http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=49f_1172526096 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. This even made the 5pm EST headlines, what is bizarre is that the building did not actually collapse until 5:20pm EST. 9/11 was unusual enough, without BBC World being able to foretell the destiny of WTC 7. What is even stranger, is that the women reporter is telling the world that the building had collapsed when you can see it in the background over her left shoulder. Then at 5:15pm EST, just five minutes before the building did actually collapse, her live connection from New York to London mysteriously fails. So the question is, on 9/11 how did the BBC learn that WTC7 collapsed 23 minutes before it actually did. Building Seven was 47 storeys, modern in design with structural steel throughout, yet symmetrically collapsed in 6.5 seconds, was someone leaking information. No steel framed skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire, before or after 9/11, most people who find out about WTC7, believe it was brought down by a controlled demolition, even demolition experts agree.
ttp://ia311517.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109111654-1736/V08591-16.mpg note where i put the arrow? the date and time of the url are in it, the time is 1654-1736 the start of the feed, to the end of the feed, bbc world time is GMT not BST (as it is sent all round the world) so the real time is an hour later than that. I.E. 1754-1836. so the BBC reported it 40 minutes after it happend
So when the news reporter is standing in front of WTC7 announcing it has already collapsed that is because of????? Not a incorrect time issue right? You are not claiming that are you? "so the BBC reported it 40 minutes after it happend" Oh wait you are......So how in the hell did the BBC keep WTC7 upright for their live tapping forty minutes after is supposedly collapsed?
As they were showing the footage they have filmed earlier, the text bellow was up to date. They do it all the time. If they cant get a reporter on air straight away they show old images/video with the most up to date text/newsflashes bellow. -edit- That theatre siege in Moscow. They were playing the same video over and over again while keeping everyone up to date using the running text at the bottom.
You may want to watch the video, they are talking to her live and that is a window behind her. In fact they mysteriously "lose" the feed five minutes before the actual collapse.
they can and do film a reporter live and use a background film to show a scene, and given that the time is off by one hour, i dont see that as proof the bbc was told before the rest of the world. lol
Yep like the weatherman use, it is called blue or green screen technology. Not used here. See that window to the right (our left) of Jane Standley? It is showing the reflection of the smoke from the other window. Would not happen with green screen. Anyways the BBC is trying there best to claim is was a mistake(see they already admit to the announcement being premature now). A clairvoyant mistake...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html Of course they should of watched it a bit better: "apparently" vs. "has also" • "it's reported" vs. "has also" • "we're hearing" vs. "has also" • "constantly tried to check" > see building right beside janes head • "and double check" > see news footline and building right beside janes head. Draw conclusion. • "information we were receiving" vs. "information we were broadcasting"
you remember everything you said and did on 911? i bet not. i bet you cant even remember all the people you talked to that day
Nope but I betcha if it was taped I could be sure to recall them events fairly well after I watched it.
If BBC was told to say that WTC is collapsed before it collapsed, it would be stupid, so it rather disproves than proves the twoofer-theory. BBC have also responded to this.. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html
Already watched.. What is it supposed to prove? That NWO made a mistake or that BBC made a local mistake?
If it proved anything, there would be a lot less debate on the subject. Reporting that WTC7 collapsed 20+ minutes before it actually did, and not being able to verify or correct the report within that time is more than a minor mistake. People should watch the video and ask questions without being so quick to dismiss it. Richard Porters response of behalf of the BBC doesn't answer anyones questions and does very little to clarify what went wrong in the newsroom that morning .
What are you suggesting? That BBC are in on the plot and spread the information to the viewers? This was a time of confusion and the firemen also predicted the fall due to the sounds of cracks in the building. Are they also a part of this twoofer-conspiracy? What's the problem? Isn't it better that they report it earlier than later?