I suspect that in the confusion of that day, the BBC picked up some prematurely released, and possibly speculative talking points and ran with them, WITHOUT ANY INVESTIGATION AT ALL! All they had to do was look out of the window for pity's sake, but no! they ran with a story that the Solomon Brothers Building has just collapsed and read off the pre-prepared talking points of how and why it collapsed, whilst the building in question was clearly STILL STANDING in the background!
As for some of the people querying this news, it was live, (as the ticker proves) it was filmed in front of a window - NOT A PREVIOUS RUN VIDEO, the news anchor in Manhatten turns and look out of the window at the scene to describe it. Additionally the time can be Established as the newsreader in London says that the attacks started eight hours previously and there is a top of the hour news headline review during the clip. This clearly places the time of this live news as being before WTC 7 Collapses.
The established facts therefore are that the BBC prematurely announces a building collapses 25 minutes before it actually does.
below is my submission to the BBC. If I get a response I shall post it immediately:
I know that on 9/11 there where many conflicting reports surfacing and there was lots of confusion, but given the revelations surrounding WTC 7, from the admission by it's leaseholder (Larry Silverstien) on PBS that he ordered the building 'pulled' and the revelations that emergency crews on the scene were told in advance that the building was to be brought down, is it not suspicious that the BBC reported that the building had collapsed a full 25 minutes before it actually did, and that the building was visible behind the correspondent clearly standing as she was describing, live, how and why it had collapsed?
This video is blazing around the internet and being seen by hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions. the BBC's reputation as an accurate reporter of news is at risk.
What is the BBC's response to this?
Why did you run with a set of talking points before they had been checked?
Where did these talking points come from?
Who prepared them in advance of the building collapsing? and Why?
How did the source of the talking points know that the building was likely to collapse?
No steel framed building (not leased by Mr Silverstien) has ever collapsed due to fire and there is significant doubt surrounding the cause of this particular building. The BBC's lax editorial control is adding fuel to the conspiracies surrounding this building and the rest of the attacks in general. What have you got to say for yourselves?
Will the BBC respond accurately or honestly? Watch this space.