BBC News 24 Also Reporting the Collapse of WTC7 Too Early.

page: 1
11
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 03:57 AM
link   
This video is in GMT as it's a Brittish recording. The time (EST) would be 4:54 when the "collapse" is announced, as is a 5 hour time difference.

Just as a reminder WTC7 collapsed at 5:20 EST. So the "collapse" was reported 26 minutes prior to the actual collapse of the building.

This is now the third news channel found to be reporting the collapse early and the second for the BBC. Who originally put out the report and why?



The plot thickens (?).........

[edit on 28-2-2007 by Xeros]




posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 04:14 AM
link   
if this is a real recording of the news that day by someone actually recording news on sep 11 2001. we need the person who made this to put the whole broadcast onto the internet.

can we verify in any way that this is an actual recording of that day. i.e its not made just now etc...



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 04:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033
if this is a real recording of the news that day by someone actually recording news on sep 11 2001. we need the person who made this to put the whole broadcast onto the internet.

can we verify in any way that this is an actual recording of that day. i.e its not made just now etc...


It looks like it's from the bbc archives as in the top right it says www.bbc.co.uk. I'm just guessing though.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 04:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033
can we verify in any way that this is an actual recording of that day. i.e its not made just now etc...


well the footage is definitely shot on 911, and the time stamp coincides with with the time of the first, pre-mature, announcement. And the newscaster voice is genuine (well know british news guy).

That pretty much confirms it's genuine as far as I can see.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 04:28 AM
link   
if someone has a youtube account, can you ask the person that put this up, where did it come from.

its important to know, that it was from the actual day, and not made just now.

having the www.bbc.co.uk on it, makes me question it also. bbc site seems to have removed all bbc video news from that day, so i cannot check.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 04:33 AM
link   
50GB from the BBC WTC7 Arcive.org LEAK. Help reseed!

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 04:50 AM
link   
I believe BBC News 24 and BBC world to be one and the same. They only remove the UK shown time, and change the logo.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 04:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rotator
I believe BBC News 24 and BBC world to be one and the same. They only remove the UK shown time, and change the logo.


No, they're not. You'll notice there were two different broadcasters. John Humphrys was presenting the BBC World program, whiles at the same time, Gavin Esler( at least it sounds like him) was presenting this News 24 program.

2 news readers at the same time = two different programs.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 05:01 AM
link   
can someone write to the geezer who put this on youtube, and see if he would put his whole broadcast up, if he recorded the whole day, or just a few hours.

i am not registered at youtube, so i cannot.

but if this really is real from that day, that makes two different news reports from the bbc, at around the same time, as projecting that the building had collapsed.

can someone make sure they get copies of this too, just to make sure it is out there.

[edit on 2/28/2007 by andy1033]



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 05:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033
can someone write to the geezer who put this on youtube, and see if he would put his whole broadcast up, if he recorded the whole day, or just a few hours.

i am not registered at youtube, so i cannot.


I have written all the hosters of this particular video, to find out where it was originally taken from.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 05:08 AM
link   
So now it's being established that there were multiple broadcasts, not just one..

How does it get reported that it's fallen when it's obviously still standing there? That's a huge 'chaotic reporting' error..
The case is strengthened slightly, in that it was not an error by the girl.

This was information passed through to multiple stations.

It also lets BBC off the hook somewhat?



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 05:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by T0by
It also lets BBC off the hook somewhat?



how is that, both bbc world and bbc news 24 are bbc news stations. they seem to have reported at around the same time of the collapse, if this second video is true.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by T0by
So now it's being established that there were multiple broadcasts, not just one..

How does it get reported that it's fallen when it's obviously still standing there? That's a huge 'chaotic reporting' error..
The case is strengthened slightly, in that it was not an error by the girl.

This was information passed through to multiple stations.

It also lets BBC off the hook somewhat?



Doesn't really let the BBC off the hook just yet! Two different branches of there media broadcasting service got a reliable enough source/script to tell them to report that the building collapsed - No other station got this information in such a way!



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 05:19 AM
link   
If you look at this logically whoever gave the BBC the information purposefully lied - why would someone do that?

Its looking more and more to me like it was scripted, two seperate arms of the same service reported at nearly the same times that wtc7 had collapsed, when it hadn't!

BBC either have a trusted source that purposefully lied or the event was scripted and BBC didn't get the latest update of the script in time!



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 05:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Argos
If you look at this logically whoever gave the BBC the information purposefully lied - why would someone do that?


someone did not lie, its information turned out to be true. it is sort of like insider trading, where someone knows something and they get the news first, and they benefit in reporting that they reported it first. though this time, they reported it before it actually happened.

being as the bbc is run by mi5, it does make you wonder how they got there info.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 05:30 AM
link   
You're right, my bad. : )

I think the point still stands that it wasn't a single error in that particular station though? Which means no, that studio wasn't in on it.

She wasn't flustered, and got confused, it wasn't the cue sheet persons falut, it wasn't human error within the studio.

This was information fed to them from an external source.

Sources you would assume would be closer to the scene than them.
Ones which would not make this mistake.

I think the best we can hope for is finding evidence which leans towards jumping the gun somewhat, and a release of information too soon.

The only issue theres been with this whole thing is where the info came from, and that's going to be damn hard..
But find it, and BooOooOOm.....



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 05:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033

Originally posted by Argos
If you look at this logically whoever gave the BBC the information purposefully lied - why would someone do that?


someone did not lie, its information turned out to be true. it is sort of like insider trading, where someone knows something and they get the news first, and they benefit in reporting that they reported it first. though this time, they reported it before it actually happened.

being as the bbc is run by mi5, it does make you wonder how they got there info.


Someone (if it was a source and not a script) had to of lied how can you report to the BBC the building has already collapsed when it hadn't. Because the building at the time hadn't already collapsed then the source must of lied to the BBC who took the source at his word and started reporting.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 05:47 AM
link   
Another thought to ponder :-

The reporter... ANY reporter, has one overriding mission. To find out what is about to happen, to observe and record the event, and to present it.

The is NO WAY any reporter, news department etc would accidentally mistake a tip off that something was going to happen for something that had happened.

If told that this was about to happen, they would have been scrambling to get the money shot, hoping to capture the moment when it happens.

IMHO this discounts the theory that the news team somehow made a mistake. They must have received very specific, false information... from TWO separate authenticated sources. (that's how the BBC work).

That information could only have come from official sources inside the sealed off zone around the towers.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Argos

Originally posted by andy1033

Originally posted by Argos
If you look at this logically whoever gave the BBC the information purposefully lied - why would someone do that?


someone did not lie, its information turned out to be true. it is sort of like insider trading, where someone knows something and they get the news first, and they benefit in reporting that they reported it first. though this time, they reported it before it actually happened.

being as the bbc is run by mi5, it does make you wonder how they got there info.


Someone (if it was a source and not a script) had to of lied how can you report to the BBC the building has already collapsed when it hadn't. Because the building at the time hadn't already collapsed then the source must of lied to the BBC who took the source at his word and started reporting.


i understand where your going, but i see it like insider trading like i said. if the building was going to be demolished some would of course know this. news reporting is very competitive and bbc may get info in plenty of ways.

but i do understand where your coming from. i think they just did not expect people to go back to there reports years later and pick them out, that they had reported on a collapse before it happened.

but i understand where your coming from, but the lie as you say, came true, so i am not sure you can call it a lie from there source. but the fact that they reported it before it happened makes it a lie, i do understand from that view it is a lie. and the fact that they claimed it that documentary last week that no one knew the building were going to collapse when there news proved that to be a lie.

i wouldn't sat that there source lied, but the bbc itself lied, and it continuing to lie on this issue.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by nowthenlookhere
Another thought to ponder :-

The reporter... ANY reporter, has one overriding mission. To find out what is about to happen, to observe and record the event, and to present it.

The is NO WAY any reporter, news department etc would accidentally mistake a tip off that something was going to happen for something that had happened.

If told that this was about to happen, they would have been scrambling to get the money shot, hoping to capture the moment when it happens.

IMHO this discounts the theory that the news team somehow made a mistake. They must have received very specific, false information... from TWO separate authenticated sources. (that's how the BBC work).

That information could only have come from official sources inside the sealed off zone around the towers.


Exactly!! You also have to ponder where did CNN get there information at 4:15pm EST that WTC7 might collapse due to fire?

I mean it was unprecedented that fire would bring down a 47 storey building before 9/11 so what source provided CNN with the prediction it might come down due to fire? I smell a rat inside that sealed off zone on 9/11!





top topics
 
11
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join