BBC World reported WTC7 collapse before it happened

[GEFBASS]

Picture 1 Possibly the building.

Picture 2 What the Camera position saw.

Picture 3 I think where the BBC were.

Just to add I don`t know what the building is called but this is my best guess.

[johndoe]

isn't the western union building the building to the left of wtc 7 mostly obscured by one of the towers.

the building to the right of that is the US Post office

which would leave us here:

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y222/Z ... _2_WTC.jpg

looking at the side if you follow the black arrow.

in fact on second thoughts.. the building circled isn't the western union building is it not the verizon building on 140 west street?

reference : http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/gua ... ig-7-1.gif

(please note that is more than one verizon bulding in new york)

okay so the image from photobucket is wrong as it misidentifies the verizon building as the western union building.

but still following the black arrow as the line of sight would give you a view of the side of the building.

[James C]

isn't the western union building the building to the left of wtc 7 mostly obscured by one of the towers.

the building to the right of that is the US Post office

which would leave us here:

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y222/Z ... _2_WTC.jpg

looking at the side if you follow the black arrow.

in fact on second thoughts.. the building circled isn't the western union building is it not the verizon building on 140 west street?

reference : http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/gua ... ig-7-1.gif

(please note that is more than one verizon bulding in new york)

okay so the image from photobucket is wrong as it misidentifies the verizon building as the western union building.

but still following the black arrow as the line of sight would give you a view of the side of the building.

The image with the arrow on is wrong. The arrow is pointing in the wrong direction. The view behind Jane Standley is looking south west towards the wtc site such that 75 park place is in front of wtc7 albeit obscured by the Western Union Building. The arrow in the image you post is looking from the west to the east and so is not correct.

[James C]

Picture 1 Possibly the building.

Picture 2 What the Camera position saw.

Picture 3 I think where the BBC were.

Just to add I don`t know what the building is called but this is my best guess.

GEFBASS,

These images are amazing. How do you do that?

I believe you are spot on here. Your arrow is pointing south west as I have been trying to say for the last few posts.

Thanks for that!

[GEFBASS]

Picture 1 Possibly the building.

Picture 2 What the Camera position saw.

Picture 3 I think where the BBC were.

Just to add I don`t know what the building is called but this is my best guess.

GEFBASS,

These images are amazing. How do you do that?

I believe you are spot on here. Your arrow is pointing south west as I have /been trying to say for the last few posts.

Thanks for that!

Ah just google earth, screen capture etc...

Also this is a merged view.


Just to add Google Earth may not be too accurate in some of it`s 3d models but I think I`ve at least pinpointed the possible camera position and line of sight.

Cheers James C.

Geoff.

//Disclaimer I am not saying this for definite is THE building/buildings it`s more to establish the line of sight.//

[telecasterisation]

Picture 1 Possibly the building.

Picture 2 What the Camera position saw.

Picture 3 I think where the BBC were.

Just to add I don`t know what the building is called but this is my best guess.

Can you clearly mark WTC7 on world bbc 1.jpg please.

[GEFBASS]

telecasterisation,

This may help, I`m not a graphic designer, also a plan of the wtc complex.

Geoff.

[telecasterisation]

telecasterisation,

This may help, I`m not a graphic designer, also a plan of the wtc complex.

Geoff.

Are you suggesting that the view we see out of the window of WTC7 behind Jane Standley is the same as the distance seen in your picture showing the BBC position and WTC7? The distance in the picture on the right seems far greater than depicted in the actual BBC shot.

Bearing in mind that unless the room Jane was standing in was very large, the camera would only be a few feet away from her and there can only be the merest of magnification and compression caused by a high magnification lens to get both her and the buildings in focus together, depth of field considerations all withstanding.

[John White]

So, after 16 pages, are we all now agreed upon the bleeding obvious?

That the BBC reported WTC7 as collapsed when the building was still standing?

If so: well done, good job!

[telecasterisation]

So, after 16 pages, are we all now agreed upon the bleeding obvious?

That the BBC reported WTC7 as collapsed when the building was still standing?

If so: well done, good job!

It isn't about what the BBC reported, this is about where the BBC were. There is great differing of opinion as to Jane Standley's location.

[ZUCO]

Without wanting to sound stupid...why is it relevant where she was standing? As far as I know there's no accusation of the tape being fake. All that matters to me is what was reported and what was behind her.

[GEFBASS]

So, after 16 pages, are we all now agreed upon the bleeding obvious?

That the BBC reported WTC7 as collapsed when the building was still standing?

If so: well done, good job!

Yep Not a shadow of doubt in my mind, I already got it, was just ascertaining the line of sight for previous posters.

As per usual though strawman nit picking comes to the fore.

I am not 100% per cent sure where the actual bl**ding building was, but it`s all about research which I don`t think some people around these parts even bother with!

Thanks John White for your timely comments.

Geoff.

[TheSea]

Judging by google searches it would seem its gone dead as a story for anyone but truthers, such a shame.
It might be a depth of field or focus issue but it certainly isn't the depth of field or focus of the pictures thats a problem ....more the depth of field and focus of the truth campaign.
Who did you email about it? Was it just truth campaigners or did you do as one poster did and email all his relevant MPs
Hey Ho another opportunity fades into a hobbists debate, and therefore becomes a professional distractors dream scenario.

[James C]

telecasterisation,

This may help, I`m not a graphic designer, also a plan of the wtc complex.

Geoff.

Are you suggesting that the view we see out of the window of WTC7 behind Jane Standley is the same as the distance seen in your picture showing the BBC position and WTC7? The distance in the picture on the right seems far greater than depicted in the actual BBC shot.

Bearing in mind that unless the room Jane was standing in was very large, the camera would only be a few feet away from her and there can only be the merest of magnification and compression caused by a high magnification lens to get both her and the buildings in focus together, depth of field considerations all withstanding.

Look properly at the view behind Jane Standley. We are looking at the north edge of the wtc site with the smoke rising behind WTC7 (WTC7 was north of the twin towers). The sunlight is coming from the right hand side (5pm) which puts the west on the right. The Woolworth building (below the word Update on the above screen shot) is to the left and there is no doubt WTC7 is obscured slightly by the Western Union Building (the WUB is the only tall building between the BBC and WTC7). We are therefore looking south west.

Look at the distance between the Western Union building and WTC7 (8-9 blocks between each) and now compare it with the distance between the WUB and Jane Standley. They are similar so there is no doubt that GEFBASS is correct.

I guess I'm getting a bit annoyed that people are argueing about this when it is so obvious. I shouldn't be surprised though. I work in the construction industry and know how bad people are at reading plans and judging distances.

The tower block the BBC were in is at an angle to the WUB and WTC site and it's south western corner faces these buildings. I believe the BBC were looking from this SW corner which makes sense when you look at the glazing behind Jane Standley. The thin vertical line to the far left is definitely a corner glazing bar.

[physicist]

So, after 16 pages, are we all now agreed upon the bleeding obvious?

That the BBC reported WTC7 as collapsed when the building was still standing?

If so: well done, good job!

The people on here like to turn over all the stones.

[telecasterisation]

This is nothing whatsoever to do with nit picking, or even ‘timely words’ for that matter.

Suddenly a clip appears on YouTube that has remained ‘hidden’ for over five years. The makers of the content of that clip strangely ‘lose’ the original’. Does this not seem rather extraordinary?

We simply accept the content as being genuine with no other verifiable sources, there is nothing to compare it to, no high-res photo, no VHS copies from different sources. So with this in mind, given the things that we have spouted in the past to both the uninitiated and amongst ourselves alike (such as missile firing pods), does it not make perfect and justifiable sense to establish that at the very least, what we are seeing out of the window is not only genuine but even feasible?

We are told to ‘ask the tough questions folks’ and when we do, call it research if it makes it more comfortable, we have all this ‘tutting’ from the stalls as if we should just accept what we see with no questioning.

Towards the end of last year a ‘whistleblower’ came out the woodwork and everyone was jumping up and down – he was interviewed by Alex Jones, but after more investigation it transpired that his credentials were flawed and he was dropped like the proverbial hot potato. Surely we should not be so quick to accept things at face value?

I believe there is far less to this than meets the eye and if people want to just accept that everything is as it seems, then that for me is the reverse of what moving towards truth is all about. Regardless of whether the BBC clip is legitimate or not, it is our duty to look beyond the surface and I am sincerely surprised that anyone is taking the attitude that we need look no further.

I would add, that;

I guess I'm getting a bit annoyed that people are argueing about this when it is so obvious. I shouldn't be surprised though. I work in the construction industry and know how bad people are at reading plans and judging distances.

Sums up the current thinking of those with little to no real interest in the truth. If asking questions is arguing, then I am glad I didn't choose a career in construction.

[James C]

This is nothing whatsoever to do with nit picking, or even ‘timely words’ for that matter.

Suddenly a clip appears on YouTube that has remained ‘hidden’ for over five years. The makers of the content of that clip strangely ‘lose’ the original’. Does this not seem rather extraordinary?

We simply accept the content as being genuine with no other verifiable sources, there is nothing to compare it to, no high-res photo, no VHS copies from different sources. So with this in mind, given the things that we have spouted in the past to both the uninitiated and amongst ourselves alike (such as missile firing pods), does it not make perfect and justifiable sense to establish that at the very least, what we are seeing out of the window is not only genuine but even feasible.

We are told to ‘ask the tough questions folks’ and when we do, call it research if it makes it more comfortable, we have all this ‘tutting’ from the stalls as if we should just accept what we see with no questioning.

Towards the end of last year a ‘whistleblower’ came out the woodwork and everyone was jumping up and down – he was interviewed by Alex Jones, but after more investigation it transpired that his credentials were flawed and he was dropped like the proverbial hot potato. Surely we should not be so quick to accept things at face value?

I believe there is far more to this than meets the eye and if people want to just accept that everything is as it seems, then that for me is the reverse of what moving towards truth is all about. Regardless of whether the BBC clip is legitimate or not, it is our duty to look beyond the surface and I am sincerely surprised that anyone is taking the attitude that we need look no further.

I would add, that;

I guess I'm getting a bit annoyed that people are argueing about this when it is so obvious. I shouldn't be surprised though. I work in the construction industry and know how bad people are at reading plans and judging distances.

Sums up the current thinking of those with little to no real interest in the truth. If asking questions is arguing, then I am glad I didn't choose a career in construction.

Pointless twaddle from telecasterisation, as usual! It's a shame you use Bill Bailey's image for your own. For a start it spoils my opinion of him and secondly, he's funny and you are not.

This whole debate has been about understanding the reality of that clip. You, on the other hand, seek to quash the theories due to your own inability to see things properly. I made an attempt to identify the Western Union Building and the role it plays in this issue over the weekend. I therefore applaud the work of GEFBASS who has taken the same analysis several steps further. However, you choose to criticise all of this because you cannot work it out for yourself. So, let's all take 20 steps back just because telecasterisation can't judge distances or check the facts out on Google Maps for himself! For f*ck's sake! Offer your own theories if you wish to extend the debate but don't do your usual trick of criticising then acting all innocent when people get annoyed by your rants.

Why did you get banned again? Why did you come back?

[telecasterisation]

I guess I'm getting a bit annoyed that people are argueing about this when it is so obvious. I shouldn't be surprised though. I work in the construction industry and know how bad people are at reading plans and judging distances.

Pointless twaddle from telecasterisation, as usual! It's a shame you use Bill Bailey's image for your own. For a start it spoils my opinion of him and secondly, he's funny and you are not.

Actually, Bill Bailey is my youngest brother's closest friend, his image being there has nothing whatsoever to do with humour. I will inform him your opinion of him is spoilt.

As for you generating annoyance due to words typed on a screen, I understand good health stores can sell you something to relax without nasty side-effects. I guess all that 'constructing' and distance judging must be stressful.

[James C]

I guess I'm getting a bit annoyed that people are argueing about this when it is so obvious. I shouldn't be surprised though. I work in the construction industry and know how bad people are at reading plans and judging distances.

Pointless twaddle from telecasterisation, as usual! It's a shame you use Bill Bailey's image for your own. For a start it spoils my opinion of him and secondly, he's funny and you are not.

Actually, Bill Bailey is my youngest brother's closest friend, his image being there is has nothing whatsoever to do with humour. I will inform him your opinion of him is spoilt.

As for you generating annoyance due to words typed on a screen, I understand good health stores can sell you something to relax without nasty side-effects. I guess all that 'constructing' and distance judging must be stressful.

Good to see you changed the subject again. Did they teach you how to do that in the police force?

I live near Bath, Bill Bailey's from Bath, so what?

[telecasterisation]

I live near Bath, Bill Bailey's from Bath, so what?

I don't know, is it a riddle?

[James C]

I live near Bath, Bill Bailey's from Bath, so what?

I don't know, is it a riddle?

yawn

[kookomula]

Variety: March 5 - 11 2007

Conspiring minds at BBC?

DOMINIC SCHREIBER

After debunking many of the myths surrounding 9/11 in its recent "Conspiracy Files" docu series, the BBC is at the center of a whole new set of allegations over what really happened - thanks to a five-year-old piece of news footage that found its way onto videosharing Web sites last week.


The clip, from BBC World, appears to show a live report covering the collapse of World Trade Center 7, the third building to fall following the terrorist attacks - a full 30-minutes before the building actually came down.
For conspiracy theorists, it's the latest evidence that 9/11 was an inside job - and that the media are in on it. But Richard Porter, head of news at BBC World, says it was simply a mistake. "We're not part of a conspiracy," says Porter in response to the hundreds of emails and phone calls received. "Nobody told us what to say or do on Sept. 11."
But Porter's statement has merely fueled speculation of a cover-up, thanks to his admission that the BBC apparently lost the original tape of the report. "If someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it," he writes.

[kookomula]

Deleted. Accidental copy of above.

[kookomula]

Part of the conspiracy?Richard Porter 27 Feb 07, 05:12 PM

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.

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.

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 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.

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... "

Richard Porter is head of news, BBC World

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2 ... iracy.html

[Serge]

Variety: March 5 - 11 2007

Conspiring minds at BBC?

DOMINIC SCHREIBER

After debunking many of the myths surrounding 9/11 in its recent "Conspiracy Files" docu series, the BBC is at the center of a whole new set of allegations over what really happened - thanks to a five-year-old piece of news footage that found its way onto videosharing Web sites last week.


The clip, from BBC World, appears to show a live report covering the collapse of World Trade Center 7, the third building to fall following the terrorist attacks - a full 30-minutes before the building actually came down.
For conspiracy theorists, it's the latest evidence that 9/11 was an inside job - and that the media are in on it. But Richard Porter, head of news at BBC World, says it was simply a mistake. "We're not part of a conspiracy," says Porter in response to the hundreds of emails and phone calls received. "Nobody told us what to say or do on Sept. 11."
But Porter's statement has merely fueled speculation of a cover-up, thanks to his admission that the BBC apparently lost the original tape of the report. "If someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it," he writes.

Do you have a link?

[johndoe]

could someone do me a wee favor and highlight both the western union building and the verizon building (140 west street) on a map?

[kookomula]

Try googling variety and the title you will find something

[Serge]

Try googling variety and the title you will find something

Thanks, I will remember that, when it comes a time if you ask for a link.

[who murdered di ?]

Part of the conspiracy?Richard Porter 27 Feb 07, 05:12 PM

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.

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.

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 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.

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... "

Richard Porter is head of news, BBC World

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2 ... iracy.html

Why not explain how the loss of connection happened ?

[telecasterisation]

Why not explain how the loss of connection happened ?

With the greatest respect, such connections are prone to being flakey. On the day, the world's media were using every broadcast facility available - the loss could be down to any number of issues.

Yes it looks suspicious, but not impossible given the circumstances.