BBC reported WTC7 collapse 30 minutes before it happened

jessop1

After shooting itself in the foot with its ridiculously biased 9/11 "hitpiece" aired last week, the BBC's credibility takes yet another nosedive as 9/11 footage recently coming to light shows a bbc reporter talking about the collapse of WTC7 (also known as the Salomon Brothers Building) while the building can be clearly seen still standing behind her. It is believed that this report was aired around 30mins before the wtc7 collapse, although no timestamp can be fully confirmed. Regardless of this though, the video itself is the smoking gun.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/270207trustanything.htm

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/270207bbcresponds.htm

the reality of the conspiracy is coming more and more into public awareness...

So Glad

What the hell? Thats crazy. How can she say it collapsed when it's standing right behind her? This is MADNESS......

oleras

the irony....

Though the video was almost immediately purged by the crowned kings of censorship - Google

......who are they using as a search engine for the site ?

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

i suppose much the same as our own RTE reporter outside the hospitals telling us about the unionist that died up north... he died next morning.

Mitch Connor

Maybe they were told it was going to come down, misunderstood and in haste, reported that it had come down, while not actually being aware what building they were talking about.

jessop1

So Glad wrote:

What the hell? Thats crazy. How can she say it collapsed when it's standing right behind her? This is MADNESS......

Yes, it is.

Any attempts to debunk this can only be clutching at very thin straws.

DublinWriter

I can just see David Icke having a field day with this: "The BBC...the Illuminati!...look carefully at 2.37 and the reporter changes into a shape-shifting lizard!"

Seriously, I do believe 9/11 was somewhat of an inside job, WTC7 being the loose-thread in the overall jumper, but to suggest that the BBC were complicit is nutz. Nutz, not because the BBC is beyond reproach (which they are not!), but nutz because the BBC is one of the most shambolic and beurocratic organisations you'll ever encounter.

I'd suggest, given the overall drama and panic of the day, they were told that WTC7 was about to collapse and the reporter arsed it up.

But it still begs the question, how were they so sure (not the BBC, whoever told the BBC) that WTC7 was about to collapse when it looked so structurally intact and had only a handful of fires inside?

jessop1

they are complicit because they are shills and yes men who do and say what they are told. No-one is accusing them of having the mental capacity to be masterminds behind the whole thing. That doesnt exhonerate them of their services to very very evil people. (or lizards as the case may be)

DublinWriter

The official BBC response:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html

Note how in point 1 he states "Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th." then contradicts himself in point 3 "she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services." (my emphasis)

bonkey

How is that contradictory?

The BBC says no-one told The BBC what to say or do, but says that a BBC reporter was being fed information from other BBC colleagues who were monitoring information sources.

So, the BBC received info from one-way-communications, the BBC decided internally what to pass on to the BBC reporter, who then reported on it. Where in this is there a contradiction with the assertion that no-one told the BBC what to do???

Diogenes

jessop1 wrote:

they are complicit because they are shills and yes men who do and say what they are told. No-one is accusing them of having the mental capacity to be masterminds behind the whole thing. That doesnt exhonerate them of their services to very very evil people. (or lizards as the case may be)

Jessop are you suggesting that the dozens of BBC reporters, technicans, camera people, editors, producers and directors were in on "teh conspiracy"? If so, how have they been kept silenced over the years?

So Glad wrote:

What the hell? Thats crazy. How can she say it collapsed when it's standing right behind her? This is MADNESS......

Why yes So Glad it is standing right behind her. At least a mile right behind her. With the benefit of hindsight she looks like she's foolish or lying but tell me this; On the day of sept 11th 2001, could you idenitify WTC7 in the NYC sky line? Did you even know there were more than two building in the WTC complex? And which is more plausible that the BBC were in on the fact that the WTC 7 was about to be brought down in a controlled demolition, and leaked the news too soon? Or that the BBC recieved constant reports throughout the day that the WTC 7 was in danger of, or about to collaspe. Reports that have been already published on this forum. Statements from FNDY personal about the building being fully involved in fire, and in serious structural danger of collaspe.

So using Occam's razor which is more plausible that the BBC accidently jumped the gun (BTW do I need to provide further examples of live 24hr rolling news cock ups?) or that yet more people were in on this ever sprawling conspiracy theory?

mike65

Oh noes! Comfusing rains!

Seriously folks GET A FUPPING LIFE

Mike.

jessop1

As I've said, the debunking attempts on this one can only be clutching at thin straws, in the face of the smoking gun evidence.

So far on this thread we've seen - attack the messenger, irellevant comparisons, attempts to sidetrack the debate etc.

Quoting Diogenes:
"Jessop are you suggesting that the dozens of BBC reporters, technicans, camera people, editors, producers and directors were in on "teh conspiracy"? If so, how have they been kept silenced over the years?"

No Diogenes, as I believe you well know. We've had this argument before where you attempt to imply that in order for any covert media manipulation to occur everyone from the camera man to the tea boy must be in it otherwise it wouldnt work, therefore it cannot be happening. This is of course ridiculous - to suggest it is not only is it an insult to my and others intelligence, its an insult to your own intelligence I feel! Media corporations, like all corporations, governments and power structures are controlled through hierarchies, where only those at the top have absolute knowledge and power and where the scope for unchecked corruption at this top level is massive.

But anyway, I digress (as many a debunker here would have it ).

The bottom line on this thread is that the BBC have been caught here with their pants down bigtime and no amount of debunking attempts can cover it up or muddy the waters this time

peace y'all :cool:

Diogenes

jessop1 wrote:

As I've said, the debunking attempts on this one can only be clutching at thin straws, in the face of the smoking gun evidence.

So far on this thread we've seen - attack the messenger, irellevant comparisons, attempts to sidetrack the debate etc.

No. We've asked some simple questions which you've side stepped. You call this a smoking gun. A smoking gun that proves what crime?

That the towers were in danger of collaspe? Not even worthy of debate. I've literally quoted two dozens FDNY personal on the ground on the day who stated that they knew that WTC 7 was in danger of collapse. DublinWriter is still ignoring the evidence of the massive widepsread fires, that the building was "fully involved" in fire. And recieved serious structural damage from falling debry.

That the BBC were in on this? You've not provided a shred of evidence that the BBC isn't jumping the gun. They've recieved reports that the building is danger of, or about to collapse, and that there was a crossed wire on the day, and a miscommunication.

No Diogenes, as I believe you well know. We've had this argument before where you attempt to imply that in order for any covert media manipulation to occur everyone from the camera man to the tea boy must be in it otherwise it wouldnt work, therefore it cannot be happening. This is of course ridiculous - to suggest it is not only is it an insult to my and others intelligence, its an insult to your own intelligence I feel! Media corporations, like all corporations, governments and power structures are controlled through hierarchies, where only those at the top have absolute knowledge and power and where the scope for unchecked corruption at this top level is massive.

Yes Jessop you've made this claim before. Where you have fallen down is when you've been asked to clarify who in these media corporations are "in on it". The head of news? The board of governors? The director general?

Jessop I sincerely doubt you've been in the gallery of a major news organisation in the midst of a major breaking news story. But can you not imagine how bizarre it would be if the Director General, or Head of News buzzed in and informed the Director that WTC 7 had collapsed? How out of place and bizarre should a call would be placed? How the director, and his technicans, and everyone else who overhears this call wouldn't comment on this?

But anyway, I digress (as many a debunker here would have it ).

The bottom line on this thread is that the BBC have been caught here with their pants down bigtime and no amount of debunking attempts can cover it up or muddy the waters this time

peace y'all :cool:

No. I don't really thinks that what happened hear at all. If anyone is clutching at straws its the conspiracy theorists. You keep shouting that this is a smoking gun, you just cannot tell us just what this proves.

mike65

Media screws up during live coverage in chaotic environment shocker!

Bored desk-bound mouse-clicking monkey posts about it 6 years later shocker.

I just read through this and the comments thread on PrisonPlanet (!) , really you are in the company of total fruits.

Mike.

is_that_so

Look at US networks calling the US Presidential Election 2000 or Sky any day of the week for two simple examples. Big stories like that cause enormous confusion and there tend to be a lot of "unconfirmed reports". That venerable institution "The Sun" used to have a sign (so it is said) which said "Make it fast, Make it accurate". Proper journalism works the other way round but with 24 TV that luxury doesn't exist any more.
I recall the day well myself and there was huge confusion over what was happening, what had happened and when things happened.
With respect to the OP, your premise is flimsy at best and merely reinforces the comments of the X-Files writer at the end of the

ridiculously biased 9/11 "hitpiece"

.

Diogenes

is_that_so wrote:

Look at US networks calling the US Presidential Election 2000 or Sky any day of the week for two simple examples. Big stories like that cause enormous confusion and there tend to be a lot of "unconfirmed reports". That venerable institution "The Sun" used to have a sign (so it is said) which said "Make it fast, Make it accurate". Proper journalism works the other way round but with 24 TV that luxury doesn't exist any more.

Sky News' internal informal staff motto is;
"Sky News. Never wrong for long."

For those who believe the BBC could never make such a cock up. Remember this guy?

DublinWriter

mike65 wrote:

Oh noes! Comfusing rains!

LIZARD LANGUAGE! The mask finally slips!

...I for one always had my doubts about you, Mike65, or should I say TRANTOR OF THE ELIXIS NEBULAE!

mike65

Heh! Reading through those website threads one has to wonder about how many would be worthy subjects for Jon Ronson.

A poster asks why does the feed from NY suddenly die about two mins before the block in question collapses. Well it died due to a tecnical SNAFU, to suggest anything other is to invite ridicule. I mean its not like John Birt (in charge of BBC at the time) is a Jew or anything.

Mike.

jessop1

mike65 wrote:

Bored desk-bound mouse-clicking monkey posts about it 6 years later shocker.

Mike.

While these types of personal insults bother me not a jot, I'll be interested to see how the conspiracy forum mods react to this, if at all (after all mike is a mod himself), given that they have given me lengthy bans for things far less offensive.

Billy the Squid, what say you good sir?

In the meantime, I shall post some more interesting resources on this topic later this evening. Go on debunkers - say it - you cant wait!

mike65

Ban me, ban me now!

Thankyou (I'll say this now before it happens).

Mike.

bonkey

If we are to take this reporting by BBC as being somehow sinister, I'm wondering how we should interpret reports from the same day that a bomb went off on Capitol Hill, or that there was a car-bomb at the State Department.

Should we also take these as statements of fact? Should we not assume that tehre was supposed to be a bomb at Capitol Hill, but that a timing mistake meant its existence was announced before it went off, and it was either found/defused and/or simply failed to go off?

Similarly, does it not suggest there was a screw-up with the car-bomb at the SD, and that again its detonation was prematurely commented on?

If not, why not?

That WTC7 was going to collapse was known hours before the building fell down. There was no doubt.

That reporting errors were made on the day in question is beyond question.

That these two factors could combine to result in a mis-reporting of the collapse of WTC7 is, however, apparently proof-boyond-doubt that something is fishy. I'm not sure how, but we're assured it is. I'm hoping someone can explain to me how....and explain why the same logic has not been applied to other reporting errors of the day, such as the afore-mentioned Capitol Hill and State Department cases.

Most importantly, I'm hoping someone can explain to me what possible logic someone would apply to pre-inform news stations of an event like this. We have the biggest news story in a decade, unfolding live. We have unprecedented amounts of live coverage - untold numbers of television stations worldwide are giving it constant coverage. And yet, despite this massive concentration of attention, we're supposed to believe that someone informed some news stations that a significant event was about to occur that they needed to pay attention to!!! Why??? What possible reason would they have for this (whoever they are supposed to be)? What possible reason would they have for ensuring the world's attention was brought onto an event that apparently they wanted to hide in the confusion of the day? What possible reason would they have for communicating this to news channels, thus risking additional exposure (if the communication were ever discovered/leadked)???

If its not clear...the point I'm driving towards is this: there is no explanation which makes as much sense, or which is as consistent with the events of the day as "it was a case of mis-reporting".

Naturally, some people will take up Macco's Razor instead of Occam's and conclude that this simple explanation takes second place to a far more complex one, which raises more questions than it allegedly answers and which involves a greater number of assumptions.

They are, as always, entitled to their belief.

Nick_oliveri

CNN did something similar.

Why start a new thread?

mike65

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Mike.

jessop1

mike65 wrote:

A poster asks why does the feed from NY suddenly die about two mins before the block in question collapses. Well it died due to a tecnical SNAFU,

said with such authority! how in the bejebus do you know this?? and you dont think its even slightly strange that this feed died 2 minutes before the building collapse and the reporter having already reported in the same feed/camera shot its collapse a good number of minutes before???? hmmm....

mike65 wrote:

to suggest anything other is to invite ridicule.

To suggest anything at all other than the official story of 9/11, to question its credibility in any way at all here is to invite ridicule from the incessant debunkers.

To answer the questions as to what the smoking gun is, well, the immediate reporting and media coverage in the aftermath of such a significant and emotional event plays a major part in shaping peoples views of it, because perceptions are still so fluid at that point. Experienced mind manipulators and propagandists know this. Is it possible the BBC and CNN's "SNAFU's" were to accidentally run this particular part of the script for the day ahead of schedule?

While we are on the subject, here is a short video which shows some of the the media tactics used on the day to shape perceptions...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2769765528126140323

Of course there are reams of other examples and one of them I recall finding very strange at the time was that bin ladens face and talk of bin laden was all over the tv screens within a couple of hours .. now in all of this media mellee you debunkers say was happening on the day, is it not slightly strange that all the major networks knew within a couple of hours of the attacks that it was bin laden and were incessantly purporting this story? and of course now bin laden and 9/11 are totally synonamous with each other in in the public perception...

jessop1

mike65 wrote:

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Mike.

I think you mean Muck.

try this instead.

http://www.wtc7.net/toc.html

Diogenes

Again jessop1 who exactly in media organisations is in on the conspiracy. You've spouted on that "certain indviduals" have control and can dictate media so please name them, and their positions. Since you speak with such authority.

jessop1 wrote:

said with such authority! how in the bejebus do you know this?? and you dont think its even slightly strange that this feed died 2 minutes before the building collapse and the reporter having already reported in the same feed/camera shot its collapse a good number of minutes before???? hmmm....

Yeah because live feeds never breaj down. Ever.

To suggest anything at all other than the official story of 9/11, to question its credibility in any way at all here is to invite ridicule from the incessant debunkers.

To answer the questions as to what the smoking gun is, well, the immediate reporting and media coverage in the aftermath of such a significant and emotional event plays a major part in shaping peoples views of it, because perceptions are still so fluid at that point. Experienced mind manipulators and propagandists know this. Is it possible the BBC and CNN's "SNAFU's" were to accidentally run this particular part of the script for the day ahead of schedule?

While we are on the subject, here is a short video which shows some of the the media tactics used on the day to shape perceptions...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2769765528126140323

Of course there are reams of other examples and one of them I recall finding very strange at the time was that bin ladens face and talk of bin laden was all over the tv screens within a couple of hours .. now in all of this media mellee you debunkers say was happening on the day, is it not slightly strange that all the major networks knew within a couple of hours of the attacks that it was bin laden and were incessantly purporting this story? and of course now bin laden and 9/11 are totally synonamous with each other in in the public perception...

You know bin laden attacked the WTC before and wanted its collaspe|?

So Glad

Hmm, I forget what post it was put I'll just talk about it anyways. The whole "If there is a conspiracy, how can it be kept from all the people working on it". Really easily. For example, don't tell them. Nobody gives a **** in their daily lives to be considering a conspiracy until it's right in their face, and undeniable.

Also, millions of Germans, praising a guy they called their great leader who was nice to kids and new better for the country, killed millions of people intentionally, big shock, nobody new, happens.

jessop1

Diogenes wrote:

Again jessop1 who exactly in media organisations is in on the conspiracy. You've spouted on that "certain indviduals" have control and can dictate media so please name them, and their positions. Since you speak with such authority.

zzzz.. I'm getting bored with this silly tactic of yours. Its clear that the scope and potential for unchecked corruption is there, that was the point I made earlier. The onus is not on me to name all of these criminals, what a ridiculous request and indicative of your shambolic argument on this point.

Diogenes wrote:

Yeah because live feeds never breaj down. Ever.

strange that you dont find the circumstances and timing strage. hmmm...

Diogenes wrote:

You know bin laden attacked the WTC before and wanted its collaspe|?

so the story goes

nacho libre

What is puzzling about it is how the BBC news tapes of the most significant new story of the new millennium semmingly no longer exist. Though, the conspiractors would have to be morons to release this information in advance to the BBC or any news organisation. Logically, if they were that moronic they couldn't pull off 9/11.

jessop1

nacho libre wrote:

What is puzzling about it is how the BBC news tapes of the most significant new story of the new millennium semmingly no longer exist.

As Diogenes might sarcastically say: "News tapes never go missing. ever.

nacho libre wrote:

The conspiractors would have to be morons to release this information in advance to the BBC or any new organisations. Logically, if they were that moronic they couldn't pull 9/11 off.

Well, leaks happen. or perhaps eventual full or partial revelation of the conspiracy is all part of the plan? or perhaps the whole thing is a psyop whose purpose is not yet known.