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.

 

The BBC footage - What can we do?

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 01:54 PM
link   
I won't rule out a diversion at this stage. This pseudo 'BBC response' was pretty nondescript and I cannot see the dust settling any time soon.




posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 01:56 PM
link   
I agree, the release of this damning evidence is not intentional. Why release this huge mistake and then go through the trouble of covering it up, deleting it from the BBC website and having the tapes mysteriously disappear.

In the confusion of that tragic day, they needed to get the official story out as soon as possible, so that the American public did not start to wonder... This is why we were all hearing the hints that 'this might have been the work of Islamic extremists' before an investigation was even being considered. While the brave firefighters are down there risking their lives to save people, these sick bastards sit in their comfortable offices and spew their propaganda.

TURN OFF YOUR TELEVISIONS NOW AND FOREVER! ITS ALL FAKE!



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 01:56 PM
link   
They "no longer have" the footage? That really helps their case, don't it?


Just before I read about this and watched the clip last night, I watched a clip of a Firefighter being interviewed around the same time. He was being told to clear the area because that building was going to come down or be taken down due to the damage. They probably picked up on that over the radio and misunderstood and misreported it. To expect them to have gotten everything right in the middle of that chaos is ridiculous.

How many of you have thought about what you are proposing? Are you saying the BBC was in on a conspiracy to blow up these buildings and murder all these people. Are you also saying that they approve of it and have all remained silent about it because they were part of it? This is what you are saying is it not? What would be their motivation? Why would a bunch of reporters, camera persons, producers and directors be willing to participate in such a huge crime of mass murder? I'm surprised they even bothered to respond to the allegation.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 02:05 PM
link   
No one is accusing the BBC, i am certainly not.

However, they are digging themselves a hole with this. Unless they tell us where they got the info that it was coming down, they will be subject to haressment from many people i suspect!

again, the BBC is not part of the conspiracy, but they have just proven to everyone that SOMEONE knew WTC7 was going to come down before it had done.

The response from the editor on the BBC doesn't help their situation however



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 02:21 PM
link   
I have absolutely no qualms in requesting answers. The BBC appears to do this all the time. Any trust I do have for this corporation's version of the events is not implicit in nature.

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



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
How many of you have thought about what you are proposing? Are you saying the BBC was in on a conspiracy to blow up these buildings and murder all these people. Are you also saying that they approve of it and have all remained silent about it because they were part of it? This is what you are saying is it not? What would be their motivation? Why would a bunch of reporters, camera persons, producers and directors be willing to participate in such a huge crime of mass murder? I'm surprised they even bothered to respond to the allegation.


No one is saying the BBC blew up the buildings, that is just ludicrous. However, the BBC is most definitely involved in the coverup, along with every other media conglomerate in the USA. You may find this hard to believe, but if you take a look at who actually owns the major TV networks, you will see that they have a massive financial interest in the "War on Terror"

"The masses have never thirsted after truth, they demand illusions and cannot do without them. They constantly give what is unreal precedence over what is real. They are almost as strongly influenced by what is untrue as by what is true. They have an evident tendency not to distinguish between the two." - Sigmund Freud



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Most of the BBC crew wouldn't know the buildings that day, but the reporter will since she was already in New York in advance of this.

The key here, is that the BBC probably got a report about the building. To me it implies that the Building's collapse was LEAKED OUT BEFORE IT HAPPENED!!

Soon after it happened! You can't help but notice the live feed going out btw.

At any rate, someone knew the building was going to come down, the information was passed along, the media went with it. Its damning in my view any way you look at it, including the way Google tried to handle this.

That for sure shows someone tried to keep this from catching on.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rotator
There has been an official reply.

www.bbc.co.uk...



This is no official reply lol..... Blogs like this are like backdoor opinions, bypassing public scrutiny while attempting to remain hidden.... How dare he speak on everyones behalf.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
To me it implies that the Building's collapse was LEAKED OUT BEFORE IT HAPPENED!!


That makes more sense to me. It would be a hard thing to prove unless an insider admitted to it. It could also be an honest error. Hard to know without more info.

I'm still undecided about the 9/11 conspiracies but I'll try and keep an open mind.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Why does everything have to be a conspiracy? Why is the world so full of paranoid individuals? There is seriously something wrong the people of this planet when they see a simple mistake and then blow it up to make it sound like some conspiracy. I don't she could see the building in question and had just gotten some bad info and reported and by sheer "luck" turned out to be true.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 03:48 PM
link   
OMG


This is what the alledged head of BBC World News, Richard Porter, has to say regarding todays revelation that the BBC had been prematurely informed of building 7's collapse.(I had to copy this manually because for some reason I couldn't copy and paste from the BBC website so forgive me for any spelling errors)



1. We're not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening.


No suprise there, would someone involved in a conspiracy tell you that they were?If they didn't get told in advance or receive press releases, why did they report that building 7 had fallen, had they decided to start making things up just to fill gaps?



2. In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had. 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.


By saying we were trying to double check the information that we were receiving, doesn't that contradict point 1?



3. Our reporter Jane Standley was in new york on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I've spoken to her today and unsuprisingly, she doesn't remember minute-by-minute what she said or did- like everbody else that day she was trying to make sence of what see was seeing; what was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitering feeds and wires services.


Ok I'll give them that one, everyone forgets things but it seem odd given that she only presented a few facts; the rest was speculation.



4. We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording our output, I'd love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or the other.


Come on, they don't have the tapes? This proves beyond any doubt in my mind that they are trying to hide something. It is blatently obvious to any one with 2 brain cells that you would back up such an important event and store it in a seperate, secure location. I refuse to beleive the tapes mysteriously vanished. This is a standard excuse for any cover up.



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 a conspiracy.


What does he mean if? The evidence is right there on the internet for anyone to view (until it was removed by google,Youtube and others) Oh it was an accident? Just like the tapes dissapearing yeah right. I don't understand his reference to Youtube as a viewers comment is irrelevant.

Does anyone buy this rubbish?

Edit for spelling

[edit on 27-2-2007 by IntoTheVoid]



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by IntoTheVoid
OMG





3. Our reporter Jane Standley was in new york on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I've spoken to her today and unsuprisingly, she doesn't remember minute-by-minute what she said or did- like everbody else that day she was trying to make sence of what see was seeing; what was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitering feeds and wires services.


Ok I'll give them that one, everyone forgets things but it seem odd given that she only presented a few facts; the rest was speculation.



Nope I wouldn't give them that one...

If he spoken to her, Jane wouldn't forget seeing the building collapse after her report in question. Surely she remembers that, she must of thought how odd for it to happen after her report.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by XPhiles

Nope I wouldn't give them that one...

If he spoken to her, Jane wouldn't forget seeing the building collapse after her report in question. Surely she remembers that, she must of thought how odd for it to happen after her report.


Yup your right there, I withdraw that remark. I got so wrapped up in all the other lies that I over looked that one.

Now his whole defence stinks.

Edit to justify my temporary ignorance


[edit on 27-2-2007 by IntoTheVoid]



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by XPhiles
Nope I wouldn't give them that one...

If he spoken to her, Jane wouldn't forget seeing the building collapse after her report in question. Surely she remembers that, she must of thought how odd for it to happen after her report.


I totally agree, and hadn't really thought about this.

The whole crew in that film location would have witnessed it collapse, or at least been informed about it.

Unless they are morons, they would have realised the contradiction at play, with the building collapsing twice...they would have had to deduce that it was infact the same building, collapsing for real the second time in their case.

This keeps getting more damning the more i think about it all!



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 04:20 PM
link   
WTF are half you people doing in this forum, you would be better of working for the bush cheney administration. GTFO

have you not done your homework and looked at all the facts , its not just about this one video clip you have to look at all the evidence.

here is just a small collection





posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 04:41 PM
link   
tombangelta, I come here because there are a diverse range of opinions, on several subjects. I am also aware that this particular report is not the only issue related to the events of 911..the interest is large enough to warrant its own section with thousands of posts.

I hope this assists in putting things into perspective.

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



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Break this stort to reporters who are open to this kind of thing.....Do it now



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by kuhl
Break this story to reporters who are open to this kind of thing.....Do it now


Hard to break the story to anyone when there is no link
available to the source I would say.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by pmexplorer

Originally posted by kuhl
Break this story to reporters who are open to this kind of thing.....Do it now


Hard to break the story to anyone when there is no link
available to the source I would say.


The film is everywhere and the facts as well ..just look.

I'm linking stuff to UK news agency reporters right now

[edit on 27/2/2007 by kuhl]



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 05:03 PM
link   
I seem to recall it was the BBC who helped produce 'The Sleeping Policemen'. Hmm..I wonder if that corporation is now going to be so eager to produce 'The Sleeping Reporter'.

As for the footage that has allegedly been "cocked up"..well, how about taking some of that documentary footage from the BBC's investigation into 911 conspiracies?

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



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join