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: 14
101
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 10:39 PM
link   
O got 500 internal errors,
and i honestly thought immediately, someone didnt enjoy us talking about this footage which is being erased as we speak.




posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 10:39 PM
link   
The message I got just said "Server shut down in progress".



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by theBman
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.


I disagree. If this is legit there is NO way for them to tap dance around it.

This is proof positive that prior knowledge of building 7's collapse was known.

Someone needs to call Guy Smith, the BBC reporter that recently did a hit piece on the 911 truth movement.

He said in his documentary that there was no evidence.

Well Guy, here it is, right from your own network.

[edit on 26-2-2007 by r4758]



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 10:40 PM
link   
I agree, how could you convince mainstream media to play footage and facts?
hmmmmmmmm



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by theBman
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.


Unfortunately your probably right, an apology for messing up and a laugh at the stir its caused and were all back to square one, with this footage just adding to the already huge library of inconsistencies surrounding 9/11.

It might be enough to wake up a few more curious open minded people to the atrocities that are going on in this world though!

And the struggle continues!



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic


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.


I disagree, this furthers the argument that there would be no practical reason for using a blue screen. I think we can safely say without much doubt that yes she stood in front of a building that was due to collapse in a few minutes and somehow had knowledge of such an event. If the timing wasn't so close you could much more easily argue that it was a mistake but to only be off a few minutes is highly co-incidental. Especially as there was no record of any other buildings ever collapsing from fire in history. I would love to hear the odds of this occurring. I'd presume it would be at least a billion to one.

This is the most compelling evidence that someone had prior knowledge of what would happen. Of course the implication is that many people would have had to be involved. It is too hard to fathom but there it is. What other explanation could there be but prior knowledge??

For the record I doubt the TV crew were in on it, I'd say it came through as a memo too early from those running the show. Either that or the demolition was delayed but the message went through anyway. I would love to know the BBC's source. It would be a direct trail back to the perpetrators of 911. This has to be investigated by proper authorities.

On a side not isn't it ironic that the same broadcaster that produced a 911 hit piece just a few weeks ago could be the one to blow the lid off the 911 conspiracy.

[edit on 26/2/07 by mustbebc]



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 10:48 PM
link   
That is balderdash!

The guy announcing the story says "Indeed it has collapsed" before the reporter on the scene even makes an appearance.

see for yourself:



www.youtube.com...


Originally posted by Argos

Originally posted by theBman
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.


Unfortunately your probably right, an apology for messing up and a laugh at the stir its caused and were all back to square one, with this footage just adding to the already huge library of inconsistencies surrounding 9/11.

It might be enough to wake up a few more curious open minded people to the atrocities that are going on in this world though!

And the struggle continues!



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by r4758

Originally posted by theBman
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.


I disagree. If this is legit there is NO way for them to tap dance around it.

This is proof positive that prior knowledge of building 7's collapse was known.

Someone needs to call Guy Smith, the BBC reporter that recently did a hit piece on the 911 truth movement.

He said in his documentary that there was no evidence.

Well Guy, right from your own station is evidence that could very well be the trump card for the truth movement.


There was damning evidence before this and there may be even more damning evidence to come. But untill we get mainstream backing, this will be no more than a 6 minute segment in the next of a long line of 9/11 conspiracy videos.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 10:49 PM
link   
If this video is a hoax, it isn't necessary that BBC be the culprit.

Someone could have taken an original report regarding the collapse of the building and simply painted a background from earlier in the day behind the reporter. I imagine it wasn't the first time the show had switched over to her feed, so a shot of the building intact from the same angle wouldn't be hard to just lift-and-paste.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 10:50 PM
link   



There was damning evidence before this and there may be even more damning evidence to come. But untill we get mainstream backing, this will be no more than a 6 minute segment in the next of a long line of 9/11 conspiracy videos.


Yes, but this is not a conspiracy video - it's the BBC!

[edit on 26-2-2007 by deessell]



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 10:51 PM
link   
promomag i know, but my argument still stands. They're likely to have gotton their information from the same people, or at least thats what they'll say.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by theBman
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.


Ok lets say it was an error, and the details WERE sketchy; you still have to ask yourself where these 'sketchy details' came from. Why would the BBC say that the building has collapsed if their information is not from a reliable/official source? Why risk your reputation as a news agency by making such a major statement "A 47 story building has collapsed" if all you have is 'sketchy details'. What if it turns out to be false? Think about the unnecessary anguish of hearing that the building your wife or husband works in has just collapsed. SOMEONE RELIABLE told BBC the building had collapsed or was going to collapse before it was demolished, here is the undeniable proof! I guess some people just can't put two and two together.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by mustbebc
Either that or the demolition was delayed but the message went through anyway.


That certainly sounds reasonable. They decide to "pull it", the news release goes out, then they discover the police don't have all people completely clear of the area so they postpone it for 25 minutes... In the meantime, the bbc reports on it.

That's just lovely!



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by deessell



There was damning evidence before this and there may be even more damning evidence to come. But untill we get mainstream backing, this will be no more than a 6 minute segment in the next of a long line of 9/11 conspiracy videos.


Yes, but this is not a conspiracy video - it's the BBC!

[edit on 26-2-2007 by deessell]


I didn't say it was. I simply meant that it would be used as evidence in an other 9/11 doc and nothing more. i would be very suprised if this made even a single news paper.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by alexg
Someone could have taken an original report regarding the collapse of the building and simply painted a background from earlier in the day behind the reporter.


Read the thread. Look for the zoom in. You can't do that with a painting. Besides smoke is billowing out of the rubbish.


This is NOT a GREEN SCREEN or a painting.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 10:58 PM
link   
If the BBC anchor stated that the building "indeed" has collapsed, wouldn't he have gotten the info from the closest reporter to the scene, ie Jane?

This guy was in the UK and his link to the event was the reporter, was there any other BBC reporters in NY covering the event at the time?

If Jane checked in with "the latest" prior to going on air, allowing the anchor to lead in with the collapse, the initial story would have been more than the taped evidence in question.

So where did Jane get her story from.

If I'm wrong forgive me, just trying to add to the thought process....



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 10:59 PM
link   
One thing I don't get is that NO ONE notices that 7 is still standing there for what, a few minutes? I mean as journalists you would think they would do a LITTLE bit of research before pointing a camera out the window at a building that is supposed to have collapsed. That's what made me lean towards green screen to begin with.

At any rate I have a copies of the vid on CD and thumb drive now.

Still can't wait for an official explanation ... or lack thereof



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 11:00 PM
link   
Does this remind anyone of when Dubya admitted he's seen the first plane fly into the first tower before he went in to read to the school kids. Nothing ever came of that even though he literally admitted he had prior knowledge. The fact that something like that happened and he didn't even call of his appearance and go see what was going on makes him look terrible. He even joked by saying that's one terrible pilot. My point is if that didn't get mainstream attention then do we really think this will??



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 11:01 PM
link   
@promomag

I know the anchorman reports it has collapsed and the video is very damning but inless its fussed over the same way we are here on ATS the sheeple just wont register it.

No major news broadcasting service is going to give this evidence the time it deserves. With no mainstream coverage and acceptance of how vital this footage could be most people will just hear another conspiracy theory and not pay much attention.

As i said it might wake a few people up to the truth though and it could be one of the most persuasive pieces of evidence we have in our arsenal against the conspirators from now, but make no mistake it will be covered up and swept under the carpet.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by freakyty

Originally posted by theBman
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.


Ok lets say it was an error, and the details WERE sketchy; you still have to ask yourself where these 'sketchy details' came from. Why would the BBC say that the building has collapsed if their information is not from a reliable/official source? Why risk your reputation as a news agency by making such a major statement "A 47 story building has collapsed" if all you have is 'sketchy details'. What if it turns out to be false? Think about the unnecessary anguish of hearing that the building your wife or husband works in has just collapsed. SOMEONE RELIABLE told BBC the building had collapsed or was going to collapse before it was demolished, here is the undeniable proof! I guess some people just can't put two and two together.


I agree completely, i was merely pointing out that this isn't going to be the major breakthrough that we were all hoping for. I personally think this is great news and supports a lot of my ideas on who was responsible for this atrocity. that doesnt stop the fact that a massive organization like the BBC cannot cover this up as just a error due to all the confusion or sketchy info.



new topics

top topics



 
101
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join