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: 55
101
<< 52  53  54    56  57  58 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 05:03 AM
link   
Hi there,

I'm totally new on this forum, but I've been following Alex Jones & co. for a long time. I've send a complaint via mail to the BBC.
This what i wrote:
----------------------------
Hello,

I was shocked when I saw this footage on the internet:
www.youtube.com...
com%2Farticles%2Fsept11%2Fbbc%5Freported%5Fwtc%5F7%5Fcollapsed%5F20%5Fmi
n%5Fbefore%5Fit%5Ffell%2Ehtm

It appears to be a BBC reporter reporting live on 9/11 about the
collapse of WTC7 while that building was still standing behind the
woman!

Was this woman reading a press release a littel too soon?
I mean,
"WOW!", please explain how this could happen.

Thanks in advance!
----------------------------
This is what they wrote back:
Hello and thank you for your email in reaction to claims made in an
article published online.

The notion, as suggested on such websites, that the BBC has been part of
any conspiracy is patently ludicrous. We reported the situation as
accurately as we could, based on the best information available. We
cannot be categorical about the exact timing of events that day - this
is the first time it has been brought to our attention and it was more
than five years ago. If in the chaos and confusion of that day our
correspondent reported that the building had collapsed before it had
done so, it would have been a genuine error.

With regards
BBC World Customer Relations
----------------------------
This is what I wrote again back to them bacause I think their answer was lame!:
Hi,

Thank you for the reply. Still, I'm not convinced that that was no foreknowledge ... How could someone predict the building was going to collapse? And don't you check your sources before you spread news that big? Half an hour before it even happened? And the reporter even repeated that 'news-fact' two or three times ... by then it should have been clear the building was still standing ... the reporter is in New York for a reason, she just had to look over her shoulder.

I'm really sorry I'm being this annoying, but I simply won't accept this explanation. I'm not nito any conspiracy-theory or whatever ... al I'm saying is, this is not a genuine error, there's definately more too it. If it was a real error, why wasn't it in the news yesterday? Google BBC WTC7, it's all over the internet and not a single second of it on BBC ... I just think it's fishy. There's too many reasons for someone not to believe in some sort of conspiracy. There's truckloads of reasons why to believe there's more to it. I'm not nuts. And when you do show something about 9/11, every effort is done to portray the 9/11 movement as nutters or some cult-movement. It's too obvious. Listen, I am not conspiracy-nut or whatever, I do have a sane mind! All I'm saying is that there's way more to it and the BBC appears to do everything they can to counter true facts with propaganda. i always respected the BBC and I still do, but after these events I look at it with a totally different view ... my opinion may be may be worth nothing to many people, but that won't hold me from expressing it.

Regards from a Belgian BBC viewer,


I think they're making it way too obvious ... telling us the tapes are lost (video of the biggest event in this century!) and that from the world's biggest broadcasting company ... very fishy ... telling us it was just a genuine error ... hmmm ... what was the cameraman thinking when he saw the building behind the reporter reporting it was collapsed ... I'm not a conspiracy-nut or whatever ... I'm just asking questions! And their answers do not add up!




posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 08:10 AM
link   
People, we need to raise this issue higher. As high as we can. In UK, the leader of the Opposition, David Cameron, has a blog, on which people post questions - and the top 3 rated questions each week he will answer. While I have no doubt at all that he's as much a part of the system as Bliar, at the very least it'll be instructive to have that confirmed - and you never know, it MIGHT even open his eyes to something.

www.webcameron.org.uk...

Please sign up and vote for this thread. All that's needed is an email address - so even people in the US can vote. This seems to be one of the few ways to promote this issue to those that matter; whether or not they'll actually do anything is another issue!!!



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 08:29 AM
link   
i admire you determination.

the fact of the matter is that they have successfully managed to install the notion that anybody who questions the official version of 9/11 is a nutter.
look at the wording of the response for the BBC.

they cant even give us the dignity of using correct English.

they openly admit to loosing the footage by means of cock up. like its a joke.

David Cameron will not listen , he wants to be the next prime minister so do you think he will align himself with us so called nutters.

The only Justice the truth movement will ever see , is the look on the people's faces when they know its too late.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 08:41 AM
link   
But at the very least the issue is there in front of everyone's face, and the higher up the list it gets, the more people (hopefully!) will think "hang on a second, why won't he give a satisfactory answer to this!" Wishful thinking of course, but you gotta use all the tools at your disposal...

Come on, sign up and vote, it takes no more than a minute, and it COULD just make a difference...

www.webcameron.org.uk...

And yes, Cameron hopes to be the next PM. In fact, since he became leader of the opposition, I've had money on it...
So I'll be disappointed if he's not. Not that I think for one second that a single policy in UK will change, for I know they won't - policy is dictated ultimately by the Bank of England and the people who own it. But, one step at a time. Raise the issues, and then we can give these stooges # for their less than satisfactory responses...



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 08:55 AM
link   
hey people,

I guess you're all familiar with Alex Jones and his website .. well, one of his websites:infowars.com has been down for a day now ... I know he posts a lot of great articles on their, he's one of the leaders in this truth movement ... anyone any news on that? I think it's odd, just now whenthis BBC-story breaks out!



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 08:58 AM
link   
MSNBC apparently "Feared all afternoon" that world trade center 7 would collapse.

youtube.com...

Reporter Ashleigh Banfield is just down the street from WTC 7 interviewing a woman when you can see in the background that WTC 7 is starting to collapse.

Listen you will hear Ashleigh Banfield say: “This is it!”

Then some one else, a man says, "That's the building coming down."

Then you hear news desk anchor Brian Williams (I can recognize his voice) say, “What we’ve been fearing all afternoon has apparently happened. We were watching number 7 World Trade, which was part of the ancillary damage of the explosion and collapse of the other two.”

Just more evidence that the news media in general figured/knew/guess/thought/feared that WTC 7 was going to collapse "all afternoon".



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 09:02 AM
link   
I agree. It was very informal. With the "cock-up" slang and to place it on a "blog" site on BBC. Just seems so informal. As if they couldn't be bothered to have any sort of official statement. Why that is I don't know. Could be they were laughing at the thought they had pre-knowledge and felt they didn't need to respond at all??

[edit on 2-3-2007 by Identified]



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Just a point I would like to make regarding this topic going into why the building collapsed and how it collapsed and who had reason to collapse it.

Building 6 was demolished. We know this! It was purposely taken down by cables pulling it down.

Now here is my point. Why If someone wanted World Trade Center 7 destroyed so badly would they plant explosives days ahead and do a nice neat tidy pile demolition, as some have claimed. Then tell the media ahead of time it was going to collapse, then make up all these stories about how it collapsed. When all they had to do was go ahead and let the fires continue to burn inside it until nothing but columns and trusses and steel frame was left and then just say like they did with Number 6 that they had to demolish it because of safety concerns and because it would never be able to be repaired and safely be occupied again?

I fail to have ever understood why it was better to demolish right then at 5:20 and lie about how it happened than to just go ahead and say, "Hey this building is a hazzard and we are bringing it down."

And you can't use insurance because insurance would have paid out even if it had been destroyed "from a terrorist act" to the point that it had to be demolished.

Just something to think about.

Anyway I only really came to post the newest evidence that MSNBC must have gotten the same word of collapse that CNN and BBC got. :-)

[edit on 2-3-2007 by Identified]



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 09:15 AM
link   
who is the head of news at BBC World, said on the BBC Editors blog that the footage was lost, but "because of cock-up, not conspiracy". However, in a personal email to me, he effectively admitted that they weren't lost but that the BBC destroyed them. Quote:

"The policy for keeping tapes from BBC News channels is different - we are obliged to keep them for 90 days only and after that we only archive a portion of each day's ouptut. That's in line with Ofcom regulations. Quite obviously, though, we should have kept the 9/11 stuff for ever."

However, quite naturally I looked at BBC Media Management policy and lo! It says:

Intended Audience: Global. All areas of the BBC need to ensure they are archiving relevant material.

It also says:
1.2 Selection criteria for long-term archiving

· All scripted fiction (drama and comedy)

· All major documentaries

· Award-winning programmes

· Events where the BBC played a unique and distinctive role in broadcasting to the nation (e.g. wars, royal weddings, state funerals, major sports events etc).

· Content covering the following areas:

¨ Historical. Material of events (actuality) covering all subject areas, including politics, foreign affairs etc. Includes content generated by News.
And
4.1 What to archive

· All transmitted programmes, whether in-house or independent productions

· The longest version of each news item transmitted per day, plus a compilation of items from continuous services such as News 24

And of course, there's the destruction policy. Because the footage is kept in multiple locations, it's almost impossible to accidentally lose it. Therefore it could only have been destroyed. However, if that's the case, there has to be a record of destruction - because once again the media management policy quite clearly states:

In all cases a record will be kept for ever which documents the disposal/destruction process.

And so, if the BBC have destroyed the footage, then we the public should demand to see the destruction certificate, and demand an answer as to why the BBC saw fit to destroy its footage from the defining moment of the 21st Century! Or, they can try to wriggle out of that one with further lies.

Personally, my view is that a coherent strategy needs to be agreed upon - and then we need to persuade everyone we know, everyone we can speak to, to email or phone the BBC and ask some very specific questions. Because otherwise the BBC will always have an out; they'll tell one person one thing, another will hear another, and so on. And the whole thing gets diluted. This is why the "Truth Movement" gets nothing done, because its attacks are so unfocused. We need focus, and we need focussing!!



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 09:23 AM
link   
Is that from the time the issue was first raised, at 16:58 EST, to when it was next mentioned at 17:10, the BBC had done no checking of the information, which also suggests that the veracity of the source of the information was not checked. This suggests to me an "Andrew Gilligan moment" - something which I'm sure the BBC would not like to be accused of again. Basically, the BBC had every opportunity to check on that report - and it failed to do so, despite the words of Richard Porter on the BBC website:

"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."

Once again, this is an outright lie from Richard Porter. This also is something that could be used as a chink in the BBC's armour - IF we could get everyone to agree to concentrate on it when they contact the BBC.

We've seen the impact one person can have by the furore caused by whoever it was who discovered this footage. We all now need to realise that we can all be equally effective - if we agree a strategy!

United we stand, divided we fall...



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 09:44 AM
link   


I fail to have ever understood why it was better to demolish right then at 5:20 and lie about how it happened than to just go ahead and say, "Hey this building is a hazzard and we are bringing it down."


Then the question would arise as to why they placed demolition explosives in the building prior to 9-11.

To admit that demolition explosives were placed in the building prior to 9-11 would be admitting that there was foreknowledge that 9-11 was going to happen.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by etshrtslr



I fail to have ever understood why it was better to demolish right then at 5:20 and lie about how it happened than to just go ahead and say, "Hey this building is a hazzard and we are bringing it down."


Then the question would arise as to why they placed demolition explosives in the building prior to 9-11.

To admit that demolition explosives were placed in the building prior to 9-11 would be admitting that there was foreknowledge that 9-11 was going to happen.


Okay I am going to go with this.

Assuming they did put explosives into WTC 7 ahead of time why would they have to explode the building at 5:20 on 9/11?

Why not 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 days later and just lie about putting the explosives in after 9/11? Why not let the fire continue and use the very convienent truth that the water pressure wasn't allowing for much of any sort of fire control? Then when whatever it was they were trying to hide had burned a little just blow the sucker up then?

I am still not getting why they had to do it at 5:20 on 9/11 and then lie about it?

They could have planted the explosives years before, then used the fire as an excuse to demolish it and then no need to lie about the demolition.

The thing with lies is that you are generally try to not tell one that then requires you to tell another. It is better to stick as closely to the truth isn't it?

I mean if they are going to all this trouble to involve explosives and planes and thousands of people then why would they add yet another lie on top when they didn't have to?





[edit on 2-3-2007 by Identified]



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by freakyty

Buildings 4, 5, 6 never collapsed even though they were all much closer to the towers. Building 7 was across the street from the WTC, had small fires, and it comes crashing down in a neat pile.



Small fires?
I think you been misled. Some of the videos of the CTers tells you that one side of the story, but they don't show you the other side of the story. Fires on all floors, not on few floors.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 10:11 AM
link   


The police must be involved in this collapse as well.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 10:11 AM
link   
Well if the day was a public spectacle theatre, then it was probably scripted. Perhaps it went off late rather than early and they meant to disguise it in the aftermath of the twin towers falling. But in general, better for it to happen early while people are still in panic than after the dust has settled. Then its a lesser event of the day rather than a new significant event 3 days later.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by freakyty

Buildings 4, 5, 6 never collapsed even though they were all much closer to the towers. Building 7 was across the street from the WTC, had small fires, and it comes crashing down in a neat pile.



Small fires?
I think you been misled. Some of the videos of the CTers tells you that one side of the story, but they don't show you the other side of the story. Fires on all floors, not on few floors.


WTC7 had fires on ALL floors? Am I perhaps misunderstanding you here? Because WTC7 most definitely did NOT have fires on ALL floors....



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Giordano Bruno
Well if the day was a public spectacle theatre, then it was probably scripted. Perhaps it went off late rather than early and they meant to disguise it in the aftermath of the twin towers falling. But in general, better for it to happen early while people are still in panic than after the dust has settled. Then its a lesser event of the day rather than a new significant event 3 days later.


Not really. How many people live witnessed 6 come down.? Not many I bet. The camera's weren't trained on ground zero, 24/7 just 2 days after 9/11. They could explode it then. Put out a press release that the building was unstable and then explode it right then. No one would be questioning it because it wouldn't have been any big deal. Fire damaged buildings are taken down every day across the planet.

I still don't understand the reasoning behind why the government or whoever would orchastrate all these lies on top of lies when one nice neat lie tied with a red bow would have done the trick.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 10:16 AM
link   
think about it; if they'd waited a few days to bring down WTC7 there was always the chance someone might have discovered it was rigged for demolition. It had to come down on that day.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illuminze

WTC7 had fires on ALL floors? Am I perhaps misunderstanding you here? Because WTC7 most definitely did NOT have fires on ALL floors....


Show me your video of small fires please.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 10:22 AM
link   


Check what this guy is showing. Sounds convincing eh?


Small fires!!! YOU MAY BE RIGHT!!


[edit on 2-3-2007 by deltaboy]



new topics

top topics



 
101
<< 52  53  54    56  57  58 >>

log in

join