UPDATED March 3: BBC World, BBC News 24 & CNN Reported WTC7 Fell before it did (Video)

[imported_Aelius]

This thread has been moved from P&N.

It degraded back to the tinfoil theory that causes such threads to be booted from P&N

Anandtech Moderator



My view is quite simple. The argument that is being presented by the BBC in their blog (see very bottom for link) in that this is an error and that there was confusion and that they no longer have the original tapes etc is complete hogwash.

Every time the BBC is caught red handed (twice in two weeks in a row) they give a response that is very similar to those given by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Again you can read their response in the blog link at the bottom.

For an example of the kind of response I'm talking about please see the link in my sig.

WTC7 Video:

The video is just over 7min long and the reporting starts at the start of those 7 minutes until suddenly the BBC looses its satelite connection to NY and the picture is cut off. We currently don't have a sourced time stamp of when this was taped. This would be on the originals that were conveniently not kept by the BBC (destroyed probably).

The source of the leak indicates that the report is given at 4:57pm EST which is 23 minutes (5:20pm) before it fell. Shortly after the BBC suddenly looses its satelite connection.

What is not in question is the fact that you can clearly see WTC7 in the background throughout the report until the satelite connection is cut.

Make of it what you will (I'm including all sources including the original one that was censored and no longer works. Thankfully some caught it and it spread like fire.):

Original source now censored by Google

YouTube (currently up and working)

LiveLink (currently up and working)

Esnips Link (Up and running)

Directly link at PrisonPlanet (up and running)

QuickTime direct version (up and running)

Torrent version (not tested)

AVI direct version (up and running)


This is the BBC blog in response to this video. You can add what you think if you wish as I have.

EDIT:
BBC News 24 includes Story and Time Stamp

Debunkers have now been completely eviscerated: BBC News 24 includes story and Time Stamp. (Google Video version has already been censored, but I will include the video as soon as I find one that works). For now we have a screenshot of it. It was working earlier.

The now no longer working google video can be seen here but it has a screenshot.

EDIT: Added link.

YouTube version of News 24 video (currently up and running)

Note: 21.54 Hours which coverts to 4:54PM in NY

CNN Reports Time of collapse/collapsing at 4:15pm

What has now been leaked is that CNN had spilled the same story 65 minutes before it actually occured and I quote "has either collapsed or is collapsing." Also mentions that this occured at "about 4:15 eastern daylight time"

The CNN video can be seen here (currently working from YouTube)

EDIT:

Another Video.

This one is also from the BBC. This one discusses why the towers fell and gave an explaintaion that was virtually the exact same thing the offical report came out with. Keep in mind this was shortly after the collapse and long before any experts were lined up by the government.

Here it is


EDIT:

Here is the BBC's Richard Porter's response to this story about the tapes going missing.

4. We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-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.

Richard Porter is head of news, BBC World

Source: BBC Blog


Here is the BBC's own Policy on keeping Media. That would be copies of reports and tapes.

Ref No.
Policy Area / Policy Statement

01
Components to be Retained

01-01
The following components to be retained:-

· Two broadcast standard copies of all transmitted/published TV, Radio and BBCi output ? one to be stored on a separate site as a master

· One browse-quality version for research purposes, to protect the broadcast material

· All supporting metadata to enable research and re-use

· A selection of original (i.e. unedited) material for re-use/re-versioning purposes

· Hardware/software/equipment to enable replay/transfer of the media

Source: BBC website

As for News 24 tapes not clearing this up I have already posted the video from News 24 clearly showing the exact same story reported by different people and showing the Time Stamp.

 

[dmcowen674]

So?

They wanted and got new prime Real Estate.

 

[Genx87]

And?

I am going to get the popcorn for this one.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: Genx87
And?

I am going to get the popcorn for this one.

I expect this kind of response. I also don't care.

EDIT: Your comment reminds me of this "so what" comment from Bush.

So what?

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Aelius
We currently don't have a sourced time stamp of when this was taped. This would be on the originals that were conveniently not kept by the BBC (destroyed probably).

If the time is not embedded right into the video by the BBC themselves, couldn't you simply be watching a video that's smartly cut to look like they had prior notice? Also, how do you know that the originals were not kept by the BBC - where exactly are you getting all of this information from?

Someone cutting up that footage digitally to make a fool out of you is much more likely than the complicity of dozens of people at the BBC and elsewhere in the killing of 3,000 civilians...

Sorry if this is answered by the videos, I actually can't reach any at the moment.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Aelius
We currently don't have a sourced time stamp of when this was taped. This would be on the originals that were conveniently not kept by the BBC (destroyed probably).

If the time is not embedded right into the video by the BBC themselves, couldn't you simply be watching a video that's smartly cut to look like they had prior notice? Also, how do you know that the originals were not kept by the BBC - where exactly are you getting all of this information from?

Someone cutting up that footage digitally to make a fool out of you is much more likely than the complicity of dozens of people at the BBC and elsewhere in the killing of 3,000 civilians...

Sorry if this is answered by the videos, I actually can't reach any at the moment.

Read the blog directly from the BBC itself. It's the very last link. That should answer most of your questions.

 

[imported_Aelius]

It appears that the BBC blog is partly broken. Their comment section doesn't work and I wasn't able to post my comment either.

 

[QuantumPion]

I think we need to apply a little Occam's Razor here. What is more likely, that the reporter was in error and that the satellite feed is unrelated, or that the BBC is involved in a massive multi-national conspiracy to blow up the WTC so that Bush & Blair would have a pretense to invade Iraq to steal their oil?

 

[mfs378]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
I think we need to apply a little Occam's Razor here. What is more likely, that the reporter was in error and that the satellite feed is unrelated, or that the BBC is involved in a massive multi-national conspiracy to blow up the WTC so that Bush & Blair would have a pretense to invade Iraq to steal their oil?

Did you watch the video? Obviously not. Please watch it and then update your post.

 

[will889]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
I think we need to apply a little Occam's Razor here. What is more likely, that the reporter was in error and that the satellite feed is unrelated, or that the BBC is involved in a massive multi-national conspiracy to blow up the WTC so that Bush & Blair would have a pretense to invade Iraq to steal their oil?

About as much of and error as would be reporting 20 minutes after the other towers actually fell that they haven't collapsed yet, and continuing to do so ongoing for those 20 minutes with two giant piles of rubble sitting there. Think about it.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: mfs378

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
I think we need to apply a little Occam's Razor here. What is more likely, that the reporter was in error and that the satellite feed is unrelated, or that the BBC is involved in a massive multi-national conspiracy to blow up the WTC so that Bush & Blair would have a pretense to invade Iraq to steal their oil?

Did you watch the video? Obviously not. Please watch it and then update your post.

Well that settles it, Bush is an idiot, a baffoon when he isnt putting together conspiracies that include thousands of people and get them to shut their traps and never speak of it.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Genx87
.Well that settles it, Bush is an idiot.,..

That's a forgone conclusion but even an idiot like him knows enough not to buy into these type of conspiracy theories.

 

[mfs378]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: mfs378

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
I think we need to apply a little Occam's Razor here. What is more likely, that the reporter was in error and that the satellite feed is unrelated, or that the BBC is involved in a massive multi-national conspiracy to blow up the WTC so that Bush & Blair would have a pretense to invade Iraq to steal their oil?

Did you watch the video? Obviously not. Please watch it and then update your post.

Well that settles it, Bush is an idiot, a baffoon when he isnt putting together conspiracies that include thousands of people and get them to shut their traps and never speak of it.

What does this have to do with what I wrote? LOL

 

[daveshel]

I have never been satisfied with the explanations regarding building 7.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Updated Story as it is developing.

Please see my EDIT for new information.

Time Stamp included for BBC News 24 footage and CNN clearly states it's 4:15pm and that WTC7 has collapsed or is collapsing.

Suggesting that it's reasonable to conclude that they may say this because there was a fire, as they state in the video, and that a collapse could happen is complete hogwash as no steel frame building before 9/11 has ever collapsed. It should also be noted that no steel frame building since 9/11 has collapsed either (some partial collapse of some partial floors at the extreme).

 

[imported_Aelius]

Found working video of BBC News 24: I have updated my EDIT

Here on YouTube

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Aelius
Updated Story as it is developing.

Please see my EDIT for new information.

Time Stamp included for BBC News 24 footage and CNN clearly states it's 4:15pm and that WTC7 has collapsed or is collapsing.

Suggesting that it's reasonable to conclude that they may say this because there was a fire, as they state in the video, and that a collapse could happen is complete hogwash as no steel frame building before 9/11 has ever collapsed. It should also be noted that no steel frame building since 9/11 has collapsed either (some partial collapse of some partial floors at the extreme).

Though the south face of 7 WTC suffered significant structural damage (according to reports and what photo evidence is publicly available) due to falling debris from the collapse of 1 WTC in addition to the fires.

Still waiting on the NIST report to come out and lay down all the evidence.

 

[Fern]

Aelius, what conclusion do you draw from this premature reportage?

Fern

 

[bobdelt]

why is this still in question? Hasnt osama taken responsibility on it too? Or is he on vacation in camp david too?

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Aelius
Updated Story as it is developing.

Please see my EDIT for new information.

Time Stamp included for BBC News 24 footage and CNN clearly states it's 4:15pm and that WTC7 has collapsed or is collapsing.

Suggesting that it's reasonable to conclude that they may say this because there was a fire, as they state in the video, and that a collapse could happen is complete hogwash as no steel frame building before 9/11 has ever collapsed. It should also be noted that no steel frame building since 9/11 has collapsed either (some partial collapse of some partial floors at the extreme).

Though the south face of 7 WTC suffered significant structural damage (according to reports and what photo evidence is publicly available) due to falling debris from the collapse of 1 WTC in addition to the fires.

Still waiting on the NIST report to come out and lay down all the evidence.

If that were true the building would have falling towards the South. Not straight down. There is no logic to what you are suggesting in any shape or form.

There is no evidence to backup the news magazine story by Popular Mechancis either. When grilled on providing the evidence to the public they claim that they were given about WTC7 they tell us that it is classified. There is no logic behind that either. How is classified material given to a magazine yet not provided to the American people?

If you wish I can dig out the mp3 of that interview.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Aelius

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Aelius
Updated Story as it is developing.

Please see my EDIT for new information.

Time Stamp included for BBC News 24 footage and CNN clearly states it's 4:15pm and that WTC7 has collapsed or is collapsing.

Suggesting that it's reasonable to conclude that they may say this because there was a fire, as they state in the video, and that a collapse could happen is complete hogwash as no steel frame building before 9/11 has ever collapsed. It should also be noted that no steel frame building since 9/11 has collapsed either (some partial collapse of some partial floors at the extreme).

Though the south face of 7 WTC suffered significant structural damage (according to reports and what photo evidence is publicly available) due to falling debris from the collapse of 1 WTC in addition to the fires.

Still waiting on the NIST report to come out and lay down all the evidence.

If that were true the building would have falling towards the South. Not straight down. There is no logic to what you are suggesting in any shape or form.

There is no evidence to backup the news magazine story by Popular Mechancis either. When grilled on providing the evidence to the public they claim that they were given about WTC7 they tell us that it is classified. There is no logic behind that either. How is classified material given to a magazine yet not provided to the American people?

If you wish I can dig out the mp3 of that interview.

7 WTC wasn't a normal steel frame building as part of it was built over a substation. The engineers cantilevered part the structure over it so I can see why it's failure might not be a straightforward. Again, I'm waiting to see what the NIST report says about all this.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: Fern
Aelius, what conclusion do you draw from this premature reportage?

Fern

I conclude that they were told ahead of time that the building was coming down. This isn't in question.

Police Officers and other first responders have come forward stating that there was a loud count down from 20 prior to the building falling. There is video evidence of police telling people on the street to get out of the way because WTC7 is going to come down etc.

Sometime soon there will be an interview with over a dozen Police Officers, Fire Fighters etc who all saw this happening first hand. When that occurs I will update this thread with their interview as well.

Bottom line. They knew. Little bird didn't tell them. Somebody did.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Aelius

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Aelius
Updated Story as it is developing.

Please see my EDIT for new information.

Time Stamp included for BBC News 24 footage and CNN clearly states it's 4:15pm and that WTC7 has collapsed or is collapsing.

Suggesting that it's reasonable to conclude that they may say this because there was a fire, as they state in the video, and that a collapse could happen is complete hogwash as no steel frame building before 9/11 has ever collapsed. It should also be noted that no steel frame building since 9/11 has collapsed either (some partial collapse of some partial floors at the extreme).

Though the south face of 7 WTC suffered significant structural damage (according to reports and what photo evidence is publicly available) due to falling debris from the collapse of 1 WTC in addition to the fires.

Still waiting on the NIST report to come out and lay down all the evidence.

If that were true the building would have falling towards the South. Not straight down. There is no logic to what you are suggesting in any shape or form.

There is no evidence to backup the news magazine story by Popular Mechancis either. When grilled on providing the evidence to the public they claim that they were given about WTC7 they tell us that it is classified. There is no logic behind that either. How is classified material given to a magazine yet not provided to the American people?

If you wish I can dig out the mp3 of that interview.

7 WTC wasn't a normal steel frame building as part of it was built over a substation. The engineers cantilevered part the structure over it so I can see why it's failure might not be a straightforward. Again, I'm waiting to see what the NIST report says about all this.

Is that why it was considered the most secure building? The entire alphabet soup of spookdom had its offices in that building including the Mayor's shelter.

I'm not following your logic. If you have something solid to explain why it didn't fall South please enlighten us.

 

[sandorski]

meh, didn't watch the whole thing(taking too long to download), but there could be a few reasons why this happened. One being that they simply misreported a rumour or warning of a possible collapse as an actual collapse.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

do we get nice little foil hats for this?

I want my prize!


Conspiracy nuts are not tasty