BBC and WTC 7 on 9/11: confusion or NWO-blunder?

[Panoply_Prefect]

Canadian Jeff has got hold of the reporter's number and tried to contact her:

http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/janes_office.mp3

Interesting that he uses a false name...

It sounds like the BBC is very aware of this and are preparing a response.

I wouldn't bet on it m8. The station I work at get numerous selfrighteous calls from fringe-heads and I wouldn't be surprised if the guy answering just wanted to in a polite way let "Jeff" get it off his chest.

But you never know.

Cheers,
SLOB

 

[332nd]

Are you talking about compressed air?
Yes, thats explosive - remember Jaws?

Remember Mythbusters? (Hint: Jaws was a movie. they tend to exaggerate a bit.)

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I think it's just one large explosion with an echo.

RE scooby & Redtail: I think it's overstepping the available information to even label it an explosion. Without proper audio analysis how can we tell it's not (1) a steel beam snapping, (2) a large piece of debris striking something, (3) an explosion, etc. Also, we don't know from where the sound eminated in the film; we assume WTC 7 since that is what they are filming, but without speaking to the filmer or people seen in the film that is just an assumption on our part.

 

[332nd]

I think it's just one large explosion with an echo.

This morning I would have aggreed with you. Now it's 2 quick booms with an echo.

 

[scooby]

This latest BBC video is good news though, don't you think?

Combined with the CNN footage, which makes an independent error by each unlikely, particularly an error that correctly predicts the future - it demonstrates the creation of fake news stories on the day of 911 and their 'stovepiping' directly into the mainstream media. By who would be the obvious question.

But there aren't many groups who would be able to get a false story into a BBC World Service Live Report on a day like 911.

 

[maccy]

I wouldn't bet on it m8. The station I work at get numerous selfrighteous calls from fringe-heads and I wouldn't be surprised if the guy answering just wanted to in a polite way let "Jeff" get it off his chest.

But you never know.

Cheers,
SLOB

It was the fact that he already knew about the video that made me think they were taking it seriously.

I imagine they're just quite embarrassed.

 

[scooby]

RE scooby & Redtail: I think it's overstepping the available information to even label it an explosion. Without proper audio analysis how can we tell it's not (1) a steel beam snapping, (2) a large piece of debris striking something, (3) an explosion, etc. Also, we don't know from where the sound eminated in the film; we assume WTC 7 since that is what they are filming, but without speaking to the filmer or people seen in the film that is just an assumption on our part.

No it's quite simple.

It's certainly an explosive noise, and absent any reason to conclude otherwise - perhaps evidence of a steel beam snapping, it would be safest to assume that an explosion caused it.

We would be overstepping the available information if we stated that it was not the sound of an explosion.

 

[Panoply_Prefect]

Are you talking about compressed air?
Yes, thats explosive - remember Jaws?

So you would like to maintain that "air" (eg "what is in the atmosphere") would be properly described as "an explosive"?

Water then would in the same experiment be defined as "an explosive" since it would pretty much give the same effect if enough quantity would be pressed into said ballon.

/SLOB

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

<snip>
Combined with the CNN footage, which makes an independent error by each unlikely

Why?

, particularly an error that correctly predicts the future -

Can it be shown that one was not re-reporting what the other had said?

it demonstrates the creation of fake news stories on the day of 911 and their 'stovepiping' directly into the mainstream media.

Not without showing one, or both, had the information fed to them. Do not confuse corralation for causation.

By who would be the obvious question.

Not until it has been substantiated.

But there aren't many groups who would be able to get a false story into a BBC World Service Live Report on a day like 911.[/quote]

 

[parmanides]

Did you miss the part where the same person said that there was "fire and debris" coming down?

erm the building was on fire

Additionally, this still does nothing to address the critique of your post that you are assuming that they differentiated between the risk of partial vs. global collapse and that they specified global collapse.

The bbc peice says like the twin towers, wtc 7 has collapsed - what other context is there? if there was a partial collapse they would barely mention it - stop playing with words and admit that for whatever reason, those in charge knew of a considerable and time specific collapse

"watch that building its COMING DOWN" "blow up" rushing away -who told them this, can only be directed from one of those who assessed the damage

i paraphrase my previous question (which STILL noone has answered)

"Did the sources that claim this damage, predict a sudden and overwhelming collapse in that time frame? " If not case closed

 

[Panoply_Prefect]

It was the fact that he already knew about the video that made me think they were taking it seriously.

I imagine they're just quite embarrassed.

My guess is that that poor guy got ten or more such calls, each being as selfrighteous as "Jeff", all steaming with "WE WANT THE TRUTH!" and that after awhile it gets tedious. The first couple of replies probably got an answer in the lines of "Well, if that was the case it was probably done in error due to the confusion at the time", and since that probably just invoked more selfrighteousness (I need a synonyme to that word...) he had to change it a tad.

Cheers,
SLOB

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

No it's quite simple.

It's certainly an explosive noise, and absent any reason to conclude otherwise - perhaps evidence of a steel beam snapping, it would be safest to assume that an explosion caused it.

We would be overstepping the available information if we stated that it was not the sound of an explosion.

That is not how science works. All possible causes of the sound in the video should be enumerated. Hypothesis should be drawn up as to what evidence would support, or contradict, each possible cause. Evidence should be gathered to evaluate the hypothesis. Wash, rinse, repeat until one stands out.

What you are suggesting, is to work backwards from the conclusion. This is very bad science.

 

[332nd]

RE scooby & Redtail: I think it's overstepping the available information to even label it an explosion. Without proper audio analysis how can we tell it's not (1) a steel beam snapping, (2) a large piece of debris striking something, (3) an explosion, etc. Also, we don't know from where the sound eminated in the film; we assume WTC 7 since that is what they are filming, but without speaking to the filmer or people seen in the film that is just an assumption on our part.

True. In that case I retract "explosion" and say "it sounds like an explosion."

ETA: Come to think of it i remember seeing a History/Discovery channel show about a large crane that had a foot thick bolt snap that sounded like an explosion albeit smaller.

 

[scooby]

So you would like to maintain that "air" (eg "what is in the atmosphere") would be properly described as "an explosive"?

Water then would in the same experiment be defined as "an explosive" since it would pretty much give the same effect if enough quantity would be pressed into said ballon.

/SLOB

No not at all, I wasn't talking about air, somebody else mentioned that.
I hardly think tanks of compressed air caused the buildings to collapse - explosive or not. Do you?

I was just pointing out that it is a given, that explosions are caused by something exploding. The causes and type can of course be many. But if it goes up you don't want to be sitting on it.

 

[scooby]

That is not how science works. All possible causes of the sound in the video should be enumerated. Hypothesis should be drawn up as to what evidence would support, or contradict, each possible cause. Evidence should be gathered to evaluate the hypothesis. Wash, rinse, repeat until one stands out.

What you are suggesting, is to work backwards from the conclusion. This is very bad science.

Please feel free to enumerate the possible alternative causes of an explosive bang of considerable magnitutude, other than an explosion.

 

[apathoid]

I was just pointing out that it is a given, that explosions are caused by something exploding. The causes and type can of course be many. But if it goes up you don't want to be sitting on it.

Just out of curiosity: How many explosions would you have expected to hear for a 47 story building demolition? I'd expect a few hundred sequenced over a few seconds. What we have are a few isolated explosions well before the building collapsed - hardly evidence of demolition charges.

 

[Panoply_Prefect]

No not at all, I wasn't talking about air, somebody else mentioned that.
I hardly think tanks of compressed air caused the buildings to collapse - explosive or not. Do you?

I was just pointing out that it is a given, that explosions are caused by something exploding. The causes and type can of course be many. But if it goes up you don't want to be sitting on it.

Yes, but something that sounds like an explosion does not equal the presence of explosives. Eg an elevator cart falling down a shaft can be experienced by people in the vincinity as "an explosion". Or an elevator wire snapping.

Doesn't mean its CD.

Cheers,
S

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Please feel free to enumerate the possible alternative causes of an explosive bang of considerable magnitutude, other than an explosion.

Already had two examples in my above post http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2383329#post2383329 here. Additionally, I'm not the one making the claim that it is an explosion. If you wish to forward that claim then, by all means, please do. If you do, however, use proper scientific methodology to support it.

 

[apathoid]

Please feel free to enumerate the possible alternative causes of an explosive bang of considerable magnitutude, other than an explosion.

Have you not been reading? Explosions. Explosives. Two different things. As far what could have caused the explosions, for starters:

-transformers
-electrical substations
-fire extinguishers
-structural steel members snapping
-gas lines
-anything with contents under pressure(household cleaning supplies)

 

[boloboffin]

Beeb's reply is up:

The 9/11 conspiracy theories are pretty well known by now. The BBC addressed them earlier this month with a documentary, The Conspiracy Files, shown within the UK.

Until now, I don't think we've been accused of being part of the conspiracy. But now some websites are using news footage from BBC World on September 11th 2001 to suggest we were actively participating in some sort of attempt to manipulate the audience. As a result, we're now getting lots of emails asking us to clarify our position. So here goes:

1. We're not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening.

2. In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had. We did what we always did - sourced our reports, used qualifying words like "apparently" or "it's reported" or "we're hearing" and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving.

An image of the website hosting the alleged BBC World footage3. Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I've spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn't remember minute-by-minute what she said or did - like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services.

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. As one of the comments on You Tube says today "so the guy in the studio didn't quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy... "

Richard Porter is head of news, BBC World