Previously hidden: ferocious WTC7 BBC World flamewar

[blackcat]

That if you are going to quote, don't edit egregiously - read what I said again

I was interested in that part which is why I quoted it and no - I will not be reading it again. Debate is fine but supercillious lecturing is not. You clearly confused the timings between a) the start of the attack and b) the collapse of the towers. That is not bad editing it is selective quoting - chosen because it was the pertinent part which I wished to challenge. Why did you not reply to it?

There have been reams of posts on multiple forums/sites with a torrent of proof of the veracity of this video and your belated entry into this particular site with snotty, patronising advice is not welcome to at least one member.

[Serge]

Critics have gone very quiet all of a sudden. Must have all ran home to mummy crying mummy...

[AJ]

Serge" AJ you idiot. I have destoryed another of your ilk recently with ease. Now I can start on you. You say the BBC have not authenticated the WTC7 report which this thread is about.[quote]So how did the BBC report that Building 7 at the World Trade Centre had collapsed around half an hour before it did so? [/quote]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/

Confirmation that they accept their report as authentic.

Go crying to mummy like batrabill. Don't forget your school books.[/quote]"

You need to re-read what Richard posted. They don't have the original tapes so he carefully refers to the unauthenicated material on the web. That's the problem. The BBC only keeps part of their archive after 90 days, they would like the files they say.

You are clearly very young and inattentive (like blackcat?). You should be focusing on evidence and its absence, not imaginery events and people. Try to steer clear of psychology too, it's treacherous especially in the hands of daft people like you and blackcat

The trick is NOT to draw inferences until you have reliable data.

The BBC didn't 'know that' WTC7 was coming down before it did. Why did anyone want to make out that they did if not to discredit them?

And if they were co-conspirators, why would they go out of their way to announce that to the entire world on TV ?

Who wanted to make the BBC look bad?

[Serge]

Serge" AJ you idiot. I have destoryed another of your ilk recently with ease. Now I can start on you. You say the BBC have not authenticated the WTC7 report which this thread is about.

So how did the BBC report that Building 7 at the World Trade Centre had collapsed around half an hour before it did so?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/

Confirmation that they accept their report as authentic.

Go crying to mummy like batrabill. Don't forget your school books.

"

You need to re-read what Richard posted. They don't have the original tapes so he carefully refers to the unauthenicated material on the web. That's the problem. The BBC only keeps part of their archive after 90 days, they would like the files they say.

You are clearly very young and inattentive (like blackcat?). You should be focusing on evidence and its absence, not imaginery events and people. Try to steer clear of psychology too, it's treacherous especially in the hands of daft people like you and blackcat

The trick is NOT to draw inferences until you have reliable data.

The BBC didn't 'know that' WTC7 was coming down before it did. Why did anyone want to make out that they did if not to discredit them?

And if they were co-conspirators, why would they go out of their way to announce that to the entire world on TV ?

Who wanted to make the BBC look bad? [/quote]

Another poor attempt. BBC have responded to this in such a way that there is no argument over authenticity. If there was, they would have stated catagorically that it was not genuine. By the way, the BBC have NOT lost their tapes. If you read what is said properly, Porter states 'we now know that our live shot showed the building still standing in the background.'

'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'

It is their live shot, the footage is real. They lost the world tape, but have the very same tape from BBC24.

Want to try again?

This is easy. Batrabill mk2

[blackcat]

You omitted part of what I had written and thereby changed what the post literally said.

bs. You ignore yet again my point about you confusing the times of a) the attacks and b) the collapses.

You know you got it f*cked up but you just can't admit it. Like a lot of Trolls you play games. Up yours you specious *.

[AJ]

Serge" AJ you idiot. I have destoryed another of your ilk recently with ease. Now I can start on you. You say the BBC have not authenticated the WTC7 report which this thread is about.

So how did the BBC report that Building 7 at the World Trade Centre had collapsed around half an hour before it did so?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/

Confirmation that they accept their report as authentic.

Go crying to mummy like batrabill. Don't forget your school books.

"

You need to re-read what Richard posted. They don't have the original tapes so he carefully refers to the unauthenicated material on the web. That's the problem. The BBC only keeps part of their archive after 90 days, they would like the files they say.

You are clearly very young and inattentive (like blackcat?). You should be focusing on evidence and its absence, not imaginery events and people. Try to steer clear of psychology too, it's treacherous especially in the hands of daft people like you and blackcat

The trick is NOT to draw inferences until you have reliable data.

The BBC didn't 'know that' WTC7 was coming down before it did. Why did anyone want to make out that they did if not to discredit them?

And if they were co-conspirators, why would they go out of their way to announce that to the entire world on TV ?

Who wanted to make the BBC look bad?

Another poor attempt. BBC have responded to this in such a way that there is no argument over authenticity. If there was, they would have stated catagorically that it was not genuine. By the way, the BBC have NOT lost their tapes. If you read what is said properly, Porter states 'we now know that our live shot showed the building still standing in the background.'

'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'

It is their live shot, the footage is real. They lost the world tape, but have the very same tape from BBC24.

Want to try again?

This is easy. Batrabill mk2[/quote]


The only quotation is direct quotation.

Look at what he says about the BBC News 24 tapes and the use of the web for the other. Read it very carefully and don't impute. The whole point of what I have been saying in all these posts has been to encourage people here to *refrain* from prematurely filling in gaps. The difficult task is to keep these open when one doesn't have the full facts IN ORDER TO SEARCH FOR THE MISSING DATA.

This ultimately has nothing to do with the clips, with WTC7, or anything else to do with this illustrative event. It has to do with the very nature of "pursuit of truth" (another name for science - See Quine 1990;1992) and the nonsense which pre-occupies so many 911 forums, especially in the States.

"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"

[Serge]

Serge" AJ you idiot. I have destoryed another of your ilk recently with ease. Now I can start on you. You say the BBC have not authenticated the WTC7 report which this thread is about.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/

Confirmation that they accept their report as authentic.

Go crying to mummy like batrabill. Don't forget your school books.

"

You need to re-read what Richard posted. They don't have the original tapes so he carefully refers to the unauthenicated material on the web. That's the problem. The BBC only keeps part of their archive after 90 days, they would like the files they say.

You are clearly very young and inattentive (like blackcat?). You should be focusing on evidence and its absence, not imaginery events and people. Try to steer clear of psychology too, it's treacherous especially in the hands of daft people like you and blackcat

The trick is NOT to draw inferences until you have reliable data.

The BBC didn't 'know that' WTC7 was coming down before it did. Why did anyone want to make out that they did if not to discredit them?

And if they were co-conspirators, why would they go out of their way to announce that to the entire world on TV ?

Who wanted to make the BBC look bad?

Another poor attempt. BBC have responded to this in such a way that there is no argument over authenticity. If there was, they would have stated catagorically that it was not genuine. By the way, the BBC have NOT lost their tapes. If you read what is said properly, Porter states 'we now know that our live shot showed the building still standing in the background.'

'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'

It is their live shot, the footage is real. They lost the world tape, but have the very same tape from BBC24.

Want to try again?

This is easy. Batrabill mk2

The only quotation is direct quotation.

Look at what he says about the BBC News 24 tapes and the use of the web for the other. Read it very carefully and don't impute. The whole point of what I have been saying in all these posts has been to encourage people here to *refrain* from prematurely filling in gaps. The difficult task is to keep these open when one doesn't have the full facts IN ORDER TO SEARCH FOR THE MISSING DATA.

This ultimately has nothing to do with the clips, with WTC7, or anything else to do with this illustrative event. It has to do with the very nature of "pursuit of truth" (another name for science - See Quine 1990;1992) and the nonsense which pre-occupies so many 911 forums, especially in the States.

"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"

You have started to panic sonny jim. Doing the old JREFers trick of trying to confuse. Far too smart for that. Even on my worse day, you could not outsmart me on your best day.

Try again.

Dopey, let me introduce you to a simple fact. You are wrong!

Now then, trot on back to the critics shed and chew on a bale of straw until you have learnt to read. Another one of your dyslexic colleagues was here last night being torn to shreads and has suddenly vanished into thin air.

[Batrabill]

I would like to admit that I did call Serge stupid.

That has upset him and made his typing much worse. For that I am sorry.

[Anthony Lawson]

Chinese Whispers and Russian Dolls

This is getting ridiculous, quotes within quotes within quotes, often with no attribution or reference to when a post being quoted was posted, or whether the poster was quoting someone else, within that post; either another poster or an outside source.

Making others understand what you are thinking is the objective of a forum, if those reading what you are writing are unable to work out if you are the original writer, or you are quoting someone else who may, in turn, have been quoting another poster, the result will be chaos in the reader's mind.

That level of chaos has been reached, as far as I am concerned, so I am clocking off.

Anthony

[Serge]

I would like to admit that I did call Serge stupid.

That has upset him and made his typing much worse. For that I am sorry.

I am not effected by you calling me stupid. I know I am intelligent, I don't work where I work if I was not, and also above your level of 911 knowledge. To further bash out another insult in regard to my typing getting worse, is typical of your kind. So... in terms of your apology to me..

I refuse to accept.

[AJ]

Anthony Lawson: "Chinese Whispers and Russian Dolls

This is getting ridiculous, quotes within quotes within quotes, often with no attribution or reference to when a post being quoted was posted, or whether the poster was quoting someone else, within that post; either another poster or an outside source.

Making others understand what you are thinking is the objective of a forum, if those reading what you are writing are unable to work out if you are the original writer, or you are quoting someone else who may, in turn, have been quoting another poster, the result will be chaos in the reader's mind.

That level of chaos has been reached, as far as I am concerned, so I am clocking off"

Wise words and probably a wise action, although I'm not sure it has anything to should have anything to do with helping each other understand what one another is *thinking*, it's more a case of pointing out to each other what *is* factually the case given the evdience available vs what can't be said reliably in the absence of required evidence.

If a few more people here start to distrust a little more what they read and read as a consequence of these exchanges, they will have served their purpose.

For the record, we *all* make ourselves look "stupid" when we make bold assertions which are based on scanty data. The sad fact is that the data one requires here is just unavailable, and given that's so, those who persist in asserting that they just "know the truth" (because someone said this or that) or that it's obvious or must be true because the people who told them so take their jobs "very seriously" etc etc, just appear egregiously or unredeemingly stupid, as they show that they have no grasp of the rules of evidence that smarter people have to operate by. Such folk won't be educated either (either because they'vejust got low IQs, or are psychopathically akin to those who are content to take financial advantage of trusting/gullible others (see 'evangelists')

[AJ]

AJ : Why do you think the video might have been altered or tampered with ?

I have looked at the orignal mpeg very closely and there is no signs of editing or manipulation. If it was it should very noticeable where you see Jane on the monitor in the studio, the type of doctoring you suggest could not be done easily without leaving tell-tale signs.

If you have any evidence of editing etc please show me

Stlll taking this as just hypothetical - have a look at both V08591-16 and V08591-20 (the next in the sequence).

For purely heuristic purposes (i.e. what if to encourage skepticism), for now just pretend that someone has taken clips from the later (V08591-20) 41 minutes of footage (which actually shows WTC7 collapsing), and that they've spliced that into the earlier footage (V08591-16) where Jane was speaking earlier in the day (it's quite light too). Look closely at V08591-16 where the anchor says that the Salomon Brothers building has collapsed and there's a cut to Jane. When he refers back to what was said a few moments ago, we think he means at the beginning of the clip, but he is now 13:30 into the clip, and he ends by turning to the right of the screen (his left) to talk to his correspondent at 13:55, but in the next shot we see him turn to the left of the screen to talk to "Jane Standley" (his right). Note the audio transition from correspondent to Jane Standley.

It may be nothing , but it looks like a splice to me, and this was supposed to be live was it not?. If it was just a change in camera we would surely have seen him turning to the left of the screen not the right, just before the cut to Jane? Note the audio at the transition carefuly. He is going to talk to his correspondent, but note what he allegedly says as the camera angle changes - watch 13:30-13-55 closely and listen very closely to what he says, as you don't hear him say "Jane Standley" until after the cut, he then has his back to you almost (i.e he's turned towards Jane, and you can't sync what is said with his lips). It all needs a much closer analysis with Premiere or some other frame by frame software. Listen to what Jane says, and ask how related it is to the specific questions that he has put to her.

This is just me being ultra-cautious. I'm just uncomfortable with the configuration of all of these anomalous events.

Could it have been done?

[blackcat]

This is just me being ultra-cautious.

It is you being a troll. You should be kicked into the sewer where you belong.

[blackcat]

telling someone that they are not very bright or "stupid" is not name-calling

Yes it is dumbo.

[AJ]

telling someone that they are not very bright or "stupid" is not name-calling

Yes it is dumbo.

If you can't/won't learn how to respect evidence, (even when being taught how to do so for free), you should just keep quiet

[AJ]

AJ : You havent shown any evidence, just your paranoia and denial.

If you have any evidence please post it

Good science and forensics is disciplined paranoia and denial (evidence testing/falsificatation).

Scrutinise the clips as I have said, as I am not making a case, I am expecting others to do that.

This is about teamwork.

[blackcat]

This is about teamwork.

And we all know who thinks they are team captain.

[AJ]

This is about teamwork.

And we all know who thinks they are team captain.

It would certainly be a mistake to follow your line of behaviour

Try and focus on what matters. Try not to spend so much time speculating about what you believe others may think/believe. These are propositional attitudes and like subjunctive conditionals are not truth-functional and therefore treachrous (it renders much of our psychology and "common sense" practice, just irrational nonsense).

Concentrate instead on what's out there. Look and listen for flaws in the available evidence. Learn to look and listen critically (rather than abusively) and if you can't, just keep quiet.

That's good forensic science advice.

[Thermate]

Seems a "critic" slipped his shackles... Welcome back Anti-sophist?

[blackcat]

Learn to look and listen critically (rather than abusively) and if you can't, just keep quiet.

Learn not to lecture in a supercillious manner and stop your pretentious blathering in a pathetic attempt to appear intelligent. It is failing.

[AJ]

Can you elaborate on what you are saying? Are you saying that posters should not stay on topic in a thread? That critical analysis of what is posted is somehow subversive? Are only posts that show that it was all "an inside job" legitimate/acceptable

That sounds like either "accept that 911 (WTC demolition/collapse) was an inside job" (regardless of whether it was benevolent or malevolent) or "you're a 'stealth critic'" (whatever that is).

Is a 'stealth critic' someone who critically analyses in a way that 911 "Truth pursuers" don't like, or consider iniminical to their agenda ?

If not, have a look at the next clip, about 1/3 in. Is that WTC7 back up again or some other building?

http://www.archive.org/details/bbc200109111818-1859

[Poacher]

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.

[AJ]

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

Fair comments. Can we get on with dealing with these specific anomalies now?

How is anyone to ascertain whether it was an inside job if a) all of the potentially useful evidence (steel) was quickly shipped off to India/China, and b) (just hypothetically) the alleged perpetrators turn out to have all acted benevolently on the day for what was considered to be the greater good (see my 1st post) and is now classified?

[Poacher]

[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[/quote]

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.

[AJ]

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

I didn't write that. You've imputed that. The reference was to the "window" behind Jane Standley. The question was whether it was greenscreen given the smoke's behaviour. This was about the different elements of the scene being independent.

[Poacher]

I didn't write that. You've imputed that.

You implied that by suggesting there is something wrong with the background.

[Snowygrouch]

AJ,
have been following your posts with interest; unfortunately I`m still none the wiser about what you are trying to say.

Would you care to elaborate without cryptic phrasing please.

C.

[AJ]

I didn't write that. You've imputed that.

You implied that by suggesting there is something wrong with the background.

What is wrong with the ackground. I didn't say someone had tamptered with the clip did I? I said look at the "window" to the left of the screen and look for the smoke. Look at the buildings to the left and right of the vertical "window frame" too. This point was raised in my first post. I am quite happy to be provided with a falsifying explanation other than greenscreen gone-awry-a bit. The problem is that the thumbnails are too small, the video is not up, and one really needs moving images.

Finally. Look up intensional idioms of propositinal attitude and the intensional or subjunctive conditional. Discover what's wrong with indirect quotation, and why the above idioms are restistant to logical quantification, and what that means for our natural use of language and "common sense" folk psychological reasoning. This is not a trivial point

[Poacher]

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?

I have not responded emotionally/reactively. I might be able to teach you about forensics. No there is nothing wrong with the smoke. Show me evidence of tampering with the video.

[Poacher]

Finally. Look up intensional idioms of propositinal attitude and the intensional or subjunctive conditional. Discover what's wrong with indirect quotation, and why the above idioms are restistant to logical quantification, and what that means for our natural use of language and "common sense" folk psychological reasoning. This is not a trivial point

1 > looked it up
2 > it is a trivial point
3> please can you try to converse without contradicting yourself