Serge wrote: AJ wrote:
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?
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"