I've always wondered what people think that this is supposed to mean - are they suggesting that there was a conspiracy to demolish WTC7 for whatever reason, and the BBC was somehow brought into the conspiracy for some inexplicable reason and were supposed to announce that it had collapsed at some planned time for some inexplicable reason and they either got the time wrong or the collapse was delayed and they reported it anyway for some inexplicable reason even though it was visibly still there? As opposed to the much more likely scenario wherein it was a chaotic situation, and the firefighters had decided to stop fighting the fire in WTC7 because they thought it was going to collapse, and either somebody had misheard over a scanner or the anchor misunderstood what they were being told and said the wrong thing? Because if so, that sounds like a failure of critical thinking, not evidence of a conspiracy.

And that's my problem with nearly all of the 9/11 conspiracy stuff - most of it is things where you say, "hmm, that seems a little strange" and then it falls apart completely when you really look into and/or think about it. Like, if you say to me, "The CIA was behind 9/11, they posed as a radical Islamic fundamentalist organization and found some guys who wanted to attack the WTC and bankrolled them and helped them plan and gave them advice on exploiting known problems with US security, and did some stuff to make sure that any investigation would be diverted, and they were successful and flew planes into buildings which burned for hours and then collapsed, killing thousands of people and justifying foreign wars", that's plausible. Could have happened. The CIA has probably done more evil things. Burden of proof is on you, of course, but it could be a thing.

But no, it's always "the towers were brought down by explosives", or "the planes were really missiles", or "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" or "the planes were flown by remote control and all the supposed passengers were just crisis actors" or, "they let random idiot x into the conspiracy for no discernible reason and he spilled the beans" or any one of a hundred improbable, unsupported-by-the-available-facts failures of critical thinking. I mean, I understand the tendency of the human mind, when faced with a chaotic situation with an unsatisfying outcome, to latch onto little odd things about the official explanation and expand them into a whole tale that wraps up the whole thing neatly, but man, this is just exhausting