http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/ ... 007/270207bbcresponds.htm

Pathetic five paragraph blog rebuttal does not answer questions as to source of report that Salomon Building was coming down, BBC claims tapes lost due to "cock-up" not conspiracy.

The BBC has been forced to respond to footage showing their correspondent reporting the collapse of WTC 7 before it fell on 9/11, claiming tapes from the day are somehow missing, and refusing to identify the source for their bizarre act of "clairvoyance" in accurately pre-empting the fall of Building 7.

Here is the BBC's response to the questions about the footage that was unearthed yesterday, with my comments after each statement.

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.

"We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down." If this is true, then how on earth did the BBC report the collapse of Building 7 before it happened? Psychic clairvoyance?

Of course they were told that WTC 7 was coming down, just like the firefighters, police, first responders and CNN were told it was coming down. They had to have had a source for making such a claim. The BBC is acting like the naughty little boy who got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

No one here is claiming the BBC are "part of the conspiracy," but their hideous penchant to just repeat what authorities tell them without even a cursory investigation (and with the Building they are telling us has collapsed mockingly filling the background shot of the report), is a damning indictment of their yellow journalism when it comes to 9/11.

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.

How do "chaos and confusion" explain how the BBC reported on the collapse of a building, a collapse that happened "unexpectedly" according to their Conspiracy Files hit piece documentary, before it happened?

In one breath the BBC is claiming they were not told of the impending collapse of the Building and in the next they are telling us that all their information is sourced. Which is it to be? Did the BBC have a source telling them the building was about to collapse or not? If not, how on earth could they pre-empt its fall? Do BBC reporters have access to a time machine? What was the source of this information?

3. 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.

Trying to make sense of what she was being told? She obviously didn't make much sense of the fact that the Building she was reporting had collapsed was prominently standing behind her! Unfotunately, for a news organization that prides itself on accuracy and credibility, "she doesn't remember" just doesn't cut it as an excuse.

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?

Hahahah, kan det bli mer uppenbart?

Det finns ju en sak som inte nån verkar ha tänkt på. Reportrar som står i studios och rapporterar står ju framför en skärm där en film körs. Det ser kanske ut som reportern i klippet står och tittar ut genom ett fönster men högst troligen är det inte så.
Så det kan ju vara så att de bara kör den mest aktuella filmen de har där, och att det är därför byggnaden står kvar.
Men man kan ju ifrågasätta varför de inte kör en "Live" film isåfall. Kanske för att de ska kunna redigera bort saker som de inte vill att vi ska se.

Ganska komiskt är det i vilket fall. Och en dålig förklaring ger de med.

Ska dom slarva bort dom här också?


1. Bush saw the first plane hit live on tv:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc ... 1st+plane+hit+tower&hl=en (1min)

2. Rumsfeld Says Flight 93 was shot down:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc ... flight+93+shot+down&hl=en (30sec)

3. Rumsfeld Says Missle Hit Pentagon - "Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center"
http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20 ... issile-Not-Flight-77.html

4. NYC Mayor Slips- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hNmf76GUCw

5. Larry Silverstein CLAIM WTC 7 Pulled:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc ... 01329&q=Larry+silverstein

Quote:

Jag vet inte hur jag ska förklara hur jag tänker, men ett klassiskt sätt som tex kidnappare använt länge för att bevisa att ett band inte är förinspelat är att visa upp den kidnappade personen med ett ex av dagens tidning.....

Och dagens WTC 7 byggnad stod upp när de hävdade att den hade rasat ihop pga. eldsvåda och allt var bin Ladens (Tim Osman) fel och att amerikanerna kommer att få vänja sig med att på i fjärde riket.

Ok, so now we are getting closer to the truth and....
Whooops...

They lost the tapes...

Bumblefucks...


BUT yes they claim they did get a warning right?

Det måste vara uteslutet att de blivit av med banden... den kunde säga vad som helst utom det. Bland det löjligaste jag hört. Det plus att NASA blivit av med alla filmer från Hollywood-produktionen kring Apollo 11.

Seriösa nyhetsbyråer har väl koll på allt, behöver sitt material för att visa senare, i årskrönikor osv - det här är patetiskt.

Quote:

http://infowars.net/articles/february2007/280207BBC.htm

BBC Has Lost Tapes Of 21st Century's Defining Moment
9/11 coverage gone due to "cock up". Why is this not a world news headline?

It has come to light this week that the most pre-eminent broadcasting company in the world has lost the original recordings of its output for the entire day on September 11th 2001, just over five years on, yet no major news agency has even bothered to report the fact.

Despite being currently the biggest story on the internet and in the alternative media, the only place in the mainstream the story has appeared is on a small German news website.

This highlights the fact that the mainstream media is not free to report events. The information it disseminates is strictly controlled and regulated.

The BBC was forced into claiming that the recordings covering the 9/11 attacks have mysteriously vanished in response to fierce criticism over the fact that on the day the news agency reported that World Trade Center Building 7 had collapsed almost 30 minutes before it actually came down.

Conspiracy or no conspiracy, surely the fact that the BBC has made this announcement should be reported.

A cogent precedent can be found in the relatively recent furor over the loss of the moon landing tapes by NASA. This was reported in every major newspaper and on every major news website in the world for over a week when it came to light last August. The story then hit world headlines again when the tapes were found.

In the eyes of the mainstream media the September 11th attacks in 2001, it seems, are not as important an event as the moon landing, which happened last century, 38 years ago to be precise.

Therefore it is purely as a result of the persistence of the alternative media, and its audience, that regular BBC employees are now being deluged by e mails and calls asking them to divulge what their source was for reporting the collapse of Building 7 a full 26 minutes before it happened.

The BBC editor's blog is currently carrying the following statement from Richard Porter, editor of BBC news:

"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."

The BBC is claiming that it cannot verify that it reported building 7 had collapsed too early because it no longer has its own tapes. Mr Porter then says he would love to get hold of a copy. Yet it is blatantly clear that he is writing about the copy of the BBC's output that kick started the entire controversy! So there he already has a copy, why can't he watch that?

Even more incredibly he then goes on to declare that the News 24 footage, which the BBC DOES still have, fails to clear up the issue. This is patently false as we have today proven. Footage from the BBC's News 24 channel that shows the time stamp at 21:54 (4:54PM EST) when news of the Salomon Brothers Building is first broadcast, a full 26 minutes in advance of its collapse. You can view the footage here:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/ ... y2007/280207timestamp.htm

Remember that both the official FEMA and the NIST reports on building 7 concluded that the building collapsed unexpectedly.

So why is the BBC continually lying to us and attempting to cloud this controversy instead of explaining it?

Even more remarkable is the fact that if the BBC maintains that its footage is indeed lost, this means that at least THREE copies have been lost from DIFFERENT LOCATIONS.

The BBC's policy on retaining recordings of all television and radio broadcast outputs, last reviewed: 18/02/03 - which you can view online at the BBC's own website, clearly states:

The following components to be retained:-
· Two broadcast standard copies of all transmitted/published TV, Radio and BBCi output – one to be stored on a separate site as a master
· One browse-quality version for research purposes, to protect the broadcast material
· All supporting metadata to enable research and re-use
· A selection of original (i.e. unedited) material for re-use/re-versioning purposes
· Hardware/software/equipment to enable replay/transfer of the media
Furthermore:

"A retention schedule for each set of records kept /archived must be created as defined in the Core Records Policy. Retention periods are set according to the status and value of the record."
This means that the safe retention of archived recordings is checked at regular intervals, and the more valuable they are deemed to be, the more frequently they are checked.

And yet more:

"All transmitted/published media content will be kept for at least five years to fulfil legal requirements and to enable re-versioning and re-use."

This means that if the footage was "lost" prior to September 11th 2006 then the BBC has broken British broadcasting law.

So all in all we have a situation here whereby the BBC is either lying when it says all records of its World output on 9/11 are gone, or the BBC has categorically failed to uphold its own policy, and UK law, and is dismissing this as merely a "cock up".

This is not some two bit cable TV station, the BBC is paid for by every person in the UK and thus has a strict legal responsibility to uphold its written policies. If this was ever to be challenged legally would the editors of the BBC maintain as their defence that they "cocked it up"? That is simply not good enough. People that "cock up" at that level should no longer be in a job and should be explaining themselves in a court of law.

We know for a fact that the BBC are very concerned about how this whole fiasco has impacted upon their reputation. Corporation chiefs are also worried that head of BBC World Richard Porter's brief response to the matter has only made them look worse.

At this time Mr Porter is still ludicrously feigning ignorance and stupidity by suggesting that the BBC has been "accused of being in on the conspiracy".

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.

As a citizen of the UK and a BBC license payer I demand an explanation as to what has happened to at least three copies of BBC news footage of a moment in time that will define history. I want to know PRECISE DETAILS of when the tapes were last checked, how they could have simply vanished and who is ultimately responsible and so should all other UK residents.

You can put these requests to the BBC here. My advice is to be succinct, to the point and polite. No more than two sentences are required.

Furthermore, everyone who reads this article, whether British or American, should immediately contact their local and national media outlets and demand to know why they consider this huge story not to be newsworthy.

Det här tyckte jag var intressant:

"Remember that both the official FEMA and the NIST reports on building 7 concluded that the building collapsed unexpectedly"

Unexpectedly betyder oväntat. Detta är ganska lustigt med tanke på att Zink och Co har påstått att folk visste långt i förväg att byggnaden skulle kollapsa och att BBC rapporterade om kollapsen 26 minuter innan det hände.

Men dessa två är ju foliehattar eftersom de säger att de inte tror på pannkaksteorin.

Bra poäng Seraphim.

http://www.infowars.net/articles/march2007/010307BBC_WTC7.htm

Why No One Could Have Predicted The Collapse Of WTC

Building was specifically designed to have floors removed without collapsing

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Thursday, March 1, 2007