zIFBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.

Learn More · Sign-up Now
Welcome to Loose Change Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Name:   Password:


Pages: (5) 1 [2] 3 4 ... Last » ( Go to first unread post )

 Wtc7 23 Minute Warning Before The Collapse, Unusual BBC report of the WTC7 collapse
btbalance
Posted: Feb 26 2007, 02:42 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 76
Member No.: 171
Joined: 19-October 06



this could be a fake clip - that building could easily be added with some work.. not entirely difficult... plus we don't know it's actually 20+ minutes earlier..

although, it does appear to be real.. can anybody get their hands on copies of bbc world for that day? there has to be a copy out there somewhere, it needs to be verified.

Top
Graham
Posted: Feb 26 2007, 02:43 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 100
Member No.: 355
Joined: 20-October 06



QUOTE (Starbelly @ Feb 26 2007, 02:18 AM)
What. The. Fuck.

Seconded.

And this.

Aaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!! :lol: B)
Top
ERobertG
Posted: Feb 26 2007, 04:36 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 137
Member No.: 1,171
Joined: 10-December 06



BBC can honestly say now...

"We report the news before it happens."
:lol:
Top
Yamaha baby grand
  Posted: Feb 26 2007, 05:01 PM


Unregistered









I can imagine that the pentangon disinformation agents and the homeland of security guys are quite busy in these days. Man, lot to disinfo. :P <_<
Top
el midgetron
Posted: Feb 26 2007, 05:17 PM


Newbie


Group: Members
Posts: 1
Member No.: 1,749
Joined: 25-January 07



I think this is interesting but I am not sure I think its evidence of a conspiracy. I do think the government was involved in the events of 9/11. However, I question whether this is evidence of that.

One of the arguments I hear from the debunkers over and over, is that if there was a conspiracy there would have to the "thousands" for people involved in the cover up. I don't agree with this and think the number of people with actual fore-knowledge of the governments role would be fairly small number of people. Most people involved would not understand their role, or think they were part of a drill, or just doing their normal job.

As scripted, controled and biased as the mass media is, I have to question what purpose giving the BBC a scripted list of events would serve in the conspiracy. Why not just let them report the news as they normaly would, with the normal safe guards and control factors allready in place? Certianly I can see how BBC new executives could have been giving some knowledge or at least guidelines of what is accpetible to discuss on the day of 9/11. However, I just don't see why they would need to "script" the days events for on location reporters to follow.

One aspect I do find strange, is that they reported this without witnessing it themselves. Most people that day were glued to the TV. It seems as if it were your job to report on the events and you had a birds eye view for the events, you would notice if a building (you yourself describe as one of the defining features of the NY skyline) had collapsed. I mean, when they got the "report" didnt they look out the window to see what had happend?

I dunno, it is strange but I have a hard time believing there would be any purpose in scripting the days events (for the news) or manipulating the news in this mannor. It seems unnecissary in the orchestration and execution of the conspiracy to me.
Top
Reggie_perrin
Posted: Feb 26 2007, 05:28 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,302
Member No.: 6
Joined: 18-October 06



QUOTE (el midgetron @ Feb 26 2007, 10:17 PM)


One of the arguments I hear from the debunkers over and over, is that if there was a conspiracy there would have to the "thousands" for people involved in the cover up.

There are hundreds of thousands of people employed by the various agencies (CIA/FBI etc), it's naive to think that some of them would'nt turn bad, there is bound to be a crminal element in there, like in any walk of life.
Top
andybroc
Posted: Feb 26 2007, 11:31 PM


Newbie


Group: Members
Posts: 1
Member No.: 2,631
Joined: 26-February 07



For those who haven't seen the BBC clip ... I've reposted it to Google Video:

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=1555577918205271703

Cheers,
.andy
Top
Coersion
Posted: Feb 27 2007, 04:32 AM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 128
Member No.: 878
Joined: 6-November 06



Just to inform you the repost doesn't seem to be available anymore. I don't get why google keeps taking this down :huh: it's not copywrite is it?
Top
Craig W
Posted: Feb 27 2007, 07:05 AM


Newbie


Group: Members
Posts: 3
Member No.: 2,638
Joined: 27-February 07



QUOTE (miragememories @ Feb 26 2007, 04:47 PM)
I think too much is getting read into this.

Clearly this report was rushed to air before any research had been done. It's likely all the repeated 'on-the-street' reports about the imminent collapse of WTC7 eventually got distorted by a reporter, and "gonna collapse" became "did collapse."

It was a major gaff on the BBC's part for sure, especially given the fact that no one immediately identified the burning building behind their 'live' reporter as the 'still standing' WTC7 building which she was claiming had already collapsed. Since it was the last major standing structure still pouring out heavy smoke on the site, you'd think they might have checked it's identity..amazing..unbelievably poor work on their part.

You would have thought in the roughly 7 hours that passed after the collapse of WTC1, that the BBC Research Dept. would have located maps and visuals of the area so they would be familiar with what they were seeing in their 'live' feed, or, duh..had there on-the-scene people find out for them..I guess they figured that the clearly viewable smoking 47-storey building in their live feed must have been WTC7a, WTC7's twin tower?

It's also pathetic that no one at the BBC seemed to wonder why none of their satellite feeds from the major American TV networks were reporting such a major event. Did they not ask themselves how odd it was that no one but their on-the-scene reporter noticed the sudden collapse of this 47-storey building?

Talk about extremely sloppy..maybe it will damage their credibility regarding the recent 9/11 'hit piece'?

MM

I am afraid I agree - the BBC has a very easy "get-out" here (and it may well be true):

"We made a mistake. Our reporters had heard that WTC7 was unstable and was expected to collapse soon and somehow got our wires crossed.

We simply didn't realise that the building smouldering in the background on the live feed was WTC7.

I am sure we all remember how intense and confusing the day's events were. There was a lot going on and a lot of reports flying around. It was very difficult to keep on top of the story and verify facts.

We have to admit we got this one wrong. We should have checked it out."


This could also explain the "mysterious" end to the transmission - maybe someone realised they were wrong and "pulled it" LOL.

The only thing one could say against that explanation is:

"Did you not think there would be pictures of this collapse - given the numbers of cameras filming the events? And would it not have been appropriate to have shown them alongside the report?"

But the BBC could reply:

"We didn't know which building this was or how major it was and had no reason to look for footage of its collapse. We had never even heard of the 'Salomon Building'. Had we known the size of the building we might have checked it out better."

I am afraid this does not add up to very much.
Top
-Raven-
Posted: Feb 27 2007, 08:11 AM


Advanced Member


Group: Gone
Posts: 2,782
Member No.: 1,932
Joined: 4-February 07



Can somebody repost this video? Youtube maybe?
Top
ERobertG
Posted: Feb 27 2007, 08:23 AM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 137
Member No.: 1,171
Joined: 10-December 06



QUOTE (-Raven- @ Feb 27 2007, 09:11 AM)
Can somebody repost this video? Youtube maybe?

This evidence is obviously too damning so Google took it down.

Here's a couple more links...

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=49f_1172526096

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/february2...07building7.htm

This story is going to get out.
Top
Craig W
Posted: Feb 27 2007, 08:57 AM


Newbie


Group: Members
Posts: 3
Member No.: 2,638
Joined: 27-February 07



I think this is the original source (apologies if it isn't):

http://www.911blogger.com/node/6458
Top
-Raven-
Posted: Feb 27 2007, 09:30 AM


Advanced Member


Group: Gone
Posts: 2,782
Member No.: 1,932
Joined: 4-February 07



WOW!

That's a big mug of HELLO!!!
Top
-Raven-
Posted: Feb 27 2007, 09:50 AM


Advanced Member


Group: Gone
Posts: 2,782
Member No.: 1,932
Joined: 4-February 07



QUOTE (ERobertG @ Feb 27 2007, 07:23 AM)
QUOTE (-Raven- @ Feb 27 2007, 09:11 AM)
Can somebody repost this video? Youtube maybe?

This evidence is obviously too damning so Google took it down.

Here's a couple more links...

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=49f_1172526096

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/february2...07building7.htm

This story is going to get out.

I am still taking all of this in. I already would have bet the farm that WTC7 was a controlled demolition, but I am still in SHOCK about how the media is SOOOOOO orchestrated!
Top
-Raven-
Posted: Feb 27 2007, 10:44 AM


Advanced Member


Group: Gone
Posts: 2,782
Member No.: 1,932
Joined: 4-February 07



Here is another link...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlFDd5Yjn3w&eurl

Here is some additional supporting evidence...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1LetB0z8_o
Top
NoCoolAid
Posted: Feb 27 2007, 11:03 AM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 175
Member No.: 2,037
Joined: 9-February 07



Don't you guys think you are making a bit too much of this?
Top
Roxdog
Posted: Feb 27 2007, 11:21 AM


Why is Al Gore's House Bigger Than Everyone Else's?


Group: Members
Posts: 5,428
Member No.: 34
Joined: 18-October 06



QUOTE (NoCoolAid @ Feb 27 2007, 04:03 PM)
Don't you guys think you are making a bit too much of this?

I think you and your ilk make too little of all this, actually...That's kinda the crux of the problem.
Top
-Raven-
Posted: Feb 27 2007, 03:12 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Gone
Posts: 2,782
Member No.: 1,932
Joined: 4-February 07



QUOTE (NoCoolAid @ Feb 27 2007, 10:03 AM)
Don't you guys think you are making a bit too much of this?

I don't think I emphasized it enough when I said...

QUOTE
I am still taking all of this in. I already would have bet the farm that WTC7 was a controlled demolition, but I am still in SHOCK about how the media is SOOOOOO orchestrated!


You MUST see it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlFDd5Yjn3w&eurl

Here is some additional supporting evidence...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1LetB0z8_o
Top
SittingBull
Posted: Feb 27 2007, 04:39 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33
Member No.: 1,966
Joined: 6-February 07



QUOTE (Craig W @ Feb 27 2007, 12:05 PM)
QUOTE (miragememories @ Feb 26 2007, 04:47 PM)
I think too much is getting read into this.

Clearly this report was rushed to air before any research had been done. It's likely all the repeated 'on-the-street' reports about the imminent collapse of WTC7 eventually got distorted by a reporter, and "gonna collapse" became "did collapse."

It was a major gaff on the BBC's part for sure, especially given the fact that no one immediately identified the burning building behind their 'live' reporter as the 'still standing' WTC7 building which she was claiming had already collapsed. Since it was the last major standing structure still pouring out heavy smoke on the site, you'd think they might have checked it's identity..amazing..unbelievably poor work on their part.

You would have thought in the roughly 7 hours that passed after the collapse of WTC1, that the BBC Research Dept. would have located maps and visuals of the area so they would be familiar with what they were seeing in their 'live' feed, or, duh..had there on-the-scene people find out for them..I guess they figured that the clearly viewable smoking 47-storey building in their live feed must have been WTC7a, WTC7's twin tower?

It's also pathetic that no one at the BBC seemed to wonder why none of their satellite feeds from the major American TV networks were reporting such a major event. Did they not ask themselves how odd it was that no one but their on-the-scene reporter noticed the sudden collapse of this 47-storey building?

Talk about extremely sloppy..maybe it will damage their credibility regarding the recent 9/11 'hit piece'?

MM

I am afraid I agree - the BBC has a very easy "get-out" here (and it may well be true):

"We made a mistake. Our reporters had heard that WTC7 was unstable and was expected to collapse soon and somehow got our wires crossed.

We simply didn't realise that the building smouldering in the background on the live feed was WTC7.

I am sure we all remember how intense and confusing the day's events were. There was a lot going on and a lot of reports flying around. It was very difficult to keep on top of the story and verify facts.

We have to admit we got this one wrong. We should have checked it out."


This could also explain the "mysterious" end to the transmission - maybe someone realised they were wrong and "pulled it" LOL.

The only thing one could say against that explanation is:

"Did you not think there would be pictures of this collapse - given the numbers of cameras filming the events? And would it not have been appropriate to have shown them alongside the report?"

But the BBC could reply:

"We didn't know which building this was or how major it was and had no reason to look for footage of its collapse. We had never even heard of the 'Salomon Building'. Had we known the size of the building we might have checked it out better."

I am afraid this does not add up to very much.

I tend to disagree.

Please read this post by a prisonplanet commentary:

QUOTE


I guess what bothers me is this: "If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that."

Uh, it WASN'T an error... That's the point. They keep harping on what a chaotic day it was. Then why did the anchor say something like, "We're getting some unconfirmed reports of some other building apparently collapsing... We'll have to check up on this... etc." No, they had (23 minutes before hand) the name of the building, the correct # of floors in the building (47), the explanation of the collapse (weakened by other collapses), and they were reporting that the building was apparently empty. That is some pretty precise reporting for a day of chaos when everyone 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."

And there lies the key (perhaps). No doubt the info was just being fed to the anchor and reporter off the wires as the news would cross... Having worked for 7 years in broadcast news, I know how that goes... Something comes over the wire from AP, or Reuters, or whichever agency and you report it, especially during an event like September 11, 2001 (I remember the chaos of working for NBC News in L.A. when the Oklahoma City bombing occurred; it was crazy). So, which agency fed that bit about WTC7 collapsing? We'll probably never know, but they got the information from some source more than 23 minutes before it happened (had to be longer, because there must have been some delay from the story coming over the wire and the anchor actually getting the news out on the air).

Do I think the BBC is "...part of a conspiracy"? No... but they were play perfectly by some entity.

Top
Craig W
Posted: Feb 27 2007, 04:56 PM


Newbie


Group: Members
Posts: 3
Member No.: 2,638
Joined: 27-February 07



I stand by my original post and the BBC explanation is perfectly plausible in my view.

While it doesn't disprove the possibility that they had got an embargoed news release from one of the big agencies early it could very easily have been a simple mistake.

The scenario:

A reporter close to the scene hears emergency workers talking about the imminent collapse of WTC7 (as we know many were forewarned) and passes the news on. The reporter also gathers info about the building in question and relays that back (47 storeys, empty, fire damage plus damaged by falling WTC 1 + 2, etc). At some point in the passing on of the message the expected to collapse becomes has collapsed.


I am a journalist and have dealt with news releases on many occasions. I know how journalists often don't check press releases especially when they are from the more trusted news agencies and when they are under pressure to produce copy.
Top
0 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
« Next Oldest | WTC 7 | Next Newest »
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you

Topic OptionsPages: (5) 1 [2] 3 4 ... Last »



Hosted for free by zIFBoards* (Terms of Use: Updated 2/10/2010) | Powered by Invision Power Board v1.3 Final © 2003 IPS, Inc.
Page creation time: 0.0316 seconds · Archive