Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum _ WTC 7 _ Bbc World Report Of Wtc 7 Collapse At 4:57 Pm Est?

Posted by: waterdancer Feb 25 2007, 10:36 PM

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1471985581749234824&q=9%2F11#04m37ss

Posted by: THE_DECIDER Feb 25 2007, 10:48 PM

now thats weird!

Posted by: Timothy Osman Feb 26 2007, 01:12 AM

Watched it twice in case I was seeing things, I can't get my head around that one.

Posted by: shure Feb 26 2007, 04:41 AM


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1471985581749234824&q=9%2F11#14m44ss

LOOK WHATS BEHIND THE REPORTERS HEAD !!!!!!!

updates link:
http://www.shure.proboards19.com/index.cgi?board=bbc

cheers.gif thumbsup.gif blink.gif biggrin.gif laugh.gif blink.gif dunno.gif laughing1.gif worthy.gif

EVERYONE SAVE THIS VIDEO !!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Truthseekers Feb 26 2007, 05:16 AM

[laugh] BBC has proof of its own that explosions were taking place, and they miss it!.

Dumb idiots must have thought it was a tomahawk sending smoke signals! laugh.gif

Posted by: georgie101 Feb 26 2007, 05:39 AM

OMFG. I can't belive it.

Posted by: Drakey Feb 26 2007, 05:42 AM

amazing, like the person who commented last 'how can anyone debunk this?'

spread the word, this needs to get out!

p.s great find!

Posted by: georgie101 Feb 26 2007, 06:21 AM

I'm staggered at this. I never trusted the BBC, I'm more convinced than ever now that they did not just turn a blind eye and not report it, but they are part of it.

Posted by: Carl Bank Feb 26 2007, 07:56 AM

Wow, Jeff!

If this isn't proof of..... of almost every conspiracy theory.
Amazing find!

Her is the screen where the reporter talks about the situation in NYC.
Notice the building right behind her and the footline news. Crazy.


Posted by: Drakey Feb 26 2007, 08:15 AM

reporter notes:

QUOTE
Maybe someone is able to get her email to ask her about it:

The correspondents Name is Jane Stanley, working for BBC-NYC

www.bbcnyc.com
(212) 734-7363

Bbc Productions
179 Franklin St
New York, NY 10013

(212) 219-9570

Bbc Production
432 W 45th St
New York, NY 10036

(212) 974-9050

Susan Fried, Casting Producer:
BBC Productions, USA 432 W. 45th St, NY, NY 10036 212-974-9050 x150 sfried@bbcnyproduction.com

Posted by: DemolitionCrew Feb 26 2007, 08:38 AM

wow

unbelievable....absoultely unbelievable!!!!

Great find! thumbsup.gif

Posted by: Method Feb 26 2007, 08:49 AM

thumbdown.gif

Posted by: Carl Bank Feb 26 2007, 08:57 AM

Here is the screen where the reporter talks about the situation in NYC.
She is standing in front of Building 7, it is about 5:00 pm EST...
Notice the building to the right behind her and the footline news. Crazy.

The expression 'Advanced Knowledge' becomes a new meaning to: Carl


Posted by: behind Feb 26 2007, 09:04 AM

Well... This is strange!

(I dont say more at this point!)

Posted by: shure Feb 26 2007, 09:50 AM

Well I don't know if the BBC care but they are NOW AWARE !!

the best I could do !

http://www.shure.proboards19.com/index.cgi?board=bbc&action=display&thread=1172747731

Posted by: Zapzarap Feb 26 2007, 09:54 AM

Excellent find, waterdancer!!! thumbsup.gif

I thought for a while, maybe someone has got the time difference mixed up.

But it's all life broadcast!

Was the WTC7 collapse press-released too early (probably on purpose by a hero, who wanted to set a red flag?)

Seems as if this is the best evidence of foreknowledge, that ever leaked to the public.

- Larry Silverstein!
What was "the smartest thing to do", you said ?

excited, Zap

Posted by: Drakey Feb 26 2007, 10:13 AM

QUOTE (shure @ Feb 26 2007, 01:50 PM)
Well I don't know if the BBC care but they are NOW AWARE !!

the best I could do !

click link below to listen or right click and save target as to download:

http://www.pumpshitout.com/audio/bbc_oops.mp3

You sir, are a legend worthy.gif

Posted by: Zapzarap Feb 26 2007, 10:18 AM

shure, excellent job! worthy.gif

'Die Katze ist aus dem Sack' - as we say in German.
(Carl, help me - "You let the cat out of the sack")

thumbsup.gif Zap

Posted by: bill Feb 26 2007, 10:43 AM

This is amazing

Not too many views yet

Posted by: Drakey Feb 26 2007, 10:49 AM

QUOTE (bill @ Feb 26 2007, 02:43 PM)
This is amazing

Not too many views yet

need to wait for 911blogger and prisonplanet to update, ive submitted it - as im sure many others have

watch this space smile.gif

Posted by: UnderTow Feb 26 2007, 11:10 AM

GSUSH....un'ba'leave'able

Posted by: democrazy Feb 26 2007, 11:37 AM

WTF! blink.gif

Posted by: DemolitionCrew Feb 26 2007, 12:06 PM

QUOTE (shure @ Feb 26 2007, 08:50 AM)
Well I don't know if the BBC care but they are NOW AWARE !!

the best I could do !

click link below to listen or right click and save target as to download:

http://www.pumpshitout.com/audio/bbc_oops.mp3

Rock Star!!!!



shure...all I can say is worthy.gif

I sent the video clip to Kevin and Aaron @ prisonplanet.com.

They will update it shortly.

Posted by: maturin42 Feb 26 2007, 12:14 PM

D'oh!

Yeah, them Commissioners left no stone unturned all right. Makes inspector Clouseau look like Sherlock Holmes. At first I thought it was just a misunderstanding about time zones, then watch the "reporter" discussing the collapse of a building that can be seen clearly behind her.

Just add it to the list.
SFL pilotfly.gif

Posted by: biggahthebettah Feb 26 2007, 12:27 PM

OMG! This should be posted to youtube for sure! I'm going to be posting the link to that everywhere I go, you can be sure of that.

Great find!

Posted by: Graham Feb 26 2007, 12:45 PM

blink.gif blink.gif blink.gif blink.gif

This could be HUGE! pilotfly.gif

Posted by: painter Feb 26 2007, 12:59 PM

I do not trust grainy, highly compressed on-line video. Yes, of course, it looks like the woman is standing in front of a cityscape with Building 7 behind her. Yet, as everyone is pointing out, this makes no sense. So what is going on here? Did BBC air this footage prior to the building actually collapsing -- as seems to be the implication? IF so, why are we just now seeing this footage six years later? OR, is this some kind of elaborate hoax meant to make the TM look foolish for easily accepting evidence that has not been verified?

This could be a hoax -- not saying it is or isn't -- just raising the red flag that no one should 'jump all over this' until we are sure it is what it is claimed to be.

Posted by: painter Feb 26 2007, 01:02 PM

I want to underscore my previous post:

The closer the TM gets to unraveling what happened and getting real, court admissible evidence to back up our claims, the dirtier the opposition will fight. They will use all the tools in their considerable arsenal to neutralize, if not eliminate, whatever 'threat' level they access.

BE CAREFUL, especially with "new" footage that shows up that can not be verified.

Posted by: Graham Feb 26 2007, 01:05 PM

thats why I'm currently downloading the original mpg file described at the beggining. smile.gif

Posted by: painter Feb 26 2007, 01:10 PM

QUOTE (Graham @ Feb 26 2007, 09:05 AM)
thats why I'm currently downloading the original mpg file described at the beggining. smile.gif

Even so, can you be certain that it hasn't been edited?

Posted by: painter Feb 26 2007, 01:11 PM

painter is merging this thread with the one started by waterdancer, pinned in the WTC 7 forum

Posted by: Graham Feb 26 2007, 01:24 PM

QUOTE (painter @ Feb 26 2007, 12:10 PM)
QUOTE (Graham @ Feb 26 2007, 09:05 AM)
thats why I'm currently downloading the original mpg file described at the beggining.  smile.gif

Even so, can you be certain that it hasn't been edited?

No, but I'll wait till I've seen the original. smile.gif All 1024mb of it. ohmy.gif

Perhaps we can determine something from the source? The root address is....

http://ia311517.us.archive.org

All sorts of random things in there. dunno.gif

Posted by: Truthseekers Feb 26 2007, 01:24 PM

QUOTE (shure @ Feb 26 2007, 01:50 PM)
Well I don't know if the BBC care but they are NOW AWARE !!

the best I could do !

click link below to listen or right click and save target as to download:

http://www.pumpshitout.com/audio/bbc_oops.mp3

Nice one. thumbsup.gif cheers.gif

The first call response by that women is typical British, 'I don't want to help' daft bint. The second one was passing on and on etc... the woman you spoke to 3rd time...I'd hold my breath as she is expected to contact you back. If she does not, chase them.

Posted by: bill Feb 26 2007, 01:28 PM

They can easily project background footage from any time much the way they project the weatherman broadcasts using a monochromatic blue screen and two separate cameras

that said there are usually artifacts that show up when using this technique

but if the times are accurate it would be a huge problem

Posted by: painter Feb 26 2007, 01:34 PM

QUOTE (bill @ Feb 26 2007, 09:28 AM)
They can easily project background footage from any time much the way they project the weatherman broadcasts using a monochromatic blue screen and two separate cameras

that said there are usually artifacts that show up when using this technique

but if the times are accurate it would be a huge problem

OR -- they can CLAIM that the background was blue-screened.

Point being, as interesting as all this is, it may not "prove" anything. It needs to be checked.

Posted by: shure Feb 26 2007, 01:35 PM

you can see her on the lcd tv in the BBC studio while hes talking nodding her head and stuff while talking to him !!!!

I'm overly excited right now and its good to have people stepping back and taking a hard look at the video. But once your convinced of the fact its authentic please let us know !!


check it out !

Massive 9/11 TV archive that Graham is talking about !

Keep in mind these are 41 minute 1 gig MPEG-2's.
There is also September 10th news coverage there. This is everything there
from during or after the attacks.

BBC

http://ia331332.us.archive.org/3/items/bbc200109110916-0957/V08515-04.mpg
http://ia331327.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109110957-1039/V08515-08.mpg
http://ia311534.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109111039-1121/V08515-12.mpg
http://ia331319.us.archive.org/0/items/bbc200109111121-1202/V08515-16.mpg
http://ia331308.us.archive.org/0/items/bbc200109111202-1244/V08515-20.mpg
http://ia331332.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109111244-1326/V08515-24.mpg
http://ia331329.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109111326-1408/V08515-28.mpg
http://ia311517.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109111408-1449/V08515-32.mpg
http://ia331340.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109111449-1531/V08591-04.mpg
http://ia301330.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109111531-1613/V08591-08.mpg
http://ia331327.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109111613-1654/V08591-12.mpg
http://ia311517.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109111654-1736/V08591-16.mpg
http://ia331317.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109111736-1818/V08591-20.mpg
http://ia331338.us.archive.org/3/items/bbc200109111818-1859/V08591-24.mpg
http://ia311503.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109111859-1941/V08591-28.mpg
http://ia311503.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109111941-2023/V08591-32.mpg
http://ia331304.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109112023-2104/V08590-04.mpg
http://ia331339.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109112104-2146/V08590-08.mpg
http://ia311535.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109112146-2228/V08590-12.mpg
http://ia331333.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109112228-2309/V08590-16.mpg
http://ia331329.us.archive.org/3/items/bbc200109112310-2351/V08590-20.mpg
http://ia331316.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109112351-0033/V08590-24.mpg
http://ia331331.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109120033-0115/V08590-28.mpg
http://ia331312.us.archive.org/0/items/bbc200109120115-0156/V08590-32.mpg
http://ia331314.us.archive.org/3/items/bbc200109120156-0238/V08565-04.mpg
http://ia331341.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109120238-0320/V08565-08.mpg
http://ia331314.us.archive.org/3/items/bbc200109120320-0401/V08565-12.mpg
http://ia331302.us.archive.org/0/items/bbc200109120401-0443/V08565-16.mpg
http://ia331317.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109120443-0525/V08565-20.mpg
http://ia301327.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109120525-0606/V08565-24.mpg
http://ia301336.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109120606-0648/V08565-28.mpg
http://ia301331.us.archive.org/3/items/bbc200109120648-0730/V08565-32.mpg
http://ia301319.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109120730-0811/V08564-04.mpg
http://ia311514.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109120811-0853/V08564-08.mpg
http://ia331340.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109120853-0935/V08564-12.mpg
http://ia311537.us.archive.org/3/items/bbc200109120935-1017/V08564-16.mpg
http://ia311507.us.archive.org/0/items/bbc200109121017-1058/V08564-20.mpg
http://ia331304.us.archive.org/0/items/bbc200109121058-1140/V08564-24.mpg
http://ia331303.us.archive.org/3/items/bbc200109121140-1222/V08564-28.mpg
http://ia311511.us.archive.org/3/items/bbc200109121222-1303/V08564-32.mpg
http://ia331307.us.archive.org/3/items/bbc200109121303-1345/V08563-04.mpg
http://ia301327.us.archive.org/3/items/bbc200109121345-1427/V08563-08.mpg
http://ia331306.us.archive.org/0/items/bbc200109121427-1508/V08563-12.mpg
http://ia331324.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109121508-1550/V08563-16.mpg
http://ia331325.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109121550-1632/V08563-20.mpg
http://ia311543.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109121632-1713/V08563-24.mpg
http://ia301325.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109121713-1755/V08563-28.mpg
http://ia331307.us.archive.org/3/items/bbc200109121755-1837/V08563-32.mpg
http://ia331340.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109121837-1919/V08568-04.mpg
http://ia331310.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109121919-2000/V08568-08.mpg
http://ia331310.us.archive.org/3/items/bbc200109122000-2042/V08568-12.mpg
http://ia331318.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109122042-2124/V08568-16.mpg
http://ia331328.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109122124-2205/V08568-20.mpg
http://ia331310.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109122205-2247/V08568-24.mpg
http://ia331330.us.archive.org/3/items/bbc200109122247-2329/V08568-28.mpg
http://ia331303.us.archive.org/0/items/bbc200109122329-0010/V08568-32.mpg
http://ia331318.us.archive.org/0/items/bbc200109130010-0052/V08567-04.mpg
http://ia331312.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109130052-0134/V08567-08.mpg
http://ia331341.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109130134-0215/V08567-12.mpg
http://ia331314.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109130215-0257/V08567-16.mpg
http://ia331303.us.archive.org/3/items/bbc200109130257-0339/V08567-20.mpg
http://ia331318.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109130339-0421/V08567-24.mpg
http://ia331311.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109130421-0502/V08567-28.mpg
http://ia331304.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109130502-0544/V08567-32.mpg
http://ia301326.us.archive.org/3/items/bbc200109130544-0626/V08566-04.mpg
http://ia331316.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109130626-0707/V08566-08.mpg
http://ia331326.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109130707-0749/V08566-12.mpg
http://ia301327.us.archive.org/3/items/bbc200109130749-0831/V08566-16.mpg
http://ia311516.us.archive.org/0/items/bbc200109130831-0912/V08566-20.mpg
http://ia331306.us.archive.org/0/items/bbc200109130912-0954/V08566-24.mpg
http://ia331309.us.archive.org/0/items/bbc200109130954-1036/V08566-28.mpg
http://ia331313.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109131036-1117/V08566-32.mpg
http://ia311516.us.archive.org/3/items/bbc200109131117-1159/V08571-04.mpg
http://ia331312.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109131322-1404/V08571-16.mpg
http://ia331337.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109131446-1528/V08571-24.mpg
http://ia331313.us.archive.org/3/items/bbc200109131528-1609/V08571-28.mpg
http://ia311517.us.archive.org/0/items/bbc200109131609-1651/V08571-32.mpg
http://ia331339.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109131651-1733/V08570-04.mpg
http://ia331338.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109131733-1814/V08570-08.mpg
http://ia331333.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109131814-1856/V08570-12.mpg
http://ia331312.us.archive.org/0/items/bbc200109131856-1938/V08570-16.mpg
http://ia301336.us.archive.org/3/items/bbc200109131938-2019/V08570-20.mpg

Posted by: Graham Feb 26 2007, 01:40 PM

QUOTE (shure @ Feb 26 2007, 08:50 AM)
Well I don't know if the BBC care but they are NOW AWARE !!

the best I could do !

click link below to listen or right click and save target as to download:

http://www.pumpshitout.com/audio/bbc_oops.mp3

Note for future reference, always take a name/dept and contact number. wink.gif

Posted by: shure Feb 26 2007, 01:44 PM

continued from BBC links

heres a NOTEPAD txt for links to download ALLLLLLL the 9/11 news footage from (mostly) ALL the news companies


right click link below and save target as to download the .txt file

link:

http://www.pumpshitout.com/documents/links.txt

cheers.gif

Posted by: shure Feb 26 2007, 01:44 PM

QUOTE (Graham @ Feb 26 2007, 05:40 PM)
QUOTE (shure @ Feb 26 2007, 08:50 AM)
Well I don't know if the BBC care but they are NOW AWARE !!

the best I could do !

click link below to listen or right click and save target as to download:

http://www.pumpshitout.com/audio/bbc_oops.mp3

Note for future reference, always take a name/dept and contact number. wink.gif

thanx for the good advice Graham !

cheers.gif

Posted by: behind Feb 26 2007, 01:53 PM

The news man said: "...Its now...some 8 hours since the attack..."

So... yes...it is really too weird to be tue!

(because I saw at DU forum that someone said the clock was really 6...not 5)

Posted by: DemolitionCrew Feb 26 2007, 02:24 PM

It doesn't really matter what time it really was...what matters is the building is still there.

1. The video is authentic
2. The audio has not been compromised


If this is the real deal...it is grand slam / GAME OVER evidence!!!!

Posted by: behind Feb 26 2007, 02:45 PM

Yes... that is way it is so hard for me to belive this!

I mean...it is BBC... and they report building 7 has collapsed because it "weakened from falling debris" as they say.

...and in the background the building just stand there ... and dont looks as it is going to collapse at all!...and a short time before it really collapse...they stop the talk.

But... ok...I dont say more now!!!

Posted by: Carl Bank Feb 26 2007, 03:09 PM

QUOTE (Zapzarap @ Feb 26 2007, 02:18 PM)
shure, excellent job! worthy.gif

'Die Katze ist aus dem Sack' - as we say in German.
(Carl, help me - "You let the cat out of the sack")

thumbsup.gif Zap

'Die Katze aus dem Sack lassen' = 'To let the cat out of the bag'

won't let the Bank out of the cat: Carl

Posted by: UnderTow Feb 26 2007, 03:10 PM

So who is the orginial source for this video? Where did it pop up at, who claims it?

Posted by: UnderTow Feb 26 2007, 03:35 PM

QUOTE (shure @ Feb 26 2007, 12:44 PM)
continued from BBC links

heres a NOTEPAD txt for links to download ALLLLLLL the 9/11 news footage from (mostly) ALL the news companies


right click link below and save target as to download the .txt file

link:

http://www.pumpshitout.com/documents/links.txt

cheers.gif

Thank you very much for this. Works well with my download app.
But I'll have to buy a new hard drive to store all this biggrin.gif

So. Here's the deal.

It's for real. And that's WTC7 standing behind her, smoke and all, through a window, during a live broadcast over satellite to BBC in Europe as they discuss the precrime of WTC7's implosion.

Posted by: DemolitionCrew Feb 26 2007, 03:39 PM

Alex Jones is all over this now....

Thanks to the person that called in. thumbsup.gif

Posted by: johndoeX Feb 26 2007, 03:41 PM

The news of this just broke on Alex Jones... Google has pulled the video.. but Alex got it in time...


biggrin.gif

Posted by: DemolitionCrew Feb 26 2007, 03:44 PM

QUOTE (johndoeX @ Feb 26 2007, 02:41 PM)
The news of this just broke on Alex Jones... Google has pulled the video.. but Alex got it in time...


biggrin.gif

I am watching the video right now via Google. I am not sure how they pulled it, because I am watching the original one!

blast this everywhere....

EXPOSE THE TERRORISTS!!!!!!!!!

starwars.gif

EDIT:
Nevermind...I guess when you embed the file it allows to to keep watching it, even after the source is removed....

Posted by: Graham Feb 26 2007, 03:45 PM

QUOTE (UnderTow @ Feb 26 2007, 02:10 PM)
So who is the orginial source for this video? Where did it pop up at, who claims it?

http://ia311517.us.archive.org/

Posted by: Akula Feb 26 2007, 03:51 PM

Nobody knows who is behind this video?

At the end it references this site. Anyone know why?

Posted by: johndoeX Feb 26 2007, 03:57 PM

QUOTE (Akula @ Feb 26 2007, 02:51 PM)
Nobody knows who is behind this video?

At the end it references this site. Anyone know why?

you have a link to the video that references this site?

The original video in the original post no longer works for me.. .says video not available.

Might be a regional server thing? dunno...

Posted by: UnderTow Feb 26 2007, 03:59 PM

QUOTE (Akula @ Feb 26 2007, 02:51 PM)
Nobody knows who is behind this video?

At the end it references this site. Anyone know why?

Someone else on LibertyForum just metioned this. I did not watch it all.

QUOTE
Altho, the sites promoted at the end cause me to worry slightly, but then thats just me.


What does it say?

Posted by: Akula Feb 26 2007, 04:02 PM

I cannot find a working link to link. biggrin.gif

At the end it linked here and Pentacon to go for more information.

edit*** Just so you know I knew of this site before, I just saw your site mentioned at the end and found it strange you guys didnt know anything about it.

Posted by: André Feb 26 2007, 04:06 PM

QUOTE (johndoeX @ Feb 26 2007, 07:57 PM)
QUOTE (Akula @ Feb 26 2007, 02:51 PM)
Nobody knows who is behind this video?

At the end it references this site. Anyone know why?

you have a link to the video that references this site?

The original video in the original post no longer works for me.. .says video not available.

Might be a regional server thing? dunno...


Posted by: Akula Feb 26 2007, 04:11 PM

QUOTE (André @ Feb 26 2007, 03:06 PM)
QUOTE (johndoeX @ Feb 26 2007, 07:57 PM)
QUOTE (Akula @ Feb 26 2007, 02:51 PM)
Nobody knows who is behind this video?

At the end it references this site. Anyone know why?

you have a link to the video that references this site?

The original video in the original post no longer works for me.. .says video not available.

Might be a regional server thing? dunno...


Yep that is the one.

Forgot about 911bloggers there as well. thumbsup.gif

Posted by: johndoeX Feb 26 2007, 04:16 PM

hmmm... and no one knows who uploaded this?


I hope its not a disinfo piece and we get blamed for it.

Is this piece definitely legit? Alex said it was on the BBC website as well.. so i think its original.


Rob

Posted by: UnderTow Feb 26 2007, 04:21 PM

Man, watching the internet transmute itself with this information is insane.

Randi's were quick to task with thier commonality. LCF was 1/2'n'1/2, and here we got to watch without any distractions. (Yah PFT smile.gif )

So while posting at LibertyForum, and watching who did what.

I heard here first that Alex got news of it, and then google pulled.
But then Rivero just updated his site saying the same thing

QUOTE (WhatReallyHappened)
UPDATE: Shortly after I posted this link, Google removed the video referenced by this page from their servers.


I don't like it when they self-import thier own grandstand.

Here's another link to see it at.

http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46712

Posted by: DemolitionCrew Feb 26 2007, 04:22 PM

Alex said archive.org is a credible source for original footage.

We need to find the file with original footage!!!!!!

Of course whoever originally found it doctored it to show they were lying, which is perfectly fine. The original footage however is EVIDENCE!!!!

Posted by: bill Feb 26 2007, 04:26 PM

I can still watch it

anyone know how to download it ?

the download doesn't seem to work now



:DAMN:

Posted by: dnd Feb 26 2007, 04:31 PM

Google is hard at work keeping this one down. Went to keepvid.com earlier which did give me links to the AVI, Flash, and MP4 version, however all the links were dead. Now no links show up.

When you do a search on google video it still comes up, but lets see how long that'll last.

Posted by: Truthseekers Feb 26 2007, 04:31 PM

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1471985581749234824&q=9%2F11

looks different to the one originally posted, but basically it is still available

Posted by: Carl Bank Feb 26 2007, 04:32 PM

QUOTE (bill @ Feb 26 2007, 08:26 PM)
I can still watch it

anyone know how to download it ?

the download doesn't seem to work now



:DAMN:

Click here:
http://vp.video.google.com/videodownload?version=0&secureurl=ugAAAPYvax7GA6IELGqmcf-sCgubjVHdzS3Imc-1Hmvx6hoFTtLQZu_YQQ_GRHKjkHz7U15XOd-7xFB-xLTOiP3JoJu2NkQPi9wwCrsUGfqstHuJxVoeHDuZ_y_VHhO63K8wjCfw-mkXu4mmYu1lszeps_RrTcgOp0olcXJff-voklMWFmMJ0UHRd21t2v2Sr0n2kfU0WbL-kSJkeU3VsU0PAvAKduKzqlkDm_-Jg-rapLn7rML9OZ0fbVu41KdrNKjwsg&sigh=AT8rBGwb_c7Q_w92cbDAVfbp_lM&begin=0&len=1543240&docid=1471985581749234824

Carl

Posted by: bill Feb 26 2007, 04:51 PM

you are a good man Carl

salute.gif

Posted by: Carl Bank Feb 26 2007, 04:57 PM

QUOTE (bill @ Feb 26 2007, 08:51 PM)
you are a good man Carl

salute.gif

Do me a favour and tell this
to Tania, Renata, Isabelle,
Cladia, Angelique and (most important) to Xiao Lan.

Don Carlos

Posted by: Truthseekers Feb 26 2007, 05:08 PM

QUOTE (painter @ Feb 26 2007, 05:34 PM)
QUOTE (bill @ Feb 26 2007, 09:28 AM)
They can easily project background footage from any time much the way they project the weatherman broadcasts using a monochromatic blue screen and two separate cameras

that said there are usually artifacts that show up when using this technique

but if the times are accurate it would be a huge problem

OR -- they can CLAIM that the background was blue-screened.

Point being, as interesting as all this is, it may not "prove" anything. It needs to be checked.

I am aware of screen problems with the BBC which occur many times, still even today, where the text goes off screen to the right. The box of text to the top left should in fact be to the top left in the corner, not where it is in the video.

BBC speak about it here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/01/fine_tuning.html

Ultimately means the clock, which is normally at the bottom right corner is off screen. BBC World news often goes boobs up. wink.gif

I have written an e-mail to the BBC regarding the video. I very much doubt they will reply, being the chickens they are.... but you never know.

Posted by: André Feb 26 2007, 05:13 PM

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/260207building7.htm

Posted by: UnderTow Feb 26 2007, 05:17 PM

Give me a break. It was NOT blue screened. You can SEE the window quite clearly. You can see the Sun shining on everything including the reporter.

The only possible excuse (as very quickly propped up by those so inclined) was the 'honest mistake' bait.

The universe alignment that occured on 9.11 for all these mistakes and luck to occur is simple beyond belief. And really requires a very closed mind.

Posted by: UnderTow Feb 26 2007, 05:20 PM

Link for HaloScan Comments on PP article.

http://www.haloscan.com/comments/sonof101/260207wtc/

Posted by: Akula Feb 26 2007, 05:25 PM

QUOTE (UnderTow @ Feb 26 2007, 04:17 PM)
Give me a break. It was NOT blue screened. You can SEE the window quite clearly. You can see the Sun shining on everything including the reporter.

The only possible excuse (as very quickly propped up by those so inclined) was the 'honest mistake' bait.

The universe alignment that occured on 9.11 for all these mistakes and luck to occur is simple beyond belief. And really requires a very closed mind.

Yeah they just happened to predict the future that to this day has not been fully explained.

It would be like watching a boxing match where one of the boxers is a HUGE underdog. If you see a TV announcer announce a knockout by the underdog while the fight is still going on.......then it happens five minutes later, you may be inclined to think the fix is in.

Of course that is apples and oranges because the BBC just happened to predict the unimaginable......and then it came true....

Posted by: André Feb 26 2007, 05:34 PM

This might seem to be too obvious and so must be a hoax, but remember this is not a real ''reporter'' she is somebody reading a script, so the error is quite possible. It could be this clip was buried long ago, but somebody at BBC decided to make it public...


If you had any real reporters that day or the day after, you can be sure the truth would be out a long time ago.

Posted by: CrazyBlade Feb 26 2007, 05:40 PM

blink.gif

I can't believe. I'm sat in shock. I wanna run out in the street shouting "WHAT MORE IS THERE TO ****ING PROVE???".

Makes me wonder - the BBC run a hit piece last week, and my feeling is they were forced into a corner. Then this comes out. Of course, its brinkmanship, probably the BBC saying, "don't ever force us into a corner again, or we'll make you look so bad..."

I'm still shaking my head in disbelief.

Posted by: Graham Feb 26 2007, 06:06 PM

haven't got the original file yet.

what do they say when it does actually collapse?

Posted by: Akula Feb 26 2007, 06:15 PM

QUOTE (Graham @ Feb 26 2007, 05:06 PM)
haven't got the original file yet.

what do they say when it does actually collapse?

They don't say nothing. The feed to the reporter in NY gets cut 5 mins before real collapse time.....

Posted by: DemolitionCrew Feb 26 2007, 06:17 PM

Guys this is the hottest thing on the Internet right now. The fact that Google scrambled to take it down says it all!

It is absoulutely the most damning evidence to date!

This combined with the rest of the mountain of evidence is a reverse slam dunk for the Truth movement!

The arrogant fucks had the nerve to put out a press release and weren't smooth enough to send it AFTER they PULLED the building!

[laugh] IDIOTS

Posted by: CrazyBlade Feb 26 2007, 06:17 PM

QUOTE (Graham @ Feb 26 2007, 10:06 PM)
haven't got the original file yet.

what do they say when it does actually collapse?

The wierd thing is they don't show the collapse. The reporter seems to be commenting on the building collapsing, even though its standing in full view right behind her head!!

blink.gif

I still don't know what to make of it... shocking.

Posted by: DemolitionCrew Feb 26 2007, 06:20 PM

QUOTE (CrazyBlade @ Feb 26 2007, 05:17 PM)
QUOTE (Graham @ Feb 26 2007, 10:06 PM)
haven't got the original file yet.

what do they say when it does actually collapse?

The wierd thing is they don't show the collapse. The reporter seems to be commenting on the building collapsing, even though its standing in full view right behind her head!!

blink.gif

I still don't know what to make of it... shocking.

Crazy that's just it...

The morons sent a press release out detailing the fact that the building collapsed. The BBC accidently reported it only because they probably weren't familiar with exactly what building that is. It was a pure accident to report it, especially with that camera view.

I am so happy.... rolleyes.gif

Posted by: CrazyBlade Feb 26 2007, 06:20 PM

QUOTE (DemolitionCrew @ Feb 26 2007, 10:17 PM)
Guys this is the hottest thing on the Internet right now. The fact that Google scrambled to take it down says it all!

Everybody's got copies though, right? With sources noted...

They'll try and cover their arses, and I'm sure certain government apologist sites will move out in force to try and cover this up. Be vigilant.

salute.gif

Posted by: DemolitionCrew Feb 26 2007, 06:27 PM

There are countless copies out there. Everyone in a panic went to download it (starting this morning) because of the gravity of the evidence.

salute.gif

Posted by: CrazyBlade Feb 26 2007, 06:29 PM

QUOTE (DemolitionCrew @ Feb 26 2007, 10:27 PM)
There are countless copies out there. Everyone in a panic went to download it (starting this morning) because of the gravity of the evidence.

salute.gif

Fan - bleeding - tastic!!

salute.gif

Posted by: Carl Bank Feb 26 2007, 06:42 PM

Can someone please contact Gideon?!

Gideon has got a huge storage of original footage of that day.
He got almost everything, and I really wonder, why this is discovered so lately.
In adddition to that, I want to know who uploaded this to google and I also
ask myselve, why noone found this before.

It smells like some kind of trap. It is too obviouse.

Someone here who remember the Zbginiew Brzinski thread?
Where Zbiggy told the senat to calm down and steady on the Iran-attacing-idea?

Is is possible that "They" want to pull the Cheney-Bush-Neocon-Junta now,
because they didn't serve as puppets as the masters wanted them to do, but
instead overacted for private profits (Carlyle/Halliburton e.g.) instead of focussing
on the 'Big Plan'?

sigh: Carl

Posted by: painter Feb 26 2007, 06:48 PM

QUOTE (Carl Bank @ Feb 26 2007, 02:42 PM)
Can someone please contact Gideon?!

Gideon has got a huge storage of original footage of that day.
He got almost everything, and I really wonder, why this is discovered so lately.
In adddition to that, I want to know who uploaded this to google and I also
ask myselve, why noone found this before.

It smells like some kind of trap. It is too obviouse.

Someone here who remember the Zbginiew Brzinski thread?
Where Zbiggy told the senat to calm down and steady on the Iran-attacing-idea?

Is is possible that "They" want to pull the Cheney-Bush-Neocon-Junta now,
because they didn't serve as puppets as the masters wanted them to do, but
instead overacted for private profits (Carlyle/Halliburton e.g.) instead of focussing
on the 'Big Plan'?

sigh: Carl

Carl, you and I think alike.

It smells like a trap to me, too. Too easy. Too sudden. Unknown origin. Not seen before.

Not saying it is or isn't, I've just learned to be very wary of things that show up out of the blue like this.

Posted by: CrazyBlade Feb 26 2007, 06:52 PM

Interesting points CB / Painter.

Does anyone actually have confirmation of how this was obtained?

I wanna believe this is genuine, cos if it is then it's one huge rocket up the ass of the perpetrators, but we must be cautious.

Calming down: The other CB tongue.gif

Posted by: johndoeX Feb 26 2007, 07:15 PM

Im waiting to see a statement from the BBC.

Posted by: Graham Feb 26 2007, 07:38 PM

just working through the source.

on a side note: pentagon witness... "it kinda hit short, and sprayed up against the side"

really? blink.gif that a version I haven't heard. laugh.gif

Sen John Warner. "This is a New Pearl Harbour".

They don't actually mention it on that suroce file. which mean downloading then next one. which is causing me greif.

so they don't mention it until at least 17.36. and how much ?

go nuts.

http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=collection%3Asept_11_tv_archive&sort=-publicdate
Massive 9/11 TV archive. Keep in mind these are 41 minute 1 gig MPEG-2's.
There is also September 10th news coverage there. This is everything there
from during or after the attacks.

NBC4 Washington
http://ia331302.us.archive.org/3/items/nbc200109110831-0912/V08546-02.mpg
http://ia331326.us.archive.org/2/items/nbc200109110912-0954/V08546-06.mpg
http://ia331321.us.archive.org/1/items/nbc200109110954-1036/V08546-10.mpg
http://ia311517.us.archive.org/1/items/nbc200109111036-1117/V08546-14.mpg
http://ia331315.us.archive.org/0/items/nbc200109111159-1241/V08546-22.mpg
http://ia311502.us.archive.org/3/items/nbc200109111241-1322/V08546-26.mpg
http://ia331337.us.archive.org/1/items/nbc200109111323-1404/V08546-30.mpg
http://ia331309.us.archive.org/3/items/nbc200109111404-1446/V08553-02.mpg
http://ia331329.us.archive.org/1/items/nbc200109111446-1528/V08553-06.mpg
http://ia301337.us.archive.org/2/items/nbc200109111528-1609/V08553-10.mpg
http://ia331310.us.archive.org/1/items/nbc200109111651-1733/V08553-18.mpg
http://ia331332.us.archive.org/0/items/nbc200109111733-1814/V08553-22.mpg
http://ia331305.us.archive.org/0/items/nbc200109111814-1856/V08553-26.mpg
http://ia331314.us.archive.org/3/items/nbc200109111856-1938/V08553-30.mpg
http://ia331320.us.archive.org/0/items/nbc200109111919-2000/V08543-22.mpg
http://ia331332.us.archive.org/1/items/nbc200109111938-2019/V08576-02.mpg
http://ia331324.us.archive.org/1/items/nbc200109112000-2041/V08546-18.mpg
http://ia331315.us.archive.org/1/items/nbc200109112019-2101/V08576-06.mpg
http://ia331317.us.archive.org/3/items/nbc200109112101-2143/V08576-10.mpg
http://ia331328.us.archive.org/1/items/nbc200109112143-2224/V08576-14.mpg
http://ia331342.us.archive.org/1/items/nbc200109112224-2306/V08576-18.mpg
http://ia331343.us.archive.org/1/items/nbc200109112306-2348/V08576-22.mpg
http://ia331310.us.archive.org/1/items/nbc200109112348-0030/V08576-26.mpg
http://ia331308.us.archive.org/1/items/nbc200109120324-0405/V08576-30.mpg
http://ia331319.us.archive.org/2/items/nbc200109120939-1021/V08572-02.mpg
http://ia331310.us.archive.org/3/items/nbc200109121021-1102/V08572-06.mpg
http://ia331315.us.archive.org/0/items/nbc200109121102-1144/V08572-10.mpg
http://ia331337.us.archive.org/1/items/nbc200109121144-1226/V08572-14.mpg
http://ia331318.us.archive.org/3/items/nbc200109121226-1307/V08572-18.mpg
http://ia331343.us.archive.org/3/items/nbc200109121307-1349/V08572-22.mpg
http://ia311503.us.archive.org/1/items/nbc200109121349-1431/V08572-26.mpg
http://ia311537.us.archive.org/1/items/nbc200109121431-1512/V08572-30.mpg
http://ia331304.us.archive.org/1/items/nbc200109121512-1554/V08574-02.mpg
http://ia331305.us.archive.org/3/items/nbc200109121554-1636/V08574-06.mpg
http://ia331320.us.archive.org/1/items/nbc200109121636-1717/V08574-10.mpg
http://ia331335.us.archive.org/0/items/nbc200109121717-1759/V08574-14.mpg
http://ia331328.us.archive.org/3/items/nbc200109121759-1841/V08574-18.mpg
http://ia331331.us.archive.org/1/items/nbc200109121841-1922/V08574-22.mpg
http://ia331309.us.archive.org/0/items/nbc200109121923-2004/V08574-26.mpg
http://ia331305.us.archive.org/2/items/nbc200109122004-2046/V08574-30.mpg
http://ia331303.us.archive.org/0/items/nbc200109122046-2128/V08554-02.mpg
http://ia301327.us.archive.org/2/items/nbc200109122128-2209/V08554-06.mpg
http://ia311517.us.archive.org/2/items/nbc200109122209-2251/V08554-10.mpg
http://ia331329.us.archive.org/2/items/nbc200109122251-2333/V08554-14.mpg
http://ia311517.us.archive.org/3/items/nbc200109122333-0014/V08554-18.mpg
http://ia331335.us.archive.org/3/items/nbc200109130014-0056/V08554-22.mpg
http://ia331329.us.archive.org/3/items/nbc200109130056-0138/V08554-26.mpg
http://ia331338.us.archive.org/2/items/nbc200109130138-0219/V08554-30.mpg
http://ia331311.us.archive.org/0/items/nbc200109130753-0835/V08607-02.mpg
http://ia331339.us.archive.org/3/items/nbc200109130835-0916/V08607-06.mpg
http://ia331311.us.archive.org/1/items/nbc200109130916-0958/V08607-10.mpg
http://ia331311.us.archive.org/1/items/nbc200109130958-1040/V08607-14.mpg
http://ia331335.us.archive.org/2/items/nbc200109131032-1113/V08607-18.mpg
http://ia331311.us.archive.org/2/items/nbc200109131121-1203/V08607-22.mpg
http://ia331315.us.archive.org/3/items/nbc200109131203-1245/V08607-26.mpg
http://ia331321.us.archive.org/1/items/nbc200109131245-1326/V08607-30.mpg
http://ia331340.us.archive.org/1/items/nbc200109131326-1408/V08597-02.mpg
http://ia311514.us.archive.org/0/items/nbc200109131450-1532/V08597-10.mpg
http://ia331320.us.archive.org/1/items/nbc200109131532-1613/V08597-14.mpg
http://ia331341.us.archive.org/3/items/nbc200109131613-1655/V08597-18.mpg
http://ia311543.us.archive.org/2/items/nbc200109131655-1737/V08597-22.mpg
http://ia331321.us.archive.org/0/items/nbc200109131737-1818/V08597-26.mpg
http://ia311506.us.archive.org/0/items/nbc200109131818-1900/V08597-30.mpg
http://ia331340.us.archive.org/3/items/nbc200109131900-1942/V08603-02.mpg
http://ia331338.us.archive.org/3/items/nbc200109131942-2023/V08603-06.mpg

ABC7 Washington

http://ia331343.us.archive.org/1/items/abc200109110831-0912/V08546-05.mpg
http://ia311516.us.archive.org/2/items/abc200109110912-0954/V08546-09.mpg
http://ia331319.us.archive.org/2/items/abc200109110954-1036/V08546-13.mpg
http://ia331312.us.archive.org/2/items/abc200109111036-1118/V08546-17.mpg
http://ia331320.us.archive.org/0/items/abc200109111118-1159/V08546-21.mpg
http://ia331328.us.archive.org/3/items/abc200109111159-1241/V08546-25.mpg
http://ia311502.us.archive.org/2/items/abc200109111241-1323/V08546-29.mpg
http://ia331308.us.archive.org/1/items/abc200109111323-1404/V08553-01.mpg
http://ia311503.us.archive.org/1/items/abc200109111404-1446/V08553-05.mpg
http://ia331306.us.archive.org/1/items/abc200109111446-1528/V08553-09.mpg
http://ia311507.us.archive.org/3/items/abc200109111528-1609/V08553-13.mpg
http://ia331335.us.archive.org/0/items/abc200109111609-1651/V08553-17.mpg
http://ia311502.us.archive.org/0/items/abc200109111733-1814/V08553-25.mpg
http://ia331312.us.archive.org/2/items/abc200109111814-1856/V08553-29.mpg
http://ia331331.us.archive.org/2/items/abc200109111856-1938/V08576-01.mpg
http://ia331311.us.archive.org/1/items/abc200109111919-2000/V08543-25.mpg
http://ia331334.us.archive.org/1/items/abc200109111938-2020/V08576-05.mpg
http://ia311515.us.archive.org/2/items/abc200109112020-2101/V08576-09.mpg
http://ia331326.us.archive.org/1/items/abc200109112101-2143/V08576-13.mpg
http://ia311502.us.archive.org/3/items/abc200109112143-2225/V08576-17.mpg
http://ia331339.us.archive.org/1/items/abc200109112225-2306/V08576-21.mpg
http://ia311516.us.archive.org/0/items/abc200109112306-2348/V08576-25.mpg
http://ia331320.us.archive.org/1/items/abc200109112348-0030/V08576-29.mpg
http://ia331324.us.archive.org/3/items/abc200109120857-0939/V08572-01.mpg
http://ia331333.us.archive.org/1/items/abc200109120939-1021/V08572-05.mpg
http://ia331340.us.archive.org/3/items/abc200109121021-1102/V08572-09.mpg
http://ia331309.us.archive.org/1/items/abc200109121102-1144/V08572-13.mpg
http://ia331320.us.archive.org/2/items/abc200109121144-1226/V08572-17.mpg
http://ia331312.us.archive.org/0/items/abc200109121226-1307/V08572-21.mpg
http://ia331326.us.archive.org/2/items/abc200109121307-1349/V08572-25.mpg
http://ia301315.us.archive.org/2/items/abc200109121349-1431/V08572-29.mpg
http://ia331331.us.archive.org/3/items/abc200109121431-1512/V08574-01.mpg
http://ia331309.us.archive.org/2/items/abc200109121512-1554/V08574-05.mpg
http://ia331326.us.archive.org/3/items/abc200109121554-1636/V08574-09.mpg
http://ia331307.us.archive.org/2/items/abc200109121636-1718/V08574-13.mpg
http://ia331311.us.archive.org/3/items/abc200109121718-1759/V08574-17.mpg
http://ia331326.us.archive.org/1/items/abc200109121759-1841/V08574-21.mpg
http://ia301336.us.archive.org/2/items/abc200109121841-1923/V08574-25.mpg
http://ia331304.us.archive.org/3/items/abc200109121923-2004/V08574-29.mpg
http://ia331307.us.archive.org/2/items/abc200109122004-2046/V08554-01.mpg
http://ia331326.us.archive.org/3/items/abc200109122046-2128/V08554-05.mpg
http://ia311515.us.archive.org/0/items/abc200109122128-2209/V08554-09.mpg
http://ia331313.us.archive.org/3/items/abc200109122209-2251/V08554-13.mpg
http://ia331326.us.archive.org/2/items/abc200109122251-2333/V08554-17.mpg
http://ia331330.us.archive.org/1/items/abc200109122333-0014/V08554-21.mpg
http://ia331310.us.archive.org/1/items/abc200109130014-0056/V08554-25.mpg
http://ia331306.us.archive.org/3/items/abc200109130056-0138/V08554-29.mpg
http://ia331304.us.archive.org/3/items/abc200109130711-0753/V08607-01.mpg
http://ia331329.us.archive.org/2/items/abc200109130753-0835/V08607-05.mpg
http://ia331311.us.archive.org/2/items/abc200109130835-0916/V08607-09.mpg
http://ia331327.us.archive.org/2/items/abc200109130916-0958/V08607-13.mpg
http://ia331314.us.archive.org/3/items/abc200109130958-1040/V08607-17.mpg
http://ia331333.us.archive.org/3/items/abc200109131040-1122/V08607-21.mpg
http://ia331314.us.archive.org/1/items/abc200109131122-1203/V08607-25.mpg
http://ia331328.us.archive.org/3/items/abc200109131203-1245/V08607-29.mpg
http://ia311517.us.archive.org/2/items/abc200109131245-1327/V08597-01.mpg
http://ia331313.us.archive.org/1/items/abc200109131327-1408/V08597-05.mpg
http://ia331308.us.archive.org/1/items/abc200109131408-1450/V08597-09.mpg
http://ia331315.us.archive.org/3/items/abc200109131450-1532/V08597-13.mpg
http://ia331318.us.archive.org/0/items/abc200109131613-1655/V08597-21.mpg
http://ia311519.us.archive.org/1/items/abc200109131655-1737/V08597-25.mpg
http://ia331328.us.archive.org/3/items/abc200109131818-1900/V08603-01.mpg
http://ia331335.us.archive.org/2/items/abc200109131900-1942/V08603-05.mpg
http://ia331335.us.archive.org/3/items/abc200109131942-2023/V08603-09.mpg
http://ia331308.us.archive.org/0/items/abc200109132023-2105/V08603-13.mpg
http://ia331307.us.archive.org/3/items/abc200109132105-2147/V08603-17.mpg
http://ia331338.us.archive.org/2/items/abc200109132147-2229/V08603-21.mpg

BBC

http://ia331332.us.archive.org/3/items/bbc200109110916-0957/V08515-04.mpg
http://ia331327.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109110957-1039/V08515-08.mpg
http://ia311534.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109111039-1121/V08515-12.mpg
http://ia331319.us.archive.org/0/items/bbc200109111121-1202/V08515-16.mpg
http://ia331308.us.archive.org/0/items/bbc200109111202-1244/V08515-20.mpg
http://ia331332.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109111244-1326/V08515-24.mpg
http://ia331329.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109111326-1408/V08515-28.mpg
http://ia311517.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109111408-1449/V08515-32.mpg
http://ia331340.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109111449-1531/V08591-04.mpg
http://ia301330.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109111531-1613/V08591-08.mpg
http://ia331327.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109111613-1654/V08591-12.mpg
http://ia311517.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109111654-1736/V08591-16.mpg
http://ia331317.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109111736-1818/V08591-20.mpg
http://ia331338.us.archive.org/3/items/bbc200109111818-1859/V08591-24.mpg
http://ia311503.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109111859-1941/V08591-28.mpg
http://ia311503.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109111941-2023/V08591-32.mpg
http://ia331304.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109112023-2104/V08590-04.mpg
http://ia331339.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109112104-2146/V08590-08.mpg
http://ia311535.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109112146-2228/V08590-12.mpg
http://ia331333.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109112228-2309/V08590-16.mpg
http://ia331329.us.archive.org/3/items/bbc200109112310-2351/V08590-20.mpg
http://ia331316.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109112351-0033/V08590-24.mpg
http://ia331331.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109120033-0115/V08590-28.mpg
http://ia331312.us.archive.org/0/items/bbc200109120115-0156/V08590-32.mpg
http://ia331314.us.archive.org/3/items/bbc200109120156-0238/V08565-04.mpg
http://ia331341.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109120238-0320/V08565-08.mpg
http://ia331314.us.archive.org/3/items/bbc200109120320-0401/V08565-12.mpg
http://ia331302.us.archive.org/0/items/bbc200109120401-0443/V08565-16.mpg
http://ia331317.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109120443-0525/V08565-20.mpg
http://ia301327.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109120525-0606/V08565-24.mpg
http://ia301336.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109120606-0648/V08565-28.mpg
http://ia301331.us.archive.org/3/items/bbc200109120648-0730/V08565-32.mpg
http://ia301319.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109120730-0811/V08564-04.mpg
http://ia311514.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109120811-0853/V08564-08.mpg
http://ia331340.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109120853-0935/V08564-12.mpg
http://ia311537.us.archive.org/3/items/bbc200109120935-1017/V08564-16.mpg
http://ia311507.us.archive.org/0/items/bbc200109121017-1058/V08564-20.mpg
http://ia331304.us.archive.org/0/items/bbc200109121058-1140/V08564-24.mpg
http://ia331303.us.archive.org/3/items/bbc200109121140-1222/V08564-28.mpg
http://ia311511.us.archive.org/3/items/bbc200109121222-1303/V08564-32.mpg
http://ia331307.us.archive.org/3/items/bbc200109121303-1345/V08563-04.mpg
http://ia301327.us.archive.org/3/items/bbc200109121345-1427/V08563-08.mpg
http://ia331306.us.archive.org/0/items/bbc200109121427-1508/V08563-12.mpg
http://ia331324.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109121508-1550/V08563-16.mpg
http://ia331325.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109121550-1632/V08563-20.mpg
http://ia311543.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109121632-1713/V08563-24.mpg
http://ia301325.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109121713-1755/V08563-28.mpg
http://ia331307.us.archive.org/3/items/bbc200109121755-1837/V08563-32.mpg
http://ia331340.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109121837-1919/V08568-04.mpg
http://ia331310.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109121919-2000/V08568-08.mpg
http://ia331310.us.archive.org/3/items/bbc200109122000-2042/V08568-12.mpg
http://ia331318.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109122042-2124/V08568-16.mpg
http://ia331328.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109122124-2205/V08568-20.mpg
http://ia331310.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109122205-2247/V08568-24.mpg
http://ia331330.us.archive.org/3/items/bbc200109122247-2329/V08568-28.mpg
http://ia331303.us.archive.org/0/items/bbc200109122329-0010/V08568-32.mpg
http://ia331318.us.archive.org/0/items/bbc200109130010-0052/V08567-04.mpg
http://ia331312.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109130052-0134/V08567-08.mpg
http://ia331341.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109130134-0215/V08567-12.mpg
http://ia331314.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109130215-0257/V08567-16.mpg
http://ia331303.us.archive.org/3/items/bbc200109130257-0339/V08567-20.mpg
http://ia331318.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109130339-0421/V08567-24.mpg
http://ia331311.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109130421-0502/V08567-28.mpg
http://ia331304.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109130502-0544/V08567-32.mpg
http://ia301326.us.archive.org/3/items/bbc200109130544-0626/V08566-04.mpg
http://ia331316.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109130626-0707/V08566-08.mpg
http://ia331326.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109130707-0749/V08566-12.mpg
http://ia301327.us.archive.org/3/items/bbc200109130749-0831/V08566-16.mpg
http://ia311516.us.archive.org/0/items/bbc200109130831-0912/V08566-20.mpg
http://ia331306.us.archive.org/0/items/bbc200109130912-0954/V08566-24.mpg
http://ia331309.us.archive.org/0/items/bbc200109130954-1036/V08566-28.mpg
http://ia331313.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109131036-1117/V08566-32.mpg
http://ia311516.us.archive.org/3/items/bbc200109131117-1159/V08571-04.mpg
http://ia331312.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109131322-1404/V08571-16.mpg
http://ia331337.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109131446-1528/V08571-24.mpg
http://ia331313.us.archive.org/3/items/bbc200109131528-1609/V08571-28.mpg
http://ia311517.us.archive.org/0/items/bbc200109131609-1651/V08571-32.mpg
http://ia331339.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109131651-1733/V08570-04.mpg
http://ia331338.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109131733-1814/V08570-08.mpg
http://ia331333.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109131814-1856/V08570-12.mpg
http://ia331312.us.archive.org/0/items/bbc200109131856-1938/V08570-16.mpg
http://ia301336.us.archive.org/3/items/bbc200109131938-2019/V08570-20.mpg

FOX5 Washington

http://ia331336.us.archive.org/3/items/fox5200109110831-0912/V08546-04.mpg
http://ia311541.us.archive.org/2/items/fox5200109110912-0954/V08546-08.mpg
http://ia331338.us.archive.org/1/items/fox5200109110954-1036/V08546-12.mpg
http://ia331303.us.archive.org/3/items/fox5200109111036-1117/V08546-16.mpg
http://ia331303.us.archive.org/1/items/fox5200109111117-1159/V08546-20.mpg
http://ia331309.us.archive.org/3/items/fox5200109111159-1241/V08546-24.mpg
http://ia331313.us.archive.org/0/items/fox5200109111241-1323/V08546-28.mpg
http://ia311535.us.archive.org/0/items/fox5200109111323-1404/V08546-32.mpg
http://ia331332.us.archive.org/0/items/fox5200109111404-1446/V08553-04.mpg
http://ia331324.us.archive.org/1/items/fox5200109111609-1651/V08553-16.mpg
http://ia301330.us.archive.org/3/items/fox5200109111651-1733/V08553-20.mpg
http://ia331327.us.archive.org/0/items/fox5200109111733-1814/V08553-24.mpg
http://ia331328.us.archive.org/3/items/fox5200109111814-1856/V08553-28.mpg
http://ia331325.us.archive.org/2/items/fox5200109111919-2000/V08543-24.mpg
http://ia331342.us.archive.org/1/items/fox5200109111938-2019/V08576-04.mpg
http://ia331317.us.archive.org/3/items/fox5200109112019-2101/V08576-08.mpg
http://ia331337.us.archive.org/3/items/fox5200109112101-2143/V08576-12.mpg
http://ia331306.us.archive.org/3/items/fox5200109112143-2225/V08576-16.mpg
http://ia331324.us.archive.org/3/items/fox5200109112225-2306/V08576-20.mpg
http://ia331326.us.archive.org/1/items/fox5200109112306-2348/V08576-24.mpg
http://ia331339.us.archive.org/2/items/fox5200109112348-0030/V08576-28.mpg
http://ia331303.us.archive.org/0/items/fox5200109120324-0405/V08576-32.mpg
http://ia331318.us.archive.org/2/items/fox5200109120939-1021/V08572-04.mpg
http://ia331318.us.archive.org/0/items/fox5200109121021-1102/V08572-08.mpg
http://ia311515.us.archive.org/2/items/fox5200109121102-1144/V08572-12.mpg
http://ia331327.us.archive.org/2/items/fox5200109121144-1226/V08572-16.mpg
http://ia331339.us.archive.org/1/items/fox5200109121226-1307/V08572-20.mpg
http://ia331320.us.archive.org/1/items/fox5200109121307-1349/V08572-24.mpg
http://ia301315.us.archive.org/2/items/fox5200109121349-1431/V08572-28.mpg
http://ia331314.us.archive.org/2/items/fox5200109121431-1512/V08572-32.mpg
http://ia331311.us.archive.org/1/items/fox5200109121512-1554/V08574-04.mpg
http://ia331339.us.archive.org/3/items/fox5200109121554-1636/V08574-08.mpg
http://ia331319.us.archive.org/3/items/fox5200109121636-1717/V08574-12.mpg
http://ia301336.us.archive.org/2/items/fox5200109121718-1759/V08574-16.mpg
http://ia311515.us.archive.org/1/items/fox5200109121759-1841/V08574-20.mpg
http://ia331324.us.archive.org/0/items/fox5200109121841-1923/V08574-24.mpg
http://ia331305.us.archive.org/1/items/fox5200109121923-2004/V08574-28.mpg
http://ia331305.us.archive.org/2/items/fox5200109122004-2046/V08574-32.mpg
http://ia331316.us.archive.org/3/items/fox5200109122046-2128/V08554-04.mpg
http://ia311503.us.archive.org/3/items/fox5200109122128-2209/V08554-08.mpg
http://ia331306.us.archive.org/2/items/fox5200109122209-2251/V08554-12.mpg
http://ia331341.us.archive.org/3/items/fox5200109122251-2333/V08554-16.mpg
http://ia331338.us.archive.org/1/items/fox5200109122333-0014/V08554-20.mpg
http://ia331317.us.archive.org/0/items/fox5200109130014-0056/V08554-24.mpg
http://ia311517.us.archive.org/2/items/fox5200109130056-0138/V08554-28.mpg
http://ia331328.us.archive.org/3/items/fox5200109130138-0219/V08554-32.mpg
http://ia331340.us.archive.org/2/items/fox5200109130753-0835/V08607-04.mpg
http://ia331327.us.archive.org/1/items/fox5200109130835-0916/V08607-08.mpg
http://ia331334.us.archive.org/0/items/fox5200109130916-0958/V08607-12.mpg
http://ia331324.us.archive.org/3/items/fox5200109130958-1040/V08607-16.mpg
http://ia331328.us.archive.org/2/items/fox5200109131040-1121/V08607-20.mpg
http://ia331341.us.archive.org/2/items/fox5200109131121-1203/V08607-24.mpg
http://ia331319.us.archive.org/3/items/fox5200109131203-1245/V08607-28.mpg
http://ia331316.us.archive.org/2/items/fox5200109131245-1327/V08607-32.mpg
http://ia331316.us.archive.org/3/items/fox5200109131408-1450/V08597-08.mpg
http://ia331326.us.archive.org/2/items/fox5200109131450-1532/V08597-12.mpg
http://ia311527.us.archive.org/2/items/fox5200109131532-1613/V08597-16.mpg
http://ia331325.us.archive.org/1/items/fox5200109131655-1737/V08597-24.mpg
http://ia311503.us.archive.org/1/items/fox5200109131737-1818/V08597-28.mpg
http://ia311503.us.archive.org/3/items/fox5200109131818-1900/V08597-32.mpg
http://ia301337.us.archive.org/1/items/fox5200109131900-1942/V08603-04.mpg
http://ia331307.us.archive.org/3/items/fox5200109131942-2023/V08603-08.mpg

CNN

http://ia331324.us.archive.org/1/items/cnn200109110848-0929/V08527-04.mpg
http://ia311515.us.archive.org/0/items/cnn200109110929-1011/V08527-08.mpg
http://ia301308.us.archive.org/2/items/cnn200109111011-1053/V08527-12.mpg
http://ia331316.us.archive.org/0/items/cnn200109111053-1134/V08527-16.mpg
http://ia331339.us.archive.org/1/items/cnn200109111134-1216/V08527-20.mpg
http://ia311517.us.archive.org/1/items/cnn200109111216-1258/V08527-24.mpg
http://ia331303.us.archive.org/1/items/cnn200109111258-1339/V08527-28.mpg
http://ia331326.us.archive.org/0/items/cnn200109111339-1421/V08527-32.mpg
http://ia301327.us.archive.org/2/items/cnn200109111421-1503/V08537-04.mpg
http://ia311509.us.archive.org/3/items/cnn200109111503-1545/V08537-08.mpg
http://ia311543.us.archive.org/1/items/cnn200109111545-1626/V08537-12.mpg
http://ia331302.us.archive.org/2/items/cnn200109111626-1708/V08537-16.mpg
http://ia311509.us.archive.org/1/items/cnn200109111708-1750/V08537-20.mpg
http://ia331321.us.archive.org/3/items/cnn200109111750-1831/V08537-24.mpg
http://ia331309.us.archive.org/0/items/cnn200109111831-1913/V08537-28.mpg
http://ia331303.us.archive.org/3/items/cnn200109111913-1955/V08537-32.mpg
http://ia301327.us.archive.org/3/items/cnn200109111936-2017/V08524-24.mpg
http://ia331318.us.archive.org/2/items/cnn200109111955-2036/V08581-04.mpg
http://ia331334.us.archive.org/1/items/cnn200109112036-2118/V08581-08.mpg
http://ia331315.us.archive.org/3/items/cnn200109112118-2200/V08581-12.mpg
http://ia331332.us.archive.org/1/items/cnn200109112200-2241/V08581-16.mpg
http://ia301337.us.archive.org/3/items/cnn200109112241-2323/V08581-20.mpg
http://ia331335.us.archive.org/1/items/cnn200109112323-0005/V08581-24.mpg
http://ia331303.us.archive.org/0/items/cnn200109120005-0047/V08581-28.mpg
http://ia331340.us.archive.org/2/items/cnn200109120047-0128/V08581-32.mpg
http://ia331316.us.archive.org/1/items/cnn200109120128-0210/V08582-04.mpg
http://ia331306.us.archive.org/3/items/cnn200109120210-0252/V08582-08.mpg
http://ia311517.us.archive.org/3/items/cnn200109120252-0333/V08582-12.mpg
http://ia311514.us.archive.org/0/items/cnn200109120333-0415/V08582-16.mpg
http://ia331306.us.archive.org/0/items/cnn200109120415-0457/V08582-20.mpg
http://ia331303.us.archive.org/1/items/cnn200109120457-0538/V08582-24.mpg
http://ia331303.us.archive.org/1/items/cnn200109120538-0620/V08582-28.mpg
http://ia331317.us.archive.org/3/items/cnn200109120620-0702/V08582-32.mpg
http://ia331340.us.archive.org/3/items/cnn200109121235-1317/V08583-04.mpg
http://ia331307.us.archive.org/0/items/cnn200109121317-1359/V08583-08.mpg
http://ia331332.us.archive.org/2/items/cnn200109121359-1440/V08583-12.mpg
http://ia331312.us.archive.org/0/items/cnn200109121440-1522/V08583-16.mpg
http://ia331335.us.archive.org/1/items/cnn200109121522-1604/V08583-20.mpg
http://ia331306.us.archive.org/0/items/cnn200109121604-1645/V08583-24.mpg
http://ia331317.us.archive.org/1/items/cnn200109121645-1727/V08583-28.mpg
http://ia331339.us.archive.org/0/items/cnn200109121727-1809/V08583-32.mpg
http://ia331314.us.archive.org/2/items/cnn200109121851-1932/V08585-08.mpg
http://ia301326.us.archive.org/3/items/cnn200109121932-2014/V08585-12.mpg
http://ia331341.us.archive.org/2/items/cnn200109122014-2056/V08585-16.mpg
http://ia311508.us.archive.org/1/items/cnn200109122056-2137/V08585-20.mpg
http://ia331311.us.archive.org/3/items/cnn200109122137-2219/V08585-24.mpg
http://ia311503.us.archive.org/3/items/cnn200109122219-2301/V08585-28.mpg
http://ia331325.us.archive.org/2/items/cnn200109122301-2342/V08585-32.mpg
http://ia311515.us.archive.org/3/items/cnn200109122342-0024/V08586-04.mpg
http://ia331302.us.archive.org/2/items/cnn200109130106-0147/V08586-12.mpg
http://ia311515.us.archive.org/0/items/cnn200109130147-0229/V08586-16.mpg
http://ia331305.us.archive.org/2/items/cnn200109130229-0311/V08586-20.mpg
http://ia311517.us.archive.org/0/items/cnn200109130311-0352/V08586-24.mpg
http://ia331327.us.archive.org/0/items/cnn200109130352-0434/V08586-28.mpg
http://ia301336.us.archive.org/2/items/cnn200109130434-0516/V08586-32.mpg
http://ia331302.us.archive.org/1/items/cnn200109130516-0558/V08593-04.mpg
http://ia311516.us.archive.org/1/items/cnn200109130558-0639/V08593-08.mpg
http://ia311516.us.archive.org/1/items/cnn200109130639-0721/V08593-12.mpg
http://ia331320.us.archive.org/2/items/cnn200109130721-0803/V08593-16.mpg
http://ia331334.us.archive.org/3/items/cnn200109130803-0844/V08593-20.mpg
http://ia301314.us.archive.org/2/items/cnn200109130844-0926/V08593-24.mpg
http://ia331314.us.archive.org/1/items/cnn200109130926-1008/V08593-28.mpg
http://ia331308.us.archive.org/0/items/cnn200109131008-1049/V08593-32.mpg
http://ia331342.us.archive.org/3/items/cnn200109131049-1131/V08594-04.mpg
http://ia331302.us.archive.org/2/items/cnn200109131131-1213/V08594-08.mpg
http://ia331313.us.archive.org/2/items/cnn200109131213-1254/V08594-12.mpg
http://ia331305.us.archive.org/0/items/cnn200109131254-1336/V08594-16.mpg
http://ia331327.us.archive.org/2/items/cnn200109131336-1418/V08594-20.mpg
http://ia331337.us.archive.org/1/items/cnn200109131418-1500/V08594-24.mpg
http://ia331316.us.archive.org/0/items/cnn200109131500-1541/V08594-28.mpg
http://ia331338.us.archive.org/3/items/cnn200109131541-1623/V08594-32.mpg
http://ia301326.us.archive.org/2/items/cnn200109131623-1705/V08595-04.mpg
http://ia331317.us.archive.org/3/items/cnn200109131705-1746/V08595-07.mpg
http://ia331324.us.archive.org/3/items/cnn200109131746-1828/V08595-10.mpg
http://ia331335.us.archive.org/3/items/cnn200109131828-1910/V08595-13.mpg
http://ia331335.us.archive.org/3/items/cnn200109131910-1951/V08595-17.mpg
http://ia331313.us.archive.org/0/items/cnn200109131951-2033/V08595-21.mpg

CBS9 Washington

http://ia331302.us.archive.org/2/items/cbs200109110831-0912/V08546-03.mpg
http://ia331306.us.archive.org/3/items/cbs200109110912-0954/V08546-07.mpg
http://ia311507.us.archive.org/3/items/cbs200109110954-1036/V08546-11.mpg
http://ia311507.us.archive.org/3/items/cbs200109111036-1117/V08546-15.mpg
http://ia331304.us.archive.org/0/items/cbs200109111117-1159/V08546-19.mpg
http://ia301327.us.archive.org/3/items/cbs200109111159-1241/V08546-23.mpg
http://ia331311.us.archive.org/0/items/cbs200109111241-1322/V08546-27.mpg
http://ia331338.us.archive.org/2/items/cbs200109111322-1404/V08546-31.mpg
http://ia311514.us.archive.org/0/items/cbs200109111404-1446/V08553-03.mpg
http://ia311507.us.archive.org/2/items/cbs200109111528-1609/V08553-11.mpg
http://ia311509.us.archive.org/2/items/cbs200109111609-1651/V08553-15.mpg
http://ia331308.us.archive.org/0/items/cbs200109111651-1733/V08553-19.mpg
http://ia331339.us.archive.org/0/items/cbs200109111733-1814/V08553-23.mpg
http://ia331337.us.archive.org/3/items/cbs200109111814-1856/V08553-27.mpg
http://ia301336.us.archive.org/2/items/cbs200109111856-1938/V08553-31.mpg
http://ia331328.us.archive.org/3/items/cbs200109111919-2000/V08543-23.mpg
http://ia331335.us.archive.org/2/items/cbs200109111938-2019/V08576-03.mpg
http://ia331303.us.archive.org/0/items/cbs200109112019-2101/V08576-07.mpg
http://ia331321.us.archive.org/0/items/cbs200109112101-2143/V08576-11.mpg
http://ia331302.us.archive.org/3/items/cbs200109112143-2224/V08576-15.mpg
http://ia331302.us.archive.org/3/items/cbs200109112224-2306/V08576-19.mpg
http://ia331313.us.archive.org/2/items/cbs200109112306-2348/V08576-23.mpg
http://ia331342.us.archive.org/2/items/cbs200109112348-0030/V08576-27.mpg

Posted by: André Feb 26 2007, 07:56 PM

This might be related somehow, out of nowhere today the JFK II assasination, the Bush connection (google video) is at position 10 with 42k views worldwide, but you can't find this video in the top 100 in any country, how can we explain this ?

Could it be they want the Iran attack to be stopped, or are they putting pressure for this attack to go forward ?

Posted by: johndoeX Feb 26 2007, 08:07 PM

ok... looks like 911veritas from blogger was the first to put this up and would explain why he put or site in the video at the end....

911Veritas supports our work and always gives kudos when i post a blog over at blogger.



http://www.911blogger.com/node/6458#comment-119447

Posted by: DemolitionCrew Feb 26 2007, 08:25 PM

Don't hold your breathe waiting for them to acknowledge the footage. The cat is completely out of the bag...

This isn't any different than MSNBC's coverage that day.

I vividly remember watching Ashley Banfield announce that WTC 7 was coming down and the anchor (Brian Williams) telling her she should seek refuge...he says "they have been watching it all day."

Whoever has the original MSNBC's coverage it is pretty damning as well! Found it (below).... Certainly nothing compared to the BBC coverage!!! However if anyone has extended coverage of Ashley, I think she even says they are telling us this is coming down!!!!



http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7883409324682069288&q=MSNBC+reporter+anticipating+WTC+7+collapse

Posted by: Carl Bank Feb 26 2007, 08:26 PM

QUOTE (painter @ Feb 26 2007, 10:48 PM)
QUOTE (Carl Bank @ Feb 26 2007, 02:42 PM)
Can someone please contact Gideon?!

Gideon has got a huge storage of original footage of that day.
He got almost everything, and I really wonder, why this is discovered so lately.
In adddition to that, I want to know who uploaded this to google and I also
ask myselve, why noone found this before.

It smells like some kind of trap. It is too obviouse.

Someone here who remember the Zbginiew Brzinski thread?
Where Zbiggy told the senat to calm down and steady on the Iran-attacing-idea?

Is is possible that "They" want to pull the Cheney-Bush-Neocon-Junta now,
because they didn't serve as puppets as the masters wanted them to do, but
instead overacted for private profits (Carlyle/Halliburton e.g.) instead of focussing
on the 'Big Plan'?

sigh: Carl

Carl, you and I think alike.

It smells like a trap to me, too. Too easy. Too sudden. Unknown origin. Not seen before.

Not saying it is or isn't, I've just learned to be very wary of things that show up out of the blue like this.

One thing is for sure:

IF this will lead to a widespread attention of the mass media
on the 9/11 cover up and in consequence lead to let some
(more or less) minor heads roll, we will know: It was a trap.
Did anyone follow my thread about http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=4815 ?
It is possible, that the sh!t will hit the fan before summer, but I guess, like all of us, I am

standing too close to the fan: Carl

Posted by: Akula Feb 26 2007, 08:26 PM

Live Leak has a copy

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=49f_1172526096

Posted by: biggahthebettah Feb 26 2007, 08:37 PM

Does it really matter if it's a "trap" or not? Someone is trying to let the truth out for whatever reason, and that can only be good. It can hopefully lead to more eyes being opened, which will make it that much harder to pull the NEXT stunt.

Posted by: biggahthebettah Feb 26 2007, 09:02 PM

QUOTE (Carl Bank @ Feb 26 2007, 07:26 PM)
QUOTE (painter @ Feb 26 2007, 10:48 PM)
QUOTE (Carl Bank @ Feb 26 2007, 02:42 PM)
Can someone please contact Gideon?!

Gideon has got a huge storage of original footage of that day.
He got almost everything, and I really wonder, why this is discovered so lately.
In adddition to that, I want to know who uploaded this to google and I also
ask myselve, why noone found this before.

It smells like some kind of trap. It is too obviouse.

Someone here who remember the Zbginiew Brzinski thread?
Where Zbiggy told the senat to calm down and steady on the Iran-attacing-idea?

Is is possible that "They" want to pull the Cheney-Bush-Neocon-Junta now,
because they didn't serve as puppets as the masters wanted them to do, but
instead overacted for private profits (Carlyle/Halliburton e.g.) instead of focussing
on the 'Big Plan'?

sigh: Carl

Carl, you and I think alike.

It smells like a trap to me, too. Too easy. Too sudden. Unknown origin. Not seen before.

Not saying it is or isn't, I've just learned to be very wary of things that show up out of the blue like this.

One thing is for sure:

IF this will lead to a widespread attention of the mass media
on the 9/11 cover up and in consequence lead to let some
(more or less) minor heads roll, we will know: It was a trap.
Did anyone follow my thread about http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=4815 ?
It is possible, that the sh!t will hit the fan before summer, but I guess, like all of us, I am

standing too close to the fan: Carl

Carl, under which thread is your 'frightening thought'? I would love to see it, but I can't find it. Thanks.

Posted by: Carl Bank Feb 26 2007, 09:09 PM

QUOTE (biggahthebettah @ Feb 27 2007, 12:37 AM)
Does it really matter if it's a "trap" or not? Someone is trying to let the truth out for whatever reason, and that can only be good. It can hopefully lead to more eyes being opened, which will make it that much harder to pull the NEXT stunt.

On first hand, you are right. And i thought the same myselve for some time,
but after you realize, that the powers behind always think one step beyond the next step,
it becomes clear, that the 'truth' is always a part of their game.

If something like this happens, you can always be sure, that it was planned exactly the way it happened.

It is like in football (or, if you are european: in soccer wink.gif ):
You can INFLUENCE a game by supporting one team,
but when you want to CONTROL the game, you have to be in control
of BOTH teams.

That is, why some of us (e.g. Painter, Zap or me) are speaking of a trap.

We are not only focussed on the outcome of the game, we want
the powers who control it to be exposed.

And in this case, we in the movement are not only "rearranging the deck chairs on the 'Titanic'",
we are "rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg'".

If this will blow up to quick, the chance of making people waking up on the bigger picture
might be lost. Or is not relevant for the moment anymore due to the Chaos, that will
follow. The worldwide chaos.

seeing the forest instead of trees: Carl

Posted by: gideon524 Feb 26 2007, 09:14 PM

I do have a lot of coverage, unfortunately, almost nothing from the BBC.

I've never seen this clip, AND STILL HAVEN'T because, g**d**n, c**ks**king, moth**f**king, fascist bl**ing Google pulled the video(no pun intended). angry.gif

That should put up some red flags to the legitimacy of this video.

Pardon my French. I just reeeeeally hate censorship.

Posted by: Carl Bank Feb 26 2007, 09:16 PM

QUOTE (biggahthebettah @ Feb 27 2007, 01:02 AM)
Carl, under which thread is your 'frightening thought'?  I would love to see it, but I can't find it.  Thanks.

I will quote it for you here:

Carl Bank:
QUOTE
Yesterday, I had a long discussion whith my cousin about 9/11 and the NWO.

We both are aware of the forces behind the curtain since 1995, when we read
"Geheimgesellschaften und Ihre Macht im 20. Jahrhundert" ("Secret Societies and their
power in the 20th Century) pts. 1&2 by Jan van Helsing.

These books were forbidden by German Constitutional Court, calleing them "sedition"
(incitement of the people). After the lecture, we watched the attacs on 9/11 with different
eyes and knew, that van Helsing was right (he predicted an attac in SF, LA or NYC and wrote that this will be the pretext to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.)

Yesterday, we talked about Zbigniew Brzezinski and his speech in the senate.

Knowing the main plan of "ORDO AB CHAO" (order out of chaos) and to reduce the
word population to 25% and installing a world-gouvernement with its capitol in Jerusalem,
we had this scary idea:

What if we are right and the puppets (Bush/Cheney/Neocon kabale) don't follow their
masters (Illuminati/CFR/Trilateral comission/ancient aristocracy) plan and Zbigniew Brzezinski
made just a last warning to them. What if 'They' will use 9/11 to blow up the entire
neocon-system to bring chaos before time and let israel stay 'clean' whithout the need to attac Iran?
The dollar will be 'pulled' immedeately to its REAL worth (less then 0,01 €), the world
economy will sink into chaos worse than '29 and most people will slaughter themselves
just for food and energy (gas/oil). Than they can bring "ORDO AB CHAO" by
setting a new world-gouvernement whithout the need to take the 'long path' to it...

This would mean, that WE are the catalyst for Armageddon RIGHT NOW by uncovering 9/11.

Any ideas if I am just paranoid?

scared: Carl


waterdancer:
QUOTE
Don't be scared Carl. They'd find a way to do it without us. Rest easy on that score. They already have their timetable pencilled in. We need to reprogram the Armageddon paradigm, IMO. (that's all of us collectively, not just truthers, per se). Otherwise, humanity is just plain f*cked. Since I don't believe in hell, I'm not to concerned about the afterlife stuff, but I'd hate to see us mess up such a beautiful world. More than we already have, at least. I'd like to hang around long enough to witness us start to clean up our messes.


Painter:
QUOTE
Carl,

There are all kinds of ideas floating around in the world about what is happening, who is in control, etc. I highly recommend that you not buy into any one over any other. THEY (people attempting to benefit from the world as it is) don't. What they DO is use their access to information to make decisions that benefit their aim and goal.

I've been saying for a long time now, we need to be very clear about what it is that IS our aim and goal and we need to make decisions based in the light of these aims.

Secret societies are a dime a dozen -- and most of them offer nothing much except 'networking' with people of like mind, social class, etc. Although they use the hoodoo voodoo stuff, most don't have any special 'magic' to make things happen in their favor -- except their access to 'intelligence' and their willingness to do whatever is necessary, regardless of the ethical or moral considerations, to achieve their aims.

We have something else -- or could, if people here would begin to take http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=4643&hl= seriously.


sanders:
QUOTE
I said the same thing after Brzezinski's speech, Carl.  I agree that his comments may be highly significant of something going on behind the scenes.

The good thing, if we are correct, is the Cheney/Bush/Neocon cabal may have overstepped their bounds (Brzezinki saying such things on the Senate floor can only mean the Cheney team are ignoring the suggestions of their 'old elite' bosses??) - and will be allowed to take a fall - and, by definition,  the truth of 9/11 to come out. (!?!) - I'll let everyone extrapolate on their own what the bad news implicated in that might be... (hints are enclosed in Carl's post).

But we're all just guessing.


sanders:
QUOTE
Let me just add, that the only reason the Bush_Cheney crowd hasn't been able to act with impunity, follow through with all their plans, is us.  Everyone pat yourselves on the back.


Carl Bank:
QUOTE
QUOTE (Sanders @ Feb 17 2007, 05:11 PM)
I said the same thing after Brzezinski's speech, Carl.  I agree that his comments may be highly significant of something going on behind the scenes.

The good thing, if we are correct, is the Cheney/Bush/Neocon cabal may have overstepped their bounds (Brzezinki saying such things on the Senate floor can only mean the Cheney team are ignoring the suggestions of their 'old elite' bosses??) - and will be allowed to take a fall - and, by definition,  the truth of 9/11 to come out. (!?!) - I'll let everyone extrapolate on their own what the bad news implicated in that might be... (hints are enclosed in Carl's post).

But we're all just guessing.

When the truth about 9/11 will come out, it will make
every people of every nation directly or indirectly involved
in the cover-up VERY suspiciouse about THEIR own gouverment.

That doesn't mean the UK only. Gouverments in Spain, Germany,
Poland, Canada, Japan, ...almost EVRYWHERE will face a highly
doubtful and angry public. This could lead to a world-revolution...but:

In the same moment, the world economy will implode.
We all learned in the 80ies, that this kapitalistic system of 'Money'
is like a 'chain letter'. It is not endless. A system in which money becomes
MORE just by letting it hang around at a bank cannot last infinitly,
and so many analysts spoke up and told us, that this system comes to an end
whithin our lifetime.

Imagine this 2 scenarios combined in the same moment:
Dozens of nations angry and in REAL BIG TIME DOUBT about their gouvernements
AND the collaps of the financial system into its own footprints (to stay in 9/11 terms).

This woud be a global chaos that will undoubtably result in a whole lot of civil wars,
anarchy, developing tens of thousends of violent tribes, gangs and 'organisations' and
in the death of millions, if not billions of people not strong enough to fight for
their life day by day.

9/11 will be a trigger of something that will be compared to 9/11
like the Hiroshima bomb compared with a hand grenade.

Sorry for calling a spade a spade, but this vision spoiled my day a little bit.
Ok, I am not scared by this, but curious if there will be another outcome.

Or shall I say 'hopeful'?

My cousin nailed it to the point, when he said in the end of our discussion:

The one thing I hope for, is that a giant face will appear in the sky that
will say loud and understandable for everyone:

"Ok, jokes over. Stop this now."

Carl

Posted by: Carl Bank Feb 26 2007, 09:21 PM

Click the link, Gideon:

Carl

QUOTE (Carl Bank @ Feb 26 2007, 08:32 PM)
QUOTE (bill @ Feb 26 2007, 08:26 PM)
I can still watch it

anyone know how to download it ?

the download doesn't seem to work now



:DAMN:

Click here:
http://vp.video.google.com/videodownload?version=0&secureurl=ugAAAPYvax7GA6IELGqmcf-sCgubjVHdzS3Imc-1Hmvx6hoFTtLQZu_YQQ_GRHKjkHz7U15XOd-7xFB-xLTOiP3JoJu2NkQPi9wwCrsUGfqstHuJxVoeHDuZ_y_VHhO63K8wjCfw-mkXu4mmYu1lszeps_RrTcgOp0olcXJff-voklMWFmMJ0UHRd21t2v2Sr0n2kfU0WbL-kSJkeU3VsU0PAvAKduKzqlkDm_-Jg-rapLn7rML9OZ0fbVu41KdrNKjwsg&sigh=AT8rBGwb_c7Q_w92cbDAVfbp_lM&begin=0&len=1543240&docid=1471985581749234824

Carl

Posted by: gideon524 Feb 26 2007, 09:36 PM

No go, Carl. sad.gif

Posted by: painter Feb 26 2007, 09:43 PM

QUOTE (gideon524 @ Feb 26 2007, 05:36 PM)
No go, Carl.  sad.gif

Gideon,

I'm going to give you three.

First:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=49f_1172526096

Second (via rapid share):

http://rs68.rapidshare.com/files/18446864/BBC_WTC7.mp4

And this is the raw footage from the archive:
http://ia311517.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109111654-1736/V08591-16.mpg

Posted by: Akula Feb 26 2007, 09:44 PM

QUOTE (Akula @ Feb 26 2007, 07:26 PM)
Live Leak has a copy

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=49f_1172526096

Try this link to view the video

Posted by: Carl Bank Feb 26 2007, 09:53 PM

QUOTE (gideon524 @ Feb 27 2007, 01:36 AM)
No go, Carl. sad.gif

Wow, thats really strange!

From my place (Berlin/Germany, DSL via 1&1.de) the download
is still working.

Does the US got a special censor-way to keep their web users away from data?

lucky this time not to live in the land of the free: Carl

Posted by: gideon524 Feb 26 2007, 10:01 PM

Thank you, painter.

All I have to say is "holy sh*t!"

My gut tells me this report is legit.

Posted by: Carl Bank Feb 26 2007, 10:02 PM

QUOTE (gideon524 @ Feb 27 2007, 01:36 AM)
No go, Carl. sad.gif

Ok, I am just uploading the AVI to the server
of the http://www.kungfuacademy.de.

You can whatch /download it there in about 55 minutes (my FTP client tells me)
under www.kungfuacademy.de/WTC7/911Building7Collapse.avi

trying to save America from big brother: Carl

Posted by: Akula Feb 26 2007, 10:06 PM

QUOTE (gideon524 @ Feb 26 2007, 09:01 PM)
Thank you, painter.

All I have to say is "holy sh*t!"

My gut tells me this report is legit.

It is legit.

Here is the original BBC cast.

http://ia311517.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109111654-1736/V08591-16.mpg

Funny thing is that they quit talking about WTC7 after the live feed cuts out, not one follow up...

And then they start talking of how and when the US will invade Afghanistan........ doh1.gif

Posted by: DemolitionCrew Feb 26 2007, 10:36 PM

The guys @ our favorite anti-Christ site are absolutely in revolt over this video!!!!

The true skeptics are now saying wow...there might be something to this...the video is irrefuteable! The shills like Gravy are crying foul.

This is the best day I have seen in awhile.

Posted by: painter Feb 26 2007, 10:46 PM

QUOTE (DemolitionCrew @ Feb 26 2007, 06:36 PM)
The guys @ our favorite anti-Christ site are absolutely in revolt over this video!!!!

The true skeptics are now saying wow...there might be something to this...the video is irrefuteable! The shills like Gravy are crying foul.

This is the best day I have seen in awhile.

I'm beginning to agree that this looks legit.

If it is making Gravy cry foul, then that makes it all the more likely for real, AFAIAK.

Posted by: DemolitionCrew Feb 26 2007, 10:48 PM

I am downloading the original file. I have to see it with my own eyes...even though I am thoroughly convince this is 150% legit!!!!

[xmass] Is it X-Mas?

Posted by: painter Feb 26 2007, 10:49 PM

QUOTE (DemolitionCrew @ Feb 26 2007, 06:48 PM)
I am downloading the original file. I have to see it with my own eyes...even though I am thoroughly convince this is 150% legit!!!!

[xmass] Is it X-Mas?

Yeah, mine has another 4hours 11minutes to go blink.gif

Posted by: DemolitionCrew Feb 26 2007, 10:53 PM

Mine only has another 1 hour 16 minutes.

Posted by: dnd Feb 26 2007, 10:54 PM

QUOTE (painter @ Feb 26 2007, 08:43 PM)
QUOTE (gideon524 @ Feb 26 2007, 05:36 PM)
No go, Carl.  sad.gif

Gideon,

I'm going to give you three.

First:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=49f_1172526096

Second (via rapid share):

http://rs68.rapidshare.com/files/18446864/BBC_WTC7.mp4

And this is the raw footage from the archive:
http://ia311517.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109111654-1736/V08591-16.mpg

Only a gig for the raw footage? Its going to be a long night.

cheers.gif

Thanks painter

Posted by: gideon524 Feb 26 2007, 10:58 PM

You guys do know today is the 14th anniversary of the first WTC bombing in 1993, right?

Coincidence?

Rob is always telling me there is only the illusion of coincidence.

Posted by: DemolitionCrew Feb 26 2007, 11:04 PM

QUOTE (gideon524 @ Feb 26 2007, 09:58 PM)
You guys do know today is the 14th anniversary of the first WTC bombing in 1993, right?

Coincidence?

Rob is always telling me there is only the illusion of coincidence.

That I would have to say was a coincidence...but in general I agree with Rob's assessment...ONLY an ILLUSSION.

What I would say is there is definite irony given that its the anniversary...

Or indeed perhaps the person who gave us this gift...knew that this was the anniversary and they are trying to send those that are responsible for 9/11 a message.

Remember as big as this is...there is definitely more damning information (classified) that could still be released!!!! We'll take this though...

I am babbling with joy blahblah1.gif

Posted by: Truthseekers Feb 26 2007, 11:40 PM

I have downloaded the first one and the 1gb file. So safe as houses. Anyone needing either, let me know. salute.gif

Posted by: DemolitionCrew Feb 26 2007, 11:49 PM

QUOTE (Truthseekers @ Feb 26 2007, 10:40 PM)
I have downloaded the first one and the 1gb file. So safe as houses. Anyone needing either, let me know. salute.gif

20 minutes from completion of the 1gb.

This is absolutely huge!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Truthseekers Feb 27 2007, 12:11 AM

QUOTE (DemolitionCrew @ Feb 27 2007, 03:49 AM)
QUOTE (Truthseekers @ Feb 26 2007, 10:40 PM)
I have downloaded the first one and the 1gb file. So safe as houses. Anyone needing either, let me know.  salute.gif

20 minutes from completion of the 1gb.

This is absolutely huge!!!!!!!!

I am having a field day over here in blighty. Those sheep who have spent years ridiculing me for speaking truth are now being made the laughing stock, and there are hundreds of them too. Lapping it up I am laughing1.gif [xmass]

Posted by: DemolitionCrew Feb 27 2007, 12:27 AM

QUOTE (DemolitionCrew @ Feb 26 2007, 09:36 PM)
The guys @ our favorite anti-Christ site are absolutely in revolt over this video!!!!

The true skeptics are now saying wow...there might be something to this...the video is irrefuteable! The shills like Gravy are crying foul.

This is the best day I have seen in awhile.

Dude...

some of the most loyal anti-christ site supporters are now questioning whether or not it was an inside job!!!!

One said...why is google pulling the video if it isn't legit. Another one is trying to blame 9/11 on the BBC. ROFLMFAO


[laugh] [laugh]

Posted by: DemolitionCrew Feb 27 2007, 12:28 AM

Oh and yeah...I am looking at the original footage

now I am 200% assured AUTHENTIC.

Rest assured painter!!!!!

Absolutely awesome stuff!!!!!

Posted by: Kesha Feb 27 2007, 12:49 AM

QUOTE (Carl Bank @ Feb 27 2007, 01:53 AM)
QUOTE (gideon524 @ Feb 27 2007, 01:36 AM)
No go, Carl.  sad.gif

Wow, thats really strange!

From my place (Berlin/Germany, DSL via 1&1.de) the download
is still working.

Does the US got a special censor-way to keep their web users away from data?

lucky this time not to live in the land of the free: Carl

Essen, West Germany at 05:46, T-Online:

"We're sorry, but this video may not be available."

Took some time before they blocked it here... having saved it, though. wink.gif

Posted by: gideon524 Feb 27 2007, 01:05 AM

And so the BBC WTC 7 clip goes into my 9/11 archive collection forever... biggrin.gif

If anybody needs the raw footage, come see me...though it is a gig in size.

thanks again, painter. thumbsup.gif

Posted by: UnderTow Feb 27 2007, 01:14 AM

I've seen the claim now, the only one left. It will stick to the mind-locked like glue.

"Everyone knew the building was going to come down, it was just [another] mis-communication"
"Poor reporting"


blahblah1.gif blahblah1.gif

Posted by: Akula Feb 27 2007, 01:24 AM

Truthseekers--

is this one yours?

QUOTE
I think you have two choices.

1. The BBC news people are psychic, and deserving of the the govt loyalist site million dollar prize.

2. They were fed a press release from "official sources" that said that the Sololman bros. building had collapsed because of structural damage and fire.


cheers.gif cheers.gif cheers.gif cheers.gif cheers.gif cheers.gif

Posted by: Carl Bank Feb 27 2007, 01:27 AM

QUOTE (UnderTow @ Feb 27 2007, 05:14 AM)
I've seen the claim now, the only one left. It will stick to the mind-locked like glue.

"Everyone knew the building was going to come down, it was just [another] mis-communication"
"Poor reporting"


blahblah1.gif  blahblah1.gif

yep, thats the way it goes at the J*R*E*F:

Taken from http://govtloyalistsite.org/showthread.php?t=75768



QUOTE
Originally Posted by The_Fire View Post

I've been working in the tv business since 2000. When the heat is on, **** happens. Mistakes gets made in the heat of the moment as a direct result of getting news to the people asap.

When a journalist gets a news item to cover, non-live and the 2 minute timespan that is, it's generally shot, edited and racked up for broadcast within a 5-6 hour period WITH preparation and written blurbs. That means room for mistake due to misunderstandings or bad information. Add to that the human factor.

Now compare it to a live, real time coverage of a disaster like 9-11 where no one really knew what the hell was going on and only had rumors to go on for much of the information and you got a bloody war zone going on in the broadcast booth.

To get a clear picture of what it COULD look like, imagine a small room with a wall full of monitors and a bank of various equipments in front of maybe 6-7 people. One is a live-editor, one takes care of sound, one manages satellite feeds, there's a "director" and one poor soul taking care of the written blurbs.

You've got signals coming in from at least 4 different places in New York which means at least 4 different journalists feeding the broadcast crew back on the farm information through an ear piece/mic. You've got various in house researchers and journalists running around trying to gather as much information as they can, including the unavoidable claptrap which they must attempt to filter out with nothing to compare it to.
You've got feeds from OTHER news services online as well to try and keep up with things.

Airing of wrongful information is BOUND to happen.
In addition you have jammed phone lines and circuits due to the overwhelming number of calls being made, so it is hard to confirm any information. Plus, being the BBC they have a ocean between them and the events. All flights to the US are cancelled, so they are unable to send anymore reporters to NYC, and they must rely more heavily than they like on other news outlets. They may also not be familiar enough with the WTC complex to know which is WTC7. They keep hearing that it is going to collapse and may have jumped the gun.

With so much confusion going on that day, I would rely more on the reports from days after 9/11 rather than the live coverage.


especially that last sentence reads very intelligent to: Carl

Posted by: DemolitionCrew Feb 27 2007, 01:35 AM

Truth Movement...

Shine Bright tonight...

Do not allow for excuses or room for dubunkers.

This is what we all thought it was EARTHQUAKING FOOTAGE!!!!

Poke your chest out...not just because of this video...but because this video...coupled with Silverstein, coupled with firefighters and EMT works going public, coupled with the FDR, coupled with Put Options, coupled with hijackers trained at US bases, coupled with everything else you can imagine ... seal the door shut on the fact that 9/11 was an inside job.

Refocus your efforts now to who...who is responsible.

I say start with Silverstein and work your way up...he was the one who opened his BIGGGGG mouth in the first place!!!!!

But have confidence and root these scum out...don't make apologies for this video...because it was given to us for a reason!!!!

salute.gif salute.gif salute.gif

Posted by: painter Feb 27 2007, 01:52 AM

I do think you may be right, DC.

I'm obviously the cautious type. But then if you live to be my age and you go through what I've gone through, you'll be cautious, too.

One thing I do know is the work everyone has been doing to bring 9/11 to light IS making an enormous difference. We've done an end-run around the government controlled corporate media.

cheers.gif

Posted by: painter Feb 27 2007, 03:50 AM

I want to quote what Jack Riddler had to say at DemocraticUnderground. His analysis of the time zone question is relevant. Even if the footage is what we believe it is -- shot prior to the collapse of building 7 -- the fact that the person who found it may not have correctly understood the time zone factor is significant. People, it really doesn't help us for folks to do things without knowing what they are doing. The time zone issue is going to be USED as a reason to discount the video when, in fact, what is most important is the fact that what is being reported is that building 7 HAS FALLEN when, clearly (unless the film itself has been altered) it is still standing in the back ground. You see what I'm saying? Because they were wrongly stated, the time becomes a focus of discussion when in reality it should not be.


Here's Jack Riddler on this subject:

QUOTE (Jack Riddler)
Tuesday, February 27, 2007:

BBC World News started reporting that WTC 7 had collapsed about 23 minutes before the building actually came down, as video of news coverage on September 11th shows. The segment establishing this is available on the archive.org news service and was discovered by veritas911, a member of 911blogger.com.

(The 1-gigabyte original video is located at http://ia311517.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109111654-... )

Speaking from London on the afternoon of September 11th, BBC World News anchorman Philip Hayton asks reporter Jane Stanley in New York about the collapse of the "47-story Salomon Brothers Building," also known as WTC 7. Although the building is clearly visible and still standing through the window behind Stanley, its collapse is repeatedly described as a past event. Hayton even asks Stanley if there were any casualties in the building.

WTC 7 in fact collapsed about five minutes after Stanley's connection to London was cut off (reportedly due to a technical failure). My apologies to veritas911 for my hasty and dismissive judgment of his discovery, and to 911blogger.com for suggesting that the presentation of the BBC segment should be pulled off the site.

Allow me to explain my mistake: The BBC segment of September 11 was presented on Google Video yesterday morning by someone unknown to me, whom I will call the "Video Artist." This person added explanatory titles exhibiting a patently wrong understanding of how time zones are arranged. For example, the Video Artist's titles state that the BBC segment begins shortly before 5pm EST (Eastern Standard Time). In fact, New York on 9/11/2001 was using EDT (Eastern Daylight Time). 5pm EST is actually 6pm EDT.

On seeing these titles I concluded, perhaps falsely, that the Video Artist was intentionally trying to deceive about the timing of the BBC broadcast, and that the broadcast was actually at 6pm EDT (i.e., after the WTC 7 collapse).

One of the titles bizarrely claimed BBC World News was using BST (British Summer Time) when in fact it uses GMT (Greenwich Mean or universal time). This title states that 10pm BST is 5pm EST, which is in fact impossible! (10 pm BST=9pm GMT=5pm EDT=4pm EST).

As a result I feared someone was once again leading on 9/11 skeptics with a falsification, a sadly frequent occurrence. In this I ignored the simpler explanation: that the Video Artist was woefully ignorant of time zones, and failed to do the most basic research on the subject.

Thus was I temporarily blinded to the far more important paradox of Jane Stanley and the uncollapsed WTC 7. No clock is visible in the half-hour of the BBC segment, so the broadcast time still needs to be established beyond any doubt. But it is almost certainly before 5:20 pm, as the information available at archive.org states, and as various internal clues imply (chief among them that the building is still seen standing; also mentioning Bush having just flown out of Nebraska, which would have been just before 5 pm EDT).

If so, then the BBC was in possession of an accurate advance report on the future collapse of WTC 7, and chose to report this collapse "prematurely." As she spoke of it, the British reporter herself may have had no clue that she was looking at WTC 7 (since this was not a remarkable or universally-known building prior to 9/11).

Did the authorities in New York provide BBC with a written text or other communication predicting an imminent WTC 7 collapse? Who would have done that? The authorities have claimed that they knew from the state of the building that it would collapse, but the timing of the BBC report is uncannily prescient. Within five minutes after Jane Stanley's report is abruptly cut off, the building does actually collapse, as though on cue.

If by some chance the time of this segment is mistaken, as I first thought, and the segment was actually broadcast after 5:20 (as the deficient titles by the Video Artist led me to believe), this would be damning of the BBC, as the only explanation in that case is that it was somehow faking a live broadcast, by means such as a reporter speaking in front of a back-lit projection or video screen showing footage shot earlier. (This kind of deception may be common in the broadcast media, but it would still be scandalous and inexcusable.)

Either way, BBC World News must now explain why and how it was reporting on a future disaster as though it had already happened.

---

ADDING ON EDIT: The segment as a whole is a great primer in the total propaganda established on 9/11/2001 - America discovers its vulnerability, things will never be the same, Americans are now wounded and fearful, Pearl Harbor, only foreigners could do this, only Osama could do this, retaliation surely coming, those Arabs liked that this happened, let's ask Shimon Peres what Americans should do since his people have suffered more from terrorism than any other, he says to treat any country that harbors'em as a terrorist nation, well here comes the swift fist of revenge!


Source:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x143824

Posted by: Graham Feb 27 2007, 05:04 AM

I'm nearly done downloading the next section of 1gig file to see exactly when they do pick it up. wink.gif

Posted by: Graham Feb 27 2007, 06:17 AM

they show WTC7 collapsing 3 minutes into the next section.. so about 17.40 NY time.

Also noted... FBI agents (yes in there jackets) dragging eyewitnesses away from reporters. :?

Posted by: Carl Bank Feb 27 2007, 07:11 AM

QUOTE (painter @ Feb 27 2007, 07:50 AM)
I want to quote what Jack Riddler had to say at DemocraticUnderground. His analysis of the time zone question is relevant. Even if the footage is what we believe it is -- shot prior to the collapse of building 7 -- the fact that the person who found it may not have correctly understood the time zone factor is significant. People, it really doesn't help us for folks to do things without knowing what they are doing. The time zone issue is going to be USED as a reason to discount the video when, in fact, what is most important is the fact that what is being reported is that building 7 HAS FALLEN when, clearly (unless the film itself has been altered) it is still standing in the back ground. You see what I'm saying? Because they were wrongly stated, the time becomes a focus of discussion when in reality it should not be.


Here's Jack Riddler on this subject:

QUOTE (Jack Riddler)

Tuesday, February 27, 2007:

BBC World News started reporting that WTC 7 had collapsed about 23 minutes before the building actually came down, as video of news coverage on September 11th shows. The segmentestablishing this is available on the archive.org news service and was discovered by veritas911, a member of 911blogger.com.

(The 1-gigabyte original video is located at http://ia311517.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109111654-... )

Speaking from London on the afternoon of September 11th, BBC World News anchorman Philip Hayton asks reporter Jane Stanley in New York about the collapse of the "47-story Salomon Brothers Building," also known as WTC 7. Although the building is clearly visible and still standing through the window behind Stanley, its collapse is repeatedly described as a past event. Hayton even asks Stanley if there were any casualties in the building.

WTC 7 in fact collapsed about five minutes after Stanley's connection to London was cut off (reportedly due to a technical failure). My apologies to veritas911 for my hasty and dismissive judgment of his discovery, and to 911blogger.com for suggesting that the presentation of the BBC segment should be pulled off the site.

Allow me to explain my mistake: The BBC segment of September 11 was presented on Google Video yesterday morning by someone unknown to me, whom I will call the "Video Artist." This person added explanatory titles exhibiting a patently wrong understanding of how time zones are arranged. For example, the Video Artist's titles state that the BBC segment begins shortly before 5pm EST (Eastern Standard Time). In fact, New York on 9/11/2001 was using EDT (Eastern Daylight Time). 5pm EST is actually 6pm EDT.

On seeing these titles I concluded, perhaps falsely, that the Video Artist was intentionally trying to deceive about the timing of the BBC broadcast, and that the broadcast was actually at 6pm EDT (i.e., after the WTC 7 collapse).

One of the titles bizarrely claimed BBC World News was using BST (British Summer Time) when in fact it uses GMT (Greenwich Mean or universal time). This title states that 10pm BST is 5pm EST, which is in fact impossible! (10 pm BST=9pm GMT=5pm EDT=4pm EST).

As a result I feared someone was once again leading on 9/11 skeptics with a falsification, a sadly frequent occurrence. In this I ignored the simpler explanation: that the Video Artist was woefully ignorant of time zones, and failed to do the most basic research on the subject.

Thus was I temporarily blinded to the far more important paradox of Jane Stanley and the uncollapsed WTC 7. No clock is visible in the half-hour of the BBC segment, so the broadcast time still needs to be established beyond any doubt. But it is almost certainly before 5:20 pm, as the information available at archive.org states, and as various internal clues imply (chief among them that the building is still seen standing; also mentioning Bush having just flown out of Nebraska, which would have been just before 5 pm EDT).

If so, then the BBC was in possession of an accurate advance report on the future collapse of WTC 7, and chose to report this collapse "prematurely." As she spoke of it, the British reporter herself may have had no clue that she was looking at WTC 7 (since this was not a remarkable or universally-known building prior to 9/11).

Did the authorities in New York provide BBC with a written text or other communication predicting an imminent WTC 7 collapse? Who would have done that? The authorities have claimed that they knew from the state of the building that it would collapse, but the timing of the BBC report is uncannily prescient. Within five minutes after Jane Stanley's report is abruptly cut off, the building does actually collapse, as though on cue.

If by some chance the time of this segment is mistaken, as I first thought, and the segment was actually broadcast after 5:20 (as the deficient titles by the Video Artist led me to believe), this would be damning of the BBC, as the only explanation in that case is that it was somehow faking a live broadcast, by means such as a reporter speaking in front of a back-lit projection or video screen showing footage shot earlier. (This kind of deception may be common in the broadcast media, but it would still be scandalous and inexcusable.)

Either way, BBC World News must now explain why and how it was reporting on a future disaster as though it had already happened.

---

ADDING ON EDIT: The segment as a whole is a great primer in the total propaganda established on 9/11/2001 - America discovers its vulnerability, things will never be the same, Americans are now wounded and fearful, Pearl Harbor, only foreigners could do this, only Osama could do this, retaliation surely coming, those Arabs liked that this happened, let's ask Shimon Peres what Americans should do since his people have suffered more from terrorism than any other, he says to treat any country that harbors'em as a terrorist nation, well here comes the swift fist of revenge!


Source:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x143824

Painter,

the difference between the LCF and P4TF are people like you.
People like You. like Jeff. Like Rob. Like Eric. Like Wayne.
Like Petra. Like Steve. Like Peter. Like all Mikes. Like ALL of You!!

I am so damn proud of all of You!

You gave me back the faith in human beeings.
You gave me back my believe that people are stil able to use
their brain.

You all gave me back my initial feeling of that 'something',
that I had back in my early highschool days, when I was told that WW1 started,
because some austrian guy was shot by some serbian student and in result
of this, millions of people shot each other, too. I questioned this, did a lttle research and
found out about Emperor Willhelm of Germany who punped extremly much money into
the german fleet, about the freemansons and several parts of Rumania which were
wanted by the secret societies to be independant but are part of the Austrian monachy... and so on.

I tried to discuss this in the class, but was told to shut up by an overburdened
teacher who told me, WW1 started because Franz Ferdinant and his wife Sophie were
shot by Josep Princip in Sarajevo. Period.

These days, I had two class mates (Robert & Markus) who joined me on my crusade against my
history teacher. We did some research and learned 'real facts' which we stated in the
history lessons and asked questiones, until my teacher gave up and finally acknowledged his ignorance in front of the class.

Of course, we didnt't want the 'Truh' to be exposed. We just wanted to impress the girls
whith that 'intelligent-Renegate'-Image that works on with a certain type of girls (the one, that
cannot be manipulated whith body building or fancy cars).
But I remember the way we three feld. And it was like here
It was the '3 Musketeers': One for All and All for One
and - btw - it was working very well with that mentioned type of girls...

Thank you all for bringing me back my childhood day!
At the risk of being pathetic, I must tell you that I really love you for that.
And for making this forum what it is - The forum that prooves once and for all that
Only good staff makes good stuff!.

Love & Respect: Sascha

Posted by: CrazyBlade Feb 27 2007, 09:02 AM

Quoted from a user "Hampton" on the UK 9/11 Truth Campaign Message Board...

QUOTE
just spoken to bbc world 0208 433 2221

they are well aware of the issue & are feverishly investigating.

i was told "we don't know who uploaded it. but on first inspection it looks like it's not our live feed."

although i don't know how they can say this when it's from a reputable web archive along with footage from other channels.


Not our live feed?? What the hell??

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=7523

4th page, halfway down.

Posted by: Truthseekers Feb 27 2007, 09:41 AM

QUOTE (CrazyBlade @ Feb 27 2007, 01:02 PM)
Quoted from a user "Hampton" on the UK 9/11 Truth Campaign Message Board...

QUOTE
just spoken to bbc world 0208 433 2221

they are well aware of the issue & are feverishly investigating.

i was told "we don't know who uploaded it. but on first inspection it looks like it's not our live feed."

although i don't know how they can say this when it's from a reputable web archive along with footage from other channels.


Not our live feed?? What the hell??

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=7523

4th page, halfway down.

Laughable eh? not our live feed? but they are BBC reporters are they not?. They were last night and this morning when I was watching them on the box. biggrin.gif

Another point, anyone notice the explosions taking place?. Exact same spot as the kink which is shown elsewhere when the building starts to collapse.

Posted by: CrazyBlade Feb 27 2007, 10:07 AM

QUOTE (Truthseekers @ Feb 27 2007, 01:41 PM)
Another point, anyone notice the explosions taking place?. Exact same spot as the kink which is shown elsewhere when the building starts to collapse.

Do you have a time code for that my friend?

Posted by: LizzyTish Feb 27 2007, 10:14 AM

QUOTE (CrazyBlade @ Feb 26 2007, 05:17 PM)
QUOTE (Graham @ Feb 26 2007, 10:06 PM)
haven't got the original file yet.

what do they say when it does actually collapse?

The wierd thing is they don't show the collapse. The reporter seems to be commenting on the building collapsing, even though its standing in full view right behind her head!!

blink.gif

I still don't know what to make of it... shocking.

Thanks to Painter, I've finally seen the video...looks damn real to me. And who made the phone call to the BBC news? I so admire people who can do that...I have trouble phoning for a dentist appointment.

I was listening to the Alex Jones show yesterday when he got this story...I missed hearing how it was brought to his attention, but he went ballistic! I thought he was going to have a stroke on air. He went over into Jack Blood's show which was being hosted by Dylan Avery and Jason Bermas in Jack's absence.

If this video is as legit as it looks, this is HUGE!!!! biggrin.gif

Posted by: CrazyBlade Feb 27 2007, 10:18 AM

QUOTE (LizzyTish @ Feb 27 2007, 02:14 PM)
Thanks to Painter, I've finally seen the video...looks damn real to me. And who made the phone call to the BBC news? I so admire people who can do that...I have trouble phoning for a dentist appointment.

I was listening to the Alex Jones show yesterday when he got this story...I missed hearing how it was brought to his attention, but he went ballistic! I thought he was going to have a stroke on air. He went over into Jack Blood's show which was being hosted by Dylan Avery and Jason Bermas in Jack's absence.

If this video is as legit as it looks, this is HUGE!!!! biggrin.gif

The call was made by a member of the British 9/11 Truth Campaign this morning. I think he said he was gonna call again later, but I can't confirm this. Maybe we need to get Shure on the case?? smile.gif

Does anyone have a link to last night's Alex Jones, or an mp3 of it??

Posted by: Truthseekers Feb 27 2007, 10:20 AM

QUOTE (CrazyBlade @ Feb 27 2007, 02:07 PM)
QUOTE (Truthseekers @ Feb 27 2007, 01:41 PM)
Another point, anyone notice the explosions taking place?. Exact same spot as the kink which is shown elsewhere when the building starts to collapse.

Do you have a time code for that my friend?

Same time as when the reporter starts to chat away. Smoke looks very much like it is rising far to fast for it to be fire, which was something said to me on the uk 911 site. Looks to me as the smoke is being forced out, rather than simply rising naturally, and I cannot believe downdraft of wind would be the reason the smoke disappears then reappears suddenly... what do you think?

Posted by: DemolitionCrew Feb 27 2007, 10:31 AM

So now they are trying to deny their own footage. LMAO

Laughable. They are caught dead to rights and because of the persistaence of the Truth movement in spite of MSM denial we are about to start trapping these rats.
With information like the FDR and thw whistleblowers you then start trapping the really big rats. I thought I was dreaming yesterday...glad to know I wasn't. thumbsup.gif

Posted by: behind Feb 27 2007, 10:49 AM

QUOTE (Graham @ Feb 27 2007, 10:17 AM)
they show WTC7 collapsing 3 minutes into the next section.. so about 17.40 NY time.
...

Did they show it from the same view ? (that is... the view they had when they reported it has already collapse)

Posted by: barney_rebel Feb 27 2007, 10:51 AM

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=49f_1172526096

Posted by: Graham Feb 27 2007, 11:16 AM

QUOTE (behind @ Feb 27 2007, 09:49 AM)
QUOTE (Graham @ Feb 27 2007, 10:17 AM)
they show WTC7 collapsing 3 minutes into the next section.. so about 17.40 NY time.
...

Did they show it from the same view ? (that is... the view they had when they reported it has already collapse)

No, they show it from a completely different angle.

I've just fast forwarded through the next clip, and they don't go back to her.

Posted by: behind Feb 27 2007, 11:20 AM

Ok..Thank you.

Its all unbelivenble.

Posted by: painter Feb 27 2007, 11:59 AM

H E L L O !

THE ARCHIVE HAS REMOVED THE FILES!


BBC

http://ia331332.us.archive.org/3/items/bbc200109110916-0957/V08515-04.mpg
http://ia331327.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109110957-1039/V08515-08.mpg
http://ia311534.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109111039-1121/V08515-12.mpg
http://ia331319.us.archive.org/0/items/bbc200109111121-1202/V08515-16.mpg
http://ia331308.us.archive.org/0/items/bbc200109111202-1244/V08515-20.mpg
http://ia331332.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109111244-1326/V08515-24.mpg
http://ia331329.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109111326-1408/V08515-28.mpg
http://ia311517.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109111408-1449/V08515-32.mpg
http://ia331340.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109111449-1531/V08591-04.mpg
http://ia301330.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109111531-1613/V08591-08.mpg
http://ia331327.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109111613-1654/V08591-12.mpg
http://ia311517.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109111654-1736/V08591-16.mpg
http://ia331317.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109111736-1818/V08591-20.mpg
http://ia331338.us.archive.org/3/items/bbc200109111818-1859/V08591-24.mpg
http://ia311503.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109111859-1941/V08591-28.mpg
http://ia311503.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109111941-2023/V08591-32.mpg
http://ia331304.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109112023-2104/V08590-04.mpg
http://ia331339.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109112104-2146/V08590-08.mpg
http://ia311535.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109112146-2228/V08590-12.mpg
http://ia331333.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109112228-2309/V08590-16.mpg
http://ia331329.us.archive.org/3/items/bbc200109112310-2351/V08590-20.mpg
http://ia331316.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109112351-0033/V08590-24.mpg
http://ia331331.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109120033-0115/V08590-28.mpg
http://ia331312.us.archive.org/0/items/bbc200109120115-0156/V08590-32.mpg
http://ia331314.us.archive.org/3/items/bbc200109120156-0238/V08565-04.mpg
http://ia331341.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109120238-0320/V08565-08.mpg
http://ia331314.us.archive.org/3/items/bbc200109120320-0401/V08565-12.mpg
http://ia331302.us.archive.org/0/items/bbc200109120401-0443/V08565-16.mpg
http://ia331317.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109120443-0525/V08565-20.mpg
http://ia301327.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109120525-0606/V08565-24.mpg
http://ia301336.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109120606-0648/V08565-28.mpg
http://ia301331.us.archive.org/3/items/bbc200109120648-0730/V08565-32.mpg
http://ia301319.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109120730-0811/V08564-04.mpg
http://ia311514.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109120811-0853/V08564-08.mpg
http://ia331340.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109120853-0935/V08564-12.mpg
http://ia311537.us.archive.org/3/items/bbc200109120935-1017/V08564-16.mpg
http://ia311507.us.archive.org/0/items/bbc200109121017-1058/V08564-20.mpg
http://ia331304.us.archive.org/0/items/bbc200109121058-1140/V08564-24.mpg
http://ia331303.us.archive.org/3/items/bbc200109121140-1222/V08564-28.mpg
http://ia311511.us.archive.org/3/items/bbc200109121222-1303/V08564-32.mpg
http://ia331307.us.archive.org/3/items/bbc200109121303-1345/V08563-04.mpg
http://ia301327.us.archive.org/3/items/bbc200109121345-1427/V08563-08.mpg
http://ia331306.us.archive.org/0/items/bbc200109121427-1508/V08563-12.mpg
http://ia331324.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109121508-1550/V08563-16.mpg
http://ia331325.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109121550-1632/V08563-20.mpg
http://ia311543.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109121632-1713/V08563-24.mpg
http://ia301325.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109121713-1755/V08563-28.mpg
http://ia331307.us.archive.org/3/items/bbc200109121755-1837/V08563-32.mpg
http://ia331340.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109121837-1919/V08568-04.mpg
http://ia331310.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109121919-2000/V08568-08.mpg
http://ia331310.us.archive.org/3/items/bbc200109122000-2042/V08568-12.mpg
http://ia331318.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109122042-2124/V08568-16.mpg
http://ia331328.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109122124-2205/V08568-20.mpg
http://ia331310.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109122205-2247/V08568-24.mpg
http://ia331330.us.archive.org/3/items/bbc200109122247-2329/V08568-28.mpg
http://ia331303.us.archive.org/0/items/bbc200109122329-0010/V08568-32.mpg
http://ia331318.us.archive.org/0/items/bbc200109130010-0052/V08567-04.mpg
http://ia331312.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109130052-0134/V08567-08.mpg
http://ia331341.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109130134-0215/V08567-12.mpg
http://ia331314.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109130215-0257/V08567-16.mpg
http://ia331303.us.archive.org/3/items/bbc200109130257-0339/V08567-20.mpg
http://ia331318.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109130339-0421/V08567-24.mpg
http://ia331311.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109130421-0502/V08567-28.mpg
http://ia331304.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109130502-0544/V08567-32.mpg
http://ia301326.us.archive.org/3/items/bbc200109130544-0626/V08566-04.mpg
http://ia331316.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109130626-0707/V08566-08.mpg
http://ia331326.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109130707-0749/V08566-12.mpg
http://ia301327.us.archive.org/3/items/bbc200109130749-0831/V08566-16.mpg
http://ia311516.us.archive.org/0/items/bbc200109130831-0912/V08566-20.mpg
http://ia331306.us.archive.org/0/items/bbc200109130912-0954/V08566-24.mpg
http://ia331309.us.archive.org/0/items/bbc200109130954-1036/V08566-28.mpg
http://ia331313.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109131036-1117/V08566-32.mpg
http://ia311516.us.archive.org/3/items/bbc200109131117-1159/V08571-04.mpg
http://ia331312.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109131322-1404/V08571-16.mpg
http://ia331337.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109131446-1528/V08571-24.mpg
http://ia331313.us.archive.org/3/items/bbc200109131528-1609/V08571-28.mpg
http://ia311517.us.archive.org/0/items/bbc200109131609-1651/V08571-32.mpg
http://ia331339.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109131651-1733/V08570-04.mpg
http://ia331338.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109131733-1814/V08570-08.mpg
http://ia331333.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109131814-1856/V08570-12.mpg
http://ia331312.us.archive.org/0/items/bbc200109131856-1938/V08570-16.mpg
http://ia301336.us.archive.org/3/items/bbc200109131938-2019/V08570-20.mpg

Posted by: painter Feb 27 2007, 12:04 PM

QUOTE (Graham @ Feb 27 2007, 01:04 AM)
I'm nearly done downloading the next section of 1gig file to see exactly when they do pick it up. wink.gif

Graham,

The Archive has taken the next section off-line. Is there some way you can mirror this on a server OR put it on a disc and snail mail it to me. I'd almost prefer the latter -- then I could make copies of it for others if they wanted.

PM me,

Thanks

Posted by: Graham Feb 27 2007, 12:30 PM

QUOTE (painter @ Feb 27 2007, 11:04 AM)
QUOTE (Graham @ Feb 27 2007, 01:04 AM)
I'm nearly done downloading the next section of 1gig file to see exactly when they do pick it up.  wink.gif

Graham,

The Archive has taken the next section off-line. Is there some way you can mirror this on a server OR put it on a disc and snail mail it to me. I'd almost prefer the latter -- then I could make copies of it for others if they wanted.

PM me,

Thanks

hmm.. I was still downloading that next section this morning. Can copy on DVD for you, but I'm in the UK.

I'm currently downloading an earlier section to see what time they report the Pentagon. laugh.gif

Posted by: painter Feb 27 2007, 12:35 PM

QUOTE (Graham @ Feb 27 2007, 08:30 AM)
<S>
hmm.. I was still downloading that next section this morning. Can copy on DVD for you, but I'm in the UK.

I'm currently downloading an earlier section to see what time they report the Pentagon. laugh.gif

Well, so far as I can tell from here the archive is no longer available to us in the States. This makes those files all the more important. If you are successful in downloading the whole file, I'd be grateful if you would send whatever you have to me. Do you have a DVD burner? Since the files are over a gig, you'll need to put it on DVD. I'll be happy to reimburse you any expenses.

Thanks,

paitner

Posted by: Truthseekers Feb 27 2007, 12:38 PM

QUOTE (painter @ Feb 27 2007, 04:35 PM)
QUOTE (Graham @ Feb 27 2007, 08:30 AM)
<S>
hmm.. I was still downloading that next section this morning. Can copy on DVD for you, but I'm in the UK.

I'm currently downloading an earlier section to see what time they report the Pentagon.  laugh.gif

Well, so far as I can tell from here the archive is no longer available to us in the States. This makes those files all the more important. If you are successful in downloading the whole file, I'd be grateful if you would send whatever you have to me. Do you have a DVD burner? Since the files are over a gig, you'll need to put it on DVD. I'll be happy to reimburse you any expenses.

Thanks,

paitner

CrazyBlade.. check PM wink.gif
Painter, peer to peer via ICQ is pretty good as download speed is good.

Posted by: DemolitionCrew Feb 27 2007, 12:42 PM

Painter...

Am I to understand they have removed it from their servers altogether?

Wow... nonono.gif

Posted by: painter Feb 27 2007, 12:44 PM

QUOTE (DemolitionCrew @ Feb 27 2007, 08:42 AM)
Painter...

Am I to understadn they have removed it from their servers altogether?

Wow... nonono.gif

Check it for yourself above. I get a "file is missing" when I try to download any of the links.

Posted by: DemolitionCrew Feb 27 2007, 12:51 PM

Not before I and many others got the original footage thumbsup.gif


There have to be a minimum of 500 copies out there!!!

Posted by: Carl Bank Feb 27 2007, 01:12 PM

I downloaded the 1GB file in which BBC reports the collaps prior to
the actual one last night and I uploaded the edited 183 MB AVI to my
Kung Fu Academy Berlin- site:

http://www.kungfuacademy.de/WTC7/911Building7Collapse.avi

Unfortunately, I somehow messed up the upload a little, the sound is bad,
but I am uploading it again now (20 minutes remaining).

Feel free to spread this link, it will not be censored.

The Kung Fu Academy Berlin got their own methods to deal with the evil than websites
which are not into ancient martial arts. The flick is save here.


: Carl
(Bing Gui Shen Su - At war, speed is crucial)

Posted by: Carl Bank Feb 27 2007, 01:44 PM

Fron my place (not US) This download link of the big 1GB file is still working:

http://ia311517.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109111654-1736/V08591-16.mpg


EDIT:

...and this might because i still got it in cache from last night.

sorry for waking up usatisfyable hopes: Carl

Posted by: Carl Bank Feb 27 2007, 01:50 PM

QUOTE (Carl Bank @ Feb 27 2007, 05:12 PM)
I downloaded the 1GB file in which BBC reports the collaps prior to
the actual one last night and I uploaded the edited 183 MB AVI to my
Kung Fu Academy Berlin- site:

http://www.kungfuacademy.de/WTC7/911Building7Collapse.avi

Unfortunately, I somehow messed up the upload a little, the sound is bad,
but I am uploading it again now (20 minutes remaining).

Feel free to spread this link, it will not be censored.

Damn, it messes up again at 171MB, telling me error -135: socket write error.

Any geek out there with a work-around handy?

no-nerd: Carl

Posted by: dnd Feb 27 2007, 02:37 PM

BBC archive link works here. Not cached on this computer.

Wonder why it was down? Probably edited out the WTC 7 part. just kidding, well I hope not.

-Dane

Posted by: Carl Bank Feb 27 2007, 03:03 PM

QUOTE (dnd @ Feb 27 2007, 06:37 PM)
BBC archive link works here.  Not cached on this computer. 

Wonder why it was down?  Probably edited out the WTC 7 part.  just kidding, well I hope not. 

-Dane

wow, thats really strange.

When I try to download any of the other files, I get this 403:

QUOTE
Forbidden

You don't have permission to access /1/items/bbc200109111449-1531/V08591-04.mpg on this server.

Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
Apache/2.0.54 (Ubuntu) PHP/5.0.5-2ubuntu1.2 mod_ssl/2.0.54 OpenSSL/0.9.7g Server at ia331340.us.archive.org Port 80


But the one whith the smoking gun is still working...
Is there some good ghost at the gov.-server who wants to help?

Carl

Posted by: m-v-b Feb 27 2007, 04:11 PM

Same here for all files ohmy.gif thumbdown.gif

QUOTE
Forbidden

You don't have permission to access /1/items/bbc200109111039-1121/V08515-12.mpg on this server.

Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
Apache/2.0.54 (Ubuntu) PHP/5.0.5-2ubuntu1.4 mod_ssl/2.0.54 OpenSSL/0.9.7g Server at ia311534.us.archive.org Port 80

Posted by: behind Feb 27 2007, 04:24 PM

BBC responds

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 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... "

Richard Porter is head of news, BBC World

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html

Posted by: CrazyBlade Feb 27 2007, 04:29 PM

And Prison Planet's opinion on that response from the BBC...

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/270207bbcresponds.htm


QUOTE
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.


Are they f'ing kidding us?? Ladies and Gentlemen, this is what we pay our TV Licence fees for...

nonono.gif

Posted by: Carl Bank Feb 27 2007, 04:44 PM

Compare this quote

QUOTE
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.

with this pic and find the 6 mistakes:



Hints:

• "apparently" vs. "has also"

• "it's reported" vs. "has also"

• "we're hearing" vs. "has also"

• "constantly tried to check" > see building right beside janes head

• "and double check" > see news footline and building right beside janes head. Draw conclusion.

• "information we were receiving" vs. "information we were broadcasting"

• consider that women lie anyways all the time (e.g. age, weight et al.)

debunker: Carl

Posted by: Cary Feb 27 2007, 04:49 PM

QUOTE (Carl Bank @ Feb 27 2007, 02:44 PM)
Compare this quote

QUOTE
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.

with this pic and find the 6 mistakes:



Hints:

• "apparently" vs. "has also"

• "it's reported" vs. "has also"

• "we're hearing" vs. "has also"

• "constantly tried to check" > see building right beside janes head

• "and double check" > see news footline and building right beside janes head. Draw conclusion.

• "information we were receiving" vs. "information we were broadcasting"

• consider that women lie anyways all the time (e.g. age, weight et al.)

debunker: Carl

LMFAO!!!!

Dude, you're killing me! LOLOLOLOLOL Especially about the "women lie anyways all the time" part.

Posted by: behind Feb 27 2007, 04:49 PM

In my opinion this so called respose, explain nothing.

To me it is very simple.

Usually they tell people the news AFTER it have happened... not BEFORE.

Posted by: Akula Feb 27 2007, 04:56 PM

QUOTE (behind @ Feb 27 2007, 03:24 PM)
BBC responds

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 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... "

Richard Porter is head of news, BBC World

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html

Did anyone think that the BBC was "part of a conspiracy" because of the tapes?

I know I figured the BBC was, if anything, nothing but a puppet that received their script a few minutes to early. Now their cover-up and lack of mentioning that small little detail of making a spot on prediction 20 minutes before the fact..........

After this however it seems to me that someone is acting as blatant cover-up. Come on now....just so happen to lose the footage......yeah right Opps on Opps. Musta been a mistake. Yeah a mistake that came true.....Opps. Chaos and confusion does lead to mistakes, but not spot on predictions. And why no explanation of it afterward?? Opps.

What a spin job this is...... [laugh]

Posted by: Carl Bank Feb 27 2007, 05:12 PM

Due you all hang around here all day, waiting for
the Queen of England to appear and point the finger
on someone, you probably miss the "Latest News" -

Cary reported in Latest News, that YouTube got the footage now!

It is the unedited footage from the big 1GB file and here it is embedded. Enjoy (again):



always aware of Cary's latest: Carl

EDIT: WTF is dohtml not working here? Huh? Not funded? Pulled? Covered up? Rob! Your calling!

smells conspiracy everywhere: Carl

Posted by: Truthseekers Feb 27 2007, 05:26 PM

This is the biggest cock up by the BBC. The fact they have responded to the footage shows clearly they have accepted it as theirs. They could have taken the 'declined to comment' stance, but by not doing this, they have left themselves wide open to a full blown attack of unprecedented proportions.

The BBC have been well and truly shafted now they have been exposed. Brilliant cheers.gif cheers.gif

Posted by: CrazyBlade Feb 27 2007, 05:33 PM

QUOTE (Truthseekers @ Feb 27 2007, 09:26 PM)
The fact they have responded to the footage shows clearly they have accepted it as theirs.

doh1.gif

Of course it does, why didn't I see that before??

Thanks for pointing out the glaringly obvious TS, sometimes I need that.

cheers.gif

CB

Posted by: Timothy Osman Feb 27 2007, 05:51 PM

QUOTE
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.
ohmy.gif

No way you're getting my copy, you'll lose it you silly bugger.

Posted by: m-v-b Feb 27 2007, 06:19 PM

QUOTE (CrazyBlade @ Feb 27 2007, 04:33 PM)
QUOTE (Truthseekers @ Feb 27 2007, 09:26 PM)
The fact they have responded to the footage shows clearly they have accepted it as theirs.

doh1.gif

Of course it does, why didn't I see that before??

Thanks for pointing out the glaringly obvious TS, sometimes I need that.

cheers.gif

CB

Seeker is fully right.

They admit that it was the right time, even the time isent shown in the Live footage ^^
they admit all what is said in the Live stream

they just make it authentic this is so funny.
The only thing they do is try to excuse what happend, therfor it happend ^^
thumbsup.gif

greets m-v-b

Posted by: Sanders Feb 27 2007, 06:37 PM

So this is where you've all been hiding?

biggrin.gif

I've been giggling, sometimes laughing out loud to myself for the last half hour reading through this whole thread - some of my favorites:

QUOTE (behind @ Feb 28 2007, 05:49 AM)
Usually they tell people the news AFTER it have happened... not BEFORE.
Haha!

QUOTE (Timothy Osman)
No way you're getting my copy, you'll lose it you silly bugger
laugh.gif

And collective library of posts by Carl: LMAO [laugh]


I imagine some people in some board rooms are flipping out right now. When this is totally verified and good to go we need to see if we can force some US news outlets to touch it with their 10 foot poles.

I'm curious how Vertias stumbled on to this - something occured to me...
If I'm not mistaken, there were two versions of the Conspiracy Files piece that ran on the BBC recently. One was reportedly un-biased, and one was the hit-piece that we saw. Someone in the BBC, (and it's very likely that someone over there might have remembered that they broadcast the WTC 7 news too soon, ) may have become disgusted when the managment chose to run the hit piece and tipped off someone that there was this piece of footage in the archives. (???)

Just surmising...

All I can say is what a great day, great work everyone getting this downloaded in the nick of time, you folks rock!

Posted by: m-v-b Feb 27 2007, 07:06 PM

As expected, the google Video links from the first site are down now^^

Hope everybody got his personal copy cheers.gif

(I think all the deniers are geting crazy now.....AHHHH I HAVE 2 DELETEEEEEEE ALLL, I CANT SEE TRUTH AHHHH)


greetz m-v-b

Posted by: Carl Bank Feb 27 2007, 07:07 PM

QUOTE (behind @ Feb 27 2007, 08:24 PM)
BBC responds

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 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... "

Richard Porter is head of news, BBC World

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html

Possible explaination i found this afternoon at the govt loyalist site
(and already qouted it in 'Chill', but you folks seem to
feel that comfortable here in WTC7, that I will carry the hill
to the prophets now):

QUOTE
QUOTE
Originally Posted by The Video

The BBC received a press release or notification.

Dear BBC,

I'm going to use the office of President to commit mass murder and treason, and I want to ask you a teensy favor. As you'll see from the enclosed timetable, WTC7 is scheduled to collapse at 4:57 pm, and that's when we'd like you to report it happening.

Your pal,

George W. Bush.

PS: Donald just explained to me that you'd probably report the collapse of a tower anyway, even without me telling you about it in advance, 'cos collapsing towers are kinda newsworthy. I guess either way's good.

I enclose a press presentation pack giving full details of our false flag operation; a special 9/11 souvenir key-ring in the shape of a bloodstained hand; and a T-shirt with the slogan "I Could Have Saved Thousands Of Lives But All I Got Was This Lousy T-Shirt".


Be honest: Better than, or equal to my jokes at all kinds.

IEspecially love the t-shirt. It reminds me to that picture of an older jewish/gypsy
woman standing in front of the 'Reichstag' in Berlin, grinning and wearing a t-shirt
with the slogan: "My Friends Went To Berlin To Visit The Holocost Memorial And
All I Got Was This Lousy T-Shirt."

found his master at J*R*E*F: Carl

Posted by: Carl Bank Feb 27 2007, 07:10 PM

QUOTE (behind @ Feb 27 2007, 08:24 PM)
BBC responds

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 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... "

Richard Porter is head of news, BBC World

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html

Possible explaination i found this afternoon at the govt loyalist site
(and already quoted it in 'Chill', but you folks seem to
feel that comfortable here in WTC7, that I will carry the hill
to the prophets now):

QUOTE
QUOTE
Originally Posted by The Video

The BBC received a press release or notification.

Dear BBC,

I'm going to use the office of President to commit mass murder and treason, and I want to ask you a teensy favor. As you'll see from the enclosed timetable, WTC7 is scheduled to collapse at 4:57 pm, and that's when we'd like you to report it happening.

Your pal,

George W. Bush.

PS: Donald just explained to me that you'd probably report the collapse of a tower anyway, even without me telling you about it in advance, 'cos collapsing towers are kinda newsworthy. I guess either way's good.

I enclose a press presentation pack giving full details of our false flag operation; a special 9/11 souvenir key-ring in the shape of a bloodstained hand; and a T-shirt with the slogan "I Could Have Saved Thousands Of Lives But All I Got Was This Lousy T-Shirt".


Be honest: Better than, or equal to my jokes at all kinds.

I Especially love the t-shirt. It reminds me to that picture of an older jewish/gypsy
woman standing in front of the 'Reichstag' in Berlin, grinning and wearing a t-shirt
with the slogan: "My Friends Went To Berlin To Visit The Holocaust Memorial And
All I Got Was This Lousy T-Shirt."

found his master at J*R*E*F: Carl

Posted by: CrazyBlade Feb 27 2007, 07:29 PM

[quote=Carl Bank,Feb 27 2007, 11:10 PM] Dear BBC,

I'm going to use the office of President to commit mass murder and treason, and I want to ask you a teensy favor. As you'll see from the enclosed timetable, WTC7 is scheduled to collapse at 4:57 pm, and that's when we'd like you to report it happening.

Your pal,

George W. Bush.

PS: Donald just explained to me that you'd probably report the collapse of a tower anyway, even without me telling you about it in advance, 'cos collapsing towers are kinda newsworthy. I guess either way's good.

I enclose a press presentation pack giving full details of our false flag operation; a special 9/11 souvenir key-ring in the shape of a bloodstained hand; and a T-shirt with the slogan "I Could Have Saved Thousands Of Lives But All I Got Was This Lousy T-Shirt".[/QUOTE] [/quote]
OMG!!!!

lolabove.gif lolabove.gif lolabove.gif lolabove.gif lolabove.gif

I'm still bloody laughing, and it hurts!!!

Thanks the Lord for Carl Bank: CB

Posted by: Truthseekers Feb 27 2007, 07:36 PM

This is what we got in Blighty. This is the breaking news of WTC7. 21.54pm, places the time right with the BBC world vid, so no question of timestamp if there was any questions left wink.gif

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0iGZPKQaeQ

Posted by: BoneZ Feb 27 2007, 07:58 PM

QUOTE
5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error

After seeing the release from the BBC, number 5 above kinda stuck in my mind. Out of ALL the buildings in Manhattan, why the hell (if this video is actually real) would the BBC pick WTC7 as already collapsed when it's still standing right behind her and about 30 minutes before it's ACTUALLY supposed to collapse?? I still think this is a hoax. And naturally the BBC doesn't have the original footage anymore.... dunno.gif

Posted by: Truthseekers Feb 27 2007, 08:00 PM

QUOTE (BoneZ @ Feb 27 2007, 11:58 PM)
QUOTE
5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error

After seeing the release from the BBC, number 5 above kinda stuck in my mind. Out of ALL the buildings in Manhattan, why the hell (if this video is actually real) would the BBC pick WTC7 as already collapsed when it's still standing right behind her and about 30 minutes before it's ACTUALLY supposed to collapse?? I still think this is a hoax. And naturally the BBC doesn't have the original footage anymore.... dunno.gif

If it was not real, why would the BBC make a statement?.

Posted by: behind Feb 27 2007, 08:09 PM

QUOTE (Sanders @ Feb 27 2007, 10:37 PM)
I'm curious how Vertias stumbled on to this - something occured to me...
If I'm not mistaken, there were two versions of the Conspiracy Files piece that ran on the BBC recently. One was reportedly un-biased, and one was the hit-piece that we saw. Someone in the BBC, (and it's very likely that someone over there might have remembered that they broadcast the WTC 7 news too soon, ) may have become disgusted when the managment chose to run the hit piece and tipped off someone that there was this piece of footage in the archives. (???)

Just surmising...

All I can say is what a great day, great work everyone getting this downloaded in the nick of time, you folks rock!

Um...yes. Interesting question or thought.

But there is one thing I dont fully understand.

Where did all this 9/11 TV Archive came from...then I mean...who put it on the internet ? Was it the tv station themselvs or what... I dont know.

A man named "galdur" who is btw a guy who I trust 120% put it on http://www.conspiracycafe.net/board_forum/index.php?showtopic=11187 22.feb.

Posted by: BoneZ Feb 27 2007, 08:10 PM

QUOTE (Truthseekers @ Feb 28 2007, 12:00 AM)
If it was not real, why would the BBC make a statement?.

The BBC made a statement to save their asses for the moment. Since they allegedly don't have the originals anymore, they can't readily go look to see if this video is real or not.

Posted by: Truthseekers Feb 27 2007, 08:21 PM

QUOTE (BoneZ @ Feb 28 2007, 12:10 AM)
QUOTE (Truthseekers @ Feb 28 2007, 12:00 AM)
If it was not real, why would the BBC make a statement?.

The BBC made a statement to save their asses for the moment. Since they allegedly don't have the originals anymore, they can't readily go look to see if this video is real or not.

But in the BBC response, they have seen the video. And are aware of it too. wink.gif
In seeing what has been posted on the net, if this was not one of theirs, why would they respond?. Why have they now been pulled from the archives?. That smacks of attempts to hide away though. It is too late for the Beeb, they have cocked it up and are desperately trying to cover their tracks.

Above, I have posted a link to the UK BBC footage in relation to reports of another building collapse, this is the WTC7 collapse. The time stamp is 21.54pm, matching the time quoted on the BBC world footage. But time is not the issue though. The issue is that they were reporting on an event which had not even happened. salute.gif

Posted by: Truthseekers Feb 27 2007, 08:23 PM

QUOTE (behind @ Feb 28 2007, 12:09 AM)
QUOTE (Sanders @ Feb 27 2007, 10:37 PM)
I'm curious how Vertias stumbled on to this - something occured to me...
If I'm not mistaken, there were two versions of the Conspiracy Files piece that ran on the BBC recently.  One was reportedly un-biased, and one was the hit-piece that we saw.  Someone in the BBC, (and it's very likely that someone over there might have remembered that they broadcast the WTC 7 news too soon, ) may have become disgusted when the managment chose to run the hit piece and tipped off someone that there was this piece of footage in the archives. (???)

Just surmising...

All I can say is what a great day, great work everyone getting this downloaded in the nick of time, you folks rock!

Um...yes. Interesting question or thought.

But there is one thing I dont fully understand.

Where did all this 9/11 TV Archive came from...then I mean...who put it on the internet ? Was it the tv station themselvs or what... I dont know.

A man named "galdur" who is btw a guy who I trust 120% put it on http://www.conspiracycafe.net/board_forum/index.php?showtopic=11187 22.feb.

The BBC boss himself broadcast that they would give access to their archives to the general public.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/3177479.stm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2006/01_january/03/archive.shtml

Posted by: CrazyBlade Feb 27 2007, 08:25 PM

QUOTE (Truthseekers @ Feb 27 2007, 11:36 PM)
This is what we got in Blighty. This is the breaking news of WTC7. 21.54pm, places the time right with the BBC world vid, so no question of timestamp if there was any questions left wink.gif

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0iGZPKQaeQ

Nice find TS, we need a downloadable version of that one as well, just to add to the growing Obituary of the BBC's integrity.

Posted by: Cary Feb 27 2007, 08:25 PM

QUOTE (behind @ Feb 27 2007, 06:09 PM)
QUOTE (Sanders @ Feb 27 2007, 10:37 PM)
I'm curious how Vertias stumbled on to this - something occured to me...
If I'm not mistaken, there were two versions of the Conspiracy Files piece that ran on the BBC recently.  One was reportedly un-biased, and one was the hit-piece that we saw.  Someone in the BBC, (and it's very likely that someone over there might have remembered that they broadcast the WTC 7 news too soon, ) may have become disgusted when the managment chose to run the hit piece and tipped off someone that there was this piece of footage in the archives. (???)

Just surmising...

All I can say is what a great day, great work everyone getting this downloaded in the nick of time, you folks rock!

Um...yes. Interesting question or thought.

But there is one thing I dont fully understand.

Where did all this 9/11 TV Archive came from...then I mean...who put it on the internet ? Was it the tv station themselvs or what... I dont know.

A man named "galdur" who is btw a guy who I trust 120% put it on http://www.conspiracycafe.net/board_forum/index.php?showtopic=11187 22.feb.

Galdur is DA MAN from Iceland. Great pal of mine there.

Posted by: André Feb 27 2007, 08:44 PM

I'm sure Richard Porter from BBC would appreciate your comments concerning his statement today biggrin.gif

You can do so at : http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html

Or you can just read the emails he got so far...

Posted by: CrazyBlade Feb 27 2007, 08:47 PM

QUOTE (André @ Feb 28 2007, 12:44 AM)
I'm sure Richard Porter from BBC would appreciate your comments concerning his statement today biggrin.gif

You can do so at : http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html

Or you can just read the emails he got so far...

I've tried to add a comment, sadly its the first time I've posted on the BBC site (and, hopefully, the last) so its under moderator review, which will probably mean my comment will be canned. Pah!

And I pay money for the BBC... so very, very sad...

Posted by: democrazy Feb 27 2007, 09:12 PM

I wonder when the official damage control kicks in, stating "we made a mistake sorry... here is why and how"

Posted by: Sanders Feb 27 2007, 09:29 PM

QUOTE (André @ Feb 28 2007, 09:44 AM)
I'm sure Richard Porter from BBC would appreciate your comments concerning his statement today  biggrin.gif

You can do so at : http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html

Or you can just read the emails he got so far...

Well, after 5 years of talking to people about 9/11 and being told I was a fruitcake, reading those 2 dozen blistering comments was heaven.

I sent Mr. Porter an e-mail and posted a comment of my own ... curious if they'll let it though.

Thanks for the link, André

Posted by: behind Feb 27 2007, 09:52 PM

It is very hard for me to belive nr 4. statement from mr. Porter:

"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."

I dont know... but it is just very hard for me to belive this just like nothing.

Posted by: Truthseekers Feb 27 2007, 10:47 PM

QUOTE (behind @ Feb 28 2007, 01:52 AM)
It is very hard for me to belive nr 4. statement from mr. Porter:

"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."

I dont know... but it is just very hard for me to belive this just like nothing.

Maybe the FBI seized them laugh.gif

Posted by: UnderTow Feb 27 2007, 11:04 PM

This is completely an open'n'shut-up moment. There is only one true final question/answer that needs to be obtained about this completely authentic and original live replay.

What was the SOURCE for the BBC Report?


Follow that answer to it's core. Source to Source to Source.

There are other easy questions:


Dear Miss TV Person,
What did you think when that building behind you collapsed in one giant rush of 47-Story Steel Mass? Merely minutes AFTER you reported that it had ALREADY collapsed?
Maybe not knowing which building was which, did you not ask someone, "What building was that?"? And when you found out the it was in fact WTC7, the very 47-Story Structure which you ALREADY said had fallen, how did that make you FEEL?



So, my friends, it seems quite easy. Anything other then the simple answers from above (plus a few hundred follow-up questions), and it's another memory hole while the machine continues to grind bones and spew blood.

Posted by: Zapzarap Feb 28 2007, 03:42 AM

QUOTE (BoneZ @ Feb 28 2007, 12:58 AM)
QUOTE
5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error

After seeing the release from the BBC, number 5 above kinda stuck in my mind. Out of ALL the buildings in Manhattan, why the hell (if this video is actually real) would the BBC pick WTC7 as already collapsed when it's still standing right behind her and about 30 minutes before it's ACTUALLY supposed to collapse?? I still think this is a hoax. And naturally the BBC doesn't have the original footage anymore.... dunno.gif




BoneZ

You amaze me there.
How can you even THINK (let alone post) at this point, that it is a hoax. wink.gif

The original footage has been downloaded from archive.org by hundreds of people and is being dissected and disseminated. (Even painter seems convinced now ) that this was a real BBC life broadcast on 9/11. smile.gif

If somebody is still not sure – BBC (Richard Porter) confirm it is theirs.
And all the 9/11 life-footage has been ‘pulled’ from archive.org !
Including a CNN report that building 7 "Has either collapsed or is collapsing" at 4.10. (according to http://www.conspiracycafe.net/board_forum/index.php?showtopic=11187

Seems as if things really get moving.

This post of Galdur is worth thinking about IMO.

QUOTE
It's plan B.

I mean how the heck do you find stuff like this?

Who leaks this into the net? It's friggin' five and a half years
since the tragic events. Why now? Who finds this?

I couldn´t. However I frequent certain sites and my demeanour
on the net is totally mapped. Yours is too. I love to disseminate
information. So, dangle this before me and I post it right away
at strategic places.

It's plan B of the part of the elite who wants to pick up the pieces
after this whole sordid mess finally blows up. As it always had to
do. We are truly controlled. The 9/11 truth movement is controlled.
These are seriously smart geezers out there.



Zap


BTW somebody posted a link to the original BBC footage on YouTube – probably on another thread – can’t find it.
Can someone point me to it, plse.

Posted by: painter Feb 28 2007, 04:03 AM

QUOTE (UnderTow @ Feb 27 2007, 07:04 PM)
<s>

Dear Miss TV Person,
What did you think when that building behind you collapsed in one giant rush of 47-Story Steel Mass? Merely minutes AFTER you reported that it had ALREADY collapsed?
Maybe not knowing which building was which, did you not ask someone, "What building was that?"? And when you found out the it was in fact WTC7, the very 47-Story Structure which you ALREADY said had fallen, how did that make you FEEL?

<s>

So, my friends, it seems quite easy. Anything other then the simple answers from above (plus a few hundred follow-up questions), and it's another memory hole while the machine continues to grind bones and spew blood.

Right on questions.

Here is what I just posted to the BBC editors blog:

If you are not part of a conspiracy or a cover-up then YOU need to take on the responsibility of finding out by whom and from where BBC World acquired the information that the Solomon Building (WTC 7) had collapsed at least 20 minutes before it actually did so. Failure on your part to follow up on this story with a credible answer (not mere spin explanation) WILL indicate that you ARE a part of a conspiracy to keep from the public evidence of high crimes. The explanation of 9/11 events presented by the United States government are the cornerstone of domestic and foreign policy that is radically at odds with the principals upon which this nation was founded. By the way, I personally have the archive 1 gigabyte file -- if you need a copy, please let me know. You have my email, I'll be happy to share it with you.

Posted by: painter Feb 28 2007, 04:40 AM

QUOTE (Zapzarap @ Feb 27 2007, 11:42 PM)
<s>(Even painter seems convinced now ) that this was a real BBC life broadcast on 9/11. smile.gif <s>

Ah geeze, not with the geezer smiley again. nonono.gif

For what it is worth, yes, it is authentic footage.

The BBC are screwed and all they can do now is lie and spin. "Oh, we didn't have any prepared scripts -- all that talk about terrorism and Osamma and Pearl Harbor just hours after the event -- well, that was just banter! And, yeah, I guess we were a bit off with the building had already collapsed thingy but, you know, sometimes we, too, make mistakes." blahblah1.gif

Unbelievable. NOT CREDIBLE. BULL PUCKY! Or as I guess they say in Mary O': BULLOCKS!

If someone else doesn't get it done before us, a friend and I are going to try and get the archived segment up as a torrent tomorrow (Wednesday) evening.

Posted by: Zapzarap Feb 28 2007, 05:59 AM

QUOTE (painter @ Feb 27 2007, 06:52 AM)
I'm obviously the cautious type. But then if you live to be my age and you go through what I've gone through, you'll be cautious, too.


I'm used to be critized for exactly that in discussions: cautious due to age if not conservative or even reactionary.
So no offence meant with the smile.



BTW somebody posted a link to the original BBC footage on YouTube – probably on another thread – can’t find it.
Anyone?

Posted by: Tarya Feb 28 2007, 06:16 AM

QUOTE (Zapzarap @ Feb 28 2007, 11:59 AM)
BTW somebody posted a link to the original BBC footage on YouTube – probably on another thread – can’t find it.
Anyone?

Here you go Zap
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eprisonplanet%2Ecom%2Farticles%2Ffebruary2007%2F260207building7%2Ehtm
and @ liveleak:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=49f_1172526096

Posted by: Zapzarap Feb 28 2007, 06:31 AM

Geia sou, Tarya smile.gif
and thanks a lot!
Peter

Posted by: Carl Bank Feb 28 2007, 07:09 AM

You are the real warrior, Painter! Respect!

also got at least 1GB more than BBC got: Carl

Posted by: Truthseekers Feb 28 2007, 08:23 AM

Posted this in UK911 forum. A timely reminder that advanced knowledge is never impossible:

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.

Posted by: LizzyTish Feb 28 2007, 10:53 AM

Here's an article on the BBC's response from Prison Planet:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/270207bbcresponds.htm

I'm trying to find the mp3 of the actual radio show when Alex drops what he was talking about and goes crazy reading the info he was just given about this.

**********************
Edit: I found it. February 26, Hour 3, 8:00 minutes in - a Michael from Toronto calls in and gives Alex the news and Alex immediately goes into panic mode trying to get other clips, etc.

http://www.realradioarchives.com/sound-2.htm

Posted by: painter Feb 28 2007, 11:19 AM

Here is a DivX version of the commentary video:
http://stage6.divx.com/content/show/1133782?user_id=245557

Posted by: DemolitionCrew Feb 28 2007, 11:24 AM

QUOTE (LizzyTish @ Feb 28 2007, 09:53 AM)
Here's an article on the BBC's response from Prison Planet:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/270207bbcresponds.htm

I'm trying to find the mp3 of the actual radio show when Alex drops what he was talking about and goes crazy reading the info he was just given about this.

**********************
Edit: I found it. February 26, Hour 3, 8:00 minutes in - a Michael from Toronto calls in and gives Alex the news and Alex immediately goes into panic mode trying to get other clips, etc.

http://www.realradioarchives.com/sound-2.htm

I hope this aspect does not get missed. Its fine to go after the reporter who was standing in front of WTC 7 as they are reporting it has collapsed...but I think the most important aspect is who sent the wire to the BBC studio that WTC 7 had in fact collapsed.

In the video the studio anchor asks her what do you know about the Soloman Building collapse...and she replies, pretty much what you know. It sounds like she wasn't the original source and in fact they were sent this information from another source. And if it was from another source, it was sent through a wire/email transmission. Who was providign the updated information regarding events that day? Was it coming from the State Dept.? Was it coming from the mayor NYC's office. That is the part we must now tackle considering we KNOW this video is authentic!!!

Next mission .... salute.gif

Posted by: dv8 Feb 28 2007, 11:45 AM

thumbsup.gif Shure, way to go.

Posted by: dnd Feb 28 2007, 12:39 PM

Time stamp confirms BBC reported WTC 7 26 minutes in advance.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/bbc_wtc_7_timestamp_confirms_bbc_reported_collapse_26_min_advance.htm

Posted by: LizzyTish Feb 28 2007, 12:44 PM

More Time Stamp confirmation:

Dylan Avery:

QUOTE
dylan avery Posted: Feb 26 2007, 06:23 PM  


From the Internet Archive metadata...

bbc200109111654-1736
BBC Sept. 11, 2001 4:54 pm - 5:36 pm

News from BBC TV was recorded by the Television Archive, a non-profit archive. Video available as a loan (stream) only.

Date: 2001-09-11 20:54:47 UTC
Air Time: 2001-09-11 16:54:47 EDT
Length: 0:41:41
english
2001-09-11 20:54:47
2001-09-11 16:54:47 EDT

Television News; September 11 Terrorist Attacks; 911 Terrorist Attacks
[curator]renata@archive.org[/curator][date]20070218204203[/date][state]un-dark[/state]

So...it was broadcast at 4:57. There's no disputing that now. 


Paul Watson, Prison Planet:

QUOTE
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/febru...07timestamp.htm

Time Stamp Confirms BBC Reported WTC 7 Collapse 26 Minutes In Advance
Debunkers' claims about blue screens, inconclusive time frame of Jane Standley footage eviscerated

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Wednesday, February 28, 2007


If there was any remaining doubt that the BBC reported the collapse of Building 7 over 20 minutes before it fell then it has now evaporated with the discovery of footage from the BBC's News 24 channel that shows the time stamp at 21:54 (4:54PM EST) when news of the Salomon Brothers Building is first broadcast, a full 26 minutes in advance of its collapse.

Posted by: Carl Bank Feb 28 2007, 01:25 PM

NEED YOUR HELP!

It is 6:00 pm CET here in Berlin and iI just talked with an old friend
of mine who works as an illustrator for the biggest Berlin tabloid, the "BZ"
(www.bz-berlin.de).

I told him about the breaking News with BBC and their foreknowledge and the
flick that briefly appeared at Google and was censored immediately and so on..

I asked him, if this might be something the 'BZ' can put on public display and he was
really sold on that!

He asked me, if I can make a pdf-file whit the summary of the info and the links to
all the sites that still show the flick. He also said, that screenshots of the important
scenes will be appreciated.

Can someone please help me with that??

He said, he will be in the office at about 11.00 am GMT tomorrow and will talk to the editorial staff,
but need the pdf before. So I got 17 hours to complete apress release of it that will be published
in the main Berlin tabloit, which got a run of about 1 million newspapers in the capitol of germany.
If this is published here, it is not possible for other mainstream media in Germany to avoid the topic anymore. Promise, I experienced it.

Please PM me to get my email.
Additionally here is the contakt info of that Newspaper.

It is not very intellectual but more like "The Sun" in London,
but got the same effect: Imagine "The Sun" publishing this...!

So it could be useful if EVERYBODY wil send emails to the editiors
("Redaktion") and tell them about it. It will possibly be the dam-breaking
act to spread the truth in the MSM.

Carl

KONTAKT

B.Z.-Redaktion:
Tel.: +49 30 2591-0
Fax: +49 30 2591-73006
redaktion@bz-berlin.de

Online-Team:
Tel.: +49 30 2591-0
OnlineTeam@bz-berlin.de

edit / 1000 typos - i am too exited

Posted by: Zapzarap Feb 28 2007, 01:43 PM

Carl, make it simple!

You should be able to do the job with just what is on this thread:

-the initial video, and screenshots thereof (from your posts)
-the link to the original footing (you even have the 1GB original I gather)
-the preposterous official reaction of BBC Richard Porter (head of news, BBC World) www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html
-some of the replies to it, especially painter's on this thread.

and your abilities re graphics for the layout.

thumbsup.gif
Zap

Posted by: Carl Bank Feb 28 2007, 01:48 PM

QUOTE (Zapzarap @ Feb 28 2007, 05:43 PM)
Carl, make it simple!

You should be able to do the job with just what is on this thread:

-the initial video, and screenshots thereof (from your posts)
-the link to the original footing (you even have the 1GB original I gather)
-the preposterous official reaction of BBC Richard Porter (head of news, BBC World) www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html
-some of the replies to it, especially painter's on this thread.

and your abilities re graphics for the layout.

thumbsup.gif
Zap

If I would have the time to collect all links now and do screenshots, I would of course do it, but
actually I got some work to do and the Pf911T-forum only runs in the background.

Sorry for that, but, if someone can collect all the info for me once again, it would be a huge help.

Or do I have to save the world here once again all alone? Tss, tss,... Austrians! Typical!

busy: Carl

Posted by: Zapzarap Feb 28 2007, 01:59 PM

OK, OK, OK, Tss Tss

I'll get some work finished and come back to you with something shortly.


Zap



Just to confirm, guys you may send mails to redaktion@bz-berlin.de in English.

Posted by: DemolitionCrew Feb 28 2007, 03:30 PM

I am sure you may have a resource but if you need someone to convert it into PDF format let me know thumbsup.gif

Posted by: dnd Feb 28 2007, 04:43 PM

Seems like CNN also got a report of WTC 7 collapsing or collapsed at 4:15.

Video in article.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/bbc_wtc_7_911_coverup_unraveling.htm

QUOTE (infowars.com)
 

BOMBSHELL: 9/11 COVER-UP UNRAVELING
CNN , BBC 24 Reports Conclusively Prove Media Prior Knowledge and False-Start Scripting of Building 7 Controlled Demolition

Jones Report | February 27, 2007
Aaron Dykes and Alex Jones

It has now been discovered that BBC 24 also reported the Building 7 collapse before it fell. Furthermore, CNN's Aaron Brown reported that Building 7 "has collapsed or is collapsing" over an hour before it fell.

These clips both reinforce the shocking, newly discovered BBC coverage wherein Jane Standley reports the collapse early-- with the building still standing behind her.

We are witnessing the unraveling of the 9/11 cover-up.

The early timing of these reports is now verified twiceover-- the BBC 24 report is time stamped at 21.54-- or 4:54 P.M. Eastern Standard Time [See World Time Zones] Secondly, CNN's Aaron Brown states the time as "4:15 Eastern Daylight Time," announcing Building 7 has fallen-- more than one hour before its actual collapse.

Furthermore, both the BBC report with Jane Standley and the CNN report with Aaron Brown clearly show Building 7 still standing, 'billowing with smoke' as the collapse is reported-- so premature reporting is confirmed visually as well .

There is no longer any doubt they were all reading off the same script. Reports mirrored testimony of scores of fire fighters, police and emergency workers who were told to get back from the building in the 2 hours before Salomon Brothers building (better known as WTC 7) fell at free-fall speed.

Rescue workers were told the building was to be brought down in a controlled demolition .

The group that carried out the demolition of Building 7 was in a position to feed the media and local authorities an official story. We have the controlled demolition of Building 7 hidden in plain sight-- including an admission by the building's 99-year lease holder Larry Silverstein .

We are witnessing the unraveling of the 9/11 cover-up.

New video and audio clips of emergency workers who were told the Building 7 was to be purposefully brought down are coming out on an hour-by-hour basis as thousands of 9/11 researchers investigate publicly available archives.

Alex Jones in his car on the afternoon of 9/11 also heard ABC News report that the government was considering demolishing Building 7. Jones didn't't realize what he was hearing for several weeks. Now the evidence is coming out.

CNN'S REPORT IN-FOCUS
AARON BROWN QUESTIONS SCRIPT ON-AIR, UNLIKE BBC

It is interesting to note that Aaron Brown seems to realize the incongruity of his reporting as he looks over his shoulder at Building 7-- still standing and emitting massive trails of smoke.

Just after announcing that WTC 7 "has collapsed or is collapsing," he lets onto his confusion, stating:

    "And I—I—You, to be honest, can see these pictures more clearly than I, but building number 7, one of the buildings in this very large complex of buildings that is that is the trade center."

Clearly, Brown, slicker than the BBC reporter, caught the errors in the script during live coverage and revised his words, saying instead-- as he looked at the standing structure:

    "And now we are told that there's a fire there and that building may collapse as well as you can see. "

Posted by: pinnacle Feb 28 2007, 07:52 PM

Aaron Brown on CNN reported on the collapse of building 7 at 4:15 pm, that's even
45 minutes BEFORE the BBC News report!!!! He even turns around and looks right at it!

Posted by: DemolitionCrew Feb 28 2007, 08:21 PM

Everyone had the same source and if we are successful in determining the source...we will then have the biggest lead in determining who was responsible for the atrocities on September 11th. These bastards can thank the media for helping their cover-up to date. They can also thank the media for helping to blow their cover wide open!

Posted by: Truthseekers Mar 1 2007, 08:11 AM

Heard the latest about BBC losing tapes? apparently they have lost the moon landing tapes now. Now then, lets hear their brains working -

'Sir, I have an idea'

'Ok, lets hear it'

'Well, sir, if we lose some more tapes that are not related to 911, people will think it is not a coincidence that 911 tapes were lost to hide something'.

'Good idea!, BOB, action it!'.

(Me): 'Just saw through your little ploy. It wont wash!'.

The BBC have broken the law by losing tapes.

Posted by: Carl Bank Mar 1 2007, 01:29 PM

Whith the enormouse help of Zap & Sanders I send a press text
about it to the BZ.

It is posted in the http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=5129. Please spread it around the Newsletters
yopu can find in your area.

Watergate was just a job. This is a mission.

Posted by: m-v-b Mar 2 2007, 03:40 PM

A German Newspaper has Published a Comment about the BBC preknowlege in there Online Version!
Its mostly sceptic, but a good start:

http://www.focus.de/panorama/welt/verschwoerungstheorie_nid_45644.html

greetz m-v-b

Posted by: m-v-b Mar 2 2007, 03:50 PM

1. more Question.


Did the BBC excused themself after the WTC7 REALY Colapsed?
ore did they went on with there show as nothing happend?

greetz m-v-b

Posted by: Sanders Mar 2 2007, 04:33 PM

I'm sure they went on as if nothing had happened. Had they not we would have heard about it before now.

I'm curious what wen't through Jane Stampley's mind five minutes after they cut her off wink.gif

One thing we do know for sure, the people at the BBC, while I'm sure they weren't complicit, have known all along.

Posted by: Truthseekers Mar 2 2007, 04:46 PM

BBCs Porter: Excuse number 2:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/03/part_of_the_conspiracy_2.html

QUOTE
Part of the conspiracy? (2)Richard Porter 2 Mar 07, 04:43 PM

So how did the BBC report that Building 7 at the World Trade Centre had collapsed around half an hour before it did so? My earlier posting on the subject has attracted a lot of interest so we've been doing more investigating within the BBC to put together the sequence of events.

Five and a half years have passed so it's quite difficult to answer every outstanding question. But we do know quite a bit more than we did on Tuesday, as a result of checking the BBC archives and what other media were doing at the time. I've also read through some of the reports published after 9/11 to help put together the sequence of events.

Back to 11 September itself. The Twin Towers had collapsed. Other buildings were known to be damaged. Building 7 was on fire. But this was also a very confusing picture - remember we had started the day with reports that a light aircraft had struck the first tower, and at one stage there was talk of ten hijacked jets in the air. It's in the nature of rolling news that events unfold in front of you and confusion turns to clarity. It's important to remember that context when looking more closely at what happened between about 4.10pm (EDT) and 5.20pm when Building 7 finally collapsed.

CNN's chronology of events published at the time confirms they reported the building on fire and a clip from a CNN bulletin, widely available on the web, hears from a reporter at about 4.15pm EDT, 9.15pm in the UK, who says: "We're getting information that one of the other buildings... Building 7... is on fire and has either collapsed or is collapsing... now we're told there is a fire there and that the building may collapse as well."

Other American networks were broadcasting similar reports at this time and the reports from FEMA and NIST both make it clear the building was on fire during the course of the day.

One senior fire officer was quoted in a subsequent interview as saying there was a "bulge" in the building and he was "pretty sure it was going to collapse". During this time, our staff were talking directly to the emergency services and monitoring local and national media… and there was a fairly consistent picture being painted of Building 7 in danger of collapse. Producers in London would have been monitoring the news agency wires - the Associated Press, Reuters, etc - and although we don't routinely keep an archive of agency reports, we're sure they would have been reporting the same as the local media.

At 4.27pm, a BBC reporter, Greg Barrow, who is in New York, appears on our radio news channel, BBC Radio Five Live, and says: "We are hearing reports from local media that another building may have caught light and is in danger of collapse." He then responds to a follow-up question by saying "I'm not sure if it has yet collapsed but the report we have is talking about Building 7."

At 4.53pm, on the same radio station, the programme's presenter, Fi Glover says "25 minutes ago we had reports from Greg Barrow that another large building has collapsed just over an hour ago."

At 4.54pm, the BBC's domestic television news channel, BBC News 24, reports the same thing. Presenter Gavin Esler says: "We're now being told that yet another enormous building has collapsed... it is the 47-storey Salomon Brothers building."

And then at 4.57pm on BBC World (according to the clips available on the web) presenter Phil Hayton says: "We've got some news just coming in actually that the Salomon brothers building in NY right in the heart of Manhattan has also collapsed."

Because three BBC channels were saying this in quick succession, I am inclined to believe that one or more of the news agencies was reporting this, or at least reporting someone saying this.

At 5pm, News 24 repeated the news in its top-of-the-hour headlines sequence and then at about 5.10pm (again according to the clips on the web), Phil Hayton on BBC World says "More on the latest building collapse in NY - you might have heard I was talking a few moments ago about the Salomon building collapsing and indeed it has... it seems this wasn't the result of a new attack but because the building had been weakened during this morning's attack."

Some of the respondents to my earlier blog have suggested this must mean he had inside knowledge - that not only did he know the building had collapsed, he knew why.

Well in one sense that's true - for about an hour, it had been reported that the building was on fire and in danger of collapse. But he did qualify it by saying "it seems" and once again I think there's a danger of reading too much into what I believe was a presenter merely summarising what everyone had been saying during the previous hour.

Of course, with hindsight we now know that our live shot showed the building still standing in the background. But again I point to that confusing and chaotic situation on the ground - the CNN reporter who had talked about the building "either collapsed or is collapsing" also had it clearly in shot behind him, but he acknowledged he couldn't see very clearly from where he was standing. As we know, the building did collapse at 5.20pm, with the first pictures of that being broadcast on News 24 at about 5.35pm.

So that's what we know we reported. To me it paints a consistent (and reasonably conclusive) picture.

I should also mention the missing tapes. As you'll see from the details above, the absence of the BBC World tapes hasn't made much difference to our ability to look back at what happened. We have all the tapes of other BBC channels (and I now know that quite a few of you have your own copies of BBC World, which is an interesting discovery... ).

Some of you find it hard to believe we didn't keep the BBC World tapes... but we had several streams of news output running simultaneously on the day, both on radio and television as well as online and we have kept all the tapes from BBC News 24 and Radio Five Live, as well as all the BBC One bulletins. Obviously I wish we'd kept hold of the World tapes alongside all the others, but we didn't... and I don't know whether they were destroyed or mislaid. But as a result of this week's events, I have asked our archivists to get hold of copies of our original material from the organisations which do have them.

And just to be clear, the BBC policy is to keep every minute of news channel output for 90 days (in line with the Broadcasting Act in the UK). After that we are obliged to keep a representative sample - and we interpret that to mean roughly one third of all our output. We also keep a large amount of individual items (such as packaged reports or "rushes" - ie original unedited material), which we use for operational reasons - such as when we come to broadcast fresh stories on the subject. We do not lack a historical record of the event.

I've spent most of the week investigating this issue, but this is where we have to end the story. I know there are many out there who won't believe our version of events, or will raise further questions. But there was no conspiracy in the BBC's reporting of the events. Nobody told us what to say. There's no conspiracy involving missing tapes. There's no story here.


Richard Porter is head of news, BBC World


Responses to 'Excuses Part 2'

QUOTE
Comments  Post your comment
1. At 05:35 PM on 02 Mar 2007, John wrote:
Nice try Richard, but this doesn't add up.....So now your ''news'' are based on other news channels, without daring to verify the validity of the said news....very professionnal, sir. This is a pathetic dammage control lie, and you shpuld be ashamed of yourself. I wonder how can you sleep at night, I really do.....

Complain about this post
2. At 05:52 PM on 02 Mar 2007, gregor aitken wrote:
you are bang on right there is no story in the missing bbc tapes and thank-you for doing your best to find out what happened.

The real story is the inability of the bbc to look into 9/11 and 7/7 and do a proper investigation.

The real story is where are the bbc?
where are the journalists?

From reading these comment boards a lot of people are very unhappy with the newsmadia, the gatekeepers of the newsagenda dont want this story, for whatever reasons.

If you take any news outlet to task on this you get ridiculed and sidestepped. yet more and more people are asking questions.

Mr. Porter why does the bbc seem to only report news rather than seek truth.

please explain


Complain about this post
3. At 06:12 PM on 02 Mar 2007, PeeVeeAh wrote:
"There's no story here"....

I have always believed that to be the case, Richard! There were only frantic 'rushes' at the time - little corroboration and everyone in a tabloid panic to scoop the breaking bites and footage. There was absolutely 'no story' at the time. No vetting, no editing just 'splash it all over!' in the interests of instant messaging. There is no craft in 24-hour TV News reporting, it's become a race against time - and better judgement.

I think the 9/11 'asynchronisms' were the most illuminating wxamples of breaking news gone wrong - with nothing more sinister than that. However, much should be learned from the peril of on-the-fly composition of reports that will inevitably be engraved for posterity - in peoples' minds if not in recoverable local archive.

I cringe almost every time I see the 'Breaking News' banner caption! Perhaps 24-hour news should be completely 'bannered'! ;-)

Complain about this post
4. At 06:23 PM on 02 Mar 2007, Justin L wrote:
okay Richard,
Let's say this dubious but unquestionable report isn't more spin.

A smal fire, no outstanding structural damage to that building, not when you see other buildings that stood after a much a worse pounding from the 2 towers debris.

Prior knowledge that the building was going to collapse, an hour before it happened, yet no sense at all that either tower was in imminent danger of coming down...who were the specialists that made the assesment of building 7? Why were their skills not applied to monitoring the two towers?

the only 3 skyscrapers in history to collapse due to fire did so that day....

The fact that you yourself clearly state that the American government agencies are not releasing information that would help everyone resolve the issue....this amounts to the American Government toying with people's emotion for political ends, morally irresponsible behaviour that our own Government defends

These issues should make you cringe as a journalist when imagining your report equates to much more than dsinformation, get it right and research deeply or take your childish kaleidoscope away from real issues, save your inanities for the dwellers of lala-land, that's your true audience

Complain about this post
5. At 06:38 PM on 02 Mar 2007, Matthew wrote:
Well said Richard,

Hopefully, I can get some supporting information in before you are once again flooded with nonsense

Many conspiracy fantasists will go on about the FEMA report (which was premilinary and which led to the more detailed NIST report which will be published later this year) saying that the collapse initiation due to diesel fires had "a low probability of occurring". They take this to mean that it wasn't obvious that the building was going to collapse. It means nothing of the sort. The signs of the collapse developed over a long period - they were the bulge, the flames and smoke, and the creaking and leaning of the building. What FEMA is talking about is the events which led to these signs.

It was obvious to the FDNY fire crews at the scene as the day progressed that the building was going to collapse. That is why they cleared an area around the building several hours before the collapse. Anybody who claims that the only people who knew the building was going to collapse must have been told by the people who were going to demolish the building has to include the firefighters in the subsequent cover-up.

Regarding the initiating event - just because something is unlikely, doesn't mean it didn't happen. By definition, accidents and disasters are unlikely, they are things that weren't expected (otherwise they could have been avoided).

As far as having the WTC7 building behind you when you say it's going to collapse. Who, before 9/11, knew which building was which in the complex? Who even knew there were buildings other than the towers?

Ultimately the fantasists want to believe so badly that they will continue to misrepresent and twist everything you say on this issue. You are quite correct to ignore them from now on. They'll sit behind their keyboards and grumble and the world will carry one unchanged.

There are some useful WTC7 links here:

http://www.counterpunch.org/darkfire11282006.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7___silverstein.html
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf

Complain about this post
6. At 06:43 PM on 02 Mar 2007, P. Numminen wrote:
So you respond by saying you are incompetent idiots instead of being part of the 9/11 conspiracy? Well, I suppose we'll have to stop seeing BBC News in either case.

Complain about this post
7. At 06:55 PM on 02 Mar 2007, Kevin Ryan wrote:
Just another in a long string of amazing coincidences related to 9/11 then, eh? How convenient for Bush and Blair, and yet so troublesome for those living on 90% of the world's oil reserves.

To get this straight, the BBC staff didn't have time to look at the video of their own reports that day, but they did have time to scoure the airwaves for fuzzy statements from other network reports, finding one or two describing the possibility of the first ever fire-induced collapse of a tall building. They then decided to simply report those statements, repeatedly and confidently mind you, not as heresay, but as if they described an actual event that had transpired.

And 25 minutes later, voila - they became true.

Do you ever think about any of it?

Complain about this post
8. At 07:00 PM on 02 Mar 2007, linn wrote:
Everyone who finds this explanation inadequate should immediately:

a) download and archive the footage (to hard drives, CD's, DVD's, etc.).

B) download and archive this blog and its text.

Complain about this post
9. At 07:02 PM on 02 Mar 2007, Andrew Kenneally wrote:
I would also like to direct to Matthew that question as to why the mysterious collapse of WTC7, at a rate of freefall thus defying the possibility of its collapse being due to that pancake theory, was completely ignored by the 911 Commission. Did they forget all about it in their conclusive investigation?

Complain about this post
10. At 07:08 PM on 02 Mar 2007, Rick B wrote:
Ok, let's take your explanation at face value. It still seems strange that all copies of this bulletin were wiped off googlevideo as soon as they were going up. I guess that could simply be a face-saving gesture but it still smacks of suppression.

Also, this whole episode rmeinds me of the saying "who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?"

Complain about this post
11. At 07:15 PM on 02 Mar 2007, Ian Curtis wrote:
I would like to know why the BBC was lying about the structure of the world trade centres within hours of them coming down. Claiming that and i quote

"now unlike conventional sky scrapers which have lots of interior columns to give strength to the building the exterior walls of the world trade centre bore most of the load, so the direct attacks were enough to weaken the buildings and lead to their collapse."

In case you don't know what video I am talking about. You can find it here.
http://stage6.divx.com/content/show/1134882?user_id=245557

I have many questions about this. Why did the BBC feel the need to even explain this when no investigation had been done ?
Did the BBC realise the 'facts' they were giving about the WTC building structures were totally incorrect, and in fact the opposite of what they were saying was true ? If no one was telling you to say these things why were you lying to the public ? Another 'cock up' ?

The questions keep coming, and the answers are far from satisfactory.

And actually according to your own website and i shall quote

"All transmitted/published media content will be kept for at least five years to fulfil legal requirements and to enable re-versioning and re-use
"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/foi/docs/historical_information/archive_policies/media_management_policy_overview.htm

So where does the figure of 90 days come from ?

Complain about this post
12. At 07:18 PM on 02 Mar 2007, Stardust wrote:
Wait....you said no one told you what to say, yet in the same article you say:

1) Because three BBC channels were saying this in quick succession, I am inclined to believe that one or more of the news agencies was reporting this, or at least reporting someone saying this.

and..

2) CNN's chronology of events published at the time confirms they reported the building on fire and a clip from a CNN bulletin....
Other American networks were broadcasting similar reports at this time and the reports from FEMA and NIST both make it clear the building was on fire during the course of the day.


Talk about Doublethink.

Complain about this post
13. At 07:20 PM on 02 Mar 2007, Kevin Fenton wrote:
You wrote:

"Because three BBC channels were saying this in quick succession, I am inclined to believe that one or more of the news agencies was reporting this, or at least reporting someone saying this."

We want to know which one, that's the whole point of this. Basically your reply is: "Somebody probably told us, but we can't remember who". This is not satisfactory. Which news agency? You need to find the report. If you don't normally archive agency reports, then why not ask the agencies to have a look at their archives for you? And knock it off this with "part of the conspiracy" while you're at it.

Complain about this post
14. At 07:22 PM on 02 Mar 2007, simple fact wrote:
We all know the BBC isn't exactly pro-Bush, but the conspiracy theorists would have us believe that the BBC colluded in his plot to destroy the WTC and launch a war on Islamic countries and end democracy and freedom at home.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

Complain about this post
15. At 07:30 PM on 02 Mar 2007, Bryan wrote:
I find myself in rare agreement with the BBC on this issue. The conspiracy theorists will not square up to a simple fact here: conspirators would not have had anything to gain by informing a news agency in advance that the building was going to collapse. On the contrary, they would then have had the strong likelihood of forewarned journalists snooping around while they were trying to surrepstitiously implode the building. There is no basis in logic here and no basis in fact.

But I must say, Mr. Porter, that you are a master of understatement when you claim, "My earlier posting on the subject has attracted a lot of interest." I'd say that "a frantic tide of condemnation" would be closer to the truth. The conspiracy theorists know the BBC to be both contemptuous of the Bush administration and sympathetic to radical Islam and were no doubt fully expecting the recent 9/11 "Conspiracy Files" documentary to endorse their conspiracy theories. They feel that the BBC has let the side down and they are furious.

There may, however, indeed be a conspiracy here - though on a much more minor key. Whoever "mislaid" those BBC World tapes could well have conspired to save BBC staff the embarrassment of having their monumental blunder on file for posterity.

Complain about this post
16. At 07:42 PM on 02 Mar 2007, Andrew Kenneally wrote:
Does the BBC have any opinion as to why in their supposedly in-depth investigation, the 911 Commission completely failed to mention the collapse of the Salomon building; a building that collapsed at a rate of freefall? Was it also total incompetence that led to this collapse of a 47 storey being completely forgotten? Or was it that no explanation is feasible other than the obvious one that fits the observable facts beautifully, ie controlled demolition? And why does the BBC accept such obvious duplicity? As Orwell famously wrote, "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act". Sadly, the BBC, like so much of the mainstream media, appears to have little willingness to buck the trend. And as Aldous Huxley wrote in Brave New World Revisited, "The media is in the hands of the power elite."

Complain about this post
17. At 07:47 PM on 02 Mar 2007, Thomas Jefferson wrote:
'I've spent most of the week investigating this issue, but this is where we have to end the story.'

wake up richard you do not control the news anymore.

Complain about this post
18. At 07:51 PM on 02 Mar 2007, Monsieur le Prof wrote:
I'm sorry but your behaviour and commentary on this issue has been reprehensible and pathetic.

No one is accusing you of having been part of the conspiracy to blow up WTC building 7, but covering for the people who may have is sickening. Do you not care about the nearly 3,000 victims of that day?

May God have mercy on your souls.

Complain about this post
19. At 08:01 PM on 02 Mar 2007, Ian H wrote:
I read Richard Porter's response hoping he'd be able to clarify the events in that confusing and frankly worrying video that everyone and his dog has shown me. I have always thought the conspiracy theorists to be largely attention-seeking paranoid Michael Moore wannabes, but this one just seems too difficult to adequately explain away.

Mr Porter, you've dug yourself quite a hole. Better get looking for that "lost" tape.

Complain about this post
20. At 08:12 PM on 02 Mar 2007, Andy White wrote:
What is with this rediculous straw man fallacy you keep making Richard? No ones suggesting the BBC was part of any conspiracy. We just want to know who your source was. Because the only 3 steel skyscrapers that have collapsed from "fire," all happened on the same day, how was it that you immediately concluded building seven was going to completely collapse? That doesn't make sense. Is it the result of terrible journalism?

"One senior fire officer was quoted in a subsequent interview as saying there was a 'bulge' in the building and he was 'pretty sure it was going to collapse.'"

Can you provide us his name and where he is quoted as saying that? Also if that quote was from a subsequent interview that still leaves the question unanswered. Who was the source that told you building 7 was going to collapse, which led to the first of your premature reports, which then led to Jane Standley reporting it?

Your not answering the question. All your doing is providing non-answers.

WHO WAS YOUR ORIGINAL SOURCE?

Complain about this post
21. At 08:17 PM on 02 Mar 2007, Jon wrote:
I'm sure that this week has been eye-opening for you Richard. What can you take away from this experience? Well perhaps at the very least I can suggest that it indicates how poorly regarded your industry has become if so many are eager to accept that the BBC are involved in a cover-up. So much doubt and mistrust, how has it come to this? Also you might have come to the conclusion that there are a hell of a lot of passionate people in this world, ready to go to quite extraordinary lengths to get their point across. You should take heart on this however. Someone once said that people have become apathetic towards politics, I think they were wrong, don't you?

Complain about this post

Posted by: m-v-b Mar 2 2007, 04:52 PM

QUOTE (Sanders @ Mar 2 2007, 03:33 PM)
I'm curious what wen't through Jane Stampley's mind five minutes after they cut her off  wink.gif

Exactly my thougths^^ [laugh]

And thats the prity obvious thing about it, even the colaps of WTC7 did a hole mess again in New York visible for everybody and it dident got reported any further by the BBC.

Posted by: Sanders Mar 2 2007, 05:06 PM

QUOTE (Truthseekers @ Mar 3 2007, 05:46 AM)
BBCs Porter: Excuse number 2:  .......

Sh*t shovelling.

whistle.gif


Where's the rest of the media on this? Why isn't this all over the air? We know why of course. nonono.gif

Posted by: DemolitionCrew Mar 2 2007, 05:12 PM

QUOTE (Sanders @ Mar 2 2007, 03:33 PM)
the people at the BBC, while I'm sure they weren't complicit, have known all along.

Which makes them complicit to the cover-up. yes1.gif

Posted by: Truthseekers Mar 2 2007, 05:15 PM

QUOTE (Sanders @ Mar 2 2007, 09:06 PM)
QUOTE (Truthseekers @ Mar 3 2007, 05:46 AM)
BBCs Porter: Excuse number 2:  .......

Sh*t shovelling.

whistle.gif


Where's the rest of the media on this? Why isn't this all over the air? We know why of course. nonono.gif

Spot on.

Makes one sick doesn't it?. The obnoxiousness of the British Media is truly sickening over this issue, and have rubber stamped 'Screw those who died on 911'.

I am thoroughly sick and ashamed to be British. Whatever happened to honesty and decency we used to have?. angry.gif

Posted by: Graham Mar 4 2007, 03:44 PM

QUOTE (m-v-b @ Mar 2 2007, 02:50 PM)
1. more Question.


Did the BBC excused themself after the WTC7 REALY Colapsed?
ore did they went on with there show as nothing happend?

greetz m-v-b

they eventually showed it at 17.40 ny time, 3 mins into the next 1 gig clip. From a simialr angle, but higher (as if on the roof of building of where the original report was done), and they use it as conformation of collapse.

pretty lame really, 20 mins late, after having how knows many camera trained on New York all day. rolleyes.gif

Oh, that right, you couldn't show it LIVE could you! blahblah1.gif

Posted by: behind Mar 4 2007, 06:21 PM

I have thought about it all for some times and what looks odd to me is basicly 2 things.

First; they report that the building has collapse about 20 min. before it did, and they do not say partically collaped etc... they say it in that way, that everybody must understand it like complete collapse.... They did not only new that something would happened to the building... collapse... nothing less.

Second; About 5 min. before it really collapsed, then someone cut on the talk.



This looks very strange to me. Someone involved in the broadcast must have knew exactly when it would collapse.

I mean... It is really weird... to me at least.

My conclusion: On 9/11 the Media was, at least partically, controlled by someone with great power.

Posted by: Carl Bank Mar 4 2007, 06:36 PM

QUOTE (behind @ Mar 4 2007, 10:21 PM)
I have thought about it all for some times and what looks odd to me is basicly 2 things.

First; they report that the building has collapse about 20 min. before it did, and they do not say partically collaped etc... they say it in that way, that everybody must understand it like complete collapse.... They did not only new that something would happened to the building... collapse... nothing less.

Second; About 5 min. before it really collapsed, then someone cut on the talk.



This looks very strange to me. Someone involved in the broadcast must have knew exactly when it would collapse.

I mean... It is really weird... to me at least.

My conclusion: On 9/11 the Media was, at least partically, controlled by someone with great power.

Good morning, and thank you for these hints, Behind.

I really thought all the time, that the world wide internet discussion
and all the panic at the BBC was about Ms. Standleys strange pronouncations
and mugs. She really looks ans speaks as if she got a pint in the ass.
My Idea was that someone at the BBC might had to confess about that.
Thank you for putting my thoughts to rest, Behind!

specificly thankful for the hint about the orign of your nick: Carl

Posted by: Timothy Osman Mar 4 2007, 06:46 PM

QUOTE
My conclusion: On 9/11 the Media was, at least partically, controlled by someone with great power.


I agree, this is the only real conclusion when you look at the video. That's what stunned me, when you watch it in context, the report was accurate, it was restated and even had some detail. How? When the collapse itself was unprecedented, it wasn't a partial collapse which would have been expected almost this thing broke every record in the book. The aftermath was another revelation with Google scurrying to censor the Internet from a piece of footage that had no copyright problems. Just makes you shudder when you realize what you're up against.

Posted by: Sanders Mar 4 2007, 06:55 PM

QUOTE (Timothy Osman @ Mar 5 2007, 07:46 AM)
Just makes you shudder when you realize what you're up against.

Nahh, it's really only about a thousand people - very rich people however.


We should focus on this: they are freaking out, falling all over themselves to quash this. That will give you an idea of OUR power.


Write or call your local news service (local TV, Newspaper), ask them why they aren't reporting on this earthshaking news?!!

salute.gif

Posted by: behind Mar 4 2007, 06:58 PM

QUOTE (Carl Bank @ Mar 4 2007, 10:36 PM)
Good morning, and thank you for these hints, Behind.

I really thought all the time, that the world wide internet discussion
and all the panic at the BBC was about Ms. Standleys strange pronouncations
and mugs. She really looks ans speaks as if she got a pint in the ass.
My Idea was that someone at the BBC might had to confess about that.
Thank you for putting my thoughts to rest, Behind!

specificly thankful for the hint about the orign of your nick: Carl

biggrin.gif

Good morning to you too.

But maybe to add something to what I said before... then for everybody who have research 9/11 for some time... then this BBC case must look very strange (to say at least)

And I am personally always more and more sure about that the media was under some kind of stronger controlle than usually 9/11.

For example if one looked at Gideons Gideon's 9/11 News Archive thread... then it is really strange (to me at least) how the Media hammer on some points... and how totally uncritical it was ... and has been since... about the official story. Because in my opinion the official story about 9/11 is just that... a story. They have not give any real proof about theirs story.

But it is complicated... 9/11 is complicated.

Posted by: Truthseekers Mar 4 2007, 07:12 PM

I believe objects of this nature, which are easy to buy, would be used to cause the signal of the BBC report to be jammed. So there would definately have to be agents nearby to activate them. So, who would order a unit to employ devices of this nature to jam a signal?. Points to intelligence network carrying out a mission for Bush and Cheney.

http://www.chinavasion.com/product_info.php/pName/advanced-mobile-phone-signal-jammer/

Also, are these types of instrument installed onto airplanes?, or no real need for them due to the heights planes fly at.?

Posted by: CrazyBlade Mar 5 2007, 10:28 AM

My reply, although they didn't show my last one so I'm not hopeful this time either:

QUOTE
I find it disgraceful that this level of SPIN is employed by yourself Mr Porter.  Utterly disgraceful.

Please stop trying to deflect the issue by bringing up the whole "they think the BBC was involved in the conspiracy".  We don't.  Because, if you had been, then you would not have been as incompetent as you have been with these news reports.

And you expect us to believe that, whether you have a "90 Day Policy" or not, that you didn't keep ALL the footage from arguably the most important day in modern history?

Please.

What annoys me the most is that OUR money funds this.  Its shambolic, its pathetic and its utterly disgraceful.

Tell the Truth Mr Porter.


He just keeps digging a bigger hole for himself. I'm sickened by his responses.

Posted by: painter Mar 5 2007, 10:49 AM

QUOTE (behind @ Mar 4 2007, 02:21 PM)
<s>
This looks very strange to me.  Someone involved in the broadcast must have knew exactly when it would collapse.

I mean... It is really weird... to me at least.

My conclusion:  On 9/11 the Media was, at least partically,  controlled by someone with great power.

You are RIGHT ON, Behind.

Let's not forget the discussion we were having a couple months ago about the Naional Coordinating Center and their linkage to national security and the military. ALL international broadcasts for all the networks are monitored through a central building outside of DC (close to Langly, IIRC).

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=2504&view=findpost&p=6702376

Posted by: Truthseekers Mar 5 2007, 05:00 PM

Subject: Some Background and Context for this Clip

I am Director of Collections at the Internet Archive, responsible for all video and audio files.

This video clip is part of a collection from the TV Archive of global television coverage of the events that occurred on and shortly after September 11, 2001.

This clip, among others, has drawn quite a bit of attention because it appears to show a BBC reporter in New York reporting that World Trade Center Building 7, also referred to as WTC7 or the Salomon Brothers Building, has collapsed before it actually did collapse.

Despite some confusion on the issue of time code stamping and UTC conversions to EDT, the timing on the clip appears to be correct. This particular clip was recorded between 4:54 and 5:36 PM EDT. The anchor references to the WTC7 collapsing occur at 4:58 PM and 5:01 PM and then a live reporter says the building has collapsed at 5:08 PM in what appears to be a live shot with the building still in tact behind her. The feed from the live reporter is lost at 5:15 PM and then the building does actually collapse at 5:20 PM.

A subsequent clip from the BBC then shows coverage of the actual collapse in an archived account recorded from 5:36 – 6:16PM. This clip is available at http://www.archive.org/details/bbc200109111736-1818 .

An annotated version of the key sequence from this clip can be seen at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzxEoEfE_8A .

Further support for the correct timing on the clip comes from another archived clip, this one from the BBC 24 channel which includes a time stamp on the TV screen indicating that the reference to the collapses of WTC7 does occur before the actual collapse.

There is some discussion as to whether or not that time stamp was later edited in by someone tampering with the clip. It is unclear whether that happened or not but the reporting and the time of the reporting as shown does seem to coincide with the other BBC World report. This clip can be seen at various web sites including http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/280207timestamp.htm .

Also there has been some discussion about whether the shot of the WTC7 still standing was a live shot or a so-called “green screen” shot in which the live reporter was photographed in front of an electronic screen with a superimposed image of videotape of earlier coverage. That could explain the time disparity; however other clips seem to support the view that the video behind the BBC reporter in this clip is indeed live.

This clip is being widely circulated on the web along with other 9/11 news coverage clips that have surfaced. The earliest apparent reports of WTC7 collapsing come from CNN which reports before 5PM that WTC7 is either burning, is collapsing or has collapsed. You can see this clip at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD0UWq_ORR4 . That story then gets repeated later on BBC 24 and BBC World. Similar coverage on ABC can be found posted at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Qyiov_c6Fg .

Assuming all the time references are correct, there are two possible explanations offered for the confusion. One is that the building was intentionally brought down by its owner and that a press release indicating that was prematurely issued and prematurely reported on by the media.

Another explanation is that there was simply confusion at the time and some journalistic “whispering down the lane” in which early stories that there was something happening at WTC7 led to rumors of its collapsing which then led to on-air reporting of its collapse. The fact that the WTC7 is still standing and visible in the background of the live shot appears to confirm that the reporting of the collapse did take place before the actual collapse.

One possible explanation for the apparent clairvoyance of the reporter, or the alleged deception by those in charge, is that there was a fire at WTC7 when it was first reported on CNN at approximately 4:10 PM and that the BBC then picked up that story from CNN and reported that the WTC7 might be collapsing and in the confusion of live news coverage that story then was communicated to the anchor and the reporter that the building had collapsed.

Additional information may be available from other television network coverage of that same period of time which has also been archived by the TV Archive. This includes coverage from ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, and CNN. Efforts are underway to gather that additional archive footage so that a more comprehensive picture can be presented of what really happened that day.

Other references and discussions related to this clip can be found at various other web sites including http://www.livelead.com , http://www.911truth.org , http://www.prisonplanet.com , http://www.informationliberation.com , http://www.911blogger.com , and http://www.digg.com .

The official BBC statement regarding its explanation for the mistaken reporting can be found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/27/index.html .

Added March 4, 2007 at 9:13 AM PST.
The BBC has now posted new information in an effort to explain the apparent errors in this report. It is available at
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/03/part_of_the_conspiracy_2 .html .

Posted by: waterdancer Mar 12 2007, 02:47 AM

a couple of updates on the story the BBC would really like to see go away...

online petition- http://www.petitiononline.com/wtc7bbc/

Youtube- http://youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc
Views: 291,698 |Comments: 7644 |Favorited: 1114 times

Posted by: Sanders Mar 12 2007, 03:40 AM

QUOTE (waterdancer @ Mar 12 2007, 03:47 PM)
online petition- http://www.petitiononline.com/wtc7bbc/

Signed !!!

Posted by: georgie101 Mar 12 2007, 06:02 AM

Signed. 2058.
We need to keep the pace up on this one.

Posted by: Kesha Mar 12 2007, 12:31 PM

Signed...

2203 Signatures Total

Posted by: georgie101 Mar 12 2007, 01:27 PM

Wow, another 150 signatures in 6 hours, great.

Posted by: Sanders Mar 13 2007, 08:00 AM

2498 Signatures !

Posted by: behind Mar 13 2007, 04:57 PM

What’s behind the CNN and the BBC’s premature announcement of the WTC7’s collapse?

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/conspiracy_theory/fullstory.asp?id=372

Posted by: Sanders Mar 13 2007, 05:38 PM

Nice to see someone talking about this. thumbsup.gif


(Though I'm afraid this is not the same Al-Jazeera as the Qatar TV-station.)

Posted by: Carl Bank Mar 13 2007, 06:47 PM

QUOTE (behind @ Mar 13 2007, 08:57 PM)
What’s behind the CNN and the BBC’s premature announcement of the WTC7’s collapse?

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/conspiracy_theory/fullstory.asp?id=372

Thats great news!

Very well done, Al Jazeera.
AJ is obviously not on Murduchs payroll.

Carl

Posted by: behind Mar 13 2007, 07:19 PM

QUOTE (Sanders @ Mar 13 2007, 09:38 PM)
Nice to see someone talking about this. thumbsup.gif


(Though I'm afraid this is not the same Al-Jazeera as the Qatar TV-station.)

Yes. You are right. I just asumed it was the Quatar... but ok. I am always learning.

"Aljazeera.com is an English language website for AlJazeera Magazine. It is not related to the Arabic satellite TV channel Al Jazeera, which operates websites in both Arabic (www.aljazeera.net) and English (english.aljazeera.net) or Al Jazeera Newspaper of Saudi Arabia. Aljazeera.com is significantly less popular than aljazeera.net.[1] Aljazeera.com is operated by Aljazeera Publishing, described as an "independent media organisation" that presents "facts as they happen"."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aljazeera.com

so, it is maybe not as big as i thought in the begining... but however, the article is good.

Posted by: Sanders Mar 13 2007, 10:36 PM

I still find aljazeera.com to be a good source for news - and I'm sure the vast majority who find their way there don't realize it's a different company.

Seems kind of sneaky though that they would employ the same name.

Posted by: waterdancer Mar 14 2007, 03:06 AM

Anyone have a transcript (I'll settle for highlights) of the coverage which occurs between 4:26 and 6:35 on the youtube video below- where they show us the same footage three times in a row- of the West side of WTC 6, almost as if they are waiting for the collapse of WTC 7 to begin so that they can turn the camera a little bit further north to catch it? Thanks in advance. Also, if anyone can confirm that this is actually how the footage from archive.org played out, that would be great also.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEtqN04Hl7w

Posted by: Truthseekers Mar 14 2007, 07:33 AM

QUOTE (waterdancer @ Mar 14 2007, 07:06 AM)
Anyone have a transcript (I'll settle for highlights) of the coverage which occurs between 4:26 and 6:35 on the youtube video below- where they show us the same footage three times in a row- of the West side of WTC 6, almost as if they are waiting for the collapse of WTC 7 to begin so that they can turn the camera a little bit further north to catch it? Thanks in advance. Also, if anyone can confirm that this is actually how the footage from archive.org played out, that would be great also.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEtqN04Hl7w

I think it is a part of the original 1gb file which was downloaded and saved by many, and then 'lost' by the bbc.

Posted by: waterdancer Mar 15 2007, 05:11 AM

QUOTE (Truthseekers @ Mar 14 2007, 11:33 AM)
I think it is a part of the original 1gb file which was downloaded and saved by many, and then 'lost' by the bbc.

I think you are probably correct, TS. I'm interested in what was being said during the time that that footage was playing (since I don't have a soundcard, I can't tell) and whether it was indeed aired three consecutive times by BBC World.

Update: it was indeed aired 3x in a row, according to the archive.org footage- rough time frame is 3:07-5:20 on this vid-
http://www.archive.org/details/bbc200109111654-1736
so between around 16:57 and 16:59 apparently... a little more than 10 minute before the immortal Jane Standley appears on the video. Shown again twice at approximately 25:07 into the tape (right around the time that WTC 7 actually did collapse)

Posted by: waterdancer Mar 16 2007, 05:30 AM

Jane Standley makes another appearance at the end of this one- roughly 7:40:30 PM EDT.

http://www.archive.org/details/bbc200109111941-2023 and continues here
http://www.archive.org/details/bbc200109112023-2104

Posted by: m-v-b Mar 21 2007, 08:03 PM

Hellas to all of you.

I have a sensless Diskcusion here in an other Forum, and as u know
sceptics dont "like" edited editions of Videofootage.

So my question is, does anybody of u has still the original recording from the archive?

would be great to get it, maybe upload for rapidshare, p2p ore such stuff.


greetz m-v-b

Posted by: waterdancer Mar 21 2007, 10:18 PM

m-v-b,
it is now back up on archive.org. That and other footage from other channels can be found at the following link:

http://www.archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive

Posted by: m-v-b Mar 22 2007, 08:35 AM

Thank u waterdancer. thats a great archive... a lot to see

maybe i have some time to see all this.

Posted by: Leslie Landry Sep 4 2008, 12:22 AM

I dont know if this Footage has been posted yet.

"In April 2007, Italian TV broadcasted a definite proof that Building 7 was demolished by explosives. For the rest of the series, go to luogocomune.net"



Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)