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: 22
101
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by r4758

Originally posted by mecheng

Originally posted by r4758
video.google.ca...

In the middle of this video, the BBC reporter is discussing the collapse of building 7, meanwhile, building 7 can be seen clearly in the background still standing!!!



r4758,
Could you tell us how you found this video originally? I'm wondering who was the first to report on it and perhaps find out who found the video.
Thanks.



I heard about it on the Alex Jones show when a caller called in and told Alex to go to google video and type in building 7 bbc.

I watched the video and then posted about it here.

Alex should have asked the caller how he found out about this.

IIRC, the caller was from Sudbury, Ontario.

[edit on 27-2-2007 by r4758]


Thanks. Too bad we can;t track it down further... it might shed some light on the subject.




posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by mecheng

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by shrunkensimon

Originally posted by deltaboy
Just a simple mistake. The anchor was reading out what he sees on the tv dashboard or whatever.


Thats almost as bad as the magic bullet theory.


Go look at what he is doing. Its not like he was making it up. He was reading what he sees.


Then who printed out what she was supposed to read off the teleprompter and why? Dumb arguement!


Its not a dumb argument. Listen to what they say. Both the anchor and the correspondent. Listen to what she says.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 12:27 PM
link   
www.liveleak.com...

Watch and listen. See what the anchor says when he first mentions about WTC7. And watch and listen to what the correspondent says when in response to the question that the anchor asks about WTC7.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
Its not a dumb argument. Listen to what they say. Both the anchor and the correspondent. Listen to what she says.


Then the question is who typed the data into the prompter.

I still fail to see your point.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 12:28 PM
link   
We need to track down the guy with the video and Jane Standley of the BBC.Wonder if there are any other strange stories she's reported on?



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by mecheng

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by shrunkensimon

Originally posted by deltaboy
Just a simple mistake. The anchor was reading out what he sees on the tv dashboard or whatever.


Thats almost as bad as the magic bullet theory.


Go look at what he is doing. Its not like he was making it up. He was reading what he sees.


Then who printed out what she was supposed to read off the teleprompter and why? Dumb arguement!


Its not a dumb argument. Listen to what they say. Both the anchor and the correspondent. Listen to what she says.


Whats your point?
If she's reading off a teleprompter someone at BBC put it on there so someone at BBC had prior knowledge... right? Maybe I just don't understand what the difference is between her reporting it on her own or her simply reading from a script. Either way BBC is reporting it before the building collapses.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 12:29 PM
link   
The link now functions after a "refresh". Odd behavior.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by mecheng

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by mecheng

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by shrunkensimon

Originally posted by deltaboy
Just a simple mistake. The anchor was reading out what he sees on the tv dashboard or whatever.


Thats almost as bad as the magic bullet theory.


Go look at what he is doing. Its not like he was making it up. He was reading what he sees.


Then who printed out what she was supposed to read off the teleprompter and why? Dumb arguement!


Its not a dumb argument. Listen to what they say. Both the anchor and the correspondent. Listen to what she says.


Whats your point?
If she's reading off a teleprompter someone at BBC put it on there so someone at BBC had prior knowledge... right? Maybe I just don't understand what the difference is between her reporting it on her own or her simply reading from a script. Either way BBC is reporting it before the building collapses.


I think you have reached a slight point of confusion here. The BBC anchor (a man) reads from the teleprompt in the studio, while the reporter (a woman) just talks away by herself.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 12:31 PM
link   
ENOUGH OF THE QUOTING



[edit on 27-2-2007 by Koka]



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pootie


Then the question is who typed the data into the prompter.

I still fail to see your point.


Well gee its not the first time that people makes mistakes in the news organization when the information is wrong.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by Pootie


Then the question is who typed the data into the prompter.

I still fail to see your point.


Well gee its not the first time that people makes mistakes in the news organization when the information is wrong.


True but how many times is the news cock up so prophetic?.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by kuhl


True but how many times is the news cock up so prophetic?.


Then the firefighters and police officers must have the ability of foresight when clearing away from the building eh?



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muppetus GalacticusI think you have reached a slight point of confusion here. The BBC anchor (a man) reads from the teleprompt in the studio, while the reporter (a woman) just talks away by herself.

I understand that. Deltaboy brought up the fact that she was simply reading off a "dashboard". I was simply arguing that either way it doesn't matter because someone at BBC would still have to have prior knowledge.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 12:38 PM
link   
This could have been a "mix-up" or a misunderstanding, but where did the BBC get this information from for the mix-up to take place? The news anchor is clear when he says the building has collapsed.

Even if this was a mix-up on their part, the BBC needs to make some form of public statement as to where they received the information that the building collapsed. This will still allow for people investigating it to get to the bottom of the initial reports as the building is still standing.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
Well gee its not the first time that people makes mistakes in the news organization when the information is wrong.


You don't just make the mistake of saying a building has collapsed when it hasn't...

Im sorry, but you are being wilfully ignorant. Someone put the information out there that WTC7 had collapsed before it did...that is NOT AN ERROR, that shows that someone KNEW it was coming down before it did.

Unfortunatly, you can't dodge this bullet, and niether can the BBC.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthSeekerMP
This could have been a "mix-up" or a misunderstanding, but where did the BBC get this information from for the mix-up to take place? The news anchor is clear when he says the building has collapsed.

Even if this was a mix-up on their part, the BBC needs to make some form of public statement as to where they received the information that the building collapsed. This will still allow for people investigating it to get to the bottom of the initial reports as the building is still standing.


BBC/CYA:

2. In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had. We did what we always did - sourced our reports, used qualifying words like "apparently" or "it's reported" or "we're hearing" and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by mecheng

I understand that. Deltaboy brought up the fact that she was simply reading off a "dashboard". I was simply arguing that either way it doesn't matter because someone at BBC would still have to have prior knowledge.


I never said she was reading off the dashboard. I was mentioning the anchor. You read what I said, HE.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Deltaboy

Well gee its not the first time that people makes mistakes in the news organization when the information is wrong.




AAhhh... so they were wrong when they said AHEAD of time that building 7 had collapsed and then IT DID. How CoNvEnIeNt!!






I'm not buying into that delusion or rationalization.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by mecheng

Originally posted by Muppetus GalacticusI think you have reached a slight point of confusion here. The BBC anchor (a man) reads from the teleprompt in the studio, while the reporter (a woman) just talks away by herself.

I understand that. Deltaboy brought up the fact that she was simply reading off a "dashboard". I was simply arguing that either way it doesn't matter because someone at BBC would still have to have prior knowledge.


Oh you are right, the BBC still said what they did, wherever it came from. But he (deltaboy) said the anchor read off a dashboard, not the reporter at the scene.

I am a pedant, I am the walrus.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Still need to wait for someone to go through all the 9/11 news footage from every news source around the world of course, but if as I said earlier it could just have been the BBC World service that reported it, how could that have happened?



new topics

top topics



 
101
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join