Google has also removed the BBC timestamped video from 9/11

"building 7, in the WTC complex, is on fire and has either collapsed, or is collapsing."

Or the reporter(s) over reacted considering the scope of what had already happened that day.

Of course people never overreact - they never blow things out of proportion - and everything spoken on TV is either fact or an intentional lie and subsequent cover-up.

Perhaps the reason the BBC and CNN aren't talking about it now is it is a non-issue to them. News is about breaking the story first nowadays.

So instead of truth and lie I think there are grays in between.

1. truth - WTC7 is on fire (they add no speculation)
2. truth with hypothesis - WTC7 is on fire; we fear it may collapse
3. truth with speculation - WTC7 is on fire and may be collapsing (a reasonable bit of speculation considering the other events - however it isn't spoken as clearly as speculation as #2)
4. mistake/lie - WTC7 has collapsed.

The quote you provide seems to fit somewhere between 2-4 to me. It doesn't fit #4 because of the may be collapsing part. Sounds like sensationalist journalism to me - not a conspiracy.

Watch the video and you will discover that over an HOUR before the WTC 7 demolition at 4:10pm, Aaron Brown reports - "building 7, in the WTC complex, is on fire and has either collapsed, or is collapsing."

It was just a little before that when the fire chief said publicly, on national news mind you, that the damage to WTC7 was extensive and he doubted they could save it, and it was likely to collapse.

Then we have a pundit on CNN commenting that the collapse is either happening or imminent, while the text along the bottom says "WTC7 Damaged, May Collapse."

So you take all this to say that CNN "knew" beforehand? I mean... seriously?

I know he's serious. CNN, the white house, BBC, and apparently thousands of other people were in a giant conspiracy to fly airplanes into the twin towers so they could make it look like a terrorist attack. Some people don't take it this far. They think the news outlets were fed the story and they mistakenly reported the collapse before it happened.

For this to be true, it would have to have been the perfect combination of planning and lucky mistakes.

Of course, I'm just a disinformation plant trying to confuser people about what really happened. I'll be heading back to base now.

I was under the impression that Silverstein's "we decided to pull it" comment came years later when being interviewed for a documentary.

And, when viewed in its entirety, had nothing to do with "pulling" the building, and everything to do with pulling back the fire-fighting teams that were in the area. I'm amazed at the sheer willingness of otherwise rational people to simply misquote and take out of context anything surrounding 9/11, if it fosters a conspiracy theory.

The NYC Fire Department knew the building was going to collapse several hours ahead of time, why is it any mystery that journalists learned that and reported it?

It just makes me chuckle that people who will blast the media for getting things so wrong, so often, all bend over backward to ignore that inconvenient fact when the media say something that can be made to fit in with what they so desperately want to believe.

Silverstein's exact words:

I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.

"An alternative explanation for Silverstein's remark is that he was referring to a decision to "pull" firefighting operations in Building 7. That explanation is advanced in a September 9, 2005 statement issued by Stilverstein Properties spokesperson Mr. Dara McQuillan:" link.

Seven World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001, after burning for seven hours. There were no casualties, thanks to the heroism of the Fire Department and the work of Silverstein Properties employees who evacuated tenants from the building.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) conducted a thorough investigation of the collapse of all the World Trade Center buildings. The FEMA report concluded that the collapse of Seven World Trade Center was a direct result of fires triggered by debris from the collapse of WTC Tower 1.

In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.

Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. 2

Some problems with this explanation:

* According to Chapter 5 of FEMA's Building Performance Study , firefighters were never in the building: "Preliminary indications were that, due to lack of water, no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY." * Silverstein's statement implies a close temporal proximity between "that decision to pull" and "watch[ing] the building collapse," giving no time for the fires to become more severe and do what fires have never before done: cause the total collapse of a steel-frame high-rise.

And finally, also from 911research.wtc7.net, an alternative explanation of Silverstein's comments:

A more sophisticated interpretation of Silverstein's comment is that it is bait, eliciting the widespread circulation of an interpretation that is easily denied if not refuted. While failing to provide substantial evidence for the controlled demolition of WTC 7, the story has functioned to eclipse the overwhelming case for demolition based on the physical characteristics of the collapse documented in photographs and videos of the event and the rubble pile that resulted. Those visual documents establish that the building's collapse was an implosion exhibiting all of the features of a standard controlled demolition, including:

* Very rapid speed of fall * Symmetric collapse around its vertical axis * Production of large quantities of dust * Collapse into a small, consolidated rubble pile, with exterior walls lying on top

Some problems with this explanation:

It'll come as some surprise to the firefighters who were working in close proximity to WTC7, and who were pulled back because of concerns that it was going to collapse, that they were never ordered back as a result of Silverstein's talks with the Fire Department Commander. Or, maybe it's that the Fire Department Commander will be surprised to learn that none of the firefighters he withdrew from the area were ever there. Or maybe it's the firefighters who will be surprised to learn that their efforts around WTC7 and their orders to withdraw were all a hallucination.

At any rate, somebody somewhere is going to be surprised.

Very rapid speed of fall, Symmetric collapse around its vertical axis, Production of large quantities of dust, Collapse into a small, consolidated rubble pile, with exterior walls lying on top All addressed in the link provided above. But succinctly: the speed of fall was about what one would expect of a tube-in-tube steel-framed building brought down by damage (not 7 seconds, BTW, as asserted in your link), the collapse was certainly less than symmetrical, your link doesn't say a thing about the quantities of dust produced by the WTC7 collapse, and the collapse was not into a "small, consolidated rubble pile, with the exterior walls lying on top."

In short, again, the conspiracy explanation relies largely on bull@!$%#.

I'm pretty sure that if conspiracy theorists subjected their own theories to one-tenth the scrutiny that they apply to the official story, they'd be falling all over themselves in an effort to support the official view. But that's hardly entertaining, and certainly doesn't hold them out as trend-bucking geniuses seeing through the smoke and mirrors of officialdom.

You folks will believe whatever makes you happy, and that's fine. But let's not pretend that the holes in your conspiracy theories are smaller than the one in the south side of WTC7. So far, most of the things asserted in this thread have been obviously contradicted by evidence. But carry on carrying on. I'm done.

Got to disagree with you. Reaching and walking on the moon, effectively another world, is the biggest event in human history and won't be eclipsed by a terrorist attack or conspiracies or bank robberies.

These things may matter to people here and now, yes. But humans have been looking at the moon for a million years, wondering. But we were the first to reach it.

If humans are still around in another million years, they will still look at the moon and wonder. Absolutely nobody in a million years, or hell, even a few hundred years, will remember the WTC or the USA.

I was not trying to compare the importance of landing on the moon with 9/11. I was comparing the sensationalism of the stories. (something that matters to humans here and now)

The stories that are being compared is NASA losing the moon landing tapes and the BBC loosing all of their coverage of 9/11.

No one is suggesting that one story is more important than the other. They are merely using the NASA story as a point of reference.

Chris & Keld - I took the trouble of contacting an associate in the commercial video production business and forwarded the BBC and CNN videos for professional inspection and asked for a professional opinion on whether the presenters were seated in front of a window looking out at the WTC disaster OR were standing in front of a video screen playing a pre-recorded video - my friend is adamant: " Yep those presenters are sure enough standing in front of a window, not a screen. That is all happening in real time."

If my associate is correct then the CNN and BBC presenters (a) were not only told of the WTC7 collapse well BEFORE it happened but (b) when they turned round and gestured to the scene, when they spoke with the WTC scene behind them and when they said the WTC had collapsed or was collapsing the WTC7 building was still actually there i.e. it was all live!

For the CNN video see: link and link ; for the BBC video see: link .

The end of the second last sentence in #7.2 should read: "and when they said the WTC7 (i.e. the Salomon Brothers building) had collapsed or was collapsing the WTC7 building was still actually there i.e. it was all live!"

Debatable to be sure, but I'm not certain that this operation would have necessarily required full knowledge on the part of as many people as is assumed.

The thing that does it for me, though, is the manner in which the buildings collapsed. Directly into their own footprints, at free-fall speed in the direction of greatest resistance. Not only would the failure of these towers represent the first instances of steel-structured buildings collapsing by fire, but also they would be the first buildings in history to defy Newton's first law of motion!

Take a close look at the manner in which WTC 7 collapses straight down. For the building to collapse in this fashion, all of the load bearing supports would have had to fail at exactly the same time.
The claim that the collapse was the result of a fire requires the fire be equally distributed throughout the entire floor of the building, providing equal heat for an equal amount of time, so that all the load bearings members would fail at the exact same moment. link.

That'd be a convincing argument if it weren't for the fact that they didn't collapse solely into their own footprint (as proved by the extensive damage to WTC7), and that they didn't collapse at "free-fall speed" as clearly shown in the plethora of images showing the debris falling faster than the collapsing buildings, and as shown by the seismological evidence.

What I'm gathering is that there are quite a few people here who don't know much about Newton's laws, materials science, or for that matter, much of anything else, including physics.

But supposing, for the purpose of argument, it could be shown without any doubt whatsoever, that the jets did not cause the collapse. What, if anything, would any of you armchair strategists and sleuths do? Write a letter to your Congressman? Demand "an investigation"? What's the end-state that would satisfy you, beside free license to @!$%# about the government (a license you already have, as guaranteed in the Constitution)?

Regarding the 'free-fall' debate:

The time it took the Towers to fall may be one of the most important pieces of evidence in determining their mode of destruction.

It is widely accepted that both Towers completely fell (nearly everything but the dust reached the ground) in around ten seconds. This estimate appears to be based mainly on seismic data. However, video evidence of the North Tower collapse suggests that it took close to 15 seconds for the destruction to reach the ground. Establishing a precise time of duration for each fall may not be possible, but there are measurements that can be made. Video records show that each Tower's top began its fall precipitously, and show the falling tops for a few seconds before they disappeared into the exploding dust clouds. It is also possible to track other features of the waves of destruction that traveled down each Tower. In both collapses dust clouds, exhibiting the behavior of pyroclastic flows associated with volcanoes, rapidly grew as they fell. 1 Each cloud consumed its Tower's top in a few seconds, then continued to descend, remaining centered around the Tower's axis. Each cloud had a fairly well-defined top and bottom, whose descent can be timed using video records.

Despite the availability of detailed studies of collapse times based on the compositing of video and photographic evidence, and in-depth analysis of the seismic records, many commentors have incorrectly treated the durations of the largest seismic signals as synonymous with total collapse times. Statements that the Towers fell in eight and ten seconds have been repeated by both proponents and critics of the official explanation.

Meaning of the Seismic Records

Seismic records of the Twin Tower collapses show a large signal for each collapse lasting just under 10 seconds. The durations of the large signals are widely equated with the durations of the collapses themselves. However, the signals may correspond to only parts of the collapse events, such as the rubble reaching the ground... link.

Regarding your dismissive and disrespectful "armchair strategists and sleuths" comment, and asking what possible end-result I'd like to see, I can think of a couple of things:

- Force the mainstream press to acknowledge the dubious nature of the official version of events, and to allow those with alternate hypotheses a chance to engage in a real debate about the issue.

- A truly independent, scientific investigation of the buildings' collapse. I'm not sure why this idea receives so much scorn in your reply, as it seems like a logical next-step to me, and should have begun on September 12, 2001.

I truly can't fathom why folks such as yourself are so quick to dismiss any argument on the subject of 9/11, and seem to harbour genuine resentment toward those with opinions which don't match your own. This site was designed for discussion and debate on the important topics of our time, and the events of 9/11 happen to be one of the most hotly debated. Of course there will be discussion! But from the sounds of things, you'd prefer those of us with contrary opinions to just shut-up already and be done with it. If that's the case I'm not sure why you'd want to use a site such as Newsvine, unless to seek out reinforcement of your own ideas.

You think my facts are wrong? Fine, show me the error of my ways and engage me in debate rather than throwing around the derogatory comments and condescension, thank you very much.

Regarding the 'free-fall' debate: Your quote and link largely seem to undercut your own argument that the buildings fell at the speed of a free falling object.

Force the mainstream press to acknowledge the dubious nature of the official version of events Given the complete lack of rigor in the alternate versions offered so far, it doesn't follow that the mainstream press has any reason to acknowledge the "dubious" nature of the official version. And this is not an end-state. It's a beginning state. You'd like them to acknowledge this as a means to what end?

A truly independent, scientific investigation of the buildings' collapse. I'm not sure why this idea receives so much scorn in your reply, as it seems like a logical next-step to me, and should have begun on September 12, 2001. I'm sorry, but I think no matter how scientific an investigation is done (there has already been one), there will be significant numbers of people who will claim that it is insufficient. Not because it IS insufficient, but because they prefer conspiracy theories.

I truly can't fathom why folks such as yourself are so quick to dismiss any argument on the subject of 9/11, and seem to harbour genuine resentment toward those with opinions which don't match your own. I truly can't fathom why folks such as yourself are so quick to accept any argument on the subject of 9/11, and seem to harbor genuine resentment toward the official investigation and those who accept it at face value. Looks like we're both perplexed.

from the sounds of things, you'd prefer those of us with contrary opinions to just shut-up already and be done with it. I'd like for people to actually support the assertions that they make. I don't want people to cease discussion, but discussion isn't remotely served by folks who snip comments out of their relevant context in order to misrepresent what was said. I think folks that simply accept some conspiracy theorist's assertion without actually looking at the information for themselves don't have much to contribute to a discussion.

You think my facts are wrong? Yes, I said so. Re-read my comment.

Fine, show me the error of my ways and engage me in debate I did. The buildings did not collapse into their own footprint, and they did not collapse at the speed of a free-falling object. Please review the links. Or your own, for that matter.

engage me in debate rather than throwing around the derogatory comments and condescension, thank you very much. At the risk of repeating myself, what I'm gathering is that there are quite a few people here who don't know much about Newton's laws, materials science, or for that matter, much of anything else, including physics. That's not condescension or derogation, but simple fact. You're wrong about the footprint, and wrong about the speed of collapse. What else do you have to discuss?

As far as the armchair sleuth comment, I stand by it. I don't think you or anyone else here (myself included) has ventured away from the computer terminal in order to investigate this, so what's the long term result you're looking to see? Don't bother answering that, it was rhetorical, this time. You've already stated (as I predicted)-- an "investigation".

I'll have to respectfully disagree with your analysis.

Observing the collapse of 47-story WTC 7 shows it to have all of the features of an implosion engineered by controlled demolition.

* The collapse of the main structure commences suddenly (several seconds after the penthouse falls). * The building sinks in a precisely vertical manner into its footprint. * Puffs of dust emerge from the building's facade early in the event. * The collapse is total, producing a rubble pile only about three stories high. * The main structure collapses totally in under 7 seconds, only about a second slower than it would take a brick dropped from the building's roof to reach the ground in a vacuum. link.

To respond to your other statements, I acknowledge the sentiment that investigations could be effectively derailed by any number of interests including some of the more extreme branches of the 9/11 Truth movement (such as those who fixate on 'pods' attached to the aircraft, or those who claim that the buildings were brought down by 'focused-energy beams' and such). That doesn't mean that a scientific analysis of the collapses isn't possible with the aim of determining just exactly how the buildings were made to fall. I would think that a truly independent scientific analysis of the collapses, accountable to peer-review, would be welcomed by all parties, including those who assert the official story as truth.

Following that, the true end-goal would be to bring those who undertook such monstrous criminal acts to justice. In my books, if it was found to be the President and his administration who are responsible(as I strongly suspect), that would mean impeachment and charges of high-treason and mass-murder.

Following that, the true end-goal would be to bring those who undertook such monstrous criminal acts to justice.

They've already been brought to justice. They were killed in the plane crash.

I also believe the building was on fire, but the video shows the owner describing the decision to demolish the building. What is important here is that the building was pre-rigged for demolition --this particular building didn't have the quantities of burning fuel that the others had, it was simply on fire. A fire in a steel structured building could never cause all of its floors to collapse like this. Just watch the video and listen to what he says.

I don't understand what proof is required to demonstrate that WTC 7 was collapsed at will --we have the interview with the man who made the call!