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

Originally posted by r4758
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.

I have to agree why would a known BBC reporter help some hoaxers to make this film? It would be a pretty expensive and elaborate hoax IMO it must be the real deal, only question is... what to make of it now its public?

If it is the real deal though how are we only finding out about it now?

Originally posted by r4758
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.

The time stamp on the original file confirms that it was filmed before the collapse of wtc7. So the green screen theory is irrelevant now.

Originally posted by r4758
ia311517.us.archive.org...

The timestamp on the file itself suggests bbc 2001 09 11 1654 - 1736.

[edit on 26-2-2007 by Xeros]

If anyone has this clip, make as many copies as possible hide them everywhere you can give them to everyone.

NOW SERIOUSLY PEOPLE THINK ABOUT THIS...

If this is in fact 100% Genuine footage as it appears to be then this surely must be discussed by major news outlets. If Anna Nicole smith gets day after day after day of coverage, then surely this topic will surpass all topics on the news until we get some answers.

Personally I think this is the straw that breaks the camels back

But what if this is in fact the most elaborate hoax ever conceived to once and for all finally crush the 9/11 truth movement.

they make this hoax and upload it to there archive, and those of us that use sound logic look at this piece of footage and come to the only conclusion that sound logic leads to "PRIOR KNOWLEDGE"

but in 2 days or 2 weeks the hoaxers come out and say look anyone can create "internet conspiracy videos" and the truthers all buy it hook line and sinker every time.


Personally I don't see how this doest result in either one of those two before mentioned possibilities

1. THE NEWS.BBC HAS TO ACKNOWLEDGE THIS AND ANSWER WHY OR HOW THIS COULD OF HAPPENED.

2. Jane comes out and make up some BS, which wont even matter

3. The Iran war starts

4. Major news headline that trumps all others, IE bird-flu outbreak, nuke attack etc.

I get so excited that we may be on the cusped of TRUTH and CHANGE, and on the flip side Utterly saddened knowing that our time is drawing near, they will not allow themselves to be convicted of there TREASON.

I'm in Chicago so hopefully my demise will be quick and painless but for those destined for the camps I weep

Peace be with us all!

So its pretty solid that the video isn't a fake. Now how can we figure out how we have only just heard about this?

Has it been in the BBC archives all this time?

Originally posted by Xeros

Originally posted by r4758
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.

The time stamp on the original file confirms that it was filmed before the collapse of wtc7. So the green screen theory is irrelevant now.

[edit on 26-2-2007 by Xeros]

The green screen was never relevant

#1 - Sunlight is cast on her
#2- That sunlight corresponds to the buildings behind her
#3- That sunlight corresponds to the time of day and month.
#4- That sunlight corresponds with where she is standing. (determined by the Winter Gardens and WTC7)





[edit on 26-2-2007 by WTC7SmokingPile]

Is it possible that this file was simply archived like any other file and that no one thought anything of it because no one at BBC News realised the significance of what it contained?

Is it possible that it was just innocently discovered recently?

The thing is, the reporter at the scene must have realised something was up because in the next few minutes she would no doubt turn around and realise that a 47 story building was collapsing.

Who knows what she thought: "What, another building collapsing, oh well..."



[edit on 26-2-2007 by r4758]

Don't worry world. I got this clip in all of it's AVI format glory before Google Pulled it.

As soon as I get a find a good time to upload a 183 MB file I will.
And I've already burned it to 10 CD's. 2 of which I plan to stick in a lockbox.

You could say I'm paranoid.

Originally posted by r4758
Is it possible that this file was simply archived like any other file and that no one thought anything of it because no one BBC News realised the significance of what it contained?

Is it possible that it was just innocently discovered recently?

The thing is, the reporter at the scene must have realised something was up because in the next few minutes she would no doubt turn around and realise that a 47 story building was collapsing.

Who knows what she thought: "What, another building collapsing, oh well..."

[edit on 26-2-2007 by r4758]

What confuses me is the feed is terminated or something, someone a bit further high up new about this at the time, would be some major slip up not to secure the footage afterwards dont you think?

Looks the real deal to me. Definitely not bluescreen. Live chromakeying tools aren't that good on hair and backlighting like that.

Notice she also mentions at one point the the whole area around the site is sealed off. The can only BE one place she's getting her info, and that's from an "offical" source or news release from inside the sealed zone.

As a UK reporter, living in NY, she will be pretty familar with the general geography of the place and most of the political and cutural landmarks, it's also likely she wouldn't have known exactly which one was the Salomon Building. So if she received "official word" that it had collapsed, she would probably not have noticed that it as still there, and just repeated the information given. The BBC ALWAYS uses two sources if it can, and that's what seems to have been alluded to in the footage. First we here an initial report, possibly breaking from the one source, and then, during the hourly headlines.. the tone shifts to suggest it's now been "confirmed".. It's subtle, but regular BBC newsviewers will probably see what I mean. Anyway, they DO spend a while discussing the collapse and speculating on it's causes, so there's certainly no "mix-up"...

you know what though.. knowing the culture within the BBC, they'll be all over this, if not officially, but at staff level.... checking and confirming from their own archives. The reporter, and the crew, will be well known and traceable, and everyone in the newsroom will be trying to find out if it's true.

Originally posted by WTC7SmokingPile
Don't worry world. I got this clip in all of it's AVI format glory before Google Pulled it.

As soon as I get a find a good time to upload a 183 MB file I will.
And I've already burned it to 10 CD's. 2 of which I plan to stick in a lockbox.

You could say I'm paranoid.

Do you have (several) friends whom you would trust with your life (literally)? Send a copy to them, too.

I think this wants e-mailing to every news desk on the planet, too. If we all e-mail the usual places (CNN, NBC, BBC, The New York Times (Watergate anyone?) the list goes on...) surely they'll have to listen? The story of the Century??? I doubt they'd want to miss that!

[edit on 26-2-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

I can't watch a 1 gig file, as my monthly bandwidth limit is only 2 GB.

Anyway, if the reporter isn't physically in front of the collapsing buildings, I have a very simple answer..... they are simply replaying older footage.

When reporters talk about the plane crashing into the building and then show footage of the plane hitting the building, that doesn't mean they had advanced knowledge... it just means that footage is pre-recorded. They are getting the stories before they are getting the images.

Can someone please let me know if my explaination fits with the video or not, since I can't watch it myself?

[edit on 26-2-2007 by Yarcofin]

60% uploaded to you tube. will put the link up soon as its done.

i need some coffee this is better than Eon8

Originally posted by Yarcofin
I can't watch a 1 gig file, as my monthly bandwidth limit is only 2 GB.

Anyway, if the reporter isn't physically in front of the collapsing buildings, I have a very simple answer..... they are simply replaying older footage.

When reporters talk about the plane crashing into the building and then show footage of the plane hitting the building, that doesn't mean they had advanced knowledge... it just means that footage is pre-recorded. They are getting the stories before they are getting the images.

Please read the thread. The reporter is standing in front of the scene from what looks like inside a high-rise building. They are talking about the collapse of wtc7 LIVE while the building is still standing in the background. The time stamp also confirms that this was filmed before the collapse of wtc7.

Originally posted by Yarcofin
I can't watch a 1 gig file, as my monthly bandwidth limit is only 2 GB.

Anyway, if the reporter isn't physically in front of the collapsing buildings, I have a very simple answer..... they are simply replaying older footage.

When reporters talk about the plane crashing into the building and then show footage of the plane hitting the building, that doesn't mean they had advanced knowledge... it just means that footage is pre-recorded. They are getting the stories before they are getting the images.

Have you read any of the above? I'm sorry you can't watch the video.

This is not a replay; we know when WTC7 collapsed. Tens of minutes BEFORE it actually collapsed, BBC News 24 were reporting it as "COLLAPSED" - PAST TENSE. This was before it HAD actually collapsed. They were reporting a future event as if it had already happened.

Nothing "pre-recorded" about that at all!

******** Need links to where the date stamps were confirmed. ********

Originally posted by Yarcofin
I can't watch a 1 gig file, as my monthly bandwidth limit is only 2 GB.

Anyway, if the reporter isn't physically in front of the collapsing buildings, I have a very simple answer..... they are simply replaying older footage.

When reporters talk about the plane crashing into the building and then show footage of the plane hitting the building, that doesn't mean they had advanced knowledge... it just means that footage is pre-recorded. They are getting the stories before they are getting the images.

Can someone please let me know if my explaination fits with the video or not, since I can't watch it myself?

[edit on 26-2-2007 by Yarcofin]

You're explanation doesn't fit. She isn't standing in front of a screen.
They got her in the foreground and the building she said collapsed standing right behind her clear as day.



[edit on 26-2-2007 by WTC7SmokingPile]

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
******** Need links to where the date stamps were confirmed. ********

Originally posted by r4758
ia311517.us.archive.org...

The timestamp on the file itself suggests bbc 2001 09 11 1654 - 1736.

@Xeros: Thanks!

I downloaded original video and bbc reporter in front of wtc7 has been taken out of the original feed. I do not see it anywhere. Has anyone else found this to be true?

OK...it looks as though the originals have been tampered with. NOW WHAT DO WE DO???

[edit on 26-2-2007 by tator3]

Originally posted by Yarcofin
I can't watch a 1 gig file, as my monthly bandwidth limit is only 2 GB.

Anyway, if the reporter isn't physically in front of the collapsing buildings, I have a very simple answer..... they are simply replaying older footage.

When reporters talk about the plane crashing into the building and then show footage of the plane hitting the building, that doesn't mean they had advanced knowledge... it just means that footage is pre-recorded. They are getting the stories before they are getting the images.

Can someone please let me know if my explaination fits with the video or not, since I can't watch it myself?

[edit on 26-2-2007 by Yarcofin]

Until you've seen it I would advise not to speculate. We've been through green/blue screen possibilities and most agree, the background is real.

Just wanted to add this link!!

Time differences vary throughout the year??

www.timeanddate.com...