BBC World reported WTC7 collapse before it happened

Twenty minutes after Reuters and the BBC announced WTC7 had collapsed - it finally obliged - a controlled demolition at free fall speed despite only some minor fires and not having been hit by any plane - no wonder so many talk about Building 7 as 9/11's 'smoking gun'.
Post Reply
AJ
Minor Poster
Minor Poster
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 5:17 pm

PROBLEMS

Post by AJ »

Does anyone else see anything wrong with these thumbnails of Jane from earlier in the day?

http://www.archive.org/details/bbc200109111326-1408
http://www.archive.org/details/bbc200109111408-1449

Look at the "windows" behind her, especially to the left of the screen. Is this greenscreen? A 'reflection'? Is she in a lift? etc etc? Focus on the smoke. I guess this will be cleared up when the streamed video is available. Compare the thumbnails with the 16:54-17:36 EDT

http://www.archive.org/details/bbc200109111654-1736

which we are all familair with (I have the complete sets of thumbnails saved as 3 x PDFs but at 200K each I thought I'd leave readers to look up these for themselves via the above links and just use the attached images as a guide - I apologise for them not being in the correct order - the sequence is flagged by the last two digits. V08515-28 is the first clip and V-08515-32 is the second.

All but one of the attached thubnails are from the first (13:26-14:08 EDT). The full streaming video was not up when I extracted the thumbnails, but the audio was. Jane did not say any of the things that we saw/heard from her in the much later, critical clip (16:54-17:36 EDT). However, the anchor Jane is interviewed was a different male. The interview with Jane began about 11 minutes into the clip.

In the second clip, Jane features again briefly, and then they lose her. The anchor talks about the communication problems they are experiencing at this time of the day (which he puts down to damage).
Attachments
V08515-28_00000012-1.jpg
V08515-28_00000012-1.jpg (3.76 KiB) Viewed 7012 times
V08515-28_00000015-1.jpg
V08515-28_00000015-1.jpg (4.17 KiB) Viewed 7008 times
V08515-28_00000013-2.jpg
V08515-28_00000013-2.jpg (4.09 KiB) Viewed 7010 times
V08515-28_00000014-3.jpg
V08515-28_00000014-3.jpg (4.18 KiB) Viewed 7008 times
V08515-28_00000016.jpg
V08515-28_00000016.jpg (4.19 KiB) Viewed 7010 times
V08515-32_00000009.jpg
V08515-32_00000009.jpg (4.16 KiB) Viewed 7008 times
User avatar
John White
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 3185
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2006 5:25 am
Location: Here to help!

Post by John White »

To date AJ has made 29 posts on this forum, all on this thread about this single issue. He is presenting himself as a cautiously minded researcher. However, reviewing his posting using the search function it certainly seems possible he is acting as some kind of "stealth critic": it is somewhat bizzare that he refuses to acknowledge some of the more basic points about this footage

IF that is the case, it is certainly not behaviour that will be tolerated, and I can have every single one of AJ's posts split off and dumped down in critics corner with just a couple of minutes of my time: so it would be helpful if AJ was to post more widely than this issue to establish his good faith as a member exploring 9/11 as an inside job
Free your Self and Free the World
User avatar
Mr-Bridger
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 9:30 am

Post by Mr-Bridger »

AJ : If you look closely at the banners over Jane , you can see no green/bluescreen is used. look at the detail of the buildings through the banner.

Look at the effect that green screen has on edges next you see a weather forecast on TV.
User avatar
John White
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 3185
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2006 5:25 am
Location: Here to help!

Post by John White »

Its very simple AJ: if you are here to discuss 9/11 from the POV of being an inside job, you can post in every forum on the site: if not, you may only post in critics corner and elsewhere on the moderators indulgence: thats just how it is.

I'm not passing judgment on you: note the way that your posts are still on this thread: but I am suggesting that, as a new poster on the site, it would be helpful for you to demonstrate your position more widely to avoid mis-understanding. For a member with genuine intent, that should not be any kind of difficulty
Free your Self and Free the World
User avatar
John White
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 3185
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2006 5:25 am
Location: Here to help!

Post by John White »

Poacher wrote:Moderators! If it smells like a shrill, it is usually a shrill.

AJ has had ample opportunity to dig a hole for himself. I vote to remove the posts to critics corner please.
Your POV is noted Poacher: we will see what AJ chooses to do
Free your Self and Free the World
AJ
Minor Poster
Minor Poster
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 5:17 pm

Post by AJ »

Poacher wrote:[quote="AJ" How does anyone to ascertain whether it was an inside job if all of the potentially useful evidence (steel) was quickly shipped off to India/China
The steel removal is a small part of the evidence not all as you state. Nobody would ascertain it was an inside job on just this evidence alone.

This thread is not about the shipping of steel from the WTC. Please only post about the subject of this post.[/quote]

Fine. Any comments on those thumbnails? :)
User avatar
Poacher
Minor Poster
Minor Poster
Posts: 72
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2006 12:20 pm
Location: South East UK

Post by Poacher »

AJ wrote: Fine. Any comments on those thumbnails? :)
You are suggesting the film was tampered with. There is no evidence to support that, including your 'thumbnails'. For an expert view see here http://www.911blogger.com/node/6630
User avatar
Mr-Bridger
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 9:30 am

Post by Mr-Bridger »

`Fine. Any comments on those thumbnails? Smile`


Already have
AJ
Minor Poster
Minor Poster
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 5:17 pm

Post by AJ »

Poacher wrote:
AJ wrote: Fine. Any comments on those thumbnails? :)
You are suggesting the film was tampered with. There is no evidence to support that, including your 'thumbnails'. For an expert view see here http://www.911blogger.com/node/6630
Actually, I have been posting on that site - mainly in correspondence with Brewster. That in turn followed after some exchanges earlier in the week with Janice Matthews (http://www.911truth.org/index.php see end) who queried some of the same points about the .xml file as I.

Why you just accept what everyone says as you do defeats me. It is only part of the collection of evidence, and you need to look at it all in the round and the temporal/chronological sequence. This has been about getting people to authenticate.

Don't be too quick to assess expertise here.
User avatar
Poacher
Minor Poster
Minor Poster
Posts: 72
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2006 12:20 pm
Location: South East UK

Post by Poacher »

AJ wrote: This has been about getting people to authenticate.
Authenticated by the Director of Collections at the Internet Archive, Stewart Cheifet. (http://www.911blogger.com/node/6630)
AJ
Minor Poster
Minor Poster
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 5:17 pm

Post by AJ »

Poacher wrote:
AJ wrote: This has been about getting people to authenticate.
Authenticated by the Director of Collections at the Internet Archive, Stewart Cheifet. (http://www.911blogger.com/node/6630)
Look at the facts. Forget about "authority". Look at the chrononology. Who has been pressing for the authentication? I asked them to do a CRC on the files there last week vs the ones they have allegedly restored from DAT. The dates are now 2nd March for many files, late 2006 for some of the still visible .mpg files (not downlaodable, but elsewhere some of the non 1GB ones are).

Look at this and just ask - if this is still possible after I discussed permissions there, (i.e you can still DOWNload some of the files, not all, and it varies from directory to directory.) could anyone have UPloaded after DOWNloading. Yes, I know they say they have now restored from DAT etc.

http://ia331329.us.archive.org/2/items/ ... 1326-1408/

Index of /2/items/bbc200109111326-1408
Name Last modified Size Description
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
V08515-28.flv 02-Mar-2007 17:57 21M
V08515-28.gif 02-Mar-2007 17:16 311K
V08515-28.mpg 31-Aug-2006 23:03 1.0G
bbc200109111326-1408.thumbs/ 02-Mar-2007 16:34 -
bbc200109111326-1408_files.xml 02-Mar-2007 18:12 12K
bbc200109111326-1408_meta.xml 03-Mar-2007 23:10 1.4K
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This is where all the concern earier in the week originated. The fact that some of us promorted the www.archive.org folk through their forum to look into it all in detail should not NOW be used to lecture some of us on what they have said since. Have you considered whether you may be informing one of the people who prompted the investigation?

The bottom line is that I'm still not 100% satisfied this has been sorted out, and if you look more closely at what I've been drawing attention to today (and stopped responding emotionally/reactively) you might learn something about forensics. Is there anything odd about the smoke behind Jane as it moves to her left?

There is a history of how we got to this point. Some here are as impulsive over what they neglect as they are in accepting what others tell them as authoritative fact.

It's easy to accept well crafted prose. Critical empirical anaysis is far more messy and prone to error.
User avatar
Poacher
Minor Poster
Minor Poster
Posts: 72
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2006 12:20 pm
Location: South East UK

Post by Poacher »

AJ wrote:I can't tell at the moment as the thumbnails are too small and won't blow up as they are far too low res. What do you reckon?
I reckon you could ask for the original high res files as you are already in discussion with archive.com. As a forensics expert, it is irksome that you are suggesting there is a problem with the footage before you have seen the evidence. . . and you question my jumping to conclusions?
Last edited by Poacher on Sun Mar 04, 2007 10:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Angel - now passed away
Posts: 3148
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 9:08 am
Location: UK

Post by ian neal »

Correct me if I'm wrong but the BBC's responses to these reports seems to acknowledge they have made an error and reported the collapse of WTC7 before it had happened. This seems to remove the issue of whether the background footage used in Jane Standley's report was live or greenscreen projection.

Surely the next question to flow from this is to require the BBC to state what their source/s were for this report.

They have hinted that their error was due 'chinese whispers' based on them picking up on other reports that the building was in danger of collapse and hints that it may have been reported on the newswires, but they don't specifically answer this question.

A question that is fundamental to understanding this
EmptyBee
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster
Posts: 151
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:30 pm

Post by EmptyBee »

AJ, your whole hypothesis that this could be a fake falls down on several levels - which have already been pointed out to you multiple times in this thread, but to reiterate:

a) If someone faked this footage they would have to have known that the BBC didn't actually have the original tapes any more, as an easy exposure of the fake would be possible with access to the original footage. The only people that might know that would be people working within the BBC.
b) The footage itself is damaging to the credibility of the BBC, but not enormously - it doesn't actually prove anything we didn't already know from other sources - i.e. that for whatever reason, the media were getting reports from at that WTC7 was expected to collapse an hour or more before it did. The earliest warnings circulated on the ground may have started circulating before midday, when the firefighting efforts were abandoned.

So while the film itself is pretty bizarre it's not concrete proof of anything we didn't already know.

Endless pontification over its authenticity just muddies the waters.
After 10:28 a.m. September 11, 2001: Fire Fighters Trying to Extinguish Fires in WTC 7

According to Captain Michael Currid, the sergeant at arms for the Uniformed Fire Officers Association, some time after the collapse of the North Tower, he sees four or five fire companies trying to extinguish fires in Building 7 of the WTC. Someone from the city’s Office of Emergency Management tells him that WTC 7 is in serious danger of collapse. Currid says, “The consensus was that it was basically a lost cause and we should not lose anyone else trying to save it.” Along with some others, he goes inside WTC 7 and yells up the stairwells to the fire fighters, “Drop everything and get out!” [Murphy, 2002, pp. 175-176] However, other accounts contradict this, claiming that no attempt is made to fight the fires in WTC 7 (see (11:30 a.m.) September 11, 2001). One report later claims, “Given the limited water supply and the first strategic priority, which was to search for survivors in the rubble, FDNY did not fight the fires [in WTC 7].” [Fire Engineering, 9/2002] And a 2002 government report says, “the firefighters made the decision fairly early on not to attempt to fight the fires, due in part to the damage to WTC 7 from the collapsing towers.” [Federal Emergency Management Agency, 5/1/2002, pp. 5-21] Building 7 eventually collapses late in the afternoon of 9/11 (see (5:20 p.m.) September 11, 2001).

911 timeline
The real story centres on whether it was in fact the OEM(Jerome Hauer?) that started stating emphatically that WTC7 was 'in serious danger of collapse', when it's difficult to see precisely how they could have come to such a confident assessment when attempts to extinguish the fires had barely got underway, and the fires themselves appear to have not been that severe.
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."
AJ
Minor Poster
Minor Poster
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 5:17 pm

Post by AJ »

Poacher wrote:
AJ wrote: Fine. Any comments on those thumbnails? :)
You are suggesting the film was tampered with. There is no evidence to support that, including your 'thumbnails'. For an expert view see here http://www.911blogger.com/node/6630
After much prodding for others to examine the chronology of the key files at the archive site, I have hit a dead end as it appears that (the still visible in some cases) 1GB source files for the 64K and 256K MPEG stream files are dated Sept 2006, but the few shorter streaming MPEGs are dated 2 March 2007 (as are many of the associated .xml files) . Sadly, I can't even find the directory which holds the critical 16:54-17:36 files (but Janice Matthews group did at the beginning of last week. It appears that the Archive folk have created new directories on 2nd March fr at least some of the files.

What I wanted to see was a preserved chronology of the files (for provenance), and to deduce a clear explanation as to why so many of the files changed recently. I was curious as to whether the site had been hacked or phished. Of course, the fact that even the Archive people were caught out on a security issue doesn't matter. The fact that all the files went missig for a while has a perfectly sound explanation, and the fact that all the corroborating materials are still not avaiolable will have a reasonable explanation (it's been a weekend after all).

Even this account indicated that there was/is room for legitimate concern:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/6630

although prima facie, if the files now available for streaming are all based on 1GB source files restored from very old archived DATs, logic demands that they could not have been edited recently (assuming that what we've been told in cyberspace is reliable).

Oddly :? , people on the bloggs seem to be more than happy to believe what some folk tell them, and even cite people's irrelevant qualifications (as if those ever mattered), but they only seem prepared to believe what they want to believe, as it seems that NIST, the BBC, the Government etc etc are all staffed by liars or shills :roll: .

As I've tried to demonstrate, our folk psychology is largely irrational (Daniel Kahneman even shared a Nobel for work on this very point a few years ago so but it's well known) - but be that as it may. The point rarely sinks in, people ue it as if it's logically sound even though it's demonstrably not truth-functional (there is an alternative, but one can lead horses to water....)

That just leaves whether or not the images behind Jane are live or greenscreen. That is why the footage from earlier in the day (i.e 13:26-14:08) would have been useful, but at present, only the audio and thumbnails are available, so one can't still tell whether the smoke is drifting into the left most part of the "window" behind Jane.

Conspiracy? Who cares? If one asks the wrong questions, or points to flaws in others' verbal behaviour, one is likely to be labelled a "stealth critic" :wink:

Look up "pursuit of truth"..... :roll:
ianrcrane
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Posts: 352
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2005 3:30 pm
Location: Devon
Contact:

BBC World - 9/11 Broadcast

Post by ianrcrane »

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/fe ... estamp.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/2 ... 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/2 ... acy_2.html .
Source: http://www.archive.org/details/bbc200109111654-1736
RespectfullyMyPointIs
Minor Poster
Minor Poster
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 11:32 pm

Distraction, query the organisations directly

Post by RespectfullyMyPointIs »

Dwelling on the provinance of the film is a distraction.
Meanwhile the potency of the story is dieing.
Porter's BBC blog response authenticates the film enough to legitimately query publicly, loudly and in as many quarters as possible with a basic journalistic question :-

Who/What/When was the BBCs source.and why
when it is BBC practice to confirm from two sources they ran with the story.

Porters response has already authenticated the film,
so if he is wrong and the film is fake 911 truthers at least make a senior BBC news figure look stupid and take a minor hit.
But if the film is genuine we take a badly needed step forward to raising the matter in a more public forum and land one on the BBC for its own derisory 911 truth smear campaign.

Dwelling on theories about green screen (blue screen), the date on the file is doomed to time consuming debate about two things that could obviously be faked and are virtually impossible to tell.
The story will go cold quick so perhaps it best to put effort into getting it into mainstream media.

Porters response is everything.Not even a nondenial denial its just a straight non-denial with a get out clause of oops cockup.
www.nineeleven.co.uk sometimes provides sanctuary for divertors and spinners proudly wearing a 911truth tshirt.
Lets not work it for them.
Their next step may be to post an extremely long post that dominates the page its written on, or tries to return to a provinance argument.
Thats my last word on this, the smear team are now racing out the blocks!.
User avatar
physicist
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster
Posts: 171
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2006 9:23 am
Location: zz

Post by physicist »

Jane Standley also did a long interview on BBC News 24 at around 9:30pm (UK time) in front of that very same window with WTC7 behind her.

So that puts her in the right time and place.

The building hadn't collapsed at that time. Even in "BBC World".
AJ
Minor Poster
Minor Poster
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 5:17 pm

Post by AJ »

physicist wrote:Jane Standley also did a long interview on BBC News 24 at around 9:30pm (UK time) in front of that very same window with WTC7 behind her.

So that puts her in the right time and place.

The building hadn't collapsed at that time. Even in "BBC World".
That's useful to know. Do you have a link?
User avatar
physicist
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster
Posts: 171
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2006 9:23 am
Location: zz

Post by physicist »

AJ wrote:
physicist wrote:Jane Standley also did a long interview on BBC News 24 at around 9:30pm (UK time) in front of that very same window with WTC7 behind her.

So that puts her in the right time and place.

The building hadn't collapsed at that time. Even in "BBC World".
That's useful to know. Do you have a link?
I'll make a clip and upload it later.
User avatar
karlos
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 2524
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 7:13 am
Location: london
Contact:

Post by karlos »

The evidence is clear. The BBC reported as fact an event that happened in the future.
HOW?
They are either part of this CONSPIRACY or they were fed the news by a trusted source who under the Freedom of information Act should be named.
Its either one or the other.
User avatar
physicist
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster
Posts: 171
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2006 9:23 am
Location: zz

Post by physicist »

To put things in context, here's Jane earlier on BBC News 24:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63TJaUnW9zY[/youtube]
User avatar
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor
Posts: 18428
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 1:03 pm
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Contact:

Post by TonyGosling »

Okay,

It's a bright new day - without this flame war ;-)

AJ's been temporarily banned and I've split off much of the most trivial and abusive posts from this thread.

Please PM me if you think there's anything crucial I've split off.

And when people like AJ appear in future please either ignore them and get back to the salient points or reply without losing your rag - that is against the policy of this forum and only achieves what people like AJ want - to poison the topic - don't let yourself EVER be that poison

Tony
xmasdale
Angel - now passed away
Angel - now passed away
Posts: 1960
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 11:29 am
Location: South London

Post by xmasdale »

Kenyon, a New Yorker, has sent us this:

to all,

That BBC footage of Building 7 is certainly incriminating, but after some
research, it appears it is not Building 7 in the background. If the building
with the spire to the left of the screen is in fact the Woolworth building,
then the building up from it cannot be B7, as the WB is east and north of
B7. It is about 800 feet high, depending on which measure is used, the spire
length, etc. But was she on the west side maybe? Across West Side Highway?
Hard to be sure, and what I am saying is we have to check this out.
The building with the pyramid to the right resembles the World Financial
Centre which was built in the '80s on 50th and 8th; there may be a similar
building known as WFC2, just across the West Side Highway from the WTC. For
it to be that building, Jane Standley would have to be on the west side,
which means there was at least one building between her and B7.

Kenyon
EmptyBee
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster
Posts: 151
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:30 pm

Post by EmptyBee »

Apologies for the large image, but I think this needs to be cleared up once and for all.

Image

It clear IS building 7 behind Jane.
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."
TheSea
New Poster
New Poster
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 5:20 pm

Moving it on

Post by TheSea »

I was folowing the thread so thanks for that Tony, some posts wereg. wearisome.
Anyone got a link to an unadultered video file no titles back music etc.?

I was sad to see searching on google the story seems cold.
Perhaps we could each email news organisations in countries that are critical of Bush eg Venezuala and Brazil. Then we might get the story in press there, a step forward to getting it in press here.

If we are careful just to point out the anomaly and suggest the BBC explain it rather than us, especially cause of their blog response. Then we keep the story in view without worrying too much about which building it is in the background.
"Worlds leading news organisation looses recordings of September 11th" This is a headline in its self even if it is a seminal Beeb screw up.
User avatar
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor
Posts: 18428
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 1:03 pm
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Contact:

Post by TonyGosling »

Thing to do IMHO is for everyone to contact media editors without geting shirty at all the major papers to enquire

1. if they know about the story
2. whether they think its a runner and if not why not
3. offer to write something for them (at NUJ rates!)

and to feedback here

Tony
User avatar
Mr-Bridger
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 9:30 am

Post by Mr-Bridger »

That BBC footage of Building 7 is certainly incriminating, but after some
research, it appears it is not Building 7 in the background. If the building
with the spire to the left of the screen is in fact the Woolworth building,
then the building up from it cannot be B7, as the WB is east and north of
B7. It is about 800 feet high, depending on which measure is used, the spire
length, etc. But was she on the west side maybe? Across West Side Highway?
Hard to be sure, and what I am saying is we have to check this out.
The building with the pyramid to the right resembles the World Financial
Centre which was built in the '80s on 50th and 8th; there may be a similar
building known as WFC2, just across the West Side Highway from the WTC. For
it to be that building, Jane Standley would have to be on the west side,
which means there was at least one building between her and B7.


I have given proof why i believe this WTC 7 critics corner,

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewt ... &start=120

People seem to think that in the BBC footage we are seeing the front or rear of WTC 7 when infact its the side of the building
EmptyBee
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster
Posts: 151
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:30 pm

Post by EmptyBee »

Mr-Bridger wrote: People seem to think that in the BBC footage we are seeing the front or rear of WTC 7 when infact its the side of the building
What are you talking about? It's clearly the north face of WTC7 that's in view behind Jane. Just look at the video and the picture I posted above. Observe the shadows. Compare it to a map of the area. It's clearly Building 7. I don't know why people are still calling this into question.
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."
User avatar
Mr-Bridger
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 9:30 am

Post by Mr-Bridger »

The building infront of WTC 7 in the BBC footage is the Verizon building, which was located on the side of WTC 7



Image
Post Reply