The BBC footage - What can we do?

I would assume that anyone that reads alternative news outlets has seen this footage. So far there has been no one able to debunk it. But, what can we do? I personally have posted it on as many forums as I can - with mixed results.

How can this footage have an impact and does anyone have any concrete plans or ideas about what is the next step?

The good news is that the BBC has a fine reputation and this is going to be hard to ignore.

What more can we the people do?

I seriously doubt that it's alternative news, not at this stage. It's too big.

I anticipate an official reply, however what that reply will entail is anyone's guess. There is an obvious discrepancy in the BBC's report, which they may claim is due to hysteria at the time. Irrespective of their reason, the finger is suddenly pointing the other way.

Whilst we await this reply let's also keep an eye on other news, such as the recent events surrounding the North American Union and what's happening in Iran. I'm sure the BBC - in it's allegedly unbiased viewpoint - wouldn't want one set of news to cover up another..

[edit on 27-2-2007 by Ross Cross]

i mentioned in the other thread that there is one way to prove if the bbc is lying.

other footage needs to be found from the same time frame and the smoke clouds compared.

the more footage that is found, the more likely a 3d replication of the smoke in the background can be made and compared. if they match up then it WAS live and the bbc lied and if it doesn't, they still lied about it being 'live'.

either way - its is going to be so easy to pick holes in their stories now because they had to have been lying whatever the outcome and that is the stick you can beat them with

There has been an official reply.

www.bbc.co.uk...

The sheer fact that the head of bbc news has made a reply to a conspiracy claim in less than 24hours speaks VOLUMES!!!

Originally posted by justyc

the more footage that is found, the more likely a 3d replication of the smoke in the background can be made and compared. if they match up then it WAS live and the bbc lied and if it doesn't, they still lied about it being 'live'.

It was LIVE...

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
It was LIVE...

the footage CLAIMS it is live and what i suggested is the difference in PROVING it was live.

someone else would have been filming the area at the same time and if that footage is compared to the background of the bbc report and the smoke matches then it WAS live and therefore they had advance knowledge that wtc7 was coming down. if the smoke doesn't match then they lied that it was live. if they say it was a bluescreen footage behind then they still have to explain how they reported the building had collapsed before it did. comparing the footage with any other taken at the time will PROVE which it was.

there are too many holes to pick in this story and any excuse they come up with makes them look bad. however, there is no proof YET that it WAS broadcast live

understand the difference?

I'm grateful for you taking the time to reply with the link, but can we expect such a BBC blog to represent of an honest and open interpretation of this event? I don't think it's case solved at this stage, far from it.

Dude, it is quite obviously live..

The newsdesk guy asks the reporter a question...she responds to his question...there is also the delay in relaying of the signals between the US and UK...

I understand where you are coming from, yes.

However, it is obvious to myself that it is infact live.

What's interesting to me is that the BBC's reply doesn't mention why they "lost" her live feed at such a crucial time - just before it really fell. That is the next most damning part of this very interesting little footage.

It's 'nice' that he responded though.

His writing is AMAZINGLY foolish though.

He has dug a massive hole not only for himself, but for the entire BBC!

I hope they post my comments on the article If they don't, i will be VERY annoyed!

Get this story out to the Beebs rivals who have reporters who are open to this kind of thing,That would be a good start,I already took it to one of the major radio stations here in UK.

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
His writing is AMAZINGLY foolish though.

He has dug a massive hole not only for himself, but for the entire BBC!

I hope they post my comments on the article

If they don't, i will be VERY annoyed!

Well you had better share them with us now - just in case we don't get to see them!

Originally posted by deessell
Well you had better share them with us now - just in case we don't get to see them!

Lol I posted them in the main thread about this video (the one with 20+pages). Nothing ground breaking, just me pointing out the obvious so everyone else can see

I like how he says their tapes from 9/11 are gone somehow. "oops"

Originally posted by gopher mines
I like how he says their tapes from 9/11 are gone somehow. "oops"

I hear you! If that doesn't add fuel to the fire, I don't know what does especially considering that they were there yesterday afternoon.

Originally posted by Rotator
There has been an official reply.

www.bbc.co.uk...

I find it interesting that as part of his argument he relied on a poster from YouTube.

Really a poorly written response in my mind.

Also I find it incredibly hard to believe that they lost the "tape" from one of the most historic days in the last 100 years.

[edit on 27-2-2007 by GArnold]

Can anyone smell a revolution? I know i can!

And yeh, his response was poorly written. And the losing of the tapes...that is just so not a coincidence its not even remotely funny.

As has been stated, one of the most important days in American history, and they "lost" the tapes.

In an age of digital technology, i find that impossible to believe. They would have digital backups stored on HDDs for sure..

5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today "so the guy in the studio didn't quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy... "

I love the fact that the Richard Porter (BBC Guy)'s response was that 'if' they did report the collapse before it happened, it was an ERROR. They don't even admit that they reported its collapse before it actually happened! In my eyes this just makes them even more guilty. Maybe they should watch the video and see for themselves, lol, "if" indeed! IF we reported the building had collapsed before it did, yes... IF! Maybe, just maybe they should watch their own video footage. They are just digging themselves deeper and deeper into their own lies, even as we speak. I am loving it!

And no, this isnt going to start any revolution. Revolution must happen in the REAL world, and Americans do not live in the real world, they live in TV World. Everyone's just gonna sit on their asses and wait for the revolution to happen on TV. Everyone needs to get off their asses, go to the window and shout "IM MAD AS HELL, AND IM NOT GONNA TAKE IT ANYMORE!"

[edit on 27-2-2007 by freakyty]

freakty, thats exactly what i thought when i first read it!

I see two possibilities here;

This is either intentional, or it is the beginning of the truth finally being revealed.

There is always the chance that this story has been put out there for a reason, i don't discount that fact.

IMHO though, this seems to be the smoking gun, so i think its a slip up (a big one at that!)