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.

 

We Are Change UK questioned ex-BBC reporter Phil Hayton

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Everyone will remember the BBC report,that stated WTC had collapsed roughly 20 mins before it did.
WE Are Change UK sat down and questioned the anchor about that.
Its a very interesting interview.





posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 06:12 PM
link   
fascinating, but we are left hanging no?
the desk reporter clearly asked about the Solomon Bldg. even tho it was still up at the time, as evidenced in the live video shot. The field reporter however ignored that aspect of the question (because it made no sense?) and dealt with the WTC proper in her response.
Now the desk reporter (Hayton) makes no explanation whatsoever, seeming perplexed and bewildered - not terribly unlike he was at the time of the original broadcast (on 9-11). It seems that even if befuddled, there was something behind the scenes that led him to raise the issue of bldg#7, if prematurely.
Something was going on, but what? Just too surreal to be a coincidental thing. This will surely fan the controversy.



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 07:16 PM
link   
This is an extremely interesting interview. I think that a lot of the news people of the time, who know very well that the Bush administration's account of 9/11 is highly suspect, will be positioning themselves very carefully, waiting for the moment that the truth can come out.

I wish the interviewer had asked the TV presenter how he came to receive the information that the "Salomon Brothers" building had collapsed. That would be a trail to follow that must, I think, lead to someone collaborating with the perps.

We've seen numerous videos in which mainstream news reporters, on the day, were reporting the truth, the truth of explosions and of witnesses to explosions within the buildings and of statements from fire department officials suspecting "secondary explosive devices" within the buildings. These people are all sitting on what they know. There is a tremendous story that will eventually be told about that day, but I think that a lot of these journalists, who know parts of the truth are too frightened to talk at the moment. They will wait for the politically propitious moment.

The fellow interviewed in this video would appear to be one of those people.

[edit on 25-4-2008 by ipsedixit]



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 



I wish the interviewer had asked the TV presenter how he came to receive the information that the "Salomon Brothers" building had collapsed. That would be a trail to follow that must, I think, lead to someone collaborating with the perps.

thats exactly the bit that left me hanging. Why wouldn't the interviewer have pressed that point? How could he let the news presenter in question get away so easily with "I don't remember". For heavens sake the guy was supposedly confused about even being at work that day, or in the end what shift he worked. I mean, that is highly suspicious already. I remember exactly where I was and what I was doing, as that situation was going down. Seeing as news is his business, such a lapse of memory is unbelievable.



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 04:55 AM
link   
re-post from newer thread I saw first.
---
Very interesting that Hayton doesn't remember reporting on that. Ah! Time zones... he remembers. Writing as I go...

First: It is funny/ironic to see these dignified Brits saying as you can see that building has collapsed - when it's right there. I can see why people latched onto this. Clearly there were reports it was expected to collapse that were mis-reported, or else someone 'slipped' and told the BBC about the planned demolition in advance. Either one I guess, whichever makes more sense to you.

So here we see this affable anchor confronted by their point-by-point version of it all. He seems totally surprised by all of it, a bit confused and in no position to contest what they're asserting. So he concludes open-mindedly that they see a conspiracy and says 'you might be right' with a very quick cut - mid-sentence it seems.

Remarkable work. Let's give him a while to analyze the data if he does, look at the gouges along the building's south face and all that, talk to some experts, and see how it all comes out. But for now, total coup! Go wearechange!



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 06:13 AM
link   
First, refreshing to see a non-confrontational, well-spoken, level-headed and persuasive WeAreChange video. Kudos to the Brits for their preparedness and restraint.

As for Hayton's responses, I do think he is sincere throughout. I'd attribute the initial lapse to information overload--as a newscaster, he was bombarded for years with reporting upon breaking events and I'm sure that in time someone in this position starts to compartmentalize his personal and professional life, so the disconnect is understandable. He even mentions at the outset a long list of events he'd reported upon, and 9/11 was after all a foreign event.

Also, he's a newscaster in the current mold--he's not a Murrow or a Cronkite, but (as CL says so rightly) an affable, pleasant-looking personality who was hired to read the news. There is no sense he has anything invested intellectually, politically or emotionally in what he reports--he's essentially an actor, or TV personality, nothing more.

In the end, what you have here is a perfect example of how people can be unknowingly complicit in these events. He just did his job, read what was handed to him, and thought no more about it. Even though he was reporting on the events as they happened, he's a 911 innocent. I'm sure if he'd have been asked, he wouldn't even remember that WTC7 had collapsed.



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 07:13 AM
link   
Starred and flagged.

The WeAreChange interviewer should have brought a laptop to this meeting and showed the BBC reporter the footage on you tube, especially where they mysteriously lose thier connection to the female on-scene reporter minutes before the building actually DID come down, I bet that woulda jarred his memory.

If he is truely a "9/11 innocent" (which he very well might be), I would have loved to hear the first thing that popped out of his mouth after seeing that.

Holy heck imagine if they kept talking about it, and then that 47 story sky-scraper collapsed in the backround, now that would have been extremely interesting to see. The fact that they lose connection with her before it actually did collapse leads me to believe they realized they messed up, and let the cat out of the bag. i.e. that it was a CD and America and thier long time partners in crime Britian had prior knowledge, and 9/11 was all set up in the weeks and months leading up. With power downs as they rigged these buildings.


In conclusion,this interview, while good, is a cliff-hanger and really doesn't answer any questions just raises more imo. But good job not blind-siding this guy, you may be able to get a 2nd interview with him. I suggest if you do, show him the footage on a laptop, not all of it, just both him and the reporter saying 7 collapsed, while pointing it out with a big arrow, and the disconnect right before the building actually does come down. But most importantly, show us his face as he watches that. I'd be extremely interested to see the dumb-founded look on his face as he viddies that.

Good job though.



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by gottago

Also, he's a newscaster in the current mold--he's not a Murrow or a Cronkite, but (as CL says so rightly) an affable, pleasant-looking personality who was hired to read the news. There is no sense he has anything invested intellectually, politically or emotionally in what he reports--he's essentially an actor, or TV personality, nothing more.



Very true. Hayton was one of the most experienced and professional news readers, mainly devoid of any real emotion.

With regards to the main conspiracy, newsreaders are being 'told' what to say or report on occassions in their earpiece, therefore, Hayton would not know what was on the screen until he was prompted to pass the comentary over to his colleague in the US, (who ultimately reported, in view of the WT7 Solomon building) that the building had collapsed.

Using Hayton as the centre piece of this story is barking up the wrong tree. At least, the producer should have been questioned as part of this commentary.

Reminds me of when Bush was elected over Al Gore, they were stating that Bush had got it one minute then reporting that it was too close to call. The newsreaders then were blind to what was happenening out in the world and were just reporting what they were being told.

Interesting, but until someone grabs the actual producer and takes him to task on the information and timing of the comments, this small part of the overall conspiracy jigsaw will go no further.

Brei.



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 07:53 AM
link   
This is what Richard Porter, Head of BBC World, had to say about WTC7 and the various theories surrounding the BBC coverage on September 11th.


The 9/11 conspiracy theories are pretty well known by now. The BBC addressed them earlier this month with a documentary, The Conspiracy Files, shown within the UK.

Now, I don't think we've been accused of being part of the conspiracy. But now some websites are using news footage from BBC World on September 11th 2001 to suggest we were actively participating in some sort of attempt to manipulate the audience. As a result, we're now getting lots of emails asking us to clarify our position. So here goes:

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.

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.

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 unsurprisingly, she doesn't remember minute-by-minute what she said or did - like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services.

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 of 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 another.

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... "

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


BBC News / The Editors

Like most folks over here I had BBC News on continuously all afternoon & into the evening ... you couldn't really miss it ... normal scheduling on the main TV station BBC1 was abandoned, as it was too on the independent broadcaster ITV.

But I clearly remember late on that night, probably after 10pm, the BBC reporting the collapse of WTC7 and showing footage of the collapse. I honestly can't remember if it was live or shown a few minutes after the event. I don't remember seeing Jane Standley's report, I'm unsure if it was even broadcast in the UK on either BBC1 or News24. I don't recall ever having BBC World available on my cable channel listings.

I don't think you can read much into Hayton's account of that day. He does seem a bit befuddled at times, he clearly remembers he wasn't in the studio when the attacks occurred but is a bit hazy about what he was doing later on.

I don't particularly care for the way the video was edited at the end, cutting him off mid sentence. I'd have preferred to have seen the video in its entirety and I'd have liked to have seen an account from its maker explaining how they managed to arrange the interview in the first place & what they told Hayton they might be discussing.

Hayton just doesn't seem well prepped at all. Perhaps it was just another major foreign news story for him. I couldn't give you a minute by minute account of my activities at work last Friday let alone detail events from one day 7 years ago.

He seems genuine enough.



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 09:41 PM
link   
I only found this out yesterday, now I am wondering what other 911 things I am missing. Day by day there are more and more suspect findings on the 911 crime.

watchZEITGEISTnow



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join