I don't quite understand... BBC reports WTC #7 Down 20 min prior?

[lala_rawraw]

I have no idea what to make of this. It is such strange footage. You have a BBC reporter talking about WTC 7 collapsing while it stands behind her. I am very confused as to what could allow for this possibility:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc

Maybe the time stamp is the issue?

On Edit: Time stamp would not matter I just realized. She is talking about a building collapsing that is clearly behind her and then appears to collapse. One possible reason for this is that BBC was using a blue screen behind the reporter and mixed up the footage. But that still does not account for how it then falls behind her at the end of the broadcast. Or, it could be a hoax. So before everyone runs off to speculation land, let's consider that there are probably any number of reasons for this strange broadcast. I am leaning toward hoax footage at this point.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

1. Time stamp has no relevance if the building

is standing behind the reporter while they a re speaking of its destruction.

MODS: Please do not relegate this to the dungeon. It needs discussion.

[helderheid]

2. Please do not

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x297937

[The Doctor.]

20. Ha, they caught it quick but it still had 13 votes.

I can't recommend it now either.

This needs to be thoroughly looked into.

[SidDithers]

36. Oooh, you almost got away with it that time...

if it weren't for those meddling kids...

Sid

[The Doctor.]

191. I haven't seen anything yet.

looking for an explanation.

I gather there are three possibilities;

1) It was deliberately shopped after the newscast.

2) It was earlier feed they applied during the newscast (In which case it's just an embarrassment).

3) The building was standing while she reported it demolished.

[JackRiddler]

214. 911Truth.org presents complete roundup of WTC 7 / BBC issues

AN OVERVIEW OF WTC 7 HISTORY, COLLAPSE CONTROVERSY AND ALL ABOUT BBC VIDEO

"CLAIRVOYANT COLLAPSE"

& The BBC shows us
"How to Exacerbate Your Public Relations Crisis"
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20070228173157804

& NEW 3-MINUTE MINI-VIDEO COMPILATION OF KEY POINTS IN BBC SEGMENT

The collapse is noted again in the top-of-the-hour headlines, and Hayton gives a longer report at 5:10pm. <13:30 on the archive.org video> Significantly, the details are now revised, indicating Hayton has been given new information in the meantime: "Now more on the latest building collapse," he says. "You might have heard a few minutes ago I was talking about the Salomon Brothers Building collapsing, and indeed it has… It seems that this was not the result of a new attack, it was because the building had been weakened in this morning's attacks." Thus Hayton is not only reporting on an event still 10 minutes into the future, but also accurately conveying how the authorities would explain that event, both then and for the next five years.

(...)

We presume the BBC was innocent and unwitting in presenting this report in advance of the actual event, believing the collapse had indeed already happened.

(...)

And that is the question here: Who was the original source of the information? Did the source also phrase the event in the past tense? How was the source certain the building would collapse?

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20070228173157804

[StrictlyRockers]

217. Someone did not wait for their cue and misplayed the whole scene. Smoking gun.

[fooj]

3. Did someone jump the gun on the memo?

Certainly seems so.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

4. This original was sent away

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=143753&mesg_id=143753

[IChing]

5. Ask Rudi

He had his command center there.

Now, I await this building of a post to be quickly impacted with thermite
and buried in the rubble of the 911 forum

so we may never know the truth.

[lala_rawraw]

8. Well, b4 everyone goes nuts

and I don't know why they need to frankly, we should consider that the footage could have been altered. until we have some sense of the validity of the video, we cannot jump to conclusions. and as I posted on edit, it is possible they used a blue screen behind the reporter -despite claiming a live shot - and stuck an earlier feed. but it is very disturbing as presented, because we don't have any evidence to believe this to be credible footage.

[IChing]

14. Saw it today on Digg

the story has not yet been debunked yet.

I don't need this to convince me from the evidence that I have researched and studied
it is just another piece of the story that hasn't been told.

[JackRiddler]

19. No, the segment is real...

Just spent 6 hours downloading the 1-gigabyte original segment from archive.org.

There is no doubt it's genuine, only a small doubt about the time (which doesn't change the essential fact: reporter is describing the collapse of a building still standing behind her).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x143824

[lala_rawraw]

24. on what do you base

your conclusion? i am not saying the BBC report is a hoax. i am saying that the original footage could have been altered or the blue screen - if one was used - could have been loaded incorrectly. she is clearly far from the WTC complex, appearing to be on the East side. what we need is an expert and what we need is the original clip from BBC. they would likely release it for non-commercial use if requested. in any case, i am curious how you arrived at your conclusion.

[JackRiddler]

29. I downloaded the full segment from archive.org

A full gigabyte video of the BBC broadcast, labeled as starting at 16:54 EDT, available here:
http://ia311517.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109111654-1736/

Took a few hours!

Anyway, it's the BBC broadcast and it wasn't falsified by anyone except maybe BBC. Jane Stanley talks about WTC 7 having collapsed (past tense) and says she doesn't know how many casualties may have been caused, even as WTC 7 is clearly visible and standing behind her.

Now, was this actually broadcast later? Did the BBC falsify by using canned footage inserted behind the reporter?! I considered this at first, because I thought the guy who discovered the video today was getting the broadcast times wrong.

But think about it: this is very damning to the BBC!

Here's what I know:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=143824&mesg_id=143824

[Bolo Boffin]

212. You've got the full segment? Including what comes after the feed from New York is lost?

In other words, do you have the few minutes after, when the building actually does fall?

If so, how is that collapse treated?

[originalpckelly]

6. As for hoax footage, the lighting is correct in the scene. The live shot reporter...

is lit from the same angle that the buildings in the background are.

Maybe they just knew it would come down after seeing others that had done the same.

[lala_rawraw]

9. there is no reason to have known it would

because there was no reason for that building to fall. as to lighting, it could be altered to look credible. i am confused mostly about motive for posting something without confirmation or proof of authenticity. it discredits legit questions and silences any meaningful discussion IMHO. maybe that is the motive?

[greyl]

13. Bullshit. Total bullshit.

Firefighters were aware of the severe damage to the building and were expecting it to collapse.

[Straight Shooter]

16. Correct, but that isn't the issue with this video.

The issue is the reporter, and the anchor at his desk who is conversing with her, are apparently speaking of the building as having already collapsed.

Yet, there it is, still standing, in that same film, and they correctly refer to Building 7 as the Salomon Building. (My spelling may be in error.)

I watched the video. It's truly bizarre. Unless, of course, she wasn't there at all and they were running a film to simulate her on-scene. If so, an incredible gaffe.

[greyl]

18. It was an issue with post #9. nt

[Straight Shooter]

21. Well, yes, I see.

But other than that, are you skeptical of the video or do you think there is some merit to the discussion of its oddity?

[lala_rawraw]

26. no, not correct

see my post down thread. i agree the issue is the footage, and not WTC 7 and how it fell. but no one i talked to - the people there, on the scene - felt wtc 7 was going to fall. they thought #4 and Liberty One Plaza for sure.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

88. Like the Daily Show with its false backdrops? I don't think so. This looks authentic. eom

[Straight Shooter]

141. Yes.

A "live shot" backdrop, who knows what technical expertise the filmmaker has. But it sure looks authentic, and that's why it's so strange.

[lala_rawraw]

23. take a breath...

now pay attention:

this topic in general is painful for all of us, and in particular to those of us who either worked or lived in the area. i lived at 25 Broad St., which if you look at a map is a hop, skip, and a jump from the WTC complex. there are very legit questions to be asked regarding 911 in general, like for example, why Pakistan is our ally when training and funding was tracked to their intelligence services (ISI). but those questions are not what this topic is about and regardless of your theory on what did or did not happen on 911, there is no reason to go off and post profanities. there are some people who think aliens came down and took down the buildings. i don't agree with those people and think they are in need of medical treatment. there are other people who think no planes hit the buildings, yet another theory which requires medical treatment to resolve. there are, however, people who are asking legit questions (my Pakistan example). even if we can establish that there is a cover up (and there is), that does not mean that the cover up is related to the original event directly. for example, there could be uncomfortable and possibly criminal business relationships that people are worried would come out. so we can talk about any number of things and we can speculate till the cows come home. but we won't resolve these issues in this forum or any other forum because we don't have the information that we need to fully grasp what happened. so screaming "bullshit" does little to move this discussion in any meaningful way against already much drama and speculation. having said all of that, here is why I posted the link:

1. I do not believe this is legitimate. I may be wrong, which is not unusual or even uncommon. But I am always skeptical. Given that we don't know where this came from, the chain of custody of the footage, and that no expert has examined it for authenticity, I tend to think this is a hoax. Assuming that is true...

2. What kind of person would make such a thing and for what reason? That really disturbing to me

3. While I would appreciate it if we stayed on topic per my opus above on how these questions (legit or otherwise) cannot possibly be addressed in this limited environment and with the limited information that we have, I feel I must address your firemen claim. As I have said, I lived right at ground zero and I had an office on 52 of South Tower and one meeting office at Liberty One Plaza. My entire ladder (ladder 10) was nearly killed. They let me back to my apartment roughly 3 weeks later. I talked to those fireman still digging in hopes of finding their buddies, to emergency workers, to my neighbors - those who lived - and to the military that had been on the seen since 911. No one. I repeat no one thought #7 was going to come down. Sure, I imagine a few people here and there have said something of the kind. But not a single person with whom I have talked. In fact, they all said that they thought Liberty One would collapse and had begun to prep for it even. Liberty One shares an underground - or shared - with WTC 1 and 2. But, this topic is not about guessing as to why the building fell based on speculation that may or may not be valid. We cannot know because NIST has yet to tell us and that is what needs to be asked: where is the report? why has it not yet been released this much time after the fact? We cannot have a theory because that requires something more than questions. This topic is about that particular video and questions about its authenticity.

4. Finally, I have to say that I am very bothered by censorship. I don't have to agree with people who think little green men control the world. And believe me, I don't. But we have to be able to tolerate each other long enough to attempt to make some sense of the world we live in and we need to have a forum to do it in. To lock threads, move them away from sight, and play censor to topics that may be controversial is really the antithesis of democracy.

So, if this thread survives the cutting, can we please focus on trying to figure out authenticity - if possible - and should it be proved a hoax, then I want to understand motive. This tragedy literally hit home for me and such antics - should it prove to be a hoax - really disturbing. Why would someone do such a thing?

[greyl]

38. Sorry, you've only added more bs. The building was expected to fall.

...Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110462.PDF

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
Division 1 - 33 years

...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.
www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html

MSNBC Newsman Brian Williams: What we’ve been fearing all afternoon has apparently happened. We’ve been watching number seven World Trade, which was part of the ancillary damage of the explosion and collapse of the other two.

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html

[The Lone Groover]

53. "The building was expected to fall." - Nope

The responders on site were clearing everyone away and telling them the building was about "blow up".

Thanks for playing.

[greyl]

56. Invincible Ignorance. nt

[The Lone Groover]

58. Are you suggesting...

..that I'm lying about people being told it was going to "blow up"?

Because you know I'm not.

"Paradigm's gonna come and get you" - J Lennon.

[SidDithers]

76. CBS news report...

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

"It was the one calamity that was not a surprise. Police had evacuated the area hours ago, fearful building number 7 would indeed fall down"

Now, you can pounce on that as foreknowledge of collapse indicating controlled demolition, or you can agree that the responders were fearful of a badly damaged building collapsing.

Me, I'll go with the latter.

Sid

[BuyingThyme]

77. Those are some truly amazing engineers.

I mean, to look at a structure of that size, and predict it's fall within hours? That's just amazing. They should be given medals.

[SidDithers]

78. Why do they have to predict within hours?...

you're not making any sense. It's not like they told people to "get out at 5:00, because we think the building will collapse at 5:20".

Sid

[BuyingThyme]

80. Well, that's the official story. They decided to "pull" people out of the

area (evacuate) to save lives.

You know, like when you used to watch the TV show Emergency. The firefighters hear some creaking, somebody yells, "Get out of the way!," and the building falls as soon as it's all clear.

It's the same in real life.

Which part don't you understand?

[SidDithers]

82. The part where you seem to think the building was evacuated...

just in time.

WTC7 and surrounding area had been evacuated much earlier in the day, shortly after the planes struck WTC1 and WTC2.

Sid

[BuyingThyme]

83. Isn't the official story that Silverstein asked that the last

firefighters be PULLED from (inside) the building at some point in the afternoon, not the morning? And didn't the "collapse" then come in short order? Isn't that what we were/are told?

"You know we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is, is pull it. Uh, and they made that decision to pull. And then we watched the building collapse."

[Bolo Boffin]

84. Silverstein's remarks are indicative of sequence, not timing. n/t

[BuyingThyme]

86. This statement is simply not true in regards to the firefighters:

"WTC7 and surrounding area had been evacuated much earlier in the day, shortly after the planes struck WTC1 and WTC2."

That is not the way it happened.

[Bolo Boffin]

89. Where did that statement come from? n/

[BuyingThyme]

90. That's from Sid's statement.

(The one I was responding to when you jumped in.)

[Bolo Boffin]

91. Ah. Sid doesn't seem to be talking about the firefighters. n/t

[BuyingThyme]

93. I see. So, it's about pedestrian traffic?

[Bolo Boffin]

96. That, and people in the buildings themselves.

The firefighters remained in the area a bit longer. Many of them died when the towers collapsed. Perhaps you'd heard that?

[BuyingThyme]

135. I guess we need some kind of stipulation.

I just assumed that everybody understood that the WTC area had been evacuated after the attacks.

And the very possibility that people might not understand that WTC7, with the fire and all, had been evacuated of all but the emergency responders had not even occurred to me.

And I just assumed that an evacuation would additionally be in order after a building is badly damaged by the falling of another building.

I guess it's these kinds of things that have a few people confused. I had no idea how incredibly misinformed some of you are.

But I must say I'm very surprised that you heard about the firefighters dying. It doesn't really fit in with the rest of your take on the situation.

[Bolo Boffin]

138. What?

"But I must say I'm very surprised that you heard about the firefighters dying. It doesn't really fit in with the rest of your take on the situation."

What the hell do you mean by that?

[BuyingThyme]

You seem to be so far out of touch with reality that it's surprising

when a speck of the truth shows up.

I mean, if you need somebody to explain to you about burning buildings being evacuated, I just assume you know next to nothing about what is being discussed. Doesn't that seem reasonable?

[Bolo Boffin]

145. Sid made a statement about the buildings being evacuated. You tried to apply it to the firefighters.

I pointed that out. You started this stupid little game.

[BuyingThyme]

147. The evacuation before the WTC7 implosion was

an evacuation of responders.

[Bolo Boffin]

149. It was also hours before WTC 7 fell.

Sid refers specifically to an evacuation of the area after the planes hit. That was of the general public.

There is a inability to understand what's being talked about here, but it isn't mine.

[BuyingThyme]

155. We're talking about the implosion of WTC7.

Are you under the impression that we're talking about sending firefighters into a building just so they could be evacuated? That's the only way to make sense of your comments.

[Bolo Boffin]

157. Yes, we are.

Sid has always been talking about the general population. You used a statement of his as if he was talking about the firefighters, who were evacuated later.

The confusion is solely in your own mind. You projected it first onto Sid, and now onto me. Go back and read the "discussion" again.

[BuyingThyme]

160. I know what the discussion is about. It's about evacuating

people shortly before the implosion. That's not going to change no matter how hard you try to change it.

[jberryhill]

79. Give the medals to the firefighters

Who had used a surveyor's transit earlier in the day to observe that a portion of the building was failing and bulging outward.

[BuyingThyme]

81. Yes, firefighters can always tell when a building is about to fall.

They just set up a tripod and look through a pipe.

I think that's in Firefighting 1A.

:sarcasm:

[jberryhill]

119. Are you saying they were wrong?

The NYFD has a lot of very knowledgeable people in its leadership, and a broad range of expertise. They have to prevent, plan for, and fight fires and other emergencies in one of the largest cities on earth.

They determined in mid-afternoon that the building was in danger of collapse, cleared the area around the building, and saved a lot of lives.

Absolutely, determining the stability of a compromised structure is a critical skill to have in a firefighting force.

You think a fire department is a bunch of guys who point hoses at fires?

[BuyingThyme]

146. Yes, a fire department is not at all qualified to predict when

a damaged sky scraper will fall. Anybody who even implies otherwise is off the wagon.

[Bolo Boffin]

151. They didn't predict "when." They predicted "if."

Yes, there is a difference.

[BuyingThyme]

156. Either way, that's not what they do.

Contrary to the adamant contentions of the poster, fire departments do not do this work.

[Bolo Boffin]

158. Yes, they do. n/t

[BuyingThyme]

159. Show me anything, anywhere, to indicate that firefighters

or fire commanders are trained to determine when/if skyscrapers are likely to implode.

[jberryhill]

168. You really don't understand the complexity of firefighting operations

Being able to determine structural safety, and having qualified members of the force to assess same, are critical skill sets in a fire department. They have to be able to determine when a structure is compromised beyond the point of safe rescue.

I love the willfully ignorant and lazy people who don't bother to look, and say, "show me"...

OF COURSE you can find lots of resources on building collapse assessment and training specifically geared to firefighters:

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/99-146.html

NIOSH recommends that fire departments take 10 essential steps to minimize the risk of injury and death to fire fighters during structural fire fighting:

1. Ensure that the incident commander conducts an initial size-up and risk assessment of the incident scene before beginning interior fire fighting.


http://www.kansas.gov/firemarshal/FFResource/videoser1.htm

BUILDING COLLAPSE SERIES -- each video is 15-20 minutes each

Wall Collapse
This video shows the different kinds of walls, the three ways they collapse and how far they fall; illustrates how to establish a danger zone; demonstrates the proper use of hose streams and outlines the responsibilities of officers and firefighters.

Peaked Roof Collapse
This video presents roof types and construction and the three ways they can collapse; depicts firefighter protection and firefighter falls; shows the most dangerous surfaces and includes safety procedures.

Truss Roof Collapse
This video presents construction features for lightweight and timber trusses. It discusses conflicting size-ups and shows safe operating procedures.

Floor Collapse
This video demonstrates on-scene accountability; shows case studies of tragic floor collapses; floor-deck failure, floor-beam support, floor systems and warning signs of collapse; and demonstrates firefighter evacuation.

Wood Frame Collapse
This video explains the most common building construction in the United States, illustrates types and features of construction, illustrates how buildings collapse and demonstrates asfety and special dangers.

[BuyingThyme]

174. None of what you have provided applies to predicting the

implosion of a skyscraper. And none of the garbage you posted is applicable to WTC7.

None. Zero. Nada. Nope.

Were you too lazy to find something? Or does it not exist?

(Answer: It does not exist.)

[Bolo Boffin]

175. Um, are there a lot of 47-story buildings in Kansas?

Kansas firefighters are trained on the types of situations they will usually face. FDNY will train on situations they will usually face.

[BuyingThyme]

177. That's super. Thanks for sharing.

[Kingshakabobo]

198. ,

[Kingshakabobo]

199. ,

[Kingshakabobo]

201. Yes rally hard to tell, If you are retarded.

[BuyingThyme]

206. There is nothing in your little photos that would lead an

intelligent person to predict that the building would fall.

I don't think you have a clue about the scope of this building. Do you really think they built a skyscraper that would fall if a small section was damaged? There's no such building in the world. Well, unless you include that Jenga game. But, even in the case of Jenga, collapse from comparable compromise is unlikely.

In short, what you're saying happened has never happened in the history of history.

Did you predict the collapse of the building in Oklahoma City? Being that you're so good with photos, why don't you take a look?

[mhatrw]

99. Why? No steel frame highrise had ever collapsed due to fire in

the entire history of the entire world. So why was WTC-7's collapse so widely predicted that the BBC was able to report it as having already occurred 20 minutes before it happened?

[The Lone Groover]

103. "fearful building number 7 would indeed fall down" - Nope!

They were telling people it was going to "blow up".

You know it!

[mhatrw]

98. Why? Why did they think WTC-7 would collapse?

Did the fact that WTC-1 and WTC-2 had already collapsed overturn the entire previous history of steel frame highrise fires?

[jberryhill]

120. I doubt they were googling or reading history...

However, they just lost hundreds of their own force in two buildings which had collapsed. There were uncontrolled fires burning in a building nearby which had a 20 story chunk missing from having been hit by one of the towers, and there was a developing bulge along one side of that building.

Yeah, they got the f*** away from it and got everyone else away from it too.

[mhatrw]

133. Yeah, it's not as if it was their job to know about fires or anything!

:sarcasm:

[jberryhill]

171. You are sarcastic about saving lives?

They know a lot about fires. Assessing building integrity is the first step of fighting a fire. They determined that the integrity of WTC 7 was unsafe, withdrew from it, established a collapse zone around it, and saved hundreds of lives in so doing.

Their determination of the building's condition, and the precautions they took, apparently led to reports that the building "is collapsing or has collapsed" as reported on CNN at 4:15, and then later by the BBC.

You think there something funny about that?

[mhatrw]

218. Non-sequitur much?

What does making a serious point sarcastically have to do with humor?

[SidDithers]

43. News footage contradicts you...

WTC7 was expected to collapse.

Sid

[mhatrw]

102. Why? Why was everyone "expecting" WTC-7 to collapse?

Was no one aware that no other steel frame high rise had ever collapsed due to fire in the entire history of the world?

[Bolo Boffin]

113. I think they were concentrating on

the leaning, bulging, fully involved, groaning, cracking 47-story building to concern themselves too closely with color commentary.

Also, their dead coworkers under the Pile might have distracted them from your jaw-slackening statistic. Sue them.

[mhatrw]

134. Any video or photos of all that "leaning, bulging, groaning and cracking"?

Didn't think so.

Was all that "leaning, bulging, groaning and cracking" responsible for BBC's early report that WTC-7 had collapsed? Because WTC-7 is undamaged and standing quite straight in the OP video.

[Bolo Boffin]

142. Plenty of eyewitness testimony to it.

And your assertion that WTC-7 is "undamaged and standing quite straight" is obtuse, to say the least. You can see the north face in that video - the damage was to the south face. You know, the face towards the falling building?

[mhatrw]

144. Yes, plenty of "eyewitness" testimony. Always the most reliable! n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

152. Unless you have a credible reason to impeach their testimony, it stands.

No, "not fitting in with your beautiful mind" is not a credible reason.

[mhatrw]

186. Credible reason #1: Eyewitness reports are notoriously unreliable.

Even when the eyewitnesses are well-meaning and under oath.

Credible reason #2: The WTC-7 stood for well over six hours after both WTC-1 and WTC-2 collapsed. This was a historic day in NYC. If what the eyewitnesses say is true, there should reams of both video and photo documentation confirming their reports. Where is it?

[greyl]

187. What was this thread about again? "Eyewitness reports are notoriously unreliable."

Pathetic.

[mhatrw]

189. Yes, sometimes eyewitnesses even report a building came down while

it is still standing right behind them!

Then, when questioned about this they say, "Sorry, the dog ate our video."

Pathetic, indeed!

[jberryhill]

173. It may come as a shock to you

But buildings in New York City are three-dimensional.

So a picture of the north side of the building really doesn't tell you much about the south side.

But, yes, I suppose you are right - the building was undamaged and looked fine. That's why they had decided to evacuate the area around it long before 5 PM. And their refusal to send people in to fight the fires must have been cowardice.

You go to NY and tell those firefighters what stupid cowards they are, okay? I'll buy your ticket.

[BuyingThyme]

176. Umm, you're falling off the line. You're supposed to pretend

that you believe the the firefighters were in the building until they were PULLED.

But your strategy of trying to pit people against firefighters says a lot. Good goin'.

[jberryhill]

172. They had just seen it happen twice...

...and hundreds of their comrades died in the process.

I doubt that world history was on their minds.

I used to work for a law firm that was in the Meridian Building in Philadelphia - a steel frame structure damaged beyond the point of integrity by a fire. Now that fire was vigorously fought, and three firemen died in the process.

How many completely uncontrolled fires have been allowed to burn for hours in a building which has had tons of debris from as high as 60 stories up fall on top of it and gouge out its sides?

I guess they should have sat down and played Trivial Pursuit that afternoon but, to them, the building looked unsound and in danger of collapse.

[mhatrw]

185. in that case, what (or who) made them think the WTC-7 was about to collapse?

Why didn't anyone share this information with FEMA when FEMA wrote the only official (speculative and inconclusive) report about WTC-7's collapse to date?

[The Lone Groover]

52. "and were expecting it to collapse." - Nope!

They were telling people it was about to "blow up".

Thanks for playing.

[greyl]

57. Invincible Ignorance. nt

[The Lone Groover]

59. People were told it was going to "blow up".

You know it's true.

"Everybodies got something to hide 'cept me and my paradigm" - J Lennon.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mhatrw]

95. Why were they expecting it to collapse?

Seriously. It hadn't been hit by a plane and no other steel high rise in history had ever collapsed before 9/11. So why would anyone -- especially firefighters -- expect WTC-7 to implode in a neat pile?

[Bolo Boffin]

97. 7 was severely damaged by the collapse of the North Tower.

We've been over this and over this, mhatrw. Why do you keep trotting out the same debunked crapola?

[The Lone Groover]

105. "Why do you keep trotting out the same debunked crapola?"

..er.. because its not debunked?

The building was going to "blow up", people were told and you know it.

OCTers are on overtime tonight.

[mhatrw]

106. WTC-7 stood for well over 6 hours after the initial collapses.

The only official report ever issued on the collapse of the WTC-7 is this FEMA report: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

Here is what the FEMA report says on page 20:

According to the account of a firefighter who walked the 9th floor along the south side following the collapse of WTC1, the only damage to the 9th floor facade occurred at the southwest corner.

and on page 21:

A review of photos and videos indicates that there were limited fires on the north, east, and west faces of the building. One eyewitness who saw the building from a 30th floor apartment approximately 4 blocks away to the northwest noted that fires in the building were not visible from that perspective.

So FEMA had access to photos and videos showing the WTC-7 from all sides as well as the testimony of numerous eyewitnesses. If WTC-7 had actually been "severely damaged" by the collapse of WTC-1 or WTC-2, why was FEMA unable to produce one photograph in their report that demonstrated as much? And why was FEMA unable to find one witness who suggested as much?

[Bolo Boffin]

111. You are seriously behind the times in WTC 7 lore, mhatrw.

We've had the interim NIST report since then, and we're a few months away from the final report from NIST.

There's lots of firefighter testimony to the damage on the south face. We've even gotten a few pictures on that side, and Steve Spak just released video of the smoke roiling out of the south face. He's got the best picture to date of the damage.

I'm surprised that you haven't seen any of this. You have been here this whole time, right?

[mhatrw]

112. Yes, Steve Spak "released" some photoshopped crap showing

a bit of facade damage to WTC-7 without a peep about where he got it or what the chain of custody was.

Why wasn't any of this "evidence" available to FEMA? FEMA claims in its report to have examined photos and evidence from the south side. Why didn't they include any of these photos (or any mention of this damage) in their report?

Be sure to buy Steve Spak's DVDs at stevespak.com!

http://stevespak.com/videosales.html

These are Steve Spak's exclusive images! They are not to be shared with FEMA! Of course, NIST can obtain them for their long awaited "six years in the making" WTC-7 report -- if the price is right!

[Bolo Boffin]

115. Um, you have no evidence for Photoshopping on that picture...

and Spak has also released the video he shot of the south face.

I have no doubt that Spak's video was available to NIST. According to his website, he donated his films to fire stations for training purposes. I can't imagine that he didn't do the same with NIST.

Do yourself a favor, mhatrw. Replace FEMA with NIST in all of your propagandistic impulses. That way, you aren't anachronistic. You can be just wrong.

[mhatrw]

116. Why not FEMA? Why didn't Spak get his "historic" video footage to FEMA?

http://www.stevespak.com/aboutme.html

Steve donates his Photo's and Video's to the FDNY, for training purposes. He was honored on June 16th by Fire Commissioner Thomas Von Essen when he was promoted to the rank of Honorary Deputy Chief. Steve is also a member of the Fire Bell Club of New York Inc. Steve has been a Freelance photographer for more than 25 years. His photo's have appeared in all the major Newspapers in the New York City area, including the New York Times, Daily News, Newsday, N.Y. Post, Associated Press, and UPI. He was also published in Firehouse, Fire Engineering and WNYF magazines and other publications.

Steve is the Author of New York Lifesavers which was published in 1991. He has also won numerous awards for his photo's including the UFA, UFOA, National Press Photographers Association and the International Fire Photographers Association. His Videos have appeared on all the Local television stations in the NYC area.

If all this is true, then all sorts of FDNY folks would have known that Steve Spak was a guy to go for WTC-7 evidence. So why not help poor FEMA out with this information when they were scratching their heads about why WTC-7 fell? Why do Spak's photos and video show things that no other photos, video or eyewitnesses available to FEMA recorded or saw?

[Bolo Boffin]

You're like a dog with a stick on FEMA, aren't you?

Fine. Rail against FEMA all you want. Don't say I didn't try to help.

[mhatrw]

122. Almost six years later, it's still the only official report we have.

The "extensive" damage to WTC-7 documented by Steve Spak:



And where are the newly minted eyewitness reports of a "20 story gash" in this photo?

[Bolo Boffin]

128. Oh, for Pete's sake...

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

There, that should tide you over until the final report is released in a few months.

[mhatrw]

132. Sorry, but I don't review dress rehearsals.

NIST will have to find the pseudoscience to talk themselves out of this one on their own.

[Bolo Boffin]

139. Not going to bother your beautiful mind with it?

Figures.

[mhatrw]

188. Babs has this one covered for me.

I'm waiting for the "real" thing.

But if you want to give us the CliffsNotes version, please feel free to start your own thread about it.

[Grateful for Hope]

101. Good question

and, since NIST hasn't even come up with definitive answers about the reasons for the collapse after 5 1/2 years, it is very strange that some apparently "knew" that this building would collapse on the very day it collapsed. How amazingly prescient.

[i miss america]

166. Hi GreyL. Can you guide me to a picture that shows that WTC7 had "severe damage"

The only ones I've seen on the tin foil sites show what looks to be just a couple of small fires.
Thanks for your help.

[jberryhill]

180. The "couple of small fires" pictures

...are generally pictures of the north side.

The south side took several wallops. First, when the second tower was hit, debris rains down on WTC 7.

Then, when the tower collapses, you can see that WTC 7 is engulfed in falling debris:



After that, there are no really good, clear pictures of the south side, because there is a lot of smoke from the fires burning in WTC 7. The wind is blowing southward, so there is a vortex of smoke on that side.

From time to time, some of the damage was visible.

You can see some of the damage in the making:



and here:



The north face of the building looks fine, as shown in the collapse videos of WTC 7. But note that the north face fell southwards:



While the south side of the building fell clear across the street:



So, it should be at least clear that it didn't fall "straight down".

The upper portion of the gouge which was reported in the south face can be seen in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51FIPMlrFf4

Finally, this picture of the west side of the building shows a chunk of the southwest corner to be missing:



There was a lot of open space in the lower portion of the building, and a lot of load was borne by horizontal beams because the building was built over an electrical substation. It was not your classic rectangular frame and curtain wall type of construction.

[i miss america]

213. Thanks JB. Lots of great info in your post.

I appreciate you taking the time to provide such a thorough reply.

[Kingshakabobo]

48. Suuuure. There was no reason to believe it would fall????

Beside the firemen quotes provided by others, here is some video of the, so called, "minor damage" and "limited fire"...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51FIPMlrFf4



Small fires??????




This fireman knew it would collapse. I distinctly remember him on MSNBC that day talking out the "lack of structural integrity."


More confusion. "either has collapsed or will collapse"....Maybe Aron Brown is in on it too????
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1LetB0z8_o

[The Lone Groover]

54. "Beside the firemen quotes provided by others,"

...yeah... the ones where they were telling people it was about to "blow up".

Thanks for playing.

[sabbat hunter]

67. can you please provide

links, footage, etc where firemen were telling people that the building was about to "blow up".


they were getting people away because they knew the building was in danger of collapsing, nothing i have heard or seen in the almost 6 years since 911 suggests that firemen were telling people to get away because the building was going to blow up

[Bolo Boffin]

71. There does appear to be a single video

of someone trying to move people back from WTC 7 by saying the building is about to "blow up." The tone is of someone wearily trying to say anything that might get people to move. Remember that this was the day of, and what had happened to the towers wasn't exactly clear.

[The Lone Groover]

208. Amazing...

The tone is of someone wearily trying to say anything that might get people to move.

Bolo me old fruit, you are the spiniest of the spinners.

[Bolo Boffin]

209. That's what you've got, Lone Groover.

You've got a single video of somebody on a very confusing day trying to get people to get out of the way of a building about to collapse.

That's what you are running around screaming at the top of your lungs about. One single video that proves nothing.

Yet I'm the spinner. Sheesh.

[The Lone Groover]

207. Link

All the OCTers know this.

[Bolo Boffin]

210. A single video, of someone trying to get people to move back, posted by Killtown.

Sigh.

[Kingshakabobo]

68. put up or shut up. n/t

[Kingshakabobo]

200. .

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

87. No. They kept pointedly saying that the building had already collapsed. eom

[mhatrw]

94. What "others that had done the same"? n/t

[malmapus]

7. WoW

Can't say much more than that...

[brettdale]

10. Im guess this is going to this story is going to die quickly

Im sure there is a logical explanation and nothing sinister.

I mean this would of seen the light of day by now.

[lala_rawraw]

12. i tend to agree... what disturbs me is motive

for loading this up and claiming authenticity. if this were real, i imagine Palast would have sniffed it out by now. at the same time, it could be error. the other thing that bothers me is censorship at Google Video and here. none of us have to agree and some of us are way out there in alien-land theory. but we all have a right to ask questions... like, for example, blue screen error? i think it is a legit question to ask and discuss in a forum where people have various professional backgrounds and can lend their expertise to the topic.

[tridim]

15. Apply your logic to the actual live video

and you'll realize that the explanation is right in front of your eyes, but you have to open them first.

[mhatrw]

107. Why? What makes you think that no mistakes were made?

What makes you think that if a mistake were made it would have to be uncovered and well-publicized immediately?

So much about that the reports of that day were fishy. You could write a book about the US major media coverage of Flight 93 alone. Why couldn't this have been lost in the cracks -- just like the victims' remains that they recently found in NYC?

[Change has come]

11. It looks like the reporter

is in a building with windows overlooking the smoking ruins of the towers.



Would a blue screen have what looks to be a window frame or would that be part of the hoax as well? (I'm not being snarky)

[Straight Shooter]

17. I'm wondering how she got so close to the scene.

From which building is she reporting? Who else was reporting at the same time? What did their footage show and what were they saying? How close were reporters allowed to the scene?

Lots of unanswered questions being raised by this video. If it's genuine, then BBC needs to explain this video, pronto.

[greyl]

40. Looks like she's a mile away. nt

[Straight Shooter]

69. That is still very close, IMHO.

And that's just one question answered. :)

[Old and In the Way]

22. It does look like late afternoon, looking at the sun reflection on her face.

What's the vertical bar on the left of the screen? It could be a seam, but the glass looks different, filtered?...and does the background scene have continuity between the panes?

[Change has come]

33. the vertical bar on the left

is visible throughout the video. To my eye, the background does not have continuity. If this is a live shot from another tower in Lower Manhattan, where would that location be on this map?

[lala_rawraw]

34. that is a good question

i am thinking east and at some distance... probably 23... that said, if there were the case, then #7's height would be shorter. there is also a great deal of confusion and smoke, that may explain some of what we are seeing too.

[Change has come]

35. I was thinking east too

wouldn't that make the sunlight on the reporters face a bit strange? The sun should be behind her.

[Tuesday_Morning]

73. If she's inside

and standing in front of a window, she would be artificially lit.

[Leopolds Ghost]

118. No, she is not east. The Woolworth building is well to the left of WTC 7, if indeed that IS WTC 7.

That puts her well to the north of City Hall.

[Old and In the Way]

37. Wasn't WTC7 on Vesey St?

It looks like 7 is to the right of where 1 and 2 were.

If so, wouldn't she have been looking Southeast towards the scene? The sun would be in setting in the west at that point.

[Change has come]

39. yes...just north of the twin towers.

If the burning rubble is behind her, isn't she facing east?

[Old and In the Way]

42. She'd be facing SE looking at the scene, but I think NW when talking

to the camera....just clarifying.

[Leopolds Ghost]

121. No, she's obviously well to the north -- look at the position of the street grid.

The Woolworth (or possibly Bank of New York -- tall & pointy gothic
building) is in center of the frame, the WTC 7 site is to the right.

The Woolworth and Bank of New York building are in the center of Lower Manhattan, along the Broadway north-south axis. WTC 7 is several blocks to the west of Broadway.

[Leopolds Ghost]

117. The far north. She is filming from well up Broadway, possibly TriBeCa or NoHo.

She would not have known that the building behind her was the WTC 7 she claimed had already collapsed; this could well be a misunderstanding.

[ConsAreLiars]

25. The building does not "appear to collapse" at the end of the video.

The image, including the reporter's face, breaks up into mpeg artifacts as the signal fails. The time of the broadcast can presumably be determined accurately from BBC records, but one poster on another thread has pointed out that BBC World uses GMT, not London (Daylight Savings) time, leading to the error that was compounded into the claim that the broadcast took place in the hour before rather than after Bldg 7 fell. Within the broadcast the London anchor refers to the twin towers having collapsed 9 hours earlier, which is also consistent with the report on Bldg 7 taking place AFTER it had fallen rather than before.

Of course, the reporter could have been been just reading some script prepared for her by aliens for some obscure reason, and the BBC accidentally shifted in time to some period before the broadcast, or something.

[lala_rawraw]

28. i am with you

... am still a bit leaning toward hoax, with blue screen error as a close second. but i agree that the conversation between the two journalists (the studio and field) appears to be legit. so the question remains:

what caused the discrepancy between the report and the footage behind the field reporter? is it blue screen error? or is it tampering with the original footage? while the time stamp matters only in being able to place the final version of this footage, it does not address the background image question.

[ConsAreLiars]

31. The background footage is discrepant only if you

accept the prisonplanet claim that the building he labels as Bldg 7 is actually that building. It is up to him to prove that labeling. Based on this video, Bldg 7 has already gone down, and the simplest explanation is that he just pointed an arrow at some other building.

[rman]

50. You're saying there is confusion about

what WTC7 looks like, and where it is located?
You're kidding, right?

[mhatrw]

108. So which other building is it?

This should be good ...

[file83]

32. The video camera zooms past the reporter's shoulder and matches camera shake

with the frame of the window and skyline - that is NOT blue screen - it's a live shot.

There are 2 possible explanations for this video:

1) The BBC producer of that segment got bad information (make of that what you will - was he/she fed a "cover story" prematurely by some disinformation agent? Or did some field reporter simply get the name of WTC 7 mixed up with some other smaller building that had collapsed that afternoon?)

2) The entire video was an elaborate special effects hoax combining archival footage with masked/compostited footage from some other source to create the illusion of a discrepency (and hence the illusion of evidence for a conspiracy theory of a coverstory?)

[mhatrw]

109. No other smaller building had collapsed that afternoon.

And you can get the original footage from http://www.archive.org .

Link to video footage: http://ia311517.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109111654-1736

The original footage matches this footage.

[Twist_U_Up]

41. Oh its no hoax La La........ scroll this thread. Pretty thorough

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

[Leopolds Ghost]

124. Um no, it's not bluescreen

The reporter is clearly lit by the south-facing window behind her, from the west.

[mhatrw]

100. So why is the building still standing during the video report? n/t

[Leopolds Ghost]

123. Um, no.

The footage obviously includes WTC 7 still standing, meaning it was taken in the hour before the collapse.

Let's all use logic, here.

[Myrmidon]

27. I understand: the 9/11 truth is coming out!

Even my middle-of-the-road Democrat mom could hardly believe this story, and said that it only leads one direction: foreknowledge.

[BuyingThyme]

30. Even the blind followers are unknowingly

making the case that the government knew with certainty that the building was going to come down. (Shhh..., don't tell them.)

[Leopolds Ghost]

127. Since the MSM reported over a year in advance that Bin Laden planned to crash planes into buildings

It's hardly surprising that we knew what was going on when it happened.

The only surprise was that he could pull it off. I wrote a letter to the editor asking them why they weren't taking the threat seriously, back in 1999 or 2000 when it was issued.

Unfortunately I never sent it, because I figured everything was being done that would be done to prevent planes from crashing into buildings.

[Klimmer]

44. I don't doubt it. The BBC footage is real and unaltered.

Using reasoning and deductive photogrammetry techniques, of which you have all hinted at, the broadcast footage can be proven authentic and unaltered. Many things you can do to analyze this footage. To my eye, and reasoning through photogrammetry it is real and live.

I like this version of the same footage with someone who has looked into the times of the broadcast:

VIDEO: BBC WAS HALF AN HOUR TOO EARLY REPORTING ON WTC7 COLLAPSE
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.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=49f_1172526096

So who told the BBC that WTC 7 was coming down or had already fallen 1/2 hour prior to it doing so? Wow, what incredible premonition. And to think the live feed blinks out just 5 minutes before it would have come down live on camera had the anchor still been talking to the field reporter at the time. It is already incredibly embarrassing and telling to say the building has collapsed with it clearly in view over her shoulder in the background. But had it fallen while she was live on camera agreeing with the anchor that it had already collapsed, would have been the ultimate mistake. It sure seems someone pulled the plug so that wouldn't happen. Perhaps they realized their mistake and wanted her off the air with the tower still standing clearly in view in the background as soon as possible. Makes you go HHhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmm.

[eyl]

46. Have you considered the implications of what you're saying?

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, the US government was behind it. So they proceed to give advance knowledge to a foreign news service? Which then proceeds to disseminate the information - it had to get at least as far as the reporter, after all, and probably others on the production staff - and none of them say anything? Despite the fact that the reporter who blows this story would be at least as famous as Woodward and Bernstein (almost certainly more so)?

And what exactly would handing out a script accomplish, exactly? You think without it, the news services wouldn't have reported the collapse when it did occur?

[BuyingThyme]

47. Actually, if you listen to what the guy says at the beginning

of the clip, you might find your answer:

"Apparently that's only a few hundred yards away from where the World Trade Center towers were. And it seems that this was not a result of a new attack. It was because the, ah, building had been weakened, ah, during this morning's attack."

Because the WTC7 implosion was (going to be) so unusual, somebody apparently thought it would be helpful to explain that a new attack was not (going to be) the cause.

Now, that's some interesting reporting. I'd like to know who the sources were; wouldn't you? I mean, how did they know so much about something that hadn't even happened?

[eyl]

60. So you've just upped

the number of people who had to be in the know. And again, why bother to say it wasn't a new attack?

[BuyingThyme]

74. Your "in the know" argument is ridiculous.

Why pretend that one must be a conspirator to be fed the official line? Does it make you feel safe?

And again, it appears that the implosion was (going to be) so unusual that a clarification as to the cause had to come with it (or, it seems, before it).

[eyl]

196. Why?

Why would a "clarification to the cause" be needed?

[BuyingThyme]

205. Because people are smart enough to figure out that

WTC7 was not brought down by fire.

[eyl]

215. So what's wrong with explaining that

after the collapse?

[Bolo Boffin]

62. Actually, if YOU listened to the whole thing...

...you'd realize that the announcer was correcting his earlier suggestion that the collapse might have been the result of a new attack. Why didn't he just read the "press release"?

[Leopolds Ghost]

130. The collapse HADN'T HAPPENED YET. The reasons for its collapse could not be corrected!

The building is in the background of the live shot, it is extremely obviously live. I am very familiar with the architecture of Manhattan, I took a course in the subject and have visited the area numerous times.

Now, it could be that tower is not WTC7 but a similar-looking
building nearby. I doubt it.

Is the claim in this thread that the CORRECT timestamp is post-collapse
and therefore the building in the background has already collapsed?

Why can't someone on DU go up Broadway to NoHo, look south, and find out?

[Bolo Boffin]

150. They had REPORTED THAT IT HAD HAPPENED.

They were correcting that report. It was a mistaken report - it obviously was being made before the building fell, because they cut to a LIVE SHOT OF THE REPORTER STANDING IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING THEY HAVE SAID HAD COLLAPSED.

Jesus, this isn't that hard to understand.

[Chulanowa]

51. There's also the possibility that the BBC actually investigated...

And came up with some scrap of info that did in fact say the building had collapsed.

And no, they're not mistaking it. They name it as the solomon Building. They tell you how far from the two towers it is. They say how many floors there are. It's not the Mariot hotell because that's mentioned separately in the report. This is not a blue screen effect, because the lighting on the woman's face comes from the west, and is clearly sunlight - easy to tell from intensity and color, and the fact it matches the sunlight outside the building.

And the building is very clearly still there, next to her left ear, through hte whole shoot. A few little puffs of smoke come out of it, as well. If this is a fake, it's an incredibly well-made one, and was done in-studio by the BBC. Why on earth would htey do that?

It's possible that they turned "may collapse" into "has collapsed", but that's pretty darn goofy as well - again, the building is right there behind her head.

The timestamp places it 23 minutes before the collapse.

I don't know what to think. I don't want my government to have perpetrated this and filled us with disinformation. But if they did, I want it to come out.

[eyl]

61. Which means that they goofed

if they investigated and came up with a wrong conclusion - which is what I consider the likeliest (by far) answer.

Apparently, the reporter didn't know the building well enough to recognize it by sight, or else she never would have made the statement in the first place.

[Leopolds Ghost]

131. Except that she is corrected in the middle of her report, correcting the reasons for collapse

How can you issue a correction on the reasons for an event thast hasn't happened yet?

[The Lone Groover]

55. "a foreign news service?"

Britian is "foreign"?

I thought we were the 51st State.

[mhatrw]

110. If the media hadn't successfully primed the sheep, they might have

asked exactly why the WTC-7 (a building that housed the Secret Service, the CIA, the SEC, and Giuliani's Office of Emergency Mgmt) was the first steel high rise in history to collapse due to fire. Note that this question is still officially unanswered nearly 6 years later.

[BuyingThyme]

45. Something I noticed about the footage:

After the anchor loses the feed, it (seems to) momentarily reappear on a monitor above his right shoulder; then it goes black.

I'm on dial-up, so I don't have a very good quality video. Is that what you see?

[DemReadingDU]

49. morning kick

For some reason, I am unable to recommend posts in this forum. I get an error.

[StrictlyRockers]

64. 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

[StrictlyRockers]

65. 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

[progressoid]

66. Because the BBC was in on it !!!!!111!

Any idiot can see that.

[Straight Shooter]

70. Go ahead and make fun.

Then try to address this seriously. It's bizarre. Somebody screwed up in their presentation of this video, or someone is perpetuating a hoax. That's what we're trying to find out.

[StrictlyRockers]

72. Yeah, calling people idots does nothing to help us figure out the truth.

Are we idiots for being curious?

I suppose the intellectually incurious are the really smart ones then? Hmm? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

SR

[progressoid]

75. I didn't call you and idiot...

Nor did I say the curious are idiots, or that the intellectually incurious are the really smart ones.

On edit...

If you think that the BBC was in on it, then, yes I called you an idiot. Sorry.

[StrictlyRockers]

164. First you deny calling people idiots...

Then you go into detail about who you are not calling idiots.

Then you make a total ass out of yourself by eating your own words and calling people idiots again.

For the record, I have not seen anyone here say that "the BBC was in on it" except you.

So, you are here, making an ass our of yourself, railing against hypothetical "idiots" where clearly you are the only one.

Thanks for playing.

:hi:

SR

[jschurchin]

85. Last time I checked the BBC

was a broadcasting company, whom features news along with other programing. They were given information that the structure HAD collapsed. They are only the mouthpiece, they don't need to be "in on it".

Find the source of their information, then you MAY find a participant whom MAY BE "in on it".

Kinda reminds me of the police officer who broadcast the description of Lee Harvey Oswald, when he was questioned about who gave him the description he said "It was a man, he wasn't tall nor short, thin nor heavy set, he was just there".

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

92. About 4 years ago I recall hearing a BBC reporter who happened to be in the WTC when the first plane

hit, described how he was hearing bombs. That audio was scrubbed. Then his account later on was videotaped.

The transcript is here
http://www.911blogger.com/node/3537

The video was scrubbed off of Youtube.com

but! There is an avi of part of it that you can download here!
http://cortez.gnn.tv/blogs/16245/New_BBC_Footage_Mentions_Low_Explosion_and_Shows_North_Tower_Collapse

[sabbat hunter]

104. actually

he says he heard BOOMS not bombs.

you cannot hear a bomb, only an explosion or a boom.

[Norrin Radd]

125. Apart from what he in particular said,

People do use the word in an onomatopoeiac sense.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=onomatopoeia

"...bomb (n.)
1588, from Fr. bombe, from It. bomba, probably from L. bombus "a buzzing or booming sound," from Gk. bombos "deep and hollow sound," echoic..."

[michael_1166]

129. Same like on German TV channel "Das Erste (ARD)"

On 9/11, a reporter in NY told the news host by phone: "I just cannot understand it! There are bombs going off here, but no one is reporting it!" Of course that phone interview was never to be replayed again, but it's ingrained in my memory.

[SidDithers]

114. Now do you understand?...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html

Sid

[Twist_U_Up]

126. I prefer reading the comment section more

BBC is taking a beating. LOL

[Grateful for Hope]

143. The comments are quite telling n/t

[mhatrw]

136. That's their entire response? LOL!

We have no idea what happened or why, but if we did it then it must have been an innocent mistake?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html

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.

That's journalism? That's the best the BBC can do on its own report about itself?

[Leopolds Ghost]

137. Read the comments. The BBC "lost" all their archival 9-11 footage due to a "cock-up"

They claim no-one told them the building was going to collapse, they just mistakenly assumed it due to confusion.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

140. Happens all the time!

B-)

[Bryan Sacks]

148. Sid, I think you have to admit, the commenters have a point

At 06:25 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
Justin Ross wrote:

If there was no conspiracy on your part, then tell the public who told BBC News that WTC7 fell down before it actually happened. The video you are looking for will show the building before collapse with your reporter telling the public it had already collapsed

At 06:26 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
Simon wrote:

"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."

So why then, is the reporter reporting that the Saloman Building (WTC7) has come down when it is clearly visible behind her as she speaks?

"If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error"

An error? That does not explain how someone knew the building was coming down before it actually had done.

10.

At 06:33 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
William wrote:

Sorry, I am not convinced by this blog. I fail to see how it is impartial and crucial to the issue at hand..claiming to loose your own footage over an event like this doesn't seem to fit.

I am not labelling you as anything other than unconvincing as regards the comments you've posted here. Thank you for your time, sincerely William.

AND MY PERSONAL FAVORITE:
22.

At 07:14 PM on 27 Feb 2007,

Chris wrote:
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.

******************

Eventually, the BBC will come back and say, "When we said the building had collapsed, what we should have said was that it was 'in the process of collapsing', and in fact it did completely collapse a few moments later, so leave us alone." This will not convince those who rightly feel their trust has been violated.

If they had any regard for their viewers, they would do a searching, fearless investigation and show everyone "just how the sausage gets made". They will do anything, however, for this not to happen. Bank on it.

Added "my favorite" on edit

[Grateful for Hope]

154. Would like to add my personal favorite

Partial quote:

At 06:38 PM on 27 Feb 2007, Laz wrote:

""We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy)."

How convenient!!! So of course when you DO get hold of the footage, you can say "well this is not original footage so it's not reliable!" How utterly unpredictable."

The BBC will, in all likelihood, deny the reliability of the internet footage.

[SidDithers]

204. At least we agree on intent, Bryan...

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on degree of responsibility. I'm not prepared to go any farther than "the Beeb fucked up but good". I don't see anything sinister about errors, even huge ones, made in reporting during the confusion and chaos that was Sept 11.

Thanks for remaining civil and not engaging in baseless speculation.

:toast:

Sid

[FourScore]

216. Thank you for all your tireless work on 9/11 Bryan!!!

[Straight Shooter]

153. Now we're entering the realm of the surreal.

The original tapes of the most important event in history, only 5 years ago, are lost due to a "cock-up"? What, no digital archives?

Notice how they make fun of the word "conspiracy" as if to insulate themselves. I'm willing to say it wasn't a conspiracy in which the BBC was knowingly involved, but I'm not willing to agree they're telling the whole truth.

At least they're admitting the video, itself, is authentic. But I'm not buying those tapes are lost. No-way, no-how. What other news service produced footage at the time? Let them step forward and bolster or refute this video.

[file83]

161. They can't explain it - so they must bait people into believing they are

not only stupid (we made an "error), but to make them believe that their "errors" just-so-happened-to-be spot-on accurate premonitions/predictions of a very specific event that had yet to unfold.

In short, this guy wants us to believe that they "accidently" predicted a very specific future event. Wow.

But that isn't even the part that makes me curious. What makes me curious is that he completely ignores the fact that they had somehow come across information that PREDICTED an event.

Does this fact not give the man pause? No it doesn't - he instantly waves it off as if "well there were rumors that WTC 7 could collapse..." or some bullshit like that.

In essence he is trying to sell us that the BBC has special segments produced and televised of buildings collapsing based on "rumors" that it "might occur", and then reports them as past events?

Bullshit. And here is why.

Watch the video - they clearly say again and again that the building had fallen down already - they were using PAST TENSE verbage.

If they wanted to report on a rumor that the building "might fall down" - then that's all they would have said, and refer to it as a possibility that might occur.

This BBC guy is trying to muddy the waters - doesn't want to even discuss what occured that day on that TV set and in that City - because to do so would require REAL reporting.

[Straight Shooter]

162. I wrote an entry to the blog, asking them to obtain other news footage shot same time, same scene.

I asked them to contrast and compare the footage from other news stations with what their video reports. I mentioned that news footage taken simultaneously would either refute or bolster the discrepancies in their video. They haven't posted my comment (yet).

The blogosphere is not going to let go of this one. There is something very disingenuous about BBC's handling of the response to this video.

[file83]

163. Let us know if they respond...

...but I doubt it - that would require they actually do something called investigating!

[StrictlyRockers]

167. The BBC has offered nothing even close to reasonable as an excuse for this.

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

[rman]

203. It's not as though anyone is expecting the BBC (or anyone else) to admit

they were in on it. And if they were in on it then certainly not every single BBC employee was in on it.
If they are going to say anything about it, it is to be expected they will deny involvement. These statements of them don't prove anything either way.

[FourScore]

165. I don't know if you are still reading the replies to this thread

or not Larissa. In any case,

Aaron Brown also reported on the imminent collapse of WTC7 before it occured. I remember numerous press reports that day forecasting that the building would fall. I would assume that the BBC merely misunderstood and reported it as actually having had happened rather than that it was about to happen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1LetB0z8_o

What strikes me as odd is that CNN had a steady camera on the builing the whole time waiting for it to collapse but (apparently) never showed it on the air. They must have footage of it. Flashes can also be seen on this video.

[Twist_U_Up]

169. Everybody knows that "pull it" is super secret code for

let's get those people that are screaming 'it's about to blow up' away from the building because my psychic intuition informs me that the building's supports may just spontaneously collapse in a completely unexplainable freak accident that denies the laws of physics and has nothing whatsoever to do with the explosions the people inside are yelling about.

[FourScore]

170. lol

I have no doubt the building was detonated. The flashes are visible behind Aaron Brown's shoulder in the video link I provided. I wonder what happened to the CNN video of the collapse? They had a steady cam on it. Why wasn't it ever shown??? I've been searching for a CNN link. At the time of the actual collapse, Judy Woodruff was interviewing Tom Clancy. But she cuts off TC for a "breaking report" from Aaron Brown. Then they never show the actual collapse footage, they only report that the building has collapsed. What's up with that? They had a steady cam on it the whole time to catch the collapse, but then they don't do a replay of it (not that I can find). Odd.

[vincent_vega_lives]

178. I can see it now

"You know, I'm not sure that making it look like aircraft crash into WTC1 & WTC2 and then demolishing them along with thousands of people is enough. Why don't we randomly demolish another building...say WTC7? We won't even use the plane holograph or satellite death ray...just detonate it for shytes and giggles. That'll REALLY fuck'em up!" :eyes:

[BuyingThyme]

179. Or they can just pull it, thus avoiding a

month-long inferno in the middle of a disaster area.

[vincent_vega_lives]

182. And how exactly would "they" pull anything other their puds?

While the building was in the shape it was? And how would that contribute to a criminal conspiracy? Please explain!

[BuyingThyme]

183. Yes, we would all like to know how they pulled it.

[jberryhill]

181. No, no, no... you fail to understand

The Bush Administration needed a pretext for war.

They had done polling in the afternoon that indicated people really weren't concerned all that much about WTC 1 and 2 falling, by the attack on the Pentagon, or by another aircraft lost in Pennsylvania.

But when WTC 7 came down - oh boy - that's when everyone said, "Okay, that was the LAST straw!" and got upset about what was going on that day.

Without WTC 7, people would have remained focussed on the Enron story or Brangelina, and the whole 9/11 attack thing would have run between the food section and the classifieds.

[StrictlyRockers]

184. No, no, no... you fail to understand.

The war on the US was started as soon as the Bush administration came into power in January 2001. After that time there was no guaranteeing that anything the administration told us regarding war was actually true. In fact, almost everything that they told us has been proven to be a lie. What we are finding is that they also lied to us about 9/11, not just everything else.

SR

[Grateful for Hope]

190. Actually

I think the "war on the US" was started as soon as the Supreme Court handed the election to Junior.

[vincent_vega_lives]

193. Right keep believing that

there was no terrorist threat to the US prior to 2000. Talk about living in a fantasy world. Can you perhaps comprehend that there is a world outside your limited understanding consisting of real people that have their own agendas that are not manipulated by GWB.

Those of us that pay attention to what matters know better.

[Devon77]

197. yep

We are simply in a situation where this president is really taking his notion of executive privilege to the absolute limit here, running covert operations, using money that was not authorized by Congress, supporting groups indirectly that are involved with the same people that did 9/11, and we should be arresting these people rather than looking the other way…


http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/02/25/seymour-hersh-negroponte-iran-contra-fundsoh-my/

[CJCRANE]

202. Of course

there are and were terrorist threats to US interests but that doesn't rule out a joint venture with a rogue American faction. Just look at where the hijackers came from and who funded them. Then look at who the financiers are linked to. That's just the starting point.

[FreeMeFromInsanity]

219. No, no, no... you fail to understand.

A sincere question, how many times do people have to be lied to? 10 times, 20 times... I just can't comprehend why the majority wouldn't want another investigation. Actually the average person I come across in my daily life don't believe what we are told about 9/11.

I'm sick of all this secrecy. If we wait another 50 years for this to be exposed, it will be to late. People's memory fades... People die.

[CJCRANE]

192. It depends what was *in* WTC7.

And it's easy to poke fun:

Hey, why didn't B*sh just blame 9/11 on a country that had nothing to do with the attacks, fix some intelligence to make it look like they had WMD, blow the cover of a CIA agent tasked with tracking down WMD, take away American civil liberties and just lie about everything they've ever done...

Oh wait, they just did.

[vincent_vega_lives]

194. That might have been effective if they had done it even

a fraction as competently as CT'ers claim they did with their version of events.

Lets see... my version of events:

Government caught flatfooted by 9-11 attacks. Administration napping to real threat.

Laughable attempt to dig up WMD in Iraq, fake or otherwise.

Clumsy administration attempt to link Iraq to 9-11 attacks. Invade said country unprepared and with a pathetic excuse for a plan and destroy any shred of doubt that they are incompetent.

Pathetic attempt to discredit Administration critics.

Band-aid the problem with new Dept of 'Homeland security' and an act that lets the FBI look at our library cards without a warrant.

YOUR VERSION OF EVENTS:

Administration launches a near PERFECT complex criminal conspiracy involving multiple agencies and perfect synchronization across time and space, compromising thousands of individuals with criminal knowledge, murder and disgrace, expect them to keep the secret (as we know everyone who collects a government paycheck is immoral) and then not bother to eliminate anyone who attempts to out the conspiracy that would result in life terms for those involved.

:eyes:

[CJCRANE]

195. You're implying that my position is

that they're evil and competent.

However, I think they're evil and incompetent. They pulled off 9/11 fairly successfully on the day and for years aftwerwards kept us in line with daily browbeating. But there is no such thing as a perfect crime, especially when you leave your fingerprints all over the crime scene. Perpetrating a crime is easy, not getting caught is the hard part. And to be honest how can they get caught when they're in charge? Who would arrest Bush-Cheney?

[vincent_vega_lives]

211. Any Representative or Senator could initiate Impeachment

Then if investigation found evidence of having commited a crime, the feds would have to arrest them.