Why is the time relevant?

The video shows a BBC reporter discussing the collapse of building 7, yet building 7 is clearly seen behind her, still standing.

Hey everyone,

Im a long long long time lurker first time poster. I have a friend who has worked in several small town news papers and is currently working for a larger quasi-national news paper. Shortly after 9/11 I remember we had a conversation where he ragged on me for having some of the doubts about 9/11 I continue to have till this day. I remember though he told me he found somethings strange about September.11th but didnt believe anything that I had talked to him about. However I remember very clearly he told me that there is sort of an urban legend floating around the news paper circles that a few AP (Associated Press) reporters had known about the collapse of buildings before any fell. Not sure if this helps, its just hersay and conjecture its not like he heard anything from any high up sources or anything, but now after seeing this video...I dunno.. its curious to say the least. Anyway thanks for listening I love reading the convos on here keep up the good work. Maybe ill post again sometime!

Stillwatch

Ah yes.. this sure does seem pretty damning doesn't it? I've always thought WTC7 would somehow be the catalyst for proving the government betrayed and lied to us. This really is interesting and I can't wait for the new topic of debate that comes from this, right now it just seems all too unreal.

When the woman who is standing in front of the view of building 7, whilst talking to the other anchor, he does mention that it is about 8 hours after the plane strikes/collapse. Another question I have is, where was that cast at? Was she indeed in NY looking at the actual scene? It's live but is that 'blue screen'?



[edit on 26-2-2007 by ViewFromTheStars]

OOOOO I get it now. She is correcting the anchor. "That was what you were told." LOL Nice try though.

[edit on 26-2-2007 by deltaboy]

The light shining on the left(or our right)/back of her head seems to be consistent with the shadows from the buildings in the background. So i very much doubt theres a green screen behind her.

Originally posted by r4758
Why is the time relevant?

The video shows a BBC reporter discussing the collapse of building 7, yet building 7 is clearly seen behind her, still standing.

Because although we *see* the building behind her, to disprove that it is simply "old" footage, the *actual* time of the transmission is critical.

See my post further up, but the reporter in the studio makes reference to

...8 hours or so since the attacks...

As I wrote above, 9AM hijacking + 8hours = 5PM local. The building "fell" around 5:30PM. The BBC broadcast occured at around 4:57, with a time sync (the BBC logo and music) occurring on the hour (5PM local).

The point is: they were reporting it before it happened.

With the cause of the collapse "officially" being that it was structural damage and failure due to fire, you can't predict WHEN, or indeed IF the building will collapse. Why then, are they reporting it before the fact?

Another point: look at the shadows. This will give you a good idea as to when it (the video behind her) was taken.

[edit on 26-2-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

so, end of the day, why is it a big deal. They got theyre info wrong? isnt this part of a fog of war type thing? there was chaos everywhere, couldn't they had just gotten a report that the wtc7 building fell, when it was infact another report about the mariott? I mean, its not damning at all, especially given this was a third hand news report by foreign reporters.

Now, give me a fire chief saying the building collapsed...23 minutes earlier. that would be something

I said before that the time frame is irrelevant, but to correct myself it is secondary as it may become far more important if this story is to stand the proper testing.

It's getting buried on Digg, not to mention much of the "questioning" comments are disappearing as well, leaving only the 15 year olds with the tin foil comments and JFK mockery. I can't believe I was once as dense about this stuff as they are, some people need a f**king building to drop on their head before even CONSIDERING what we all know is true, it's sad but pretty much proves media conditioning works on the masses.

I was thinking.....

this video is probably legit. But proves NOTHING but the Journalist got her buildings mixed up. The Marriot was literally split in half after the collapse of the towers. (Was damaged from landing gear after the first plane hit) Other buildings were destroyed...( i know none had completly collasped besides 1&2.

And lets think... you are a journalist from the UK. You get a tip that there is about to be a demolition of a building.... what would you do? Hmmm let me stand in front of it and say it collapsed???

Does that make ANY sence AT ALL ?

Honestly...if it had been Peter Jennings saying this, I would have some serious questions as to WHY... this was some no name BBC reporter in a foreign country reporting during a hectic day.

Originally posted by WolfofWar
so, end of the day, why is it a big deal. They got theyre info wrong? isnt this part of a fog of war type thing? there was chaos everywhere, couldn't they had just gotten a report that the wtc7 building fell, when it was infact another report about the mariott? I mean, its not damning at all, especially given this was a third hand news report by foreign reporters.

She had already mentioned the part collapse of the Marriot, I think what she said there after was exactly what they were told to report. They did not confuse the buildings as much as you might want to believe it.

No, they are not talking about the marriott.


They say specifically, "The 47 story Salmon Brothers Building, about 200 yards from the WTC."

Admit it, you cant debunk it. Stop trying.

Originally posted by theBman
The light shining on the left(or our right)/back of her head seems to be consistent with the shadows from the buildings in the background. So i very much doubt theres a green screen behind her.

You beat me to it. Her appearance throughout the video shows reflections of sunlight consistent with the buildings and such in the background, also consistent with 5:00pm-ish in NYC.

Originally posted by r4758
The timestamp on the file itself suggests bbc 2001 09 11 1654 - 1736.

The post above with the "date stamp" for the full-size file seems to collaborate the same.

Good thread. Good find. Good work. ALL!


[edit: to add date/time stamp quote]

[edit on 26-2-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

15:40, she specifically mentions, "this is not the first building to collapse, part of the mariott also collapsed already." And then goes on to DESCRIBE the Salmon Brothers 47 storey building... WTC7!!!

[edit on 2/26/2007 by sp00n1]

Originally posted by Koka

Originally posted by WolfofWar
so, end of the day, why is it a big deal. They got theyre info wrong? isnt this part of a fog of war type thing? there was chaos everywhere, couldn't they had just gotten a report that the wtc7 building fell, when it was infact another report about the mariott? I mean, its not damning at all, especially given this was a third hand news report by foreign reporters.

She had already mentioned the part collapse of the Marriot, I think what she said there after was exactly what they were told to report. They did not confuse the buildings as much as you might want to believe it.

itsn ot a matter of confusing buildings as just multiple repeated reports.

someone heres something and reports on it, someone else hears about the report and tries to report on it, but they got some things wrong, and you have two reports going out about two different buildings.

Hell, I was at school that day, and we didnt have tvs, we were told a nuke went off in new york.

Its fog of war. Its not really conclusive to anything.

also note that the newssreporter and the woman talk about the collapse in a very matter-of-factly way - no doubts what so ever - they even go into the reason why WTC7 fell... If it was an unconfirmed report, they would have mentioned it - it is BBC world, not some local newsteam