Holy shit, look at this

[Elwood P Dowd]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/260207building7.htm

[helderheid]

1. BBC - WOW!!!

[MadMaddie]

8. And the more they try to bury....the more the keeps seeping

through....when this is all said and done....there won't be a place in America where the * cabal can hide.

Maybe that's why * brought the property in South America...

[originalpckelly]

10. I know, and I don't believe this BS usually.

:wow:

[lies and propaganda]

2. Well, I dont think this is going to last all too long...

Nope, not at all...

[Elwood P Dowd]

4. Mike Malloy was talking about it on his show tonight

I think this deserves some discussion on GD.

[lies and propaganda]

13. yeah, I do too..

but everything remotely controversial is instantly 911 or I&P...

[StrictlyRockers]

102. What is not going to last long at all?

I don't get it.

:shrug:

[Richard D]

3. Damn conspiracy theorists!

um, 20 minutes before???? Wow.

[marmar]

5. Something reeks....

:tinfoilhat:

[sce56]

21. It has always reeked! IBTXFER to the dungeon

[StrictlyRockers]

103. It reeks to high heaven!

[berni_mccoy]

6. .

[uppityperson]

7. maybe they were confused as all get out during that chaotic day

I heard lots of stuff reported that later wasn't true. It would be nice to know.

[originalpckelly]

9. H-O-L-Y S-H-I-T

!

[Dave Reynolds]

11. Well, as we all know

news networks never ever screw up and report things that are not correct.

:eyes:

[originalpckelly]

15. I agree, they do that, but why this may I ask?

Is it not a little odd that they would talk about that building, yet it had not been destroyed? Who told them?

It is altogether possible that they blew up the building, yet did not the others. It's not the smoking gun for all the claims, but I do think this is interesting.

I would be surprised if they did it to this building, it was well know that it was unstable and dangerous to be around, it had this gigantic crack going down the side of it.

[JanusAscending]

40. Here's a question I never thought to ask before.

Was building 7 occupied? Or a vacant structure. Were there people killed because of this building's collapse?

[jberryhill]

104. No one was hurt

because firefighters had vacated the building, and had started clearing a zone around it since about 3 PM because they observed damage to the building which they feared would cause it to collapse.

At 4:15 PM, CNN reported that the building "is collapsing or has collapsed".

At 5:00 BBC reported that as "has collapsed".

But you are correct, not a single person was hurt. This proves it was demolished intentionally, because nobody could possibly have thought that it was going to collapse. They were just evacuating the area around it for shits and giggles.

[quicknthedead]

105. Truth is, one Secret Service agent was killed. n/t

[jberryhill]

106. Didn't know that....

In the WTC 7 collapse?

[helderheid]

18. BBC done got all psychic and shit on us!

:eyes:

[Dhalgren]

29. But the BBC in this instance was correct - just 20 minutes early.

How can this particular "screw up" be explained away? The BBC reporter was psychic? I will say it again, we are not who we think we are...

[whopis01]

90. It is easily explained...

... the BBC is based out of London and they are like 4 hours ahead of us, so they already knew what was going to happen.

[NYC]

95. Get some stock tips.

:hi: Welcome to DU.

[Erika]

12. I visited ground zero last summer

Yes the whole square had been taken out, not just the WTC.

[nebenaube]

59. and yet the background radiation there is almost as

bad as the radiation at the nuke manufacturing plant in Colorado....

[grasswire]

14. this is akin to the reporting about L.H. Oswald from Asia...

...prior to the fact that he had been identified here in the U.S.

[SidDithers]

16. Error in time zones, nothing sinister...

From JackRiddlers post in the dungeon:

BBC World always uses GMT a.k.a. UTC, not BST (British Summer Time) as the falsifier claimed. Furthermore, New York on 9/11 was on EDT, not EST. So the report at 10 pm UTC was in fact broadcast at 6 pm EDT and for once there is nothing to see here, folks.

(Except maybe we should now investigate why it took BBC World a whole 37 minutes before they reported on the collapse of WTC 7? ;) )

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=143584&mesg_id=143594

Also, anything that links to prisonplanet will live a short life here. You can imagine why.

Sid

Edit: to make sure quotes is apparent

[uppityperson]

22. Thanks for the CORRECT TIME INFORMATION.

[originalpckelly]

23. Yes, but may I ask you why she said the building in the background still standing...

had collapsed, past tense?

The time it happened doesn't matter, what matters is that they are talking about a building collapsing that is standing in the background.

It's like saying the WH collapsed yet is still standing in the shot of the reporter. Something's just not right.

And with this particular claim, there is a distinct possibility that they did blow this one up, without doing that to any of the others. They could have done it for a number of reasons. One of them could have been safety.

[Atman]

30. They could NOT have rigged a controlled implosion in such a short time

No way, no how. Not humanly possible. Period, end of discussion.

And that was clearly a controlled implosion. The building didn't "fall," it very cleanly imploded into its own footprint. How conveeeeenient.

.

[originalpckelly]

33. Well, I don't know. I can't say anymore about this than what I just saw in the video...

and if the video has not been altered in any way, then this is fucking fishy.

[SidDithers]

64. Not sure why, originalpckelly...

with all the confusion in reporting that day, it could be something as simple as them receiving a report like "WTC7 was in danger of collapse" and thinking it was "WTC7 has collapsed." They were filming from quite a distance away, and may not have been familiar with the WTC buildings.

I still think it's a big leap to see this as evidence of CD in WTC7 or that the Beeb was in on it.

Sid

[StrictlyRockers]

99. No one is saying the Beeb is in on it...yet.

We want them to come clean with all they know about how they got this information early. Full disclosure. No more pathetic excuses please.

SR

[Maraya1969]

66. She could have been at another place and the back round was

just put in the background. That is why you sometimes see reporters standing in the midst of wind and their hair doesn't blow around. They are really in a building.

[Atman]

27. There's a 20 minute difference in the time zones? Even 5 hrs 20 minutes?

What? You sound like an old George Carlin routine...

(Spoken in a TV announcer's voice:) "It's three o'clock in Los Angeles. It's four o'clock in Denver. It's five o'clock in Chicago. In Baltimore it's 6:42, time for the evening news!"

I could buy your theory, but time zones don't vary by minutes, only hours. Nice try though.

.

[originalpckelly]

31. That's not even the real point, however, even the fella who's nuts...

says that they can't be certain about the time zone.

The point here is:
The BBC reporters are talking about a building that collapsed, when that building is still standing in the live shot.

That's the problem. It doesn't matter what time zone it is or any of that bullshit. It's that the fucking building is still standing right after they said it fucking collapsed.

I know you and I agree on this, but I want to make it clear to the person you're responding to.

[Atman]

34. Oh, I agree 100%

There is so much stinky about this entire story...

.

[helderheid]

46. and yet they shove this to the dungeon. When can we talk about 9/11 in the LIGHT???

[StrictlyRockers]

107. Yep. that is a problem.

[whopis01]

93. There are some with a 30 or 15 minute difference actually

That's not the point in this case, but not all time zones very by hours. Some vary by increments of 30 or 15 minutes.

No one in America ever realizes this, buts parts of New Zealand are set at GMT+13:45 hours or GMT+12:45 hours.

30 minute variances are more common. St. Johns, Newfoundland in Canada is set at GMT-3:30 for example.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

48. Oh S I D ? Where are you? Please respond to kelly.

The building is standing. They are describing it as having been destroyed. Your answer please. Lex? Do you care to respond?

[JackRiddler]

56. Sorry Sid, I misled myself

These errors about timezones were indeed in the titles added to the BBC segment by whatever person uploaded it to Google Video, and that got me very angry and dismissive. But that doesn't change the essential fact that the reporter is talking about the WTC 7 collapse with WTC 7 still standing in the background.

See here, and sorry if I misled you. It was unintentional:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x143824

[SidDithers]

63. Thanks, Jack...

no worries. I'm not sure what happened with the building in the background. But there's probably a simpler answer than the BBC was in on it.

Sid

[karlrschneider]

17. It collapsed before it fell?

WOW.


Everyone knows a building falls before collapsing. :eyes:

:eyes:

:eyes:

[Lex]

19. So the BBC was in on it?

:shrug:

[Atman]

32. Name our biggest/only ally in the Iraq war. I'll give you ten seconds...

BZZZZT. Times up.

.

[Lex]

35. Hahahaha! For real?

You believe this?

[Atman]

38. No.

But I believe the "official story" even less.

.

[cali]

20. Oh for pete's sake

From the whacko site itself:

"Although there is no clock or time stamp on the footage, the source claims the report was given at 4:57pm EST, 23 minutes before Building 7 collapsed at 5:20pm. While the exact time of the report cannot be confirmed at present, it is clear from the footage that the reporter is describing the collapse of WTC 7 while it clearly remains standing behind her in the live shot."

The story doesn't even make any sense.

[Warpy]

25. Typical for that site

which is why the mods rightly shitcan any reference to it.

Everybody seems to remember the destruction, but nobody remembers the confusion accompanying it, like telling us that a dozen planes had been hijacked, that a nuclear plant had been hit, ad nauseum.

[file83]

60. "Confusion" can not explain how the BBC could talk about an event

that hadn't even happened yet. They clearly state, as a matter of researched fact, not on-the-spot speculation, but rather as a confirmed event, that WTC 7 collapsed when on their own cameras the building is still standing, yet 20 minutes later, the WTC 7 collapses.

[originalpckelly]

28. What doesn't make sense is that a building the reporters have just said collapsed is still...

standing in the background of the video. The supposition being here that someone knew this was going to collapse and tipped off the BBC. Who knows.

I do know what I saw in the video:
WTC 7 standing and two people talking about it collapsing.

[Lex]

39. No, apparently people think the BBC was in on the whole thing.

:crazy:

[Atman]

42. Lex, you are completely misreading what the other posters are saying

And stop doing that with your eyes...they'll stick that way.

LISTEN. READ. WATCH THE FREAKIN' VIDEO and explain why the reporter is talking about a "collapsed" building standing behind her. You've added nothing to the discussion but emoticons. Rebut, explain yourself, or just sit back and observe the fun.

.

[uppityperson]

43. delete. not worth it

was only a sarcastic snark.

[Change has come]

44. Exactly

bizarre stuff.

[tuvor]

24. So, how exactly was this footage found?

It was "uncovered from the archives today" by a..."source".

[Contrite]

61. It was reported to Alex Jones' show on the air by a caller.

This link explains it:

http://noonehastodie.blogspot.com/

[file83]

62. The BBC archives

...costs money to get the vids.

[walldude]

26. If any of Alex Jones's claims were true or provable

he'd be dead. They would have bumped him off.

edit for speeling

[BuyingThyme]

36. Wasn't the lone gunman (Oswald) propaganda published in Europe

before anybody in the U.S. even mentioned Oswald as a suspect?

[file83]

58. I believe that would be New Zealand...

...and the newspaper was Christchurch Star.

[Mind_your_head]

37. The video only plays for like 45 seconds

before it cuts off for me.....I've been experiencing 'technical difficulties' in the last few days, but I would really love to watch this whole thing.

Frustratedly,
M_Y_H

[JohnyCanuck]

41. Watch more Orwellian type news broadcasts here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMBvX3P8IjE

This is a compilation of news reports from local TV stations describing the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing.

[Atman]

45. It's always so damp and musty down here in the dungeon!

I don't like it.

.

[BuyingThyme]

47. The sheeple responses so far:

1. Move it to the dungeon.
2. Screw up. (They were talking about one of the other buildings which hadn't yet imploded.)
3. A common time-zone confusion made a building appear in the background.
4. You believe your own eyes?
5. How can something so simple make sense?
6. Consider the source (the BBC?).
7. Fake video.

I think the real questions should be in regards to the skyline. Are the assertions correct? And, if so, is there some other building that fell, causing confusion?

[HCE SuiGeneris]

49. There you go making sense again.

Knock it off. :evilgrin:

[tridim]

51. Occam's Razor bites the OCT'ers in the ass!

It's on the crawl too.. "The 47 storey Salomon Brothers Building close to the WTC has also collapsed". And it's right there in the LIVE background shot, uncollapsed.

[BuyingThyme]

53. What're OCTers?

[Usrename]

68. Believers in the "Official Conspiracy Theory"

They believe that OBL and the 19 hijackers acted alone, i.e. the official story.

[SidDithers]

65. So what does it mean?...

What's your interpretation of this confusing evidence?

Sid

[Straight Shooter]

50. Curiouser and curiouser.

:wtf:

[WiseButAngrySara]

52. So now that this fascinating footage is in the dungeon, does it

just die a slow death? How reliable is the source? Have they ever photoshopped?

[HCE SuiGeneris]

54. Legitimate concern.

Along with the release of the video 6 years later... And why it shows up on one of the less reputable websites that are trying to shed light on the event. However, face value here does definitely raise some perplexing issues.

[rocktivity]

55. Maybe they just got the number of the building wrong

In which order did the buildings collaspe?

:shrug:
rocknation

[Old and In the Way]

57. Can't wait to hear BBC's explantation on this one.

Sure looked like a controlled demolition to me. Unless this is a really good fake tape, I guess there's going to be a rewrite on what happened at the WTC7.

Odd that she doesn't notice the smoke coming out of the WTC7 when she turns to add comment about the scene. A coincidence that the program signal goes just before the actual drop?

Very interesting.....sure hope we get the BBC's official statement on this.

[Maraya1969]

67. Building 7 did not fall until after 5pm that day? I didn't know that. Or maybe

something got screwed up with the time difference between England and the US.

[Wednesdays]

71. Once again, the point isn't what time the building collapsed...

It's the fact that the video shows the building still standing, while the reporter and anchor are talking about how it collapsed! Even the scrolling ticker says, "WTC7 Collapsed!"

[Bolo Boffin]

72. And what does this fact prove to you? n/t

[Wednesdays]

76. The jury's still out about what this all means, IMO

I was merely pointing out a fallacy, while it seems you're just looking to pick a fight.

[Bolo Boffin]

78. Who is on this jury, and do we have an ETA?

Come on, you're talking about it like it has some significance to you.

What does this signify? What does this prove?

I'm not picking a fight - I'm asking for a conclusion. I'm asking for intellectual honesty.

[Bryan Sacks]

81. You? Asking for Honesty? Here's some anyway

Here's what it proves:

At minimum:

1. If the reported is not standing in front of a bluescreen, which it does not appear she is, then the BBC has reported on an event that HAS NOT HAPPENED yet. Please notice the generosity of this phrasing - I allow the assumption that WTC's collapse was known to be imminent. We all know that's the official story, but now it must be asked: just HOW was it known that it was about to collapse AT THE TIME? We know the reports from the Kansas City Star in 2004 and "Fire Engineering" in 2002. But now, we certainly have reason now to go back and examine the exact nature of the appraisals made that day. What specifically warranted the conclusion that WTC 7 was about to undergo total collapse

The reason this matters should now be obvious. If WTC 7 hadn't collapsed for a few more days, what would have happened to those reports of its "imminent collapse" on the afternoon of 9/11? They would have gone away, just like the reports of a bomb at the State Department went away. But since WTC 7 did collapse, all the reports from that day that 'collapse was imminent ' are collected as evidence of its inevitability. But that doesn't mean anything by itself. We need the specific BASIS for the claims, and specifically the basis for the claim that reached the BBC AT THE TIME OF THE REPORT. Undoubtedly, we will be told this is unavailable, or some story will be concocted that will then have to be parsed on its own.

So at bare minimum, the BBC is guilty of false reporting. But while that in itself is unremarkable, the fact that WTC 7 did in fact collapse soon afterwards, and that the cause of the collapse has come to be a point of legitimate controversy, makes this instance of false reporting potentially very revealing.

Thus the BBC needs to explain:

a) how it 'knew' with assurance that the WTC COLLAPSED, before it had
b) who provided that information (because standard practice or not, it is disgraceful and highly dangerous to public trust to report news before it happens)

2. What else it could evidence of: that someone knew with virtual assurance, unrelated to the damage in the building, that WTC would fall at 5:20 pm. I don't say it is, but it cannot be ruled out, and you should say so too, boloboffin.

fixed bolds on edit

[Bolo Boffin]

83. How dare you imply that I'm not an honest person?

For someone here biding his time to torpedo Hillary Clinton, you have a lot of nerve.

9/11, in case you weren't there when it was happening, was an extremely confusing day. There were reports of all kinds of information that did not pan out later. The BBC footage is of an egregious mistake, something I have always maintained here, but it was certainly understandable in light of the confusion of the day.

There is only one way that this could be proof that someone knew the building would fall at 5:20 pm EDT. That would be if the announcer had stated that the building fell at 5:20 pm EDT. Otherwise you are selling an illusion, and that I state unreservedly and without fear of being proven wrong.

[Bryan Sacks]

84. Are you interested in an honest, further investigation of this event?

The matter is HARDLY settled.

I never said this was PROOF someone knew the building would fall at 5:20pm. I said it could be EVIDENCE of that (I missed the word 'be'). It would take a further investigation. Which I favor. You, on the other hand, having deemed the 'confusion' associated with this event 'understandable' before an investigation of this event is done, appear not to be interested in one.

[Bolo Boffin]

87. Honestly, I don't care if there's a further investigation of this event.

That is the best I can do. Investigate away.

But it is a wild goose chase, inspired by the wounds left by the BBC documentary. It is triumphalism spread an centimeter thin over the rotting face of the "truth" movement. That paradigm shift SR keeps on talking about is actually the impending realization that the "truth" movement is over.

[HamdenRice]

75. Many people do not know this common fact

But it's the video of how WTC 7 collapsed that is bizarre. Google it.

[StrictlyRockers]

69. More information on this video from the discoverer, "911veritas" (it's real, not fake)

http://www.911blogger.com/node/6458#comment-119447

BBC's WTC7 Early Warning Updated.
Submitted by 911veritas on Mon, 02/26/2007 - 9:12am.
OK....

Not had much sleep, whilst verifying and double / triple checking the numbers etc... I have now narrowed down the maximum margin of error to 1 minute and can confirm that the BBC first reported WTC7's collapse at 5pm (plus or minus 60secs) New York time LIVE on 9/11, a full 20 minutes before the actual collapse happened !!!


I am working on presenting this info with a V2 of above vid and 911blogger exclusive blog, which will take some time, verification is very important and to aid this.

I please ask as many people (with high speed internet) and 5GB of spare disk space to download the following BBC originals. These are what I used to confirm the timings (you can too) and have the damning footage etc.


All times are local "New York", the ranges are pretty accurate, but following my calculations are approximately 3 mins earlier than the actual time.

Each file is MPEG format and 1GB in size - To Download - "Right Click / Save Target As"


BBC World 9/11 Footage - 14:08 to 14:49

BBC World 9/11 Footage - 14:49 to 15:31

BBC World 9/11 Footage - 15:31 to 16:13

BBC World 9/11 Footage - 16:13 to 16:54

BBC World 9/11 Footage - 16:54 to 17:36



I have produced a medium res WMV file that shows time sychronized continuous footage from 14:40 to 17:18.

This file is approx 700MB and starts at the Pataki conference with an accurate timestamp of 14:40 Eastern Time (gotta find a home for it online, DZ ?).


Maybe Guy Smith can do some research for us... LOL

Best wishes and good luck

Props to Gangster for the initial heads up on the 9/11 realtime news footage archive on archive.org.

Continuous realtime footage from 9/11 by ABC, CNN, BBC, NBC, FOX etc...

Good starting Link : http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=title%3A%28Sept.%2011%29&sort=-date

As stallion4 kindly mentioned....

More info in this blog : http://www.911blogger.com/node/6400#comment-119070

Please help with this fight if you can. We can use helpful people here.

SR

[Bolo Boffin]

70. Why does 911veritas stop at 1718?

Is there a correction made that 911veritas doesn't want us to hear?

[StrictlyRockers]

73. Why are you asking me and not him?

Am I supposed to be his spokesperson?

Are you too lazy to click on his email address and ask him? Or are you just too stupid to figure out that that is who you should ask that question?

Just asking questions.

SR

[Bolo Boffin]

77. Because the way you're pumping this, you seem to be his press agent. n/t

[StrictlyRockers]

85. You mean you are still here without a response from him??

DAMN, you are the LAZIEST debunker EVER!

You don't think you will get an answer to your question by being all smarmy and disingenuous, do you?

Now go and get an answer to your question like a good researcher. Then we will allow you back on to post the results of your research. It is not hard to get answers if can figure out how to ask the right people. Go and get your question answered properly. Until then, begone with your distinctly Shrek-like persona. We have no use for bonkers dubunkers here.

SR

[Bolo Boffin]

86. Bwa!

You're going to let me back on here. Try to make me leave.

:eyes:

Aren't you in the least curious why this fellow didn't let the tape run past the time when the building actually collapsed?

[HCE SuiGeneris]

89. My curiosity is piqued by your constant

adherence to the Government's version of events. Do you love authority? Shall we all assume that questions asked about an historic event that doesn't conform to "official truths" makes us a conspiracy tweaker? Why do you support the official version as if your livelihood depended upon it? Rather curious to me.

[Bolo Boffin]

91. Control yourself.

I am not the topic here.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

92. I am not allowed to ask this question then?

Ummm... OK :o

[StrictlyRockers]

74. High Quality DivX Version 2 NOW AVAILABLE

http://stage6.divx.com/content/show/1133782?user_id=245557

High Quality DivX of Version 2 NOW AVAILABLE (450MB)

Submitted by 911veritas on Tue, 02/27/2007 - 10:25am.

Just finished version 2.

More info in this blog post : http://www.911blogger.com/node/6458#comment-119458

http://www.911blogger.com/node/6482


Very tired, so I'll be brief...

New info

- Timings now within +/- 60 seconds margin of error.
- DVD Quality
- Contains info how to verify, timings etc.
- Looks a bit tidier
- Has host and reporter names


Get it here -------> http://www.megaupload.com/?d=VL4MPLV8


Hope you all like it, if you do, please feel free to upload to Google video, youtube, liveleak etc... Share, torrent, binary newgroups.... whatever you can....

Please be active and help spread this around. It looks like it is a legitimate find.

http://stage6.divx.com/content/show/1133782?user_id=245557




SR

[Grateful for Hope]

79. Thanks for your efforts, SR

seems there might be some merit to this research.

[StrictlyRockers]

80. Really not sure yet, but I am leaning toward this being a real find and a significant one, too.

[Grateful for Hope]

82. I think it could be also

despite the fact that the BBC will (if they respond to this), of course, "explain" this away using an excuse like "the background was not live" or some such nonsense.

[The Lone Groover]

88. This picture previous posted in this thread shows...

A building just starting to be blown up.

It does.

WTC7 was blown up to. Workers at the site told people at was going to "blow up" before it happened.

"Strange days indeed Mamma" - J Lennon

[vincent_vega_lives]

94. dems gettin all crazy like

:boring:

[StrictlyRockers]

98. Stay asleep.

Nothing for you to see here. Rock a bye baby....in the tree top...when the wind blows the cradle will rock......

SR

[vincent_vega_lives]

100. dupe

[vincent_vega_lives]

101. Time for my Bub-ba

:beer:

[StrictlyRockers]

96. When will the BBC offer its next lame attempt at an explanation?

Nothing even remotely close to reasonable was offered by way of excuses.

The least the Beeb could have done was to throw the OCTers a bone to cling on to. Nope. Nothing. Nothing even remotely reasonable.

The government apologists are left scrambling and clutching at threads and straws to invent lame excuses out of whole cloth. Oh, and they are getting really creative, too, because they have no choice.

I like these active imaginations. We need people to think WAY outside the box like this so that we can consider ALL possibilities...like the blue/green screen theory, the GMT EST ESD IST MET time theory, or the theory that it happened after the fact before it really happened. What other theories are they supporting? The "it was bound to fall sooner or later due to the severe fires on the south side" theory and the BBC had to get the scoop from CNN theory.

Nope, nothing remotely reasonable yet...still waiting.

SR

[Pawel K]

97. My first reaction was they made a mistake

I mean it was well known WTC7 was on the verge of collapsing. But no where in that 20 minutes of repeating a story that hasn't happened yet did they offer a correction. What's even more chilling is the fact the reporter was cut off minutes before the building was supposed to collapse. I don't know what to think of this, but it is fucking scary.