Building 7 becomes the Achilles heel of the official conspiracy theory
Prison Planet | March 5, 2007
Paul Joseph Watson
The BBC’s Conspiracy Files documentary hit piece and their flustered attempts to adopt damage control over questions about why their correspondent reported the collapse of Building 7 before it happened, have only provoked a firestorm of new interest in 9/11 truth and exalted questions surrounding WTC 7 to the point where it is now the Achilles’ heel of the official conspiracy theory.
The BBC was forced to issue a second response on Friday afternoon following a barrage of criticism against their initial effort to dismiss the Building 7 fiasco and their claim that they had mysteriously lost all footage from BBC World’s 9/11 coverage.
Right from the word go the BBC have attempted to cloud this issue by erecting and attacking another strawman framed debate, the accusation they were somehow part of a grand conspiracy on 9/11, in order to try and detract credibility from the questions being asked of them.
In reality, this story boils down to two facets and the BBC has not provided an adequate answer to either of them;
a) What was the source of the information that led the BBC to report that Building 7 had collapsed before it did? In his second response, head of BBC World Richard Porter cites CNN, local news media and unnamed firefighters who were interviewed after the fact, but still cannot provide an individual or authority by name.
Porter attempts to create a scenario whereby the collapse of Building 7 was easily anticipated, and this is why news organizations jumped the gun to report its demise. In reality, WTC 7 stood over 300 yards away from the twin towers and was partly shielded by WTC 6 which did not collapse yet was completely gutted by raging fires and debris damage, whereas WTC 7 had limited fires. Building 7 was structurally reinforced in 1989 giving it, “Enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building’s structural integrity,” according to the New York Times .
The BBC’s 9/11 Conspiracy Files documentary claimed that Building 7 was a “raging inferno,” a gross error considering the fact that fires spread sporadically across just eight floors of the skyscraper.
This is what the BBC describes as a “raging inferno,” another example of how they concocted fallacies to smear 9/11 truth in their atrocious Conspiracy Files hit piece.
Nobody could have anticipated the building’s collapse unless they knew that explosive devices were in place to take it down. NYPD officers heard bombs as they ran away from its implosion. First responders were told that the building was to be “brought down,” not that it was going to collapse on its own. The process of informing the news agencies in advance that it was in danger of collapsing was merely an attempt to precondition the watching audience to what would otherwise have been an extremely suspicious occurrence.
We can now be reasonably confident in identifying the Rudy Giuliani’s OEM as the source of the “warning” that Building 7 was going to collapse. OEM is New York City’s Office of Emergency Management. OEM personnel, by pure coincidence of course, arrived early on the morning of 9/11 to prepare for an exercise that simulated a terrorist attack on New York City. They were located in Building 7.
This means that the OEM were not only telling the BBC and other media that Building 7 had collapsed or was in the process of collapsing before it did, a forecast inconceivable in the context that no modern steel building had collapsed from fire damage alone allied to the fact that WTC 7 had been structurally reinforced to prevent such a collapse, but they were also handing out the explanation for its collapse in advance. In the BBC’s footage , the anchor Phil Hayton states, “It seems this wasn’t the result of a new attack but because the building had been weakened during this morning’s attack.”
Richard Porter tacitly admits that such detailed foreknowledge of an event that is yet to occur is highly suspicious (“in one sense that’s true”) but then attempts to dismiss it simply because the reporter used the words “it seems.”
Building 7 fell in an almost perfect implosion at near free fall speed and its debris barely even blocked the street next to it – the building collapsed in its own footprint . Surely a collapse as a result of fire damage, an event unparalleled with a modern steel building until that day, would have resulted in at least a marginally inconsistent collapse? Anyone with eyes to see can judge that this building was deliberately imploded, as news anchors like Dan Rather stated on the day .
The Windsor Building in Madrid by comparison was a raging inferno and burned for over 24 hours yet did not collapse.
The collapse of the Windsor Building in Madrid was, solely as a result of 9/11, anticipated by the media in triplicate but it never happened because modern steel buildings do not symmetrically collapse as a result of fire damage alone.
Who would have anticipated the collapse of Building 7 in such circumstances? Certainly not Dutch demolition expert Danny Jowenko , who was shown the footage of Building 7 along with the building’s structural diagrams and immediately concluded it was deliberately demolished.
Whoever informed the news agencies that the building was about to collapse had precise knowledge of the fact that it was being deliberately “pulled,” and only by identifying that individual or authority, be it Giuliani’s OEM or anyone else, and putting them before a grand jury, can we move closer to cracking the cover-up.
b) How can we trust the BBC or the establishment media in general to provide accurate information about any major event when all they do is repeat what is told to them and relay it as gospel with no independent verification whatsoever, to the point where we are told a building has collapsed by a reporter while it mockingly stands behind her head?
Bob Woodward, the US journalist who helped break the Watergate scandal, last week called on reporters to “take more time on stories” and be more aggressive in verifying information given to them by official authorities. Woodward said the round the clock deadline news cycle is a “crazy environment” that needs to be “slowed down.”
The BBC Building 7 fiasco is a damning indictment of the slippery slide from real investigative reporting to “rip and read” instant gratification, whereby news organizations become mere public relation conduits for governments and “official” authorities. In that context the BBC are just as complicit as anyone else in manufacturing the official conspiracy theory behind 9/11 and the one that has remained simply because it was reported first. This myth is propagated by the fallacies of building collapses before the fact, magic hijacker passports that survive giant firey airline impacts, and deliberate suppression of dozens and dozens of eyewitness reports of bombs at all levels of the twin towers.
The arrogance of Porter and the BBC in general in still refusing to even admit that they made an error in reporting the collapse of a building before it fell clearly illustrates the pomposity of these individuals in thinking themselves somehow above the scrutiny of the very people who fund their existence. This whole episode has led many who were previously highly skeptical of the “9/11 truth movement” to do their on research on this and the many other questions surrounding September 11.
Building 7 is the weakest link holding together the official conspiracy theory that was dutifully propped up and retold by the lapdog mainstream media on 9/11. The Conspiracy Files debacle allied to the WTC 7 BBC fiasco that followed it has given 9/11 truth a fresh impetus and we thank the BBC in the context that their fallacious yellow journalism has resulted in a new wave of interest in dismantling the official fraud.