At 21:54 GMT on 9/11/2001 the BBC announced that WTC 7 had collapsed. There was just one problem with this news: WTC 7 did not collapse until 22:20 GMT.The videos below show the BBC World broadcast.
The two screenshots below show WTC 7 behind the reporter. |
|
|
|
The following screenshot shows the satellite feed mysteriously breaking up roughly five minutes before the actual collapse.
|
|
Members of We Are Change UK questioned ex-BBC reporter Phil Hayton about the early reporting of WTC 7's collapse during a speaking appearance. Hayton failed to recollect even being in the studio on the day of 9/11-- at first-- but then recalls the situation when it is described in detail, including the actions of Jane Standley, who reported the collapse some 26 minutes in advance with WTC Building 7 still visible in the background.
"A lot of eyebrows were raised," We Are Change reporters point out in summary, because many saw it as a clear controlled demolition, including a number of engineers. Hayton responded, pointing out that he was not aware of the situation with WTC 7. "This sounds so significant-- I'm just amazed I didn't know about this... This is completely news to me."
"So, is there no official explanation?" Hayton further probed.
We Are Change continues to explain the delayed NIST report on WTC 7 as well as the response from a BBC editor who claimed 9/11 tapes were "lost" in a 'cock-up.'
"I sense that you think there's a conspiracy here-- but you might be right," Hayton concluded. [Prison Planet] |
|
|
BBC News 24 also broadcast that WTC 7 had collapsed, and a corroborative time stamp was on their broadcast. [357kB WMV video download]
21:54 GMT is 16:54 (4:54 PM) East Coast time, 26 minutes BEFORE WTC 7 actually collapsed.
Fox News also reported the building had collapsed before it came down:
"...we are getting word from New York that another building has collapsed and we understand this is a 47 story building ... is that smoke coming from this third collapse?""Take a look at that right hand of the screen."
"It's going down right now."
1.1 MB wmv download |  |
|
Richard Porter, the head of news at BBC World issued this explanation of the BBC World video:
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 cock-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... " |
Below are some selected comments made in reply to Mr Porter's explanation: |
| How deservedly ironic that the BBC gets exposed for what it really is (a propaganda bureau that attempts to indoctrinate Britain and the world with a false reality) so soon after the airing of the appalling hit piece (9/11 conspiracy files) last Sunday night. Please show some respect for the BBC and the license fee paying public by answering a simple question. How did the BBC know that Building 7 was going to collapse 20 minutes before it actually did when prior to 9/11 no steel-structured building had ever collapsed due to fire? |
|
I'm not a conspiracy nut. But this footage of your reports of WTC7 collapsing a full 20 minutes prior and repeatedly discussing it's collapse is highly suspicious.
If you were talking about a building that never did collapse, well then you'd just look incompetent. But as we all know, building 7 did, in a feat that suspended all laws of physics and logic, collapse spontaneously due to fires on floors 7 & 12.
You can't possibly expect us to believe this. Let's look at all the pieces here.
1. BBC reports for 20 solid minutes that WTC7 has collapsed when even in the live shot it stands as sturdy as the day it was built.
2. The idea that WTC7 would collapse spontaneously due to minor fires and minimal damage to the north face is laughable and an insult to intelligence. But it did, approximately 5 minutes AFTER BBC's report....or at least 5 minutes after Jane Standley's live shot was disconnected.
3. BBC loses all of it's 9/11 footage so this cannot be reviewed or explained. My nephew still has all his VHS tapes from that day. He recorded almost every news station for 24 hours straight. He's 19 now. He was 13 when it happened. So, a 13 year old can be more responsible with his VHS tapes than one of the largest news organizations?
4. The archive footage is mysteriously pulled off of YouTube and Google video repeatedly and without provocation or explanation.
5. BBC's response is, 'there is no conspiracy. it was a mistake.'
Grant us logical thinkers at least one thing. This is highly suspicious. The BBC needs to reveal what source they drew the conclusion that WTC7 had collapsed.
Oh, and the ez-out phrases like 'it appears' and 'we're receiving reports that..' were not used throughout this footage.
Especially when the anchor starts talking about the (lack of) body count since there was so much time to evacuate since the collapse of WTC 1-2.
The BBC needs to reveal what source they drew the conclusion that WTC7 had collapsed. I do not necessarily think the BBC is a witting participant in some 9/11 conspiracy, but it's definitely looking like you were a pawn. Revealing who/where the BBC received the information that WTC7 had collapsed would be a good start in clearing your name. |
|
| To report that a building had collapsed before it had done so would be an odd sort of error, wouldn't it? A bit like reporting that the Lord Mayor's trousers had fallen down before they did so. |
|
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? Why not by mistake report a building going down that DIDN'T actually go down?
You lose footage of one of the most important days in modern history... ;)
(Good job! 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 -.... ;)
(Good job! Hey, BBC is incompetent - they lose tapes AND they claim buildings fall that haven't - but what LUCK! They hit the lottery! What a 'lucky guess', huh?)
BBC should go to Vegas, with those odds - you'd be rich.
BBC is not part of the conspiracy - but you are just a bunch of pathetic dupes.
You capture the biggest smoking gun in history ... and your response is ..... to call yourselves incompetent and go play 'blind/deaf/dumb monkey' on your public.
Good job, Guys!! |
|
"If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that."
Uh, it WASN'T an error... That's the point. You keep harping on about what a chaotic day it was. Then why didn't the anchor say something like, "We're getting some unconfirmed reports of some other building apparently collapsing... We'll have to check up on this... etc." No, he had (23 minutes before hand) the name of the building, the correct # of floors in the building (47), the explanation of the collapse (weakened by other collapses), and he was reporting that the building was apparently empty. You even had graphics made up for the scrolling info at the bottom of the screen. That is some pretty precise reporting for a day of chaos when everyone was "...trying to make sense of what they were seeing... and what was being told by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services."
And there lies the key (perhaps). No doubt the info was just being fed to the anchor and reporter off the wires as the news would cross... So, which agency fed that bit about WTC7 collapsing? AP? Reuters? VOA? We'll probably never know, but you got the information from some source more than 23 minutes before it happened (had to be longer than 23 minutes, because there must have been some delay from the time the story came over the wires and the time the anchor actually got the news out on the air).
Do I think the BBC is "...part of a conspiracy"? No... but you were played perfectly by some entity, IMO. |
|
With respect, the response to this issue is unacceptable. At the very least you are minimizing your error and trivializing the life’s lost or the potential of life’s that could have been saved.
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.
"Now more on the latest building collapse in New York,...the Solomon Brothers Building collapse... and indeed it has"
"What can you tell us about the Salomon Building and it's collapse?"
"When it collapsed"
Ticker –“The 47 storey Salomon Brothers building close to the World Trade Centre has also collapsed.”
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. The BBC Media Management policy clearly states TWO broadcast standard copies be retained one on a separate site as a master.
As follows.
Ref No.
Policy Area / Policy Statement
01
Components to be Retained
01-01
The following components to be retained:-
Two broadcast standard copies of all transmitted/published TV, Radio and BBCi output – one to be stored on a separate site as a master
One browse-quality version for research purposes, to protect the broadcast material
http://www.bbc.co.uk/foi/docs/historical_information/archive_policies/media_management_policy
_overview.htm#top |
|
If the footage had continued, we'd all have been able to watch WTC 7 collapse right on your program.
Good thing you lost the feed five minutes before THAT happened in front of all your viewers.
What in the world would you have said if that had happened?
What is going on here?
I'd like a little truth please. |
|
| I never actually thought I would live to see the day that things would surpass even Orwell, Huxley, Wells, Jack London, Sinclair Lewis, Zamyatin, Ayne Rand, on and on...but, the virtual reality that the "media" create for us now is truly more unfathomable than even those great minds warned us of. |
|
Contrary to the dismissive tone of the "explanation", whether or not the building was known to be about to fall goes to essential point of culpability for 9/11, foreknowledge.
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. |
|
Entradas
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario