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: 50
101
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by r4758
This reporter needs to be questioned as to whether or not one of the buildings behind her (wtc 7) collapsed just after she did this report.

She needs to be questioned soon.

[edit on 27-2-2007 by r4758]


Is this reporter still alive? I hope the truth movement finds her in okay condition.

Too many people have mysteriously died or been killed already.




posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 09:02 PM
link   
I've been away for like 15 pages, so if this has been brought up, I apologize.

BBC Media Management Policy



Components to be Retained

The following components to be retained:-

Two broadcast standard copies of all transmitted/published TV, Radio and BBCi output – one to be stored on a separate site as a master

One browse-quality version for research purposes, to protect the broadcast material

All supporting metadata to enable research and re-use

A selection of original (i.e. unedited) material for re-use/re-versioning purposes

Hardware/software/equipment to enable replay/transfer of the media


If they kept 2 copies... What kind of a "cock-up" happened exactly? How could they lose the broadcast and then lose the copy of the most important news event in the last 100 years?

Why are they covering this up? Seems to me they'd want to find out what happened, too. Instead, they sweep it under the rug...


[edit on 28-2-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by etshrtslr
Identified,

Please show me one other example of a steal frame building that collapsed from fire that is similar to a controlled demolition in a fashion similar to WTC 7.

As for those that are saying "Identified" is a dis info agent....just look at the evolution of her post.

From the supposed housewife who's supposed husband takes a limo to the WTC complex and did not know which building he had his meetings in to the informed expert on demolitions and the 9-11 and NIST reports.



[edit on 28-2-2007 by etshrtslr]


My point exactly, i brought this up earlier.
I didn't want to say it too directly as to sound sexist or anything, but...damn.... she knows her quotes and info.
I just find it highly suspect, i'm sorry..
And in my experience, and i say this with all honesty, those who have done as much research and reading on these topics as you appear to have done, actually start to sway their opinion and get a more open mind about it.

Most that care to learn as much as Identified seems to have, are at least changed from skeptic, to neutral.

You can NOT look at all the evidence seriously, and stay a skeptic.

I feel this thread is being derailed abit because theres actually not all that much to talk about, as the video is what it is.
Theres not going to be much else to talk about until more info comes to light.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Wow amazing!

Finally the truth comes out, it amazes me how all along we try to find the answers,the debunkers say wheres the proof wheres the proof,your all crazy get back to the real world and leave your delusions behind, when all along the proof was "right under our noses" how many people watched the live broadcast (where was the tv?thats right..under your nose!unless your extremely small) What happens when you are watching something that seems unreal? Thats right your in a state of shock/disbelief, and when your in this state in any type of situation would you honestly be able to notice a small detail like this,especially when its only broadcasted once and not repeated?

Think about it.

Theres no way ANYONE would notice this slight but fatal error,there was just too much to comprehend.

Until now of course


I want to say more but this is actually scary as to whats going to happen next. As the only thing i can think of that they could do is to do something on a larger scale than they did that started all this off.

Go figure.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 11:37 PM
link   
Got it

Fast forward to 14:50, then forward again to 19:30 then catch the finale at 21:15

www.liveleak.com...

[edit on 28-2-2007 by In nothing we trust]



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 11:41 PM
link   
Guys, Jim Hoffman has the time line and is sure it is accurate to the minute. If the time line is, then the break-up of the video feed is very, very close to the *ACTUAL COLLAPSE*. This is a little to coincidential.


Here is the LINK

www.wtc7.net...

Before I post it, there is one quote to look at from the BBC anchor and I will just quote the relevant phrase, it is worth looking at.



you may have heard a few moments ago we were talking about the Solomon Brothers Building collapsing and indeed it has, and apparently it's only a few hundred yards away from where the World Trade Center Towers were.



Okay, this tells me that they were talking about this prior, however they have recieved an update, telling them the building *COLLAPSED*.

Notice the phrase 'indeed it has'. Someone gave them definitive evidence of collapse.

Now, the timeline. Notice how close she goes off to actual collapse.



Portions of the report are transcribed below. The numbers in bold indicate times, in minutes and seconds, from the beginning of the mpeg recording.

03:15 ~4:47 PM: The anchor states:
We'll leave it there for a moment. We've got some news just coming in actually, that the Solomon Brothers' Building in New York, right in the heart of Manhattan, has also collapsed. This does fit in with a warning from the British Foreign Office a couple of hours ago to British Citizens that there is a real risk -- ah let me get the exact words -- the British Foreign Office -- the foreign part of the British government -- said it was a strong risk of further atrocities in the United States, and it does seem as if there now is another one with the Solomon Brothers' Building collapsing. We've got no word yet on casualities. One assumes that the building would have been virtually deserted. Whether this latest collapse is going to influence the President, who we heard about a few moments ago, who was expected to be heading from Nebraska back to Washington, we don't know.

06:31 ~5:00 PM: The anchor states:
The 47-story Solomon Brothers', situated very close to the World Trade Center, has also just collapsed.

13:20 ~5:07 PM: The anchor states:
Now more on the latest building collapse in New York ... you may have heard a few moments ago we were talking about the Solomon Brothers Building collapsing and indeed it has, and apparently it's only a few hundred yards away from where the World Trade Center Towers were. And it seems that this was not the result of a new attack; it was because the building had been weakened during this morning's attacks. We'll probably find out more about that from our correspondent Jane Standley. Jane, what more can you tell us about the Solomon Brothers' Building and its collapse?

14:00 ~5:08 PM: The screen is filled by correspondent Jane Standley standing in front of a window framing smoke rising from Ground Zero and a clearly erect WTC 7.

15:35 ~5:09 PM: The caption on the bottom of the screen reads:
The 47 storey Salomon Brothers building close to the World Trade Centre has also collapsed.

20:15 ~5:14 PM: The image of Jane Standley begins to break up and the anchor, remarking that they'd "lost the line" with Jane Standley, shifts to another report.

This YouTube video captures a portion of the mpeg starting at 00:13:20.
Veracity of Conclusion

Questions prompted by the report include: How do we know what the correct time of the broadcast footage is? and How do we know that the imagery behind Jane Standley is live?

It is unlikely that the real times estimated above are off by more than a minute. The mpeg files are located in directories on archive.org with names that encode times down to the minute. For example, the directory name bbc200109111654-1736 encodes the time range 4:54 - 5:36 PM. No part of the 41-minute recording that contains the report shows a digital clock, but other recordings do, and suggest that the encoding of times into directory names is as meticulously accurate as the set of recordings is complete. For example, an NBC broadcast recording with the directory name nbc200109110954-1036, encoding the time range 9:54 - 10:35 AM, shows a clock with minutes and seconds. It displays a time of 10:20 starting at 25:34 in the recording, putting the start of the recording at 9:54:26 AM.

That Jane Standley was standing in front of a live view showing WTC 7 as she describes it in the past tense is virtually indisputable. The high-quality mpeg video clearly shows that she is in front of a row of windows in a tall building.




posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 12:56 AM
link   
great work,
I was wondering how close the feed cut was, to the actual collapse.

The closer it is, the more damning.

I mean imagine that....
'wt7 has collapsed...' * still standing but noone notices*
....
'wt7 falls down right behind her on screen'.... oops?

You can't blame them for cutting it really.
To have it not collapse on screen after they said it, is less obvious than having it collapse right there after she's said it has.

In summary, cutting the feed would be the LOGICAL thing for the people behind it to do.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 07:03 AM
link   
Has this thread been locked?
Theres no way theres been no posts in 6-7 hrs!!!


Edit: wow ok!

[edit on 1-3-2007 by T0by]



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I've been away for like 15 pages, so if this has been brought up, I apologize.

BBC Media Management Policy

If they kept 2 copies... What kind of a "cock-up" happened exactly? How could they lose the broadcast and then lose the copy of the most important news event in the last 100 years?

Why are they covering this up? Seems to me they'd want to find out what happened, too. Instead, they sweep it under the rug...

Just one note of caution, that document is dated April 2003. I'm sure the policy wasn't much different in 2001, but it would be interesting to see it.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 07:30 AM
link   
To stay on topic of this thread I am posting some interesting links.

1) archive.midrange.com...

This is a Sept 11, 2001 archived list of discussions between IT professionals.

This particular post is a summary of everything that had been said in the list and on the news that day.

Notice that this poster clearly states:
>>"BBC quotes British Foreign Office saying Saloman Brothers Building in NY
collapsed, this is a 47 story building that was very close to the 110 story
World Trade Building. It seemed like it was several hours later the US media



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 07:31 AM
link   
Here is a link to Archive.com where you can download a 4 gig video of 24 hours of FOX news and CNN news on Sept 11, 2001.

I have not downloaded it as I am sure someone else more keen than I will do so and put the evidence, if any, on youtube or somewhere. :-)

ia300207.us.archive.org...



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 07:33 AM
link   
Here is another video of Standley from Sept 11, 2001. Nothing earth shattering.

news.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 07:37 AM
link   
news.bbc.co.uk does in fact have some things archived from 9/11. I managed to find 3 front pages none of which are the actual time frame we are looking for and none talk about the Saloman Brothers or WTC 7.

I also found some old Business front pages on the site but they only talk about stock problems resulting from 9/11.

Their search feature is non-existant from what I can see. I had to just hunt a peck while inserting numbers into the URL field.

If anyone else wants to spend some time doing that as well I would be glad for it if they found the time in question with any reference to the collapse.

I managed to find all these links in just the last 30 minutes on line so I am sure there are many more.

My suggestion is that you try searching every possible combination.
Solomon, Saloman, Salaman, Soloman, etc.... And World Trade Center 7 and Building 7, WTC-7, and 7 World Trade Center. The names seem to differ from news agency to news agency on that day.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 07:39 AM
link   
Muppetus,

I tried to do a search this morning at Reuters and the AP. Nothing. I can't even really navigate the site very well at all.

I have posted some additional info this morning. This "story" about them jumping the story was pointed out by at least one individual on that very day.

I might can find some more.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by T0by
Has this thread been locked?
Theres no way theres been no posts in 6-7 hrs!!!


Edit: wow ok!

[edit on 1-3-2007 by T0by]


After 50 pages I think this thread proves that those entrenched in their beliefs about 9-11 will never change those beliefs regardless of how much proof is given.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 07:46 AM
link   
etshrtslr,

The buildings structure and my being your physics instructor is not the reason for this thread.

If you are keen to understand steel frame building then please take a class or do your own search on the web.

Yes, in the history of the world another Steel Frame Building had suffered GREAT Damage before 9/11. Did the rest of the world harp on this? NO!

for more information see this site. It is the fastest one I knew of this morning. I also know that many IOSH or similiar sites have information as well as NIST and various world Fire Agencies.

www.interfire.org...

And I have seen all the arguments on this site before about how each of these building don't count becuase they weren't 50 storey or they didn't have sprinklers or they didn't have this or that.

That doesn't matter because they also didn't have all the things that WTC 7 had wrong with it!

[edit on 1-3-2007 by Identified]



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fjtruth
Hope this isn't deemed too off topic, but I was wondering how the fire(s) started in WTC7.



It is pretty well established that the fires started after the collapse of WTC 1. Various hot objects entered the building and started small fires in various places.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 07:57 AM
link   
Toby I can quite nicely look at all the evidence presented on this forum regarding this video and still be as you say a "skeptic". Especially since there hasn't been any evidence except the video.

And taking the "big picture" into account doesn't go to prove anything in this case.

Are you capable of discussing the topic or not?



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 07:58 AM
link   


The buildings structure and my being your physics instructor is not the reason for this thread.


I dont need a physics instructor....What I asked for is an example of a steal frame building that collapsed from fire in a manor similar to a controlled demolition.

You have yet to do so and the reason you have not is because there has not been one.

If you bothered to look at the pictures in the link you just posted....the building in the pictures did not incur a universal collapse.....parts of the roof and the walls are still standing.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 08:05 AM
link   
Again what does that have to do with anything.

You are one note wonder here.

Providing you an example will not PROVE anything.
There is no way you will ever have an exact chain of events on another building. Won't happen.

There are many other examples of Steel Frame buildings suffering SOME FORM OF COLLAPSE. All that was needed in WTC 7 if you were at all interested in physics was that ONE FLOOR holding the transfer girders failed. ONE FLOOR and added to that the kink in the corner and it cause collapse of the entire building.

THIS HAS NOTHING to do with this video. Nothing!
That BBC reporter didn't know anything about what sort of frame wTC 7 was so you can't even say she wouldn't scientifically think that sort of building would collapse. Hello two 100 storey buildings collapse hours earlier so why wouldn't just some little reporter think that WTC 7 would?

Other examples. McCormack Place, One Meridian, DogWood Elementary. There are many where at least part of the steel frame was collapsed from fire!

Now is that enough for you?



new topics

top topics



 
101
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join