tomi01uk: "The time was confirmed as being correct by (before collapse) recently on 911 Blogger shown in several posts there provided by the The Intenet Archive administrators who were kind enough to look at time stamps on those videos that were posted of BBC's coverage that day".
The files have not been authenticated by the BBC (and may never be, see below)
The Internet Archive people said that they were not their files. The whole issue is about the *authenticity* of the mpg files and the associated .xml files. The *latter*, may be the so-called 'time stamp', and *may* have been edited on 18th February (see
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?sto ... 8173157804).
This is far more subtle than people are appreciating, and that's exactly what a forgery would set out to count upon. It's also why 911 'Truthers; get a reputation for sloppy thinking and evangelical paranoia.
Just as an exercise, look closely at the other posts on this matter including the link to queries from other sceptics. Look *closely* at what seems to be said by the anchor and by Jane. The anchor talks of it being about 8 hours on, in the critical footage, and in the next 1GB 41 minute clip, at about 3 minutes in where BBC World shows WTC7 collapsing, the anchor talks about it being about 6 hours after the World Trade Centers collapsing (though there's room for equivocation there viz attacks and collapses of course).
There's room for questioning the timing and integrity of these clips (not to mention what the anchor and reporter are really referring to) because a) the files were only selectively available on Monday and Tuesday, b) they were designed to be for streaming only (not as downloadable, so how did that happen?) and c) then they all went missing for several days and are still not all back up (just two in fact).
Under the circumstances, how does anyone know that this was not just a bit of cleverly re-sequenced, edited, mischief, where bits have been cut and inserted in non-chronological ordr (no time code) in order to discredit the BBC for their "hit piece" on the 911 'Truthers' also of 18th February? As it is, Jane never says much about WTC7 anyway, and the anchor just says what he has heard.
In the next 41 minute clip, why didn't the anchor (or someone else) say, "correction, the Salomon Brothers Building we unkowingly showed still standing behind our reporter Jane Standley in NY a few minutes ago has now collapsed - here's the picture of it collapsing! Many people have phoned in to point out that the Salomon Building (aka WT7) was still there behind Jane all the time that I was saying it had collapsed - they just feed me the script - Mea Culpa, it's a bit hectic with all these kamikaze planes about, I've advised Jane to hop it - it's just like Peal Harbour!".
Answer 1) neither of them knew the skyline or the precise facts of the matter (like everyone else at the time - except for the evil PNAC neocons of course)
Answer 2) the clip has been malciously edited to make you infer something like the evil Neolabs in control of the BBC are in cahoots withg the the PNAC crowd.
The serious point remains: the clips have not been reliably authenticated, and posibly never will be by the BBC, because BBC World only retains 1/3 of its stock after 90 days.
Finally, one might ask, if the clips are genuine, did it take over five years for anyone in the media world to point out the alleged discrepancy between two 41 minute clips which are only a few minutes apart on this issue? (ah 1/4 NY are Jews, so they wouldn't let on would they - even microsoft are in on it - NYC - convert those letters to webdings, then to wingdings font).
This was BBC WORLD so it went out everywhere - even the Television Archive people say that their files were recorded in Canada.
http://www.archive.org/iathreads/post-v ... ?id=106772
.
