BBC World reported WTC7 collapse before it happened

[Craig W]

You are right to highlight that mental shorthand, Brian.

I guess I was doing what many of us try not to do: assuming I knew what was happening out of shot because of previously acquired information.

What I should have said was that the smoke could have come from WTC7 (as it was drifting from that direction and area).

I have seen various other shots of fires in WTC7 which could have caused that smoke.

[Eckyboy]

The problem with this whole story is the BBC could just say they were told by a fireman or worker near building 7 that it was about to collapse and they simply repeated this on the news just before it did collapse. From all the stories of that day it is clear that people around the building knew it was going to come down and the BBC only needs to use this as an excuse. There have also been conflicting stories in the past that one person died in the WTC7 collapse. How is this possible if the building was evacuated hours before?

[Skeptic]

The man who was supposed to have died in the wtc7 is Craig Miller, a secret service agent apparently.

[TimmyG]

[TimmyG]

ahh yes Craig Miller thats his name

[Eckyboy]

You mean that heroic secret service agent Craig Miller right? the man who fearlessly raced into a burning building to save no one. Strange how the so called official reports into the building make no mention of any casualties however. I would be interested to know just what exactly was the cause of death for this man and a fully impartial and exhaustive investigation would surely have found that out?

[Carlos]

Managed to get it up on google again

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=2072999289423434892&hl=en-GB

lets see how long it lasts

[Carlos]

by the way... I got it up on google vid again..

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=2072999289423434892&hl=en-GB

wonder how long it will last this time

[Graham]

[TonyGosling]

Good call whoever dug this out. I just called the Daily Mail newsdesk on 0207 938 6000 and suggest others do the same. Get the name of whoever answers.

They listened to me for a minute then, when I offered to give them the UTUBE URL the guy said "don't worry we know where youtube is, I explained that he's need to know what to search for by which time he'd hung up."

Anyway it also appears to confirm my article about what to do when a probable false flag attack happens.

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=4631

One of the things I say, which is common sense to some now, is record the TV immediately - choose a channel and stick to it - unless you find out a mate is recording it too in which case switch over.

[brian]

Another -

Aaron Brown CNN 4:10PM 20010911 WTC 7 Foreknowledge -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1LetB0z8_o

Odd how long these has taken to appear no?

[Bongo]

WE WIN... I believe that they have surrendered... after a long battle through the night with the forces of darkness, they have given up... It is now all over Google Video and YouTube!

Search "Building 7 BBC" and there are literally dozens of uploads of it.

There is no way they can wriggle free from this one. I have no doubt that this piece of footage holds the most campaigning weight of any other piece before it. This little snippet of footage will wake up thousands... if not millions!

BIG thanks to everyone who spent time banging away at their keyboards in the last 24hrs to make sure this got out in the manner in which it did I think a little piece of 9/11 history was written last night!

PS I LOVED THIS CRITICS' COMMENT....

http://digg.com/politics/BBC_Reported_Building_7_Had_Collapsed_20_Minu tes_Before_It_Fell

[Busker]

[fixuplooksharp]

WWW.SANITYFORSALE.WORDPRESS.COM

SELF PROMO ON POPULAR TOPIC.

SHAMELESS? :?

[Sherlock]

Just letting ya know that vids back up on you tube, don't know for how long though!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqqhX8gkhE0

Also the digg it news ... you can't find the story on the main page, if ya go on it via prison planet you can find it..

Care to yas
Di

[locsen]

has anyone had any tangible reply from the bbc or any other news organisation yet??? i have emailed different bbc departments, the major rags (even murdoch's) but no answer or even confirmation.

Also for those who mentioned interviewing the jane standley woman, it is worth noting that all employees of BBC world are vetted to secret level, with some Developed vetted to top secret level, the same as MI5/SIS employess. So the chances of her not "toe-ing the line" are slim to none.

[Westgate]

This thread was covering this aspect:-

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=7316

[Stefan]

Bongo- I think I might get that printed on a t-shirt

[hampton]

[Graham]

[AJ]

Part 1

1) It seems that the only link to the 911 footage amongst the NBC, CNN etc list posted here that works is this one for between 1654-1736 (even that at the site when you visit it says it's only available for streaming, so how is it downloadable as an MP3, and why do all of the others just produce a "forbidden" message? The other BBC clips would have been useful for comparison.

2) The time is allegedly in the filename, but the source site lists the time of the BBC clip as EDT not as EST (as the edited version on Google stated). So, what does the 23 minutes early mean? In the full 1GB file the anchor does refer to the buiding having collapsed at about 3:20 into the section, i.e from 16:54 EDT, so he's reporting it at 16:57 EDT not EST. Where does that put the report?

3) If you look closely at the section where Jane is reporting, there's a vertical bar to her left, and the image there is unrelated to that appearing to the right (e.g. the smoke goes in the opposite direction to that at the right, and the buildings don't match). Is this just a green screen projection from earlier in the day (or is it something else given 1 and 2 above?).

4) Neither Jane, nor the anchorman ever refer to WTC7 *in the picture* behind her (think about this). They just report its alleged collapse *and* refer seperately to the gap in the NY skyline where WTC1 and WTC2 *were* earlier in the day. Just because she's LIVE doesn't mean that all the footage used has to be LIVE too. In fact, Jane says she can't say all that much about the Salomon Brothers Building as information is still sketchy. Muddled references and assumptions on the part of viewers? This was a BBC News Update, and the image was possibly just a convenient clip from earlier in the day surely.

Part 2

There's been a resurgence of interest in the collapse of WTC1, WTC2 (and WTC7) over the past year or so, much of it being described by sceptics as just paranoid "conspiracy theories". Yet the first thing to note is that the 9/11 events were in fact conspiratorial given that a) they involved more than one perpetrator and b) they were illegal acts. Technically, any "theories" about the criminal events of 9/11 are by definition theories about a conspiracy. All hypotheses are conjectures and one has to risk being proven wrong by the data. But this is not how the term "conspiracy theory" is now widely used. It's now being used to discredit any explanations which are not deemed to be soundly based on available evidence. But if the evidence is scanty how do those dismissing conjectures as "paranoid" justify their incredulity?

The problem iis that NIST (which produced over 40 volumes on the 9/11 WTC 1 & 2 collapses) investigated the collapses of from the impact of the planes to the point of collapse of the buildings and they then stopped. The more measured critics of the "conspiracy theorists", who assert that the US government brought the buildings down in order to establish a Pearl Harbour like event consistent with the plans outlined in the neocon PNAC report (2000) to justify the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, i.e. to consolidate US hegemony, have reasonably asked a) what motive, and b) what
opportunity the US government could have had to demolish the WTC buildings (allegedly with cutting charges/Thermate etc) pointing to a) the lack of credible motive, and more critically still b) the lack of opportunity given that controlled demolition would presumably require hundreds of charges to be placed in less than one hour in order to cut the 40+ core steel beams.

The second condition, i.e. opportunity, is the harder to criticise, as it comes down to technical knowledge of how cutting charges could be placed or primed so quickly.

But as to the first, i.e. the lack of motive, there *is* one motive which has had surprisingly little discussion, and I think that's telling, as it is all about what people do when data is missing or withheld - they don't consider all the alternatives.

The main problem for WTC "conspiracy theorists" is that only about 1% of the steel from the collapse of the WTC buildings was allegedly kept for forensic analysis (even though it was a crime scene), and only beams from the immediate vicinity of the impact zones was examined to boot. The NIST report published last year carefully showed where each salvaged beam that was examined was from (the beams were stamped by the manufacturers and the WTC plans showed where they were to be placed), the remainder was allegedly sent off to India and China within a few months. Whilst that was sufficient time for engineers to have examined the beams, there doesn't seem to have been a public report on any such analysis (which presumably would have revealed whether cutting charges had been used on the lower floors or whether there were any other stuctural weaknesses). So the healthily curious, who have been taught to question, naturally ask why more of the beams were not forensically analysed, and if they were, why the results were not made public.

Here's a "What If" for a motive which *could* benevolently explain why.

What if the WTC buildings *were* brought down after a very careful (and benevolent) risk assessment by FEMA (in the time allowed) of the relative costs vs benefits of a) leaving the buildings up (and possibly getting the 1800 or so people trapped above the impact zone out before some of the building fell) vs b) what might have happened *if* the top floors toppled over and fell onto adjacent buildings and people in the vicinity?

What if, amongst the hundreds of firemen there were demolition personnel who had been tasked by FEMA with safely bringing down the buildings onto their own footprints *in order to SAVE more lives/costs?

My merely hypothetical point here is just to illustrate that there are other reasons why the USA government (and any of those involved) could not
admit to doing any of that *either*, as it would presumably open them to a) possible charges of murder AND b) to mass lawsuits and insurance claims from relatives and fromthe companies on the floors above and below who lost everything.

The US government did in fact use the attack to justify their war in Afghanistan and Iraq, but if the above had been the case (and it is just a fantasy to make a point I hasten to add), it would merely have been a *secondary* benefit rather than as the primary reason for bringing down the buildings for safety reasons.

The problem of course is lack of (forensic) evidence. But, in the absence of the beams from lower down, anything goes, and there's no way to rule anything out, or to establish anything. The buildings may well have just fallen down as NIST said, and that's all, given the available evidence, we can reasonably say surely?

[Graham]

[Graham]

http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/janes_office.mp3

"Shure" from LCF tried getting hold of Jane today.

[brian]

[andrewwatson]

Where are the regular posters?

I am baffled. This to me is a huge way of getting at the BBC cover-up of 9/11 , and so far it's only been discussed by half a dozen newish members.

Is everybody suffering from conspiritis, as one slighly disillusioned senior poster described himself?


Are we waiting for confirmation of the time of the broadcast?

I'm sorry folks , but if we can't run with this one we might as well pack up shop. I have emailed seven newspapers. I sent a mail to 40 UK Truth activists and have had three replies. including one saying we should drop it.
I can't believe what I am hearing. There is no way this is not genuine - the anchorman is called Philip somebody - I can check that and get back. It is a glaringly obvious proof that 9/11 was scripted and the media read the script - in this case an hour too early.

[andrewwatson]

This from Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/270207bbcresponds.ht m


BBC Responds to Building 7 Controversy; Claim 9/11 Tapes Lost
Pathetic five paragraph blog rebuttal does not answer questions as to source of report that Soloman Building was coming down, BBC claims tapes lost due to "c***-up" not conspiracy

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, February 27, 2007


The BBC has been forced to respond to footage showing their correspondent reporting the collapse of WTC 7 before it fell on 9/11, claiming tapes from the day are somehow missing, and refusing to identify the source for their bizarre act of "clairvoyance" in accurately pre-empting the fall of Building 7.

Here is the BBC's response to the questions about the footage that was unearthed yesterday, with my comments after each statement.

1. We're not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening.

"We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down." If this is true, then how on earth did the BBC report the collapse of Building 7 before it happened? Psychic clairvoyance? Of course they were told that WTC 7 was coming down, just like the firefighters, police, first responders and CNN were told it was coming down. They had to have had a source for making such a claim. The BBC is acting like the naughty little boy who got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. No one here is claiming the BBC are "part of the conspiracy," but their hideous penchant to just repeat what authorities tell them without even a cursory investigation (and with the Building they are telling us has collapsed mockingly filling the background shot of the report), is a damning indictment of their yellow journalism when it comes to 9/11.
2. In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had. We did what we always did - sourced our reports, used qualifying words like "apparently" or "it's reported" or "we're hearing" and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving.

How do "chaos and confusion" explain how the BBC reported on the collapse of a building, a collapse that happened "unexpectedly" according to their Conspiracy Files hit piece documentary, before it happened? In one breath the BBC is claiming they were not told of the impending collapse of the Building and in the next they are telling us that all their information is sourced. Which is it to be? Did the BBC have a source telling them the building was about to collapse or not? If not, how on earth could they pre-empt its fall? Do BBC reporters have access to a time machine? What was the source of this information?
3. Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I've spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn't remember minute-by-minute what she said or did - like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services.

Trying to make sense of what she was being told? She obviously didn't make much sense of the fact that the Building she was reporting had collapsed was prominently standing behind her! Unfotunately, for a news organization that prides itself on accuracy and credibility, "she doesn't remember" just doesn't cut it as an excuse.


BBC included a screenshot of yesterday's Prison Planet article in their brief response.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------
The Internet leader in activist media - Prison Planet.tv. Thousands of special reports, videos, MP3's, interviews, conferences, speeches, events, documentary films, books and more - all for just 15 cents a day!
Click here to subscribe!
---------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------

4. We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of c***-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another.

We are asked to believe that the world's premiere news organization has somehow lost all its tapes of perhaps the biggest news event of the past 60 years. This is a copout. Whether they have lost the tapes or not, the BBC simply doesn't want to verify one hundred per cent their monumental foul-up, because they know it would only increase the exposure of this issue and lead to further questions. What is there to clear up? The reporter is standing in front of the building while saying it has already collapsed! This is a blatant effort to try and placate people making complaints while refusing to admit a monumental faux pas that further undermines the BBC's credibility in the aftermath of the Conspiracy Files debacle.
5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today "so the guy in the studio didn't quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy... "

So now the BBC are so devoid of answers, they have to enlist the help of some moronic comment on a You Tube blog? Instead of issuing official statements and seeking the advice of legal professionals they produce a cobbled together five paragraph blog and include the testimony of some moron on a You Tube comment board. Pathetic! Answer the question BBC - what was your source for reporting on multiple occasions that Building 7 had collapsed before it had collapsed, and identify the source that enabled the anchorman to comment that the building had collapsed due to it being weakened, an explanation still unanswered by NIST five and a half years later.

If you had reported the collapse of the twin towers before it happened would that have been just an error too? This "error" translated as $800 million plus in insurance bounty for Larry Silverstein - I'm sure Industrial Risk Insurers would be interested to know the source of your "error." In addition, two seperate sources reported that Secret Service Agent Craig Miller died as a result of the collapse of Building 7. Do you think he would have been interested in the "error" that led to your correspondent reporting the building's downfall in advance?

[scar]

After This Fiasco, How Can We Trust Anything They Told Us About 9/11?
The BBC Building 7 farce lends about as much credibility to the official story of 9/11 as weapons of mass destruction do for justifying the invasion of Iraq

More here:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/270207trustanything. htm

[Justin]

Andrew, you're doing a great job here - I can assure you the regulars and old sweats ARE excited by this - we were all waiting to see what the BBC would say. I'm currently revising a letter that will go out to all MPs, MEPs, MSPs next month and I will be including this smoking gun from the BBC. I think we are all a bit shell shocked from the huge amount of 9/11 Truth activity that has occurred over the last four weeks. The tide is definitely turning in our favour.

[Carlos]

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

can see people comments - coming in thick an fast

... also has anyonegot the link to the full, unedited footage? As I can't find it on archive.org anymore, thanks.

[peoplefor911justicecom]

Just in case that goes down Alex Jones is keeping the active links updated in his article here:

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/260207building7.htm