You can't explain that away. Someone sent information that it had collapsed just a little too soon. This coming on the heels of your whitewash of the truth is just priceless. The wheel turning full circle, at least starting to. I'd admonish you to feel some shame at being caught red handed at your deceptions, but I realize shame is an emotion our media no longer experiences. You're running out of excuses. The really entertaining thing about PCTs Paranoid Conspiracy "Theorists" is that there is nothing too silly and nonsensical for them to trumpet as "proof" of The Great Conspiracy.
TPTB The Powers That Be , bent on mass murder and mayhem, considerately wait several hours before blowing up WTC7 so as to allow incident commanders to clear first responders from the collapse zone. After all, it wouldn't do for reporters to simply notice a high-rise building collapsing and then report on it, would it?
Especially since firefighters had only been observing collapse indicators for a few hours - we could hardly rely on journalists to be paying any attention to the damaged, burning, creaking building, eh? Richard, you state that The point is, that we are AMAZED how you managed to have evidence of an event which turned out to be completely accurate and absolutely true? I'm sure there are a lot of people pointing fingers at BBC as if they were part of a complex "conspiracy theory" I hate those loaded words.
And, of course, you react to those outragious claims. This so-called "error" proved to be utterly correct, and given the time-table, the coincidence is staggeringly difficult to believe. Not saying that BBC is part of a conspiracy. But whoever initially perpetuated the reports of WTC 7 collapsing, well, that is strong evidence of fore-knowledge.
There are many people, myself included, that want you to thoroughly investigate this issue to find out where the source of this 'error' came from. WTC 7 was not hit by a plane. The small, sporadic fires in WTC 7 were not expected to bring it down. No steel-framed skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire with the exception of the WTC complex.
I posted the link to the file in the archive. The link was not posted as a comment. Now the file is removed. Now be a man and tell us all how you knew? Those who are in the dock and being cross-examined are not allowed to wave their hands and create a plausible explanation. It's gone too far for that. There is a disastrous war built on false evidence, and that falsification process may have begun much sooner than is generally now understood.
In ordinary life, a witness who lies about one thing will be assumed to lie about everything. And we aren't talking about private matters, but about the essential role of a government to defend its country. This issue is about credibility of news sources during a terror attack, in which a rush to judgment resulted shortly in an invasion of a sovereign nation, and the BBC know it.
Thousands upon thousands of lives have been lost thus far, and there are doubtless more to come. I would find it very hard to believe there is BBC involvement in this kerfuffle, although I would question the desision makers. United Airlines flight 93 crashes in open ground near Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Conspiracy theories argue that the plane never crashed here, because there are no large pieces of visible wreckage at the scene. It is also alleged that the plane was shot down, and broke up in mid-air, spreading debris over a wide area.
World Trade Centre Building 7, a 47 storey building close to the two main towers collapses. It was not hit by either of the two hijacked aircraft. Read the final chapter of Michael Parenti's "Inventing Reality: The Politics of the Mass Media". Just once, I would like to see someone within the mainstream media after all, it's hardly the ONLY media anymore grow a pair, and attempt to address the valid concerns of those who question the official Conspiracy Theory, which remains unproven and virtually uninvestigated, due to direct White House interference, well over five years after the fact.
You could start with these reliable sources: The collapse was expected, reports on its imminent failure were numerous. Seriously folks, this just goes to show that the "truther"-movement hasn't got anything left. Those of us who are amazed or baffled or angry about this matter are not making any assertions about the BBC being "part of the conspiracy". The fact is, reasonable people are asking a reasonable question. How is it possible to have reported the collapse of a building nearly a half an hour before its collapse?
It is both frustrating and troubling that you appear to be either oblivious to or willingly flippant about the salient issue at hand. Given the graveness of the subject, you do both yourself and BBC World a great disservice by offering what are either glib dismissals or outright condescensions.
If, as you state in point three of your clarification, Ms. Stadley was being fed information by "colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services"- then the question remains, "Who fed her information about the pending collapse of this building"? To ask this question is not to accuse the BBC of complicity in a conspiracy. Reasonable people who have reviewed the collapse footage have noted that it shares a dozen unique characteristics associated only with building demolitions. Video from the day- available for your perusal on Google Video, YouTube, and a variety of other sites- shows police officers and firefighters warning bystanders that this building was about to be brought down.
This too suggests that the buildings were intentionally demolished. The BBC footage with Ms. Standley is itself inadvertently bolstering the disturbing argument that people knew in advance of the collapse of the building because the collapse was caused by human agency rather than being incidental to the events of the day. Given your station in life, you must surely be able to draw the obvious deductive conclusion that has haunted rational people for many years.
This points to not only foreknowledge of the attacks but direct complicity in them. And if you can't comprehend that, then you really should consider an alternative career far removed from journalism. Because if ever the world needed clear-eyed, fearless, truth-to-power-speaking media leaders- it is right bloody now. In statement 4 you use the term "cock-up". In Canada we don't have that term so I don't know what it means. We have the term "cop-out" Are they the same?
As an American and a New Yorker, and on behalf of reasonable people, I say thank you for addressing this issue. There are a lot of people who want to believe in conspiracies. Four hundred years ago, the culprit may have been "Satan" or perhaps "the Vatican". It's paranoia, and it is, sadly, a common and natural state of mind for many people. There are still people who say the moon landing was faked, that the world is flat, and that the holocaust never happened. I'm surprised I've never heard a theory about how the founding fathers of America got together and decided to form a secret government, with the allure of democracy, but actually loyal to the British crown.
God save the Queen! The arguments of these people are rubbish, but it is free speech after all. Thank you, BBC, for humoring these people. It's better than our media corps, who just turn up the volume on Britney Spears' hairdo every time something like this pops up. This anchor is very sure of himself. What has he been told and by whom when no one else will know for over 20 minutes?
ANCHOR 'Apparently that is only a few hundred yards away from where the World Trade Center towers were, and it seems that this was not a result of a new attack, it was because the eh Building Had Been Weakened eh during this morning's attacks. How does he know to say what will become the official line? So the reporter knows what the anchor and newsroom know and what nobody else knows You are one of the gate keepers.
You have been caught and are in full scramble mode. You should have run this explanation by some of your NWO friends because it really is a pitiful, and actually funny one. I feel sorry for you. Also why the building rapidly, symmetrically and instantaneously collapsed into such a confined area needs to be seriously examined. Come on give me break!!! The video is very simple, the reporter is saying that the building fell and it's clearly still standing just behind her head. Obviously whatever wire the BBC got it's info from, that wire service knew what was going to happen before it did.
Chris said it best, "To report that a steel frame building had collapsed before it had done so would be an odd sort of error, wouldn't it? But somebody was, and released that info a wee bit too soon. We want to know who told the BBC. Are these the videos you are looking for? The very term reaks of bias and prejudice. People have presented alarming information that demonstrated prior-knowledge and gaping holes in the "official story". This is the same procedure courts of law use in presenting a charge of culpibility. Do you call court cases "conspiracy theories"?
Only a fool would insist the building 7 collapse isn't very disturbing. People simply want the incongruities addressed by those who have refused to address them. I'm sure it's quite helpful to you to oversimplify the issue by declaring that you aren't part of a conspiracy.
I bet she works for the CIA!!! No, it is obvious that she and the fellow in the studio both received what they believed to be factual information stating that WTC 7 aka The Saloman Bros. They state it as accomplished FACT, obviously not realizing or recognizing that the building in their live shot, right behind Standley, showed the building they were saying had collapsed, still standing! That just means that they received erroneous information and didn't know what the building looked like. Neither did I, before all of this, and I'm sure I would have made the same mistake.
Your footage is important for that reason, not because it shows that the BBC was part of a conspiracy on that day, which is a childish way to respond. Your report from that day strongly suggests that an official fairy tale was already prepared, and someone started disseminating it to the media a little to early. Why don't you try to redeem what is left of your integrity and soul by repudiating your ridiculous "documentary" of last Sunday and doing some REAL investigation of how your journalists came to report what they reported on that day? Your vague and shallow attempts to dismiss this very reasonable and troubling question are absurd and transparent.
I will do you the courtsey of assuming that the article above is an example of arrogance, laziness and a priori assumptions, rather than something more sinister. Mr Porter said "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". This can be very true. I'm also sure that there were many things reported incorrectly. However the other things that were reported didnt then happen 20 minutes later in the exact way it was reported.
And you've lost the news footage of this generations most shocking event? Give me a break Mr Porter. You must have been really annoyed when you were told you had to try and explain this cock-up? There is, however, human error compounded by the unfortunate desire for news outlets to be always be ahead of the competition.
This, I believe, is what we have witnessed with this erroneous report. If an official statement is given regarding the possible collapse of WTC7 bearing in mind that eyewitness accounts from firefighters at the scene describe the building as being in very poor condition structurally and on fire, and rescue operations were ceased in the immediate vicinity to enable a collapse zone to be created , and this is filtered up through the reporting machine and becomes a statement that WTC7 has collapsed, then the end result is merely an example of poor information not being properly fact checked prior to broadcast.
Something certain members of the conspiracy crowd are only too familiar with, eh? Of course, the beeb tearing the truth movement to shreds in its 'conspiracy files' episode has nothing to do with the glee we now see from the 'truthers' and this 5 year old 'smoking gun'. What are the implications of reporting WTC7 falling before it actually did?
Who cares I was living in NYC at the time and it was widely reported that other building that were part of the WTC were collapsing or would collapse eventually. So they jumped the gun? What are the implications everyone is getting at here???? Wonder why your ratings are plummeting? Fabricated stories like this is why. Can you say coverup! The media is still denying the truth to those who lost their lives. We the people are the new medium of the truth.
Get use to it idiots! The internet crowd only pointed you to a discrepancy between your reporting and a simple view out of the window. Would you call it a conspiracy too if the weather guy reports it's raining, while the sun shines through the studio window? The weather man would go check his sources, but all you offer is saying "we're victims of conspiracy theorists!
That's a new low for the BBC. With respect, the response to this issue is unacceptable. In the most important final 7 minutes and 15 seconds of the said segment the words "apparently", "it's reported" or "we're hearing" ARE NOT USED in context of building 7 The words used are those have definite and past tense. Who is responsible for the newsroom in desk and floor prompters being used by the news presenter?
Who is responsible for the news report on the bottom screen news ticker? Who is responsible as the newsroom floor source for giving these people information? What is the complete list of editors and journalists responsible for this program on said day? The words in your statement 4 of footage being lost may very well redefine irresponsible. I am Horrified as a result of this. It just goes to show we cannot trust what we hear from the news. And you guys just so happen to not keep the original tapes? Give me a break, you covered yourselves on this.
And now its back to get you. Where did you obtain the information about the WTC7 collapse? As above but in addition why were your reporters not briefed on which building was WTC7? You obviously had a team on site i. You didn't need to ask anyone as it was there for all to see. Who added the closed caption and briefed Jane?
So you can't actually locate a copy anywhere of a tape of monumental importance and ask the public to assist! You didn't share it with any other news outlet? The poster Stewart Cowan brings up a salient point. If again this was a live feed then your team on site would have caught sight or heard the WTC7 collapse a little later! So was it truly a live feed? Did you ask Jane if it was live? Did you ask if she saw or heard the actual collapse of WTC7 some time later? You know maybe do some digging and get the facts straight like a solid reporter as your blog in far from complete!
There were many people who were forewarned about the collapse of Building 7. Why should not BBC be one of them? Please tell the public or tell it that BBC claims its privilege of protecting its sources. Then we know where we and BBC stand. I mean take the fact there was all those military war games going on which just happened to leave no planes to shoot down the hijacked aircraft. Keep up the good work bbc i love to see independent investigative journalisim.
And dont think your conspiracy files program for one minute makes us think your doing what we pay you to do. And the yellow journalism award of the year goes to the BBC. Give me a break people!
Part of the conspiracy?
Oh look here it is. After Annoucing in your head of the news summary that the building has collapsed, you cut to a live feed of a newsreporter and there, visible behind her, is WTC7! Sorry BBC but this isn't going to wash. Last sunday's propaganda piece really woke people up to how controlled you are, and this latest revelation and subsequent attempt to cover it up is the nail on the coffin for many of us.
Your reporters read out the official explanation about wtc7's collapse almost word for word, 20 minutes before it went down. The chances of this being an "accident" are too ridiculous even for the hordes of desperate "debunkers" to consider. Google and Youtube then pulled the videos down in real-time in a coordinated attempt to suppress it. HaHa how stupid do you think we are the most important day in modern history original tapes lost u say? You "lost" the footage? Surely you must have a legitimate archiving system for such a large company.
I don't buy it for one second. Listen to the people! We demand an answer! I would like to ditto all of the above please, BBC obviousley weren't part of the conspiracy but by their response are most definately part of the cover up!! Why would it not be of interest to find out who the news originally came from that wtc7 had collapsed, when it hadn't! Just tell us where the info came from!! Your reporter told us the building came down, you typed that info on your screen, your reporter told us why it collapsed From Larry 'pull it' Silverstein?
From Rudy 'we were told it was coming down'Giuliani? Stop tap dancing and answer that simple question. Who gave you the info. Start as you mean to go on Richard, by presenting the so called 'conspiracy theories' in a negative way; it is all a big yawn, everyone's tired of them, shut up and move on. Unfortunately, fate has delivered unto you something which shows the BBC's spoon-feeding selective journalism at its best. Oh dear, is that excuse really the best you can come up with? That farcical 'Conspiracy Files' programme was one thing, but this is something else!
This speaks volumes about the Beeb's perception of its audience! And to report on the very building you're standing directly in front of and not know that what your saying has something to do with what being shown behind you smaks of poor journalism, poor visuals and certainly unchecked sources. To simply "claim" that they were "being told" does not exonerate them. Whether or not they were 'part' of any conspiracy is certainly NOT the point here.
The POINT is that they had been given and were giving out information about an event which had not occurred yet. Their sources KNEW what was about to occur. It was brought down by controlled demolition. Indirectly it would appear so. You need to expose the source of that "news" you were reporting.
If you don't make an effort to follow this up beyond this pathetic response, the BBC will become part of the conspiracy. Coupled with that lousy hit piece of "journalism" you broadcast last Sunday in trying to discredit the Truth Movement, you now have considerable problem on your hands as to the BBC's creditibility. You were fed information regarding a scripted demolition that was part of the conspiracy, just a wee bit ahead of schedule, eh?
It's no conspiracy on your part to report the news as it's given to you either. And because of your empty denials, you now include yourself in the continuing conspiracy and its cover-up. I downloaded the whole 40 minute segment myself this morning. I can lend it to you if you like. Don't tape over it this time. I thought your response was extremely lacking. This just proves how bias that programme you did recently was. Not asking the important questions like all the witness testimonies not interviewing any of the professors or scientists on the side of the truth movement no mention of the molten metal.
This list could go on. I think you need to come clean and be honest. My last comment i posted you never put up at least be neutral enough to put this one on. I know you had no prior knowledge to what happened but clearly one of your sources did. This is cosmic justice being dealt out to the BBC for their hit piece full of incredible lies and distortions! You should change your name from the Big Brother Company to the Pyschic network, because obviously you have the power to predict what will happen to buildings before it occurs! And then you "lost" the tapes??
BBC is the laughing stock of the world now! Let's say for a second that you messed up and reported a building going down that didn't - why the exact one that DID? What are the odds? Here's some of the REAL proof: I was evacuated from WTC 2 and let me tell you it is surprising that more wrong info did not get out on the airwaves.
They reported it so often that someone screwed up and thought it had I recall hearing on CNN at one point that day that there were 10 planes highjacked. They made a mistake, surely the BBC is not immune to them? It does bear looking into as to where the correspondent got her info from - but this is hardly a smoking gun folks You lose footage of one of the most important days in modern history That way no one can "prove" anything that day Out of all the surrounding buildings that suffered massive damage - WTC 3,4,5,6 - and assorted others that suffered minor damage amoung them, WTC 7 - Salomon Brothers Building , BBC - by merely a mistake and in confusion - picked exactly the right one that was going to fall They hit the lottery!
What a 'lucky guess', huh? You capture the biggest smoking gun in history Quite extraordinary reporting on the 'fateful day' that changed it all and staggerring that you can lose such footage of importance. Especially just one day after someone plucks it from your archives! Even more shocking is such a poor attempt to explain it away, as to quote peoples Youtube comments in response to valid enquiries as your defense.
Clearly the BBC world recieved a press release from somewhere that needs disclosing, that foretold the unprecedented imminent collapse and even the official reasons for it, before it had occured. Whilst I dont hold the BBC as part of a conspiracy on the day, after 7 hours of filming the WTC complex, you'd of thought someone knew which buildings were which! Jane must've been puzzled when the live feed died out and the collapse began too. Hey did all TV networks suddenly cut off as wtc7 was about to collapse?
Most coverge of wtc7 came from hand held cameras. If this is the kind of journalism we can expect everyday from the BBC then I suppose it's time the politicians pay for license fee and the public appoint the governers. Silly me, lets ask them to increase the license fee". Im sure it's not the firemen who are busy working, or anyone there. Who besides those overseeing the operation had the capacity and purpose of feeding the BBC pre-made news that apparently got out a little too quick.
Especially since they even gave them the official reason why it collapsed, due to "falling debris".
- The Last Day.
- Divorcing with Children: Expert Answers to Tough Questions from Parents and Children;
- Cookies on the BBC website.
- Buy for others!
- Generation A.
But at the same time other buildings suffered more from the falling debris and stood tall. Now they are giving us an analysis of an event that didn't happen yet. It was a cock up alright. I am dismayed and angered that your organisation, which I have admired and relied on for many years as a bastien of truth in the sordid world of corporate - controlled journalism, has failed so abyssmally in such an important event.
It's rather like Edward R. Morrow reporting from London that no German air raids are contemplated while their bombs can be heard exploding. Sure the BBC is not part of the conspiracy, whoever gave them that information to read that day is.
- Compassion, Love and Sex (OSHO Singles);
- The Declaration of Independence: A Play for Many Readers.
- The Cooper Saga 02.
- MASTERS OF PHOTOGRAPHY Vol 1 LIVING LEGENDS.
- RIDING THE PHOENIX (REVISED EDITION): SURVIVING THE GLOBAL RESURRECTION.
- Publisher's Summary.
- El Sitio de Breda (Spanish Edition).
Whether or not the BBC had prior notice of the collapse of the building, many people apparently did:. Why have Youtube and Google pulled the videos then? National Security Letters perhaps? US and British Gov are finished. I guess the BBC could well have been unwittingly part of the conspiracy if they were fed the same information that CNN were reporting when with WTC7 in full view they said the building "is either collapsed or is collapsing".
What can we say! It is really frustrating when a broadcast station with a good profile tries to deny something with such few words. Why have we been treated like children for so long!
Any five years old can see that there is something unorthodox about this cover-up! I hope the BBC will start seeing its funders as real adults able to judge something by themselves. No longer have the original tapes of one of the most important news events in modern times???? Do you have the orig. The internet allows us to see clearly how "The News " is merely another show.
Richard Porter looses the real news and when he is reminded of the fact, blames someone else, and claims that this news is Not news. This so reminds me of the news footage 20 minutes Before a tower fell, when Sir Guliani mayor states "We heard that the towers are coming down "as he heads towards the Port authority offices for his paycheck?
It's deja vu 2. Wake up Richard , We Know! He was the last man out and he knows, Richard, He was there. I take it by now you've reviewed the footage and questioned your anchor, reporter and support staff. So you'll certainly be able to tell us where they got their information from, right? Clearly, your people weren't reporting their own first-hand witnessing of the collapse, since it hadn't taken place yet. And it's really not typical for BBC reporters to invent stories out of thin air.
So of course they must have been told. Where did they get the information? Who were they getting their information from on that day and at that time? Who were they in contact with? We want you to name names and organizations. You at the BBC have already lost credibility in broadcasting your biased hit-piece about conspiracy theories. You will lose what little remains unless you make a full and honest investigation of how your own reporters could have stated that WTC 7 had collapsed before it actually happened.
If the BBC did know the building would fall that's a big if, but for the sake of argument Someone told them it would fall? If it was because the mysterious they were going to bring the building down, then why tell anyone beforehand? It would be obvious 20 minutes later. I'm perfectly willing to believe Bushco is capable of appalling evil, but I don't see how this relates.
If I'm misunderstanding the point please educate me. I remember that day. The information on the news flew fast and furious. Not all of it was true, not all of it was untrue. That is just the nature of a crisis. Richard, sorry mate, I don't think that there is anything that the BBC could possibly say that would satisfy some folks. No legitimate television network worth it's salt "loses" footage from one of the most historic events of recent times. All video from that day would have been backed up and duplicated a million times over for archival as well as documentation purposes.
Luckily i rang the insurance company 23 minutes before it happened. Now they want to know how i knew as they reckon something doesn't add up here. I don't understand what i did wrong. Why should i tell them anything. Without trying to sound sarcastic, you really must come up with a better line than "we lost the tapes". Oops, my dog ate my homework. Hmm, whether or not you were actually part of the conspiracy, you were still fed the bogus story about WTC7 having already collapsed. And you regurgitated it on live TV while it was still standing. Just because you claim you're not a part of some conspiracy doesn't prove some conspiracy doesn't exist.
Listening to the feed, the reporting of the collapse was not qualified; it was simply reported as fact. If such a "cock-up" is possible by the broadcast leviathan the BCC - why not a cover-up here and now? The worst attempt at a lame cover ever. This discredits a news service many value. I am ashamed for all of you. Conspiracy works on a need to know basis. Just because those who front the news may be unaware of conspiracy is not evidence that it doesn't exist at a higher level. That footage is a real smoking gun. If the footage had continued, we'd all have been able to watch WTC 7 collapse right on your program.
I agree with everyone else. Someone at BBC knows who provided the information, and ought to come clean. Wow, this is really crazy. Where's the report saying all these people died before it really happened? Who told them they were going to die? It must have been done on purpose then. I dont believe the media always tells us the truth, in fact I believe they routinely skew information. But these conspiracy theorists take things to far sometimes. I remember watching coverage of the events that day. The overriding impression I got was confusion - all sorts of stories were flying around, and it was hard to separate truth from rumour.
At post 7, Simon points out that WTC 7 was "clearly visible" behind the reporter. How precise is a journalist's knowledge of the Manhattan skyline supposed to be? At post 14, Laz says WTC 7 had suffered "no significant damage". The building was struck by debris as a result of the plane impacts, and again when WTC 1 and 2 collapsed. Firefighters were aware for several hours that it was also likely to collapse.
You can see that by reading their accounts of the day. It doesn't take much for stories to mutate from "it's likely to collapse" into "it has collapsed", especially given the confusion which reigned on the day. As for the loss of the film - yes, that sounds like a serious foul up, and it would be good to hear a more detailed explanation of what happened.
Well, some of us have seen them - and heard her declare it go down, even as it was still standing right behind her. That's why they pulled their men back. The BBC reporter probably not knowing which building WTC7 was apparently misrepresented the reports to say it had collapsed. So what's your theory, truthers? The BBC recieved a memo from Bush annoucing the demolition and read it too early??? If one leaves the Twin Towers for another argument, and we concentrate on the Pentagon and the plane in the woods it does seem extraordinarily strange that a lot of what is computationally being said seems circumstantially true.
After all we cannot be asked to disregard the messages images present to us. And if neither a plane went down in the woods nor flew into the Pentagon, and this becomes fact, then should the Twin Towers be completely re-evaluated. Please show some respect for the BBC and the license fee paying public by answering a simple question.
You end your comment with "everybody can make a mistake".. BUT aren't you forgetting she also gives the official "explanation" 20 min in advance of the event!!!!!! I am a staunch anti conspiracist and I strongly believe that the events were not an inside job. However, if a building is reported collapsed before it actually does collapse, that indeed is very suspicious indeed.
It also seems incredible that the BBC footage of one of the most significant events in the history of Man has been 'lost'. You obviously need to look harder. As you can see, there are no shortage of nutters out there who are never going to accept any explanation you might offer. Because, of course, the more people that have to be involved in a conspiracy, the more plausible it becomes!
You might try pointing out that important events in American history has never stopped the BBC from losing tapes before. Your coverage of the lunar landing tapes in , for instance, which you wiped in On second thoughts, maybe not. That'll bring a whole other bunch of conspiracy loons to your doorstep I do find it quite odd though that a professional and experienced media organisation like yourselves would start reporting a story based on conjecture, rumours.
There must of been a reliable source s who gave you this information to report. There is also the small matter of the live feed being lost 5 mins before the building actually collapsed! Very convenient and also very suspicious dont you think? It leads me to believe someone realised the so called cock up and terminated the feed.
Which would mean the BBC probably already knew about this cock up and now its come back to haunt them. There's alot of people out there who are going to want real answers to this serious issue, and i would call for an immediate investigation on this matter. I also find it strange that there has been no major media coverage of this story its absolutely going crazy on the net. Its hardly a cold story now is it? I can't see a possible way in which the BBC can wriggle out of this one. I've reviewed the footage and yes, WTC 7 stands proudly in the background, with no visible signs of smoke, whilst the unknowing reporter pre-empts it's collapse.
It can only be a matter of years before the BBC falls so out of favour it has to be scrapped. Perhaps this new age of the internet is just too much for the BBC to hadle. I mean relying on Youtube to keep records of your footage of the greatest terrorist attack on the USA since Pearl Harbour is hardly the conduct of a true news agency. If the event wasn't so tragic I'd be laughing at the blunder the BBC has made. Perhaps someone was trying to make a fool of you?
In your own words: In the interest of free and open public discourse, as befits a public broadcaster, the BBC must provide the aforementioned "source" for its premature report on the collapse of WTC7. Thank you for all the cock-ups and your pathetic damage control documentaries about conspiracy theories. Please keep up the pathetic explanations, you are helping the truth movement no end.
I am not sure if that is the way a 'Head of News' should be acting in these circumstances. Larry Silverstein, the owner of WTC 1, 2 and 7 has admitted in an interview that he called for the building to be 'pulled' - why is this interesting? Why is the fact that the BBC reported the building had collapsed before it did interesting? Because the official version says that it was not demolished that it collapsed due to fire damage and that pre-knowledge of this building collapsing, points in the direction of a major crime As a Head of News i would expect for my licence fee that you would research things like this as natural journalistic reaction to events that have changed the world.
If that's the case then why on earth did your reporter and news anchor state that WTC7 had come down?
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
Address the question instead of side stepping it and pretending people are accusing the BBC of participation in a conspiracy. How awful for the BBC that it tried to debunk the theories around , but turns out to be at the center of the whirlwind. The theorists contain among them many rational, inquisitive people who are able to identify holes in the stories that have been spun.
Rather than dumping all over them, it would have been much more interesting to look at the way the official stories unravel under close scrutiny. Was an inside job? But is the whole story being told truthfully in the official version? It doesn't seem so. Trying to get this video deleted from the internet just fuels concerns that the major media outlets don't want people to get closer to the truth, whatever that may be. I can just about credit a coincidence where an expected event is anticipated by declaring it already happened. What I cannot begin to understand is how the BBC would not correct their error when they received calls saying WTC7 was still standing.
The BBC cannot possibly have remained ignorant of their error for over 20 minutes. That makes the loss of the live feed even more suspicious. One does not need to be a conspiracy theorist to suspect someone did not want to ackowledge that a coming collapse had been reported prematurely. Now that the bbc has runa programme about this, everyone is now commenting that it proves them right. Like the moon landings, kennedy assassination many people will believe there was a conspiracy regardless of what evidence is produced.
As for the argument that the BBC has just shown themselves to be part of it, how stupid do you think they are that they would run a programme showing that they were part of a conspiracy. People make mistakes, it's what makes us human, tapes can be lost, erased, all it needs is one person to press the wrong button, or throw out the wrong box. Ok let me understand this; according to you colleagues in London were monitoring feeds and wires services?
I grew up respecting the BBC more than any other network. But shame on it! Porter, God-willing, the real engineers of this heinous crime deliberately blamed on the innocents rather than the guilty ones with the aid of the mass media will one day be disclosed. It is completely hard to fathom that bbc would "lose" the tape of such an immense, historical significance. Finally, I thank the bbc for atleast giving us the opportunity to comment and thanks much, Mr. Porter for taking the time. I can only laugh in amazement at these people - and their belief s. Other then the fact it was a big piece of burning rubble without any water to put it out and looked like it WAS coming down to crew on the field.
There's no time stamp on the broadcast. Isn't it more likely that she was recording an event that had happened, but the graphics guys were playing their tape of "the scene"? They were unlikely to have transcribed a tape of something that had only happened a few minutes earlier. A certain amount of data transferring and editing would be required. They probably just replayed their tape from earlier that morning.
For whatever is hidden is meant to be disclosed, and whatever is concealed is meant to be brought out into the open. If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear. Hey RichPor, so you lost all the tapes? Did your dog eat your homework too? Stop digging yourself into a deeper hole. You are either really dumb and don't know any better, or really dumb in your attempts to cover up the truth. Either way, you are really dumb. I asked a while back if you could shed some more light on the missing coverage. My request wasn't posted so I ask again Have you lost the news footage for the entire day or just parts of it?
Do you suspect it has been stolen? Has it been confiscated? Your use of the word "cock-up" suggests someone has taped over it Please clarify. I'd like to observe that "one of the most important events in modern history" is one thing, and hours and hours of BBC talking heads on videotape discussing it is another.
How many people were watching BBC at the time? Who weren't British in Britain? It's quite an amusing conspiracy story and it takes everyone's minds off the stupid, ugly, wicked war in Iraq for a while, which is nice, but it isn't very important. I am a very sceptical individual.
But this story seems to me to be an incredible piece of potential evidence further indicating that something very strange lies behind Building 7's collapse. Mr Porter, your attempt to slap us all on the back, say 'oops' and move on is wildly off the mark. The BBC should urgently address this issue if it is to maintain any credibility. Loved the analogy with the Lord Mayor's trousers falling down!! I don't believe that the BBC were directly involved in the conspiracy of , however they clearly received information from the propaganda machine that was running to keep covered up.
The BBC need to do a full and public inquiry into where this information came from, and let us know the results. To check your source you only had to look over the reporter's shoulder. Well, some guys here are really missing the point. For normal guys in the street the term "badly damaged and likely to fall" can be interpreted as "has fallen" or "has collapsed".
But not for the news company and especially not for BBC. Are those who fall for this explanation really think that BBC doesnt look at their system and follow what other agencies are reporting? In news reporting, the competition is always for bringing the news first before any other agency reports it. I dont blame BBC on being a part of conspiricy but one thing is clear, BBC is a propaganda machine and as such it does get busted. He never said the building had been "pulled" like in "pulled down". He was referring to the firew crew that were pulled out. Stop trying to reinvent news. A reporter on the scene reports what she sees.
You've entered a murky world where London starts putting words into her mouth, to make her seem more knowledgeable than she is. A conjectural story then seems to be independently corroborated. This is grossly unprofessional. It is misleading the public. You're not a branch of showbiz.
Eight hours is a long time to get an act together, whichever way you look at it! We are big boys and girls now! Tell us WHO fed her with that 'deja vu' information before the building actually collapsed. And WHO told them? Let's get right up to the President if needs be! I like the posts on this blog that say that people make mistakes and everything is ok. It means that someone knew the building was loaded with explosives which had to be prewired weeks in advance, so whoever gave out the press release was one of the command and control people for the entire event. That press release was probably issued from a central location where the attacks were directed.
When the truth of finally comes out in full, the world will have learned how to identify mass deception. Just fasten your seatbelts, folks! No need for tarots, crystal balls and tea-leaves! Surely, everything which is being written on here is being registered too; make no mistake! Thank you this clarifies everything. You put it succinctly and I commend you. You do your job as head of the ministry of information well. Orwell would be proud. I am a structural engineer. I have very big doubts about the integrity of the BBC.
Remember, it has been known for governments to create false events, not only to do things like what has been done, but the after affects.
Books by Bill Bernico (Author of The Nine Musketeers)
When the citazens realize the truth, some rise up, causing an uproar, thereby also allowing the government to remove even more rights. Be careful, these little 'scew ups' are sometimes planned for any occasion. A number of individuals within the industry have always suspected fowl play by our government, the Bush administration in particular. My hope is that the truth will eventually come out and if I might add before further damage is done!
Too bad the British people are more privy to this information than the average American. I'm hoping this news will get out in more abundance within this country. It's time the truth be told! I found my way to this blog looking for the quick explanation that would discredit these rumors that BBC reported the building 7 collapse before it happened.
I was expecting to hear you say that the building in the video simply isn't the one reported as collapsing, or something similar. Instead, I found an uncomfortably defensive rant that you can't believe about not being able to find the tapes and that IF this rumor is correct, it was an error. You must have seen it. Does it look right? And saying it was a mistake doesn't cut it -- the interesting part comes afterwards: How did such a mistake happen?
Where was the error? Where was the faulty information coming from? This is worth your time to investigate. Please don't waste ours with silly responses. And please don't credit your detractors by refusing to even look into this further. What a load of paranoid people we are! But don't feel bad, because mainstream media, without exception, uses spineless boys like yourself, to report their agenda.
Sissies like you rather score brownypoints with your boss, than standing up for whats right. But remember, in the end, you won't be able to blame anybody but yourself for being a coward. You're chance, to show god that you believe in rightousness and good for all humanity, seems to have come and gone. In the name of sanity. Look, the firemen knew well in advance that it was coming down. They saw several indicators. So they all left the building, cancelled a rescue operation Ah yes, there's nothing quite like presenting your thoughts entirely in capitals with a peppering of exclamation marks and missing full stops between sentences.
Throw in some childish animosity too. Yep, that will help convince people to take you seriously. Contains the following Cooper short stories: Cooper 27 books in series. Tree of Life Publisher's Summary. Bill Bernico Narrated by: Add to Cart failed. Please try again later. Add to Wish List failed. Remove from wishlist failed.
Adding to library failed. Free with day Trial. The Cooper Saga 01 Stories By: The Cooper Saga 02 Stories By: The Cooper Saga 3 Stories By: Clarence Bart Melton Length: The Cooper Saga The Cooper Saga 05 Stories By: The Cooper Saga 07 Stories By: David Wayne Hamelin Length: The Cooper Saga 11 Stories By: The Cooper Saga 13 Stories By: The Cooper Saga 14 Stories By: The Cooper Saga 16, Stories By: The Cooper Saga 17 Stories By: The Cooper Saga 18 Stories By:
Related The Cooper Saga 02 (Stories 11-20)
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved