BBC World reported WTC7 collapse before it happened

[hampton]

[Mr-Bridger]

There has been a updated version of the footage released, i am in the process of uploading it to google now.

Here is a still taken from the last part that confirms the timings are correct :

[johndoe]

the time doesn't matter, first you need to actually verify that it is wtc 7 in the footage, easiest way to do that is to identify the red sandstone building which obscures it.

[AJ]

Mr-Bridger: "There has been a updated version of the footage released, i am in the process of uploading it to google now."

How does that bear on establishment of authenticity? We don't know whether parts of the original have been re-sequenced/spliced, dubbed etc. Conveniently, when the anchor talks to Jane, he almost turns his back on the camera. All you can see is his chin move. Is the sound synchronised with even that?

It may be genuine, just don't *assume* it is genuine given the absence of independent corrobrative evidence and all of the other anomalies pertaining to this event. It's as bad as 99% of the steel going AWOL.

As I've said, in the abence of evidence, "anything goes" - and that's my main point about all of this 911 evangelism - the *absence* of evidence. It's what religion thrives on, not science ("pursuit of truth" - i.e most 911 'Truth" groups don't practice/deliver what's on their label).

[EmptyBee]

@AJ

I think you're missing the most obvious conclusions from this video- i.e. WTC7's reported collapse was an error somewhere along the line of communication between the FDNY, the OEM the newswires and the BBC. Remember Aaron Brown of CNN's 'collasped or collapsing' comment at 4:10. Clearly the message was circulating that WTC7 was in danger of collapse. What's not so clear is how the evidence backing that assessment . If we stick with the CD hypothesis, then it's possible this could have been disinfo put out by the OEM to prepare the networks for the collapse when it occured - thus diminishing its shock. This doesn't really mesh with what the FDNY testimony later reported however. So really we're back to square one - looking at the anomalous manner in which WTC7 collapsed when it did, and the difficulty (acknowledged by NIST) of explaining this event in the context of the known extent of damage to the building.

As for the BBC's absence of correction, I think it's probable that nobody noticed at the time, and to avoid embarrassment they said nothing. The pulling of the connection prior to the collapse and the loss of the BBC world archives is awfully convenient mind you - and suggestive of the possibility of at least some insider knowledge. If British intelligence was involved in any way with 9/11 (if only on a 'need to know level) that could account for it. I would be highly surprised if they don't have people at the BBC. Having insiders in the media is a documented policy of British Intelligence according to David Shayler.

[James C]

[AJ]

EmptyBee:

"I think you're missing the most obvious conclusions from this video- i.e. WTC7's reported collapse was an error somewhere along the line of communication between the FDNY, the OEM the newswires and the BBC. Remember Aaron Brown of CNN's 'collasped or collapsing' comment at 4:10. Clearly the message was circulating that WTC7 was in danger of collapse. What's not so clear is how the evidence backing that assessment . If we stick with the CD hypothesis, then it's possible this could have been disinfo put out by the OEM to prepare the networks for the collapse when it occured - thus diminishing its shock. This doesn't really mesh with what the FDNY testimony later reported however. So really we're back to square one - looking at the anomalous manner in which WTC7 collapsed when it did, and the difficulty (acknowledged by NIST) of explaining this event in the context of the known extent of damage to the building.

As for the BBC's absence of correction, I think it's probable that nobody noticed at the time, and to avoid embarrassment they said nothing. The pulling of the connection prior to the collapse and the loss of the BBC world archives is awfully convenient mind you - and suggestive of the possibility of at least some insider knowledge. If British intelligence was involved in any way with 9/11 (if only on a 'need to know level) that could account for it. I would be highly surprised if they don't have people at the BBC. Having insiders in the media is a documented policy of British Intelligence according to David Shayler".


I'm not missing anything from the video, nor do I take issue with what you say substantially. I'm just encouraging suspension of belief about its content until its' authenticated. The CBS footage is understandable, there must have been lots of confusion. The BBC may well have been fed the wrong information etc. I'm not concerned about all that. I'm concerned that so much credence has been given to material which has an air of doubt about it. That is basically all.

All sorts of 'what ifs' (counterfactuals) are possible when one afirms the antecdent in a conditional. This is basically the way all fantasy works. It effectively defines fantasy as intensional conditionals are non truth-functional. Science rests on modus tollens (refuting the consequents and conjunctions of those) not on modus ponens. I'm essentially making a point about how 911 evangelism works and how most folk don't see its modus vivendi. It's egregious when it's just a means of fleecing folk, and that's all I reckon a lot of these 'truth movements' are. Look closely at how many of them ask for donations, have mechandise and sponsor sections etc arrange conferences etc. They use the loony logic to make money and fame and meanwhile the decent questioners (like Steven Jones) are tainted by association. He knows this, he knows what the others do and has tried to distance himself.

As I said way back, there are benevolent reasons why FEMA *may* have brought the buildings down. Ask why nobody thinks in those terms. After all, it would require the same conditions. It just wouldn't spin as well. It wouldn't keep the gravy train rolling.

[EmptyBee]

What you say is true, and yet the lengths necessary to fabricate the clips suggest to me that they're genuine. That may be a bit simplistic in this digital age, but I don't see any reason to get over-excited about the footage given its place in the context of widespread media warnings/expectations of Building 7's collapse. It's suspicious in some aspects (the lost connection and destroyed/lost backups in particular) but it's not solid evidence of anything unfortunately, therefore I don't see why anyone would have bothered to go to the trouble of faking it. Releasing it, sure, faking it...I don't think so.

[blackcat]

[AJ]

EmptyBee: "What you say is true, and yet the lengths necessary to fabricate the clips suggest to me that they're genuine. That may be a bit simplistic in this digital age, but I don't see any reason to get over-excited about the footage given its place in the context of widespread media warnings/expectations of Building 7's collapse. It's suspicious in some aspects (the lost connection and destroyed/lost backups in particular) but it's not solid evidence of anything unfortunately, therefore I don't see why anyone would have bothered to go to the trouble of faking it. Releasing it, sure, faking it...I don't think so."

Motive - to discredit the BBC after their episode on 18th February 2007.

Some 911 sites (especially in the USA) are just 'evangelical' business concerns, and there are many others who have been making money out of all of this. The BBC programme was very bad for their business. Look at all the slurs that followed. There was ample motive surely? Not all of these people care about 'truth', they just care about money and keeping gullible people hooked.

[James C]

Just for everyone's information I have been looking at the placement of the buildings from the BBC footage of Jane Standley. WTC7 is clearly visible albeit obscured slightly by a tall red brick building. This is the Western Union Building which stands about 8-9 blocks north of the WTC site and was the only building of substantial size between Ms Standley and the WTC on 9/11.

[Graham]

REGARDING THE TIME ISSUE.

On the next 1 gig segment, 3 mins in, so about 17.40 NY time, they broadcast the collapse of WTC7 from a different angle, and confirm it. You'd have thought they'd have caught it live considering the amount of cameras trained on NY:lol: . Also, mysteriously, they do not return to Jane Standly.

Does that help?

http://www.archive.org/details/bbc200109111736-1818

and this.

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

[EmptyBee]

AJ:
I'm sorry I don't think that even the best funded people the 911 truth movement have the technical ability to produce a fake of this quality, even assuming they had the intellectual dishonesty necessary for such an act.

[AJ]

blackcat: "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

Your point being? The first comment related to the attacks starting. The second refers to the buildings collapsing. Now what was that you were saying about how we all should pay more attention?"

That if you are going to quote, don't edit egregiously - read what I said again

It was an exercise in critical analysis.

Or do you just like 'fantasizing'? If so, read a novel.

When you watch a murder mystery, are you tempted to call the police? When you watch a horror film, do you believe in vampires, ghosts etc? Beyond a certain age, one hopes not.

Same basic principle, same basic point. Much of this is pure fantasy, and it has the same appeal. Alas, it's used by some to milk and abuse others.

[AJ]

EmptyBee "I'm sorry I don't think that even the best funded people the 911 truth movement have the technical ability to produce a fake of this quality, even assuming they had the intellectual dishonesty necessary for such an act."

It wouldn't be hard, news footage is in clips. One would just need to use Premiere etc to splice it in different sequences, cut a clip of audio here, a bit of video moved back in time there. It's not hard. Just think about it. This is why I am disappointed about www.archive.org not having left up or restored the earlier BBC footage so we could see if Jane was on screen earlier in the day.

This is just to encourage healthy scepticism. I'm not asserting that it *is* doctored, just that as the BBC has not authenticated it, and initially said it didn't look like one of their feeds etc etc, one *should* be cautious rather than just accept all that one sees at face value.

Just healthy scientific scepticism. No offence

[Mr-Bridger]

AJ : Why do you think the video might have been altered or tampered with ?

I have looked at the orignal mpeg very closely and there is no signs of editing or manipulation. If it was it should very noticeable where you see Jane on the monitor in the studio, the type of doctoring you suggest could not be done easily without leaving tell-tale signs.

If you have any evidence of editing etc please show me

[sidlittle]

[AJ]

Blackcat: "I was interested in that part which is why I quoted it and no - I will not be reading it again"

It isn't a question of what you are "interest in", it's a matter of factual accuracy and direct quotation ("said that" or "wrote that" is another propositional attitude). You omitted part of what I had written and thereby changed what the post literally said. That is exactly what I have been pointing out, and you've neatly just illustrated the problem (aka "Chinese whispers") once again through your behaviour.

"Debate is fine but supercillious lecturing is not."

Call it 'education' in this instance (it's more apposite and accurate).

You clearly confused the timings between a) the start of the attack and b) the collapse of the towers.

You can't infer any such thing - all you can do is cite what I wrote ,and I have just referred you back to what was written to show that what was said by the anchor at time 1) and 2) was equivocal, as there was not enough infrmation to disambiguate.

"That is not bad editing it is selective quoting - chosen because it was the pertinent part which I wished to challenge. Why did you not reply to it?"

Because you keep missing the point and there's no point my encouraging you. You'll just keep doing it.

"There have been reams of posts on multiple forums/sites with a torrent of proof of the veracity of this video and your belated entry into this particular site with snotty, patronising advice is not welcome to at least one member."

There has been no confimation of the authenticity by the BBC and that is all that matters. The rest is speculation. If you don't like what I have to say, just ignore it.

The bottom line is that most of what is said (and that includes the "torrent of proof") is just speculative nonsence premised on fantasy. That is what the BBC was criticising, and you evidently just don't welcome criticism. To you it's all *obvious*.

You're just not very bright.

Don't shoot the messenger.

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

[Serge]

[Anthony Lawson]

Has the Video Been Tampered With?

If the video has been rearranged, overdubbed or manipulated in other ways, which is not all that easy despite what AJ infers, those responsible would have had to have known that the BBC had lost their copies, and reasonably confident that no others existed in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, India, the United States, Hong Kong or anywhere else where BBC World Service TV is either broadcast or relayed through satellite up and down links.

There is also an interesting catch-22, here: If the BBC knew that they’d got it wrong on the day, losing the archive tapes would be convenient. However, if they didn’t get it wrong, and this is a hoax, then losing the tapes would be inconvenient, because they would be unable to dispute the fact that the images and sound in the recent release were not sequenced in exactly the same way that they had been originally broadcast. So, if the tapes have only conveniently gone missing, it almost certainly means that the material we are getting so heated about has not been tampered with.

On the other hand, if they really have lost the archive of one of the most significant broadcasting days since the dawn of the television age, it wouldn’t surprise me if some heavy overtime had been done at the BBC as soon as they became aware that the video was out there. They would have done a blow-up job on Ms Standley’s mouth movements, and compared them with the wavy green lines, representing her voice, on an oscilloscope. The same for the announcer, including his chin movements, as well as doing other tests. And, while that work was being done, a few ‘phone calls and faxes would have been sent out to see if what had been originally posted on the Internet was the only copy left in the whole wide world.

As they have yet to cry: ‘Foul!’ I reckon that they probably believe that the video is genuine, which means that it is not totally outrageous for others to do so, too.

This reasoning will probably not impress AJ, but I’m beginning to think that nothing will.

Anthony

[reprehensor]

FYI, the Internet Archive is going out on a limb, saying that the digital file they are streaming (again, BTW) has got the exact same time code as the original, which was recorded straight to DAT in Canada.

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

"The Television Archive lays down a timeline track on the mpeg2 file as it is being encoded and stored. The storage medium at that time was digital tape...

The original file V08591-16.mpg has been recently pulled off of the original tape recorded in 2001 and the timecodes examined. They are the same. There is no evidence of tampering. We take our jobs seriously, and this is our opinion."

http://www.archive.org/details/bbc200109111654-1736

"BBC World was received from Bell ExpressVu (a Canadian direct-to-home service) and encoded using a real-time MPEG-2 encoder. The encoder was setup to include the time in UTC as part of the video – UTC is also known as GMT (Greenwich Mean Time) and is the time in London during the winter. Because of daylight savings time being in effect, this means that UTC is four hours ahead of Eastern Daylight Time. The time that was used to set the encoder’s time-code came from NIST using the NTP protocol."

The only thing that I'm bothered about right now is that NIST is used as a standard. {{shudder}}

[physicist]

I've got another video of Jane Standley standing in front of the same window which was broadcast on BBC News 24 earlier in the day. So the "7 has collapsed, oh no look behind you" video is not a fake methinks.

[AJ]

reprehensor "FYI, the Internet Archive is going out on a limb, saying that the digital file they are streaming (again, BTW) has got the exact same time code as the original, which was recorded straight to DAT in Canada"

So they say.

But you should be careful about whom that information is for, as the exchange at www.archive.org could well be the person to whom you are now directing the "FYI"

Re: embedded mpeg2 timecodes - have *you* got the software which is required to read (or write) an embedded mpeg2? Or is it just convenient for you to accept whatever fits your prejedices regardless? What was the internal date of the file? How would you show that an embedded timecode was not put on *after* the edit? Unless you know how these are laid down why trust it, are they there for authentiicty/security reasons or just to help users mark frames? How many people out there have been busy making films for loose change ?

The reason why this whole issue gets so controversial is because so much of the material is unauthenticated through lack of evidence, and fantasy thrives where facts are short. Religion, politics and ..... 911....

That's the point to take away from all of this. Desperately affirming the antecedents (however sincerely) will not cut it as, such behaviour just make enthusiasts/evangelists look even more desperate and ultimately stupid.

Watch the BBC Conspiracy programme again, sympathetically - people make money out of these controversies, and they are controversial because as in religion, evidence is scarce. That's the crtitical thing to learn about the WTC's collapse, the evdience went AWOL

[Graham]

AJ = Media damage control?

[AJ]

[hampton]

admittedly it is possible that the footage is fake.

but as i don't believe the bbc have lost the tapes and they have said they will get them from other sources and someone must have recorded it on video anyway and we have the cnn and bbcnews24 footage, i don't think it's fake.

what we need now is the news agency data.

imo name calling, insults and long quotes aren't very productive.

[Mr-Bridger]

AJ :
You obvious didnt read my post correct, the give away for editing would be the monitor in the studio. It would be very hard and above most software to insert the footage of Jane without leaving signs.

Jane also answers the questions from the studio direct, the sat lag on the conversation is accurate and consistent.

If the Jane footage had been tampered with it would hard to place new footage behind he BBC banners and keep that footage correct throughout the report. Look closely at the edges of the banner across Jane





If you look at the still above, look at the border around the image shown on the monitor this remains consistant throughout the report and before and after any fullscreen footage of Jane. Very hard to accomplish with editing or overlays


So if you have seen any evidence, please post it here. Its quite obvious you dont know the limits of software editing and rendering working with video.

[/img]

[AJ]

[Mr-Bridger]

AJ : You havent shown any evidence, just your paranoia and denial.

If you have any evidence please post it

[Mr-Bridger]

Scrutinise the clips as I have said, as I am not making a case, I am expecting others to do that.

I have very closely and have posted my findings on this thread