Did BBCNews24 also report WTC7 collapse beforehand?

Headhunter · Post by **Headhunter** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 12:32 am

http://www.911blogger.com/node/6501#comment

This is a story with LEGS folks.

I could NOT believe when I logged on here that I didn't see this topic front and center, with 100's of posts and 1000's of views.

Please take the time to research this BBC FIASCO, and pull together your info and then BLAST it out to every UK newspaper and TV news station.

After all the "hoopla" from their "9/11 Conspiracy File" show, this has GOT to be reported on.

And now they've responded. And their response would suggest that the only possible explanation is that they are clairvoyant.

Blogger has another port on it.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/6482

C'mon our UK 9/11 fellow Truthers, this is a FANTASTIC opportunity to get in the face of the BBC, catching them involved in a cover up.

And no we're not neccessarily saying that they themselves were "in on it" but only that whoever gave them their info as their source WAS, and was handing them the script.

Herre's a discussion thread on it at the Loose Change forums.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Chang ... topic=4549

Please help MOVE this story, and move is fast, while it's got some MOMENTUM..

It really just broke out yesterday. See what you can do with it by tommorow.

Let's create a presentation on it, with the BBC response, and send it out to ALL the UK papers and News Channels, OK? Eh?

alkmyst · Post by **alkmyst** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 1:40 am

From PUMPITOUT.com:

"Yesterday I tried getting a hold of Jane Standly and the guy said she was gone for the day. I forgot about the 5 hrs time difference. He told me to call her today and and shed be there. He gave me her direct number: 011 - 44 - (0)208 - 576 - 4440

Started calling at 7:30am, when someone finally answered her phone this is what they had to say !

click link to listen or right click and save as to download !"

Jane's Office:
www.pumpitout.com/audio/janes_office.mp3

Enjoy!

Al K Myst

Headhunter · Post by **Headhunter** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 1:57 am

Don't forget to send in your comments to the BBC regarding this FIASCO!

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

Disco_Destroyer · Post by **Disco_Destroyer** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 2:09 am

The BBCs hands are tied they don't serve the people they serve the power. 1000 acording to press were laid off after the David Kelly incident with another 1000 threated (unsure if it happened) duing the Iraq war!!

Headhunter · Post by **Headhunter** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 2:14 am

Get in their FACE about this story all throughout the UK media.

How can they NOT report this?

Think about it, and get moving..

This is one HECK of a news story, no matter what anyone thinks about what did or did not happen on 9/11.

Thank you.

Best,

Rob
Headhunter

blackcat · Post by **blackcat** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:18 am

From a link above:

Richard Porter
27 Feb 07, 05:12 PM

The 9/11 conspiracy theories are pretty well known by now. The BBC addressed them earlier this month with a documentary, The Conspiracy Files, shown within the UK.

Until now, I don't think we've been accused of being part of the conspiracy. But now some websites are using news footage from BBC World on September 11th 2001 to suggest we were actively participating in some sort of attempt to manipulate the audience. As a result, we're now getting lots of emails asking us to clarify our position. So here goes:

1. We're not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening.

2. In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had. We did what we always did - sourced our reports, used qualifying words like "apparently" or "it's reported" or "we're hearing" and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving.

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

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

5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today "so the guy in the studio didn't quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy... "

Richard Porter is head of news, BBC World

"We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down."

Soooo........???????

telecasterisation · Post by **telecasterisation** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 9:58 am

Whilst it all appears incredibly suspicious, the BBC have now semi-responded in exactly the way anticipated - 'Sorry, we made a mistake'. Can someone explain how this isn't now just another interesting anomaly?

There are countless people screaming that we have to pump this out to as many sources as possible and 'Get in the BBC's face'. I have no problem with the concept of telling people whatsoever, however isn't this now just a dead end due to the response of the BBC. We have copies of the broadcast, it looks suspicious, they say they made a mistake - where else can this now go?

What am I missing exactly?

Disco_Destroyer · Post by **Disco_Destroyer** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 10:03 am

Is there not video evidence of police shoing people away before the collapse??

Disco_Destroyer · Post by **Disco_Destroyer** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 10:05 am

telecasterisation wrote:Whilst it all appears incredibly suspicious, the BBC have now semi-responded in exactly the way anticipated - 'Sorry, we made a mistake'. Can someone explain how this isn't now just another interesting anomaly?

There are countless people screaming that we have to pump this out to as many sources as possible and 'Get in the BBC's face'. I have no problem with the concept of telling people whatsoever, however isn't this now just a dead end due to the response of the BBC. We have copies of the broadcast, it looks suspicious, they say they made a mistake - where else can this now go?

What am I missing exactly?

For once i agree

telecasterisation · Post by **telecasterisation** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 10:30 am

I would add that blackcat's highlighted point surrounding Mr Porter's first point is the only real outstanding issue;

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.

If the BBC did not receive advance information about WTC7, then how exactly, where exactly, did the report originate and why did the footer on the screen clearly state the building had collapsed well before it did?

This totally contradicts Mr Porter's statement, for unless the BBC simply made the report up, it can only have stemmed from a third-party.

karlos · Post by **karlos** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 10:43 am

alkmyst wrote:From PUMPITOUT.com:
"Yesterday I tried getting a hold of Jane Standly and the guy said she was gone for the day. I forgot about the 5 hrs time difference. He told me to call her today and and shed be there. He gave me her direct number: 011 - 44 - (0)208 - 576 - 4440

Started calling at 7:30am, when someone finally answered her phone this is what they had to say !
click link to listen or right click and save as to download !"

Jane's Office:
www.pumpitout.com/audio/janes_office.mp3

Enjoy!

WOW
i wonder how the British bs Corperation will try and spin their way out of this
You see like any conspiracy on the scale of 911 the whole house of cards is starting to collapse. Hopefully it will result in BUSH and BLAIR being impeached and charged with treason and war crimes.

Al K Myst

www.stelios69.blogspot.com

blackcat · Post by **blackcat** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 10:46 am

What am I missing exactly

I believe what you are missing TC is the manner in which the authorities (or whoever) behaved with such certainty that WTC7 was going to fall. In order for the BBC to say they confused a message of an impending collapse with an actual collapse then some people knew it was going to happen. I know that some say the firemen cleared the area and said it was coming down and I know of Silverstein's comment but nobody can pinpoint the person(s) who actually said with such absolute confidence that a steel framed skyscraper was going to collapse for the first time ever from fire. If we are to believe the structure was so compromised by falling debris from the twin towers then it must be explained how such damage could possibly be sustained as WTC7 was hundreds of yards away with other buildings in between which did NOT collapse though much more heavily damaged. Then there is the speed of the fall which was freefall. Then there is the absence of a proper investigation. The whole issue stinks to high heaven and it is outrageous that Americans are not themselves outraged by all of this. We NEED an investigation/explanation!!!

telecasterisation · Post by **telecasterisation** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 10:53 am

blackcat wrote:
What am I missing exactly
who actually said with such absolute confidence that a steel framed skyscraper was going to collapse for the first time ever from fire.

Wouldn't it actually be the third steel framed skyscraper to collapse from fire?

I would also ask, if people were going to deliberately going to demolish a building - what is the benefit of writing and releasing a press release beforehand? In other words, why tell the news agencies before it happened?

blackcat · Post by **blackcat** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 11:24 am

Apparently what they were telling the news agencies was that it looked like it was going to collapse/was collapsing and the BBC confused this message. The advantage was to make the controlled demolition appear to be the result of damage from debris and fire, and not a cd at all.

When I say it was the first to fall ever I am discounting the twin towers, as the usual blurb about them was that they were slammed into by jet aircraft as well so it was not just fire in their case. If the WTC 7 was also because of damage then it has to be explained how it got so damaged. Above all the person/people who put out the message that WTC 7 was collapsing/about to collapse needs to be identified. So far all we hear about are vague references to "firemen" saying it was going to come down. How difficult should it be to identify the individual(s) who informed the news agencies of this impending collapse and get them to explain how they knew?

GEFBASS · Post by **GEFBASS** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 11:50 am

I have a rebuttal for BBC answer No:4......

Quote,

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

READ YOUR OWN Agreement of the charter !

Right Click and Save as:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/fi ... july06.pdf

Item number (86), As a whole but in particular,

(Disclaimer I am writing this section for educational purposes)

subsection (4).

Quote,

"(4) The BBC must not destroy, sell or otherwise dispose of any material that it has broadcast
or otherwise distributed which it decides not to preserve in any archive without first
offering that material, free of charge, to such designated bodies as are engaged in
maintaining sound, television and film archives as it considers appropriate."

Just to add because ultimately "we" the license payer pay for the privilage of you "cocking up".

Thank you BBC.

Geoff.

telecasterisation · Post by **telecasterisation** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 12:04 pm

The position we are now in, is that we are picking up on the finer points of charters and definitions, what is the BBC supposed to do balanced against what they have done, this interwoven with accusations and rebuttals.

Unless the source of the information that WTC7 had collapsed is made absolutely clear, then this is over. The BBC say they made a mistake and the tapes are lost - where exactly can this now go?

Graham · Post by **Graham** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 12:05 pm

Headhunter wrote: This is a story with LEGS folks.

I could NOT believe when I logged on here that I didn't see this topic front and center, with 100's of posts and 1000's of views.

Please take the time to research this BBC FIASCO, and pull together your info and then BLAST it out to every UK newspaper and TV news station.

See this post HH.

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

John White · Post by **John White** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 12:21 pm

alkmyst wrote:From PUMPITOUT.com:
"Yesterday I tried getting a hold of Jane Standly and the guy said she was gone for the day. I forgot about the 5 hrs time difference. He told me to call her today and and shed be there. He gave me her direct number: 011 - 44 - (0)208 - 576 - 4440

Started calling at 7:30am, when someone finally answered her phone this is what they had to say !
click link to listen or right click and save as to download !"

Jane's Office:
www.pumpitout.com/audio/janes_office.mp3

Enjoy!

Al K Myst

Great work mate! spread this around everyone

John White · Post by **John White** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 12:23 pm

telecasterisation wrote:The position we are now in, is that we are picking up on the finer points of charters and definitions, what is the BBC supposed to do balanced against what they have done, this interwoven with accusations and rebuttals.

Unless the source of the information that WTC7 had collapsed is made absolutely clear, then this is over. The BBC say they made a mistake and the tapes are lost - where exactly can this now go?

Wherever we damn well make it go: thats what campaigning is all about

What, you thought this was a tea party?

Get with the programme Tele: send off some emails! Let other people worry about whether it means something: just make sure they know about it!

Stefan · Post by **Stefan** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 1:04 pm

Reporting that WTC7 had not collapsed and then finding out it had would be a mistake.

Reporting WTC7 had collapsed and then finding out it hadn't and THEN it collapses is a "coincidence" that certainly warrants picking up on.

The key in all this is not making wild claims that the BBC were "in on" 9/11 that the evidence does not support.

The key is in pressuring the BBC to reveal where their information came from. If, as I'm sure we all suspect, it was a government press release then we have something.

sabretache · Post by **sabretache** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 2:01 pm

First post here.

I've followed this on the various US sites too. There can be little doubt that the BBC were told by a trusted source (no verification necessary) that WTC7 had collapsed some 20 minutes before it actually did because there were none of the usual caveats. Both the captioning and voice reporting for 'News24' and the standard BBC News, are unambiguous and the background to Jane Stanley's 'live' report seems to have been genuinely live too (rather than old pre-recorded stuff) - with WTC7 right there in the background as she discussed the reasons for its collapse - in fairness to her she never mentions WTC7 - just the damage to a hotel building and the devastation generally - almost as though she didn't know about the anchor-man's opening remarks and specific question about WTC7 . It's the studio anchor man who is categoric about it.

If this as serious as, on the face of it, it appears - I expect the BBC to get their story straight with government first. Post-Hutton, they are quite simply NOT a trusted source where matters of sensitive official government matters are concerned.

QuitTheirClogs · Post by **QuitTheirClogs** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 3:19 pm

sabretache wrote:I've followed this on the various US sites too. There can be little doubt that the BBC were told by a trusted source (no verification necessary) that WTC7 had collapsed some 20 minutes before it actually did because there were none of the usual caveats. Both the captioning and voice reporting for 'News24' and the standard BBC News, are unambiguous and the background to Jane Stanley's 'live' report seems to have been genuinely live too (rather than old pre-recorded stuff) - with WTC7 right there in the background as she discussed the reasons for its collapse - in fairness to her she never mentions WTC7 - just the damage to a hotel building and the devastation generally - almost as though she didn't know about the anchor-man's opening remarks and specific question about WTC7 . It's the studio anchor man who is categoric about it.

Yes, the story was coming via the anchor man. When the anchor man links to Jane Standley and asks what more can she tell us about the WTC7 collapse, she replies:

Only really what you already know - details are very, very sketchy

She then talks about the damage to the hotel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc

sabretache · Post by **sabretache** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 4:11 pm

This is a pretty comprehensive resume of the issue to date with explanations of why the timings can be relied upon:

http://www.wtc7.net/foreknowledge.html#bbc

reprehensor · Post by **reprehensor** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 4:27 pm

Hey guys, if you see Physicist hanging around, please ask him where this video came from:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 4&hl=en-GB

911Veritas says it does not come from the Internet Archive data dump.

disco volante · Post by **disco volante** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 4:59 pm

Time Stamp Confirms BBC Reported WTC 7 Collapse 26 Minutes In Advance

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

Micpsi · Post by **Micpsi** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 5:10 pm

telecasterisation wrote:Whilst it all appears incredibly suspicious, the BBC have now semi-responded in exactly the way anticipated - 'Sorry, we made a mistake'. Can someone explain how this isn't now just another interesting anomaly?

There are countless people screaming that we have to pump this out to as many sources as possible and 'Get in the BBC's face'. I have no problem with the concept of telling people whatsoever, however isn't this now just a dead end due to the response of the BBC. We have copies of the broadcast, it looks suspicious, they say they made a mistake - where else can this now go?

What am I missing exactly?

What you are missing here is the crucial point. It was NOT the BBC who made the mistake. That's just their phony mea culpa in order to hide the shocking truth, viz. the information they RECEIVED on the wires or whatever said that WTC 7 had collapsed! If they were merely repeating it (something they obviously cannot admit because of its profound conspiratorial implications), then it was not THEY who made the mistake, was it? It was whoever sent out the information to the TV media. The fact is they are pretending they made a c***-up simply as a ruse so that they don't have to admit that the source of their false information must have known - contrary to knowledge about steel-frame buildings - that WTC 7 was going to come down, something which only a clairvoyant or someone who had given the order to blow up the building would have known. That's what the BBC is still trying to hide with their silly admission of a mistake. Why silly? Because they are hoping we do not realise that the wrong information was not the result of a c***-up in communications but a mistake of timing by those who knew beforehand that WTC 7 was going to be demolished. Now do you get it?

physicist · Post by **physicist** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 10:06 pm

reprehensor wrote:Hey guys, if you see Physicist hanging around, please ask him where this video came from:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 4&hl=en-GB

911Veritas says it does not come from the Internet Archive data dump.

It originally arrived at my house via an aeriel when it was broadcast live.

GEFBASS · Post by **GEFBASS** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 10:18 pm

???????

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 4&hl=en-GB

Welcome to the free world......

GEFBASS · Post by **GEFBASS** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 11:00 pm

This one works and there is a few more being uploaded.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lWQ5cJ5XYY

Geoff.

Carlos · Post by **Carlos** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:44 am

GEFBASS wrote:???????

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 4&hl=en-GB

Welcome to the free world......

yeah i got email earlier saying they rejected it! was just waiting to see how long it would take them ;-O)

but the you tube one is still up - just waiting for the mail ..lol

9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom

Did BBCNews24 also report WTC7 collapse beforehand?

Did BBCNews24 also report WTC7 collapse beforehand?

BBC liars

Re: => The BBC in denial.