BBC World reported WTC7 collapse before it happened

[MrEguy]

Here are two HI Res JPGs snapped from the Original 1Gig BBC Video File downloaded from archive.org -- before the entire 9/11 TV news archive was summarily deleted

[Busker]

[Craig W]

Come on guys. Remember Occam's Razor?

If we can conceive of the BBC erronesously broadcasting a time-embargoed news release telling of the collapse then we can certainly also conceive of them mistakenly issuing a "has collapsed" story out of an "is expected to collapse" story.

Sure, it could have been the former but it could also easily have been the latter and we will never know which was the case or be able to prove anything.

They are not perfect, journalists can't always double check things because of time pressure and the need for copy.

Let's say the BBC say the source was an unnamed FEMA official or FBI officer. Where does that get us? Nowhere.

I think way too much is being made of this. At best it is a minor piece of circumstantial evidence which supports the suspicion that WTC7 was a controlled demolition and that people were forewarned.

I really don't see why people are getting so excited.

Can someone please persuade me why I should be excited?

[Graham]

Craig, what do you make of the response?

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

[Craig W]

It is pretty much as I expected, Brian.

In my post of 12:14pm yesterday (which I also posted on Loose Change Forum) I predicted the BBC response as follows:

"We made a mistake. Our reporters had heard that WTC7 was unstable and was expected to collapse soon and somehow got our wires crossed.

We simply didn't realise that the building smouldering in the background on the live feed was WTC7.

I am sure we all remember how intense and confusing the day's events were. There was a lot going on and a lot of reports flying around. It was very difficult to keep on top of the story and verify facts.

We have to admit we got this one wrong. We should have checked it out."

Here is the BBC's actual response:

[marky 54]

[QuitTheirClogs]

[Sinclair]

has a good piece on the BBC 'responses.

[AJ]

As I (and others) have said before, the original upload (Google clip) stated the time as Eastern Standard Time (EST) which is 5 hours behind GMT. But on September 11, NY was on Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) which is only 4 hours behind GMT and BBC World does not have a timecode for obvious reasons. If (as stated here by a recent poster), there was a BBC braodcast with a timecode of 21:50, that would been a BBC News and if it was 21:50, that would have been 17:50 in NY surely (i.e half an hour after the collapse of WTC7)?

It's true that few people in London would know whether that *was* WTC7 behind the reporter, whee was it shot from? My doubts were raised when the people who produced the edited clip used EST and created the London syncronisation 'confusion'. When NY went to EST the next month, there *was* then a 5 hour difference from GMT. But why did the editor/poster use EST? Was it to muddle/mislead or was it just a mistake? Why was the clip pulled from this site and Google?

On the other hand, the 1GB clip (*allegedly* archived at:
www.archive.org/search.php?query=collection%3Asept_11_tv_archive&sort= -publicdate

seems to have the time period in the file name, but even this remains unproven (one poster has said that the BBC doubted it was theirs). It's the timecode that matters. It did have the time in the filename (see page 4 of this thread), but it's only in the info on the clip at the above archive site which stated that it was EDT. This was why I made the point about the files not being available at 7pm on Tuesday. Since around the tiome of that post, the archive site files seems to have become inaccessible. Is it a genuine site, phishing, or an edited upload? There are many such questions which need ansering *as sound reserch before people start jumping to conclusions* - but people have not done that, why?

http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/chronology.attack/

My earlier conjectures (see part 2 of my earlier post last night) were primarily to illustrate the use (i.e as careful hypothesis which one then seeks to refute not to prove) vs the abuse (where on just affirms the antecedent) of 'counterfactual conditionals'. I fear many evangelical bloggers in the states (perhaps unwittingly?) abuse this logic to create controversy and bring in advertisers and revenue. All great fun, but...

We live in anarchic and mercenary times...........caveat emptor....


PS. The explanation for the fuzzy disconnected image to the left of the screen being a reflection is credible.

[xmasdale]

I have not looked at the time issue in detail but I think some confusion over time zones and summer time is a very possible explanation for this anomaly and we should therefore avoid making fools of ourselves by rushing to declare publicly that this is evidence of deliberate misinformation, before sorting the time issue out.

Noel

[hampton]

i didn't realise mr porter was head of 'bbc world' which is a commercial entity, I think. the bbc uk helpline wouldn't deal with it because 'bbc world' is a seperate entity. so why do they use the bbc website to spout their propaganda?

and his ramblings are pretty moronic.

it's not the first time the bbc have been accused of being part of the conspiracy, although i don't know who suggested this to him. i thought people were just asking questions. most people know the bbc lies (mainly by ommission), manipulates and spins. it's known by many as blair's broadcasting corporation. they pump out the same rubbish as the rest of the media. the bbc are a major part of the conspiracy!

the facts show that they simply must have had some advanced knowledge of collapse if not why did they report it?

jane standley must have known before now that wtc7 was reported collapsed before it did. it happened only 5mins after the live feed was lost. they must have been packing up or trying to get reconnected when it happened. someone must have noticed it.

the 'lost tapes' is just a joke but we can provide a backup for them!

it seems bbcnews24 reported the collapse 26 mins before it happened.

now if a report had come in that the statue of liberty had fallen over would they do an on location report without checking first?

[The Watcher]

AJ states:

[Anthony Lawson]

What the Newsreader Asked

Perhaps the content of the news broadcast should be analysed more closely, before we dismiss this glaring anachronism as being an ‘honest mistake’ or because the people involved would not have been familiar with what WTC7 looked like. To my mind, it isn’t just the fact that the building was yet to fall, one of the newsreader’s questions was pretty suspicious, as well.

It is not from want of trying, but I have been unable to pin down the exact date and time when George W Bush made the proclamation:

‘If you are not with us, you are with the terrorists.’

But I am almost certain that he did not come out with this piece of verbal garbage until after 5:19 PM on September 11, 2001, when WTC7 did collapse. For a start, I doubt that Bush’s minders would have let him in front of a television camera or a microphone until a cosmetically decent period had passed and it was okay to relax the ‘heavy security that the leader of the free world would have been placed under,’ following such a dastardly attack on his beloved people.

So, if Bush had yet to offer the world his infamous choice, then the question asked by the newsreader—about what the public might be saying—in the re-discovered BBC footage, seems to have been incredibly prescient:

Newsreader: “Are they talking, yet, about revenge and what the government should do to counter this threat or are they numb still?”

Notice that he didn’t ask: “Does anyone have any idea who might be responsible.”

Nor did he ask: “Has any official made any statement as to how these aircraft were able to crash into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon without a sign of any military intervention?

He didn’t even enquire if the air traffic controllers knew anything about how the planes had managed to get through and crash into buildings in the two most important cities in America, without any warnings being given.

Remember that he was in London, asking questions of the person on the spot, so he would have had no idea as to what kind of information his colleague might have been able to come by, during the day. Yet he bypasses The Who? and The How? and homes straight in on what we all now realise was what those who perpetrated these acts would be hoping for: a strong desire, in the American population, for...

Revenge!

Which was, of course, The Why? Only we didn’t know it, at the time.

I wonder who was writing the stuff that would have been appearing on his teleprompter, or being relayed to him through his earpiece. Creepy stuff.

[Graham]

[blackcat]

The time of the broadcast is not an issue. It was made over 20 minutes before the collapse of WTC 7 whatever time you care to use, and the building was shown behind the commentator in a live feed. The man in the London studio also stated that it was "now some eight hours since the attack" and the hour pips had just sounded a few minutes before.

[Serge]

JREFers need to move away from time issues. No matter what time it is, the facts are crystal clear. WTC7 is still standing as the reporting clearly states it has collapsed, when it hasn't. Inserting timestamp posts is muckying the water. Leave timestamps alone, it has no bearing whatsoever.

[QuitTheirClogs]

[Serge]

Furthermore to add to evidence that foreknowledge is the case here, anyone remember the hundreds of cases of the foreknowledge of IRA bombs set to go off in the years past?. Coded messages were given to the authorities and buildings/locations were evacuated before they went off. Silverstein saying 'decided to pull it' is clear indication warning was given.

[Craig W]

[Craig W]

I have just submitted the following entry to the BBC Editor's blog (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy. html#commentsanchor)

I am waiting to see if gets published.

[EmptyBee]

Hello there, I'm a first time poster on this site.

I think this is important because the BBC is now getting caught in a web of lies.

"Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive."

The foreknowledge that the reporting on CNN, BBC World and BBC News24 represents would not matter if there was good reason to believe WTC7 was unstable/collapsing. It's clear from other video footage that people knew the building was going to "blow up" the question remains, how did this knowledge circulate? How did a newswire pick up this rumour of imminent collapse/actual collapse so far in advance? Who was the source? Reuters? FEMA, FDNY or some other government agency? A collapse implies a failure of the building core. NIST speculates that it was a 'progressive' collapse starting from a localised point of failure as a consequence of structural and fire damage. And yet they acknowledged that this was a "low probability" scenario. How was anyone able to predict such an improbable event as this collapse before it happened? That's the bottom line.

And so the Mr. Porter actual denies that they were told of the imminent collapse - this is a naked lie in the context of the video. If they were told of the collapse of building 7 'by mistake' that begs the question, 'how could such prescient information have come to light, even if it was in error at the time?'

And now they claim to have LOST their tapes. This is beyond belief. Either they still have them or they have been deliberately removed.

The bs is piling up so fast around this story you need wings to keep above it.

[Craig W]

[kookomula]

You know what? We should just ask Larry what he meant when he said pull-it.

Maybe Dara, his Communications Secretary could put us in touch with him.

http://www.silversteinproperties.com/

CONTACT is at the top of the page in the grey bar

[Serge]

[brian]

FOREKNOWLEDGE.

We Know Mayor Giuliani was forewarned by the OEM (Office of Emergency Management) that the twin towers were going to collapse.

FACT - Giuliani was warned of the collapses.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_giuliani.html

From Giuliani's own mouth -

"-- we were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was going to collapse. And it did collapse before we could actually get out of the building,"

We Know CNN et al were reporting the imminent collapse of WTC 7 -
Aaron Brown CNN 4:10PM 20010911 WTC 7 Foreknowledge -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1LetB0z8_o

We Know the BBC were reporing the collapse before it happened.

WHAT WE WANT TO KNOW is who were those disseminating this information. Who at the OEM knew the twin towers were going to collapse and were they the same people forewarning of the WTC 7 collapse?

How did they know this?

How is that there is not yet an explanation for the collapse of WTC 7?

How could these predictions been arrived at when never before in history has a steel framed building collapsed due to fire?

The BBc cannot claim a mistake when this same "mistake" was repeated time and time again alongside other networks saying the same so who or what body was their source?

[EmptyBee]

Yes this video's initital impact is clearly a big WTF?!?! However it needs to be placed in context of other primary evidence from the day.


The BBC News 24 footage, claiming a collapse at 4:54

[Craig W]

You've hit the nail full-square on the head there, Empty.

That is the $64,000 dollar question.

[DrJazzz]

On the boards at urban75.com there was a thread running during 9/11: I've checked the times and the collapse of WTC7 was reported at 8.55 UTC which equates to 4.55pm EDT.

I am kicking myself for not spotting it!



(viewing the boards in GMT/UTC)

[reprehensor]

Hi guys.

I'm trying to find out if both of these videos were derived from the same source, the "Internet Archive".

The newest with time-stamp;
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-770929074608938354&hl=en-GB

The original from the weekend;
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=49f_1172526096&c=1

Also, does anyone have these on unedited VHS tape?

Assuming that both videos derive from the same digital file(s)... who upped them to the Archive?

Anyone have definitive answers on this?

(sorry if this has already been addressed)

[locsen]

I emailed & MSP's along with my "first minister" (tony blairs puppet jack mcconnell)

so far, one has been courteous enough to at least reply.....


"Thank you for your email and for bringing to my attention a matter I was unaware of.



As I understand it, any initial investigation into the report in question would need to be lodged by an MP, rather than an MSP, as broadcasting is a matter reserved to Westminster.



I will, however, look into the matter and let you know if I think there is anything I can usefully do to pursue it.



Best wishes.



Donald Gorrie MSP

Central Scotland

0131 348 5795"







anyone had anything back from a westminster MP???