• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Firestone

Proud Award Award recipient
Firestone
Joined
Oct 25, 2006
Messages
3,018
Location
Belgium
This is an interesting video showing part of the BBC World Service's live coverage of the events on 9/11.
(It also includes some propaganda, of course.)

Google Video This video is not hosted by the ISF, the ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


The video shows the coverage from around 5pm EST.

At 4.57pm, the collapse of the Salomon Building (WTC 7) is announced. That's 23 minutes before the actual collapse.

Later, around 5.15pm EST, BBC correspondent Jane Standley is talking from New York City, with WTC 7 in her background clearly still standing, while the collapse is mentioned on the screen.

bbc.jpg

So, is this an example of the confusion reigning on that day, or did a secretary of the evil NWO send the press release too early to the BBC?

Guess what the boys at LCF are thinking.

What is actually interesting is the heavy smoke escaping from WTC 7 during the whole sequence with Jane Standley .
 
Last edited:
This is truly bizarre. I didn't think wtc 7 was that suspicious but I do now.

How the **** can anyone explain this?
 
Aphelion said:
This is truly bizarre. I didn't think wtc 7 was that suspicious but I do now.

How the **** can anyone explain this?
Click to expand...

You ever worked in TV news? Ever been in the gallery? Thought not.

Journalists knew WTC 7 was in danger of collapse. The caption operator very probably had a caption typed up and ready to go just in case. That's not unusual. The caption operator then screwed up and displayed the wrong caption. That's far from unusual also.

Sinister secret demolitions are quite unusual though aren't they?

Edit: okay, ignore the above. I hadn't watched the video properly.
 
Last edited:
I've been working in the tv business since 2000. When the heat is on, **** happens. Mistakes gets made in the heat of the moment as a direct result of getting news to the people asap.

When a journalist gets a news item to cover, non-live and the 2 minute timespan that is, it's generally shot, edited and racked up for broadcast within a 5-6 hour period WITH preparation and written blurbs. That means room for mistake due to misunderstandings or bad information. Add to that the human factor.

Now compare it to a live, real time coverage of a disaster like 9-11 where no one really knew what the hell was going on and only had rumors to go on for much of the information and you got a bloody war zone going on in the broadcast booth.

To get a clear picture of what it COULD look like, imagine a small room with a wall full of monitors and a bank of various equipments in front of maybe 6-7 people. One is a live-editor, one takes care of sound, one manages satellite feeds, there's a "director" and one poor soul taking care of the written blurbs.

You've got signals coming in from at least 4 different places in New York which means at least 4 different journalists feeding the broadcast crew back on the farm information through an ear piece/mic. You've got various in house researchers and journalists running around trying to gather as much information as they can, including the unavoidable claptrap which they must attempt to filter out with nothing to compare it to.
You've got feeds from OTHER news services online as well to try and keep up with things.

Airing of wrongful information is BOUND to happen.
 
The_Fire said:
I've been working in the tv business since 2000. When the heat is on, **** happens. Mistakes gets made in the heat of the moment as a direct result of getting news to the people asap.

When a journalist gets a news item to cover, non-live and the 2 minute timespan that is, it's generally shot, edited and racked up for broadcast within a 5-6 hour period WITH preparation and written blurbs. That means room for mistake due to misunderstandings or bad information. Add to that the human factor.

Now compare it to a live, real time coverage of a disaster like 9-11 where no one really knew what the hell was going on and only had rumors to go on for much of the information and you got a bloody war zone going on in the broadcast booth.

To get a clear picture of what it COULD look like, imagine a small room with a wall full of monitors and a bank of various equipments in front of maybe 6-7 people. One is a live-editor, one takes care of sound, one manages satellite feeds, there's a "director" and one poor soul taking care of the written blurbs.

You've got signals coming in from at least 4 different places in New York which means at least 4 different journalists feeding the broadcast crew back on the farm information through an ear piece/mic. You've got various in house researchers and journalists running around trying to gather as much information as they can, including the unavoidable claptrap which they must attempt to filter out with nothing to compare it to.
You've got feeds from OTHER news services online as well to try and keep up with things.

Airing of wrongful information is BOUND to happen.
Click to expand...
In addition you have jammed phone lines and circuits due to the overwhelming number of calls being made, so it is hard to confirm any information. Plus, being the BBC they have a ocean between them and the events. All flights to the US are cancelled, so they are unable to send anymore reporters to NYC, and they must rely more heavily than they like on other news outlets. They may also not be familiar enough with the WTC complex to know which is WTC7. They keep hearing that it is going to collapse and may have jumped the gun.

With so much confusion going on that day, I would rely more on the reports from days after 9/11 rather than the live coverage.
 
I would say they probably got to know that people were evacuated from the area, because WTC 7 was in danger of collapsing. Somewhere along the line during the busy newsday someone made a mistake, and the report changed to the one we are seeing. To a report that WTC 7 had already collapsed, when it actually was still only in danger of doing so.

I love the CT logic. This is the most secret NWO operation ever, but hell, they release a press report stating that a building they demolished has collapsed, when in reality everyone can see on their screens that the building is still standing. OOPS.

And Alex Jones would say, they are this arrogant, they laugh in your faces!
 
I bet they didn't bother to actually check on this... It just "appears as if" they were notified or there was a press release. So the fact that the press release probably said "is expected to collapse" (if there even was a press release- probably just a lot of talk from higher-ups, like... say... the fire chief).

No investigation, of course- just a lot of speculation...
 
Our good friend Jeff has called the BBC about this.

I can't listen to it here at work, so I have no idea what it says, but for the record, here it is: Jeff/Shure calls the BBC.

The original BBC footage is here (it's 1Gb).
 
Firestone said:
Our good friend Jeff has called the BBC about this.

I can't listen to it here at work, so I have no idea what it says, but for the record, here it is: Jeff/Shure calls the BBC.

The original BBC footage is here (it's 1Gb).
Click to expand...

It's nothing- he's just catching some poor secretary off guard and going off on a speech so he can inject language which strongly suggests what he thinks the reasons are.

When he gets a call back, I bet he won't post it.
 
I remember on September 11 hearing quite clearly that at least 8 aircraft had been confirmed hijacked. I recall hearing that San Francisco and other west coast cities had been hit, and that the hijackers were starting to simply crash the planes now that their plans were known. I also recall hearing of car/truck bombs going off in DC and elsewhere.

Obviously none of this was actually true. It's hard to appreciate the chaos of that day looking back. Nobody knew just what was happening.
 
Man, those NWO conspirators sure are bad at keeping secrets!
 
I to work in the 'biz' and what we saw from the BBC was a very amazing gaff for such a reputable news organization.

Roughly 7 hours since the last collapse, well after the major news has occured, they make this sensational unsubstantiated claim and continue to build on it.

Meanwhile, they are receiving via satellite, all the major American news feeds as well as their own live feeds from New York City. And strangely, no one apparently wondered why CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC etc., American media at the scene, had made no mention of this major new event?

Obviously they got it wrong, obviously there was confusion. It's probably a case of predicted collapse getting misinterpreted as "it collapsed", but what a blunder!

MM
 
Aphelion said:
This is truly bizarre. I didn't think wtc 7 was that suspicious but I do now.

How the **** can anyone explain this?
Click to expand...

Ummmm....an incorrect report, maybe?

I guess your explanation is that the conspirators decided to tip off the BBC just so they could blow the whole thing, huh?
 
Last edited:
CHF said:
Ummmm....an incorrect report, maybe?

I guess your explanation is that the conspirators decided to tip off the BBC just so they could blow the whole thing, huh?
Click to expand...

No, I think the NWO planned a controlled demolition of WTC 7, had it all ready to go off, then accidentally told the BBC about it. It's the only explanation.

:boxedin:
 
Miragememories said:
I to work in the 'biz' and what we saw from the BBC was a very amazing gaff for such a reputable news organization.

Roughly 7 hours since the last collapse, well after the major news has occured, they make this sensational unsubstantiated claim and continue to build on it.

Meanwhile, they are receiving via satellite, all the major American news feeds as well as their own live feeds from New York City. And strangely, no one apparently wondered why CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC etc., American media at the scene, had made no mention of this major new event?

Obviously they got it wrong, obviously there was confusion. It's probably a case of predicted collapse getting misinterpreted as "it collapsed", but what a blunder!

MM
Click to expand...

Did someone steal your profile? This sounds reasonable...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom