BBC World reported WTC7 collapse before it happened

[GEFBASS]

Picture 1 Possibly the building.

Picture 2 What the Camera position saw.

Picture 3 I think where the BBC were.

Just to add I don`t know what the building is called but this is my best guess.

[johndoe]

isn't the western union building the building to the left of wtc 7 mostly obscured by one of the towers.

the building to the right of that is the US Post office

which would leave us here:

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y222/ZuluDave/6g1_2_WTC.jpg

looking at the side if you follow the black arrow.

in fact on second thoughts.. the building circled isn't the western union building is it not the verizon building on 140 west street?

reference : http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/fig-7-1.gif

(please note that is more than one verizon bulding in new york)

okay so the image from photobucket is wrong as it misidentifies the verizon building as the western union building.

but still following the black arrow as the line of sight would give you a view of the side of the building.

[James C]

[James C]

[GEFBASS]

[telecasterisation]

[GEFBASS]

telecasterisation,

This may help, I`m not a graphic designer, also a plan of the wtc complex.

Geoff.

[telecasterisation]

[John White]

So, after 16 pages, are we all now agreed upon the bleeding obvious?

That the BBC reported WTC7 as collapsed when the building was still standing?

If so: well done, good job!

[telecasterisation]

[ZUCO]

Without wanting to sound stupid...why is it relevant where she was standing? As far as I know there's no accusation of the tape being fake. All that matters to me is what was reported and what was behind her.

[GEFBASS]

[TheSea]

Judging by google searches it would seem its gone dead as a story for anyone but truthers, such a shame.
It might be a depth of field or focus issue but it certainly isn't the depth of field or focus of the pictures thats a problem ....more the depth of field and focus of the truth campaign.
Who did you email about it? Was it just truth campaigners or did you do as one poster did and email all his relevant MPs
Hey Ho another opportunity fades into a hobbists debate, and therefore becomes a professional distractors dream scenario.

[James C]

[physicist]

[telecasterisation]

This is nothing whatsoever to do with nit picking, or even ‘timely words’ for that matter.

Suddenly a clip appears on YouTube that has remained ‘hidden’ for over five years. The makers of the content of that clip strangely ‘lose’ the original’. Does this not seem rather extraordinary?

We simply accept the content as being genuine with no other verifiable sources, there is nothing to compare it to, no high-res photo, no VHS copies from different sources. So with this in mind, given the things that we have spouted in the past to both the uninitiated and amongst ourselves alike (such as missile firing pods), does it not make perfect and justifiable sense to establish that at the very least, what we are seeing out of the window is not only genuine but even feasible?

We are told to ‘ask the tough questions folks’ and when we do, call it research if it makes it more comfortable, we have all this ‘tutting’ from the stalls as if we should just accept what we see with no questioning.

Towards the end of last year a ‘whistleblower’ came out the woodwork and everyone was jumping up and down – he was interviewed by Alex Jones, but after more investigation it transpired that his credentials were flawed and he was dropped like the proverbial hot potato. Surely we should not be so quick to accept things at face value?

I believe there is far less to this than meets the eye and if people want to just accept that everything is as it seems, then that for me is the reverse of what moving towards truth is all about. Regardless of whether the BBC clip is legitimate or not, it is our duty to look beyond the surface and I am sincerely surprised that anyone is taking the attitude that we need look no further.

I would add, that;

[James C]

[telecasterisation]

[James C]

[telecasterisation]

[James C]

[kookomula]

Variety: March 5 - 11 2007

Conspiring minds at BBC?

DOMINIC SCHREIBER

After debunking many of the myths surrounding 9/11 in its recent "Conspiracy Files" docu series, the BBC is at the center of a whole new set of allegations over what really happened - thanks to a five-year-old piece of news footage that found its way onto videosharing Web sites last week.


The clip, from BBC World, appears to show a live report covering the collapse of World Trade Center 7, the third building to fall following the terrorist attacks - a full 30-minutes before the building actually came down.
For conspiracy theorists, it's the latest evidence that 9/11 was an inside job - and that the media are in on it. But Richard Porter, head of news at BBC World, says it was simply a mistake. "We're not part of a conspiracy," says Porter in response to the hundreds of emails and phone calls received. "Nobody told us what to say or do on Sept. 11."
But Porter's statement has merely fueled speculation of a cover-up, thanks to his admission that the BBC apparently lost the original tape of the report. "If someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it," he writes.

[kookomula]

Deleted. Accidental copy of above.

[kookomula]

Part of the conspiracy?Richard Porter 27 Feb 07, 05:12 PM

The 9/11 conspiracy theories are pretty well known by now. The BBC addressed them earlier this month with a documentary, The Conspiracy Files, shown within the UK.

Until now, I don't think we've been accused of being part of the conspiracy. But now some websites are using news footage from BBC World on September 11th 2001 to suggest we were actively participating in some sort of attempt to manipulate the audience. As a result, we're now getting lots of emails asking us to clarify our position. So here goes:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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... "

Richard Porter is head of news, BBC World

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

[Serge]

[johndoe]

could someone do me a wee favor and highlight both the western union building and the verizon building (140 west street) on a map?

[kookomula]

Try googling variety and the title you will find something

[Serge]

[who murdered di ?]

[telecasterisation]