BBC World reported WTC7 collapse before it happened

[TheSea]

and discuss the social network of Bill Bailey....
we could dare I suggest..... just ask the BBC each of these questions...ask them again... and again ..
Porters first response was a gift ...a niave uninformed response it says a lot.... follow the chain back. Email specific journos at the beeb.
Some confuse the Truth movement with a self appointed fringe organisation who can solve the outstanding issues of 911.
The 911 truth may only advance if it raises the questions it discusses internally, externally in a main stream public domain.
Jane Standley can answer , or provide a link to a person capable of answering every question we are quizzing each other about in this thread.
Jane Standley knows (or can work out )the building she was in, so does the camera man, so does the news editor. They also know how the "facts" reported were given to them they can also claim the film is faked...their silence is their achilles heel there response could be a golden challis.

118 118 ask for
BBC White City or BBC Broadcasting House go for unrelated news programmes the editor, get a name first, give yourself a good blag :-
your writing an article on how News is covered in times of emergency
get some names from him....
step by step..Then if you do fall back its one step at a time,
If you take a giant leap you fall straight to the bottom and have to start again.

Many of us believe it was an inside job....who cares what we believe ......stay on the objective creating a wider climate that exposes truth. We do not have the resources or talents to expose it conclusively ourselves.
Press questions in a mainstream public forum or from public organisations. We can't control mass media but we could try and tease it close to the heat.

The 911truth movement remains a brilliantly crafted game players first response tool that identifies and refocuses any issue that could be in any danger of exposing a trail to the Truth.....
Suited and booted tacticians with a proud smirk, they silently climb in and out of the ring always making sure the correct boxer falls but making sure the fight is never won.

Ding Ding

[SHERITON HOTEL]

Could someone get me up to speed on these 17 pages is it right there's a CT going round here that the Jane Standley/BBC anchorman 911 film is shrek22 animation fabricated by Beeb hating fringe truthers in revenge for 911 conspiracy files trash telly prog'?

I went to the James Randi J-Ref site yesterday and you know how the zealots there have bought the official 911 narrative and spend all their time abusing anyone who dares question it? well there's this thread devoted to debating the Enfield poltergeist, subject of a CH4 documentary tuesday, and almost to a person they think the curious events that occured in Enfield 77/8 were a conspiracy by the three children and their ageing mother. I thought it was ironic.

[scubadiver]

20 pages of discussion on US forum board

Worth a read

BBC tapes reveal events happening 23 minutes later..., roll your eyes at this one...as BBC tries to explain

http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=7127 8&st=380

[who murdered di ?]

[telecasterisation]

who murdered di wrote?;

[cybe]

Dear Fremen,

Yesterday, on the 27th February 2007, hundreds of thousands of people with access to the internet, were able to see a video, or hear about it, which showed a female (Jane Standly) BBC reporter on 9-11 (2001), stating that the Salomon Brother's building, also known as WTC 7, had collapsed. Trouble is, the building was still standing at the time of the report, and could clearly be seen behind the reporter in the background. The time-stamp of the video also shows that the report took place approximately twenty-six minutes before the actual collapse of WTC Building 7.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/280207timestamp.htm
 
Today, on the 28th February 2007, the BBC (that you fund) is being pressured by thousands of 9-11 truth activists to name the source of this claim; which reveals prior knowledge of the building's collapse; and is refusing to name it. WTC 7 was never hit by a plane, and only suffered; according to eyewitness reports confirmed by video footage; minor damage to one side, and minor fires. Videos of the actual collapse clearly show the building was “pulled” in a controlled demolition. There were explosives already in place in the building in the building. It was an inside-job.

If you are a Brit who no longer wishes to shut your eyes to the fact that the BBC are collaborating with the real (and as yet unpunished) 9-11 mass-murderers, in protecting the real 9-11 evidence from being disclosed, and are aggrieved to your very soul by the thought of having to continue to fund these government-licking media whores, then the information that follows should certainly interest you.

Why? Because there is no LEGAL requirement for you to pay for a TV License.

So, as it has now clearly been proven that the BBC had foreknowledge of the destruction of WT7 on 9-11, and that the BBC is part of the problem that we all face with the satanic N.W.O. and their control of the British and U. S. governments and media that they use against the people who pay their wages: do you want to keep funding your own demise and their lavish lifestyles, or are you willing to fight them and bring them down, before they complete their plans for a 95% population reduction that involves murdering you and your family and friends?

If you want to stop funding your own demise, demand a refund on your TV license, so that they can no longer use your own money against you. When enough people do that it will force them to stop their evil plot. The more people who do this, the more it will show them just how many people are onto them, and the more people, the more afraid they will become.

At first they will threaten you, saying they will take you to court over non-payment of your “compulsory” TV license, using their own unlawful legislation that you can easily defend yourself against by sending for the “Bullet-Proof Defence Pack” from:- http://jforjustice.co.uk

How much is your TV license? What will it be next year and the year after, and the year after, without end?

Send them a clear message that you are onto them, by demanding a refund on your TV license and sending for the Bullet-Proof Defense. Get everyone you know to do the same, so that THEY* hear the message loud and crystal clear.

The Bullet-Proof Defence is a one time only offer, that will last you a lifetime and can be used against this and all other man-made legislation, and will save you thousands of pounds in the long-run, and bring down those trying to harm you with their false propaganda, their phoney wars and terrorist attacks, like 9-11 and 7/7/2005, that the governments are committing themselves and using their media to brainwash you into believing is done by Islamic terrorists.

It’s time to fight back and win before they destroy you all.

Long live the Fighters,

Muad’Dib.

* The Hierarchy Enslaving You.

[blackcat]

Moderators - the above post is a money-seeking scam.

[cybe]

[blackcat]

[cybe]

[scar]

I like the sound of it but surely if it was really all about justice it would be free? (+ donations from happy 'customers' perhaps)
Why not bung it up on the web via torrent?
Us fremen are quite poor ya know. I dont have 100 quid nor do i have a TV or legal problems but ya never know...

'It’s time to fight back and win before they destroy 'US' all...'

I cant see a testimonial from Daniel on that page btw.

[cybe]

[Dogsmilk]

[scar]

Ahhhh its the jahtruth stuff, i didnt realise...
Oh well.

[The Watcher]

Extracted From The Plan Against the NWO:

[Dogsmilk]

Daniel's testimonial is great -

[scar]

If courts bow to gods law so easily I can see this whole thing getting somewhat out of hand. Like errrr if your wife committed adultery for example and you exacted the kinda revenge recommended in the old testament...

If Daniel injured someone going 70 in a 30, and still lived, would he get off scott free?. He appears to think he would. I find this a touch alarming.
How would god feel about all this?

Have you tried plying your wares around the nations prisons?
Thousands to be made there surely.

[Dogsmilk]

[TonyGosling]

gonna lock this topic now -

the discussion goes on here though

and keep ON TOPIC please

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=7749

[TonyGosling]

Richard Porter, pull the other one lizard man

God bless the web's truth seekers
By Axegrinder
Press Gazette
Monday, 19 March 2007
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/article/190307/axegrinder_160307

Axegrinder is not one to indulge in idle conspiracy theory speculation, but could it be possible that the BBC is run by shape-shifting lizard people who are in league with Al Qaeda?

I only ask because of a much-watched piece of BBC World footage on Google Video which shows reporter Jane Standley reporting the collapse of the Salomon Brothers building (also known as WTC 7) on 11 September, 2001 - 20 minutes before it actually fell.

You can see the building clearly still standing behind her.

As cattleprods911 says in the Google Video comments section: "Now that 9/11 is unravelling, as is Waco, the anti-conspiracy theorists are quickly becoming the 'NUTS', and my guess is they are sucking on one kind of government tit or another! God bless you truth seekers!"

Here, here.

Richard Porter, head of news for BBC World, has issued a response on The Editors, the BBC editors' blog. But does he protest too much? He says:

- We're not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on 11 September. We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening.

- In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had. We did what we always did - sourced our reports, used qualifying words like "apparently" or "it's reported" or "we're hearing" and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving.

- Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks and, like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I've spoken to her today and, unsurprisingly, she doesn't remember minute-by-minute what she said or did ¡ª like everybody else that day 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.

- We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of c***-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another.

- If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that.

Pull the other one lizard man.

[Stephen]

I don't see what this has got to do with David Icke's Lizards?

[ian neal]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/

[jaclec]

From the blog


World Trade Center Building 7 has become the subject of heated speculation and a host of conspiracy theories suggesting it was brought down by a controlled demolition. And some people suggest it was not just the government and foreign intelligence, but the police, the fire service, first responders and even the media that were involved.


It show whats to expect from "The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Third Tower" on Sunday.

They will avoid all the evidence and demonize anyone who questions the official story as a nutter, antisemite, or offending the famillies of the bereaved.

When reading the comments its refreshing to see more people question this nonsense.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/07/controversy_conspiracies _iii.html

Thats allowing for the bbc normal censorship of free speech.

[Snowygrouch]

Phoned up and made my opinions quite clear to the complaints department. Dont expect it to have any impact but it made me feel slightly less enraged after being subjected to 1 hour of monumentally idiotic television.

[SHERITON HOTEL]

So someone went and put September 11 2001's archives in the 2002 section.... are they having a laugh? are we supposed to buy that?? why did the beeb spend all that day trying to remove the prophetic Jane Standley WTC7 collapse report from youtube and can we see the New York transmission break report with the reason why the line went down at such an opportune moment, 5.15pm local time?

[TonyGosling]

[scubadiver]

I have just read 'Flat Earth News' by Nick Davies. According to him, most of the world's media get their news either through Reuters or Associated Press - usually unchecked. Even Reuters send out news unchecked.

It is a book worth reading.

[AntonH]

[TonyGosling]

Part of the conspiracy?
Richard Porter

27 Feb 07, 05:12 PM

The 9/11 conspiracy theories

[about OBL, not Blackwater, planning it you mean?]

are pretty well known by now. The BBC addressed them earlier this month with a documentary, The Conspiracy Files, shown within the UK.

Until now, I don't think we've been accused of being part of the conspiracy. But now some websites are using news footage from BBC World on September 11th 2001 to suggest we were actively participating in some sort of attempt to manipulate the audience.

[no, you just weren't doing your job as journalists and editors, you were simply repeating wrong information fed to you verbatim as if you had discovered it for yourselves]

As a result, we're now getting lots of emails asking us to clarify our position. So here goes:

1. We're not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down.

[yes you did - and you should have either checked facts yourself before broadcasting them or else named your source - in this cas Reuters - you didn't do either]

We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening.

[noone said you did - but you were not checking therefore not doing your job]

2. In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had. We did what we always did - sourced our reports,

[no you didn't did you?]

used qualifying words like "apparently" or "it's reported" or "we're hearing" and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving.

3. Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I've spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn't remember minute-by-minute what she said or did - like everybody else that day 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.

4. We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of c***-up, not conspiracy).

[yes you do - you just lost them - probably due to too much being paid to too many managers and not enough journalists and real employees]

So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another.

5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today "so the guy in the studio didn't quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy... "

[well that's hardly a representative comment is it Richard? All in all you give me no confidence whatsoever that you give a damn about your audience, just trying to save your dogs breakfast of a reputation. You are sending a message out loud and clear to anyone with ears to hear that your channel is up for auction to the highest bidder. You better hope not too many intelligent people read your pathetic statement. Well done to the Press Gazette at the time by the way for taking you apart]

Richard Porter is head of BBC World News

[simplesimon]

scubadiver wrote: