It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


BBC Anchor Who Reported on WTC7 Collapse Early Agrees There May Be a ‘Conspiracy’

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 10:15 PM

hope they'll interview Jane Standley sometime to,would be interresting.

posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 12:40 AM
reply to post by snertone32

Excellent thread. Wow, two great threads in a few days - between you and CO. Haven't seen two good 9/11 threads like this in forever. 9/11 is the reason I joined this board, and I'm glad to see threads like this keeping this debate going.

[edit on 27-4-2008 by Sublime620]

posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 01:48 AM
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 @ 05:06 AM

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Clearly there were reports it was expected to collapse that were mis-reported,

"Clearly"? Only in your imagination. Who could have expected WTC7 to collapse naturally, in view of the limited damage from the fall of the NorthTower and the fires confined to a few floors? 'Clearly', the gouges in the south face of the building could not have caused a total collapse at free-fall speed! And certainly none of the fire fighters anticipated immanent collapse, except after they had been told the building would be demolished. Yes, there are videos showing policemen warning people to get back from the area because the building was about to come down. But that was not because they suddenly had a precognition or were stupid enough to believe such a thing could happen because of the damage to the WTC7. It was because they had been told it was being 'pulled' (remember that word?). To use the word 'clearly' is to misrepresent the reality on the ground and to pass off a vacuous speculation about the existence of imaginary reports as though it is factual. Very disingenuous of you.

or else someone 'slipped' and told the BBC about the planned demolition in advance. Either one I guess, whichever makes more sense to you.

Um, neither, really. Why on earth do you think the BBC had special favor with those carrying out the controlled demolition?
They would hardly let the cat out of the bag and tell the biggest news organisation in the world that WTC7 had been demolished! The world was not meant to believe that. Anyway, the BBC never reported it as such. The BBC did not make a mistake of misreporting (despite their pathetic attempt to defuse the issue by claiming that they had) because CNN reported the same news at about the same time. The mistake was made by whoever was the source of the story.

[edit on 27-4-2008 by micpsi]

posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 04:51 PM
reply to post by micpsi

I didn't mean to start an argument over what did happen, just outlining the possibilities. So perhaps that was a bit deceptive to offer the two choices. As you point out there are other logically possible explanations. So perhaps it was NOT expected to fall AND there was no slip regarding the planned demo. This means if I read right that the building was sound, and someone just goofed and reported it had fallen, which was passed to news agencies, 20 minutes before it was unexpectedly demolished. Is there a connection do you think or was this just weird coincidence?

posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 05:09 PM
reply to post by Caustic Logic

Yeah a weird coincidence that just happens to fit all the other 'weird coincidences' that point directly to a controlled demolition.

There are just too many 'weird coincidences'.

IMO building 7 was supposed to have been 'pulled' earlier in the day, but for some reason it got postponed, but whoever sent out the press releases didn't know of the postponement and the news channel aired the report as scheduled.

The news channel just reported what they were told and didn't have to be 'in on it' like some claim they would have to be.

posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 05:57 PM
Already a thread started on this here

posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 06:12 PM
Im happy the media is beginning to tell the truth rather than hide it. Hopefully others will follow in their footsteps.

posted on May, 11 2008 @ 09:31 AM
We know the BBC NEVER makes mistake.....

Check out the look on the cab drivers face when he realizes they think he is an IT expert.......


posted on May, 11 2008 @ 12:04 PM
Clearly he's a little muddled on what happened that day, because he says he wasn't involved in reporting that day when clearly he was.

Both CNN and the BBC did report the collapse of WTC7 before it took place, but that doesn't mean the media organisations were involved in 9/11.

The biggest question I have re. WTC7 is, if it was pre-planned to demolish it that day, why wait so long? Why not bring it down at the same time as the Twin Towers? You could even have covered the demolition from prying eyes from the dust clouds created from the collapse from the Twin Towers, then there would be no video evidence of the collapse itself.

posted on May, 11 2008 @ 03:27 PM
reply to post by Alethia

There is many reasons why the demolition could have been delayed.

Seeing as it was reported demolished before it was logic would tell me the demolition was pre-planned but the original demo time was postponed due to some problem. No one remembered to change the press reports that were probably scripted beforehand to coincide with the days events. So the press had no clue they were reporting bogus news, they were just reporting what was released to them by the government (which they do all the time).

posted on May, 11 2008 @ 09:43 PM
reply to post by Alethia

Think chaos theory, no matter how great the planning, something CAN and MAY go wrong, and this is a case in point.

I still don't know if this guy is lying or just really thick...


posted on May, 12 2008 @ 10:13 AM
reply to post by ThroatYogurt

Oh man, I keep playing it, that face IS priceless. Needs to be made in to a .gif

He even goes with it, and answers her questions the best he can too. What a trooper!

Sorry that was just really funny, on to the original point of the thread-

As for the 9-11 BBC reporter, I'd like to see HIS face, if they put a laptop in front of him with the famous exchange between him and the female reporting the soloman building has collapse, while it's standing right there over her shoulder.

They need to do a 2nd interview with him, and confront him with that, and also the subsequent extremely strange, "signal loss" to the reporter, so they don't have the darn building collapseing behind her while she's talking, , now THAT would have been quite a jam for him to get out of.

[edit on 12-5-2008 by Nola213]

posted on May, 12 2008 @ 10:25 AM
A BBC reporter thinking and saying negative things about the US Government. Whoda' thunk it possible?
(not exactly an unbiased source ... but whatever. )

posted on May, 12 2008 @ 12:01 PM
reply to post by FlyersFan

You saying the British media is even anti-US?

Well who does like us these days, jeez.

Heck, even Israel disrespects us by spying on us.

[edit on 12-5-2008 by Sublime620]

posted on May, 28 2008 @ 08:25 AM

Give it time for it is on truth's side.

The truth is out there. This generation has the capabilities to identify and defeat this evil and they shall.

top topics


log in