BBC announced collapse of WT7 before it happened!

[kyser_soze]

So wait a sec. I realise that FM pointed this out on P1, but just so we're clear...

'EDT' is 4 hours behind UK time.
WTC 7 collapsed at 1720 EDT, or 2120 GMT.
The BBC reported the collapse at 10pm GMT

This all seems a little too simple to unravel as a conspiracy...

 

[FridgeMagnet]

So wait a sec. I realise that FM pointed this out on P1, but just so we're clear...

'EDT' is 4 hours behind UK time.
WTC 7 collapsed at 1720 EDT, or 2120 GMT.
The BBC reported the collapse at 10pm GMT

This all seems a little too simple to unravel as a conspiracy...

There is no such thing as "too simple" with these things.

That's why I want to find out how it was that the loon video decided that it was 10pm BST - because if it was someone saying "it's ten o'clock", or a file timestamped 10pm, that means that it _wasn't_ 10pm BST in all likelihood as BBC World will be dealing in GMT.

Of course, it's also possible that they were just reporting a rumour. But I want to make sure of this bit first. Mysteriously I can't find any reference to the method anywhere.

 

[Jazzz]

So wait a sec. I realise that FM pointed this out on P1, but just so we're clear...

'EDT' is 4 hours behind UK time.
WTC 7 collapsed at 1720 EDT, or 2120 GMT.
The BBC reported the collapse at 10pm GMT

This all seems a little too simple to unravel as a conspiracy...

Nope. The times are as I reported in my opening post. This is proved by

1) WTC7 clearly standing in the background after it's been reported to have fallen

2) Nemo's post, which correlates closely (two minutes before the BBC report) and we know exactly what time that was - 4.55pm EDT.

 

[kyser_soze]

OK, I'm there now...

 

[FridgeMagnet]

The loons have it in for the BBC now, after the 911 program they ran recently.

Just to show what I mean, take a look at this comment thread:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html#commentsanchor

 

[FridgeMagnet]

2) Nemo's post, which correlates closely (two minutes before the BBC report) and we know exactly what time that was - 4.55pm EDT.

Slight issue there in that your link doesn't go to a post by Nemo, or a page with a post by Nemo.

Should it exist, though - and I'm sure you'd never say anything in the slightest inaccurate - it wouldn't actually prove anything independently anyway since I believe he wasn't actually in NYC at the time.

 

[Guineveretoo]

I did find the post by Nemo, but there were also dozens of posts there from other people about reports of things which hadn't actually happened and speculation.

The thread was dealing with rumour and hearsay and, interspersed in there, some facts. Who knows whether Nemo was reporting something that was right?

As to whether or not the timestamp of that archived thread is right, I have no idea, and not sure what it proves anyway

ETA Maybe Nemo was listening to, or watching, whatever source it was from which the BBC got its information. I really don't believe that, in the middle of a major catastrophe like that, there were too many press releases being issued, so the BBC World would have got its information from wherever it could, including websites and other news channels.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

WTC7 caught fire at 16:10 EDT iirc, which could easily have been reported as "it's fallen down" via the chinese whispers that were going on at the time. I remember hearing that there was a truck bomb at the Pentagon via the news channels; it turned out that there hadn't been one.

But I want to check this time thing first. I want to know how the loon video pins the time down to what it claims it is.

 

[magneze]

So ... err ... what's the outcome so far? Nemo did it?

 

[kyser_soze]

Jesus, there are THOUSANDS of these nutters out there.

Some of those comments on the BBC website about the show...

 

[Yossarian]

This is the lamest load of Conspirashite yet, it's scarcely even worth the effort of laughing at Jazzz over it.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Like I said, they have it in for the BBC now.

This seems to come from a thread on nineeleven.co.uk which my flatmate forwarded to me (she's a bit of a conspiraloon, you can imagine this causes the odd argument). They're absolutely livid there about that program.

There's pretty much zero word on what this might mean even if some BBC lot got it completely wrong and thought the building was coming down. Except if you already believe every aspect of the whole thing was staged and there were a set of releases to go out, which everyone was in on, and they did it really, really badly and couldn't tell when they were supposed to release their fake footage.

 

[Yossarian]

Like I said, they have it in for the BBC now.

I guess that was always going to happen - if the options are either 1)The 9/11Truthers are totally, screamingly, wildly, hilarious wrong or 2)The BBC is part of the conspiracy, then it's no shocker which one they went for...

 

[FridgeMagnet]

The threads on this are amusing. So many people saying "omg this is the best evidence ever and completely floors the BBC and proves that BUSH KNEW" despite, well, at the worst it meaning that some rumour going round that WTC7 had already collapsed when it was only on fire.

 

[Jazzz]

Like I said, they have it in for the BBC now.

This seems to come from a thread on nineeleven.co.uk which my flatmate forwarded to me (she's a bit of a conspiraloon, you can imagine this causes the odd argument). They're absolutely livid there about that program.

There's pretty much zero word on what this might mean even if some BBC lot got it completely wrong and thought the building was coming down. Except if you already believe every aspect of the whole thing was staged and there were a set of releases to go out, which everyone was in on, and they did it really, really badly and couldn't tell when they were supposed to release their fake footage.

Nemo's post was linked to in the OP. Let me know if you have further problems finding it.

I linked to earlier on the other thread - showing that the forthcoming collapse of WTC7 seemed to be common knowledge amongst the emergency services. How was this?

What this all means is that either this was the most extraordinary coincidence - a false report of the building collapse was made to the BBC (how someone could get that wrong is pretty bizarre in itself, I mean the building's either up or down), and that report somehow passed the checking so it reported as fact not as unconfirmed, or even as a 'report' - and then - the most implausible bit - the building obliged the false report by swanning down shortly afterwards.

Or prior knowledge of the collapse existed and somehow leaked before its time.

 

[editor]

Or prior knowledge of the collapse existed and somehow leaked before its time.

So do you believe that the BBC were in on it? YES/NO?

 

[Jazzz]

WTC7 caught fire at 16:10 EDT iirc, which could easily have been reported as "it's fallen down" via the chinese whispers that were going on at the time. I remember hearing that there was a truck bomb at the Pentagon via the news channels; it turned out that there hadn't been one.

But I want to check this time thing first. I want to know how the loon video pins the time down to what it claims it is.

'Caught fire' is generally quite distinguishable from 'fallen down' in my experience (besides why didn't it catch fire until well after the collapse of WTC1?)

The Pentagon confusion is easily explained when you consider that a plane didn't hit it. This is evidence against the official theory, not for it.

The source for the video was the BBC archives. They've now pulled it (as have google video).

 

[Kid_Eternity]

I guess that was always going to happen - if the options are either 1)The 9/11Truthers are totally, screamingly, wildly, hilarious wrong or 2)The BBC is part of the conspiracy, then it's no shocker which one they went for...

There's an interesting trend here of the widening circle. What happens when they utterly believe that everyone in the world bar them were 'in on it'?

 

[editor]

The source for the video was the BBC archives. They've now pulled it (as have google video).

So they must be in on it too, along with Google, yes?

Or perhaps they just objected to copyright-stealing loons using their material for their twisted fantasies?

Which do you think it is, Jazzz?

 

[Jazzz]

So do you believe that the BBC were in on it? YES/NO?

No, obviously

 

[DrRingDing]

So do you believe that the BBC were in on it? YES/NO?

The BBC is complicit in that it ignores or describes events in a light that reduces harm to people that might get them sacked.

 

[editor]

No, obviously

So what's your point and why should "conspiracy denialists" be concerned about "trying to wave this one away"?

What conspiracy concerning the BBC are you referring to?

 

[editor]

The BBC is complicit in that it ignores or describes events in a light that reduces harm to people that might get them sacked.

What does that mean in relation to this thread, please?

 

[8den]

The BBC is complicit in that it ignores or describes events in a light that reduces harm to people that might get them sacked.

So you refuse to believe in the idea that the BBC could have made a mistake?

 

[DrRingDing]

What does that mean in relation to this thread, please?

It means that, although there may be decent people at the bbc, media presented to a mass audience genuinely questioning the Government, Bilderbergers etc is sidelined for more 'agreeable' material.

 

[DrRingDing]

So you refuse to believe in the idea that the BBC could have made a mistake?

I am not refering to the tower, just the bbc in general.

 

[Jazzz]

So what's your point and why should "conspiracy denialists" be concerned about "trying to wave this one away"?

What conspiracy concerning the BBC are you referring to?

I suggest you don't worry your little head about it

 

[editor]

I suggest you don't worry your little head about it

Please don't start another of your interminable wriggles.

I'm asking you a direct question in response to your opening post. Please have the courtesy to answer it.

If you're not prepared to engage in debate related to topics you start, you may as well retire to less questioning sites like your favourite one that carries the delightful Holocaust-denying material.

 

[8den]

I am not refering to the tower, just the bbc in general.

How so?

It means that, although there may be decent people at the bbc, media presented to a mass audience genuinely questioning the Government, Bilderbergers etc is sidelined for more 'agreeable' material.

Um what are you claiming that there are "decent people" who work at the BBC who allow their work to be subverted to ensure "more argreeable" material goes on air. Care to give some examples which directly relate to 911? Or hell indirectly relate to 911. I look forward to watching you explain how Gillian and the today show were sidelined this "agreeable" material.

Look mate the "decent people" you refer to are my co workers and myself. To suggest we've been cowed and oppressed by some sinister NWO plot is an insult to over half a century of superior BBC dogged investigative reporting and unbiased unfetered filmmaking.

Please provide some evidence to support your claims or kindly shut the fuck up.

 

[8den]

I suggest you don't worry your little head about it

Wow it took you around 117 posts before you started with the snide as homiens.

So Jazzz I'll ask again, are you claiming the BBC were actively involved or reading off a script? And if the latter how many BBC employees where involved? And Can I ask do you think the same number of employee's were hired by the NWO in most western media companies?

Hey I'm just asking questions.

Oh btw while we're looking at video check these out. Mark Roberts 911 conspiracy debunker extrodinaré, shreds Dylan Avery and Corey Bermas the director and producer of Loose Change. Mark's the bald guy with the facts and logic, Dylan the monosyabllic one and Bermas the guy who's forced to admit his film has "factual inaccuracies".