Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Sid Walker]

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.

You really can't think of any other explanations, Kevin?

I think you must really mean "explanations that uphold public confidence in the integrity of the mass media"

[Douglas Caddy]

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.

The 911 Script and the Age of Terror

Wednesday February 28th, 2007

By Whitley Strieber

www.unknowncountry.com

I must admit that I have been deeply shocked by a story that appeared today on my website, to the effect that the BBC reported the collapse of WTC Building 7 23 minutes before it actually took place. Previously, the BBC claimed that it had lost all of its 9/11 coverage, but this video has now surfaced. I watched it myself, and sat there with my blood literally running cold as I saw their reporter saying that Building 7 had collapsed while it was still visible behind her, perfectly intact.

Now, why wasn't this just a simple mistake? CNN was reporting rumors that Building 7 might be about to collapse an hour before it happened.

But the BBC reporter is clearly seen reading from a teleprompter. Obviously, she was reading something written on it, and not making up what would have then seemed to be a wild tale. In other words, she was reading a script, and that script had been put up on her teleprompter early. Not only that, she was sitting in front of a live image of the still-intact Building 7.

Somebody wrote that script and did so while Building 7 was still standing. How could they know that it would collapse, even if it was unstable, even if there was a fire in the cellars?

No, the author of the script did not think the building had collapsed. He knew that it would, and the statement was read early as a miscue.

If the BBC had not lost the video of that entire day, it would be easier to believe that this was some sort of a mistake. But the idea that an organization like the BBC, which prides itself on the record it keeps, would lose an entire day of some of the most historic footage it has ever shot is just very difficult to believe. It seems more likely that there was something on that footage that they wanted to bury.

As, indeed, there was.

I have long since abandoned the US media as a lost cause. Thank God we have the internet, because the American press are just a bunch of whores, frankly. I spent 45 minutes yesterday with CNN Headline News today, looking for news of Iran. 31 of those minutes were spent on Anna Nicole Smith, and the rest was fluff.

Pravda did better during the height of the Soviet Union. At least it didn’t insult the intelligence of its readers, but only bored them with its obvious lies. The American media goes it one better, by ignoring the real news and running the silly stuff. And the papers that should be doing better, such as the New York Times, have been singing the "no conspiracy here" song since the days of the Kennedy assassination. Because of what appears to be an almost surrealistic belief that people cannot do bad things in concert, they missed Watergate. And they are missing 9/11 as well. They all are, and, in the end, they will be abandoned by the public because their silence and refusal to investigate are, in effect, lies spoken without words on behalf of what is coming to seem a devastating and widespread conspiracy against the lives of thousands of people, against western civilization and against human freedom at the deepest level.

At present, virtually every street in Britain is watched by video, and there is a bill on its way into parliament that will ban public photography. Can you imagine, not being able to take a picture outdoors? What madness is this, what evil insanity? But it's real, and it doesn't end in Britain. Last October, without debate and in the dead of the night, the president was given the power by language buried in the budget bill to use the military as a police force within the United States, and to nationalize the National Guard without consulting governors. In other words, the Posse Cometatus Act of 1878 and the Insurrection Act of 1807 were usurped without a single word of debate and without the least whisper from the American press.

To its credit, the New York Times did pick up on this story recently, reporting the event on February 19, many months after it happened. But why wait? These two acts are cornerstones of American freedom, but they have gone the way of habeas corpus, sacrificed to what now appears to be a self-generated war on terror, the purpose of which could not be more clear: it is not to protect us, it is to take away our freedom and turn this country into a dictatorship, and its little sisters the United Kingdom and Australia into the bargain.

And the scale of the thing is terrifying. If the BBC was reading a script, as it must have been, then they were all reading scripts, and not one reporter has come forward, not one editor, and there is not a breath of suggestion in the 9/11 Commission report that any such thing might have been happening.

And yet, one cannot forget that there was substantial trading in puts on the stock of insurance companies and airlines prior to 9/11, and that some of this trading was traced to individuals who had been associated with the CIA, as Jim Marrs reports in the Terror Conspiracy.

One also cannot forget that Condoleezza Rice testified before the 9/11 Commission that the National Security Council was blindsided by the attack, even as the 11 memos warning of it that the FAA sent to her while she was its chairman were classified until after the last presidential election.

How long can this go on? How much more can we stand? I find it utterly fantastic that conservatives are not outraged about the usurpation of Posse Cometatus and the Insurrection Act, and the attack on habeas corpus, not to mention the wholesale use of torture and atrocity as a matter of national policy.

The Bush presidency is a burnt-out rump, it would seem, reduced to this odd recent practice of sending its officials into harm’s way in the apparent hope that any misfortune befalling them will gain it some sympathy, even as the president prepares for the future by buying a large estate in Paraguay. (However, he might have done a little more research about that country before he bought, given that the Colorado Party, which has been in power since it was set up by Nazi sympathizers and German immigrants in 1947, is now facing a serious threat from Msgr. Fernando Lugo Méndez, a populist bishop who is likely to win the next general election.)

And then there is the terrifying prospect that another 9/11 will take place, but this time one so terrible that we will all desperately cleave to authority in the hope of preserving our lives, no matter who we think might be responsible. Anything less than a nuclear attack on one or more American cities would drive Bush from office, because it would reveal his entire anti-terrorism apparatus for the gimcrack sham that it is.

And when I say sham, I mean sham. Right now, they are just getting around to installing equipment that would detect nuclear weapons being brought, for example, into the Port of Los Angeles—equipment that should and could have been in place every American port six months after 9/11.

So it's perfectly possible that nuclear weapons are already in our cities, and have been there for years. As the Bush presidency winds down, the only real question is, will they be used to bring the American people to heel, or will he choose the Paraguay option?

I used to believe that the Administration let 9/11 happen so that it could have an excuse to attack Iraq and destroy our freedoms. Condoleeza Rice ignored the FAA warnings because she knew that an attack would transform an unpopular president into a beloved leader—which it did...for a time.

Given this latest piece of news, I think that anybody who seriously thinks that the whole event wasn't carefully planned and fed to us as a scripted "news event" needs to have their head examined. It was planned, period. Otherwise this reporter wouldn’t have been announcing one of the disasters before it happened. It's inescapable.

This gets me to a subject I have been visiting for years, the Valerie Plame affair. As I write this, a Washington jury is deciding the fate of Administration scapegoat Lewis Libby. If he is convicted, it will be for lying to a grand jury and to the FBI, not for the real crime, which was revealing the agent in the first place. And, presumably, that will be an end to the matter.

But, hold on, it might be something similar to Condi Rice’s ignoring those FAA memos. How, you may ask? This is how: Valerie Plame was a non-official cover, which is a CIA officer working abroad outside of the diplomatic context. She was an "energy consultant" for a front company called Brewster Jennings & Associates, which was allegedly involved in, among other places, Iran. Shortly after she was 'outed,' there were brief stories here and there in the media to the effect that US intelligence in Iran had been compromised. Of course, the moment the Iranians discovered that the Brewster Jennings employees in that country were actually US agents, they would all have been rounded up.

Given the extraordinary fact that 9/11 now appears almost certainly to have been pre-scripted and therefore planned, dare we ask the question: was Valerie Plame's name revealed IN ORDER TO destroy our intelligence apparatus in Iran?

This would put out our intelligence eyes in a very crucial respect. It would make it impossible for us to find the vents and air intakes of buried Iranian nuclear facilities, meaning that we cannot send conventional bunker buster bombs down those points of access. As Iran has buried and hardened its crucial facilities against any conventional attack except one that uses those weak points, we have been left helpless. There is only one type of weapon available to us that will certainly disrupt the centrifuges crucial to the manufacture of U-235. They must be shaken so hard that they break, and right now the only weapon in any western arsenal that will guarantee this without causing massive collateral damage is a neutron bomb.

So, if somebody has been spoiling for a nuclear war--dare I say in hopes of inducing the Rapture--then the destruction of US intelligence capabilities in Iran would be the best possible way to gain that result. And the leaking of Valerie Plame's name might have been what would get that job done.

Too conspiratorial, Mr. Reporter? Time to snort derision at the internet nut? YOU do your homework--but of course you won't, because you report to an editor who is telling you to turn up your nose, and if you fight back, you'll lose your job. And as for that editor--who calls the shots in his life?

Well, that's easy, because we're now down to about twenty high-level managers across the whole American press! The outrageous flaunting of the Sherman Anti-Trust act over the past few years has enabled this situation to be engineered.

So, do we have a free media? Of course not. And will they continue to march to the tune of higher powers? Certainly they will.

And the situation is dangerous right now. It is very dangerous. A few days ago the president of Iran announced that his country would not stop its nuclear weapons program. Middle Eastern elements threatened devastating retaliation if Iran is attacked.

If it is attacked, and the attack is nuclear, then I fear that we can expect a nuclear attack in the United States, from a bomb or bombs that have been put in place, or allowed to be put in place, by our nation's enemies, who, I believe, are shockingly close to home.

If you want to know what will happen after that—well, I suggest you read the script.

[Dave Greer]

Having watched the video, I don't have a problem with the timings as suggested. It doesn't looks to me as if she's stood in front of a blue-screen either, so I'm willing to accept at face value that the BBC did receive a report saying that WTC7 collapsed 20-odd minutes before it actually collapsed.

Explanations? Not being privy to the internal workings at the BBC News Service I only have conjecture - but this thread has plenty of that so I'll offer my tuppence worth.

Is it possible that the New York Fire Department knew the building would collapse well before it actually did? Is it possible that the order to "pull" the building was to withdraw (pull) the firefighting teams? Is it possible in the confusion of the events in lower Manhattan that day that a press report, issued some 30 minutes or so before the collapse of WTC7, that was supposed to advise WTC7 was "going to collapse" was mis-interpreted somewhere along the line as "had collapsed"? Is it possible that this is the report the BBC ran with?

Being a skeptic by nature, this scenario makes sense to me. Does anyone here have any working knowledge of how various news agencies work together, and how reports are circulated?

[Sid Walker]

Having watched the video, I don't have a problem with the timings as suggested. It doesn't looks to me as if she's stood in front of a blue-screen either, so I'm willing to accept at face value that the BBC did receive a report saying that WTC7 collapsed 20-odd minutes before it actually collapsed.

Explanations? Not being privy to the internal workings at the BBC News Service I only have conjecture - but this thread has plenty of that so I'll offer my tuppence worth.

Is it possible that the New York Fire Department knew the building would collapse well before it actually did? Is it possible that the order to "pull" the building was to withdraw (pull) the firefighting teams? Is it possible in the confusion of the events in lower Manhattan that day that a press report, issued some 30 minutes or so before the collapse of WTC7, that was supposed to advise WTC7 was "going to collapse" was mis-interpreted somewhere along the line as "had collapsed"? Is it possible that this is the report the BBC ran with?

Being a skeptic by nature, this scenario makes sense to me. Does anyone here have any working knowledge of how various news agencies work together, and how reports are circulated?

Do you ever apply your scepticism to official narratives of conspiracies such as 9-11, Dave? Or is it - in such cases - reserved only for sceptics?

I guess your scenario is POSSIBLE.

Brown bear habitat on the surface of Mars is possible.

But is it likely?

Edited March 2, 2007 by Sid Walker

[Evan Burton]

I agree that news agencies will prepare scripts for expected events, and that they do (often?) make incorrect calls 'in advance' of events.

That being said however, it appears that this is a piece of evidence for those who claim that the events of 9/11 were engineered. The down side of this evidence is that it makes the group of those "in the know" much bigger than some would care to grant.

[Sid Walker]

The BBCs rebuttal (emphases added)....

Part of the conspiracy?

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... "

Richad Porter is head of news, BBC World

__________________________________________________________

Anyone know of any comparable 'errors' in the history of the BBC... when a reporter reported an unprecedented catastrophic event before it actually took place?

If the BBC does make a habit of this kind of ace reporting, it really should make use of its astounding competitive advantage.

Here's a suggested slogan for the promotions department to consider...

"Trust BBC News - We know what's happening before it happens!"

________________________________________________________

Here's the BBC policy on archiving - seriously breached on this occasion, if one is to believe Richad Porter.

A question in Parliament on that topic alone would be useful.

_______________________________________________________

Some relevant links from WhatReallyHappened.com:

The BBC's 'WTC 7 Collapsed At 4:54 p.m.' Videos - has vids to downlaod and an account of this story

Larry Silverstein, WTC 7 and the 9/11 Demolition - more about 'Pull-it' Larry

_______________________________________________________

Another article on the topic: Why No One Could Have Predicted The Collapse Of WTC 7

Edited March 2, 2007 by Sid Walker

[Ron Ecker]

Why doesn't the BBC offer whatever the simple and correct explanation is (e.g. a misinterpreted report that the building was going to collapse), instead of preposterously claiming that it lost all its footage of 9/11?

[Sid Walker]

Why doesn't the BBC offer whatever the simple and correct explanation is (e.g. a misinterpreted report that the building was going to collapse), instead of preposterously claiming that it lost all its footage of 9/11?

Why did The Warren Commission employ Arlen Specter to come up with a preposterous theory about a 'magic bullet' instead of providing us with the "simple and correct explanation"?

[Evan Burton]

Anyone know of any comparable 'errors' in the history of the BBC... when a reporter reported an unprecedented catastrophic event before it actually took place?

That's a very good question. Though I am still very much in the 'official theory' camp, I'd like to see if something similar has happened before.

[Sid Walker]

Anyone know of any comparable 'errors' in the history of the BBC... when a reporter reported an unprecedented catastrophic event before it actually took place?

That's a very good question. Though I am still very much in the 'official theory' camp, I'd like to see if something similar has happened before.

If that's how you choose to deploy your time, Evan, best of luck!

It's interesting to read the comments posted to the BBC put-down Conspiracy on conspiracy by Mike Rodin

It doesn't appear the great majority of respondents have any greater regard for the BBC's honesty than I do.

I think this is a serious problem for the crew who'd like to start another middle-eastern war very soon.

When the BBC's carefully manicured believability starts to come apart at the seams, the spectacle really is cracking wide open.

One by one, former LMM consumers are taking off their glasses and scratching their heads...

I should clarify that the article by Mike Rudin - and the comments associated with it - predate the latest hammer blow to the BBC's credibility.

Unless the BBC comes up with a much better explanation for the latest (premature articulation) farce, it may prove terminal to public trust in this organization and possibly to Auntie itself.

Who wants to pay licence fees for a 'service' that lies about mass murder?

Here are a few choice quotes that did get posted on the BBC website (one can only speculate about the others; I imagine the BBC has 'lost' them by now)

Dear Mike,

I doubt your a stupid man. I doubt that your intelligence would allow you to ignore the OVERWHELMING evidence that supports the widely held view of government complicity in the events of 9/11. Your documentary was a hit piece based on emotional manipulation, lies and omissions, and YOU know it!

This documentary heralds the further erosion of neutrality and impartiality within the British Broadcasting Commission

James Roc

Tin Raven wrote:

Stop treating your public as fools.

You are in a priviledged position, don't abuse it.

In the Now wrote:

This was a dreadfully biased hit piece, the producers chose to make a very one-sided piece, to ignore important information and witnesses, and to let their personal feelings and opinions influence the programme to a massive degree. This is along with belittling anyone that does not fit the standard mould.

BBC YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED.

Edited March 2, 2007 by Sid Walker

[Brian Smith]

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.

Thanks. I used Screen Blaster Movie Maker to make it. It is really pretty easy to use. I would like to do a montage of football clips set to a classical piece next.

[Dave Greer]

Having watched the video, I don't have a problem with the timings as suggested. It doesn't looks to me as if she's stood in front of a blue-screen either, so I'm willing to accept at face value that the BBC did receive a report saying that WTC7 collapsed 20-odd minutes before it actually collapsed.

Explanations? Not being privy to the internal workings at the BBC News Service I only have conjecture - but this thread has plenty of that so I'll offer my tuppence worth.

Is it possible that the New York Fire Department knew the building would collapse well before it actually did? Is it possible that the order to "pull" the building was to withdraw (pull) the firefighting teams? Is it possible in the confusion of the events in lower Manhattan that day that a press report, issued some 30 minutes or so before the collapse of WTC7, that was supposed to advise WTC7 was "going to collapse" was mis-interpreted somewhere along the line as "had collapsed"? Is it possible that this is the report the BBC ran with?

Being a skeptic by nature, this scenario makes sense to me. Does anyone here have any working knowledge of how various news agencies work together, and how reports are circulated?

Do you ever apply your scepticism to official narratives of conspiracies such as 9-11, Dave? Or is it - in such cases - reserved only for sceptics?

I guess your scenario is POSSIBLE.

Brown bear habitat on the surface of Mars is possible.

But is it likely?

The alternative explanation that is being alluded simply makes no logical sense to me, which is why I'm skeptical about it. Let's play Devil's advocate for a while, and assume that WTC7 had been rigged with explosives prior to the first attack. Why did they wait for so many hours after the collapse of the twin towers before they blew it? Surely ideal cover would have been at the same time, or very soon after, the towers collapsed, when lower Manhattan was completely filled with dust, panic and confusion? Why would the people who were going to blow up the building decide to issue a statement saying it had collapsed 30 minutes beforehand? Surely it would make far more sense to demolish the building, then let the news agencies report it in the usual manner?

You seem to be saying that the BBC would need some kind of "predicitive power" in their reporting for my scenario to be correct, which simply isn't the case. If the scenario I postulated is the correct one, then WTC7 was ultimately doomed anyway. The BBC mistakenly reporting it as having collapsed, when they should have reported that it was expected to collapse, would simply be a reporting error.

Both scenarios are possible. To compare my speculative scenario of "confused reporting" to the likelihood of a brown bear habitat on the surface of Mars is a strawman tactic at best.

Still on the subject of confused reporting, I remember at the time that in addition to the WTC and Pentagon being attacked, there were also several bomb attacks on US Shopping Malls throughout the country. I've heard nothing about this since. Did these attacks actually happen, or is it something that was wrongly reported in the immense confusion of that day?

I'm skeptical about many things concerning 911: what exactly did the security services know about the attack prior to 911? Why were they not better prepared? Why was the military response during the attacks not better co-ordinated? Why were the US and UK governments allowed to get away with using the attacks as a pre-text for invading Iraq? That's the area that concerns me the most. Problem is, the attention of the part of the community that might be capable of thoroughly investigating this aspect is side-tracked into other issues that I personally feel are red-herrings (e.g. buildings rigged with explosives, cruise missile attack on the Pentagon, United 93 landing at an airforce base and the passengers being led away into a hangar, presumably for annihilation).

On a related note, if it's true that the BBC lost all their 911 footage then someone somewhere needs shooting. Where, though, did the Youtube footage come from? Was it from the BBC, or a third party archival site?

[Guest Stephen Turner]

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?

Sid, for the sake of clarity, do you believe that.

A, The BBC was a co-conspiritor. or

B The BBC was duped into reporting an event that had yet to happen.

And perhaps you could explain how such an obvious deception aided the conspiracy. Thanks.

I should point out that I have no rose tinted glasses as regards the BBC, 22 years ago I worked as a trade union organiser, and was very involved in helping to support the Miners. I witnessed night after night how ther BEEB distorted their coverage of the strike to toe the Thatcherite line, painting the Miners as wild Anachists, and the Police as defenders of freedom. Steve.

[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?

Sid, for the sake of clarity, do you believe that.

A, The BBC was a co-conspiritor. or

B The BBC was duped into reporting an event that had yet to happen.

And perhaps you could explain how such an obvious deception aided the conspiracy. Thanks.

I should point out that I have no rose tinted glasses as regards the BBC, 22 years ago I worked as a trade union organiser, and was very involved in helping to support the Miners. I witnessed night after night how ther BEEB distorted their coverage of the strike to toe the Thatcherite line, painting the Miners as wild Anachists, and the Police as defenders of freedom. Steve.

I don't believe it is at all plausible to speak of a gigantic organization such as the BBC being 'involved' in a conspiracy, even a conspiracy to deceive.

On the other hand, I do suspect there is a powerful conspiratorial network that has infiltrated the BBC's upper echelons (along with a lot of other organizations).

Some complicit individuals are required to play their part - in positions of great influence - within all the major western media organizations. However, most BBC staff are unlikely to be in the know, IMO. Participating in a conspiracy such as 9/11 or 7/7 would not be by formal resolution of the BBC Board!

It was similar in the case of the JFK assassination.

In that unstance, one may ask whether the CIA, as an institution, was a conspirator? The answer is surely no!

On the other hand, were key members of the CIA involved in the conspriacy?

I'd say the answer to that is yes.

____________

In terms of how the premature articulation occured in this case, I think a competent Royal Commissioner could get to the bottom of the story in a few days. There aren't many people to interview in order to answer a key question... how did this story arise?

It appears this may have been a stuff up by someone higher up the disinformation foodchain than a BBC insider ... because reports are now surfacing that CNN ran a similar story, also before the collapse occured.

See Another Smoking Gun? Now CNN Jumps the Gun: On 911 CNN Announced WTC 7 "Has Either Collapsed or is Collapsing" Over an Hour Before it Fell

This report was carried at "about 4:15 eastern daylight time" (according to the anchor), over an hour before the building actually collapsed at 5:20. Who told them the WTC 7 building "has either collapsed or is collapsing."? Keep in mind he did not say it was going to collapse, he said it either had or was in the process of doing so. The anchor says is "we are getting information now", who is giving him this information? If you pay close attention you can see after the anchor announces this he turns around and sees the building as clear as day still standing, he then proceeds to backtrack on the initial information which informed him clearly the building "has either collapsed or is collapsing."

This report is doubled in significance seeing as it comes on the heels of a report that BBC announced that WTC 7 had collapsed over 20 minutes before it actually fell. Both of the anchors were told the building had collapsed, the question is who told them?

[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?

Sid, for the sake of clarity, do you believe that.

A, The BBC was a co-conspiritor. or

B The BBC was duped into reporting an event that had yet to happen.

And perhaps you could explain how such an obvious deception aided the conspiracy. Thanks.

I should point out that I have no rose tinted glasses as regards the BBC, 22 years ago I worked as a trade union organiser, and was very involved in helping to support the Miners. I witnessed night after night how ther BEEB distorted their coverage of the strike to toe the Thatcherite line, painting the Miners as wild Anachists, and the Police as defenders of freedom. Steve.

I don't believe it is at all plausible to speak of a gigantic organization such as the BBC being 'involved' in a conspiracy, even a conspiracy to deceive.

On the other hand, I do suspect there is a powerful conspiratorial network that has infiltrated the BBC's upper echelons (along with a lot of other organizations).

Some complicit individuals are required to play their part - in positions of great influence - within all the major western media organizations. However, most BBC staff are unlikely to be in the know, IMO. Participating in a conspiracy such as 9/11 or 7/7 would not be by formal resolution of the BBC Board!

It was similar in the case of the JFK assassination.

In that unstance, one may ask whether the CIA, as an institution, was a conspirator? The answer is surely no!

On the other hand, were key members of the CIA involved in the conspriacy?

I'd say the answer to that is yes.

____________

In terms of how the premature articulation occured in this case, I think a competent Royal Commissioner could get to the bottom of the story in a few days. There aren't many people to interview in order to answer a key question... how did this story arise?

It appears this may have been a stuff up by someone higher up the disinformation foodchain than a BBC insider ... because reports are now surfacing that CNN ran a similar story, also before the collapse occured.

See Another Smoking Gun? Now CNN Jumps the Gun: On 911 CNN Announced WTC 7 "Has Either Collapsed or is Collapsing" Over an Hour Before it Fell

This report was carried at "about 4:15 eastern daylight time" (according to the anchor), over an hour before the building actually collapsed at 5:20. Who told them the WTC 7 building "has either collapsed or is collapsing."? Keep in mind he did not say it was going to collapse, he said it either had or was in the process of doing so. The anchor says is "we are getting information now", who is giving him this information? If you pay close attention you can see after the anchor announces this he turns around and sees the building as clear as day still standing, he then proceeds to backtrack on the initial information which informed him clearly the building "has either collapsed or is collapsing."

This report is doubled in significance seeing as it comes on the heels of a report that BBC announced that WTC 7 had collapsed over 20 minutes before it actually fell. Both of the anchors were told the building had collapsed, the question is who told them?

Incidentally, this ex-CNN anchorman (Aaron Brown), seems to me to behave suspiciously in the video extract - consistent with the brief analysis cited above.

I would say he is a candidate 'in the know' conspirator. He clearly seems to be scanning the skyline - and when he realizes WTC7 is still there, he ad libs his way out of the mess his script has got him into.

I'd like to see him required to testify in court about this.