It is clear from examining the clip for the local FOX affiliate in Washington D.C., Channel5's telecast between 9:54am and 10:36am on September 11, 2001, that Building #7 was intended to collapse in the shadow of the first collapse of the World Trade Center Tower Two, at 10:00 am---evidenced by the pre-planted talking points that went off more than seven hours in advance of pre-planted explosives.
At 9:59am, the local Fox network affiliate switches over to a video feed coming out of New York City. The move seems to startle the co-anchors, Michael Garguilo and Lark McCarthy. It is fascinating to watch them try and make sense of what they are witnessing, incorporating the images in tandem with the information being feed into their earpieces.
Listen to these honest and intelligent anchors as they communicate through stressed words the information as conflicting reports are considered and rejected. Fast forward to 05:28 in the clip to start the sequence transcribed here.
9:59 am: FOX switches to video in New York of the first collapseApproximately, two minutes later, after an exchange with FOX reporter Audrey Barnes near the Pentagon, the feed is switched back to images of New York, with the anchors sounding a bit more reassured.
Lark McCarthy: Ah, we want to go back now to New York City and it appears that something else has occurred, we’re not quite sure what, but the level of, the smoke, this is a different—this is a slightly different area of the World Trade Center—OK it is now the BASE of the World Trade Center. There appears to be a second area there of smoke, so perhaps indicating some sort of explosion or fire there; of course what may have happened with the…all the systems compromised in the building, you may be getting an explosion from that. We do not know what has happened, but obviously something has happened there, near the BASE of the building, setting off another round of major smoke, and apparently, a fire, but we don’t know, whether again, because it is the building...because of the earlier damage.
Michael Garguilo: Oh, OK…
Lark McCarthy: Ah! The tower has collapsed!
Michael Garguilo: Yeah, this ah, oh! And, it looks like we are seeing…
Lark McCarthy: The tower collapsed.
Michael Garguilo: Yeah, unfortunately, one of the worst fears of what might have happened has come to pass. One of those towers, 110 stories, has apparently collapsed. Ah, we can only hope that the area around it was evacuated what possibly have been in the time, we are going to go try and get some more information on that. So this is a major update on this terrible day of developments. One of the two world tower centers…oh…OK now we are finding out that may not have happened.
Lark McCarthy: (06:43 on clip/10:00 am onscreen clock) Right, now, we should... the Associated Press is reporting that an explosion has hit ANOTHER building near the World Trade Center, so folks, obviously we are going to try and sort this out, this is a developing situation, but A.P. is reporting an explosion has hit ANOTHER building NEAR the World Trade Center to explain this round of white smoke there you see there billowing up from the bottom. As the professor was saying, this is well planned, this is concerted, this is major, this is an escalation, this is a different technique.
Michael Garguilo: (08:50 on clip/10:03am onscreen clock) You’re looking at the scene there on the right-hand side; there are some new developments in New York City, we do believe there was ANOTHER blast AFTER the two that rocked the World—the twin towers…the World Trade Center towers. We are trying to determine now if this was a consequence of one of those two earlier attacks or perhaps this was a separate explosion.A brief exchange between Lark McCarthy and Audrey Barnes follows this exchange, but Mike Garguilo interrupts it with news,
Lark McCarthy: It was a separate explosion.
Michael Garguilo: Right…we do believe…
Lark McCarthy: That is what we are trying to sort out, but it is beginning to appear that there was a separate explosion, but again that cannot be sorted out at this moment.
Michael Garguilo: (11:16 on clip/10:05am onscreen clock) Audrey, if you would hold on for one second, we just saw the Associated Press is now reporting that another explosion HAS hit ANOTHER building near the World Trade Center. We were speculating at that point whether it was a consequence of the original attacks. Now it appears to be another explosion hitting another building near the World Trade Center.Having gotten that off his chest, Garguilo engages Audrey Barnes at the Pentagon by asking an identical question to one which she's already had to badly answer, because she is no where near the scene:
Michael Garguilo: Getting back to Audrey…Audrey, with regards to the Pentagon, the reports that we have received, is that the plane may have impacted on that helicopter pad. There is a small control tower there, set up on that side of the Pentagon, near to where you are standing. Can you see any of the wreckage yourself, can you confirm that, or does it look like it impacted the building itself?
Then Lark McCarthy makes small talk with Barnes for what seems like an eternity, although it was only a few minutes, while further behind-the-scenes vetting is underway. When Garguilo brings up the subject of New York four minutes later, it is to offer what is a partial explanation:
Michael Garguilo: (14:50 on clip/10:09 am onscreen clock) Let’s go back to New York City for a second. The latest reports now from the Associated Press does say that one of those towers, this is tower one, the second tower, has collapsed. Now that is the second tower, and we believe that is the one hit higher up---we do not control this camera, it is from New York City---but the Associated Press is reporting that the second tower has collapsed. We don’t know if that is a complete collapse, a partial collapse, or whatever. We hope to see it soon. Once again, you are looking at tower two, and this was the first one hit just after nine o’clock this morning.This is the first appearance of the term "partial" as some sort of possible explanation for what it is we think we have seen and what they know they have told us. The billows of smoke we saw earlier may have indeed hidden a partial collapse, but that would have been in addition to, rather than instead of, But such an either/or proposition is nonsensical. It simply ignores his previous talking points about ANOTHER explosion that hit ANOTHER tower NEAR the World Trade Center AFTER the two that rocked the twin towers.
Lark McCarthy: It certainly would not be a surprise given the level of damage and the fact that firefighters were unable to fight the fire because it happened so high up in the building. So it certainly would not be surprising if there were a collapse, partial or total.
Luke McCarthy attempts a balanced presentation, repeating the new term "partial," while introducing a future meme required for Building 7---the dangerous lack of firefighting that imperils steel buildings even in the absence of airplane crashes. However, by appending it to "partial," which was never a part of the plan, she muddies its value. But since she's brought it up anyway---why would fires high up in towers destroy buildings all the way to the ground? And three of them at that? On the same day? For the first time in history?
The subject is then not only dropped, but held down with a foot to its neck, as Luke McCarthy keeps the coverage on Audrey Barnes at the Pentagon, acknowledging the lack of news worthiness there, while making encouraging suggestions like, "just describe the looks on their faces." This goes on, in a scandalous dereliction of duty---for a five full minutes---as an excruciatingly banal conversation is undertaken at a site well north of the Pentagon, between Audrey Barnes and an unnamed man who hyperventilates and saw nothing. When the subject of the carnage in New York is next brought up, it is with an air of finality.
Michael Garguilo:(21:27 on clip/10:15 am onscreen clock) We also do have some confirmation and more specifics now on what we had been reporting on the possible collapse up in New York City, one of the World Trade Centers, but it is being described now as a partial collapse, and of course that building was hit on a much lower level than the first impact, which came on the one tower at the 90th floor, so, this was hit on the 50th floor so it’s being described now as a partial collapse. I believe, we are seeing, is that New York City on the right hand side? This may be one of those towers.Not only does this close all this claptrap about partial collapses, it defuses its daughter dissemination---the talking point about "50 stories that went down." The problem here is that no one ever thought the first plane hit the fiftieth floor of Tower One; or that only half a building fell down; or that office fires reduced Building 7 into a neat pile. But these logical fallacies would have to wait until the mass societal delusion could lift.
WTC7 on the verge of collapse, Rose Arce, CNN, reporting at 12:22pm
Allan Dodds Frank of CNN Incorrectly Reports Possible Third Skyscraper Collapse in New York at 11:07 a.m. Sept. 11, 2001
Dan Abrams, WTC7 collapse warning, CNN, 4:54pm 9/11/01
CNN and Others Report WTC 7 May Have Collapsed 4:15 p.m.-4:27 p.m. September 11, 2001:
BBC Reports WTC 7 Collapse Before It Happens 4:54 p.m.-5:10 p.m. September 11, 2001: