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
TheSea
New Poster
New Poster
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 5:20 pm

Meantime while we guess

Post by TheSea »

and discuss the social network of Bill Bailey....
we could dare I suggest..... just ask the BBC each of these questions...ask them again... and again ..
Porters first response was a gift ...a niave uninformed response it says a lot.... follow the chain back. Email specific journos at the beeb.
Some confuse the Truth movement with a self appointed fringe organisation who can solve the outstanding issues of 911.
The 911 truth may only advance if it raises the questions it discusses internally, externally in a main stream public domain.
Jane Standley can answer , or provide a link to a person capable of answering every question we are quizzing each other about in this thread.
Jane Standley knows (or can work out )the building she was in, so does the camera man, so does the news editor. They also know how the "facts" reported were given to them they can also claim the film is faked...their silence is their achilles heel there response could be a golden challis.

118 118 ask for
BBC White City or BBC Broadcasting House go for unrelated news programmes the editor, get a name first, give yourself a good blag :-
your writing an article on how News is covered in times of emergency
get some names from him....
step by step..Then if you do fall back its one step at a time,
If you take a giant leap you fall straight to the bottom and have to start again.

Many of us believe it was an inside job....who cares what we believe ......stay on the objective creating a wider climate that exposes truth. We do not have the resources or talents to expose it conclusively ourselves.
Press questions in a mainstream public forum or from public organisations. We can't control mass media but we could try and tease it close to the heat.

The 911truth movement remains a brilliantly crafted game players first response tool that identifies and refocuses any issue that could be in any danger of exposing a trail to the Truth.....
Suited and booted tacticians with a proud smirk, they silently climb in and out of the ring always making sure the correct boxer falls but making sure the fight is never won.

Ding Ding
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster
Posts: 986
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 7:57 pm

Post by SHERITON HOTEL »

Could someone get me up to speed on these 17 pages is it right there's a CT going round here that the Jane Standley/BBC anchorman 911 film is shrek22 animation fabricated by Beeb hating fringe truthers in revenge for 911 conspiracy files trash telly prog'? :?

I went to the James Randi J-Ref site yesterday and you know how the zealots there have bought the official 911 narrative and spend all their time abusing anyone who dares question it? well there's this thread devoted to debating the Enfield poltergeist, subject of a CH4 documentary tuesday, and almost to a person they think the curious events that occured in Enfield 77/8 were a conspiracy by the three children and their ageing mother. I thought it was ironic.
scubadiver
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 1844
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 2:42 pm
Location: Currently Andover
Contact:

Post by scubadiver »

20 pages of discussion on US forum board

Worth a read

BBC tapes reveal events happening 23 minutes later..., roll your eyes at this one...as BBC tries to explain

http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/ ... 278&st=380
who murdered di ?
Minor Poster
Minor Poster
Posts: 46
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2005 6:18 pm
Location: Scotland

Post by who murdered di ? »

telecasterisation wrote:
who murdered di ? wrote: Why not explain how the loss of connection happened ?
With the greatest respect, such connections are prone to being flakey. On the day, the world's media were using every broadcast facility available - the loss could be down to any number of issues.

Yes it looks suspicious, but not impossible given the circumstances.
I understand your answer to my question being, "The loss could be down to any number of issues." i.e. problem is it does not answer the question. I just find it amazing that the whole time that i watched news on the TV on Sept 9 that i personally never seen a loss of connection on any footage that day. However, amazingly the footage in question looses connection at an vital moment. But then again the BBC do not have the footage.

Just like July 7.

There seems to be alot of amazing patterns emerging !

Just like a criminal leaving his/her signiture on an "crime".

All the best fellow souls.
User avatar
telecasterisation
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1873
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 8:18 pm
Location: Upstairs

Post by telecasterisation »

who murdered di wrote?;
I understand your answer to my question being, "The loss could be down to any number of issues." i.e. problem is it does not answer the question.
Certainly it doesn't answer your point, but there isn't an answer as we have nothing whatsoever to make a conclusion with.

There are so many issues surrounding 9/11 that seem suspicious simply due to the fact that something has happened and we do not have enough evidence/information to fully explain it. I have been berated many times due to my unwillingness to board the good ship HMS Assumption.

Again, yes it looks suspicious, but this isn't really proof, circumstantial evidence at best. It could be coincidental and until such things change, then I reserve judgement.

I cannot fathom however, that given that the BBC have made no effort to challenge the authenticity of the footage and as we have a copy circulating the web, what is the advantage of claiming the original has been lost? I was also under the impression that the BBC made three copies of everything that was broadcast, one for archive, one for perusal and another to prop office doors open with.
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
User avatar
cybe
New Poster
New Poster
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2007 8:39 am
Location: Finland
Contact:

Post by cybe »

Dear Fremen,

Yesterday, on the 27th February 2007, hundreds of thousands of people with access to the internet, were able to see a video, or hear about it, which showed a female (Jane Standly) BBC reporter on 9-11 (2001), stating that the Salomon Brother's building, also known as WTC 7, had collapsed. Trouble is, the building was still standing at the time of the report, and could clearly be seen behind the reporter in the background. The time-stamp of the video also shows that the report took place approximately twenty-six minutes before the actual collapse of WTC Building 7.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/fe ... estamp.htm

Today, on the 28th February 2007, the BBC (that you fund) is being pressured by thousands of 9-11 truth activists to name the source of this claim; which reveals prior knowledge of the building's collapse; and is refusing to name it. WTC 7 was never hit by a plane, and only suffered; according to eyewitness reports confirmed by video footage; minor damage to one side, and minor fires. Videos of the actual collapse clearly show the building was “pulled” in a controlled demolition. There were explosives already in place in the building in the building. It was an inside-job.

If you are a Brit who no longer wishes to shut your eyes to the fact that the BBC are collaborating with the real (and as yet unpunished) 9-11 mass-murderers, in protecting the real 9-11 evidence from being disclosed, and are aggrieved to your very soul by the thought of having to continue to fund these government-licking media whores, then the information that follows should certainly interest you.

Why? Because there is no LEGAL requirement for you to pay for a TV License.

So, as it has now clearly been proven that the BBC had foreknowledge of the destruction of WT7 on 9-11, and that the BBC is part of the problem that we all face with the satanic N.W.O. and their control of the British and U. S. governments and media that they use against the people who pay their wages: do you want to keep funding your own demise and their lavish lifestyles, or are you willing to fight them and bring them down, before they complete their plans for a 95% population reduction that involves murdering you and your family and friends?

If you want to stop funding your own demise, demand a refund on your TV license, so that they can no longer use your own money against you. When enough people do that it will force them to stop their evil plot. The more people who do this, the more it will show them just how many people are onto them, and the more people, the more afraid they will become.

At first they will threaten you, saying they will take you to court over non-payment of your “compulsory” TV license, using their own unlawful legislation that you can easily defend yourself against by sending for the “Bullet-Proof Defence Pack” from:- http://jforjustice.co.uk

How much is your TV license? What will it be next year and the year after, and the year after, without end?

Send them a clear message that you are onto them, by demanding a refund on your TV license and sending for the Bullet-Proof Defense. Get everyone you know to do the same, so that THEY* hear the message loud and crystal clear.

The Bullet-Proof Defence is a one time only offer, that will last you a lifetime and can be used against this and all other man-made legislation, and will save you thousands of pounds in the long-run, and bring down those trying to harm you with their false propaganda, their phoney wars and terrorist attacks, like 9-11 and 7/7/2005, that the governments are committing themselves and using their media to brainwash you into believing is done by Islamic terrorists.

It’s time to fight back and win before they destroy you all.

Long live the Fighters,

Muad’Dib.

* The Hierarchy Enslaving You.
Image
User avatar
blackcat
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 2381
Joined: Sun May 07, 2006 6:02 am

Post by blackcat »

Moderators - the above post is a money-seeking scam.
User avatar
cybe
New Poster
New Poster
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2007 8:39 am
Location: Finland
Contact:

Post by cybe »

blackcat wrote:Moderators - the above post is a money-seeking scam.
It is not. The only scams is having to pay a TV-license and the British legal system. The site is about very good legal advice in the UK. See the, so far two, testimonials on the site.
Image
User avatar
blackcat
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 2381
Joined: Sun May 07, 2006 6:02 am

Post by blackcat »

The site is about very good legal advice in the UK. See the, so far two, testimonials on the site.
How much is the advice?
To obtain this documentation and advice on how to fight against the evil police-state, including all necessary video and photographic evidence needed to clear yourself of all victimless charges, please send a donation of £100 sterling.
And note it is to be sent "cash only".
User avatar
cybe
New Poster
New Poster
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2007 8:39 am
Location: Finland
Contact:

Post by cybe »

blackcat wrote:The site is about very good legal advice in the UK. See the, so far two, testimonials on the site.
How much is the advice?

It is £100 sterling, as you can see from the quote below. Not much compared to what one has to pay a lawyer, and then the fines, if you loose. See the testimonial page for a testimonial by Daniel about how his charges where dropped when he used the advice he got from the person behind this site.

To obtain this documentation and advice on how to fight against the evil police-state, including all necessary video and photographic evidence needed to clear yourself of all victimless charges, please send a donation of £100 sterling.
blackcat wrote:And note it is to be sent "cash only".
This is due to having to avoid "the mark of the beast"; bank accounts, credit cards, paypal, etc are all too interwoven into "the system".
Last edited by cybe on Fri Mar 09, 2007 7:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
scar
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster
Posts: 724
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:48 pm
Location: Brighton

infowar?

Post by scar »

I like the sound of it but surely if it was really all about justice it would be free? (+ donations from happy 'customers' perhaps)
Why not bung it up on the web via torrent?
Us fremen are quite poor ya know. I dont have 100 quid nor do i have a TV or legal problems but ya never know...

'It’s time to fight back and win before they destroy 'US' all...'

I cant see a testimonial from Daniel on that page btw.
User avatar
cybe
New Poster
New Poster
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2007 8:39 am
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: infowar?

Post by cybe »

scar wrote:I like the sound of it but surely if it was really all about justice it would be free? (+ donations from happy 'customers' perhaps)
Why not bung it up on the web via torrent?
Us fremen are quite poor ya know. I dont have 100 quid nor do i have a TV or legal problems but ya never know...

'It’s time to fight back and win before they destroy 'US' all...'
He has plenty of material online for free, including The Plan against the NWO . This legal help that he will provide will include personal coaching through the process.
scar wrote:I cant see a testimonial from Daniel on that page btw.
Here it is. It is quite interesting don't you think?
Image
User avatar
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster
Posts: 1620
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 7:33 pm

Post by Dogsmilk »

He has plenty of material online for free, including The Plan against the NWO
Do we really need someone else touting the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion?
"synagogue of satan" - purlease

Reading that page, I was inclined to take it about as seriously as this

Still, hats off to anyone who can produce that much text while managing to not actually say anything of any remote use or interest.
It's a man's life in MOSSAD
User avatar
scar
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster
Posts: 724
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:48 pm
Location: Brighton

Post by scar »

Ahhhh its the jahtruth stuff, i didnt realise...
Oh well.
The Watcher
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 200
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 3:35 pm

Post by The Watcher »

Extracted From The Plan Against the NWO:
... the MOST (ONLY) reliable and accurate history book in the world: The Holy Bible (King of kings' Version; and previously, the Authorised king James Version).
Are you serious? History has always been written by the winners and in 325AD, the Council of Nicea represented the winners; ten years after Constantine declared Christianity the official religion of Rome. Ninety years later the Cyrilian monks destroyed the greatest repository of wisdom known to man when they burned the Library of Alexandria; brutally murdering Hypatia in the process.

In addition, the King James (Bacon) version of the Bible contains over 30,000 translation errors from the original Hebrew (Old Testament) & Greek (New Testament) texts. It's not called The Authorised Version for nothing!

When Yeshua bin Yosef told the people of the twelve tribes that he had 'come to release them from bondage', orthodox dogma says that he was making reference to the bondage of Roman rule. In reality, the bondage he was refering to, was the bondage of the Israelites to their jealous god, YHWH, otherwise known as Enlil.

Know thyself ... by stepping outside the bondage of orthodox dogma. The Piscean days of Received Wisdom are almost at an end. The Roman Church is on it's penultimate pontiff and the NWO will be negated through exponential individual awakening to the Aquarian consciousness.

The knowledge & wisdom lost at Alexandria, Gondishapur, Central & South America , etc is now being returned to humanity and is available to all those who have the eyes to see and the ears to hear. The internet provides access to the closest thing in the material realm to the Akashic Record.

The Philosopher's Stone is not to be found in any single text; this is about the journey.. not the destination '; ... & 9/11 is a very significant portal!

The Watcher
User avatar
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster
Posts: 1620
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 7:33 pm

Post by Dogsmilk »

Daniel's testimonial is great -
I don't wear the seat-belt in my car, because I prefer to trust in God for my protection, and I'll be damned if I'm going to pay a £100.00 fine for doing so. When I drive, I watch the road, not the speedometer. I believe that this is how to ensure driving safely AT ALL TIMES, and I have never injured anyone as a result
send your money and receive salvation!!!!
Threatened with court action, imprisonment? Worried you don't have a chance of beating the system? Well now you have that chance! Clear your name the only way possible. Gird your loins with TRUTH and put on the Breastplate of Righteousness and wield the Sword of the Spirit. Use God’s Perfect Laws of Liberty against them.

Please send your donation, only in cash, with your name and address, to:-
Muad’Dib,
c/o JAH Publications,
P. O. Box 2129,
Canvey Island,
England. SS8 9UF
This website is actually turning out to be quite entertaining. It's really a spoof...right?
It's a man's life in MOSSAD
User avatar
scar
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster
Posts: 724
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:48 pm
Location: Brighton

Post by scar »

If courts bow to gods law so easily I can see this whole thing getting somewhat out of hand. Like errrr if your wife committed adultery for example and you exacted the kinda revenge recommended in the old testament...

If Daniel injured someone going 70 in a 30, and still lived, would he get off scott free?. He appears to think he would. I find this a touch alarming.
How would god feel about all this?

Have you tried plying your wares around the nations prisons?
Thousands to be made there surely.
User avatar
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster
Posts: 1620
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 7:33 pm

Post by Dogsmilk »

I sent them (THEY) back their letter not completed with a cover note attached merely stating that there is no case to answer as QE2 is not the legal Monarch and the legislation under which the case is being brought is fraudulent and unlawful and therefore null and void.

I have received a reply from the Camera Enforcement Office, stating falsely that through my "refusal" to name the driver, I, the registered Keeper may be convicted of refusing or failing to provide them information and could be robbed by them of my money and given added extra penalty points on my license.

This is a joke, as I have already said that I merely stated that there is no case to answer.

Now my case has been forwarded and is pending with the CPS for refusing/failing to supply driver information, which is a lie.

Muad'Dib is helping me every step of the way. He also wants to help the many thousands of victims of these fraudulent acts by the fraudulent Crown.
Yes. I can see such tactics are bound to be 'bullet proof' when facing the English criminal justice system.

Is this stuff, which basically appears to be arguing that committing traffic offences is authorised by God, taking the piss, or is it genuinely trying to be taken seriously? Does anyone know?
It's a man's life in MOSSAD
User avatar
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor
Posts: 18428
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 1:03 pm
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Contact:

BBC lies, Richard Porter, pull the other one lizard man

Post by TonyGosling »

Richard Porter, pull the other one lizard man

God bless the web's truth seekers
By Axegrinder
Press Gazette
Monday, 19 March 2007
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/article/1 ... der_160307

Axegrinder is not one to indulge in idle conspiracy theory speculation, but could it be possible that the BBC is run by shape-shifting lizard people who are in league with Al Qaeda?

I only ask because of a much-watched piece of BBC World footage on Google Video which shows reporter Jane Standley reporting the collapse of the Salomon Brothers building (also known as WTC 7) on 11 September, 2001 - 20 minutes before it actually fell.

You can see the building clearly still standing behind her.

As cattleprods911 says in the Google Video comments section: "Now that 9/11 is unravelling, as is Waco, the anti-conspiracy theorists are quickly becoming the 'NUTS', and my guess is they are sucking on one kind of government tit or another! God bless you truth seekers!"

Here, here.

Richard Porter, head of news for BBC World, has issued a response on The Editors, the BBC editors' blog. But does he protest too much? He says:

- We're not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on 11 September. 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.

- 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.

- 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 ¡ª 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.

- We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of c***-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another.

- If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that.

Pull the other one lizard man.
Last edited by TonyGosling on Mon Sep 23, 2013 10:32 am, edited 5 times in total.
Stephen
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster
Posts: 820
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 12:47 pm

Post by Stephen »

I don't see what this has got to do with David Icke's Lizards? :(
User avatar
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Angel - now passed away
Posts: 3148
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 9:08 am
Location: UK

WTC7 - Jane Standley parroted premature Reuters report

Post by ian neal »

jaclec
Minor Poster
Minor Poster
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:56 am
Location: glasgow

Post by jaclec »

From the blog


World Trade Center Building 7 has become the subject of heated speculation and a host of conspiracy theories suggesting it was brought down by a controlled demolition. And some people suggest it was not just the government and foreign intelligence, but the police, the fire service, first responders and even the media that were involved.


It show whats to expect from "The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Third Tower" on Sunday.

They will avoid all the evidence and demonize anyone who questions the official story as a nutter, antisemite, or offending the famillies of the bereaved.

When reading the comments its refreshing to see more people question this nonsense.

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

Thats allowing for the bbc normal censorship of free speech.
User avatar
Snowygrouch
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 628
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 10:59 am
Location: Oxford

Post by Snowygrouch »

Phoned up and made my opinions quite clear to the complaints department. Dont expect it to have any impact but it made me feel slightly less enraged after being subjected to 1 hour of monumentally idiotic television.
The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist

President Eisenhower 1961
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster
Posts: 986
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 7:57 pm

Post by SHERITON HOTEL »

So someone went and put September 11 2001's archives in the 2002 section.... are they having a laugh? are we supposed to buy that?? why did the beeb spend all that day trying to remove the prophetic Jane Standley WTC7 collapse report from youtube and can we see the New York transmission break report with the reason why the line went down at such an opportune moment, 5.15pm local time?
User avatar
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor
Posts: 18428
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 1:03 pm
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Contact:

Post by TonyGosling »

Reuters wrote:....The [premature] report [of the Building 7 collapse] was picked up from a local news story and was withdrawn as soon as it emerged that the building had not fallen."
Which local news story? I trawled at the time and it appeared to be just BBC and CNN that told the story - so where did Reuters pick this up - can't they tell us - or won't they tell us.

As usual it's up to a rag-taggle bunch of internet geeks to do the multi-billion funded mainstream journo's jobs for them.

Why are Reuters so coy:?

Let's see this original report and hear from the original local news editor and reporter.

Yes looks like you may have a little more fabricating to do before this one will wash Reuters.


So Jane Standley was reading from a Reuters report -

BBC Reports Live that WTC7 has fallen, yet it still stands

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejjySUVOGKA[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejjySUVOGKA
Last edited by TonyGosling on Fri Jul 04, 2008 12:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
scubadiver
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 1844
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 2:42 pm
Location: Currently Andover
Contact:

Post by scubadiver »

I have just read 'Flat Earth News' by Nick Davies. According to him, most of the world's media get their news either through Reuters or Associated Press - usually unchecked. Even Reuters send out news unchecked.

It is a book worth reading.
Currently working on a new website
AntonH
Minor Poster
Minor Poster
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 11:16 am
Location: London

Post by AntonH »

As usual it's up to a rag-taggle bunch of internet geeks to do the multi-million funded mainstream journo's jobs for them.
Word! :D :D
User avatar
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor
Posts: 18428
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 1:03 pm
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Contact:

Post by TonyGosling »

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

The 9/11 conspiracy theories

[about OBL, not Blackwater, planning it you mean?]

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.

[no, you just weren't doing your job as journalists and editors, you were simply repeating wrong information fed to you verbatim as if you had discovered it for yourselves]

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.

[yes you did - and you should have either checked facts yourself before broadcasting them or else named your source - in this cas Reuters - you didn't do either]

We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening.

[noone said you did - but you were not checking therefore not doing your job]

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,

[no you didn't did you?]

used qualifying words like "apparently" or "it's reported" or "we're hearing" and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving.

3. Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I've spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn't remember minute-by-minute what she said or did - like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services.

4. We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of c***-up, not conspiracy).

[yes you do - you just lost them - probably due to too much being paid to too many managers and not enough journalists and real employees]

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... "

[well that's hardly a representative comment is it Richard? All in all you give me no confidence whatsoever that you give a damn about your audience, just trying to save your dogs breakfast of a reputation. You are sending a message out loud and clear to anyone with ears to hear that your channel is up for auction to the highest bidder. You better hope not too many intelligent people read your pathetic statement. Well done to the Press Gazette at the time by the way for taking you apart]

Richard Porter is head of BBC World News
press gazette wrote: Axegrinder 16.03.07

23 March 2007

God bless the web's truth seekers

Axegrinder is not one to indulge in idle conspiracy theory speculation, but could it be possible that the BBC is run by shape-shifting lizard people who are in league with Al Qaeda?

I only ask because of a much-watched piece of BBC World footage on Google Video which shows reporter Jane Standley reporting the collapse of the Salomon Brothers building (also known as WTC 7) on 11 September, 2001 ¡ª 20 minutes before it actually fell.

You can see the building clearly still standing behind her.

As cattleprods911 says in the Google Video comments section: "Now that 9/11 is unravelling, as is Waco, the anti-conspiracy theorists are quickly becoming the ¡®NUTS', and my guess is they are sucking on one kind of government tit or another! God bless you truth seekers!"

Here, here.

Richard Porter, head of news for BBC World, has issued a response on The Editors, the BBC editors'

blog. But does he protest too much? He says: ¡ñWe're not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on 11 September. 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.

¡ñ In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inac- curate ¡ª but at the time were based on the best information we had. We did what we always did ¡ª 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.

¡ñ 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 ¡ª 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.

¡ñ We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of c***-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another.

¡ñ If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error ¡ª no more than that.

Pull the other one lizard man.

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp ... tioncode=1
[/url][/b]
User avatar
simplesimon
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster
Posts: 249
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 1:50 pm

Post by simplesimon »

scubadiver wrote:
I have just read 'Flat Earth News' by Nick Davies. According to him, most of the world's media get their news either through Reuters or Associated Press
They do, along with a few lesser agencies. Of course it would be ridiculous to suggest that those who control these choke points essentially control what the world's people think, or would use their power for any nefarious ends.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q= ... arch&meta=

- usually unchecked. Even Reuters send out news unchecked.
Oh, I think they check it pretty carefully...


==========================
If you want to know who is really in control, ask yourself who you cannot criticise.
"The hunt for 'anti-semites' is a hunt for pockets of resistance to the NWO"-- Israel Shamir
"What we in America call terrorists are really groups of people that reject the international system..." - Heinz "Henry" Kissinger
Post Reply