BBC News Reports Building 7 collapse 23 Minutes before it collapses.

Here are the additional pages I found.

The times are not helpful tho.

news.bbc.co.uk...

news.bbc.co.uk...

news.bbc.co.uk...

news.bbc.co.uk...

just a shame that bbc news site did not number each 10 o'clock news that it has on the site. if it did then we may of had something more, if they may of reported on it before 10:20pm

shame we just cannot get access to these things, but surely someone has recorded news from that day.

man you could spend all day just going through numbers that may be web pages, is there no way of searching a site, with a peice of software, without goung on the site, and just changing web page numbers like you did.

is there a piece of software that would take in a set of web pages and see if something is there, surely there is a hacking tool like this.

[edit on 3/1/2007 by andy1033]

Originally posted by andy1033
just a shame that bbc news iste did not number each 10 o'clock news that it has on the site. if it did then we may of had something more, if they may of reported on it before 10:20pm

shame we just cannot get access to these things, but surely someone has recorded news from that day.

The BBC site has long be a pain to navigate. I have tried systematically plugging in numbers into the URL and so far nothing of any use. I got a lot of Entertainment sites that are still archived tho. Good to know we can always find that info. LOL

I can't seem to find an index on the site that makes it easier to get to these pages. I don't understand why a news site wouldn't have that at least. But as a previous poster mentioned all news sites seem to be difficult to navigate and always have been.

It has been so long since I telnetted I wonder if that would get us better access?

What Really Happened has a good page on the BBC's 9/11 Conspiracy Files show.

Lots of links, lots of information in one place. Just FYI.

hat about if you goto archive.org. does it have more web pages to do with 911 on bbc site.

What a surprise, no mention of this story in the mainstream media. I guess it was just a glitch in the matrix. Why does the MSM only talk about 9/11 in vague, dreamlike somberness? I am outraged!

[edit on 1-3-2007 by freakyty]

I just thought I would share this.
As it is I have no way to upload a picture but I don't think you need me to point it out to you.

But anyone with a halfway decent photo-capturing software or just a really good eye can see several times in the video that the news desk anchor raises his left arm and he is wearing an analog watch.

At one point I was able to see that his watch with white face and black hands said 10:11 or there abouts. Right as the feed is breaking up from NYC he raises his hands again and you can clearly see that it is right near a quarter past 10 on his watch.

So at least we know that the other timeframes given are all coming together nicely.

Jane wasn't cut off just seconds before the actual collapse she was cut off 5 minutes before.

I just thought anyone not trusting the other times could see for themselves.

Assuming you trust the mans watch. :-)

wow great pick : )
Ur a superwife.
hhehhe

at what point in the clip does it become most visible

iam a graphic designer so i have some good programs etc.

Originally posted by tombangelta
at what point in the clip does it become most visible

iam a graphic designer so i have some good programs etc.

Oh it is a bunch of times. I couldn't give a direct time because so many different videos start at different times.

But right as Jane's signal is breaking up they cut to the anchor man where the camera is coming from his right. He lifts his left hand up says how they just lost the feed and you can clearly see his watch.

I would just watch the 9 minute or 7 minute film. Go to where he is talking to Jane and then just freeze it whenever his hands come up.

In the middle about 3 minutes before jane cuts out he really flashes it around a lot. You can get several shots there. Just wait for the angle to stop the glare.

Sorry I can't be of more help. One day I will set up a photobucket site or something so I can load these things. :-)

And Toby, I am a superwife! My husband didn't marry no idiot.

something a bit strange going on with channel 4 news just now , before the break the reporter said they had breaking news of massive explosions in Iraq. then when they come back nothing was mentioned. during the next story video footage started to role which displayed huge explosions ? they just cut the video and carried on with another story

can any one confirm this ?


also i dont know what video you have but the quality must be better than the one in my possession . do you have a link?

[edit on 1-3-2007 by tombangelta]

Something else I wanted to say.

The BBC's response:

>>"We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down.

Originally posted by tombangelta
something a bit strange going on with channel 4 news just now , before the break the reporter said they had breaking news of massive explosions in Iraq. then when they come back nothing was mentioned. during the next story video footage started to role which displayed huge explosions ? they just cut the video and carried on with another story

can any one confirm this ?


also i dont know what video you have but the quality must be better than the one in my possession . do you have a link?

[edit on 1-3-2007 by tombangelta]

Try this one: youtube.com...

The watch is white faced with black hands so it really stands out without you really needing to zoom much.

But if you have a good photoeditor you can sharpen it up and edge define and you will see it perfectly. well as perfectly as you can expect from this sort of video. At least you can outline the round face and then use the straps to determine 12 and 6.


Do some captures right around 4:45 on the video link above.
Again at 6:55
Then right at 7:10 you will see it at the bottom of the screen under the banner and that is the closest view you will get. It is right is Jane is cut off.



[edit on 1-3-2007 by Identified]

when zoomed his entire watch face is about 10 pixels. cant really see how you got the time from it to be honest.

but at one stage when the video is moving it does look like about 10:10 , I'm not sure.

Originally posted by tombangelta
when zoomed his entire watch face is about 10 pixels. cant really see how you got the time from it to be honest.

but at one stage when the video is moving it does look like about 10:10 , I'm not sure.

Hm... I can see it quite well. You aren't going to be able to see any numbers or anything. You are just looking for the angle of the hands on the face.

Try one of the other feeds then. Maybe that one was wasn't good enough.

I didn't capture from thta exact feed. I just used it to give you a time reference.

I am sure if you look around you will find it.






[edit on 1-3-2007 by Identified]

Originally posted by Identified
Something else I wanted to say.

The BBC's response:

>>"We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down.

Originally posted by Identified
Jane wasn't cut off just seconds before the actual collapse she was cut off 5 minutes before.

I agree. It was about 5 minutes. But the time between when she was cut off and the collapse of the building isn't what's important. What's important is that after she made the announcement with the building in the background, she was cut off.

Because it was evidence.

Whether it was 2 seconds or 5 or 10 minutes later that the building came down is irrelevent, IMO. That's just when someone realized what was happening and was able to get the feed brought down.

Originally posted by Jessicamsa

Originally posted by Identified
Something else I wanted to say.

The BBC's response:

>>"We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down.

Originally posted by Identified
Wouldn't you say you "We weren't told"? I just think that sound silly. Just my opinion.

"We weren't told" sounds better, but "We didn't get told" is still proper English.