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: 26
101
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 02:18 PM
link   
could you put the link up to the 1g video please.




posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 02:21 PM
link   
Has anyone here tried emailing this video/story to any mainstream or local news outlets?

Im not dumb to think Fox would touch this,but perhaps CNN or MSNBC might.

Or perhpas even post it on those networks message boards to garner attention.

Just some ideas on how to push this story to the mainstream.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 02:25 PM
link   
tombangelta: the 1G file is the one from archive.org that has the concerning footage, its mentioned in this thread many times:

ia311517.us.archive.org...

If you mean my mirror for the file, you'll have to wait a bit, it'll take a while to upload.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 02:26 PM
link   
One of the first things we can do is to all Flag this thread.

If you haven't done it yet, do it, do it!





Originally posted by Black_Fox
Has anyone here tried emailing this video/story to any mainstream or local news outlets?

Im not dumb to think Fox would touch this,but perhaps CNN or MSNBC might.

Or perhpas even post it on those networks message boards to garner attention.

Just some ideas on how to push this story to the mainstream.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 02:34 PM
link   
The reports of collapse must have been coming from the inner circle, either Silverstein's circle, the POLICE, the FIREFIGHTERS.

Someone probably told the media of the 'collapse going to happen soon'.

This someone knew that they were going to demolish the building and gave the heads up to the media, probably not thinking some would go early with the story.

Thats the only thing that makes sense. It makes sense in light of a *CONTROLLED DEMOLITION*,


Either way, this is very difficult to explain.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Just covering the previously mentioned topic regarding confusing "collapsed" with "collapsing"



Whoever typed the graphic at the bottom seemed to have been given the same story as the newscasters.

Quote from graphic

The 47 storey Salomon Brothers building close
to the World Trade Centre has also collapsed

Bold added for emphasis

May not be important but is the word centre not spelt center in the states, the BBC probably use UK English on their international broadcasts but I would say it would have been transcribed from the original source....just a thing to note.


[edit on 27-2-2007 by Koka]



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 02:37 PM
link   
I added an anonymous comment for this thread, but didn't realise it wouldn't show up in the thread itself unless I registered! So here it is again:


Original Anonymous Post By: anon_98734
This anonymous post is in response to ATS thread: BBC News Reports Building 7 collapse 23 Minutes before it collapses.
In response to someone asking whether the collapse of WTC7 was mentioned by the BBC again AFTER its collapse: I've just skipped through to the end of the 1GB tape and it's mentioned briefly at about 5:31 EDT, but no more or less that they said earlier, merely that the Salomon building has collapsed. No, they do not return to Jane Standley again during that tape.

To add to the discussion about the time of the recording and transmission, the following is the catalogue entry for the tape from archive.org, which I copied earlier today (I can't access it at the moment):
-------------------------
BBC Sept. 11, 2001 4:54 pm -
5:36 pm (September 11, 2001)
This movie is available in streaming format
News from BBC TV was recorded by the Television Archive, a non-profit
archive. Video available as a loan (stream) only.
Click for next video, previous video, or program guide.
Date: 2001-09-11 20:54:47 UTC
Air Time: 2001-09-11 16:54:47 EDT
Length: 0:41:41
Producer: BBC TV
Production Company: BBC TV
Language: eng
Keywords: Television News; September 11 Terrorist Attacks; 911 Terrorist Attacks
---------------------------
This was copied from: www.archive.org...
Note that it gives the original Air time for EDT zone.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
The reports of collapse must have been coming from the inner circle, either Silverstein's circle, the POLICE, the FIREFIGHTERS.

Someone probably told the media of the 'collapse going to happen soon'.

This someone knew that they were going to demolish the building and gave the heads up to the media, probably not thinking some would go early with the story.

Thats the only thing that makes sense. It makes sense in light of a *CONTROLLED DEMOLITION*,


Either way, this is very difficult to explain.


Its called a telephone problem to me. Kind of like the elementary kid thing where one kid whispers to another and tells that person to pass it on, and by the time it ends to the lets say the 10th kid to receive, the message is different.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
Its called a telephone problem to me. Kind of like the elementary kid thing where one kid whispers to another and tells that person to pass it on, and by the time it ends to the lets say the 10th kid to receive, the message is different.


Yes, because thats what really happened on 9/11...

Honestly, try a bit harder with the debunking



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Koka
Quote from graphic

The 47 storey Salomon Brothers building close
to the World Trade Centre has also collapsed

Bold added for emphasis

May not be important but is the word centre not spelt center in the states,


We spell it Center (in the states) and also Story (not storey)



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Koka
can you tell me/us, if they return to the link with Jane Standley at all, or if they stayed with the studio and made reference to the collapse again, seeing as how that time line would have covered the time of the real collapse.


After I downloaded it I watched the video and audio no problems. For some reason today the audio sounds horrible and slooow.

The program is 25:50 long. The anchorman cuts live to Jane at 13:56 into it. The her feed starts breaks up at 20:13 and totally cuts out at 20:25. They stayed in the studio for a minute then cut showing video narrated by Tom Carver, they then cut back into the studio with the anchorman interviewing Don Morrison from Time magazine. They never go back to Jane and they never made another text reference to the collapse.




[edit on 27-2-2007 by Eden]



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 02:45 PM
link   
deltaboy

The problem here is, that this thing that was passed on was about something that hasn't happened in the history of modern Steel Structures of that Size.

Someone knew about this, and they knew it too close to the *ACTUAL* event.

It isn't just that they knew, but considering the collapse of this type of structure is unlikely, but also they knew about it so close to the event itself speaks loud and clear.

Something more here is going on.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fjtruth
I added an anonymous comment for this thread, but didn't realise it wouldn't show up in the thread itself unless I registered!


Thanks for taking the time Fjtruth.....


It was I, or maybe someone else aswell.

So, they made no additional annoucements other than to repeat what already had been said.

To me this indicates that they new full well that they had made the error, I reckon by the 6 O'clock news they would have incorporated it into the sub headlines. Purely speculative of course.

Especially if they didn't go back to any text references.


Originally posted by Eden
They never go back to Jane and they never made another text reference to the collapse.


Thanks for that Eden....



[edit on 27-2-2007 by Koka]



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 02:46 PM
link   
BBC getting a heads up early,shouldnt be to surprising to 9/11 truth.
It being a controlled demolition,the explosives had to have been placed in the towers a few days,or months,prior to 9/11.

There was no way they were gonna rush into a burning building to place the charges at the last minute.It came down to perfectly to have been a rush job.

So there was plenty of foreknowledge,that WTC7 would come down.
Days more than likely.Probaly had the news story all printed and ready to go,someone just jumped the gun on its release.

But there was no error in the footage,just an error on releasing it too soon.
Hope people wake up to understand this was an inside job.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 02:49 PM
link   


May not be important but is the word centre not spelt center in the states, the BBC probably use UK English on their international broadcasts but I would say it would have been transcribed from the original source....just a thing to note.


I don't think you can read anything into the spelling of "Centre". It's unlikely the screen caption would have been copied directly from the original source - they would probably adapt it up to fit the space available. But even if it were copied, a UK 'typist' would quite readily have spelt 'centre' the British way without thinking, even if s/he were copying from an American source.

(Incidentally, as a Brit, I would argue that in this case we should have spelt it "Center" because that's the name of the building, not merely a word in a sentence.)



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 02:49 PM
link   
I remember watching on 9/11.

Having worked for the BBC I can say that if you think that any of this is contrived then you have clearly never worked in a newsroom environment. You don't have time to get a coffee nevermind fake a story or conspire to deceive.

There was anticipation that the building would collapse or be pulled. I remember wondering whether I should wait up and watch it or just go to bed as they were expecting it soon.

Generally the newsreader will read whatever is put on the autocue. They're sight-reading and not taking in what is actually in the report. If the script has been prepared and sent to her then she'll read it. It happens more often than you think.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
deltaboy

The problem here is, that this thing that was passed on was about something that hasn't happened in the history of modern Steel Structures of that Size.

Someone knew about this, and they knew it too close to the *ACTUAL* event.

It isn't just that they knew, but considering the collapse of this type of structure is unlikely, but also they knew about it so close to the event itself speaks loud and clear.

Something more here is going on.



Unlikely? The firefighters and the police were clearing the place because somehow it could not be saved and they knew that it would collapse, long before its actual collapse. They know it was going to happened. Its not like they have the ability to see the future.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nerdling
Having worked for the BBC I can say that if you think that any of this is contrived then you have clearly never worked in a newsroom environment.


No one is suggesting anything contrived on the part of bbc.




Generally the newsreader will read whatever is put on the autocue. They're sight-reading and not taking in what is actually in the report.


Then several people read it wrong on 2 TV shows. Did you see the video?


Originally posted by Fjtruth
But even if it were copied, a UK 'typist' would quite readily have spelt 'centre' the British way without thinking, even if s/he were copying from an American source.


I agree. And "storey", too.


[edit on 27-2-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nerdling
I remember watching on 9/11.

Having worked for the BBC I can say that if you think that any of this is contrived then you have clearly never worked in a newsroom environment. You don't have time to get a coffee nevermind fake a story or conspire to deceive.

There was anticipation that the building would collapse or be pulled. I remember wondering whether I should wait up and watch it or just go to bed as they were expecting it soon.

Generally the newsreader will read whatever is put on the autocue. They're sight-reading and not taking in what is actually in the report. If the script has been prepared and sent to her then she'll read it. It happens more often than you think.


Why would anyone anticipate a steel building collapsing due to fire?
Afterall,WTC 1 & 2 collapsed due to a plane impact,jet fuel and fire(supposedly).None of which was present in WTC,but the fire.So why would anyone think 7 would go?

And BBC didnt fake a story at all,in fact they were prophets,right?
And they jumped the gun on releasing the story,who gave them the story ahead of time,is the question.
Also what kinda of new network reports a knowing false story(at the time)while standing with the building in clear view?

What kind of journalist cant see a big building?
She looked right at it,and yet continued to talk about it having collapsed.



[edit on 27-2-2007 by Black_Fox]



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Early in the day WTC 1 and 2 collapsed. As the day went on, many other buildings around the site collapsed, including WTC5 and the Marriot Hotel.

I used to live in the village (Greenwich Village), prior to 9/11, and frequented the lower Mahattan area around the towers. The World Trade Center Plaza had 6 buildings. I LIVED AND WORKED in lower Manhattan and never new which building was which in that complex. Do you expect a reporter from the BBC to have the layout of WTC plaza memorized? I don't. Don't you think a simple explanation is the woman got her building numbers mixed up. Maybe she was talling about WTC 3-6 or maybe the Marriott. There was a lot going on that day and I'm sure a lot of good and bad information was flowing. She's just a news reporter...very capable of making a mistake or getting information from an unreliable source. That's a much more plausible than anything else I read here.

News people make mistakes all the time. Remember when Reagan was shot? ABC news reported that Press Secretary James Baker had died, when in fact he hadn't.

So why is it so preposterous to think this was nothing more than a misquote or reporting of bad information. Either that or the shadow government allowed this reporter and her camera crew to be in on this conspiracy for inexplicable reasons.



new topics

top topics



 
101
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join