Originally Posted by K R Y
Yes it can. Simple miscommunication.
Why on earth would 'they' inform the BBC early? What would they have to gain? Why not just logically allow the building to fall, and have it reported as it happens?
The building was on fire, and was known it was to collapse eventually hours before the collapse. It was reported from the fire department that the building was going to collapse. She even says 'details are very very sketchy'. Information going around could of easily started off as 'About to collapse' and got miscommunicated as 'collapsed'
OK. I can buy miscommunication. But the report happened over 20 minutes before the collapse. The official story said that the collapse of the Saloman building happened accidently because of fire and debris. (A fire has never in history ever brought down a high rise) Fireman said the building may
colapse. How could they know for sure, for the first time in history, a high rise building was gonna fold in on it self? And why did the BBC report it before it happened? I mean surely, on an story such as this, you would want to make sure you got your facts right? The fact that a building is still standing and being viewed by millions world-wide, while they announce that it has collapsed just shows to me utter incompetence. I don't believe that BBC had prior knowledge to the building being brought down, becuase it was, I just think there are alot of unanswered questions and the whole offical story, the initial one and the one by the 9/11 commision, are hokum. Hokum I tell you!!
Also, Lol at 'details are very sketchy'. How about turn on the TV, or better yet, look out the f'n window!!!!
"I remember getting a call from the 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."
Larry Silverstein. Lease holder of The World Trade Centre.