BBC World reported WTC7 collapse before it happened

[EmptyBee]

[Thermate]

WTC7 did take a big hit, although I've only ever seen one photo of it. Despite the fact it was hit, the large hole in the façade does not explain the neatness and speed of the alleged "collapse".

[Eckyboy]

I have often wondered that WTC7 may have been used as a command post to bring down the twin towers but recently I have had second thoughts. The people who did this are cowards and does it not stand to reason that they would not be in WTC7 even though it was bomb and dust proof (at least one floor anyway!) at the time of the collapses. They would never endanger themselves which makes me wonder was there another secret command post?

[ian neal]

[Eckyboy]

Thanks Ian I never knew that. The fight goes on.

[astro3]

There seem to be three things the BBC have to explain here: 'precognition' of the WTC-7 collapse by Jane in New York; the explanation of the WTC-7 collapse given by the guy in the UK studio - it had been weakened by the blast, etc; and then, the rather abrupt fadeout of the link from New York just minutes before the WTC-7 did actually collapse.

Let's hope that New Yorkers start to get really angry at the BBC for being 'complicit' somehow in the devious deed, as revealed by their foreknowledge, and at their compleley evasive replies on this matter.

Jane can't remember? Listen, this must have been the strangest event in her whole life. She would have seen the collapse, just minutes after her link to the English studio had mysteriously faded out.

[AJ]

Astro: "Jane can't remember? Listen, this must have been the strangest event in her whole life. She would have seen the collapse, just minutes after her link to the English studio had mysteriously faded out"

Doesn't this make you question the authenticity of the clip? I understand how difficult it is to suspend belief, but until/unless the clip/archived feed is authenticated, why risk drawing (irrational) inferences based on its *apparent* content?

As it is, far too many beg critical questions. The clip appeared not long after a broadcast from the BBC which ruffled many feathers in the 911 community and someone *could* just be out to discredit the BBC.

[blackcat]

Media Blacklists BBC Fiasco; Google, Digg Censor 9/11 Truth
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/010307mediablacklists.htm

Why No One Could Have Predicted The Collapse Of WTC 7
http://infowars.net/articles/march2007/010307BBC_WTC7.htm

COMMERCIAL PROPERTY: The Salomon Solution; A Building Within a Building, at a Cost of $200 Million
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DEFDD113BF93AA25751C 0A96F948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

[EmptyBee]

[fixuplooksharp]

From 1987 to 2006, DST (Daylight Saving Time) in the US began on the first Sunday in April and ended on the last Sunday of October. EDT (Eastern Daylight Saving Time) = UTC (GMT) - 04:00. The BBC World and BBC 24 clocks are set to GMT. Therefore 21:54 GMT = 17:54 EDT or 34 minutes AFTER the collapse.\


tell me this is wrong?

[EmptyBee]

[Ussa1]

BBC editor Richard Porter has left another blog about WTC7 attemping to explain how they predicted its collapse.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/03/part_of_the_conspiracy_2 .html#commentsanchor


The must have been getting flooded with complaints! I'm sorry but his new explanation still doesnt cut it for me. What about the feed being cut off? And why the symetrical collapse? And why did Silverstein say "pull it"? Or
should i just accept "there's no story here" like Richard Porter says? I dont think so.

[Anthony Lawson]

EmptyBee,

Lighten up a little. I have got some sense and I did watch the videos.

I was having a go at the demolition expert, who seemed to change his tune, from something like: That definitely was a controlled demolition, to: Well, it could have been laid on quite quickly... when he was told that he'd been shown the demise of WTC7. You even went on to write:

[EmptyBee]

[rodin]

A plague of verrhoa mıtes on all 911 denıers!

[Anthony Lawson]

EmptyBee

[blackcat]

[AJ]

Fixuplooksharp said: "From 1987 to 2006, DST (Daylight Saving Time) in the US began on the first Sunday in April and ended on the last Sunday of October. EDT (Eastern Daylight Saving Time) = UTC (GMT) - 04:00. The BBC World and BBC 24 clocks are set to GMT. Therefore 21:54 GMT = 17:54 EDT or 34 minutes AFTER the collapse........tell me this is wrong?"

There's lots of room for confusion here as everyone (including Richard Porter of the BBC it would seem) is now basing what they think on what's either associated with the 'original' BBC WORLD (GMT) 41 minute source file which was at www.archive.org, or the clip (allegedly) from BBC NEWS 24 which seems to have a BST (+5 EDT) time stamp on its banner and was put up on the web later in the week (one being the Alex Jones site).

Yes GMT is +4 EDT and EDT is the time *associated* with the 41 minute BBC WORLD file which was available at www.archive.org until mid week (and may be coming back). The problem is the word 'associated' as there's reason to believe that an .xml file at the www.archive.org site was edited on 18 February (which was coincidentally? the day that the BBC 911 Conspiracy episode was broadcast). That file is 'associated' with the actual downloadable file 1GB file called V08591-16.mpg but the 1GB file itself contains no time stamp or any other source identifying or authenticating information.

In the absence of the BBC being able to authenticate the BBC WORLD 41 minute clip's time of broadcast (and other 'live' characteristics against other copies), everyone is inferring its characteritics (including Richard Porter it would seem) when what we really needed was provenance given the unusual circumstances and history. It may well be genuine and untampered with, as may the BBC NEWS 24, but as there's at least motive to discredit the BBC in the wake of their 18th February 911 Conspiracy episode and as there have been some odd goings on at www.archive.org in recent weeks (including the moving of servers, files that should not have been downloadable being downloadable, etc etc - see discussion http://www.archive.org/iathreads/post-view.php?id=106772), there's nothing to be lost by being cautious, and attempting to get the BBC and INTERNET ARCHIVE to forensically confirm the authenticity of both clips.

We can all assume and infer.

[Dr Hemp]

BBC News 24 today screened a piece about a deal the BBC had done with YouTube. While the presenter was talking in the background it had a screenshot of YouTube, with the words clearly on the screen 'BBC advanced knowledge WTC7 collapse' well for a few seconds until someone used a mouse to scroll down a notch to something show something else, and then left it there.

Obviously, the BBC are not as keen to let people know about this development as the internet community are.

[GEFBASS]

Thanks Dr Hemp

I thought I may have been the only one.

[AJ]

All clear now

http://www.archive.org/details/bbc200109111654-1736
http://www.archive.org/iathreads/post-view.php?id=106772
http://www.archive.org/iathreads/post-view.php?id=107775

[Anthony Lawson]

What's Was the Time?

Something like this has been mentioned before, several times, but it's worth repeating.

No matter what time is ascribed to the broadcast, whether in GMT, EST or BST, Jane Standley was still standing in front of a building which she was reporting as having already been demolished.

The obvious conclusion has to be that the segment was broadcast before WTC7 collapsed, at 5:19 PM EST. Even if the BBC found their missing tapes and discovered a time code on them which was at variance with that fact, it still has to be accepted that the segment could not have been broadcast after 5:19 PM EST.

Even if someone at the BBC attempts to claim that it was a repeated segment, in a later newscast, Jane Standley was still reporting an event which had yet to happen.

Got it?

Anthony

[blackcat]

That's what I said, about six posts above.

[xmasdale]

I hesitate to contact the BBC on this one because of two things I'm not quite sure about:

1 whether there was a time discrepancy

2 whether the building whose misty outline we see standing behind Jane Standley's left shoulder is actualy WTC 7.

While BBC World is international and may well show GMT on its screens, BBC News 24 is domestic and would at the time have been using BST.

There are many tall buildings in New York with a rectangular outline and a little penthouse on the roof. I cannot see sufficient detail in the picture of Ms Standley to be sure that is WTC 7.

We do a great disservice to our credibility if we jump to coclusions which are inaccurate. Likewise we do a disservice if we fail to act where there is an opportunity to make a point.

Noel

[AJ]

Anthony Lawson:

"What's Was the Time?"

Something like this has been mentioned before, several times,
but it's worth repeating.

No matter what time is ascribed to the broadcast, whether in GMT,
EST or BST, Jane Standley was still standing in front of a building
which she was reporting as having already been demolished.

The obvious conclusion has to be that the segment was broadcast [i]
before [/i]WTC7 collapsed, at 5:19 PM EST. Even if the BBC found
their missing tapes and discovered a time code on them which was
at variance with that fact, it still has to be accepted that the segment
could not have been broadcast [i]after[/i] 5:19 PM EST.

Even if someone at the BBC attempts to claim that it was a repeated
segment, in a later newscast, Jane Standley was still reporting an
event which had yet to happen.

Go t it?"

No. And I suspect you haven't either. Jane was responding to a question put to her by the anchor allegedly.

And, of course we can see what the clip alleges to show. But the points being made are considerably more subtle. They require one to suspend these beliefs given the controvery surrounding the uploding of the clip (both the flash on Monday and the original sometme in the past to Television Archive).

People are *assuming* that the content of the clip is reliable (unedited). Until the clip is authenticated people are making assumptions based on assumed authenticity, indering from what the clip allegedly shows.

Note, that the video or audio *could* have been edited. For example, if one listens *critically* to what is said by the anchor (who has his back to you in the clip with Jane at times) or one listens to what Jane says, there is a risk of one filling in the gaps and making inferences. What one does hear is an anchor (allegedly) *telling* Jane that there has been a report of the building having collapsed, and one also hears Jane saying that details are sketchy. She never says anything about WTC7 collapsing and spends all of her time talking about other matters which may or may not be related to WTC7. The LIVE banner is another element. The viewer fills in most of the gaps (with some help from the banner and what the anchor has allegedly said).

Wait until the clip is authenticated. Read the links above which bear on the integrity of the files. The internet is full of doctored materials and there are all sorts of folk out there, domestic and foreign who have an interest in fomenting trouble.

[tomi01uk]

The time was confirmed as being correct by (before collapse) recently on 911 Blogger shown in several posts there provided by the The Intenet Archive administrators who were kind enough to look at time stamps on those videos that were posted of BBC's coverage that day.

[James C]

[johndoe]

the building people have identified as wtc 7 is in fact 75 park place. if it was 75 park place then the building in front of it would be 75 park place.... however 75 park place is not made of red sand stone.

i mean jesus does anyone actually know th layout of manhattan here?

if you really want to have a discussion on something then maybe you should at least educate yourself on the basics first.

[blackcat]

[AJ]

tomi01uk: "The time was confirmed as being correct by (before collapse) recently on 911 Blogger shown in several posts there provided by the The Intenet Archive administrators who were kind enough to look at time stamps on those videos that were posted of BBC's coverage that day".

The files have not been authenticated by the BBC (and may never be, see below)

The Internet Archive people said that they were not their files. The whole issue is about the *authenticity* of the mpg files and the associated .xml files. The *latter*, may be the so-called 'time stamp', and *may* have been edited on 18th February (see http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20070228173157804).

This is far more subtle than people are appreciating, and that's exactly what a forgery would set out to count upon. It's also why 911 'Truthers; get a reputation for sloppy thinking and evangelical paranoia.

Just as an exercise, look closely at the other posts on this matter including the link to queries from other sceptics. Look *closely* at what seems to be said by the anchor and by Jane. The anchor talks of it being about 8 hours on, in the critical footage, and in the next 1GB 41 minute clip, at about 3 minutes in where BBC World shows WTC7 collapsing, the anchor talks about it being about 6 hours after the World Trade Centers collapsing (though there's room for equivocation there viz attacks and collapses of course).

There's room for questioning the timing and integrity of these clips (not to mention what the anchor and reporter are really referring to) because a) the files were only selectively available on Monday and Tuesday, b) they were designed to be for streaming only (not as downloadable, so how did that happen?) and c) then they all went missing for several days and are still not all back up (just two in fact).

Under the circumstances, how does anyone know that this was not just a bit of cleverly re-sequenced, edited, mischief, where bits have been cut and inserted in non-chronological ordr (no time code) in order to discredit the BBC for their "hit piece" on the 911 'Truthers' also of 18th February? As it is, Jane never says much about WTC7 anyway, and the anchor just says what he has heard.

In the next 41 minute clip, why didn't the anchor (or someone else) say, "correction, the Salomon Brothers Building we unkowingly showed still standing behind our reporter Jane Standley in NY a few minutes ago has now collapsed - here's the picture of it collapsing! Many people have phoned in to point out that the Salomon Building (aka WT7) was still there behind Jane all the time that I was saying it had collapsed - they just feed me the script - Mea Culpa, it's a bit hectic with all these kamikaze planes about, I've advised Jane to hop it - it's just like Peal Harbour!".

Answer 1) neither of them knew the skyline or the precise facts of the matter (like everyone else at the time - except for the evil PNAC neocons of course)

Answer 2) the clip has been malciously edited to make you infer something like the evil Neolabs in control of the BBC are in cahoots withg the the PNAC crowd.

The serious point remains: the clips have not been reliably authenticated, and posibly never will be by the BBC, because BBC World only retains 1/3 of its stock after 90 days.

Finally, one might ask, if the clips are genuine, did it take over five years for anyone in the media world to point out the alleged discrepancy between two 41 minute clips which are only a few minutes apart on this issue? (ah 1/4 NY are Jews, so they wouldn't let on would they - even microsoft are in on it - NYC - convert those letters to webdings, then to wingdings font).

This was BBC WORLD so it went out everywhere - even the Television Archive people say that their files were recorded in Canada.

http://www.archive.org/iathreads/post-view.php?id=106772