New theory on BBC WTC7 gaffe

[MadgeB]

A fascinating new theory has emerged about how the BBC showed that footage of WTC7 still standing, while announcing that it had collapsed - the news media were using fake shots of Manhattan not only for the ‘plane crashes’ but all day long.

This would also explain many other anomalies in the footage from that day. See more details at http://www.911researchers.com/node/470

Fred suggests, “It may be helpful to think of a very common plot in ‘heist’ movies. The safecracker puts a picture of the safe in front of the security camera while he goes to work. The guard looks at the monitor and sees that the safe looks normal. Meanwhile the crooks are dynamiting the safe. We have the very same thing going on on 9/11. The perps are showing composite video of the Manhattan Skyline while they go to work on destroying the WTC complex.”

I know this is only of interest to those who want to find the truth about 9/11, and some people on this forum claim that’s not a valid objective, but I think this is big news!

[Stuart]

Thats a great post Madge, for anyone looking at this i reccommend the link and particularly looking at the video in number 5 and also the WTC7 on CNN in number 1.

Personally i don't really want to get drawn into the theories v debunking the official story but i will say that I think the objective is to remain centred on the official story but i still like to discuss the possible theories especially when you get some good evidence displayed in the link where someone has gone to great lengths to pull it together themselves.

Keep up the good work everyone and lets stop arguing amongst ourselves if we can - but if you can't just remember that its that passion that bought you here so theres nothing wrong with alittle bit of healthy disagreement and debate.

[andyb]

That is quite frankly the worst theory I have heard re 9/11. Do you not think that anyone with a camcorder could have rumbled them??

[marky 54]

its an intresting theory however there is one major flaw.

the bcc reported the collpase at around 5pm U.S time.
the building collapsed at around 5.20pm U.S time.

so when the bbc was reporting it the real unfaked building was still standing which is why we see it in the real unfaked news report.

[telecasterisation]

[MadgeB]

Well it could be right that the timing of the BBC announcement was in advance, but I think with this accumulation of anomalies we should now look again at every aspect of what we were told. There does seem to be something fishy about WTC7. That shot of the collapse we’ve all seen so many times (photo on the front page of this site) - why was it filmed so beautifully with the camera centering it, when the towers were already gone? Like they had set the shot up in advance for the collapse (as with the Naudet film). Then there’s the strange and enormous vertical gash whose images have come into the limelight recently. I don’t think we’ve got to the bottom of the WTC7 story yet, and it could be another ‘limited hangout’.

If you have an open mind when you first hear about the ‘no Boeings’ idea, you have to stop and ask yourself exactly what you base your view on that passenger planes and hijackers were used – then when you look at that you find the there is actually no proof, it all evaporated when researchers checked it out. In the end it’s only those same old dodgy, grainy videos that people complain about when they’re critically analysed by no-planers. The official story (via NIST) relies on them. If you come to believe that the perps and the mainstream media were working hand in hand, and all our info comes from them, you have to question everything and ask what corroborating evidence there is.

It obviously opens up more issues to be researched if you ask whether the BBC’s little problem could have been with the image rather than with the script, and we’re not going to get an instant answer. But the list of problems with the videos shown on the mass media suggests to me that it’s an essential and productive area to explore further. For a specific list, see the link above. The thing was that they made mistakes in what they were showing (like the 'nose-out' video) and then had to pull the plug.

Again we have the counter argument that ‘anyone with a camcorder could have rumbled them’, but I honestly don’t think an innocent bystander would have been allowed to stand around and film at that point – they cleared the site of eyewitnesses ASAP. And why would all the reporters have to be in on it? They just read their scripts - like 'I'm told building X has collapsed'.

But I agree this site has gone doolally lately, with an aggressive barrage of posts arguing in effect that certain parts of the official story should not be questioned – and I see it’s now rebranded as just the British 9/11 Forum, which kind of makes Critics Corner redundant, don't it?

[Craig W]

[marky 54]

reply to madge B

i agree with almost everything you said, but what people need to remember is there are two sides to a debate, those who agree and those who disagree, the disagreeing with the theorys is what is being attacked from what i can tell.

ive often not had my mind made up and asked questions to understand it more or to see if there is evidence of what is being claimed and been attacked or jumped on for daring to ask those questions.

these theorys should be looked into and researched, but dont expect people not to question them or present evidence that says otherwise if there is any.

a simple i dont know the answer to that yet would be nice, instead of.... "you ****ing troll who do you think you are! your a dimwit and and a gatekeeper to the truth you ****ing chimp"

im not saying you do that and i dont remember if you have but your camp certainly has.

when people realise that asking questions only means people are trying to see the evidence for it or understand it, debate might stand a chance.

truth is all that matters not being right. but if the truth is somebody has not taken certain things into account then ill bring them up no matter what.

i wont be told things are this and can only be this when things have been missed out and infact it might well not be what is being claimed.

truth = truth even if it goes against a belief, people need to accept the truth if it presents itself not deny it.

[John White]

[Craig W]

Thanks for that answer, John. Appreciated.

[Stuart]

Madge

I like the argument and agree that it deserves to be taken seriously, i also struggle to understand why it is the worst of the 9/11 theories.

We all tend to think with our eyes and here we tend to think thats abig problem for those who are not awake to the real events of that day, so why shouldn't we still be susceptible to that ourselves. We clearly all agree that, at least at the higher levels, both intelligence and media compliance took place so we shouldn't be surprised that they were ready to drill us with false images.

I can only generalise as I never got to see the towers burn or falling live however my understanding is that the live shots of the South Tower being hit were generally of the plane looping round and hitting the oppsoing side of the building and no markings or windows would be visible as it was caught in the light and so appearing black. I have seen what appear to be people filming the tower from there apartments catching the second strike live who have posted there own videos on the web and again the plane appears to be darkened ruling any further credible discussion.I am looking to be put right, but all the other films that involve more detail on the plane hitting the building face on seemed to have come into circulation at latter point and they were much more shocking and closer up and showed the plane with colouration. It also worth mentioning, and feel free to put me right that i cannot recall there being any known inetrviews of people in the close vicinity describing the second plane taht hit the building. Its all left to those people that were far away and only saw the shadow of the plane. Why is this, surely people close up to the building would have seen the second plane hit and could have given an accurate account of its appearance? Loose change is the only place i can recall seeing someone admitting that it was not like any plane they had seen at an airport, or something along those lines. I particularly like the videa no5 in the link above and believe that there could be something in that and its ecrtainly made me think twice about some of the coverage.


I don't think we're going to get anywhere fast with the discussion unless someone can be certain about what was live and what was shown later but i am fairly sure that something hit the buildings and it looked like a plane but was too dark to tell anything else about it. If there was TV fakery it wasn't live in my opinion for the towers though WTC7 seems to have more mileage for discussion. Its possible that there was some kind of delay on the live TV, thats not unusual for things like big brother on C4 (i'd like to add hastily that I don't watch it). All theory I know but I just felt that this threads got something too it more so than many of the other theories about orb's which have no mileage in discussion, even if they do turn out to be something.

Madge, can elaborate on the vertical gash you mentioned, no pun intended, and i was also unsure what you meant by another 'limited hang out'? Sorry if I am sounding naive.

[Stuart]

Marky 54, have to agree there

I consider myself fairly well versed on most of the various 9/11 controveries and theories and my aim is to stick to bringing the perpatrators to justice through pressure on the general public to ask questions about the official story as opposed to trying to know everything about what happened. However, there is still always room to learn and you can't knwo everything and proposing a theory to see how it is recieved is fine in my book and should not be attacked.

If you suspect someone is working against the movement and delibrately causing in fighting, then there should be a general policy to not rise to it and just ignore and work around their posts.

I wouldn't put time and effort into this if i was being ignored - there'll soon get the message.

[MadgeB]

Hi daretocare,

Unfortunately I'm fighting for computer time with a football maniac so I can't go into any detail about the planes and 'witnesses', but definitely check out Gerard Holmgren who deals with all the planes/no-planes/witnesses/TV-fakery/live-footage versus delayed-feed etc issues in his website(s).

About the limited hangout - it's when for example secret services criminals offer up an admission of guilt on a limited part of their crime, so as to escape detection of the rest and more major part. Like hanging a titbit out to keep the pursuing pack quiet. So in the case of WTC7, they might finally say something like – OK yes, it was demolished on purpose, for safety reasons, but we couldn’t say that earlier for ‘operational reasons’ connected with the Intelligence services based there. Then the smoking gun turns into a damp squib, as the destruction of the twin towers is left out of the picture.

If the perps had their backs further to the wall they might for example say that Al-Qaeda planted demolition charges in the twin towers and go on to ‘name names’ (who should have been named much earlier if it wasn’t for the incompetence of such-and-such a department). This would still leave them with the hijackers/foreign bogeymen myth they want to push and limit the investigation of their crime. This is the worry with Steven E Jones and his camp – they seem to do everything to limit the scope of what 9/11 enquirers should look into, trying to keep us within the narrow confines of controlled demolition (above all don't mention directed energy weapons), so keeping alive the possibility of retaining the myth of the foreign terrorists and protecting the home-grown perpetrators in the US military and other organisations.

The gash in WTC7 was discussed here http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=8130 and hopefully there are other links in the thread.

[karlos]

the fact that the bbc has broken the terms of it's charter by pulling the archived recording and destroying it is alone enough to show that the bbc was involved in the conspiracy

[telecasterisation]

The BBC were involved in the conspiracy?

The level that people take this to is beyond reason, beyond sensibility, beyond rational thought. How in God's name (and I am not a believer) is it possible that anyone in the BBC could be 'involved'? How could you coherse anyone into participating, making sure they never spilled the beans? Are we suggesting money, their family would be killed? How many people are we talking about? The technicians, the producers - who?

'The BBC' are a bunch of herberts who work near Shepherds Bush for a broadcasting company, how would you approach them? What would you say? "We are planning to kill thousands of people by blowing up skyscrapers in New York, fancy participating?"

It takes years of conditioning to recruit terrorists to the point where they are prepared to do whatever they are instructed to do. Yet;

[Dogsmilk]

[Mark Gobell]

I don't know for a fact that elements of the BBC were involved in or had any foreknowledge of the crime that was 9/11.

I'm sure also that I don't know if they were and did.

On that I am also sure we must all agree.

I am sure however, that elements within the BBC have been complicit in the cover up of the crime of 9/11.

I'm also sure that any thinking person who doubts the OCT must agree with that statement.

[Dogsmilk]

[telecasterisation]

[Mark Gobell]

I think it is abundantly clear that the BBC have been complicit in the cover up of the crime that was 9/11.

My evidence includes:

Inaccurate and misleading documentaries.

Incomplete reporting of the known facts.

Biased reporting of the known facts.

Unbalanced presentation of alternative views.

Inadequate coverage of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Acceptance of the OCT as being gospel without journalistic investigation.

I could go on.

[marky 54]

i think mark gobbell meant that they are involved in the cover-up as in after the event but not the event itself.

ie: biased reporting in favour of the offical conspiracy, not giving the people full facts about some of the descrepancies that dont fit the offical version etc etc....

i may be wrong though but thats what i got from what he said.

edit: ooops mr gobell has already replied never mind ignore this.

[telecasterisation]

[Mark Gobell]

We know that an organisation as well resourced and experienced as the BBC could avail themselves quite easily of all the known pieces of information.

They could then produce a simple documentary that presents the fullest possible picture of 9/11.

After 5 years they have not done anything that remotely resembles this ideal.

Instead they have, by ommision and distortion, promulgated the lie that is the official OCT.

I call that complicity in the covering up of known facts.

Thay have no excuses.

[marky 54]

[telecasterisation]

[Mark Gobell]

Tele - do you even read my posts ?

[telecasterisation]

[Mark Gobell]

As I've no idea what that means perhaps you'd do me the honour of finding said post ?

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

You are a waste of time and effort.

Pathetic beyond belief.

[telecasterisation]

I find that happens to me a lot too, you type something, post it, then think of something else to add. That's so annoying, especially if you've logged out.