BBC/CNN WTC7 foreknowledge to Fluorescent Lighting - quite the journey

[the rabbit]

Ive just posted a comment myself,think we should keep this one in the publics eye.Notice they allowed a few links through to Prison planet though.

 

[Devar]

Anyone happen to know where the edited video originated? The one that starts with white on black text that reads "This short film was made to highlight the fact that BBC World recieved a press release or notification [...]". It's spread like wildfire, but who was the source? How'd they happen upon the original footage, etc.

 

[kommunikationisthekey]

I am downloading the video now... but it occurred to me that the so-called "foreknowledge" could be a time zone difference.

Despite the linked video's erroneous use of stating EST... it seems it was actually EDT.. America still being in Daylight Savings Time in September.... but this would make no difference, since in the UK , BST (British Summer Time) was being used.... both being practically the same thing, moving the clock an hour ahead... and commencing at the end of October...... so if the BBC was reporting that WTC7 had collapsed at 9:54 PM BST (21:54), then EDT would be 4:54 PM (16:54)... still ahead of the time in which WTC7 actually collapsed 5:20 PM EDT

So it does not appear that time zone variance is the issue here.

 

[GRiM]

Some information that might inspire, its form Alex J. Can´t really find anything new in the article that haven´t been said here, but this is how he ends the article.

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.

We are asked to believe that the world's premiere news organization has somehow lost all its tapes of perhaps the biggest news event of the past 60 years. This is a copout. Whether they have lost the tapes or not, the BBC simply doesn't want to verify one hundred per cent their monumental foul-up, because they know it would only increase the exposure of this issue and lead to further questions. What is there to clear up? The reporter is standing in front of the building while saying it has already collapsed! This is a blatant effort to try and placate people making complaints while refusing to admit a monumental faux pas that further undermines the BBC's credibility in the aftermath of the Conspiracy Files debacle.

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... "

So now the BBC are so devoid of answers, they have to enlist the help of some moronic comment on a You Tube blog? Instead of issuing official statements and seeking the advice of legal professionals they produce a cobbled together five paragraph blog and include the testimony of some moron on a You Tube comment board. Pathetic! Answer the question BBC - what was your source for reporting on multiple occasions that Building 7 had collapsed before it had collapsed, and identify the source that enabled the anchorman to comment that the building had collapsed due to it being weakened, an explanation still unanswered by NIST five and a half years later.

If you had reported the collapse of the twin towers before it happened would that have been just an error too? This "error" translated as $800 million plus in insurance bounty for Larry Silverstein - I'm sure Industrial Risk Insurers would be interested to know the source of your "error." In addition, two seperate sources reported that Secret Service Agent Craig Miller died as a result of the collapse of Building 7. Do you think he would have been interested in the "error" that led to your correspondent reporting the building's downfall in advance?

edit:
http://www(dot)jonesreport.com(slash)articles/270207_bbc_lost_response.html

 

[the rabbit]

She doesnt actually mention building seven in the report......the answers say many things but she doesnt mention the building by name....hmm

 

[kommunikationisthekey]

She doesnt actually mention building seven in the report......the answers say many things but she doesnt mention the building by name....hmm

True, "building seven" is never mentioned in the BBC broadcast, however the "Salomon Brother's Building" is stated multiple times by the news anchor. The Salomon Brother's Building being WTC 7. The reporter, Jane Standley, does not mention building 7 or the salomon brother's building herself.... but it is mentioned by the news anchor with whom she is responding to .... as having already collapsed.... in a live broadcast... before the aforementioned building actually collapsed... as can plainly be seen because the dang thing is directly behind her, still standing....

 

[allenb]

Laura wrote:

On the CNN tape, the reporter announces that - at that moment - it is 11:10 in the evening Jerusalem time

Yes, he does say that. And yes, very interesting that he does say that building 7 has collapsed, is collapsing. How do you not get that straight if the building has already collapsed?! I was basing my post only on the BBC footage, not on this CNN footage.

I just had to check the time for the collapse myself. It is ~5:20pm. In looking for that, I saw a bit of a government report that talked about how diesel fuel stored in the building for it's generators might have contributed to the collapse.

“The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. [Federal Emergency Management Agency, 5/1/2002, pp. 1-17]

What??!!

Diesel fuel burns like vegetable oil. One big difference is that vegetable oil actually has a bit more energy than petroleum diesel fuel. Are they saying that what would amount to a kitchen fire on a large scale could possibly melt steel?

 

[the rabbit]

Yes i know the anchorman does mention building 7 BUT and it is an open minded what if her answer could be to another question and pasted in.Just a thought in case this is a buildem up knockem down release from the pentacon folk and the BBC suddenly find their original feed once more and all internet folks are luneys. It doesnt matter if we see the picture of him and her on the screen at the same time.These reporters have a boring way of standing in the same place every time.

If i see a news reporter standing with that bloody palm tree just at the back of them again in Iraq Bahgdad i shall scream :)

I mean this story is just so in your face and a good catch

 

[allenb]

The fact that the reporter covers his tracks later by saying, "and now we are told there is a fire there and that building may collapse, as you can see" makes no sense. That building caught fire in the morning. Allegedly, a decision was made sometime around 10:30am or 11:00am to not try fighting the fire in that building because it was already considered a waste and water resources were low. How is it CNN is only "now" being told that there is a fire there, 8 or more hours after the fact?

It seems to me that the only way CNN could get out of the accusation of mistakenly reporting the collapse before it happened is to claim that they had no idea for most of the day that building 7 was on fire. Actually, they can also get out of it by saying that they had received a report that it was likely to collapse and that they got the information mixed up. I think both CNN and BBC will take this route.

 

[kommunikationisthekey]

Yes i know the anchorman does mention building 7 BUT and it is an open minded what if her answer could be to another question and pasted in.Just a thought in case this is a buildem up knockem down release from the pentacon folk and the BBC suddenly find their original feed once more and all internet folks are luneys. It doesnt matter if we see the picture of him and her on the screen at the same time.These reporters have a boring way of standing in the same place every time.

If i see a news reporter standing with that bloody palm tree just at the back of them again in Iraq Bahgdad i shall scream :)

I mean this story is just so in your face and a good catch

At the beginning of Jane Standley's report she directly responds to a question pertaining to what happended to WTC 7... saying "this isn't the first building that has suffered as a result...." if you watch and listen carefully, and pay attention, she seems to be responding directly to the questioning of the anchorman... if this were a hoax...there would have to be the direct complicity of the BBC and the anchorman in order to create such a thing.... there doesn't seem to be any motive to go through such an elaborate hoax just to discredit the 9/11 Truth movement.... if they wanted to do that.... they could just release all the classified information that proves 19 Iraqi-affiliated al-qaeda members did it all... like the footage of that massive 757 flying a couple feet off the ground and crashing into the pentagon..... =P

I agree with the SOTT suggestion that this is a blackmail piece... the story is so "in your face" but this is certainly not just a "good catch".... 5 years after the fact someone just happened to discover this footage and release it? This seems more like a deliberate release of information. This information does not send the whole 9/11 fraud crashing down, because the PTB probably can and will come up with sorry excuses for this information... like... "yeah yeah... we demolished WTC 7 because it was a safety hazard... we did it for you!.. we didn't say anything cuz we didn't want ya to worry...."
This information itself doesn't prove government complicity exactly... but it is pretty damning towards the idea that there's a big fat lie going around about what happened with WTC 7....it does put a bit more pressure on those whom are suspected of being involved. It is not the smokiest of "smoking guns" because it only suggests that there was foreknowledge of WTC 7's collapse... and only adds fuel to the idea that WTC 7 was professionally demolished.. which should make people ask what else is being lied about concerning 9/11.... but it certainly does not answer many of the questions... only adds to the validity of the questions.....

the story gives a little without giving too much... seems like a bit of game theory going on....

what it does mean is that things are heating up..........

 

[Anders]

So - from the Best of the Web section on today's SotT page - http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/signs/list_bestofweb - the question that comes to mind for me is why is this coming out now?

We have the DOW industrial average drop 500 points today - (largest single day drop since 2001, according to the AP article I just read) - and Cheney is present at a bombing in Afghanistan - unfortunately, not 'present' enough, since he's still alive. ;) We have increased escalation of bombings in Iraq. We have Putin caught 'off camera' saying that the U.S. is trigger happy (understatement of the century).
...
I don't know, of course, but it sure seems like something - yet again - is 'up'.

Yes, it does seem like something is up again, as though the fires have to be stoked even more.

Donald Hunt in this week's economic commentary mentions the apparent struggle amongst the US power elite and then maybe as a sign of that struggle, in todays news it appears as though the US is willing to meet officials from Iran and Syria http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=XUDQRN5L51DULQFIQMFSFFWAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2007/02/27/niraq127.xml

Another bit of interesting timing is the story of the tomb of 'Jesus' as Laura wrote about yesterday, which appears to be carefully orchestrated to fuel the clash between the monolithic religions.

While all this is going on, the key distraction story that is on everybodys lips is about 'global warming'. I heard the other day an example of this mania in that Australia will ban normal lightbulbs within 3 years in order to cut greenhouse emissions )
The story is here http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17233145/

That the same Australian government has agreed to more troops in Afghanistan escapes questioning though the amount of greenhouse gases caused by said troops in the process of war likely equals what is saved from a change of lightbulbs.

OSIT

Anders

 

[mudrabbit]

Anders wrote:
snipped:
While all this is going on, the key distraction story that is on everybodys lips is about 'global warming'. I heard the other day an example of this mania in that Australia will ban normal lightbulbs within 3 years in order to cut greenhouse emissions roll )


On this side of the sphere it's Anna Nicole Smith's death, the custody battle over her child and the arguements over jurisdiction. All the while, her body lay in the morgue decomposing. So while all this is happening here to keep us distracted, the real news goes on behind the scenes.

 

[Alana]

So while all this is happening here to keep us distracted, the real news goes on behind the scenes.

And it feels as if everything is occuring so fast, one event falling after the other like ... dominos? Kudos for sott team who is keeping up.

"Befor we knew it, the Great US empire fell and civil wars brought it to its knees. Before we knew it, the middle east became an inferno, the heart of WWIII that eventually destroyed all states and economies of the world. Before we knew it, everything changed completely" ... i imagine a survivor (if any) recalling for the times we now live through.

 

[Iconoclast]

something doesn't gel here... how come these videos come out now, 5+ years after the fact?
lots of people startet taping CNN, BBC, etc. as soon as 9/11 happened, and up to now none of the 'truthers' out there has noticed that WTC7 was still visible in the background when BBC/CNN talked about it having collapsed?


methinks our grey 'friends' might have done the 'time warp' on that...

 

[John G]

If I'm a reporter for a major news organization who is made to look incompetent covering a major major event, I would think I would track down and remember the original source unless of course a superior told me to just mind my own business.