BBC World reported WTC7 collapse before it happened

[MrEguy]

Here are two HI Res JPGs snapped from the Original 1Gig BBC Video File downloaded from archive.org -- before the entire 9/11 TV news archive was summarily deleted

[Busker]

How many of us could have identified WTC 7 on that actual day?

Any of us who were based in NYC. Like the erm... correspondent perhaps?

If it had been a mistake and the Beeb thought they were talking about WTC 1 or 2, the type of language that would have been used owuld be "The Twin Towers", "The North Tower", "The South Tower", "The WTC" not the Salmon Brothers Building.

I do think that the BBC had been warned that WTC7 was in danger of collapsing - somehow this was interpreted as the building having already fallen.

BBC journalists don't just "wing it". Think of the legal risk they would be taking doing that. The pressure would have been on to get a report out, but there would have checking and filtering going on.

Take a look at the rules they have to operate under:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editori ... king.shtml

So somebody, that day will have recorded where the information came from.

As for the tapes being wiped, it reminded me of the Stockwell Tube cameras all failing. I will say no more on that.

If this story doesn't have legs, why are links being taken down left, right and centre?

[Craig W]

Come on guys. Remember Occam's Razor?

If we can conceive of the BBC erronesously broadcasting a time-embargoed news release telling of the collapse then we can certainly also conceive of them mistakenly issuing a "has collapsed" story out of an "is expected to collapse" story.

Sure, it could have been the former but it could also easily have been the latter and we will never know which was the case or be able to prove anything.

They are not perfect, journalists can't always double check things because of time pressure and the need for copy.

Let's say the BBC say the source was an unnamed FEMA official or FBI officer. Where does that get us? Nowhere.

I think way too much is being made of this. At best it is a minor piece of circumstantial evidence which supports the suspicion that WTC7 was a controlled demolition and that people were forewarned.

I really don't see why people are getting so excited.

Can someone please persuade me why I should be excited?

[Graham]

Craig, what do you make of the response?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/

[Craig W]

It is pretty much as I expected, Brian.

In my post of 12:14pm yesterday (which I also posted on Loose Change Forum) I predicted the BBC response as follows:

"We made a mistake. Our reporters had heard that WTC7 was unstable and was expected to collapse soon and somehow got our wires crossed.

We simply didn't realise that the building smouldering in the background on the live feed was WTC7.

I am sure we all remember how intense and confusing the day's events were. There was a lot going on and a lot of reports flying around. It was very difficult to keep on top of the story and verify facts.

We have to admit we got this one wrong. We should have checked it out."

Here is the BBC's actual response:

Until 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.

He hasn't said here whether they were using AP, PA or Reuters copy that day or whether they were using official news releases from FEMA, FBI, Giuliani's office, etc. But they will have been using all of these and more - that is how these big news stories are covered. I strongly suspect that these and similar sources would be considered so trustworthy as to not need checking (can anyone who has worked for the BBC conifrm this?).

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.

What was the source for this report? That would be interesting to know but it could have just been rumours picked up near the scene.

I have gone back through the footage and this wasn't prefaced by "it's being reported that..." or "we're hearing that..." or "apparently". They simply stated it had collapsed.

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 c***-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.

Odd but not damning.

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... "

It was more than just "the guy in the studio" - it was the reporter at the scene, whoever fed through the story and whoever writes the news ticker at the bottom as well.




To conclude, I don't discount the possibility that the BBC accidentally ran a time-embargoed news release from one of the official agencies or a time-embargoed piece of copy from one of the trusted wire services ahead of schedule.

But this footage in no way proves that suspicion.

[marky 54]

so the report came through or was aired as WTC7 has collapsed rather than might/could/is going to collapse.

Getting the collapse of a 47 storey skyscraper wrong is as ludicrous as getting the collapse of the twin towers wrong. There were cameras everywhere after what happened in the morning. The noise it made when falling would have been heard for miles and certainly the first thing any reporter would have done is checked the site. The BBC had been fed the line that WTC7 had fallen and simply passed it on. Who fed the storey is what matters and who "knew" it was going to come down is the key. WTC7 was hundreds of yards from WTC1 & 2 with other buildings between, which, although damaged still stood. If WTC7 was so damaged that people knew it was about to fall then how did it get so damaged? Who the hell could tell it was going to fall with such confidence in their judgement (NEVER before 9/11 had a steel framed tower fell) that they felt the media should be told of its impending collapse? The people who blew the b* up that's who!!

nice. however you do realise im just pointing out the critics excuses for the clips combined into one story? its no good qouting one line without reading the whole message. my point is this clip has just become another piece of evidence rather than ground braking irrefutable evidence that will expose the truth sure it adds to evidence but it has a counter explaination born one day after it, its just a matter of what you believe again.

its just like the evidence for explosions like squibs just being trapped air as far as critics are concerned, the same goes for the bbc clip we say x they say y its nothing big enough to expose the lies, another lie has just replaced the lie.

[QuitTheirClogs]

To conclude, I don't discount the possibility that the BBC accidentally ran a time-embargoed news release from one of the official agencies or a time-embargoed piece of copy from one of the trusted wire services ahead of schedule.

But this footage in no way proves that suspicion.

Agreed – the footage by itself doesn’t prove anything additional to what’s already known. But the debate around this footage shifts the focus onto Building 7. Also, the reply by Richard Porter – e.g. the “lost tapes” – opens up further avenues to explore.

There have been lots of claims flying round the internet regarding this footage – and most of them can’t be supported on the strength of the video alone. But if you look at Prison Planet and 911Blogger, you’ll see that people have backed away from making those sorts of claims. If people stick to pushing the BBC for explanations of anomalies and contradictions, then this story has a long way to run.

[Sinclair]

has a good piece on the BBC 'responses ... h1]Uruknet (very good point by point analysis) and Axis of Logic not a single media organisation has covered the story. There are two forums with heavy traffic here and here and .

One gets the numb feeling that this will just slip away and the BBC will say ... oh! that c*** up - one of many that day, that chap Porter dealt with that....for God's sake let's move on... now what do you think of Hazel Blears as the next ....have you seen the Jictar figures for "Naked acrobatics by celebrities on ice" ? ,,, did yuo see what Mark Thompson has done to stop that crazy * idea about moving Sport to Manchester ....[/color]

Labels: BBC lies, cover up, dishonesty, unbeleivably poor crisis management


posted by Shutter | 2/28/2007 12:46:00 AM | 0 comments

[url=http://postmanpatel.blogspot.com/2007/02/mr-porter-looking-back-not-in-anger-but.html]Source:Postman Patel[/quote]

[AJ]

As I (and others) have said before, the original upload (Google clip) stated the time as Eastern Standard Time (EST) which is 5 hours behind GMT. But on September 11, NY was on Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) which is only 4 hours behind GMT and BBC World does not have a timecode for obvious reasons. If (as stated here by a recent poster), there was a BBC braodcast with a timecode of 21:50, that would been a BBC News and if it was 21:50, that would have been 17:50 in NY surely (i.e half an hour after the collapse of WTC7)?

It's true that few people in London would know whether that *was* WTC7 behind the reporter, whee was it shot from? My doubts were raised when the people who produced the edited clip used EST and created the London syncronisation 'confusion'. When NY went to EST the next month, there *was* then a 5 hour difference from GMT. But why did the editor/poster use EST? Was it to muddle/mislead or was it just a mistake? Why was the clip pulled from this site and Google?

On the other hand, the 1GB clip (*allegedly* archived at:
www.archive.org/search.php?query=collec ... publicdate

seems to have the time period in the file name, but even this remains unproven (one poster has said that the BBC doubted it was theirs). It's the timecode that matters. It did have the time in the filename (see page 4 of this thread), but it's only in the info on the clip at the above archive site which stated that it was EDT. This was why I made the point about the files not being available at 7pm on Tuesday. Since around the tiome of that post, the archive site files seems to have become inaccessible. Is it a genuine site, phishing, or an edited upload? There are many such questions which need ansering *as sound reserch before people start jumping to conclusions* - but people have not done that, why?

http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/chronology.attack/

My earlier conjectures (see part 2 of my earlier post last night) were primarily to illustrate the use (i.e as careful hypothesis which one then seeks to refute not to prove) vs the abuse (where on just affirms the antecedent) of 'counterfactual conditionals'. I fear many evangelical bloggers in the states (perhaps unwittingly?) abuse this logic to create controversy and bring in advertisers and revenue. All great fun, but...

We live in anarchic and mercenary times...........caveat emptor....


PS. The explanation for the fuzzy disconnected image to the left of the screen being a reflection is credible.

[xmasdale]

I have not looked at the time issue in detail but I think some confusion over time zones and summer time is a very possible explanation for this anomaly and we should therefore avoid making fools of ourselves by rushing to declare publicly that this is evidence of deliberate misinformation, before sorting the time issue out.

Noel

[hampton]

i didn't realise mr porter was head of 'bbc world' which is a commercial entity, I think. the bbc uk helpline wouldn't deal with it because 'bbc world' is a seperate entity. so why do they use the bbc website to spout their propaganda?

and his ramblings are pretty moronic.

it's not the first time the bbc have been accused of being part of the conspiracy, although i don't know who suggested this to him. i thought people were just asking questions. most people know the bbc lies (mainly by ommission), manipulates and spins. it's known by many as blair's broadcasting corporation. they pump out the same rubbish as the rest of the media. the bbc are a major part of the conspiracy!

the facts show that they simply must have had some advanced knowledge of collapse if not why did they report it?

jane standley must have known before now that wtc7 was reported collapsed before it did. it happened only 5mins after the live feed was lost. they must have been packing up or trying to get reconnected when it happened. someone must have noticed it.

the 'lost tapes' is just a joke but we can provide a backup for them!

it seems bbcnews24 reported the collapse 26 mins before it happened.

now if a report had come in that the statue of liberty had fallen over would they do an on location report without checking first?

[The Watcher]

AJ states:

... on September 11, NY was on Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) which is only 4 hours behind GMT ... and if it was 21:50, that would have been 17:50 in NY surely (i.e half an hour after the collapse of WTC7)?

This is fundamentally WRONG!

EST is 5 hours behind GMT; then when the clocks change for the Spring & Summer, EDT is still 5 hours behind BST (6hrs behind GMT).

The BBC World, BBC News 24 & CNN reports that have been posted around the web over the past two days, all record the fact that the reports that the Salomon Brothers Building, also known as WTC7, had collapsed, were all broadcst prior to the collapse actually occuring.

There is no getting away from the fact that these News Channels had been passed information that was not yet accurate ... but would be shortly!
It is (IMHO) pointless to suggest that any of these News Channels were complicit in the events of 9/11; it is surely far more important to identify the source of information.

Just what was the point of AJ's ill-researched post?

The Watcher

[Anthony Lawson]

What the Newsreader Asked

Perhaps the content of the news broadcast should be analysed more closely, before we dismiss this glaring anachronism as being an ‘honest mistake’ or because the people involved would not have been familiar with what WTC7 looked like. To my mind, it isn’t just the fact that the building was yet to fall, one of the newsreader’s questions was pretty suspicious, as well.

It is not from want of trying, but I have been unable to pin down the exact date and time when George W Bush made the proclamation:

‘If you are not with us, you are with the terrorists.’

But I am almost certain that he did not come out with this piece of verbal garbage until after 5:19 PM on September 11, 2001, when WTC7 did collapse. For a start, I doubt that Bush’s minders would have let him in front of a television camera or a microphone until a cosmetically decent period had passed and it was okay to relax the ‘heavy security that the leader of the free world would have been placed under,’ following such a dastardly attack on his beloved people.

So, if Bush had yet to offer the world his infamous choice, then the question asked by the newsreader—about what the public might be saying—in the re-discovered BBC footage, seems to have been incredibly prescient:

Newsreader: “Are they talking, yet, about revenge and what the government should do to counter this threat or are they numb still?”

Notice that he didn’t ask: “Does anyone have any idea who might be responsible.”

Nor did he ask: “Has any official made any statement as to how these aircraft were able to crash into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon without a sign of any military intervention?

He didn’t even enquire if the air traffic controllers knew anything about how the planes had managed to get through and crash into buildings in the two most important cities in America, without any warnings being given.

Remember that he was in London, asking questions of the person on the spot, so he would have had no idea as to what kind of information his colleague might have been able to come by, during the day. Yet he bypasses The Who? and The How? and homes straight in on what we all now realise was what those who perpetrated these acts would be hoping for: a strong desire, in the American population, for...

Revenge!

Which was, of course, The Why? Only we didn’t know it, at the time.

I wonder who was writing the stuff that would have been appearing on his teleprompter, or being relayed to him through his earpiece. Creepy stuff.

[Graham]

seems to have the time period in the file name, but even this remains unproven (one poster has said that the BBC doubted it was theirs). It's the timecode that matters. It did have the time in the filename (see page 4 of this thread), but it's only in the info on the clip at the above archive site which stated that it was EDT.

There is now a News 24 clip on Youtube with a time on it.

[blackcat]

The time of the broadcast is not an issue. It was made over 20 minutes before the collapse of WTC 7 whatever time you care to use, and the building was shown behind the commentator in a live feed. The man in the London studio also stated that it was "now some eight hours since the attack" and the hour pips had just sounded a few minutes before.

[Serge]

JREFers need to move away from time issues. No matter what time it is, the facts are crystal clear. WTC7 is still standing as the reporting clearly states it has collapsed, when it hasn't. Inserting timestamp posts is muckying the water. Leave timestamps alone, it has no bearing whatsoever.

[QuitTheirClogs]

jane standley must have known before now that wtc7 was reported collapsed before it did. it happened only 5mins after the live feed was lost. they must have been packing up or trying to get reconnected when it happened. someone must have noticed it.

When Building 7 did collapse – five minutes after the live feed was cut – there were huge clouds of dust billowing up the streets towards where Jane Standley was reporting from. Even if they didn’t actually see the building collapse, it would have been impossible not to notice the noise followed by the dust clouds. So did the BBC do anything to correct their earlier error?

See dust clouds at end of clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9CXQY-bZn4

[Serge]

Furthermore to add to evidence that foreknowledge is the case here, anyone remember the hundreds of cases of the foreknowledge of IRA bombs set to go off in the years past?. Coded messages were given to the authorities and buildings/locations were evacuated before they went off. Silverstein saying 'decided to pull it' is clear indication warning was given.

[Craig W]

There have been lots of claims flying round the internet regarding this footage – and most of them can’t be supported on the strength of the video alone. But if you look at Prison Planet and 911Blogger, you’ll see that people have backed away from making those sorts of claims. If people stick to pushing the BBC for explanations of anomalies and contradictions, then this story has a long way to run.

I agree there may be some mileage in it. How far, we will have to wait and see.

[Craig W]

I have just submitted the following entry to the BBC Editor's blog (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2 ... entsanchor)

I am waiting to see if gets published.

Please issue a statement about the source of your information.

WHO TOLD THE BBC THAT THE SALOMON BROTHERS BUILDING (AKA WTC7) HAD COLLAPSED OR WAS EXPECTED TO COLLAPSE?

It is a pretty major mistake that was repeated many times by Hayton, Standley and the "news ticker".

WHERE DID IT COME FROM?

Supplying this information would substantially clear this matter imo.

[EmptyBee]

Hello there, I'm a first time poster on this site.

I think this is important because the BBC is now getting caught in a web of lies.

"Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive."

The foreknowledge that the reporting on CNN, BBC World and BBC News24 represents would not matter if there was good reason to believe WTC7 was unstable/collapsing. It's clear from other video footage that people knew the building was going to "blow up" the question remains, how did this knowledge circulate? How did a newswire pick up this rumour of imminent collapse/actual collapse so far in advance? Who was the source? Reuters? FEMA, FDNY or some other government agency? A collapse implies a failure of the building core. NIST speculates that it was a 'progressive' collapse starting from a localised point of failure as a consequence of structural and fire damage. And yet they acknowledged that this was a "low probability" scenario. How was anyone able to predict such an improbable event as this collapse before it happened? That's the bottom line.

And so the Mr. Porter actual denies that they were told of the imminent collapse - this is a naked lie in the context of the video. If they were told of the collapse of building 7 'by mistake' that begs the question, 'how could such prescient information have come to light, even if it was in error at the time?'

And now they claim to have LOST their tapes. This is beyond belief. Either they still have them or they have been deliberately removed.

The bs is piling up so fast around this story you need wings to keep above it.

[Craig W]

Hello there, I'm a first time poster on this site.

I think this is important because the BBC is now getting caught in a web of lies.

"Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive."

The foreknowledge that the reporting on CNN, BBC World and BBC News24 represents would not matter if there was good reason to believe WTC7 was unstable/collapsing. It's clear from other video footage that people knew the building was going to "blow up" the question remains, how did this knowledge circulate? How did a newswire pick up this rumour of imminent collapse/actual collapse so far in advance? Who was the source? Reuters? FEMA, FDNY or some other government agency? A collapse implies a failure of the building core. NIST speculates that it was a 'progressive' collapse starting from a localised point of failure as a consequence of structural and fire damage. And yet they acknowledged that this was a "low probability" scenario. How was anyone able to predict such an improbable event as this collapse before it happened? That's the bottom line.

And so the Mr. Porter actual denies that they were told of the imminent collapse - this is a naked lie in the context of the video. If they were told of the collapse of building 7 'by mistake' that begs the question, 'how could such prescient information have come to light, even if it was in error at the time?'

And now they claim to have LOST their tapes. This is beyond belief. Either they still have them or they have been deliberately removed.

The bs is piling up so fast around this story you need wings to keep above it.

Welcome, Empty Bee. I'm new here too.

A very good first post. I have highlighted bits that resonated with me.

[kookomula]

You know what? We should just ask Larry what he meant when he said pull-it.

Maybe Dara, his Communications Secretary could put us in touch with him.

http://www.silversteinproperties.com/

CONTACT is at the top of the page in the grey bar

[Serge]

You know what? We should just ask Larry what he meant when he said pull-it.

Maybe Dara, his Communications Secretary could put us in touch with him.

http://www.silversteinproperties.com/

CONTACT is at the top of the page in the grey bar

Trust what he says eh?

'What did you mean when you said pull it?'

Silverstein: 'I was talking to my secretary and told her to pull it'

[brian]

FOREKNOWLEDGE.

We Know Mayor Giuliani was forewarned by the OEM (Office of Emergency Management) that the twin towers were going to collapse.

FACT - Giuliani was warned of the collapses.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_giuliani.html

From Giuliani's own mouth -

"-- we were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was going to collapse. And it did collapse before we could actually get out of the building,"

We Know CNN et al were reporting the imminent collapse of WTC 7 -
Aaron Brown CNN 4:10PM 20010911 WTC 7 Foreknowledge -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1LetB0z8_o

We Know the BBC were reporing the collapse before it happened.

WHAT WE WANT TO KNOW is who were those disseminating this information. Who at the OEM knew the twin towers were going to collapse and were they the same people forewarning of the WTC 7 collapse?

How did they know this?

How is that there is not yet an explanation for the collapse of WTC 7?

How could these predictions been arrived at when never before in history has a steel framed building collapsed due to fire?

The BBc cannot claim a mistake when this same "mistake" was repeated time and time again alongside other networks saying the same so who or what body was their source?

[EmptyBee]

Yes this video's initital impact is clearly a big WTF?!?! However it needs to be placed in context of other primary evidence from the day.


The BBC News 24 footage, claiming a collapse at 4:54

"...news is continuing to come in as you can imagine, we're now being told that yet another enormous building in New York has collapsed. It is the 47 story Saloman Brothers building..."

The CNN footage at around 4:10pm

"We are getting information now, that one of the other buildings in the World Trade Center complex is on fire and has either collapsed or is collapsing. You to be honest can see these pictures a little more clearly than I"

A short compilation of eyewitness video on the ground near WTC7 prior to collapse

"Keep your eyes on that building it'll be coming down soon"

"Building is about to blow up, move it back"

"We are walking back, the building is about to blow up. swaying, debris coming down."

So we're left with the question. Low probability event; widespread pre-emptive reporting and at least rumours of an imminent collapse on the ground. How is this possible?

[Craig W]

You've hit the nail full-square on the head there, Empty.

That is the $64,000 dollar question.

[DrJazzz]

On the boards at urban75.com there was a thread running during 9/11: I've checked the times and the collapse of WTC7 was reported at 8.55 UTC which equates to 4.55pm EDT.

I am kicking myself for not spotting it!



(viewing the boards in GMT/UTC)

[reprehensor]

Hi guys.

I'm trying to find out if both of these videos were derived from the same source, the "Internet Archive".

The newest with time-stamp;
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 4&hl=en-GB

The original from the weekend;
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=49f_1172526096&c=1

Also, does anyone have these on unedited VHS tape?

Assuming that both videos derive from the same digital file(s)... who upped them to the Archive?

Anyone have definitive answers on this?

(sorry if this has already been addressed)

[locsen]

I emailed & MSP's along with my "first minister" (tony blairs puppet jack mcconnell)

so far, one has been courteous enough to at least reply.....


"Thank you for your email and for bringing to my attention a matter I was unaware of.



As I understand it, any initial investigation into the report in question would need to be lodged by an MP, rather than an MSP, as broadcasting is a matter reserved to Westminster.



I will, however, look into the matter and let you know if I think there is anything I can usefully do to pursue it.



Best wishes.



Donald Gorrie MSP

Central Scotland

0131 348 5795"







anyone had anything back from a westminster MP???