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

The video is very damning if true, maybe just maybe this could blow the lid off everything! But there are some questions not being asked here yet:

Has anyone actually tried to contact the BBC in reference to this material?

I mean why would they upload this video in there archives if this video is real? It would be very interesting to get a response to this question in particular!

When was the video uploaded to the BBC archive? If it has been there since the attacks then why are we only just hearing about it?

If it is a hoax how did the creators of this hoax upload the video into the BBC archives?

Its not exactly likely that the alleged hoaxers hired a known BBC reporter, put a green screen behind her etc is it?

I think the BBC have alot of questions to answer about this, but i doubt we'll get the truth!

She probably doesn't know which building it is from there; even I couldn't spot it after several days of watching videos of it collapsing! In addition to doing her job as a reporter, she probably didn't even really notice what was out the window.

The correspondent just gotten the information wrong. And in fact she notice that it still standing when she turns around, as if to confirm it.

Its funny as hell watching the debunkers stumble over themselves. This is damning, this is very damn damning.

Quit making excuses. Its about time these friggin people got some justice. These criminals must be stopped. I will not watch this happen again!

Originally posted by Argos
Has anyone actually tried to contact the BBC in reference to this material?

yes, this is a mp3 file of a phonecall a canadian guy made w the bbc news, trying to get some answers.

Needless to say he didnt get any.
nice try though

Originally posted by CameronFox
The Marriot was literally split in half after the collapse of the towers.

As has been said, she mentions both buildings. She mentions the Marriot in addition to the 47-story Salomon Brothers Building. (WTC7)

And lets think... you are a journalist from the UK. You get a tip that there is about to be a demolition of a building.... what would you do? Hmmm let me stand in front of it and say it collapsed???

Does that make ANY sence AT ALL ?

No. She (the bbc) got the news that it had collapsed and she reported it. She and the bbc are innocent. She probably didn't even know which was WTC7 at the time.

The question is, where did this information come from? Who told them it had collapsed? How did they know?

It just says that someone KNEW it was going to collapse before it did and gave the news prematurely.

[edit on 26-2-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]

Whats really really funny is that "someone" cuts the feed right before the building actually does collapse behind her!

Ha ha ha ha ha

Time is of the essence.

[edit on 2/26/2007 by sp00n1]

Originally posted by deltaboy
The correspondent just gotten the information wrong. And in fact she notice that it still standing when she turns around, as if to confirm it.

Its quite obvious that the reporter had no real idea which buliding was what when reporting else the realisation would have set in, whoever past the story to the studio are the ones who were given the story to release thats the direction the audit trail would follow if indeed that were possible.

I note how quickly they report the cause as fire in the same report as the collapse and still way before the event.

[edit on 26-2-2007 by Koka]

One thing. She didn't report it at 4:57, 23 minutes early. She's on the 10 o'clock news (5 PM Eastern) in London, so it's some time after 5 PM eastern that she's reporting. It's actually about 5:10 EDT when she reports it.

Still, well before it comes down and then there's that pesky building behind her as she reports that it's already down.

I just wanted to be clear.

[edit on 26-2-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
One thing. She didn't report it at 4:57, 23 minutes early. She's on the 10 o'clock news (5 PM Eastern) in London, so it's some time after 5 PM eastern that she's reporting. It's actually about 5:10 EDT when she reports it.

the guy in the studio is reporting it at 4:57, she comes on later after the roundup of the news.

Originally posted by mister Jones

Originally posted by Argos
Has anyone actually tried to contact the BBC in reference to this material?

yes, this is a mp3 file of a phonecall a canadian guy made w the bbc news, trying to get some answers.

Needless to say he didnt get any.
nice try though

Thanks for this. The canadian reporter could of done a better job of thinking up questions to ask though. It is interesting that no reference is made to the fact that this video is in the BBC archives, the reporter just says where it can be found on the net from other sources.

It just baffles me why it would be in there archives when it makes them look so bad!

Anyone know who found out about this video and brought it
to the internets attention?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
One thing. She didn't report it at 4:57, 23 minutes early. She's on the 10 o'clock news (5 PM Eastern) in London, so it's some time after 5 PM eastern that she's reporting. It's actually about 5:10 EDT when she reports it.

Still, well before it comes down and then there's that pesky building behind her as she reports that it's already down.

I just wanted to be clear.

[edit on 26-2-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]

The claim is on when the BBC initially reported the collapse which occurs at 4:57 EST, the video starts at 4:54, allegedly.

The reporter, Jane Standley, reports it about the time you say.

Edit: Actually she reports it at 5:07 according to the text overlay.

[edit on 26-2-2007 by Koka]

i have downloaded the video in its flash format. once i have converted it to mpeg i will upload it to google.

why was the file in flash format anyhow

I think it is about time someone with some serious influence made a doco on WTC 7. It is absolutely the most controversial element of 911 and needs a public inquiry. Here in Australia hardly anyone even knows it came down. I'd say at least 90% of the people I have asked think only two buildings came down on 911.

It is time someone with a large scale audience like Michael Moore or even some celebrity like Oprah gets informed about this stuff and gets it out into the mainstream. If there is a conspiracy with 911 then it starts with WTC 7.

--------

Ok I finally got to see footage of the feed cutting out and it looked like some kind of plug in effect. Usually a feed will cut in and out. I haven't ever seen a transmission go into a mosaic pattern like that before. It looked like a dodgy effect not a transmission failure.

[edit on 26/2/07 by mustbebc]

Originally posted by Argos
Anyone know who found out about this video and brought it
to the internets attention?

it was a blogger nicknamed 911Veritas who posted it on 911blogger with the videolink on googlevideo.

I've almot finished version 2... The file will be a DivX approx 500MB... also...
I have produced a medium res WMV file that shows time sychronized continuous footage from 14:40 to 17:18. So there is no doubt about the accuracy, even though everyone can see WTC7 behind her as she's reporting it...

This file is approx 700MB and starts at the Pataki conference with an accurate "live" timestamp of 14:40 Eastern Time and another at 4pm (gotta find a home for it online, DZ ?).

I also suggest that everyone get the originals, linked above for future reference.

link from here

Originally posted by tandino
Just throwing something into the mix here, I've done a quick google search for a BBC World Service correspondent called Jane Stanley and come up with this link so far. Why they're so hard to find amazes me however.

1. 1st link to Jane Stanley

2. 2nd link to Jane Stanley

half way down the page for 2nd mention of BBC correspondent Jane Stanley

I'll add more when/if I find them.

T

[edit on 26-2-2007 by tandino]

Isn't her name Jane Standley, with a 'd'?

Originally posted by mister Jones

Originally posted by Argos
Anyone know who found out about this video and brought it
to the internets attention?

it was a blogger nicknamed 911Veritas who posted it on 911blogger with the videolink on googlevideo.

I've almot finished version 2... The file will be a DivX approx 500MB... also...
I have produced a medium res WMV file that shows time sychronized continuous footage from 14:40 to 17:18. So there is no doubt about the accuracy, even though everyone can see WTC7 behind her as she's reporting it...

This file is approx 700MB and starts at the Pataki conference with an accurate "live" timestamp of 14:40 Eastern Time and another at 4pm (gotta find a home for it online, DZ ?).

I also suggest that everyone get the originals, linked above for future reference.

link from here

Nice... is anyone registered to 9/11 blogger here on ATS? Would be useful if we could find out how he came across this video. Did he stumble upon by chance? Was he informed from some third source?

I'd like to know whether this video has been staring us in the face the whole time or has it recently been leaked?

Couls someone post a working link to the BBC archives where this vid is having bit of trouble finding it!

The reporter does say that "as for this whole downtown area behind me..."

I know it doesn't prove that she wasn't standing in front of a green background but certainly suggests that she was live at the scene.

Originally posted by Argos
14:08 to 14:49
Couls someone post a working link to the BBC archives where this vid is having bit of trouble finding it!

sure
14:08 to 14:49
14:49 to 15:31
15:31 to 16:13
16:13 to 16:54
16:54 to 17:36

beware, these MPG files are 1+gig each... for people with alot of time and discspace




(edit to add: cheers for the applause!)
(2nd edit to fix link and to add:

what do you know, 2 links are suddenly forbidden... they all worked a few hours ago. BBC took them down cos everyone started to download them?

[edit on 26/2/2007 by mister Jones]

[edit on 26/2/2007 by mister Jones]

The lighting is the most critical piece of evidence that a blue or green screen was not in use. A studio would never light a presenter from the side. Professional lighting is done to deliberately remove any shadowing across the face as it is more aesthetically pleasing. Typically the use of wide angle Fresnels or PCs at the front and depending on the situation often the use of profile lights (similar to spotlight but with greater beam control) to add extra light. Camera's need a great deal of light to work properly so the would have been shining lights onto her front otherwise she would have been silhouetted by the window light. This would have meant there would have been no reason for the side ways lighting if it were a blue or green screen. It also means you would have seen hot spots in the background because light shining at her face would have gone onto a screen making it difficult to filter out the green or blue and layer in the background.