BBC announced collapse of WT7 before it happened!

[TAE]

Maybe there was some flammable material in the plane?

Don't be silly. Planes are very safe, how could they possibly carry 'flammable material' ?

 

[WouldBe]

Don't be silly. Planes are very safe, how could they possibly carry 'flammable material' ?

Jazzz's planes are probably elastic band powered.

 

[TAE]

It wasn't a dig at Jazzz. I mean, at least he cares, in a way.

What really pisses me off is people who just do not care either way.

 

[pk]

So that's at least three copies gone missing - and one would think it very likely that any tapes of 9/11 were kept under the strictest security.

What the hell are you talking about now Jazzz?

Are you concluding from one bit of banter here that the BBC has seriously mislaid 9/11 masters?

That's hard to believe, especially from you.

I've seen the tapes, and I've personally put them into VT machines and watched them, and there are at least three sets of the DVCam originals, dated 11th September 2001, with seamless GMT "time-of-day" timecode data, as fed from the Waterfront center in NYC, direct into the RCR NS recording bay (NS11?), via SCAR.

Not to mention the countless copies made since.

I'm sure Hendo (or anyone else actually familiar with real life BBC VT operations and not fantasy paranoid schizophrenic ideas about how it all works) would back me up on this, were he bothered to take any of your ridiculous statements of "fact" seriously.

So once again Jazzz, you are inventing statements based upon rumours that didn't exist in the first place.

The 9/11 recordings are available to anyone who wishes to see them, but they will not be pulled from an archive library on the whim of some dipshit conspiranoid loon, that I can guarantee.

 

[pk]

Let's put this matter to rest right now.

2 Mar 07, 04:43 PM


So how did the BBC report that Building 7 at the World Trade Centre had collapsed around half an hour before it did so?
We've been doing more investigating within the BBC to put together the sequence of events.

Five and a half years have passed so it's quite difficult to answer every outstanding question. But we do know quite a bit more than we did on Tuesday, as a result of checking the BBC archives and what other media were doing at the time. I've also read through some of the reports published after 9/11 to help put together the sequence of events.

Back to 11 September itself. The Twin Towers had collapsed. Other buildings were known to be damaged. Building 7 was on fire. But this was also a very confusing picture - remember we had started the day with reports that a light aircraft had struck the first tower, and at one stage there was talk of ten hijacked jets in the air. It's in the nature of rolling news that events unfold in front of you and confusion turns to clarity. It's important to remember that context when looking more closely at what happened between about 4.10pm (EDT) and 5.20pm when Building 7 finally collapsed.

CNN's chronology of events published at the time confirms they reported the building on fire and a clip from a CNN bulletin, widely available on the web, hears from a reporter at about 4.15pm EDT, 9.15pm in the UK, who says: "We're getting information that one of the other buildings... Building 7... is on fire and has either collapsed or is collapsing... now we're told there is a fire there and that the building may collapse as well."

Other American networks were broadcasting similar reports at this time and the reports from FEMA and NIST both make it clear the building was on fire during the course of the day.

One senior fire officer was quoted in a subsequent interview as saying there was a "bulge" in the building and he was "pretty sure it was going to collapse". During this time, our staff were talking directly to the emergency services and monitoring local and national media… and there was a fairly consistent picture being painted of Building 7 in danger of collapse. Producers in London would have been monitoring the news agency wires - the Associated Press, Reuters, etc - and although we don't routinely keep an archive of agency reports, we're sure they would have been reporting the same as the local media.

At 4.27pm, a BBC reporter, Greg Barrow, who is in New York, appears on our radio news channel, BBC Radio Five Live, and says: "We are hearing reports from local media that another building may have caught light and is in danger of collapse." He then responds to a follow-up question by saying "I'm not sure if it has yet collapsed but the report we have is talking about Building 7."

At 4.53pm, on the same radio station, the programme's presenter, Fi Glover says "25 minutes ago we had reports from Greg Barrow that another large building has collapsed just over an hour ago."

At 4.54pm, the BBC's domestic television news channel, BBC News 24, reports the same thing. Presenter Gavin Esler says: "We're now being told that yet another enormous building has collapsed... it is the 47-storey Salomon Brothers building."

And then at 4.57pm on BBC World (according to the clips available on the web) presenter Phil Hayton says: "We've got some news just coming in actually that the Salomon brothers building in NY right in the heart of Manhattan has also collapsed."

Because three BBC channels were saying this in quick succession, I am inclined to believe that one or more of the news agencies was reporting this, or at least reporting someone saying this.

At 5pm, News 24 repeated the news in its top-of-the-hour headlines sequence and then at about 5.10pm (again according to the clips on the web), Phil Hayton on BBC World says "More on the latest building collapse in NY - you might have heard I was talking a few moments ago about the Salomon building collapsing and indeed it has... it seems this wasn't the result of a new attack but because the building had been weakened during this morning's attack."

Some of the respondents to my earlier blog have suggested this must mean he had inside knowledge - that not only did he know the building had collapsed, he knew why.

Well in one sense that's true - for about an hour, it had been reported that the building was on fire and in danger of collapse. But he did qualify it by saying "it seems" and once again I think there's a danger of reading too much into what I believe was a presenter merely summarising what everyone had been saying during the previous hour.

Of course, with hindsight we now know that our live shot showed the building still standing in the background. But again I point to that confusing and chaotic situation on the ground - the CNN reporter who had talked about the building "either collapsed or is collapsing" also had it clearly in shot behind him, but he acknowledged he couldn't see very clearly from where he was standing. As we know, the building did collapse at 5.20pm, with the first pictures of that being broadcast on News 24 at about 5.35pm.

So that's what we know we reported. To me it paints a consistent (and reasonably conclusive) picture.

I should also mention the missing tapes. As you'll see from the details above, the absence of the BBC World tapes hasn't made much difference to our ability to look back at what happened. We have all the tapes of other BBC channels (and I now know that quite a few of you have your own copies of BBC World, which is an interesting discovery... ).

Some of you find it hard to believe we didn't keep the BBC World tapes... but we had several streams of news output running simultaneously on the day, both on radio and television as well as online and we have kept all the tapes from BBC News 24 and Radio Five Live, as well as all the BBC One bulletins. Obviously I wish we'd kept hold of the World tapes alongside all the others, but we didn't... and I don't know whether they were destroyed or mislaid. But as a result of this week's events, I have asked our archivists to get hold of copies of our original material from the organisations which do have them.

And just to be clear, the BBC policy is to keep every minute of news channel output for 90 days (in line with the Broadcasting Act in the UK). After that we are obliged to keep a representative sample - and we interpret that to mean roughly one third of all our output. We also keep a large amount of individual items (such as packaged reports or "rushes" - ie original unedited material), which we use for operational reasons - such as when we come to broadcast fresh stories on the subject. We do not lack a historical record of the event.

I've spent most of the week investigating this issue, but this is where we have to end the story.

I know there are many out there who won't believe our version of events, or will raise further questions.

But there was no conspiracy in the BBC's reporting of the events.

Nobody told us what to say.

There's no conspiracy involving missing tapes.

There's no story here.

 

[TAE]

What the fuck are you talking about?

Are you concluding from a bit of banter that the BBC has mislaid 9/11 masters?

That's exactly what the BBC blog claimed:

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.

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

I've seen them, I've watched them, and there are at least three sets of the DVCam originals, with seamless "time-of-day" timecode data, as fed from the Waterfront center in NYC, direct into the RCR NS recording bay (NS11?), via SCAR.

Not to mention the countless copies made since.

That's what we're saying, there's no way that the BBC would have lost those recordings.

 

[TAE]

Some of you find it hard to believe we didn't keep the BBC World tapes.

Yes, I do find it very hard to believe.

 

[laptop]

Yes, I do find it very hard to believe.

Have you ever worked in a large organisation?

Have you ever worked in any organisation?

 

[pk]

That's exactly what the BBC blog claimed.


That's what we're saying, there's no way that the BBC would have lost those recordings.

BBC World "masters" would have been recorded in the very same room as the News24 masters, and indeed the masters used on the main national news.

I know this because I have been involved in the bunfights between editors needing the same footage.

It works just like any satellite broadcast though - it's just a TV picture being sent - in the newsrooms of the BBC if you want to guarantee footage for your programme without waiting for others to finish with the tape, you record it off the line yourself - the BBC has a patching system like most other broadcaster, a matrix system which means you can dial in to any incoming satellite feed.

The main switching centre is like a telephone exchange, and you can access all of the incoming lines by using the SCAR prefix, hey presto, instant full quality video/audio feeds, exactly the same quality as the ones fed to live news and to the tape decks recording these supposedly missing masters.

In other words - the BBC World incoming "masters" would have been identical to the ones used by News24 and everywhere else... identical in timecode, the only difference would have been the start times of the recordings.

If you're talking about off-air recordings (or TX logs as they are known), they would normally only be kept for the legally required period, I forget how long that is exactly - but it's not five years.

 

[TAE]

So what are you saying?

Have the BBC really lost all recordings of the reporter stating that WTC7 has collapsed, as the blog claimed, or not?

 

[TAE]

Have you ever worked in a large organisation?

Have you ever worked in any organisation?

Yes.

 

[pk]

Looks like I'm the only person here this far who knows how BBC TV mastering works between London and NYC... seeing how I'm probably the only person here to have actually transmitted live broadcast TV pictures directly from New York's Waterfront centre to BBC SCAR London...

And of course from London SCAR to New York Waterfront (seeing as they require weekly feeds from the BBC) and did the same at other broadcast companies too.



Of course, Jazzz will still argue that he knows more than me about this stuff...

 

[TAE]

Just answer the question please.

 

[Jazzz]

So what are you saying?

Have the BBC really lost all recordings of the reporter stating that WTC7 has collapsed, as the blog claimed, or not?

I think pk was very clear TAE. He says they will have multiple copies of the 9/11 broadcasts and they will be under special security. He's even watched them himself!

 

[TAE]

His post #439 and #484 seem to contradict each other.

 

[TAE]

I think pk is trying to say something which is actually very relevant, but he's not explaining it very well.

 

[Jazzz]

His post #439 and #489 seem to contradict each other.

I think he's trying to say something which is actually very relevant but he's not explaining it very well.

Nah, they don't.

pk jumped on my 'conspiracy theory' about the tapes without realising that it wasn't my extraordinary claim that the tapes had been lost, but an official BBC announcement. So in his haste to attack me, he became the most vocal claimer of 'tape loss conspiracy' out of all of us.

Once you pointed that out, he had nowhere to go - of course he couldn't say 'oops', or 'well you guys have a point', because he's a coward. So instead he launches into some waffle of technical stuff in the hope it will somehow cover his hilarious mess up

 

[pk]

What question are you asking TAE?

Whether the BBC have BBC World off-air recordings from 2001?

According to Richard Porter, no, he appears to be relying on webclips (many archived by anti-semitic Jazzz-approved websites so I wouldn't trust them not to be tampered with to be honest).

Of course had you read my posts above you would have seen this, and the fact that there is only a limited time-period that off-air TX logs need to be kept as a legal requirement.

Unless you have an idea of how to store the 24 hour output of any given TV channel for five years - that's 43800 hours of footage, even on four hour tapes that's almost eleven thousand of them.... plus of course that's just one channel - there are at least 20 BBC channels that go to air all over the world, so that's... 219000 four hour tapes... then there's radio to consider...

Sorry mate - the idea that a five year old BBC World off-air recording going missing (also allowing for the crap archive system and penchant for the BBC to recycle tapes) is any sign of a conspiracy is a fucking joke to anyone who knows what they're talking about.

Even on 9/11.

Richard Porter explains it above, I can confirm it.

And in terms of the actual technical process I probably know more about the systems in place during the 9/11 attacks than he does.

 

[Jazzz]

Are you concluding from one bit of banter here that the BBC has seriously mislaid 9/11 masters?

That's hard to believe... I've seen the tapes, and I've personally put them into VT machines and watched them, and there are at least three sets of the DVCam originals... Not to mention the countless copies made since.

The 9/11 recordings are available to anyone who wishes to see them...

He's attempted the 180-without-anyone-noticing! A quite impossible stunt to pull off of course

 

[pk]

Of course, it all boils down to whether or not you believe the amateur web-sleuthing of Jazzz, who has been proved wrong on just about every sensationalist "fact" he has offered, that the BBC were somehow party to inside information from "black ops", or some lizards, or the fucking "illuminati"... whatever mystic holographic aliens he believes in this week.

Or whether you take my word for it, as someone who was personally involved in mastering, transmitting, duplicating, feeding, recording, labelling, sourcing, archiving, logging, and editing video news material in all the BBC TV Centre newsrooms throughout the period in question... including BBC World, which was seen as the poor cousin of News24 back then and certainly didn't enjoy the staffing ratios or archiving that News24 had.

 

[pk]

Ooh! He's attempted the 180! An impossible stunt to pull off of course

What are you on about now you deluded muppet?

"180"?

Is your medication playing tricks on you again?

Or are you still suffering the effects of being on the cover of 'Owned Monthly' for the third month running?

 

[TAE]

What question are you asking TAE?

Simple:

Have the BBC really lost all recordings of the reporter stating that WTC7 has collapsed, as the blog claimed, or not?

Note that the blog claimed the loss was a cock-up (see post #425).

Whether the BBC have BBC World off-air recordings from 2001?

The reporter was talking to the studio presenter 'on air' so I'm not sure what you mean by off-air. From your posts I got the impression that all incoming live feeds were recorded and kept.

 

[Jazzz]

Of course, it all boils down to whether or not you believe the amateur web-sleuthing of Jazzz...

Or whether you take my word for it

Oh we're quite happy to take your word for it. But which one?

The one where you claim the tapes certainly exist (you've watched them, after all), or the one where you accept the word of the BBC chap that they were mislaid?

 

[pk]

TAE - There seems to be some confusion with what you have read... and Jazzz is eagerly siding with you, so to avoid your embarrassment let's go through it again.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TAE

if they've lost their own 9/11 broadcast tapes, they are utterly incompetent beyond belief.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bristol_citizen

Perfectly possible. The BBC is basically a load of Oxbridge chumps. Given the massive resources they have and the myths they can create with them, their journalism is usually well below average. I doubt their archivists are any better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pk

I know for a fact they aren't....
-----------------------------------

That is to say - their archivists aren't any better than below average, and certainly not when dealing with off-air recordings, because such recordings aren't viewed as valuable because they will be of low quality and also covered with time-stamps, "bugs" i.e. logos (BBC World in the top corner) plus running headlines, stock market prices, etc. all the text shit that gets added as it goes to air.

Whereas the ORIGINAL feed material as sent from NYC will 100 percent definitely be archived, definitely, and it is these tapes I referred to when I mentioned the three copies (at least) on DVCam - large format tapes (180 minutes) and I remember them clearly and remember thinking that these were a significant part of history... being aware that every broadcaster in the country would have recorded them also... these would be the "clean feed" recordings direct from NYC from which the news stories would have been made.

Is that any clearer? I hope so.

 

[Jazzz]

Is that any clearer? I hope so.

You mean you hope not!

 

[pk]

Simple:

Note that the blog claimed the loss was a cock-up (see post #425).


The reporter was talking to the studio presenter 'on air' so I'm not sure what you mean by off-air. From your posts I got the impression that all incoming live feeds were recorded and kept.

OK, fair point - if the live recordings on the day from New York were interspersed with a reporter giving occasional bulletins, then these would be on the same tapes as the ongoing live footage, unless they booked seperate lines for the reporters... entirely possible but as it was over 5 years ago I don't remember.

I guess to clear it up all they would need to do would be to dredge up the feed tapes recorded on 9/11 and play them back around the times in question.

You are confused by the "on-air" and "off air" stuff, basically if there's a line open between NYC and London it will show everything, not all of that stuff will be shown in news reports, it's up to editors to decide.

For example, there were detailed statements made by police officials, fire crews, etc, as regards road closures and Metro line suspensions - obviously this stuff never made it to air in the UK as it was irrelevant to us, but it was still recorded.

The fires burned for weeks, and the chaos settled down, eventually the only feeds that were recorded direct from NYC were scheduled daily press statements, but I can tell you that on the day itself and the next day at least... everything fed from NYC was recorded and kept.

Everything transmitted from BBC World would have been kept too, for a while, but it's not "utterly incompetent beyond belief" if those tapes have been destroyed/recycled as BBC World is a minor channel, compared to the 10 o'clock news which is taped and archived routinely.

 

[pk]

You mean you hope not!

I'm trying to explain some facts to TAE, who appears interested in the mechanisms of news archiving.

You however, are clearly disrupting the thread now that you have been owned for the - what? - eighth time in two weeks?

Have you any comment to make about the Richard Porter blog I posted above?

Or is this yet another smokescreen to try and disguise your utter incompetance?

 

[pk]

you claim the tapes certainly exist (you've watched them, after all), or the one where you accept the word of the BBC chap that they were mislaid?

If your medication worked, you would be able to see quite clearly that I am referring to two entirely different sets of tapes.

One set would be the clean feeds from NYC.

The other set would be the recordings from BBC World's output.

Please try to keep up, and perhaps consult your doctor in the morning if you are having trouble concentrating on simple text.



By the way Jazzz - what does "JO911B" actually mean?

I ask because I noticed you are selling t-shirts with that printed on them, on behalf of the holocaust-denying website you belong to.

 

[pk]

Nope.... it looks like he's scarpered again... bye Jazzz!

 

[pk]

Come back when you're prepared to explain what "JO911B" means, Jazzz.