It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 13
101
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 09:53 PM
link   
click here for youtube

click here for google



the sad thing is that many people dont even know about WTC7 in the first place.




posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Nice one tombangelta.
Here you go peeps:-




Google Video Link


[edit on 26-2-2007 by Xeros]



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 09:56 PM
link   
Jane Standley, BBC correspondent in New York



Saturday, 12 July, 2003

By Jane Standley
BBC correspondent in New York


Looks like she might live in New York.

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



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 10:01 PM
link   
FYI, if anyone takes the liveleak page and right-clicks on the vid and chooses "properties" you can view the full URL of the avi ... which you can then figure out how to save directly to your hard drive. I won't post that link in case that doing so violates the T&C of either here or liveleak, but you can do it. Already burning it to a CD.

[edit on 26-2-2007 by Fiverz]



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fiverz 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.

[edit on 26-2-2007 by Fiverz]

[edit on 26-2-2007 by Fiverz]


I'd say that you might be failing to consider shadows being cast by the smoke and by other buildings. Also remember that the camera make objects in the distance appear closer than they really are. I think it's called reverse parallax error or something like that. You can see this effect in sports all the time.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 10:05 PM
link   
I finally got to watch this video, she actually says it was like an atomic bomb going off, i think she was right.

When she is talking about wtc7 collapse its probably because it was infact aired later after the collapse, and that woman talking has been super imposed onto the scenario, it looks that way. The BBC have no shame about putting people on to fake scenarios, a bit like how they do with the weather forcast. Hell, they do it for the Queens speech and everyone knows it.

If the timing really is before the collapse and that is a real live shot then that is pretty odd! It could be a misunderstanding because they 'thought' building 7 was going to collapse because it was badly damaged.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by mustbebc
I'd say that you might be failing to consider shadows being cast by the smoke and by other buildings. Also remember that the camera make objects in the distance appear closer than they really are. I think it's called reverse parallax error or something like that. You can see this effect in sports all the time.


Yea I know what you mean, a minor part of my job is selling cameras so I know a fair amount about optics (not as much as you I would assume). I was referring to a building just to the left of the reporter in the foreground ... this building is in between the towers and the correspondent, so it would have no effects from the smoke multiple blocks away (especially considering the light source appears to be from the right for other buildings and the reporter).

Again, moot points because the timestamp yells out a big old high school sports chant ala ov-er-rate-ed:

SOME! ONE! BLEW! IT!

*clap, clap, clap-clap-clap!!!*



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 10:08 PM
link   
I just examined that part of the footage (thanks for the link!). It is what you would expect.

It is due to the light levels. Light levels in a building are quite a bit darker than light levels out the building. They are attempting to shoot internal/external lighting in a balanced fashion (it can be done) but the cost of this is that any extraneous light that falls inside (the sun shining through the window onto her face for example) becomes over-exposed, and can white out.

Everything I see there looks legit.

If you want to debunk a background, look for jagged edges between her and the spliced in footage. Think blue screens from 15 years ago. Remember how they looked?

[edit on 26-2-2007 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 10:10 PM
link   
So we now know the 9/11 archives were relesed by the BBC because of pressure from the public. Supposedly someone watched through them and found this footage. And now we're all aware!

Its looking more and more like the real deal a major slip up that was inevitable given the scale of public interest and the revolution of the internet now days.

IMO it isnt a fake that would involve reproducing a BBC newsroom the hiring of two known BBC reporters and a whole chunk of change for the green screen special effects.

There's also the suspicious fact that there's now people saying the footage has been tampered with and removed from sites on the internet.

I wander if this news will ever reach the mainstream media in any meaningful way?



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Insolubrious
I finally got to watch this video, she actually says it was like an atomic bomb going off, i think she was right.

When she is talking about wtc7 collapse its probably because it was infact aired later after the collapse, and that woman talking has been super imposed onto the scenario, it looks that way. The BBC have no shame about putting people on to fake scenarios, a bit like how they do with the weather forcast. Hell, they do it for the Queens speech and everyone knows it.

If the timing really is before the collapse and that is a real live shot then that is pretty odd! It could be a misunderstanding because they 'thought' building 7 was going to collapse because it was badly damaged.



Originally posted by Xeros
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.



Please read the thread before posting. I'm going to have to keep pointing this out untill it sinks in.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Insolubrious

When she is talking about wtc7 collapse its probably because it was infact aired later after the collapse, and that woman talking has been super imposed onto the scenario, it looks that way. The BBC have no shame about putting people on to fake scenarios, a bit like how they do with the weather forcast. Hell, they do it for the Queens speech and everyone knows it.


This doesn't stand up under the analysis. On top of all the explanations myself and others have given to why this isn't blue/green screen there still is the question of why would they bother. It is so much easier to just whack a reporter (whom we know was at one time based in New York) in front of a window. Why would they bother to install a green screen and go to great lengths to fake the lighting?? It doesn't make sense especially if it was all to just make it look like the BBC had prior knowledge.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 10:12 PM
link   
A screen capture:





And a copy is now available here as well:

www.studyof911.com...



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 10:14 PM
link   
Where is the extended version (starting at 4:54)??



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 10:16 PM
link   
Hold on i hate to say this, but she does say at the beginning of her report "the details are very very sketchy." IMO thats enough for the BBC to say that it was nothing more than an unfortunate error, brush it under the carpet with a public appology if need be and we're back where we were yesterday.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fiverz

Originally posted by mustbebc
this building is in between the towers and the correspondent, so it would have no effects from the smoke multiple blocks away (especially considering the light source appears to be from the right for other buildings and the reporter).


i see what you mean, my explanation would be that it is much lower down than the building the reporter is in and is probably having shadow cast by building off to the right of screen. The sun appears to be very low in the sky so the lower building are getting shaded more easily. If you look the buildings further back are set higher and therefore would be more likely to catch the low beams of sun which they do.

[edit on 26/2/07 by mustbebc]



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 10:36 PM
link   
Is it just me, or did ATS just go offline for a few minutes?



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Is it just me, or did ATS just go offline for a few minutes?


yep, I got a message on screen saying it was down for server maintenance and to check back in a couple of hours. Maybe the US government hacked in and crashed it to try and make us all stop talking about this :-)



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 10:38 PM
link   
ATS just went down.

DIGG has been removing all links to this story, in fact, do a search for BBC, WTC7 etc on DIGG and you'll see what I mean.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 10:38 PM
link   
Nope, wasnt just you. Happend right after my last post. LOL i thought for a minute the men in black may have infiltrated this haven as well

[edit on 26/2/07 by theBman]



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Jane Standley in New York - August 22, 2001



August 22, 2001

By Jane Standley in New York


I know. It's not that important, but this establishes her in New York a few weeks before 9/11. She apparently did live there.

Yes, ATS went down. Spooky!


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



new topics

top topics



 
101
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join