The BBC Reports Collapse of WT Building 7 Early -- TWICE

[GridIronAssassin#1 0]

"how could the BBC report this news 23 minutes before it actually happens?"

 

It was no secret WTC 7 was in danger of collapse. People on the scene feared it for hours before it actually happened.

 

But don't take my word that the news crews were told to expect a collapse.

 

"Ashleigh Banfield of MSNBC is interviewing a woman when WTC 7 collapses in the background. Banfield: “This is it!” Newsman Brian Williams: “What we’ve been fearing all afternoon has apparently happened. We’ve been watching number seven World Trade, which was part of the ancillary damage of the explosion and collapse of the other two.”

 

Sago mine disaster major media headlines. (Just for example)

 

"12 Miners Found Alive 41 Hours After Explosion"

"Twelve Alive."

"Joy At Mine: 12 Are Alive."

"They're Alive."

"12 Found Alive in W. Va. Coal Mine"

"Miracle at Sago, 12 Miners Alive."

Similar reports happened in the Cory Little crash, Dewy defeats Truman, and recent elections.

 

I had previously been to the WTC twice before 9/11 and If someone asked me to point out WTC7 I most certainly would not have known which particular building it was.

 

"Major news organizations don't just simply lose their data bases of the most important events in history."

 

How does it change anything if they had the tapes? Does having this footage exonerate or implicate them ?

It did happen over 5 years ago, not last week. It is a moot point. They gave a fair explanation. Some will refuse to accept it. That is SOP for conspiracy circles.

 

Yes, I know they had the streets marked off and several people were expecting building 7 to collapse. I'm not sure why, but it was expected by some. I could be wrong, and maybe I'll have to dig it up, but didn't both NIST and FEMA conclude that building #7 collapsed unexpectedly? And towers 1 and 2 for that matter. I considered what you are saying in your Sago Mine example. I thought about that possibility that the error could've been mix up in words or truncated phrases as you showed in your example. That is a possibility. We kind of found out about why Dewy was elected president by the Chicago Tribune early and that was because he was leading at the time the paper went to print. I understand, the idea though, that this type of error could have happened. As I rewatched the video I saw it printed on the LIVE screen, along with the reporter saying it, and the anchor saying it. But maybe the newswire said something wrong that made the report come out like that. Having admitted to that possibility though, I still think BBC should research to the best they can as to why that mistake was made and report back. Some people are satisfied with Porter's response, but most aren't. I'm guessing maybe only 8 out of the 208 comments posted are in favor of his explanation. That's not good numbers. He should get to the root of the error and explain it. That's what a responsible head of BBC would do. As far as the tapes go, I'm not sure it incriminates anyone, but how does a major news organization lose all its footage from 9/11?

[Chronic Husker 86]

ummm....you are. I just told you so. Boy, you really are an idiot.

jets24 playbook:

 

1st) Start a topic calling me a tool because I posted a topic you don't like (even though I posted no opinion on said topic).

 

2nd) Call me a douche because I "won't commit" to the idea that 9/11 is a conspiracy.

 

3rd) Call me an idiot to reaffirm that you called me a douche (because you told me so).

 

I'll give you credit for one thing. You have name-calling down cold.

 

Cold.

[edjr 7,012]

I see dumb people.

 

put the mirror down

[Sho Nuff 720]

Yes, I know they had the streets marked off and several people were expecting building 7 to collapse. I'm not sure why, but it was expected by some. I could be wrong, and maybe I'll have to dig it up, but didn't both NIST and FEMA conclude that building #7 collapsed unexpectedly? And towers 1 and 2 for that matter. I considered what you are saying in your Sago Mine example. I thought about that possibility that the error could've been mix up in words or truncated phrases as you showed in your example. That is a possibility. We kind of found out about why Dewy was elected president by the Chicago Tribune early and that was because he was leading at the time the paper went to print. I understand, the idea though, that this type of error could have happened. As I rewatched the video I saw it printed on the LIVE screen, along with the reporter saying it, and the anchor saying it. But maybe the newswire said something wrong that made the report come out like that. Having admitted to that possibility though, I still think BBC should research to the best they can as to why that mistake was made and report back. Some people are satisfied with Porter's response, but most aren't. I'm guessing maybe only 8 out of the 208 comments posted are in favor of his explanation. That's not good numbers. He should get to the root of the error and explain it. That's what a responsible head of BBC would do. As far as the tapes go, I'm not sure it incriminates anyone, but how does a major news organization lose all its footage from 9/11?

 

your not sure why? Ummm....last time this was brought up months ago, I and others posted pictures of the building...with a large chunk missing from one corner and massive damage to the side facing the twin towers...showed the huge field of debris that had crashed onto the site.

 

but most aren't?

 

Sorry, you in the conspiracy side are not most...you are not a majority....because people comment on that site...that means what? Hardly a valid population to sample from either.

 

How do they lose it? I have no clue...and frankly don't care...because it proves nothing...it questions nothing really to any sane person...but you have proven yourself not to be sane...so far as to be grasping at straws big time with this one....

 

 

 

It was expected by almost everyone that it would fall.

[GridIronAssassin#1 0]

your not sure why? Ummm....last time this was brought up months ago, I and others posted pictures of the building...with a large chunk missing from one corner and massive damage to the side facing the twin towers...showed the huge field of debris that had crashed onto the site.

 

but most aren't?

 

Sorry, you in the conspiracy side are not most...you are not a majority....because people comment on that site...that means what? Hardly a valid population to sample from either.

 

How do they lose it? I have no clue...and frankly don't care...because it proves nothing...it questions nothing really to any sane person...but you have proven yourself not to be sane...so far as to be grasping at straws big time with this one....

It was expected by almost everyone that it would fall.

 

I should state, that I do now believe that Porter's explanation is good enough for me. But it took further explanation on his part today to convince me. I've always stated above that a further explanation is necessary. Today, he stated that the error was due to, (Porter's comments in Red)===>

 

 

"Producers in London would have been monitoring the news agency wires - the Associated Press, Reuters, etc - and although we don't routinely keep an archive of agency reports, we're sure they would have been reporting the same as the local media.

 

At 4.27pm, a BBC reporter, Greg Barrow, who is in New York, appears on our radio news channel, BBC Radio Five Live, and says: "We are hearing reports from local media that another building may have caught light and is in danger of collapse." He then responds to a follow-up question by saying "I'm not sure if it has yet collapsed but the report we have is talking about Building 7."

 

At 4.53pm, on the same radio station, the programme's presenter, Fi Glover says "25 minutes ago we had reports from Greg Barrow that another large building has collapsed just over an hour ago."

 

At 4.54pm, the BBC's domestic television news channel, BBC News 24, reports the same thing. Presenter Gavin Esler says: "We're now being told that yet another enormous building has collapsed... it is the 47-storey Salomon Brothers building."

 

And then at 4.57pm on BBC World (according to the clips available on the web) presenter Phil Hayton says: "We've got some news just coming in actually that the Salomon brothers building in NY right in the heart of Manhattan has also collapsed."

 

Because three BBC channels were saying this in quick succession, I am inclined to believe that one or more of the news agencies was reporting this, or at least reporting someone saying this."

 

As far as the other question on how they lost all their 9/11 videos, and I do find it convincing, Porter responds "I should also mention the missing tapes. As you'll see from the details above, the absence of the BBC World tapes hasn't made much difference to our ability to look back at what happened. We have all the tapes of other BBC channels (and I now know that quite a few of you have your own copies of BBC World, which is an interesting discovery... ).

 

Some of you find it hard to believe we didn't keep the BBC World tapes... but we had several streams of news output running simultaneously on the day, both on radio and television as well as online and we have kept all the tapes from BBC News 24 and Radio Five Live, as well as all the BBC One bulletins. Obviously I wish we'd kept hold of the World tapes alongside all the others, but we didn't... and I don't know whether they were destroyed or mislaid. But as a result of this week's events, I have asked our archivists to get hold of copies of our original material from the organisations which do have them.

 

And just to be clear, the BBC policy is to keep every minute of news channel output for 90 days (in line with the Broadcasting Act in the UK). After that we are obliged to keep a representative sample - and we interpret that to mean roughly one third of all our output. We also keep a large amount of individual items (such as packaged reports or "rushes" - ie original unedited material), which we use for operational reasons - such as when we come to broadcast fresh stories on the subject. We do not lack a historical record of the event."

 

So, Porter did in fact answer the 2 most pertinent questions I had on the subject comprehensively. So, I can now say in full confidence that based on this particular programming gliche, the BBC was completely professional.

 

 

So why did all the government version people leave the Minetta debate? I thought it was just starting to get interesting when Oakhill football stated Minetta must've confused flight 77 with flight 93.

[Mephisto 15]

Cyber Gandbump.

[buffalobillsffl2003 0]

WTC 7 was tired.