HOW BBC ACTUALLY FAILED TO DENY THE CONSPIRACY CHARGES OVER THE WTC7 VIDEO!
Do you remember how BBC denied the conspiracy charges about WTC 7 video report? How BBC was half an hour too early reporting about the WTC7 collapse? Well something’s just doesn’t add up with BBC`s explanation around their so-called error.
Richard Porter, an editor from BBC News, wrote a blog entry to respond to a controversy that has erupted overnight in the blogosphere. “We’re not part of a conspiracy,” he assures his readers. “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.”
Screen shot from the report in question, with Jane Standley reporting with a view on New York’s skyline, with the WTC 7 building still standing.
BBC: “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”
“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”
“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… “
RAW: But keep in mind that No other building fell around the time of the report (approximately 16:57hrs) and the Solomon brothers building (WTC7) did not fall apart to the ground for approximately another 30 min that is, (17:20hrs) so how can they defend themselves with these arguments?
On September 11th 2001, BBC World reported at 4:57pm Eastern Time that the Salomon Brothers Building (more commonly known as WTC7 or World Trade Building 7) had collapsed. And at the heart of the controversy is a video that surfaced on Google Video and YouTube. It is a segment taken from the BBC’s own archive of their news coverage of the events of September 11. In it, reporter Jane Standley reports the complete unexpected collapse of WTC 7. However, she presented this information half an hour before it actually happened. In fact, while she is reporting the demise of WTC 7, it is clearly visible right behind her. During the course of the broadcast, the studio loses the connection with her, and when she returns, the building is gone.
Few small fires going on inside and that’s all
During the first part of the broadcast, she gives specific details about the building, how many floors it has, who owns & leases it, and the fact that nobody was inside at the time of the collapse. All of these facts that Ms. Standley presented were 100% accurate. In Porter’s 5-point response to the accusations, he insists that his organization was the victim of chaos, not conspiracy. Unfortunately, Porter says, none of the reporters involved remember exactly what happened, and they have lost all of the original archive tapes, making it impossible to check? How convenient!. Porter explains that “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.”
He concludes that, at worst, they simply made an error an error that happened to be prophetic. He signs off by quoting a flippant comment from YouTube: “so the guy in the studio didn’t quite know what was going on? “. Directly beneath Porter’s blog are two-dozen comments from BBC News readers. The comments are less than appreciative. I believe that BBC`s explanation just can`t be swallowed.
Another very interesting thing, No one seems to have seen or heard anything from this woman in a long time? I just did a search on her, like any normal journalist would have, links to their articles, and contact details, but there is nothing at all? Has she just disappeared? I actually found a video where she is said to “break her silence” take a look at it. Link But it does NOT convince me! This convinced me Link