BBC News Reports Building 7 collapse 23 Minutes before it collapses.

page: 64
101
<< 61  62  63    65  66 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 06:59 PM
link   
I defy those in the so-called 9/11 'truth' movement to subject their pet theories to the same level of scrutiny that they subject the official report. They can't, because the theories are so ridiculously preprosterous that they would fall apart like a house of cards.




posted on Mar, 23 2007 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by occams razor2
I defy those in the so-called 9/11 'truth' movement to subject their pet theories to the same level of scrutiny that they subject the official report. They can't, because the theories are so ridiculously preprosterous that they would fall apart like a house of cards.


Love your name! I often find myself falling back on Occam's Razor
"All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one."

Or as Carl Sagan said: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

I have yet to see any extraordinary evidence that 9/11 was anything but a terrorist act not perpetrated by our own government.

As for this video no one has given any evidence at all!



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 10:20 AM
link   
repeat it as often as you like, people will be able to judge by themselves.

#7's demolition was an attack in its own right, even if it did not involve an airliner, so knowing it in advance means involvement at some level.



posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 08:00 PM
link   
Does New World Power Seat In London???

Related to this thread: Listen very carefully to these (clearly) British Channel 5 reporters comments just before the second tower collapses. Listen, and then tell me they were not somehow scripted. Also, several car bombs reported?? Video: Reporters acting suspicious before WTC collapse

Great find on the WTC7 footage, all hail OP
my vote for this month.

If the BBC hadn´t taken their errors out of their original archive, I might have thought this was simply a slip up. It´s not!

How are they explaining the change of their archives? We now have fakes and they the real footage?



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 07:54 PM
link   
The video in itself is evidence of a cover up. The rush to get it off the
web as quickly as possible is evidence of a cover up. The rush to get it
off any video site is evidence of a cover up.

The rush for them to explain away how a huge NEWS ORGANIZATION
COULD SOMEHOW POSSIBLY LOSE EVERY BIT OF FOOTAGE THEY
HAD OF ONE OF THEIR OWN REPORTERS DOING A REPORT FOR
THEIR OWN BBC STATION IS THE BEST EVIDENCE OF ALL THAT
THEIR IS A COVER UP, A CONSPIRACY SURROUNDING THE EVENTS
OF 9/11.

WHEN YOU SPIN A WEB TO DECEIVE OF THIS MAGNITUDE STUPID
EXCUSES LIKE THEY LOST THEIR OWN ARCHIVE FOOTAGE
ALLOWS THEM TO HANG THEMSELVES.

Go ask CNN, or ABC, or any other news organization if they lost
any of their 9/11 biggest story in history footage.

They would laugh in your faces. But I will assume now they will also
have to misplace some footage to help one of their good ole boys out
of a foot in the mouth jam that this BBC station has placed itself
with its ludicrous reply to the video footage.

The proof is in their someone should of proofread their feable attempt
of excuses before they released to the media their denial of any
conspirary. We all know the media is a controlled forum. You would
think they would hire someone to write better lies.

WAKE UP AMERICA, BEFORE THE MIND CONTROL POLICE TAKE OVER



posted on Mar, 31 2007 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Anyone know why I'm forbidden to access the links to the BBC Bldg. 7 broadcast?



posted on Apr, 5 2007 @ 08:22 AM
link   
When will people wake up. This is just one of many questionable events from our government over the past 50 yrs. Who knows what the truth is anymore.
I can tell you this. Our government is not in this for us. We are the flock that feeds the shepard. Problem is, the shepard keeps getting fatter and lazier, taking care of himself and neglecting his flock.
Well, my shepard, Jesus, is not going to put up with this much longer. Follow who you want, but to be on the wrong side if I'm right could be eternal.
God Bless those who take this to heart.



posted on Apr, 5 2007 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Identified
Love your name! I often find myself falling back on Occam's Razor
"All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one."

Or as Carl Sagan said: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."


All things being equal is the key. You can't compare a junk theory to a workable one and claim all things are equal.

What you see as extraordinary, is the sociology of it, of people being this evil within our own country. Not the science. From a scientific standpoint, the NIST's report presents the extraordinary claims, because none of their tests supported their conclusions in the least, and yet they make the leap of faith anyway, based on nothing.

How you think the show is run in this country is much more likely to be horribly wrong and naive, than the science itself being wrong. But that's why people can't come to terms with the science in the first place.



posted on Apr, 6 2007 @ 12:27 AM
link   
After watching the videos, ok the reports both verbal and text scroll state that WTC 7 collapsed whilst the bldg still remains standing in the background. No where can I find a time reference, a clock or some other reference as to the time as the video reports it.

Has this been gone over before? Sorry 65 pages of posts haven't gone thru all pages yet (yikes).



posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
I just cant see them making a mistake like this?



Hey buddy,

In billiard some times you work your ass off to clean a difficult table and when you got the job done all is left is an easy shot and you go and take it for granted and boom you miss the easiest shot of the rack and you are screwed.

There are so many aspects and facades to cover of the 911 operation that it's very easy to believe that they would slip up somewhere and it's usually the easiest things they screw up.



posted on Apr, 11 2007 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by endrna
NEWS ORGANIZATION
COULD SOMEHOW POSSIBLY LOSE EVERY BIT OF FOOTAGE THEY
HAD OF ONE OF THEIR OWN REPORTERS DOING A REPORT FOR
THEIR OWN BBC STATION IS THE BEST EVIDENCE OF ALL THAT
THEIR IS A COVER UP, A CONSPIRACY SURROUNDING THE EVENTS
OF 9/11.

WHEN YOU SPIN A WEB TO DECEIVE OF THIS MAGNITUDE STUPID
EXCUSES LIKE THEY LOST THEIR OWN ARCHIVE FOOTAGE
ALLOWS THEM TO HANG THEMSELVES.

WAKE UP AMERICA, BEFORE THE MIND CONTROL POLICE TAKE OVER


Couldn't agree more... But what happened with this story? I mean when i fist read it i saw it as a 'smoking gun' evidence. Still it never reached the MSM, which is proof in itself. Anyways, did anything develop from it?



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 01:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jgruh4e
Couldn't agree more... But what happened with this story? I mean when i fist read it i saw it as a 'smoking gun' evidence. Still it never reached the MSM, which is proof in itself. Anyways, did anything develop from it?


Proof of what exactly? That the most logical explanation has always been that some people jumped the gun and not one single piece of evidence says otherwise? Why would the MSM report on that?

Well, I am guessing that no-one has gone out and found any proof that this was anything but a piece of mis-reporting on a truly unique and hectic day. I think we have exhausted everyone's opinion on the press and so called "proof" that the world's media was in on it. This thread is done unless someone does come back with some evidence to share.



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muppetus Galacticus
I think we have exhausted everyone's opinion on the press and so called "proof" that the world's media was in on it.


C'mon, no one is claiming the media is actually 'in on it'. If they are then they need to re-think their position. But anyway unless you understand and except that the media is controlled on so many levels by those who have the power to do so, you wouldn't understand or except how the media could report something that hadn't happened yet and not even realise it themselves.
Until they're confronted with it. But maintaining the status quo, that gives the media it's business, is more important than the truth. So they deny publicly and deny to themselves by convincing themselves it's anything but the truth. Like a muppetus on a string...


[edit on 17/4/2007 by ANOK]



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 03:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
C'mon, no one is claiming the media is actually 'in on it'. If they are then they need to re-think their position.


Actually, several people in this thread have stated that they believe the media was a part of the 9/11 conspiracy. Thanks to the lack of advanced search (thanks ATS(!)), and a quick browse through some pages on this thread, can I find anything?


It's not the first time I would suggest some people take time out from this website, as well as their conspiracy hobby as a whole, for a while. Just take a look at the VaTech thread and how that's turning out - it's utterly ridiculous how some people see a conspiracy in absolutely everything




But anyway unless you understand and except that the media is controlled on so many levels by those who have the power to do so, you wouldn't understand or except how the media could report something that hadn't happened yet and not even realise it themselves.Until they're confronted with it. But maintaining the status quo, that gives the media it's business, is more important than the truth. So they deny publicly and deny to themselves by convincing themselves it's anything but the truth. Like a muppetus on a string...
[edit on 17/4/2007 by ANOK]


Thanks for your thoughts
I personally don't buy into that; not on a grand scale at least. Do you have personal experience in the news of world that led you to this belief or was it through research?



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 03:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muppetus Galacticus
...Do you have personal experience in the news of world that led you to this belief or was it through research?


Both actually.
Maybe you need to read more, or live more? ('The Violent Decade' by Gervasi, a US foreign corespondent 1934-1944, is a good one)
The media has been controlled since the day the printing press was invented. It's rather naive to think a government (and corporations), any government, would not control it's countries media.
Just do some research on events in history and what the media was reporting at the time.
Or in fact just look around you...






Information that we receive concerning the real world is carefully controlled...Jeremy Ratter


[edit on 17/4/2007 by ANOK]



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 03:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Both actually.
Maybe you need to read more, or live more? ('The Violent Decade' by Gervasi, a US foreign corespondent 1934-1944, is a good one)[/quote

Well I do read a lot, the living part is a bit more difficult due to illness. I rarely even watch the news anyway, mostly just for big breaking events, so I don't believe or dis-believe them because they are not part of my world. I get my news from a number of sources and make my own mind up with the information I have at my fingertips. Thanks for the book suggestion, I am always on the lookout for more reading material



Originally posted by ANOKThe media has been controlled since the day the printing press was invented. It's rather naive to think a government (and corporations), any government, would not control it's countries media.
Just do some research on events in history and what the media was reporting at the time.
Or in fact just look around you...




Information that we receive concerning the real world is carefully controlled...Jeremy Ratter


[edit on 17/4/2007 by ANOK]


I am not saying there is zero control - of course there is some - but I just don't see every newspaper and TV station in the world being controlled that much.

And we are not talking about a Government or nation here as at least four broadcasters from around the world reported that WTC7 was down before it actually was. CNN, BBC, a news channel in Belgium and I think one in Holland are the ones I know did just that. And all they did was read it off the wire and didn't go all out to confirm it on the ground before going on air - another part of that hectic day where everyone is trying to keep on top of things.

Are you then a proponent of the NWO who would control the media around the world?



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 04:39 AM
link   
Ok, this is THE best evidence yet.
way to go OP.
To those arguing about time stamps etc:
It isn't necessary for a time stamp in any way shape or form! Watch the video.
WHY is the building still standing right BEHIND her head while the entire time they've been discussing the fact that it already collapsed?!
hellooo...McFly.
Even if you do not wish to believe anything else about this, the building can plainly be seen right there. right THERE. behind her. But they talk of the building already having collapsed.
It doesn't get more obvious than that.



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 07:34 AM
link   
Especially since that building was not hit by a plane...



posted on May, 1 2007 @ 12:28 AM
link   
This is an informative post from another forum thought I'd post it.


Reviewer: cheifet - 5 out of 5 stars - March 4, 2007
Subject: Some Background and Context for this Clip

I am Director of Collections at the Internet Archive, responsible for all video and audio files.

This video clip is part of a collection from the TV Archive of global television coverage of the events that occurred on and shortly after September 11, 2001.

This clip, among others, has drawn quite a bit of attention because it appears to show a BBC reporter in New York reporting that World Trade Center Building 7, also referred to as WTC7 or the Salomon Brothers Building, has collapsed before it actually did collapse.

Despite some confusion on the issue of time code stamping and UTC conversions to EDT, the timing on the clip appears to be correct. This particular clip was recorded between 4:54 and 5:36 PM EDT. The anchor references to the WTC7 collapsing occur at 4:58 PM and 5:01 PM and then a live reporter says the building has collapsed at 5:08 PM in what appears to be a live shot with the building still in tact behind her. The feed from the live reporter is lost at 5:15 PM and then the building does actually collapse at 5:20 PM.

A subsequent clip from the BBC then shows coverage of the actual collapse in an archived account recorded from 5:36 – 6:16PM. This clip is available at www.archive.org... .

An annotated version of the key sequence from this clip can be seen at www.youtube.com... .

Further support for the correct timing on the clip comes from another archived clip, this one from the BBC 24 channel which includes a time stamp on the TV screen indicating that the reference to the collapses of WTC7 does occur before the actual collapse.

There is some discussion as to whether or not that time stamp was later edited in by someone tampering with the clip. It is unclear whether that happened or not but the reporting and the time of the reporting as shown does seem to coincide with the other BBC World report. This clip can be seen at various web sites including www.prisonplanet.com... .

Also there has been some discussion about whether the shot of the WTC7 still standing was a live shot or a so-called “green screen” shot in which the live reporter was photographed in front of an electronic screen with a superimposed image of videotape of earlier coverage. That could explain the time disparity; however other clips seem to support the view that the video behind the BBC reporter in this clip is indeed live.

This clip is being widely circulated on the web along with other 9/11 news coverage clips that have surfaced. The earliest apparent reports of WTC7 collapsing come from CNN which reports before 5PM that WTC7 is either burning, is collapsing or has collapsed. You can see this clip at www.youtube.com... . That story then gets repeated later on BBC 24 and BBC World. Similar coverage on ABC can be found posted at www.youtube.com... .

Assuming all the time references are correct, there are two possible explanations offered for the confusion. One is that the building was intentionally brought down by its owner and that a press release indicating that was prematurely issued and prematurely reported on by the media.

Another explanation is that there was simply confusion at the time and some journalistic “whispering down the lane” in which early stories that there was something happening at WTC7 led to rumors of its collapsing which then led to on-air reporting of its collapse. The fact that the WTC7 is still standing and visible in the background of the live shot appears to confirm that the reporting of the collapse did take place before the actual collapse.

One possible explanation for the apparent clairvoyance of the reporter, or the alleged deception by those in charge, is that there was a fire at WTC7 when it was first reported on CNN at approximately 4:10 PM and that the BBC then picked up that story from CNN and reported that the WTC7 might be collapsing and in the confusion of live news coverage that story then was communicated to the anchor and the reporter that the building had collapsed.

Additional information may be available from other television network coverage of that same period of time which has also been archived by the TV Archive. This includes coverage from ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, and CNN. Efforts are underway to gather that additional archive footage so that a more comprehensive picture can be presented of what really happened that day.

Other references and discussions related to this clip can be found at various other web sites including www.livelead.com... , www.911truth.org... , www.prisonplanet.com... , www.informationliberation.com... , www.911blogger.com... , and www.digg.com... .

The official BBC statement regarding its explanation for the mistaken reporting can be found at www.bbc.co.uk... .

Added March 4, 2007 at 9:13 AM PST.
The BBC has now posted new information in an effort to explain the apparent errors in this report. It is available at
www.bbc.co.uk... .



posted on May, 1 2007 @ 02:23 AM
link   
Anyone knows where this video is still up?

I can't find it anywhere, it's been removed all over the internet...





top topics
 
101
<< 61  62  63    65  66 >>

log in

join