BBC Announced WTC7 COLLAPSE before it happened! smoking gun

[ian neal]

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

Can you help the BBC out here guys. They seem to be struggling to provide anything approaching an adequate explanation for their mistake

Ignatz? Anyone?

[pepik]

He's saying read both sides of the story, like we do. You are not getting both sides of the story, you are getting the official story as told to you by conspiracy websites.

[pepik]

[SHERITON HOTEL]

[rodin]

[pepik]

Yes, you've convinced yourself. However, that isn't very exciting.

Don't forget, you can convince yourself and then tune out contrary information forever, nobody will ever be able to force you to admit how stupid your theories are.

But what the point of living out your life happy in the knowledge that nobody has convinced you your little theories are wrong? Who cares! Either you are going to do something or convince other people, or you're going to do nothing. And convincing other people isn't going to be very easy if your argument is "based on my total lack of any expertise even remotely related to engineering, I have watched google videos and concluded it was definitely 100% a CD".

[Bushwacker]

[telecasterisation]

SHERITON HOTEL

Yes, your posting was longer, however I always clip where possible to reduce the amount I respond with, you don't need to have your previous post in its complete form as it appears just above, otherwise the thread is 20x longer than it needs to be.

I particularly admire the playing of the 'Your threads are often difficult to understand too' card. I simply didn't understand what you wrote, it wasn't meant to be offensive.


However, I would like to make a point to the critics.

Naturally everyone has to accept that people make mistakes, this is a given. However, every critic refuses to address this howling 'error' of reporting before the event and the information's origins given the BBC's response;

1) Richard Porter’s 'response clearly states;

‘We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down.’

This is blatantly incorrect for the obvious reasons, or it did not stem from a third party and they simply made the story up.


2) The archived footage has been ‘lost’?

Does this not strike you as being incredibly odd? This is carefully stored in secure temperature controlled facilities not stuck in a shoebox in someone’s garage behind the tumble drier.


And for those who keep typing ‘Stanley’ – it is StanDley’.

[A Sharp Major]

Although not a New Yorker I've had several extended work related stays in NYC. I'd never heard WTC 7 referred to as the 'Solomon Building', but then, I'd never heard it referred to as anything. People don't talk about buildings much unless they are iconic. Empire State, (WTC was always thought of as just the twin towers), Chrysler Building, Woolworth Building.

It isn't likely that the woman or the studio anchor were sufficiently familiar with the skyline. If the latter was, he'd be saying, 'no it hasn't collapsed....look behind you', would he not?

Yes, WTC 7 is still standing in the clip, but like most if not all of you, I didn't know what it was called until 9/11 and I lived in NYC at the time. The BBC cocked up. Communication failure, excitement, fear, lack of local knowledge.

I recall a UK newspaper reporting a successful rescue of North Sea divers who were already dead. Jumping the gun, getting it wrong? This is the media we're talking about.

[pepik]

[SHERITON HOTEL]

[Bushwacker]

[telecasterisation]

pepik

You have only quoted and attempted to answer half my point:

I said,

[pepik]

Go ahead and email the guy if you continue to be confused.

I can't tell you what other people meant. I think he was saying they didn't have an official announcement. Someone gave the reporter bad information, it could have been anyone on the scene at the time, one of their own people passing rumours and stories from other news crews on the scene or from anybody, a chinese whispers type thing. I doubt these people would have known WTC 7 from WTC 3 from WTC 5 from 30 Broadway. I took classes for two years in WTC 1 and I didn't know which buildings were which.

The point is this is not the only time news crews reporting live on a crisis have got things wrong. There isn't going to be a paper trail behind every word television news crews say on location during live coverage of an event like 911.

[Batrabill]

None of you thruthers seem to have the faintest idea how the media works. But you all seem really sure about your conclusions.

Here is how it happens.

Virtually nothing newsy you see on the telly hasn't come from the Wires. The wire services are things like AP, Reuters etc. There are dozens of reputable ones, and probably hundreds of lesser ones. Most countries have a raft of them. Some are totally wild and untrustworthy.

In large organisations there is a clear hierachy of trust. Stuff that is on AP is taken to have been fact-checked to some degree. Partly because since everyone is looking at it all the time errors get corrected very fast.
Others would not be believed until a critical mass was reached or the same story cropped up on one of the big ones.

When something big happens there is a blizzard of wire stories. Many will turn out to be wrong to some degree. In news they spend a great deal of time judging what is reliable and what isn't, because they look stupid if they get it wrong. You will hear phrases like "the X wire service is reporting..." which is covering their backs if it turns out to be wrong.

One of the problems with news is that for news people it isn't 'news' until it's on the Wires.

Most rolling news programmes are putting out stuff from the wires which they then check, add to, or work up in their own ways. The journalism is mostly done by people outside the big news organisations, although they usually check and get quotes.

If it was reported that 7 had fallen down then it is REALLY REALLY likely that it was taken from a wire story.

I think if you were able to research all the wires from 9/11 you would find countless erroneous stories, or opinion presented as fact.

The failure here is most likely that the WT7 story got on a wire service and was then put out without the proper checking. If the tape is correct (and not either a fake or a blue-screen set up - which doesn't seen likely) then the people concerned have not much idea what they are talking about.

So, if you wanted to get false stories out you would get them on the wire services and hope they get picked up. If there was a conspiracy and they decided they wanted to release information, this is what they would have tried to do.

This also goes some way to all the stuff here about people reading from the same scripts. In news you often don't know that much so you tend to stick to the wording on the wires - it's safer.

But, it seems self-evident to me that this is one of the many erroneous stories that got out that day.

You are all so condemning of the BBC about this.

Do you forget what it was like that day? Perhaps some of you were too young.

This was quite the most extraordinary day in my living memory. It was evident that the world had changed forever. The TV channels were suddenly broadcasting non-stop.

The BBC made an error. Big Deal. Dylan Avery made numerous errors in his documentary and he had the luxury of time. He wasn't broadcasting live while the world went to hell.

I can't prove it was a simple error based on a false story, but the balance of probabilities is so far in favour of that explanation that, for me, the alternative would require some evidence.

Still pretty confused by this question..

If you are going to blow up a building, why would you want to tell anyone in advance??

[SHERITON HOTEL]

[pepik]

[Johnny Pixels]

Because the media never makes mistakes....

[telecasterisation]

[Johnny Pixels]

[pepik]

It is already known that information was circulating that WC7 could collapse. This must have been reaching news teams on the ground by word of mouth. How hard would it be for this be to misunderstood as having collapsed? All kinds of bad information got out on and after 911, some of it ("the hijackers are still alive" being but one example among many) still circulating as conspiracy theory "fact". In fact Loose Change mostly consists of this kind of thing.

And again, what exactly would you expect a reporter speaking live on location to have to back up what they say? What are you expecting the BBC to produce? You already have the video, what more is there?

[marky 54]

[Serge]

[Serge]

[marky 54]

[marky 54]

correction from above the norad drills it says were being run in the 2 years b4 9/11, not 2 years prior.

[marky 54]

gosh anyother correction the information for the CIA drills was'nt from their website it was a press release.

anyway if you watch the video at the times i gave this will be apparent.

[EmptyBee]

When I first saw this footage I was pretty stunned, but then I wasn't aware that there had been much forewarning of the collapse of WTC7 circulated. It's clear now with the CNN, BBC News 24 and BBC World footage that there was not only an anticipation of a collapse on the ground, but anticipation in the newsrooms as well, to the extent that when the collapse was finally broken on CBS Byron Pitts, CBS News correspondent said:

[pepik]

[Serge]