HOW BBC ACTUALLY FAILED TO DENY THE CONSPIRACY CHARGES OVER THE WTC7 VIDEO!

Fuente:

http://reinep.wordpress.com/2012/09/16/how-bbc-actually-failed-to-deny-the-conspiracy-charges-over-the-wtc7-video/

Información:

HOW BBC ACTUALLY FAILED TO DENY THE CONSPIRACY CHARGES OVER THE WTC7 VIDEO!

September 16, 2012

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?

*VÍDEO EN EL ARTÍCULO ORIGINAL*

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

More  More  More

Leer más»

Building 7 - 9-11 Review

Fuente:

http://911review.com/attack/wtc/b7.html

Información:

Building 7 was one of the largest buildings in Lower Manhattan after the Twin Towers.

Building 7

Building 7 was a 47-story steel-framed skyscraper that occupied a block adjacent to the World Trade Center complex, two city blocks away from the nearest of the Twin Towers. It was not hit by an aircraft. NIST alleges that it was severely damaged by large pieces of steel ejected from the North Tower, but there is no publicly verifiable evidence of this. Nonetheless, like the Twin Towers, Building 7 underwent a total collapse on 9/11/01. Whereas the Twin Towers exploded Building 7 imploded in a manner indistinguishable from conventional building demolitions.

Building 7's collapse, which occurred at 5:20 PM, is not thought to have killed anyone. According to the government's vague and inconclusive report, fires caused Building 7 to collapse. Yet, excepting 9/11/01, there has never been a case of fires, no matter how severe, causing the collapse of a steel-framed high-rise building. Why wasn't this inexplicable incident a major news story?

Building 7 occupied a block to the north of the World Trade Center Plaza. Its 23rd floor held Mayor Giuliani's Emergency Command Center. This floor had bullet- and bomb-resistant windows, an independent air and water supply, and an unobstructed view of the north faces of both towers. ^1   2  

The other government agencies with offices in the building were the IRS, the EEOC, the US Secret Service, the SEC, and the CIA.

The private tenants were Salomon Smith Barney, American Express Bank International, Standard Chartered Bank, Provident Financial Management, ITT Hartford Insurance Group, First State Management Group, Inc., Federal Home Loan Bank, and NAIC Securities.

Large numbers of case files for ongoing investigations by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) were reportedly destroyed in the collapse. The Los Angeles Times reported that "substantial files were destroyed" for 3000 to 4000 of the SEC's cases. The EEOC reported that documents for 45 active cases were destroyed. ³   Before the attack, SEC investigations of corporate fraud by companies such as Enron and Worldcom were the subject of many news reports -- reports that virtually vanished in the wake of the attack.

References

1. Giuliani Improvises After Command Center Gets Hit, Washington Technology, 10/08/01
2. Terrorism and Anti-Terrorism, Gotham Gazette, 9/12/01
3. SEC & EEOC: Attack Delays Investigations, National Law Journal, 9/17/01 

e x c e r p t

title: Waking Up From Our Nightmare

authors: Don Paul and Jim Hoffman

A question arises from the obvious demolition of WTC 7: Why destroy such a valuable piece of real estate? We know that WTC7's developer and lease-holder, Silverstein Properties, and WTC7's mortgage-holders, the Blackstone Group, Banc of America Securities, and General Motors Acceptance Corporation, received a Court-awarded amount of $861 million dollars from Industrial Risk Insurers in February 2002. We know that about $386 million had been invested in WTC7 before its destruction. The Court-award meant that Silverstein Properties and the mortgage-holders would share in about $475 million of profit. [8] Silverstein Properties is headed by Larry Silverstein, a large contributor to Democrat and Republican office-holders. Silverstein Properties became the primary owner of the WTC Twin Towers less than two months before 9/11/01 (Westfield Malls was Silverstein Properties' minority-partner). Buying from the New York Port Authority, Silverstein Properties invested only $15 million toward a total purchase-price of $3.2 billion for a 99-year lease on holdings worth an estimated $8 billion. The low-rise office buildings WTC 4, 5, and 6, and 400,000 square feet of retail space were included with the Twin Towers in this deal. Silverstein Properties immediately took out extensive insurance policies on its new holdings. One clause in Silverstein Properties' insurance policies for the new WTC holdings soon proved instrumental. Quoting the British Financial Times of September 14, 2001, the American Reporterwrote that ‘ the lease has an all-important escape clause: If the buildings are struck by “an act of terrorism”, the new owners' obligations under the lease are void. As a result, the new owners are not required to make any payments under their lease, but they will be able to collect on the loss of the buildings that collapsed or were otherwise destroyed and damaged in the attacks. ’ [9]Silverstein Properties is still contesting the amount of pay-out due for destruction of the Twin Towers—$3.55 billion for one ‘occurrence’ or $7.1 billion for two ‘occurrences’. The “terrorism” clause in his lease has given Larry Silverstein leverage in negotiating his new deal for the site. [10] 8. ‘Rebuilding Begins for 7 WTC Despite Unanswered Questions’, Peter Grant, Wall Street Journal, July 10, 2002, http://homes.wsj.com/columnists_com/bricks/20020710-bricks.html .  9. ‘No Fraud, but Huge Profits Seen in World Trade Center Attacks’, Joe Shea, The American Reporter, August 1, 2004, reprinting piece from September 2001, http://www.american-reporter.com/2,421W/1494.html .

site: www.wtc7.net page: www.wtc7.net/store/books/wakingup/index.html

Leer más»

WTC 7 - The Science of 9/11

Fuente:

http://scienceof911.com.au/the-argument/wtc-7/

Información:

WTC 7

This page is devoted specifically to the collapse of building 7 ( WTC 7), also called Salomon Brothers building. The collapse of this building was an astonishing event in the history of modern architecture and structural engineering because never before had a tall steel framed building collapsed due to fire, though many have burned fiercely. That it happened suggested to some initial TV commentators, for example Dan Rather, that explosives may have been used in a controlled demolition, but the media reported little about this building and did not provide any discussion of this possibility. The improbability of the collapse being due to fire became lost in the general turmoil that the tragic events of 9/11 created. Even now, few people are aware that a third building came down that day.

FEMA released its report World Trade Center Building Performance Study in May, 2002. This provides a description of the building and suggests several hypotheses for the mechanism of collapse, assumed to be due to fire. It is a surprise to read in this report that “…the best hypothesis [fire] has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.”

One would think therefore that when NIST came to perform further investigations they would have widened the scope of their enquiries to include the possibility that explosives were used. They did not. This has to be regarded as a particularly suspicious aspect of the NIST investigation, as the collapse has all the signs of an expertly performed controlled demolition: sudden onset, acceleration close to free fall, symmetry and totality.

There are also convincing reports that explosions were heard and felt. The testimony of Barry Jennings, who was trapped for some time in WTC 7, after an explosion damaged a staircase, is particularly revealing. Unfortunately Barry cannot be interviewed further as he recently died, close to the time when the BBC was presenting a study of the collapse of WTC 7.

NIST apparently was not able to find a sufficiently plausible explanation for the collapse until 2008. In the NIST final report their earlier suggestion that the collapse was due to damage from falling debris and severe fire on the south side was abandoned. They had been saying that fire weakened the steel columns and had no option but to say the fire was severe on the south side because we have videos and photographs which show there was little fire on the north side. It is not surprising that NIST eventually abandoned this idea as, on its face, it was ludicrous. For example in Controlled Demolition at the WTC we read “It is inescapable that if one side of a tall steel structure is heated to the point of failure, while the other side is not, the structure must lean toward the heated side. WTC 7 did not lean however, it just came straight down…”

To replace their south side fire-damage theory, NIST devised a theory where the damage initiated more centrally and depended on “thermal expansion”. This was supposed to have caused the severing of attachments of a section of a floor on the east side to a critical support column, starting a domino effect on several floors, finally exposing sufficient of this column to allow it to buckle. This was a more complicated theory and I suppose they hoped we would not be able to see through it. Numerous authors have, however, found this explanation to be equally implausible, as may be found on the Papers page, for exampleThe NIST WTC 7 Report: Bush Science reaches its Peak by Kevin Ryan. The explanation fails at the outset as this column should still have had support from floors running to the west and south which would prevent buckling. Already we have noted a piece of evidence which strongly indicates the official story may be false.

What really does happen when a tall steel framed building burns?

There have been many examples of fires in tall buildings. In some cases a portion of the building may collapse. If it does, this will be spread out over a period of hours, not minutes and certainly not a few seconds, as happened with all three buildings at the WTC. It is very difficult and often impossible to properly direct water into a tall building and in most cases the fires eventually just burn out. Two types of tall building may be distinguished: steel frame and steel reinforced concrete. In the latter case the heat may cause the concrete to crack and eventually fall away, in which case the relatively thin reinforcing steel may collapse where it is exposed. True steel framed tall buildings, such as the WTC buildings, apparently never collapse due to fire, yet on this day three did collapse.

Beijing CCTV building fire, 2008

The most striking example of a steel framed building burning was provided in Beijing recently (February 2009).

The TVCC building was ignited by fireworks and the fire quickly spread throughout its entire height, as can be seen in this video. Apparently the building was designed in such a way that an updraft could develop. The contrast with the WTC buildings in this respect was extreme. In WTC 7 we see that several fires spread horizontally for some distance, and eventually most burned out, but there is no clear evidence of any vertical spread.

After the fire

After the fire burned itself out the frame remained standing, the structure quite entire. Though the fire was vastly hotter than the fire in WTC 7 the building did not collapse. An eye witness gives a clue to the temperature of the steel:

“The building was like an oven, red inside,” Hu Jing, a 26-year-old paralegal and witness to the disaster, told the Washington Post.

To make the contrast clear I will show a similar pair of photos of WTC 7. First,here is the video.

WTC 7, beginning of collapse.

During the fire, at the moment when the collapse has just begun, we are hard pressed to find any fire. Apparently most of the fires reported earlier in the day have burned out. Remembering that steel regains strength as it cools, this building should now not be able to collapse at all, let alone straight down. If there is severe fire on the far side, the building should have leaned away, but it did not.

WTC 7, after collapse

After the collapse, which took about 6.5 seconds, we find the building is neatly stacked in a small area, hardly bigger than its footprint. As there were valuable buildings each side this is a remarkable achievement and the perpetrators are clearly highly skilled to be able to minimize the damage to neighbouring real estate. To place the collapse time into perspective we note that the roof would have reached the ground in 6 seconds in free fall in a vacuum.

It is now acknowledged by NIST that the building fell for 2.25 seconds at the free fall rate of acceleration, 32.2 feet per second per second. This is proof that there was no structural support whatsoever during this period, during which the roof dropped about 100 feet. NIST describes the collapse as “progressive” on the basis of their computer model. A collapse cannot be both “free fall” and “progressive”, thus NIST contradicts itself. Again we note the official explanation is proved false by scientific study of physical evidence.

David Ray Griffin has recently published an incisive short paper in which he investigates the concept of the SCAD in relation to WTC 7. This concept, State Crime Against Democracy, was reported in the February issue of theAmerican Behavioral Scientist.

Leer más»

Fuente:

http://www.thesimon.com/magazine/articles/canon_fodder/01435_was_wtc7_controlled_demolition.html

Información:

Was WTC7 a Controlled Demolition?

By Matt Hutaff, Sep 18, 2007

When a reporter hears a building fall 23 minutes before it does, is there a sound?

The view from BBC reporter Jane Standley's window was a spectacular mess. Thick plumes of smoke rose above the New York City skyline, blotting out sunlight and choking the morale of rescue workers trying to salvage human life from the wreckage of the just-collapsed World Trade Center.

It was the afternoon of September 11, 2001, and Standley was responding to questions posed by colleagues in England. "New York very much a city still in chaos," she said. "The phones are not working properly, the subway lines are not working properly, and we know that down there near the World Trade Center there are three schoools that are being turned into triage centres for emergency treatment."

"Jane, what more can you tell us about the Salomon Brothers Building and its collapse?" the desk anchor inquired. "You might have heard a few moments ago that I was talking about the Saloman Brothers building collapsing, and indeed it has. Apparently that's only a few hundred yards away from where the World Trade Center towers were, and it seems this was not a result of a new attack, it was because the building had been weakened during this morning's attacks."

Chyrons agreed, filling the lower-third of the screen with a disturbing epitaph: "47 storey Salomon Brothers Building close to the World Trade Centre has also collapsed."

There was only one slight problem. The Salomon Brothers Building – also known as World Trade Center 7 (WTC7) – hadn't collapsed... and wouldn't for another 23 minutes.

· · · · ·

Regardless of the conspiracies I've reported over the years, I'd honestly like to think a bunch of wingnuts declared war against American decadence on September 11. It certainly makes life easier, and it reduces the number of people looking at me like I'm wearing a tinfoil hat.

As many Americans have come to realize, however, we aren't being told the full story. There are gaping holes in credibility and logic, and accounts of marginalization and secrecybetween government agencies and investigators only fuel the fire. Let's face it: When the Transportation Secretary goes on record as saying Vice President Dick Cheney allowedFlight 77 to crash into the Pentagon, questions are raised.

Thermite charges. Doomsday planes. The melting point of steel. USAF stand downs. Box cutters. 9/11 is almost too big to fit into one box; there are too many threads of debate, too much argument over what is true and what isn't. There are any number of talking points about the World Trade Center that enrage opinion on both sides of the aisle, and I think it diverts us all from the main question: Was there foreknowledge of what happened? If so, who was responsible and why was nothing done?

Let's reduce the argument to something simple: How did news agencies know WTC7 would collapse a half-hour before it did? Evidence suggests controlled demolition of the building, and if that hypothesis withstands scrutiny, the implications are far-reaching. Planning to demolish a skyscraper isn't something you do the morning of.

There are first-hand accounts of responders hearing orders to demolish WTC7, including the countdown. The process in which the building fell – straight down into its footprint – is consistent with controlled demolition, not fire. Even World Trade Center complex controller Larry Silverstein stated in PBS' America Rebuilds documentary that the word to "pull" the building was given well before there was any indication the building was in danger of falling over. Neither before nor since that has a building with that structural integrity and such little structural damage fallen. Why assume this one would?

"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire," recalled Silverstein. "I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

(Silverstein has since revised his statement, claiming "it" referred to a contingent of firefighters in the building. There were none in WTC7 at the time.)

With many witnesses corroborating the decision to destroy World Trade Center 7, how does one explain the existence of a failsafe detonation device throughout the building? Firefighters obviously weren't running through burning offices planting precision charges while madness consumed the neighborhood around them. The charges would have to have been placed there beforehand, which, when you think about it, is a mighty stupid thing to do unless you already had designs to implode the building in the first place.

Maybe it's through this decisive pre-planning that the BBC came to know about the imminent death of the landmark office building? Who knows. But the official fate of WTC7 doesn't make sense, and having a news report come in prognosticating an unlikely future event doesn't make it any easier to swallow.

Was it simply an error in reporting, as BBC's Richard Potter claims? If so, that's one hell of an amazing mistake. The certainty of the dialogue contradicts his claims they were using half-baked adverbs to cover their errors, and it's not far-reaching to think word of the impending implosion reached a reporter's ears. What marks the BBC's footage as most compelling is that, while Jane Standley is remarking on the chaos 40 floors beneath her, the building her counterpart insists is rubble stands in the background. It gives the definite vibe of someone reading the script too soon – and Standley's feed being cut minutes later doesn't detract from that feeling one bit.

The demise of World Trade Center 7 isn't cause for much sadness; it paved the way for increased rescue efforts even as it destroyed offices for the FBI, DoD, IRS, SEC, and the Secret Service (no doubt making some high-profile criminals very happy). What it does do is raise the spectre of conspiracy for the rest of the events of that day. After all, if people overseeing that building knew there was going to be a massive terrorist attack against the Twin Towers, wouldn't we do all we could to stop it? And when one follow-up question is asked, it's a snowball effect that forces others to consider the way WTC1 and WTC2 fell, how our Air Force didn't defend us in our time of need, and how buildings designed to withstand a plane impact simply did not when the time came.

Questions like those start people wondering about those logic gaps. And soon they can no longer just blame a handful of wingnuts piloting their way into Heaven.

Canon Fodder is a bi-weekly analysis of politics and society.

Leer más»

Was 10:45 a.m. the Originally Planned Demolition Time of WTC 7?

Fuente:

http://911blogger.com/node/15318

Información:

Was 10:45 a.m. the Originally Planned Demolition Time of WTC 7?

posted by Shoestring on wed, 04/30/2008 - 9:29am

• Building 7
 
• Collapse

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9_E6RhuEQu4

At 11:07 a.m. in the morning of September 11, 2001, a CNN correspondent in New York reported that a third tower had possibly collapsed. While this report was incorrect, it is interesting to note that the reporter's description could have applied to World Trade Center Building 7. This huge skyscraper was indeed the third tower to collapse on 9/11. However it did not come down until late in the afternoon, more than six hours after this report.

CNN correspondent Allan Dodds Frank reported by phone from Lower Manhattan. He described: "[J]ust two or three minutes ago there was yet another collapse or explosion. I'm now out of sight, a Good Samaritan has taken me in on Duane Street. But at a quarter to 11, there was another collapse or explosion following the 10:30 collapse of the second tower. And a firefighter who rushed by us estimated that 50 stories went down. The street filled with smoke. It was like a forest fire roaring down a canyon." [1]

WTC 7 was a 47-story tower, so would have fitted the description of the estimated "50 stories" described by Frank. And it did indeed collapse completely. One could in fact accurately describe its demise with Frank's words: "The street filled with smoke. It was like a forest fire roaring down a canyon." However, this collapse did not happen until 5:20 that afternoon.

What could have led Frank to make his incorrect report? Surely, even in the chaos of that morning, it would have been quite difficult for a mistaken report of another massive skyscraper coming down to have emerged out of nothing. Could the reason be that WTC 7 had originally been scheduled to be brought down (with explosives) at 10:45 a.m.? The incorrect information Frank reported had therefore been put out, by persons unknown, on the assumption that this would be the case. However, something--as yet unknown to us--happened that meant the demolition had to be delayed, and so Building 7 was not ready to be brought down until late that afternoon.

10:45 a.m. would certainly seem a far more logical time for the masterminds behind 9/11 to have wanted to bring down WTC 7. At that time, just 17 minutes after the North Tower had come down, the collapse of a third skyscraper would have appeared less obviously suspicious. It would have been easier for those involved with covering up the truth about 9/11 to claim this collapse was simply a consequence of the two earlier ones. Instead, however, the collapse at 5:20 p.m. appeared completely inexplicable. (Unless, of course, it was a controlled demolition.)

MORE REPORTS OF A THIRD COLLAPSE

What makes Frank's report particularly notable is that there were other incorrect reports of a third building having collapsed--or at least being in danger of collapsing--later in the day, though these made specific reference to WTC 7. These went out in the hour or so before Building 7 came down:

At 4:15 p.m., CNN reported, "We're getting information that one of the other buildings ... Building 7 ... is on fire and has either collapsed or is collapsing." At 4:27, Greg Barrow reported from New York for the BBC radio channel Five Live, "We are hearing reports from local media that another building may have caught light and is in danger of collapse." He added, "I'm not sure if it has yet collapsed, but the report we have is talking about Building 7." At 4:54, presenter Gavin Esler reported on the BBC's domestic television news channel, BBC News 24: "We're now being told that yet another enormous building has collapsed. ... It is the 47-story Salomon Brothers building." At 4:57, presenter Phil Hayton announced on the BBC's international channel, BBC World, "We've got some news just coming in actually that the Salomon Brothers building in New York right in the heart of Manhattan has also collapsed." [2] However, WTC 7 (the "Salomon Brothers building") did not collapse until almost 25 minutes later.

WHY PUT OUT ADVANCE REPORTS OF THE COLLAPSE?

These reports indicated that some people knew in advance that Building 7 was going to come down. This would have been quite a feat, since, as the New York Times put it, "before then, no modern, steel-reinforced high-rise in the United States had ever collapsed in a fire." [3]

Perhaps the real reason we heard these premature reports was that this information had somehow been passed to the media by the 9/11 perpetrators, as a cautious attempt at preventing speculation that WTC 7 was brought down with explosives. This was clearly what the collapse resembled, with the building falling completely and symmetrically into its own footprint in just 6.6 seconds. Indeed, CBS News anchor Dan Rather commented at the time that it was "reminiscent of ... when a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down." [4]

Speculation such as this would surely have been a threat to the official 9/11 story, as it might lead people to ponder whether--rather than being committed by Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda--the attacks were an "inside job." To stifle any such debate, an official narrative would need to have been put out promptly. Perhaps this was why at 5:10 p.m.--still before WTC 7 had come down--the BBC's Phil Hayton reported: "[Y]ou 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." [5] It appears the information had been put out already, not only that WTC 7 had collapsed, but also that it had come down without the use of explosives: It collapsed because "the building had been weakened during this morning's attack."

And thus, the cover-up had begun.

NOTES

[1] "America Under Attack." Breaking News, CNN, September 11, 2001.

[2] These reports are summarized in Richard Porter, "Part of the Conspiracy? (2)." BBC News, March 2, 2007.

[3] James Glanz and Eric Lipton, "Burning Diesel is Cited in Fall of 3rd Tower." New York Times, March 2, 2002.

[4] CBS News, September 11, 2001.

[5] Quoted in Richard Porter, "Part of the Conspiracy? (2)."

Leer más»

BBC Responds to Building 7 Controversy; Claim 9/11 Tapes Lost

Fuente:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/270207bbcresponds.htm

Información:

BBC Responds  to Building 7  Controversy;  Claim 9/11 Tapes Lost Pathetic five paragraph blog rebuttal does not answer questions as to source of report that Salomon Building was coming down, BBC claims tapes lost due to "cock-up" not conspiracy Paul Joseph Watson Prison Planet Tuesday, February 27, 2007

The BBC has been forced to respond to footage showing their correspondent reporting the collapse of WTC 7 before it fell on 9/11, claiming tapes from the day are somehow missing, and refusing to identify the source for their bizarre act of "clairvoyance" in accurately pre-empting the fall of Building 7.

Here is the BBC's response to the questions about the footage that was unearthed yesterday, with my comments after each statement.

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.

"We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down." If this is true, then how on earth did the BBC report the collapse of Building 7 before it happened? Psychic clairvoyance? Of course they were told that WTC 7 was coming down, just like the firefighters, police, first responders and CNN were told it was coming down. They had to have had a source for making such a claim. The BBC is acting like the naughty little boy who got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. No one here is claiming the BBC are "part of the conspiracy," but their hideous penchant to just repeat what authorities tell them without even a cursory investigation (and with the Building they are telling us has collapsed mockingly filling the background shot of the report), is a damning indictment of their yellow journalism when it comes to 9/11.

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.

How do "chaos and confusion" explain how the BBC reported on the collapse of a building, a collapse that happened "unexpectedly" according to their Conspiracy Files hit piece documentary, before it happened? In one breath the BBC is claiming they were not told of the impending collapse of the Building and in the next they are telling us that all their information is sourced. Which is it to be? Did the BBC have a source telling them the building was about to collapse or not? If not, how on earth could they pre-empt its fall? Do BBC reporters have access to a time machine? What was the source of this information?

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.

Trying to make sense of what she was being told? She obviously didn't make much sense of the fact that the Building she was reporting had collapsed was prominently standing behind her! Unfotunately, for a news organization that prides itself on accuracy and credibility, "she doesn't remember" just doesn't cut it as an excuse.

BBC included a screenshot of yesterday's Prison Planet article in their brief response.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Internet leader in activist media - Prison Planet.tv. Thousands of special reports, videos, MP3's, interviews, conferences, speeches, events, documentary films, books and more - all for just 15 cents a day! Click here to subscribe!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

We are asked to believe that the world's premiere news organization has somehow lost all its tapes of perhaps the biggest news event of the past 60 years. This is a copout. Whether they have lost the tapes or not, the BBC simply doesn't want to verify one hundred per cent their monumental foul-up, because they know it would only increase the exposure of this issue and lead to further questions. What is there to clear up? The reporter is standing in front of the building while saying it has already collapsed! This is a blatant effort to try and placate people making complaints while refusing to admit a monumental faux pas that further undermines the BBC's credibility in the aftermath of the Conspiracy Files debacle.

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... "

So now the BBC are so devoid of answers, they have to enlist the help of some moronic comment on a You Tube blog? Instead of issuing official statements and seeking the advice of legal professionals they produce a cobbled together five paragraph blog and include the testimony of some moron on a You Tube comment board. Pathetic! Answer the question BBC - what was your source for reporting on multiple occasions that Building 7 had collapsed before it had collapsed, and identify the source that enabled the anchorman to comment that the building had collapsed due to it being weakened, an explanation still unanswered by NIST five and a half years later.

If you had reported the collapse of the twin towers before it happened would that have been just an error too? This "error" translated as $800 million plus in insurance bounty for Larry Silverstein - I'm sure Industrial Risk Insurers would be interested to know the source of your "error." In addition, two seperate sources reported that Secret Service Agent Craig Miller died as a result of the collapse of Building 7. Do you think he would have been interested in the "error" that led to your correspondent reporting the building's downfall in advance?

Leer más»

Why No One Could Have Predicted The Collapse Of WTC 7 - InfoWars

Fuente:

http://infowars.net/articles/march2007/010307BBC_WTC7.htm

Información:

Why No One Could Have Predicted  The Collapse Of WTC 7 Building was specifically designed to have floors  removed without collapsing Steve WatsonInfowars.net Thursday, March 1, 2007

This week has seen a cornucopia of news come pouring forth with regards to what happened to World Trade Center building 7 on September 11th 2001. The catalyst for this has been the discovery that the BBC reported the building had collapsed a full thirty minutes before it actually fell on 9/11.

The BBC, instead of attempting to explain how it could have reported this, has attempted to both evade and cloud the issue. The truth is that no one could have possibly predicted the building would collapse and here's why.

Aside from the fact that previous to 9/11 no steel framed building in history had ever collapsed due to fire damage, Building 7, otherwise known as the Salomon Brothers building, was intentionally designed to allow large portions of floors to be permanently removed without weakening the structural integrity of the building.

In 1989 the New York Times reported on this fact in a story covering the Salomon leasing of the building which had been completed just two years earlier.

Salomon had wanted to build a new structure in order to house its high-technology operations, but due to stock market crash in 1987 it was unable to. The company searched for an existing building that they could use and found one in Larry Silverstein's WTC 7.

The Times reported:

BEFORE it moves into a new office tower in downtown Manhattan, Salomon Brothers, the brokerage firm, intends to spend nearly two years and more than $200 million cutting out floors, adding elevators, reinforcing steel girders, upgrading power supplies and making other improvements in its million square feet of space...

In some office buildings, that alteration would be impossible, but Silverstein Properties tried to second-guess the needs of potential tenants when it designed Seven World Trade Center as a speculative project.

''We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors,'' said Larry Silverstein, president of the company. ''Sure enough, Salomon had that need...

MORE than 375 tons of steel - requiring 12 miles of welding - will be installed to reinforce floors for Salomon's extra equipment. Sections of the existing stone facade and steel bracing will be temporarily removed so that workers using a roof crane can hoist nine diesel generators onto the tower's fifth floor, where they will become the core of a back-up power station.

The entire article can be read here.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Want to start your own blog or website, get the word out and support Alex Jones? Infowars.net offers high-quality webhosting services at very competitive prices, and most importantly, with infowars.net, privacy is paramount! We don't sell the names of our customers to marketing firms or the government. Click here for more info.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What this amounted to, as the Times pointed out, was that WTC7, specifically designed to be deconstructed and altered, became "a building within a building". An extraordinary adaptable and highly reinforced structure for the modern business age.

This is of course also partially the reason why in 1999 the building was chosen to house Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's $13 million emergency crisis centre on the 27th floor.

Remember that on 9/11 only eight floors of the building were subject to sporadic fires. The official NIST report failed to comprehensively identify how the building could have collapsed symmetrically into its own footprint given the damage that it had sustained.

A follow up report due soon has been forced to take into account a hypothetical situation whereby explosives were used to demolish the building, primarily because every other explanation thus far has failed to explain how it could have come down.

Furthermore, as has been thoroughly documented, building 7 was the furthest away in the WTC complex from the twin towers. Buildings much closer sustained massive amounts of damage from the collapse of the towers and did not come anywhere close to full scale symmetrical collapse.

Given all this information it is quite clear to surmise that if you were going to "predict" the collapse of any building in the WTC complex following the destruction of the towers, building 7 would have most certainly been BOTTOM of the list.

Building 7 now becomes the key to unlocking the 9/11 fraud. What was witnessed on 9/11 was a perfectly symmetrical collapse, with no resistance, of a steel-framed "Building within a building". A perfectly symmetrical collapse of a building that was designed from the ground-up to have entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity.

We have an owner who let slip that the building was "pulled" and we have firefighters on video telling people to get back as the building was going to "blow up". We have the BBC reporting the collapse before it happened and a follow up desperate attempt to avoid the issue by claiming that it cannot verify anything because it has lost the entirety of its broadcast recordings from 9/11.

Furthermore, the BBC continues to play dumb by responding to questions other the fiasco by intimating that it is being suggested that they were "in on the conspiracy". Here is the latest response we have received from the BBC regarding the matter after continuing to press them for an explanation:

Hello and thank you for your email in reaction to claims made in an article published online.

The notion that the BBC has been part of any conspiracy is patently ludicrous. We reported the situation as accurately as we could, based on the best information available. We cannot be categorical about the exact timing of events that day - this is the first time it has been brought to our attention and it was more than five years ago. If in the chaos and confusion of that day our correspondent reported that the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been a genuine error.

With regards

BBC World Customer Relations

What is ludicrous is that the BBC expects us to believe it has lost its tapes of the most important event of the 21st century. No one is suggesting BBC is complicit in any conspiracy, and its attempt to frame this issue in that way is a blatant attempt to make the questions that it has not answered go away.

Why did the BBC report the collapse of one the most structurally reinforced buildings in New York before it collapsed and what was their source?

In further developments more BBC video from the day of 9/11 has been unearthed in which a correspondent, within hours of the towers coming down, claims the reason for the collapses is because of their design. He then then provides blatantly false information about the designs to justify the statement, without referring to any sources and negating the fact that the towers had 47 massive central core columns.

Was this another "cock up" on the part of the BBC or were they once again going off scripted information that was being spoon fed to the media? Certainly it is startling that the subsequent official FEMA report, after months of investigation, gave more or less the same explanation as to why the towers fell as is witnessed in this BBC news footage from just hours after the towers fell.

As for the BBC's shockingly arrogant and dismissive "it was more than five years ago comment", as long as the truth continues to be withheld we will continue to target those who are aiding its suppression.

Leer más»

BBC censors BBC 9-11 video that reported World Trade Center Building (WTC7) demolition before it actually happened

Fuente:

https://sites.google.com/site/censorshipbythebbc/bbc-censors-bbc

Información:

BBC censors BBC 9-11 video that reported World Trade Center Building (WTC7) demolition before it actually happened

One of the most extraordinary media events on 9-11 was how the BBC reported the demolition of World Trade Centre (WTC)  building  WTC7 (for the damning video record of this false BBC reportage see “BBC reports collapse of World Trade Centre Building 7 Early  – TWICE”, YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxFRigYD3s ).  Well before the collapse of WTC7 the BBC presenter in London contacts the BBC reporter Jane Standley in New York stating that the Salomon Brothers WTC building WTC7 has collapsed. Jane Standley agrees  and comments about this latest collapse – with the intact WTC7 building behind her live on video. Jane Standley’s response was terminated when the feed from New York mysteriously cut out and 5 minutes later WTC7 collapsed.  However at 4.54 pm (New York Time) the BBC had again reported the collapse of WTC7,  25 minutes before its collapse at 5.20pm. The video shows the “perfect” collapse of WTC7 (a building that was not hit by planes and had suffered only minor fires). The YouTube link has links to other videos of the WTC7 demolition that show its owner  Silverstein clearly stating that the decision was made to ‘pull’ the building and clear evidence of explosive ejection of material from the bottom up as the building fell (see also “Larry Silverstein, WTC7, and the 9/11 demolition”:http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/cutter.html )” . However the BBC with its penchant for censorship by cutting and splicing (see “BBC censors Benazir Bhutto’s 2007 Frost TV assertion about “Omar Sheik, the man who murdered Osama bin Laden”: https://sites.google.com/site/censorshipbythebbc/bbc-censors-benazir  ) doctored its own 9-11 coverage in presenting an “explanation” for its extraordinary false reportage of the WTC7 demolition (see Mike Rudin, Controversies and conspiracies III”, BBC News, The Editors, 2 July 2008:http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/07/controversy_conspiracies_iii.html ). Mike Rudin writes: “This third skyscraper was never hit by an aeroplane. There is little photographic evidence of extensive damage. Yet seven hours after the Twin Towers collapsed, this 47-storey building collapsed in a few seconds… It is certainly true that on 9/11 the BBC broadcast that WTC7 had collapsed when it was still standing. Then the satellite transmission seemed to cut out mysteriously when the correspondent was still talking. Then Richard Porter admitted in his blog last year that the BBC had lost those key tapes of BBC World News output from the day. So is that proof that we at the BBC are part of a huge sinister conspiracy or is there a simpler explanation?... It turns out that the respected news agency Reuters picked up an incorrect report and passed it on… And the reason the interview with the BBC correspondent, Jane Standley, ended so abruptly? The satellite feed had an electronic timer, which cut out at 1715 exactly… We've done our best to tackle many of the other questions raised about Tower 7. I interviewed the lead official investigators, scientists and eyewitnesses who support the official explanation; but also architects, engineers and others who now question that account. The final report on 9/11 should be with us soon. The official investigators are confident they will be able to solve the final mystery of 9/11. But I doubt they will ever convince their harshest critics, who believe there was a home-grown conspiracy at work that day.” However the BBC “explanation” involves doctoring of its own  video of the notorious BBC mal-reportage of the WTC collapse before it actually happened. The video begins with the question  “Is the BBC part of a 9/11 conspiracy” and then presents an edited version of the crucial video exchange between the BBC presenter in London and Jane Standley in New York that astonishingly  excludes any mention of  the collapse of WTC7  (see Mike Rudin, Controversies and conspiracies III”, BBC News, The Editors, 2 July 2008: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/07/controversy_conspiracies_iii.html ) – more egregious BBC censorship. Stephen Lendman is an outstanding anti-racist  Jewish American analyst, writer and a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (see Stephen Lendman blog:: http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/ ) .Stephen Lendman on media non-reportage of what actually happened on 9-11 (6 September 2011): “A personal note. I was in a doctor's waiting room with others watching events on television. When the South Tower collapsed, everyone audibly gasped, unaware as I was how or why, let alone what lay next. When the North Tower collapsed 30 minutes later, unsettling thoughts crystallized enough to make me sense much more was involved than met the eye or what news reports claimed. It was almost anti-climactic when WTC 7 collapsed at 5:21PM. Notably, BBC's Jane Standley reported the event at 4:54PM New York time, 27 minutes in advance. Later she claimed she didn't "remember minute-by-minute what she saw," or perhaps (like BBC's management) doesn't want to explain how she could report an event before it happened without advance knowledge.Earlier in the afternoon, I smelled a rat and wrote my brother, saying: "They're drinking champagne in the White House tonight," precise words I'll never forgot. Yet they failed to imagine the horror-filled decade to come. Back then, the whole world watched the horrific spectacle, including planes hitting the towers, both bursting into flames, desperate people jumping out of windows to avoid incineration, and then collapse at near free-fall speed, later proved (but unreported) by controlled demolitions. A 2002 HBO film titled, "In Memoriam" called 9/11 "the most documented event in history," stopping short of revealing what really happened or why… As on previous anniversaries, they'll cover everything except what Americans most need to know - the truth” (see Stephen Lendman, “Media manipulation of 9-11 truth”, MWC News, 6 September 2011: http://mwcnews.net/focus/editorial/13247-911-truth.html ).

Leer más»