BBC News Reports Building 7 collapse 23 Minutes before it collapses.

I have definitely made up my own mind that there was at least SOME form of conspiracy on 9/11. There are just too many inconsistencies in the factual data alone.

But let's think about some things here (keep in mind I haven't been able to view the video as of yet, so this is just going off the info found in the thread).

Was the reporter a foreign correspondent already in the U.S.? Or was she flown in after the attacks began? I keep thinking in my head of some news item in some years past where some little TV station got fined up the wazoo for having a supposed correspondent in a live situation when really he/she was in front of a green screen and stock footage.

Now I'm not saying this is the case but it's not THAT far of a stretch to think that the BBC was doing something similar (regardless of whether or not the correspondent was in the States or not) with footage recorded previously in the day (hence the quick pull afterwards).

Again, I'm not saying this is the case since I haven't even SEEN the footage, but we NEED to think/discuss about all possibilities to truly deny ignorance. In my mind the situation I described is actually much more plausible than having the BBC in on it anyways.

Originally posted by gingerlad
The clock I linked to said 4 hours difference!!

Now please make up your mind and stop obfuscating!!

dude, the clock at the top says 9:00 UTC.

New york says 5:00AM * which means UTC - 4

London says 10:00AM * which means UTC +1

BBC IS LONDON TIME.

Please, read the link!!!!!!!!!!

For google its clear they are removing the incriminating footage, but for Archive.org it could be that the massive traffic caused by the spreading of this information is causing the footage to go down on there.

I've noticed it before on archive.org that if there are pages that get extreem traffic (even on trivial archive pages like a while back when a crapload of people from futuremark.com were looking at the old madonion.com website)

In the morning I'll be checking the archive footage from the belgian tv stations to see if there was the same kind of error over here.

Originally posted by mustbebc
this is a long shot but Jane Standley's conatct details show up on this form. Most likely not her because it isn't anything to do with the BBC but thought I'd post it anyway.

Contacts:
Jane Standley 01252 899900 Email: [email protected]

www.dfes.gov.uk...

it is in the UK though...... It is possible she has left the BBC and gone on to work for this organisation. Anyone in the UK feel like making a quick phone call??

[edit on 26/2/07 by mustbebc]

[edit on 26/2/07 by mustbebc]

No, but i will tonight when i get home!

I hate to say it ladies and gents, but i honestly feel we have stumbled onto something here that really does pull the blanket from underneath the governments feet.

Its been systematically removed from the internet in a MAJOR kind of way.
You dont do that unless its a genuine threat.

Does it really matter what time it is if SHE IS IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING reporting that it has collapsed and goes into detail about how many stories it was and all that.

You ain't listening!!

Was the report done in UTC or GMT????

Even you can see that there may be a world of difference and what the implications of a mis-interpretation would be???

www.youtube.com...



for those who have not seen it. this is a shortened version

Regardless of Daylight Savings, London and NY are always 5 hours apart.

If all the 9/11 feeds are going down at the same time, what errors are being encountered? General 404 errors or just "article not found" or similar? Any error 500s or 403s at all?

I've encountered a 403 error for one of the archive.org links; this means that someone changed the permissions for access to the file so I can't read it, not that it isn't available or removed.

[edit on 26-2-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

Originally posted by Fiverz
Was the reporter a foreign correspondent already in the U.S.? Or was she flown in after the attacks began?

This is a very good question. Weren't all planes grounded? How would she have flown here between 9 AM and 5 PM ON 9/11?

She would almost have to have been in the US at the time.

I keep thinking in my head of some news item in some years past where some little TV station got fined up the wazoo for having a supposed correspondent in a live situation when really he/she was in front of a green screen and stock footage.

Yeah. Jon Stewart! Just kidding. It's a possibility. And they pulled it so they wouldn't get caught reporting in front of a green screen. It's possible.



[edit on 26-2-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]

OH, I just noticed this...if it were a blue/green screen..the camera wouldnt have zoomed in when she moved to the side for the camera to see behind her. HMmmmmm I love this. WAR CRIMES, do I hear WAR CRIMES???

Originally posted by gingerlad
You ain't listening!!

Was the report done in UTC or GMT????

Even you can see that there may be a world of difference and what the implications of a mis-interpretation would be???

UTC = GMT...

The Report was done in london summer time, which is UTC +1 which is also GMT +1

Originally posted by mustbebc
...
Contacts:
Jane Standley 01252 899900 Email: [email protected]
www.dfes.gov.uk...
it is in the UK though...... It is possible she has left the BBC and gone on to work for this organisation. Anyone in the UK feel like making a quick phone call??
[edit on 26/2/07 by mustbebc]

good find, do keep in mind that the UK is now sleeping (3:30AM)

Originally posted by Fiverz
...
Was the reporter a foreign correspondent already in the U.S.? Or was she flown in after the attacks began?
...

flown in after the attacks began? you mean like the bin laden family?

Originally posted by Fiverz

Now I'm not saying this is the case but it's not THAT far of a stretch to think that the BBC was doing something similar (regardless of whether or not the correspondent was in the States or not) with footage recorded previously in the day (hence the quick pull afterwards).

I think it is fair to say that the green screen argument can be put to rest. If you read some the previous posts you'll find there are several key points.

1. the lighting is consistant with the apparent situation.

2. The lighting is coming in from a window to the side and rear which is very very uncommon in a studio situation because it will affect the camera image. It would mean that fill lighting would need to be used on the reporter to prevent a silhouette which would wash out the green screen effect and cast a shadow.

3. Why would they bother, the BBC would have at least one foreign correspondent in a city like New York and they would have had access to a building such as that so why bother with a blue screen?? Plus these things take time to set up especially if they were going to adjust lighting to defy laws of physics.

4. At one point she appears to look out the window, she did this very convincingly if it was green screen.

5. As someone mentions the camera zooms which would be difficult to do with green screen.


I could probably go on and on about this. I am 99.9% sure this is not green screen. As I have stated previously I'm an AV technician so I am somewhat qualified to comment.

ok here it is on google lets see how long it stays up.



video.google.co.uk...

Now I'm not saying this is the case but it's not THAT far of a stretch to think that the BBC was doing something similar (regardless of whether or not the correspondent was in the States or not) with footage recorded previously in the day (hence the quick pull afterwards).

Again, I'm not saying this is the case since I haven't even SEEN the footage, but we NEED to think/discuss about all possibilities to truly deny ignorance. In my mind the situation I described is actually much more plausible than having the BBC in on it anyways

We have already established that it was filmed BEFORE the building collapsed, due to the time stamp on the original file.
So wtc7 would have still been standing at the time of the live report anyway. Please understand this.
Green/Blue screen is now irellevant in this case.

[edit on 26-2-2007 by Xeros]

The green screen argument in regard to the BBC clip is just as bunk as the green screen / hologram argument perpetuated by disinfo agents or by downright idiots like Nico Haupt.

Belgium's US corespondent is stationed and living in the US, so I'm guessing its the same for the BBC's US correspondents.

Btw, the archive.org pages are being locked (403's) and the youtube and google video pages are being deleted or simply not confirmed when submitted.

I sure hope plenty of people downloaded the video's before they went down and I also hope that you torrent them right now and start spreading them like that so that as many poeple as possible have a copy of it in storage.


Ps, about "what difference does it make what the time was, she sais the building collapsed while it shows in the background", it forms a plausible deniability argument since plenty of times those background you see behind reporters are bluescreened, so establishing the time is actualy important. Don't disregard the bluescreen option because if this is to be used it has to hold water in a court.

[edit on 26/2/07 by thematrix]

I think ATS staff should try to get a copy of this file and back it up.

I have access to www.studyof911.com 's FTP space, and I can upload it there as well.

Originally posted by sp00n1
The green screen argument in regard to the BBC clip is just as bunk as the green screen / hologram argument perpetuated by disinfo agents or by downright idiots like Nico Haupt.

Hey, spoon? I have believed forever that our government did this. What we're doing is called Critical Thinking. I'm the LAST person to try to debunk this. But I don't want to believe it so bad that I'm blind to other possibilities.

So, just remember... When people ask questions, it doesn't necessarily mean they're trying to debunk. Okie-dokey?

I am now convinced it's not a green screen and that Standley could easily have been in the US.

[edit on 26-2-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]

Hrm I missed the thing about the timestamp. That makes anything the correspondent says moot ... assuming that stamp is correct, then as soon as the BBC anchor says that the building has collapsed there is no way around some sort of misinformation. I still think the video doesn't look quite right (awfully bright on the right side of her face, suggesting a window to the right of her). And some of the buildings that are facing parallel to the window do not have any light on them at all. Then again, you probably wouldn't even notice much of a difference if you filmed someone live in a room and put footage behind them that was 30 min old.

But previous posters are right, the timestamp is the dead give away.

Can't wait until we get some BS explanation for this one ...

[edit on 26-2-2007 by Fiverz]

[edit on 26-2-2007 by Fiverz]