BBC World reported WTC7 collapse before it happened

[QuitTheirClogs]

[QuitTheirClogs]

Jane Standley knew very little (if anything) about the collapse of WTC7. The story was coming via the anchor man. When the anchor man links to Jane Standley and asks what more can she tell us about the WTC7 collapse, she replies:

[Eckyboy]

For me this article proves that someone somewhere knew this building was going to collapse but like the twin towers before it there was no way that it should have. I have seen numerous footage of building 7 and all I have ever found is fires on different floors albeit one of the fires seemed to be intense. Some firemen reported the building was sagging but I have never seen any footage of this or of any parts of the building breaking off or sounds of the structure weakening. There is ZERO reason why anybody would assume the building would collapse just because of a few fires and the BBC if it has any sense of decency at all would tell the public who supplied them this information in the first place.

[tomi01uk]

Well with the 911 Conspiracy Files hit piece and then Mr. Porter taking less of a position regarding these footages from this day, I have a suggestion.

I think it's time to put the right men and resouces of BBC back to work. Why not tackle this issue with a bit of a twist. Take a few from this board who are the main people who started it, the one who wrote the 70 issues of 911 would be my first choice. He is remarkable for writing that piece. Take a few of these people, some more of the BBC time and purse and go again to look at this issue. When the production is complete we will have a relatively unbiased piece and across the board spectrum from which to explore the issues at hand. It would be far more interesting to the viewers and provide the transparancy and use of all people resources necessary to give this issue it's fair due.

Would BBC agree to this? I think it's a great idea who's time has long come especially with an issue this important and complex.

[AJ]

I provided a link to a converter to show what happens when to the NY to GMT differences:

http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html

Put in 11 September 2001 - 17:20 (11/9 in UK, but 9/11 in USA), and 9th of November 2001 - 17:20 (9/11 in UK, but 11/9 in USA) and go with the data.

My points have simply been to encourage folk to look at technical points, deductive logic, and to draw attention to the fact that sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander

Good reporting is about getting one's facts right (as in science), not going beyond the information given, letting the evidence accumulate and applying logic.

The BBC usually does a reasonable job here (but no doubt makes occasional mistakes). Enthusiasts who just "know" what happened on 9/11 (11/9) should have a look at "The Power of Nighmares" series to see just how far the BBC lets its staff stir the pot (it was repeated but most folk didn't watch it or take it in it would seem. Which country *is* driving the Muslim Brotherhood? Keep an eye on who supports the Arab world and why.

On what basis does one reliably discriminate between cockup and conspiracy? As human psychology is so deeply flawed (see Kahneman's Nobel a few years ago) surely we should be far more tolerant of errors of judgement, have more respect for logic and scientific method, and accept that when evidence is lacking we have to either go and collect more, or just acknowledge that we don't know? The reason why so many folk don't do this, and why others prey upon them financially, is because the latter know that most folk are not that smart. If folk in the US and USA 911 movements don't want to be ridiculed by the likes of the BBC, don't behave like the 911 evangelists and just acknowledge the limits of the available data (like Steven Jones or Jim Hoffman).

[Keith Mothersson]

I remember how hardline the BBC were about the fuel from the planes melting the towers from day one.

The liveleak archive material also reminds me of how many of the subsequent story lines were already on the starting blocks in the first hours, e.g. Frank Gaffney developing the racist Islamophobic blowback model for Galloway and co to pick up in a report from Cairo that linked the 'attacks on America' (dodgy phrase, not sure he used it) to dissatisfaction in the Atrab world with Israel's treatment of the Palestinians.

The 911 crime was carried out by relatively small teams on behalf of the whole Military-industrial complex (get out of jail free cards to all the corporate criminals whose cases were destroyed in WTC7, for example) and involved full mobilisation of the huge Intel-Media complex as well.

My friend Paul Carline spotted another sign that that some top people at the BBC were fully complicit in the worldwide psyop:

[Serge]

[Ussa1]

[physicist]

I've found another video clip of the 10 o'clock news on BBC News 24 (9/11) which you can see HERE. There's a download link on there too.

It doesn't add much to the debate but just confirms they were reporting the collapse before it happened.

This time Gavin Estler gives the prophetic news from the studio.

Can this be put on Google and youtube please?

[Thermate]

[marky 54]

[physicist]

It's still there, Jane!

[fixuplooksharp]

In a related note which is of interest here, BBC World was (I’m reasonably sure) being run by a woman called Dame Pauline Neville-Jones in 2001. BBC World is also not funded by the British state, which many people won’t know, but is funded by corporate donations and other “sponsors.”

Anyhow, Dame Pauline once headed the Joint Intelligence Committee in the UK, a body which brings together the heads of the various British intelligence bodies with political leaders. She went from intelligence, to running the BBC World Service (radio) from which BBC World was spun off in 1995.

Since leaving the BBC World Service, she has taken up a role on the board of QinetiQ (a corporation spun off from the UK defense establishment, from the privatization of which the Carlyle Group recently made a killing). She is also on the advisory board of the Intelligence Summit – where she joins Richard Perle, Kenneth Timmerman, Alrezi Jafarzadeh (the source of the U.S. “intelligence” on Iranian nuclear weapons programs).

I thought that might be of interest, but as for any broader implications, I have nothing to add.

[ian neal]

Interesting

Thanks Fix

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Neville-Jones

[TonyGosling]

Now where have I heard the name Nevile-Jones before?

It looks like she would have been on the BBC Board of Governors. No less. Apologies for the long articles but both the Observer and Independent took the articles down and Bilderberg.org is now the only place you'll find it.

THE GOVERNORS WHO VOTED FOR DYKE TO GO...
http://www.bilderberg.org/pepis04.htm#quinetiq
Independent - 30th August 2004

DAME PAULINE NEVILLE-JONES
Position: Chairs the BBC's audit committee and the governors' World Service Consultative Group. Time spent on the board: She was appointed in January 1998 and her term of office has been extended to the end of next year. (doesn't mention her job as a director of the new private defense company QuinetiQ ed.)



PEPIS #61 - Bilderberg's backstabber at the BBC - 30Aug04
http://www.bilderberg.org/pepis04.htm#quinetiq

The role of BBC board member and 2004 Bilderberg attendee Pauline Neville-Jones in the ousting of the BBC's popular Director General Greg Dyke is revealed in the UK papers this weekend. Someone somewhere must like Dame Pauline because her term as a governor has been extended for an extra year beyond the normal maximum.
Below, from today's Independent, is the first analysis, albeit brief, I've yet seen of the business interrests of the various governors. A subject we should all make our job to scrutinise.

In another Bilderberg related story a suspected Isreali spy has been found in the office of Bilderberger, number three civillian official and US Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0410.marshallrozen.html

Tony

(qinetiq - their website is at http://www.qinetiq.com )


How two pillars of the establishment helped to engineer a very British coup at the BBC
My clashes with the two 'posh ladies'
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,6903,1293003,00.html

Greg Dyke
Sunday August 29, 2004 The Observer

Two BBC governors, Pauline Neville-Jones and Sarah Hogg, were far more vocal than the rest, and I nicknamed them 'the posh ladies'. It was clear neither liked me much and Sarah, I now know, actively disliked me. The feeling was mutual.

Pauline, a career civil servant at the Foreign Office and a former chair of the Joint Intelligence Committee, was among a number of governors who opposed my appointment as director-general. She was a powerful voice on the board, worked hard and was very clever in a manipulative, FO sort of way.

But neither I nor the two BBC chairmen I worked with, Christopher Bland and Gavyn Davies, ever totally trusted Pauline. She had applied to be deputy chairman and was turned down. She was incredibly ambitious but I always suspected she had not been as successful in life as she had wished.

Although a big supporter of the BBC, Sarah Hogg never left her politics or prejudices at the door of governors' meetings. She was married to a land-owning Tory MP, Douglas Hogg, and lived in a political world.

When we tried to update our political coverage, Sarah led the opposition: we shouldn't upset the politicians. She was upset by the lack of coverage of the Countryside March in September 2002 (probably the only march she'd ever been on). She insisted the BBC was not covering rural affairs properly, and got a full investigation, costing thousands of pounds.

This struck me as a classic case of special pleading from a governor who lived on the family estate in rural Lincolnshire.

Her term as a governor was due to finish, and she didn't want it renewed. Neither did Gavyn or I. By the time Hutton published his report, Sarah's time was almost up.

The day it appeared the governors met from 5pm until the early hours. Gavyn and I left after 40 minutes when they began discussing what should happen to the management team. We had agreed with Pauline Neville-Jones the previous night that it would be impossible for Gavyn and I to resign at the same time.

However, Gavyn announced his resignation before the meeting. As we left, I reminded Simon Milner, the BBC secretary [for governance and accountability] of what Gavyn and I had told him of our talk. It was Milner's job to tell the governors that if I was to go on, I needed their public support.

Sarah Hogg had her last chance to settle old scores. I now know that she arrived determined to get rid of me.

I waited in my office for maybe an hour and a half before Milner came to say Pauline and the deputy chairman, Richard Ryder, wanted to see me.

Ryder was pretty blunt. He said the governors had decided I should go: if I stayed I'd be a lame-duck director-general. This was ridiculous: there was never a chance of me being a lame-duck anything.

I asked if this was the view of them all. Richard told me he hadn't expressed a view but was reporting the views of the rest. Pauline said nothing.

I hadn't seen it coming. I was completely shocked. I had no idea what to say. I pointed out I had a contract they would have to honour, but if they didn't want me I wouldn't stay.

I went back to my office and sat stunned. I had worked flat out for four years to turn round a deeply unhappy and troubled organisation, and I was now being thrown out by the people I respected least, the governors. My main emotion was disbelief.

Before Gavyn headed home at about 11 pm, he decided to say a final goodbye to his former colleagues, but when he walked into the room he found the atmosphere had changed completely. It was a very hostile environment, with the aggression mainly coming from Sarah, who, he said, 'was seething'.

I've since discovered that she told Gavyn the day before that he shouldn't resign, but I should. He told her there were no circumstances in which he'd let me go while he stayed, and I think that was one reason Gavyn resigned: if one of us should go it should be him, and that way he would protect me.

Others at that meeting say that when Gavyn walked in Sarah launched a ferocious attack, accusing him of 'cowardice under fire'.

It was three days before I began to realise that perhaps all was not as it had seemed. This idea came to me when someone at the BBC told me she believed some of the governors had been out to get me, regardless of Hutton. It got me thinking: did some of them have another agenda?

By then I knew that three of the 11 governors had supported me in the vote: the ballet dancer Deborah Bull, the Oxford academic Ruth Deech and voluntary sector consultant Angela Sarkis.

The 'posh ladies' had opposed me, led by Sarah Hogg.

I began to think about the conversation Gavyn, Pauline Neville-Jones, and I had the night before Hutton was published. If Pauline had said she thought it impossible for Gavyn and me to leave at the same time, shouldn't she have argued on my behalf, given that Gavyn had already gone? Yet she had not. I thought some more.

Pauline had always been a big supporter of Mark Byford. Like most BBC lifers, he was better [than me] at the politics of dealing with the governors.

It was a game I refused to play. I saw no reason to treat the governors differently from everyone else. I certainly wasn't going to regard the earth they walked on as holy ground.

After I had left the BBC one senior executive said to me that if I had been a bit more servile to them, I would still be there today. I have no doubt that's true. Certainly both chairmen in my time there suggested I ought to be more respectful and make fewer jokes at governors' meetings, but I was never going to do that. I have never respected position for its own sake and I was hardly likely to start in my fifties, particularly when dealing with a group of people, most of whom knew nothing about the media and who would have struggled to get a senior job at the BBC.

So why hadn't Pauline supported me? Again I thought back a few months. In early December 2003, Gavyn told me Pauline and Sarah had been to see him, demanding that Mark Byford be appointed my deputy and be put in charge of BBC News. I was then to have been told it was a fait accompli.

I objected, though in many ways the idea of Mark becoming my deputy was a good one. With Hutton pending, even someone as naturally combative as me recognised this was not a time for a bust-up with the governors. To appease them, I suggested we appoint Mark as my deputy, but with different powers from those they suggested.

The governors agreed, and he began work on 1 January last year. A month later I was gone and he was acting director-general. The establishment figures had seized their chance and got rid of the upstart. It was, in many ways, a very British coup.

The BBC has a good man as its new chairman in Michael Grade, but to do his job well he needs better, more knowledgeable governors to support him. I hope the six current governors who voted to get rid of me - Dermot Gleeson, Merfyn Jones, Fabian Monds, Neville-Jones, Robert Smith, and Ranjit Sondhi - will realise that what they did that January night was bow to pressure from a political thug called Alastair Campbell.

What happened to me is irrelevant. Director-generals come and go; but there is no greater betrayal of BBC principles than to fold under political pressure, particularly from the government of the day.

These governors got it seriously wrong and they should accept that. They should now resign. The BBC deserves better.


http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/media/story.jsp?story=556471

[ian neal]

Open letter from 911truth.org

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20070228181336374

BBC blog

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

[Anthony Lawson]

Lock, Stock & Two Smoking Barrels (reiterated)

It wasn't just that the BBC 'predicted' the future, regarding WTC7, they were even looking for evidence of what the perpetrators were aiming at, with regard to the mood of the American people. That's two smoking barrels, not just one.

The following is a quote from the above mentioned open letter, which was, in turn, taken from the BBC Head of News Richard Porter's statement:

[Serge]

Heard the latest about BBC losing tapes? apparently they have lost the moon landing tapes now. Now then, lets hear their brains working -

'Sir, I have an idea'

'Ok, lets hear it'

'Well, sir, if we lose some more tapes that are not related to 911, people will think it is not a coincidence that 911 tapes were lost to hide something'.

'Good idea!, BOB, action it!'.

(Me): 'Just saw through your little ploy. It wont wash!'.

The BBC have broken the law by losing tapes.

[bigyin]

I went to the BBC response page http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.h tml

and after reading it decided to post a comment myself. After 12 hours my post is not showing on the site. I notice that post number 208 at 01:20 PM on 28 Feb 2007 by james seems to be the last one up there. Posts were coming in thick and fast and suddenly stop. Has the BBC stopped taking anymore comments on this ?

[Serge]

[AJ]

For the non-sceptics (and still on the subject of revenge), just have a look at the end of this:

http://911blogger.com/node/6391

Re-read my first post on Tuesday night at 7:06pm GMT (page 7 of this thread). Pause for a little thought given what the office manager from www.archive.org allegedly said later at 20:39 (EST?) on Tuesday 27th. This archive site appears to be the source of the file which was (edited) for the Google video (i.e it began by stating a 5 hour difference between EST and GMT on September 11 2001). Remember that BBC WORLD is broadcast all over the world, not just in UK. Yes, the BBC 24 is another matter, and there are other anomalies, but suspend those for heuristic purposes.

Until the footage from BBC World (which I understand always runs on GMT like BBC World Service see link below) is verified as genuine/un-tampered with, is it not rash to base strong inferences upon what one 'thinks' is depicted (or 'said') in that digital file? Do we know the downloadable 1GB file is genuinely time stamped? People seem over-eager to take it as genuine and then make quite damning inferences, despite statements from the BBC and other anomalies, all of which would seem to urge some caution. I suggest it's such rash behaviour which generally makes many 911 folk look "paranoid", and that's what I meant by saying that there is a universal problem with affirming the antecedent, especially when folk are not too smart/disciplined. Most folk just can't help themselves (IQ is normally distributed).

If cows have 6 legs then Bush shot JFK. Counterfactuals are the stuff that dreams, philosophy, careful science but.... many mischiefs are made of. Such (usually more egregiously disguised) subjunctive conditionals (and they come in other forms such as the psychological verbs) make unscrupulous 'evangelists' loads of money by creating conflicts and controversies which their gullible 'congregations' usually don't spot. They count on this to draw in advertisers and sell merchandise. It's clever marketing and the subject can be anything that keeps the scam alive. 911 is just one.

Given that the BBC has been the focus of bitter resentment by some of the more evangelical 911 'Truth' brigade since the BBC's sceptical/critical documentary a week last Sunday, I suggest caution. The 'evangelists' may fear losing endorsers.

Caveat emptor.

http://www.bbcworld.com/Pages/About.aspx
http://www.answers.com/topic/bbc-world

[Serge]

Complete tosh is that. Therefore Bush who is a religious freak, is guilty of the same?.

Whoever said that needs their head looking at.

[QuitTheirClogs]

How two pillars of the establishment helped to engineer a very British coup at the BBC

Tony, thank you for posting the Greg Dyke letter – it needs to be published much more widely than on Bilderberg. There was a lot of support for Greg Dyke (and what he stood for) within the BBC, and it’s reasonable to assume that support is still there.

http://www.bilderberg.org/milne.htm

[blackcat]

[bigyin]

AJ what does it matter what the time was.... just watch the video... the building is standing all the while the BBC says it has fallen... duh

[AJ]

I have commented on both of the clips (Google edit, and 1GB 'original').

Have a close look at the end of this link:

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20070228173157804

The (difficult) task is to critically suspend belief ('believing that' and even 'seeing that' are verbs of 'propositional attitude' which belong in the same class as subjunctive conditionals).

Don't take what you think you see (hear, or think) at face value, look for corroborative evidence.

It makes for good journalism

[QuitTheirClogs]

American Buddhist Net (ABN) publishes article summarising the story so far:

Clairvoyant Collapse

Submitted by ABN on Wed, 2007-02-28

Be sure to download the video linked below or here and watch it. This is a very important piece of news. This is a great article, very well-written, essential reading. ABN

BBC World News announced WTC 7 had collapsed, well in advance of the actual event. Discovery by blogger prompts controversy. Angered counter-attack from BBC avoids issue: What was the source of the information? New 3-minute video compilation of the key points from the BBC broadcast, demonstrating foreknowledge of WTC 7 collapse. Read more for complete coverage of the last three days… — Ed.

http://americanbuddhist.net/node/4779

3 minute video:
http://www.911truth.org/911truthmedia/Video/BBC-WTC7.wmv

[AJ]

Hint - 18th February.

[QuitTheirClogs]

Article in Wonkette – “The DC Gossip”

BBC, CNN Employ Magical Psychic News Announcers

February 28, 2007

The Internets are buzzing with the bizarre story of BBC News reporting the 9/11 collapse of WTC7 before the building actually collapsed — all over a live shot of Ground Zero, with the 47-story highrise clearly in view and clearly standing.

What it “proves” is anyone’s guess, but it sure makes for hilarious viewing. But BBC reporters and anchors who maybe didn’t know the Manhattan skyline so well could possibly be forgiven for reporting an erroneous story and not knowing that great big highrise was World Trade Center 7 (otherwise known as the Salomon Brothers building). So why doesn’t the BBC simply say it got a story wrong and didn’t know any better? Stranger still, why did New York-based CNN anchor Aaron Brown do the same exact thing on September 11, 2001? We’ve got all the creepy video and much more to make your head asplode, after the jump.

http://wonkette.com/politics/wtc/bbc-cnn-employ-magical-psychic-news-a nnouncers-240564.php

[locsen]