, news wise, that was a very confusing days. TV networks made many mistakes which they later corrected. A lot was happening, so it would be very easy to mix up information. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't follow their '2 sources' rule that day, as a lot of stuff was happening before they would be able to verify it, and on a big news day like that, they would want to be ahead of the other networks which would be reporting stuff immediately. Also, in terms of the satellite loss, we have to take into consideration of the fact that a lot of networks relied on the mast on the WTC, so when that went down, they would have switched to satellite. Therefore, slots will have been fully booked, and multiple news agencies will have been trying to use the same frequencies.

Agreed totally - if there is/was a conspiracy, it would be the height of stupidity/incompetence to make such a patently false press release when it could be easily disproven.

For the record, I don't know if there's a conspiracy or not - I've heard as many theories and explanations that seem wacky/counter-intuitive to me from conspiracy theorists as well as from the media-accepted line. Whether there is or isn't, I don't believe at all that the BBC or any other media would be knowingly involved in it.

However, what intrigues me is the BBC/CNN line on this. I'm not sure about CNN, but the BBC state that they need confirmation from two sources before presenting a story as "fact".

So which two sources gave the story to the BBC? And how could they both get it so spectacularly wrong? Is our media, that which we rely on for accuracy, so negligent in their duties?



The WTC7 collapse is something that interests me as someone who is sitting on the fence for now.

As I understand it, NIST said that fire was the most likely explanation for collapse, but it still ranked low on the possibility scale. In other words, NIST seem as puzzled as everyone else that that building fell but some of the other heavily damaged buildings did not (corrected).

I am no scientist, that's for sure, but if they can't say with any degree of confidence what caused it, five years after the fact, it is something that causes me concern.

Anyway, I digress.



As stated above, it would be the height of stupidity for any dark actor or actors to release this information before the event. I, like everyone else, am stunned by it and can't provide an explanation.

The fact remains however that someone *did* inform the BBC that the building had fallen and in fact they hadn't. The question is who? Anyone care to guess?

I personally believe this highlights the sheer ineptitude of the BBC news service that a "respected" reporter was reporting on the collapse of a building that hadn't been hit by an aeroplane yet it was right behind her and standing.



Agreed, this is a total non-story either.

I must admit that's the thing that winds me up about conspiracy theories and alternative explanations. Instead of sticking to the facts and arguing the point, a whole network of intrigue is built around it by conspiracy theorists. Why not just concentrate on demolishing one aspect and then move onto others?

By building this intrigue, someone knocks a hole in it and by default discredits any kernel of truth that may have been in the original line of thought.

Interestingly it has often been remarked on, that the melting-point of the girders in the tower is a lot higher than the temperature kerosene burns at (about double the amount I think?).

I don't know how much we should read in to that ?