Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Sid Walker]

I wouldn't say fast on the mark, just good timing that I logged in right after you posted it.

If you read any of the firefighter testimony regarding wtc7, it was well known that there was a danger of collapse. The fire cheif testified that they had a transit on the building that was showing it bulging out around the 5th floor. There were clear signs that the building was losing it's structural integrity, and it was public knowledge at the time.

Not to doubt your research, Kevin, which has apparently been thorough... however, I wonder if you could document your claims with specific references, rather than have the rest of us 're-invent your wheel'.

[Steve Ulman]

{edit - Fact checking my post - need info on GMT/BST/EST/EDT- Stay tuned...}

Edited March 1, 2007 by Steve Ulman

[Evan Burton]

Oh, hrm, just noticed...

21:54 GMT would be 4:54 EST... but September is during daylight savings time, making that news report 5:54 EDT, 34 minutes after the collapse.

That's correct. NY is GMT - 4 hours during September, making the time of the report (2154 - 4 hours) 1754 or 5.54pm.... some 34 minutes after the collapse.

Doesn't that negate the whole premise?

[Steve Ulman]

Regarding my fact checking - I've sent the request to the BBC:

I have a question regarding your 9-11 coverage on News24. This article http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/febru...07timestamp.htm

imlpies that you reported the collapse of WTC-7 prior to tne event using the 21:54 time stamp on the screen.

My question - is the time stamp 21:54 GMT or 21:54 BST?

I would also like your permission to post your response on an internet discussion forum.

Thank you

The reason

21:54 GMT = 4:54 EST

21:54 GMT = 5:54 EDT

21:54 BST = 3:54 EST

21:54 BST = 4:54 EDT

(I think I got that right - after all its 3:48AM EST)

Confused yet?

{edit to fix last line - was 21:54 GMT = 4:54 EDT}

Edited March 1, 2007 by Steve Ulman

[Steve Ulman]

{double post}

Edited March 1, 2007 by Steve Ulman

[Evan Burton]

Oh! I didn't realise about BST. It's the reverse of what we have here. Sorry.

[Sid Walker]

From the Prison Planet article...

Following the controversy created by Monday's footage in which BBC correspondent Jane Standley is seen live in New York reporting the collapse of Building 7 as it remains standing behind her, many debunkers tried to claim that the images were inconclusive because there was no time stamp on the footage. Others alleged that Standley was merely standing in front of a dated blue screen image and that the shot in her background was a recording from earlier in the day. Both these objections can now be easily dismissed by the addition of the News 24 footage confirming that the news that Building 7 had collapsed was prematurely reported by 26 minutes.

Hmm...

Anyhow, good you've written to the Beeb, Steve.

Please keep us all posted.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Regarding my fact checking - I've sent the request to the BBC:

Steve. While you are in contact with "Auntie" perhaps you could ask her why she cancelled Tuesday nights "Life on Mars" for a football match

[Kevin M. West]

I wouldn't say fast on the mark, just good timing that I logged in right after you posted it.

If you read any of the firefighter testimony regarding wtc7, it was well known that there was a danger of collapse. The fire cheif testified that they had a transit on the building that was showing it bulging out around the 5th floor. There were clear signs that the building was losing it's structural integrity, and it was public knowledge at the time.

Not to doubt your research, Kevin, which has apparently been thorough... however, I wonder if you could document your claims with specific references, rather than have the rest of us 're-invent your wheel'.

Ah I guess my memory failed me, it wasn't the 5th floor that was bulging out, it was between 10 and 13.

From Deputy Chief Peter Hayden:

we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

I would like to be clear about whats being claimed, are we now to believe that the BBC was in the know? If so, how many other media outlets were co-opted, before, during and after the fact. It must be a ponderous list of conspiritors.

[Sid Walker]

I would like to be clear about whats being claimed, are we now to believe that the BBC was in the know? If so, how many other media outlets were co-opted, before, during and after the fact. It must be a ponderous list of conspiritors.

And there I was, thinking the spirit of intellectual curiosity was out of fashion in Cambridge.

Don't be too alarmed, Stephen. No one is claiming the Blue Peter crew was involved.

Edited March 1, 2007 by Sid Walker

[Sid Walker]

A extract or two from the comments posted at the Prison Planet article: Time Stamp Confirms BBC Reported WTC 7 Collapse 26 Minutes In Advance

From: Richard Porter-news [mailto:richard.porter@bbc.co.uk]

Sent: 28 February 2007 18:35

To: Steve

Subject: RE: Here also...

Hi

The more news organisations which said something about WTC7, the more convincing my explanation isn't it? I'm guessing here...but someone at the scene was reporting the imminent collapse of the building - which given the level of damage was hardly surprising - and the media organisations began to report it. It got on to the wires..and we reported it too. That's how it works.

Are you ever in London? Come and see us and I'll show you how our newsrooms operate...

Regards,

Richard

************************************************** *************************

If that's true, consider this:

At approx 4 minutes into the broadcast starting at 16:54 EST (which would put the time at 16:58 approx.), the studio anchorman said:

"We've got some news just coming in, actually, that the Salomon Brothers Building in New York, right in the heart of Manhatten, has ALSO collapsed. This DOES fit in with a warning from the British Foreign Office a couple of hours ago to British citizens that there is a a real risk, uh, let me get the exact words, that the British Foreign Office, the foreign department of the British Government, said there was a strong risk of further atrocities in the United States. And it does seem as if there now is another one with the Salomon Brothers building collapsing. We've got no word yet on casualties, uh, one assumes that the building would have been virtually deserted."

Then at approx. 15:30 into the broadcast (which would put the time at 17:10 approx.) he said:

"Now, more on the latest building collapse in New York, you might have heard a few moments ago, I was talking about the Salomon Brothers Building collapsing. And indeed it has! Apparently that's only a few hundred yards away from where the World Trade Centre Towers were. And it seems that this was not the result of a new attack, it was because the building had been weakened, uh, during this morning attacks. We'll probably find out more about that from our correspondent, Jane Standley. Jane, what can you tell us.."

So, from the time of the studio receiving word that WTC7 had fallen at 16:58 EST, to the next mention of it, 12 minutes passed. And during that time, the BBC did nothing to check the accuracy of the initial report!!! Obviously - because they let a report go out live about something which was as wildly inaccurate as it was possible to be! Almost the opposite was true! (ok, so they weren't actually BUILDING WTC7 at the time...!)

Not only that, and contrary to his earlier assertions that no-one was telling the BBC what to say, effectively Richard Porter is admitting that someone DID tell them (i.e. "the wire")! In which case the BBC should be able to tell us who or what that source was - unless of course they want to be accused of not checking sources and getting back into the whole Andrew Gilligan/Hutton thing all over again!

PapaLaz | 02.28.07 - 7:38 pm | #

Here's another one...

Brits: Stop Paying The TV License

Dear Fremen,

Yesterday, on the 27th February 2007, hundreds of thousands of people with access to the internet, were able to see a video, or hear about it, which showed a female (Jane Standly) BBC reporter on 9-11 (2001), stating that the Salomon Brother's building, also known as WTC 7, had collapsed. Trouble is, the building was still standing at the time of the report, and could clearly be seen behind the reporter in the background. The time-stamp of the video also shows that the report took place approximately twenty-six minutes before the actual collapse of WTC Building 7.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/ arti...07timestamp.htm

Today, on the 28th February 2007, the BBC (that you fund) is being pressured by thousands of 9-11 truth activists to name the source of this claim; which reveals prior knowledge of the building's collapse; and is refusing to name it. WTC 7 was never hit by a plane, and only suffered; according to eyewitness reports confirmed by video footage; minor damage to one side, and minor fires. Videos of the actual collapse clearly show the building was “pulled” in a controlled demolition. There were explosives already in place in the building in the building. It was an inside-job.

If you are a Brit who no longer wishes to shut your eyes to the fact that the BBC are collaborating with the real (and as yet unpunished) 9-11 mass-murderers, in protecting the real 9-11 evidence from being disclosed, and are aggrieved to your very soul by the thought of having to continue to fund these government-licking media whores, then the information that follows should certainly interest you.

Why? Because there is no LEGAL requirement for you to pay for a TV License.

So, as it has now clearly been proven that the BBC had foreknowledge of the destruction of WT7 on 9-11, and that the BBC is part of the problem that we all face with the satanic N.W.O. and their control of the British and U. S. governments and media that they use against the people who pay their wages: do you want to keep funding your own demise and their lavish lifestyles, or are you willing to fight them and bring them down, before they complete their plans for a 95% population reduction that involves murdering you and your family and friends?

If you want to stop funding your own demise, demand a refund on your TV license, so that they can no longer use your own money against you. When enough people do that it will force them to stop their evil plot. The more people who do this, the more it will show them just how many people are onto them, and the more people, the more afraid they will become.

At first they will threaten you, saying they will take you to court over non-payment of your “compulsory” TV license, using their own unlawful legislation that you can easily defend yourself against by sending for the “Bullet-Proof Defence Pack” from:- http://jforjustice.co.uk

How much is your TV license? What will it be next year and the year after, and the year after, without end?

Send them a clear message that you are onto them, by demanding a refund on your TV license and sending for the Bullet-Proof Defense. Get everyone you know to do the same, so that THEY* hear the message loud and crystal clear.

The Bullet-Proof Defence is a one time only offer, that will last you a lifetime and can be used against this and all other man-made legislation, and will save you thousands of pounds in the long-run, and bring down those trying to harm you with their false propaganda, their phoney wars and terrorist attacks, like 9-11 and 7/7/2005, that the governments are committing themselves and using their media to brainwash you into believing is done by Islamic terrorists.

It’s time to fight back and win before they destroy you all.

Long live the Fighters,

Muad’Dib.

Oh dear.

Perhaps Blue Peter will get dragged into this after all?

The end of innocence?

Edited March 1, 2007 by Sid Walker

[Dave Greer]

I may be a bear of very little brain, but is it possible that the footage with the earlier time stamp shown behind the presenter wasn't actually live?

[Kevin M. West]

They are saying the news report was at 16:58 EST, which could be correct, I haven't looked into that. Their problem seems to be that they think the collapse was at 17:20 EST, when in fact it was 17:20 EDT (16:20 EST), well before the broadcast.

If the timing of the news report (16:58 EST) is correct, then it was after the collapse. The question should be why does the supposedly live reporter have the building behind her. The only explanation that I can think of is that they prerecorded the segment when they found out the building was probably going to collapse, not realizing that the building in question was visible from their location.

If that was actually live, and not in front of a bluescreen, then the only explanation that makes any sense is that they didn't know what building they were talking about, or they would have seen that it was still standing. So when they heard that it fell, true or not, they couldn't verify it so they just went with what they heard out of fear of being the last to report it.

If the reporter was live, and in front of a bluescreen, then they were playing prerecorded video on the screen.

[Douglas Caddy]

This is a little video I came up with using Screen Blaster Movie Maker. It is a montage of shots relating to 911 with an excerpt of Mahler's 1st symphony as background music. Just a pretty simple cut and paste job, but the images and subject go nicely with the music: urgent and alarming at first, then giving way to sadness. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsKOz_bh5qY

ps

As the video shows, I am one of the so-called "pod people".

I watch the video from beginning to end and found it extremely well done. I congratulate you on using the YouTube as a way of bringing this vital subject to a worldwide audience.