|
Post by 911: Inside Job on Feb 27, 2007 16:15:02 GMT -4
If she was really in NYC, then it was a live report. She even turns around and points out the window as the camera zooms in. Not something you would try if you were in front of a green screen. You do know they've done the weather reports on green screen for years... They don't use green screens on live reports from the field. They're used in studio only.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Feb 27, 2007 16:17:35 GMT -4
Inappropriate concatenation.
Whether the collapse looks, or was "normal" has nothing to do with whether the BBC reported the collapse prematurely. Is your argument for BBC skullduggery so weak you have to buttress it with unrelated claims?
Let's keep on the subject. According to a third-party video, a clip from the BBC with no time stamp describes a collapse that has not actually occurred.
Leaving off the more plausible potential explanations, what is the conspiratorialist explanation for this? Why would "the BBC" -- specifically, in fact, a reporter and crew on location in New York -- be told the schedule for destruction?
And going further, why would "the BBC" (meaning, news staff, contract employees, independent photographers and stringers, and of course anyone who happened to tune into the BBC in time for that broadcast) leave it there? Surely this information is a mite bit suspicious? Are you going to claim this entire left-leaning government-criticizing Blair-hating news organization rolled over and accepted a "don't think about it" on the order of some top secret (but very highly placed) American authority?
|
|
|
Post by 911: Inside Job on Feb 27, 2007 16:26:22 GMT -4
Inappropriate concatenation. Whether the collapse looks, or was "normal" has nothing to do with whether the BBC reported the collapse prematurely. Is your argument for BBC skullduggery so weak you have to buttress it with unrelated claims? Let's keep on the subject. According to a third-party video, a clip from the BBC with no time stamp describes a collapse that has not actually occurred. Leaving off the more plausible potential explanations, what is the conspiratorialist explanation for this? Why would "the BBC" -- specifically, in fact, a reporter and crew on location in New York -- be told the schedule for destruction? And going further, why would "the BBC" (meaning, news staff, contract employees, independent photographers and stringers, and of course anyone who happened to tune into the BBC in time for that broadcast) leave it there? Surely this information is a mite bit suspicious? Are you going to claim this entire left-leaning government-criticizing Blair-hating news organization rolled over and accepted a "don't think about it" on the order of some top secret (but very highly placed) American authority? Like I said, they were so confident the tower was going to fall they were announcing it ahead of time. That kind of confidence comes from foreknowledge, not accident. It probably got leaked to the BBC as "already happened". Not knowing what the building even looked like, they ran with it. No one in England (or outside of NYC) would have known the difference. The reporter's feed was pulled 5 minutes before the actual collapse, again indicating foreknowledge of the event.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 27, 2007 16:26:51 GMT -4
There is no time stamp on the video so as even Alex Jones ad Paul Watson admit
“the exact time of the report cannot be confirmed at present”
Yeah I noticed that too, however I'll also note that the newsdeck frontman states that the towers were hit 8 hours earlier, which would put it at 5pm.
they claim that the blob is 7 WTC without presenting any evidence that it is.
I noticed this too, but without knowing the skyline of NY well enough to show otherwise, besides if the timing was correct, the building could be the correct one.
This video certainly supports the idea that the collapse of WTC7 was planned ahead of time and not a surprise.
It supports that it wasn't a surprise, but then the only ones that seem surprised are the CT's, the firemen and people on the groud had been saying since 10am that morning it was going to fall down, so none of them were surprised.
Does it support that it was planned, no. Why, because you're using circular reasoning, that they were told, so it was planned, but the only reason you beleive they were told is because you believe it was planned. Taken by itself, there is no evidence of them being "scripted" or having been told of it being demolished and screwing up, the theory that there was a miscommunication between "It's coming down soon" and "It's coming down now" or "It's come down now" is just as plausable, if not more so.
Consider this. Why would you leak the story or feed a "script"to the media 30 minutes before it happened? Why not let them react to what is happening, in fact surely allowing them to react to the events is better because then you don't have to let them in on it and add more people you can trust not to spill the beans (or are we now going to add the entire staff of FOX, CNN, ABC, BBC, CBS and NBC to the ever growing list of those that knew at the time or shortly after?)
Secondly, why tell the media something that obviously isn't true. While veiwers in the UK might not know the NY city skyline, BBC World (which this broadcast was) is NOT just shown to the the UK, but is their International broadcast and is picked up in about 80% of the world, including the US (I know this because it was the only way I got outside news during my stay in the US a few years back.) Not only that, but any reporter who lived in NY could look out the window and see the building was still standing. Telling them it had fallen down and it hadn't doesn't make sense.
Finally, why cut the feed? The video claims that it was so people didn't see the collapse, and then rather ironically shows several highly edited versions of the collapse making the false claim that it fell in 6.5 seconds. How do I know that it was edited and that the claim of 6.5 seconds is false? Because I posted the entire collapse in the WTC &7 thread about 2 weeks ago. Yes it does collapse in 6.5 but IF AND ONLY IF you ignore the first 7.5 seconds of the collapse!!! The entire collaspe took 14 seconds, maybe even 15 because not of the videos show the end of the collapse, only to the point it vanishes behind the surrounding buildings. The videos shown in the above clip are clearly well into the collapse with the roofline sagging noticably and the mechanical penthouses already long gone. (the first starts to disappear inside the building and the structure sags dramatically a good 7.5 seconds before the rest of the building goes, the second one about a second before. These collapses indicate that the buildings is already undergoing serious internal collapse.)
When added to the further evidence of the people on the streets knowing that the buildings was going to collapse, that it was considered so unstable and dangerous that the firecrews and ambulance staff who were conducting rescue operations in the area were pulled out, even though there were still mayday and distress calls going off in the area, and that not one video, or expert who was there, and several Demolisions crews who come to help with the rescue had reached the site by the time of the collapse, say there was any sound of explosives. Again, I linked to a number of demolisions in the other WTC 7 thread, all of which had one thing in common, regardless of the distance of the camera, the explosions were audible and very loud. There is no way that demo charges could have been used without all of Manhatten knowing, I guess we'll just have to add them to the list too right?
So the conclusion? It doesn't make sense to claim that this story was feed or leaked to the BBC and they went with it early. It makes no sense from the conspriacy point of view and it makes no sense that the News organisatrions of the world would all be brought in on it. It still doesn't match the real evidence, and it requires a belief in the supposition prior analysing the video for the video to support the position, which is circular reasoniong. Not only that, the position simply isn't supported by the rest of the evidence anyway.
As such, there seems to be no more than a case of confusion and mistaken communications, and a over clogged telecommunications system, things we do know existed on that day. As such, those things have to be firmly ruled out before any unknown and unprovable factors are added.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 27, 2007 16:27:52 GMT -4
But they know now what building it was. Why hasn't the BBC made a big fuss about it?
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Feb 27, 2007 16:32:18 GMT -4
But they know now what building it was. Why hasn't the BBC made a big fuss about it? Yes, you'd think that in the 5+ years since somebody at the BBC would have said, "hey, this isn't right...". BAM! Story of the century. Oh, never mind. No reporter would ever risk his life uncovering what would be the greatest hoax of all time... ETA: Here is the BBC's response:
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 27, 2007 16:41:16 GMT -4
That's a dead link twinstead.
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Feb 27, 2007 16:43:39 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by wingerii on Feb 27, 2007 17:48:26 GMT -4
Ouch. Save yourselves the trouble and skip the comments at the bottom of the article.
...or wade right in and start swinging, whichever you like.
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Feb 27, 2007 18:08:21 GMT -4
the BBC is damned if they do, damned if they don't. It appears that ANY mistake made in the heat of the moment during a crises can come back to haunt you once the crack YouTube investigators find out about it.
It must be pretty irritating for the BBC. I know it would irritate me.
Welcome to the YouTube generation.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 27, 2007 18:26:47 GMT -4
Actually, I'd like to note that a lot of news is done in front of screens. Not quite the way The Daily Show does it, true, but your local news team is sitting in an enclosed studio, too. That's not really a window looking out on your hometown's cityscape.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 27, 2007 18:34:33 GMT -4
the BBC is damned if they do, damned if they don't. It appears that ANY mistake made in the heat of the moment during a crises can come back to haunt you once the crack YouTube investigators find out about it.
The things is that throughout the day there were reports that weren't true, I recall that at one stage there were reports of a car or truck bomb having gone off at the Capital. Was that something that had been "leaked" as well and then they decided not to do it? It's easy to look back now when it is all calm and pick out the mistakes, but just like what was going on in NORAD, people didn't have a clue what was happening, and so messages got muddled and problems occured, that is what really happens in RL.
Heck look at the NEADS transcripts. They had about 9 pressumed hijacked planes in the first few hours, and the FAA was telling them that Flight 11 was heading to Washington DC while it was a 737 that had hit WTC 1.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Feb 27, 2007 18:45:22 GMT -4
Actually, I'd like to note that a lot of news is done in front of screens. Not quite the way The Daily Show does it, true, but your local news team is sitting in an enclosed studio, too. That's not really a window looking out on your hometown's cityscape. It's particularly obvious here: the view shown is of the river, which the BBC building is nowhere near.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Feb 27, 2007 19:04:48 GMT -4
I still think that they received a report that it looked like it was going to collapse and they misreported it as already had collapsed. Of course that won't satisfy the conspiracy believers.
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Feb 27, 2007 19:13:07 GMT -4
I still think that they received a report that it looked like it was going to collapse and they misreported it as already had collapsed. Of course that won't satisfy the conspiracy believers. That is of course the ONLY explanation that even remotely makes sense.
|
|