So everything, but not for you of course. The reports that it had already come down or was about to come down came minutes before it actually came down. The timing couldn't be more obvious. Before 9/11, no other building had ever collapsed due to fire so there was no precedent to predict a collapse, much less a timed event. It even went to the level of a known documented countdown (outside the MSM reports) and there were other reports of foreknowledge hours before the building's collapse. All of it required investigation, which was NIST's domain and deliberate failure.
The media gets things wrong. Sometimes a lot of things a lot of the time.
Sometimes it can be quite simple. For example, every time I have been interviewed by a newspaper or the TV news they have managed to get my name wrong. Even though my name is not difficult and I even give them my business card they still manage to **** it up.
In the rush to be first with breaking news on what was probably the most intense and chaotic day any of these players had ever experienced the fact that there were hundreds, if not thousands of erroneous, incomplete and inaccurate reports is not exactly a surprise.
The first erroneous report of 7's collapse was in the morning just after the collapse of the North Tower by Rueter's who shortly afterwards issued a retraction and apology. The reports then came throughout the day. Dan Rather over at CBS reported that 7 had either collapsed or was about to collapse at about 4:00pm - nearly an hour and a half before it came down - and he was beat to the punch by Tom Brokaw at NBC. There was no "obvious timing" about it, whatever it is you think you mean by that - your (probably intentional) vagueness being noted.
It apparently bears repeating for you again. That 7 World Trade was in a precarious state and in danger of imminent collapse had been known and reported for HOURS before the building actually fell at 5:20pm. Everyone was waiting for it to collapse because the fire department had been warning for hours that the building was unstable. Only to conspiracy theorists is this apparently a big mystery. What obviously happened is that with all the predictions the media was given about a pending collapse, someone mistakenly said "did collapse" instead of "will collapse" or "might collapse." CNN had been reporting for hours they had been told by the FDNY the building was on fire and in danger of collapsing. Then about 2 hours before it actually came down CNN anchor Aaron Brown said:
"We are getting information now that one of other buildings, building 7, in the world trade center complex is on fire and has either collapsed or is collapsing."
In the heat of a high confused evolving situation and the desire of all media outlets to be first with a story such mistakes in early reporting are normal, particularly in live coverage. The premature report of WTC7's collapse is no different. That the building was going to be coming down wasn't unexpected - it had been reported in the news coverage all afternoon that the building was unsound and in danger of collapse. It is not too hard to see how someone might take a statement that it will collapse soon and mistakenly turn that into it has collapsed considering the chaos of the day. I think my explanation is far more reasonable and plausible than whatever it is you are offering - I don't really know what you are offering because you are, as usual, going out of your way to not be specific.
Are you trying to say the media were given a script of the days itinerary by Dr. Evil and either didn't follow the timeline properly or the timeline got out of sync? Is that what you are saying, that the media were given advanced notice of the intentional demolition of 7 World Trade Center?
