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: 51
101
<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Identified
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?



I agree, this video proves little at the moment.
It has potential, but it's all speculation. It just implies something.
I wouldn't expect this video to sway anyone.

Btw nice links and info.




posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 08:17 AM
link   
Toby,

Thank you. If people are interested in the truth to this video they would do better get out and do some leg work rather than worry about other posters.

I think I have done all I care to do in regards to proving anything about this video. Until further proof comes out I have to stick to my opinion that BBC made just another in a serious of mistakes on that day.

As for them losing their 9/11 footage I do find that odd. But then again archives are lost everyday around the world. Also there seems to still be some fragments of info from their website floating around out there and I would imagine that includes video.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Identified
But then again archives are lost everyday around the world.


Are two copies stored at different sites lost every day???


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
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



This is just one more excuse. How many excuses can we "explain away"? I agree, there's nothing more to be proven... BBC is now complicit.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 08:28 AM
link   
Being in australia sucks, i can't do anything from here

I'm not all that fond of overseas calls.

I agree anyway.

Has it been determined when the orignals were lost?



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Identified
As for them losing their 9/11 footage I do find that odd. But then again archives are lost everyday around the world. Also there seems to still be some fragments of info from their website floating around out there and I would imagine that includes video.


Its always just a case of 'misplaced' footage. Like NASA losing all its hi-def footage of the moon landing. Absurd.
How do you lose footage of the most monumental journey man has ever taken?
How do you lose footage of the most horrific act of terrorism ever commited?
To accept the 'misplaced footage' cop-out one needs to be either in denial that 'they' would want to keep anything from us, or unable to critically analize the pattern of subterfuge and deceipt.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 08:32 AM
link   
If i lost $5 of the companies money that i work for, i'd probably be fired.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 08:33 AM
link   
Them losing their copies of their ON AIR and public to the WORLD copies of video doesn't prove anything. For all they know a thousand people video taped everything they said that day. They would have no need to purposely destroy them to cover anything up. That is a stretch IMO.

Archives are purposely destroyed all the time to make room for more. Why they chose to destroy 9/11 I don't know. Maybe the archivist made a mistake. Maybe they reviewed the video and nothing was worth keeping. Maybe they just destroyed everything from date to date and 9/11 was in there. Maybe green goblins got into the archive room and ate that days video. Maybe anything. It isn't proof of anything and we don't even have the facts here.

Will they kick themselves later? We all do when we realize what we have thrown away or shredded in haste.

I also am not so sure that they don't have some form of copy locked away. It just might not be in a format they can share easily.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

This is just one more excuse. How many excuses can we "explain away"? I agree, there's nothing more to be proven... BBC is now complicit.


That isn't solid proof of the BBC being complicit. Maybe MI6 stole them both. Maybe someone at the Beeb had access and stole them both because they have a freakish obsession with the subject. Okay that last one may be out-there somewhat.


What do the original tapes contain that copies and archive footage do not?


Originally posted by Identified
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.


News websites seem to be terrible for searching don't they?! And I agree with everything you said in your post about doing the legwork and going out to find proof. I too believe that it was a reporting error but will remain open-minded if evidence that says otherwise is found



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Identified
Them losing their copies of their ON AIR and public to the WORLD copies of video doesn't prove anything. For all they know a thousand people video taped everything they said that day. They would have no need to purposely destroy them to cover anything up. That is a stretch IMO.

Archives are purposely destroyed all the time to make room for more. Why they chose to destroy 9/11 I don't know. Maybe the archivist made a mistake. Maybe they reviewed the video and nothing was worth keeping. Maybe they just destroyed everything from date to date and 9/11 was in there. Maybe green goblins got into the archive room and ate that days video. Maybe anything. It isn't proof of anything and we don't even have the facts here.

Will they kick themselves later? We all do when we realize what we have thrown away or shredded in haste.

I also am not so sure that they don't have some form of copy locked away. It just might not be in a format they can share easily.



Noones mentioned destroying the tapes. In fact i think 'cockup' implies the opposite as in they were lost.
I think someone mentioned that without originals, things dont hold much weight legally? I dont know if it's true or not.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 08:48 AM
link   
Cock-up to me in British English simply means mess. At least that is how I and all my British friends use it. You would say, "That match was a total cock-up."

What that mess was we don't know from what we were told. It could have been anything from accidentally destroying them to fire, to they forgot to archive them at all to begin with.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 08:52 AM
link   
Toby,

Do they not use the term "cock-up" in Australia? I can't say that I have paid much attention to know either way.

Gotta love how we are seperated by a common language.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 08:56 AM
link   
Cock up just means accident.
Not a systematic routined destroying of the files.
It was a mistake, and not the usual process of things.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 08:59 AM
link   
i remember that here in holland (it was evening here by the time WTC7 collapsed) it was mentioned on TV that the building was about to come down. It took another 30 - 60 minutes after this report untill it actually collapsed. It sort of fits the official story (remember "pull it" allegedly meaned pull the firemen out of the building). So it could just be that BBC got the same news and in the confusion mentioned it had already collapsed while it was actually about to. Just my 0.02



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by T0by
Cock up just means accident.
Not a systematic routined destroying of the files.
It was a mistake, and not the usual process of things.



It depends on how you are looking at it. I could think it is a cock-up to ever destroy something. The system in place could be that it was done periodically with the archives. So I could say that was a cock-up and still be inline with what the system does.

I am not saying that is what happened here I am just saying you have to take into account the individuals connotation of the word and his beliefs.



[edit on 1-3-2007 by Identified]



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 09:07 AM
link   
How do you download this video? I am right clicking and looking for download options and all I see on the site is embed codes and such. I don't see download option.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by errorist
i remember that here in holland (it was evening here by the time WTC7 collapsed) it was mentioned on TV that the building was about to come down. It took another 30 - 60 minutes after this report untill it actually collapsed. It sort of fits the official story (remember "pull it" allegedly meaned pull the firemen out of the building). So it could just be that BBC got the same news and in the confusion mentioned it had already collapsed while it was actually about to. Just my 0.02


Thank you for posting your memories of this event. It does help us understand what was going on around the world and perhaps how things got reported incorrectly.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 09:17 AM
link   
Jessicamsa,

I believe many of the original links on this thread have been taken down.

You can still go to youtube and search for BBC WTC7 and you will have your choice of segments to look at there.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 09:23 AM
link   
i searched on the bbc website and i found the jane standley page news for the day of 911

Jane standleys news page on 911 on bbc news site

notice the times on the top of the page, and near the top she talks about wtc 7 collapsed already.

heres her video report on that page

Standleys video report of incident on 911 day thats on bbc news site

look at the quote on the bottom of the page

I heard the bomb and saw both buildings crumble like biscuits


that quote is on the bbc news page.

strange quote to be given on that day.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033
i searched on the bbc website and i found the jane standley page news for the day of 911

Jane standleys news page on 911 on bbc news site

notice the times on the top of the page, and near the top she talks about wtc 7 collapsed already.

heres her video report on that page

Standleys video report of incident on 911 day thats on bbc news site

look at the quote on the bottom of the page

I heard the bomb and saw both buildings crumble like biscuits


that quote is on the bbc news page.

strange quote to be given on that day.


That is one of the archives I managed to find this morning. HOwever if you look at the time it is 10:54 PM UK Time. That is after WTC 7 fell.

WTC fell at 5:20 Easter or 10:20 UK.

But the quote is interesting however when you consider the time it was taken and how these events weren't even 24 hours old it is understandable that people were quoted thinking they heard all sorts of things.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 09:38 AM
link   
Also found rte news at 9pm where they ststae that people heard explosion than building 1 fell, then another explosion then building 2 fell

rtsp://streaming2.rte.ie/2001/0911/9news56.rm

just thought if we have a media thread, this may be interesting for those to see, what others said as well.



new topics

top topics



 
101
<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in

join