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

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: mfs378

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: mfs378

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: mfs378


The evidence is in the tapes. Someone told BBC that the building had collapsed before it did, and BBC subsequently reported it. If this is not evidence of foreknowledge, then what is it? A lucky guess? And you haven't answered my question.

If you just think its inaccurate information, where do you think it came from?

Huh? Are you honestly trying to pretend that false information hasn't been reported on by broadcasters before? Are you saying that with a straight face or what?

A lack of evidence is not evidence. Get over it.

So where did the false information come from? Someone just invented it?

Watch Fox News often? Seen much TV the past 60 years? Seen much news TV the last 10? Things are literally made up and misunderstood all the time. All. The. Time. Recent blatant example; Fox reporting Obama attended a madrasa (categorically false) and passing it off as a pejorative.

The BBC report may have been inaccurate at the time, but it described exactly what was to transpire about half an hour in the future. Do you honestly believe that this could just have been "made up" out of thin air? If it was "misunderstood", then don't you want to know what bit of information it was that they misinterpreted?

And you still haven't answered my question.

What you propose doesnt even make sense.

At least with the old conpiracy bs we actually had to dig around a little to disprove you.

 

[mfs378]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: mfs378

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: mfs378

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: mfs378


The evidence is in the tapes. Someone told BBC that the building had collapsed before it did, and BBC subsequently reported it. If this is not evidence of foreknowledge, then what is it? A lucky guess? And you haven't answered my question.

If you just think its inaccurate information, where do you think it came from?

Huh? Are you honestly trying to pretend that false information hasn't been reported on by broadcasters before? Are you saying that with a straight face or what?

A lack of evidence is not evidence. Get over it.

So where did the false information come from? Someone just invented it?

Watch Fox News often? Seen much TV the past 60 years? Seen much news TV the last 10? Things are literally made up and misunderstood all the time. All. The. Time. Recent blatant example; Fox reporting Obama attended a madrasa (categorically false) and passing it off as a pejorative.

The BBC report may have been inaccurate at the time, but it described exactly what was to transpire about half an hour in the future. Do you honestly believe that this could just have been "made up" out of thin air? If it was "misunderstood", then don't you want to know what bit of information it was that they misinterpreted?

And you still haven't answered my question.

What you propose doesnt even make sense.

At least with the old conpiracy bs we actually had to dig around a little to disprove you.

What am I proposing? How have you disproved me?

There are legitimate questions here and all I want is to have them answered. I'm not asking you for the answer. I''m just espousing the viewpoint that the people who have the answers should give them. And all you people do is shout me down with a flood of content-less posts.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: mfs378

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: mfs378

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: mfs378

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: mfs378


The evidence is in the tapes. Someone told BBC that the building had collapsed before it did, and BBC subsequently reported it. If this is not evidence of foreknowledge, then what is it? A lucky guess? And you haven't answered my question.

If you just think its inaccurate information, where do you think it came from?

Huh? Are you honestly trying to pretend that false information hasn't been reported on by broadcasters before? Are you saying that with a straight face or what?

A lack of evidence is not evidence. Get over it.

So where did the false information come from? Someone just invented it?

Watch Fox News often? Seen much TV the past 60 years? Seen much news TV the last 10? Things are literally made up and misunderstood all the time. All. The. Time. Recent blatant example; Fox reporting Obama attended a madrasa (categorically false) and passing it off as a pejorative.

The BBC report may have been inaccurate at the time, but it described exactly what was to transpire about half an hour in the future. Do you honestly believe that this could just have been "made up" out of thin air? If it was "misunderstood", then don't you want to know what bit of information it was that they misinterpreted?

And you still haven't answered my question.

What you propose doesnt even make sense.

At least with the old conpiracy bs we actually had to dig around a little to disprove you.

What am I proposing? How have you disproved me?

There are legitimate questions here and all I want is to have them answered. I'm not asking you for the answer. I''m just espousing the viewpoint that the people who have the answers should give them. And all you people do is shout me down with a flood of content-less posts.

When someone is making an argument as utterly ridiculous as you and the rest of the tin foil crowd are, there is no need to disprove you. Have you ever watched election night coverage during a Presidential election? Is it a vast conspiracy when they say that a state has gone to candidate x or candidate y before 100 percent of the vote is in? How about when they get it wrong, is that a conspiracy too?

If I tell you that Godzilla is real, does that mean that it is true unless you disprove me?

 

[mfs378]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: mfs378

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: mfs378

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: mfs378

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: mfs378


The evidence is in the tapes. Someone told BBC that the building had collapsed before it did, and BBC subsequently reported it. If this is not evidence of foreknowledge, then what is it? A lucky guess? And you haven't answered my question.

If you just think its inaccurate information, where do you think it came from?

Huh? Are you honestly trying to pretend that false information hasn't been reported on by broadcasters before? Are you saying that with a straight face or what?

A lack of evidence is not evidence. Get over it.

So where did the false information come from? Someone just invented it?

Watch Fox News often? Seen much TV the past 60 years? Seen much news TV the last 10? Things are literally made up and misunderstood all the time. All. The. Time. Recent blatant example; Fox reporting Obama attended a madrasa (categorically false) and passing it off as a pejorative.

The BBC report may have been inaccurate at the time, but it described exactly what was to transpire about half an hour in the future. Do you honestly believe that this could just have been "made up" out of thin air? If it was "misunderstood", then don't you want to know what bit of information it was that they misinterpreted?

And you still haven't answered my question.

What you propose doesnt even make sense.

At least with the old conpiracy bs we actually had to dig around a little to disprove you.

What am I proposing? How have you disproved me?

There are legitimate questions here and all I want is to have them answered. I'm not asking you for the answer. I''m just espousing the viewpoint that the people who have the answers should give them. And all you people do is shout me down with a flood of content-less posts.

When someone is making an argument as utterly ridiculous as you and the rest of the tin foil crowd are, there is no need to disprove you. Have you ever watched election night coverage during a Presidential election? Is it a vast conspiracy when they say that a state has gone to candidate x or candidate y before 100 percent of the vote is in? How about when they get it wrong, is that a conspiracy too?

If I tell you that Godzilla is real, does that mean that it is true unless you disprove me?

What argument are you ascribing to me? You seem to be confused. And your analogy is beyond stupid.

What gets me is that you guys march right past the question of who told BBC that WTC7 has collapsed. Aren't you even curious?

 

[imported_Aelius]

Updated First Post with this:

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.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: mfs378

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: mfs378

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: mfs378

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: mfs378


The evidence is in the tapes. Someone told BBC that the building had collapsed before it did, and BBC subsequently reported it. If this is not evidence of foreknowledge, then what is it? A lucky guess? And you haven't answered my question.

If you just think its inaccurate information, where do you think it came from?

Huh? Are you honestly trying to pretend that false information hasn't been reported on by broadcasters before? Are you saying that with a straight face or what?

A lack of evidence is not evidence. Get over it.

So where did the false information come from? Someone just invented it?

Watch Fox News often? Seen much TV the past 60 years? Seen much news TV the last 10? Things are literally made up and misunderstood all the time. All. The. Time. Recent blatant example; Fox reporting Obama attended a madrasa (categorically false) and passing it off as a pejorative.

The BBC report may have been inaccurate at the time, but it described exactly what was to transpire about half an hour in the future. Do you honestly believe that this could just have been "made up" out of thin air? If it was "misunderstood", then don't you want to know what bit of information it was that they misinterpreted?

And you still haven't answered my question.

What you propose doesnt even make sense.

At least with the old conpiracy bs we actually had to dig around a little to disprove you.

What am I proposing? How have you disproved me?

There are legitimate questions here and all I want is to have them answered. I'm not asking you for the answer. I''m just espousing the viewpoint that the people who have the answers should give them. And all you people do is shout me down with a flood of content-less posts.

When someone is making an argument as utterly ridiculous as you and the rest of the tin foil crowd are, there is no need to disprove you. Have you ever watched election night coverage during a Presidential election? Is it a vast conspiracy when they say that a state has gone to candidate x or candidate y before 100 percent of the vote is in? How about when they get it wrong, is that a conspiracy too?

If I tell you that Godzilla is real, does that mean that it is true unless you disprove me?

ROFL

So you disprove us by saying we have been disproved and then admit you don't need to disprove us. The logic is just... I don't know what to say. I'm at a loss for words.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Aelius
You are asking for a full blown exposure of all evidence so far collected that puts into question, disproves, or outright eviscerates the official story.

Actually, no, that's not what we're asking for. All we require is a single legitimate piece of solid evidence that does not resemble conjecture or hearsay.

GL!

 

[ericlp]

Yeah, like an idiot. I d/l and watched the video. You know it's like one of the "FREE IPOD give away things..." Gotta see if there is a free prize... ahaha anyway, it was either a big mix up or the clocks were not in sync. Obviously I didn't put much effort into it...

Bottom line, move along nothing to see here.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Aelius
You are asking for a full blown exposure of all evidence so far collected that puts into question, disproves, or outright eviscerates the official story.

Actually, no, that's not what we're asking for. All we require is a single legitimate piece of solid evidence that does not resemble conjecture or hearsay.

GL!

The OP seems to be big on evisceration. However, the burden is clearly on those advancing crackpot theories to prove them. No amount of spew on a discussion board changes that, and that's why this will remain a crackpot theory on an internet discussion board.

I may think it's stupid, but I believe in the right of people to believe in crackpot theories all they want. They could be frittering away their time with drugs or some other way.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
I may think it's stupid, but I believe in the right of people to believe in crackpot theories all they want. They could be frittering away their time with drugs or some other way.

I am fairly confident that heavy drugs are involved...

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Aelius
You are asking for a full blown exposure of all evidence so far collected that puts into question, disproves, or outright eviscerates the official story.

Actually, no, that's not what we're asking for. All we require is a single legitimate piece of solid evidence that does not resemble conjecture or hearsay.

GL!

You are asking that off topic or on topic? This topic is about the news story from BBC World, BBC News 24 and CNN.

You need not go farther than my last update that puts into serious question the remarks of the head of BBC World.

If you want a single legitimate piece of of solid evidence then you are in luck. That's what we are asking. Either to prove their story or to disprove it. To this day I have not seen that concerning the topic at hand.

Claiming that it is an error in the confusion and that the tapes have gone missing is in the same realm of answers as if I said they are taking an active part in a vast conspiracy on the day of the event.

His last comment about News 24 tapes not proving what was shown from the BBC World tape is a lie. I already posted the video that disproves his comment. He is lying. If he isn't lying than why don't they simply say that they don't have those tapes either? Ooops because they already said that they had the tapes and he reviewed them. I guess we were supposed to take his word?

At the VERY least he needs to release a statement that clarifies his previous statement. If he can give a reasonable answer as to why he said what I said I will retract calling him a liar. As of this writing he has outright lied. I suppose he didn't think someone had the BBC News 24 tapes as well since those came out after his comments.

I'm not claiming that this is evidence that they are part of a clever cover up. I'm quoting that he has publicly lied. I, and many others, would like to know why. Since this is a publicly funded entity he should be removed from office or release a statement that clarifies his comments.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Aelius

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Aelius
You are asking for a full blown exposure of all evidence so far collected that puts into question, disproves, or outright eviscerates the official story.

Actually, no, that's not what we're asking for. All we require is a single legitimate piece of solid evidence that does not resemble conjecture or hearsay.

GL!

You are asking that off topic or on topic? This topic is about the news story from BBC World, BBC News 24 and CNN.

You need not go farther than my last update that puts into serious question the remarks of the head of BBC World.

If you want a single legitimate piece of of solid evidence then you are in luck. That's what we are asking. Either to prove their story or to disprove it. To this day I have not seen that concerning the topic at hand.

Claiming that it is an error in the confusion and that the tapes have gone missing is in the same realm of answers as if I said they are taking an active part in a vast conspiracy on the day of the event.

His last comment about News 24 tapes not proving what was shown from the BBC World tape is a lie. I already posted the video that disproves his comment. He is lying. If he isn't lying than why don't they simply say that they don't have those tapes either? Ooops because they already said that they had the tapes and he reviewed them. I guess we were supposed to take his word?

At the VERY least he needs to release a statement that clarifies his previous statement. If he can give a reasonable answer as to why he said what I said I will retract calling him a liar. As of this writing he has outright lied. I suppose he didn't think someone had the BBC News 24 tapes as well since those came out after his comments.

I'm not claiming that this is evidence that they are part of a clever cover up. I'm quoting that he has publicly lied. I, and many others, would like to know why. Since this is a publicly funded entity he should be removed from office or release a statement that clarifies his comments.

you really dont get it, do you? The video footage, missing tapes,testimony of Dutch workmen, lies, etc... NONE of that constitutes "legitimate evidence," nor does it disprove the official story in any way!

Remember, the onus is on YOU to prove YOUR outlandish theories, and you have so far failed to do so.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: 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

I'm pretty sure it started out with a tinfoil theory too...


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American justice system allows for the presumption of innocence.

Anandtech Moderator

 

[First]

Originally posted by: mfs378

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: mfs378

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: mfs378


The evidence is in the tapes. Someone told BBC that the building had collapsed before it did, and BBC subsequently reported it. If this is not evidence of foreknowledge, then what is it? A lucky guess? And you haven't answered my question.

If you just think its inaccurate information, where do you think it came from?

Huh? Are you honestly trying to pretend that false information hasn't been reported on by broadcasters before? Are you saying that with a straight face or what?

A lack of evidence is not evidence. Get over it.

So where did the false information come from? Someone just invented it?

Watch Fox News often? Seen much TV the past 60 years? Seen much news TV the last 10? Things are literally made up and misunderstood all the time. All. The. Time. Recent blatant example; Fox reporting Obama attended a madrasa (categorically false) and passing it off as a pejorative.

The BBC report may have been inaccurate at the time, but it described exactly what was to transpire about half an hour in the future. Do you honestly believe that this could just have been "made up" out of thin air? If it was "misunderstood", then don't you want to know what bit of information it was that they misinterpreted?

And you still haven't answered my question.

Boy you're slow. How did the BBC describe "exactly what transpired"? Because they said it collapsed in a cloud of smoke? What are you even blathering about? For god sakes, the original poster doesn't even know that the SEC and FBI conducted an investigation on the stock options trading and now you're telling me broadcasters that get fed stories are clearly part of vast conspiracies.

 

[First]

And what's interesting here is that BBC also reports in those videos that "Terrorists are getting back at America for supporting Israel", but of course now we know there is no such direct evidence of that being the reason for the attacks. What's sad is that we all know conspiracy theorists would be screaming from the rooftops of BBC's foreknowledge of the source of these attacks if there were direct evidence found of that after 9/11. Hell, we all know they'd be claiming no planes hit the WTC Towers if there wasn't any video footage of it.

 

[spidey07]

Ahh, back in the reasonable land of OT.

Where's that poll? Real simple like....

"Did martians conspire to fake the moon landing and bring down WTC7?"
<yes>
<no>

 

[mfs378]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: mfs378

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: mfs378

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: mfs378


The evidence is in the tapes. Someone told BBC that the building had collapsed before it did, and BBC subsequently reported it. If this is not evidence of foreknowledge, then what is it? A lucky guess? And you haven't answered my question.

If you just think its inaccurate information, where do you think it came from?

Huh? Are you honestly trying to pretend that false information hasn't been reported on by broadcasters before? Are you saying that with a straight face or what?

A lack of evidence is not evidence. Get over it.

So where did the false information come from? Someone just invented it?

Watch Fox News often? Seen much TV the past 60 years? Seen much news TV the last 10? Things are literally made up and misunderstood all the time. All. The. Time. Recent blatant example; Fox reporting Obama attended a madrasa (categorically false) and passing it off as a pejorative.

The BBC report may have been inaccurate at the time, but it described exactly what was to transpire about half an hour in the future. Do you honestly believe that this could just have been "made up" out of thin air? If it was "misunderstood", then don't you want to know what bit of information it was that they misinterpreted?

And you still haven't answered my question.

Boy you're slow. How did the BBC describe "exactly what transpired"? Because they said it collapsed in a cloud of smoke? What are you even blathering about? For god sakes, the original poster doesn't even know that the SEC and FBI conducted an investigation on the stock options trading and now you're telling me broadcasters that get fed stories are clearly part of vast conspiracies.

Slow? Ooh that hurts. Keep ducking my question. What is this, the fifth time I've pointed it out? Why won't you respond?

They described exactly what transpired in that they specifically identified the building that was to collapse, out of the many buildings that were severely damaged that day.

As for the rest of what you wrote, you are putting words into my mouth. But I realize that it is easier to discredit me if you play make-believe with what I actually said.

 

[Greenman]

The twin towers didn't collapse, the government faked the whole thing. The towers are still there, just hidden.

 

[Platypus]

wow, I knew P&N was fvcking batshit insane but I wasn't prepared for this.

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: Platypus
wow, I knew P&N was fvcking batshit insane but I wasn't prepared for this.

And thankfully we are only getting one of these threads every 4-6 months now.

 

[PottedMeat]

Heheh now this thread is where it belongs, OFF TOPIC, with the likes of that stupid Plane+Treadmill thread.

 

[91TTZ]

Conspiracy nuts are as dumb as dog crap... dog crap that a dog craps out after it just ate a Nestle Crunch bar still in the tinfoil wrapper.

Why would the BBC be in on this? As if an independent foreign news organization is going to keep a secret with the US government.

 

[golfercraig]

Originally posted by: Aelius

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: mfs378

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: mfs378

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: mfs378

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: mfs378


The evidence is in the tapes. Someone told BBC that the building had collapsed before it did, and BBC subsequently reported it. If this is not evidence of foreknowledge, then what is it? A lucky guess? And you haven't answered my question.

If you just think its inaccurate information, where do you think it came from?

Huh? Are you honestly trying to pretend that false information hasn't been reported on by broadcasters before? Are you saying that with a straight face or what?

A lack of evidence is not evidence. Get over it.

So where did the false information come from? Someone just invented it?

Watch Fox News often? Seen much TV the past 60 years? Seen much news TV the last 10? Things are literally made up and misunderstood all the time. All. The. Time. Recent blatant example; Fox reporting Obama attended a madrasa (categorically false) and passing it off as a pejorative.

The BBC report may have been inaccurate at the time, but it described exactly what was to transpire about half an hour in the future. Do you honestly believe that this could just have been "made up" out of thin air? If it was "misunderstood", then don't you want to know what bit of information it was that they misinterpreted?

And you still haven't answered my question.

What you propose doesnt even make sense.

At least with the old conpiracy bs we actually had to dig around a little to disprove you.

What am I proposing? How have you disproved me?

There are legitimate questions here and all I want is to have them answered. I'm not asking you for the answer. I''m just espousing the viewpoint that the people who have the answers should give them. And all you people do is shout me down with a flood of content-less posts.

When someone is making an argument as utterly ridiculous as you and the rest of the tin foil crowd are, there is no need to disprove you. Have you ever watched election night coverage during a Presidential election? Is it a vast conspiracy when they say that a state has gone to candidate x or candidate y before 100 percent of the vote is in? How about when they get it wrong, is that a conspiracy too?

If I tell you that Godzilla is real, does that mean that it is true unless you disprove me?

ROFL

So you disprove us by saying we have been disproved and then admit you don't need to disprove us. The logic is just... I don't know what to say. I'm at a loss for words.

if only that were true. Then you'd just shut up.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: mfs378


Slow? Ooh that hurts. Keep ducking my question. What is this, the fifth time I've pointed it out? Why won't you respond?

What question haven't I answered? I find it funny you won't repost this mythical question I supposedly haven't answered. I already gave you my reasoning about how BBC could report something like this without it being true at the time; and my reasoning was that it is quite common in broadcast TV to report false information, be it due to poor sources or simply jumping the gun. Not hard to understand.

They described exactly what transpired in that they specifically identified the building that was to collapse, out of the many buildings that were severely damaged that day.

My lord. Get your ish straight. It was well known by 4:54 UK time that WTC7 was not stable, there is footage on the Internet and documentaries thereafter of NYC authorities knowing of WTC7's instability well before it went down. This is the most likely explanation as to why the BBC prematurely reported it had collapsed. Again, not hard to understand.

Btw, I find it amusing that you consider the mere identification of a building as "describing exactly what transpired". I mean wow, that's just sad.

As for the rest of what you wrote, you are putting words into my mouth. But I realize that it is easier to discredit me if you play make-believe with what I actually said.

Oh, so we're supposed to conclude that your constant countering of anti-conspiracy theory posters in this thread means that you don't believe there was some conspiracy behind the BBC report on WTC7? What are we supposed to believe, that you're being "open minded"? Gimme a break. Your whole premise from the beginning has essentially been that a lack of evidence = evidence; that the lack of a "satisfactory" explanation (in your eyes) for the BBC's premature report means something is being covered up. I mean for crying out loud, when I asked you on page 2 to "explain in detail why that's the case", you replied with "Isn't it obvious? Someone knew that WTC7 was going to come down. Information as specific as what was reported doesn't come form nowhere". And yet you have still yet to list any direct quotes from the BBC broadcast about this supposed "specific information" that simply can't "come from nowhere". That's because this "specific information that can't come from nowhere" never was uttered in the BBC report. Nothing out of the ordinary was said. The mere identification of a building out of a couple dozen, one that was known to be unstable, is NOT "specific information". All that is is an identification. You act like they had a press release. And sadly, you probably believe that.

 

[imported_Aelius]

This thread proves that there is no use for me being a part of this forum so I'm out.

I have better things to do with my time than waste my time with people who can't even read a single sentence and do nothing but create strawmen after strawmen.

Goodbye.