This week has seen a cornucopia of news come pouring forth with regards to what happened to World Trade Center building 7 on September 11th 2001. The catalyst for this has been the discovery that the BBC reported the building had collapsed a full thirty minutes before it actually fell on 9/11.

The BBC, instead of attempting to explain how it could have reported this, has attempted to both evade and cloud the issue. The truth is that no one could have possibly predicted the building would collapse and here's why.

Aside from the fact that previous to 9/11 no steel framed building in history had ever collapsed due to fire damage, Building 7, otherwise known as the Salomon Brothers building, was intentionally designed to allow large portions of floors to be permanently removed without weakening the structural integrity of the building.

In 1989 the New York Times reported on this fact in a story covering the Salomon leasing of the building which had been completed just two years earlier.

Salomon had wanted to build a new structure in order to house its high-technology operations, but due to stock market crash in 1987 it was unable to. The company searched for an existing building that they could use and found one in Larry Silverstein's WTC 7.

The Times reported:

The entire article can be read here.

What this amounted to, as the Times pointed out, was that WTC7, specifically designed to be deconstructed and altered, became "a building within a building". An extraordinary adaptable and highly reinforced structure for the modern business age.

This is of course also partially the reason why in 1999 the building was chosen to house Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's $13 million emergency crisis centre on the 27th floor.

Remember that on 9/11 only eight floors of the building were subject to sporadic fires. The official NIST report failed to comprehensively identify how the building could have collapsed symmetrically into its own footprint given the damage that it had sustained.

A follow up report due soon has been forced to take into account a hypothetical situation whereby explosives were used to demolish the building, primarily because every other explanation thus far has failed to explain how it could have come down.

Furthermore, as has been thoroughly documented, building 7 was the furthest away in the WTC complex from the twin towers. Buildings much closer sustained massive amounts of damage from the collapse of the towers and did not come anywhere close to full scale symmetrical collapse.

Given all this information it is quite clear to surmise that if you were going to "predict" the collapse of any building in the WTC complex following the destruction of the towers, building 7 would have most certainly been BOTTOM of the list.

Building 7 now becomes the key to unlocking the 9/11 fraud. What was witnessed on 9/11 was a perfectly symmetrical collapse, with no resistance, of a steel-framed "Building within a building". A perfectly symmetrical collapse of a building that was designed from the ground-up to have entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity.

We have an owner who let slip that the building was "pulled" and we have firefighters on video telling people to get back as the building was going to "blow up". We have the BBC reporting the collapse before it happened and a follow up desperate attempt to avoid the issue by claiming that it cannot verify anything because it has lost the entirety of its broadcast recordings from 9/11.

Furthermore, the BBC continues to play dumb by responding to questions other the fiasco by intimating that it is being suggested that they were "in on the conspiracy". Here is the latest response we have received from the BBC regarding the matter after continuing to press them for an explanation:

What is ludicrous is that the BBC expects us to believe it has lost its tapes of the most important event of the 21st century. No one is suggesting BBC is complicit in any conspiracy, and its attempt to frame this issue in that way is a blatant attempt to make the questions that it has not answered go away.

Why did the BBC report the collapse of one the most structurally reinforced buildings in New York before it collapsed and what was their source?

In further developments more BBC video from the day of 9/11 has been unearthed in which a correspondent, within hours of the towers coming down, claims the reason for the collapses is because of their design. He then then provides blatantly false information about the designs to justify the statement, without referring to any sources and negating the fact that the towers had 47 massive central core columns.

Was this another "cock up" on the part of the BBC or were they once again going off scripted information that was being spoon fed to the media? Certainly it is startling that the subsequent official FEMA report, after months of investigation, gave more or less the same explanation as to why the towers fell as is witnessed in this BBC news footage from just hours after the towers fell.

As for the BBC's shockingly arrogant and dismissive "it was more than five years ago comment", as long as the truth continues to be withheld we will continue to target those who are aiding its suppression.