BBC and Google? Uh-oh.

Reading the Santa Fe article about the WTC7 BBC thing I realised a huge issue has arisen here.

The behaviour of google regarding the videos.

Despite the fact the Google censored the initial internet premier of this archived video, removing it from their video service, many more "mirrors" of the video were then set up across the net. Watch the video here.

The BBC states: "We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another." I'll say they don't clear it up, at least not how the BBC would like. Tapes of News 24 (wait, let me find a new link, Google Video has now censored the footage from News 24...

Is there any reasonable explanation for this speedy removal of the videos? Is it to do with copyright etc and standard practice?

If not, then it would seem they have got an arrangement with the BBC at some level. Or with another agency that would rather this video not be seen.

And then theres the BBC

Lost the footage? Probably digital and stored in multiple lacations? One of the worlds premier news organisations?

Are we seeing obvious signs of cooperation? Or is there a less sinister explanation?


edit couldnt get vid urls working for some reason.

[edit on 1-3-2007 by Giordano Bruno]

Sigh, it's like the south park episode where they complain that the simpsons already thought of everything.

Al Jones beat me to it -

Media blacklists BBC fiasco; Google, Digg censor 9/11 Truth

Simple...Google, Digg and the BBC are also in on this conspiracy.

As you go along you will find almost everyone is involved. I would say close to 90% of the worlds population is trying to surpress the cold hard facts that the "Truth Movement" uncovers.

Don't think it ain't a bitch keeping everyone from spillin' the beans either.

haha 90% is pretty extreme, but it does beg the question, whose tracks are they covering? Their own? Because if we're actually suggesting that the perpetrators of 911 can boss around Google and the BBC then the rabbit hole goes pretty damn deep.

Naw it is more likely some mundane technical issue.

As for the BBC, they are probably embarrassed.

And As for Digg, they can spot a "Stampeding Herd" from a mile away.

They have a good sense of humor about this whole frenzy as well.

www.digg.com...

This is a great read..heh AND it made the top 10





[edit on 1-3-2007 by GwionX]

Perhaps BBC and Google are in the clutches of that vast neo-Nazi 9/11 Truth cabal and are trying to PROMOTE this video hoax by "censoring" it?

Production and direction is done through a gallery in the newsroom (N6) and is then sent via cable link to Playout One which is based in a separate building in the BBC Media Village, it is controlled by a separate company called Red Bee Media. They are responsible for playback of all network channels and carry digital channels too.

Making backups of the playout is done digitally and in periods of transition they can be lost. There are entire series' of programmes and sporting events that are unrecoverable. It is not uncommon.

The budget for archiving is minute compared to the budget for other departments such as news, and with many hands on the tapes/files they often go missing.

Hey Caustic!

Well Don't be surprized if you ever go on some "Truth March" that you are surrounded by Skinheads and Klansmen.

I am serious dude.

I saw a post where you explained some of that re: Alex Jones and Cultism. Esp. re the phone brigades and such, I can see what you're saying to some extent. Thing is I'm not afraid of neo-Nazis. Way too hated to make inroads, but I'll keep my eyes open just in case. I'm worried about more popular threats, like people that can get almost half the country to vote them in as President. But it's a matter of perspective I guess.

ok so its possible they could have accidentaly lost or erased the tapes, and be embarrased about a genuine 'cock-up'. But how does that explain the recent behaviour of Google and Youtube in deleting these videos?

And theres the response from the Beeb. It was written as if the video hadn't been seen. "If we said that the" blah blah. "Please send us the video" or similar sarcasm. As if the first thing he did wouldn't have been to have watched it.

Lazy and transparent I'm afraid. But the most surprising thing is how sloppy it is. Like a half eaten biscuit thrown to the beggar.

Originally posted by Giordano Bruno
ok so its possible they could have accidentaly lost or erased the tapes, and be embarrased about a genuine 'cock-up'. But how does that explain the recent behaviour of Google and Youtube in deleting these videos?

And theres the response from the Beeb. It was written as if the video hadn't been seen. "If we said that the" blah blah. "Please send us the video" or similar sarcasm. As if the first thing he did wouldn't have been to have watched it.

Lazy and transparent I'm afraid. But the most surprising thing is how sloppy it is. Like a half eaten biscuit thrown to the beggar.

That's what I'm sayin.' The main oddity to me here is not the original tape so much as the sheer intensity of the speculation, the removed videos, the BBC's strange statements, etc. It's all highly suspicious and will I think be an embarrassment to the "Truth" movment once it's all sorted out.

Originally posted by Giordano Bruno
Reading the Santa Fe article about the WTC7 BBC thing I realised a huge issue has arisen here.

The behaviour of google regarding the videos.

Despite the fact the Google censored the initial internet premier of this archived video, removing it from their video service, many more "mirrors" of the video were then set up across the net. Watch the video here.

The BBC states: "We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another." I'll say they don't clear it up, at least not how the BBC would like. Tapes of News 24 (wait, let me find a new link, Google Video has now censored the footage from News 24...

Is there any reasonable explanation for this speedy removal of the videos? Is it to do with copyright etc and standard practice?

I would think so, no? BBC broadcasts are copy righted.

Are we seeing obvious signs of cooperation? Or is there a less sinister explanation?

The BBC and Google did 911? Seems a bit of a stretch no? Doesn't seem like a better explanation than that they did mistakenly loose some of the footage.

Originally posted by Nygdan
The BBC and Google did 911? Seems a bit of a stretch no?

Yeah it does, when YOU think of it that way. No one said they "did 911".

But they are HELPING the cover up.

tons of stuff on youtube and google video is copyrighted, but doesnt get removed as aggressively as has been seen in the last few days. This stands out.

"Is there any reasonable explanation for this speedy removal of the videos?"

YES! so people might take the time to realize that they were parroting
cnn in saying what they said. that " it's starting to collaspe " . and yes , a few minutes before it accually came down , it did start to break apart .
there are video's of this .
if people would stop hating bush so much , and i don't like him myself ,
and open their eyes to video evidence of 911 they would see that both towers fell at the point of the plane's impact site . not bombs .

Originally posted by Connected
But they are HELPING the cover up.

So they know the government did 911 and are covering it up.

Either that, OR they are removing copyrighted material, as per their policy.

tons of stuff on youtube and google video is copyrighted, but doesnt get removed as aggressively as has been seen in the last few days. This stands out.

Tons of stuff on google video is worthless crap that no one even looks at. This clip is a victim of its own success.

Originally posted by Giordano Bruno
haha 90% is pretty extreme, but it does beg the question, whose tracks are they covering? Their own? Because if we're actually suggesting that the perpetrators of 911 can boss around Google and the BBC then the rabbit hole goes pretty damn deep.

Not really.

The Google search engine has been criticised for removing entries from its web and news search services for various reasons, and for refusing to accept certain types of advertising.

en.wikipedia.org...


You just need a guy that works in whatever department at Google is relevant to this censorship, or else executive influence over what the department does. In a company like Google, this is not going to be more than a handful of people, or as few as one if you have a big enough executive in the company. At the same time, Google was working with either the NSA or CIA recently to provide information on hosts using the search engine, and this was reported in the mainstream media.


I know you guys like playing the speculative arguments, because they give you a chance to assert whatever bullcrap you'd like, but I would have to say in total honesty that the mental image of having to corrupt a whole company isn't very thought-out. Every time somebody spits something like that out, I have to ask myself how much time I waste every day posting things like this.

Same goes for the BBC. Would only be highest-up, not even anchors, if this is indeed a sign of that much media involvement. Then again, it is the "fourth estate", and it's far from independent of western governments, not to mention an extremely powerful tool for propaganda.

[edit on 1-3-2007 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by Nygdan
So they know the government did 911 and are covering it up.

Either that, OR they are removing copyrighted material, as per their policy.

Doesn't matter if the clip was copyrighted. It is a clip of a Historical event of Major Importance so thusly falls under Fair use.

navigator.carolon.net...

Here is an interactive copyright map.

Here are some examples of Fair Use.

Criticism, comment, news, teaching, scholarship, research

To take a closer look at Fair Use provisions take this route.

Click on Enforcement -> Click on Infringement -> On the far right click on "the use is 'fair use' "

Google was working with either the NSA or CIA recently to provide information on hosts using the search engine, and this was reported in the mainstream media.

Actually I'm quite sure you're incorrect here, I'm fairly certain it was one of the Telcos like AT&T.

[edit on 2-3-2007 by sardion2000]

Originally posted by Connected

Originally posted by Nygdan
The BBC and Google did 911? Seems a bit of a stretch no?

Yeah it does, when YOU think of it that way. No one said they "did 911".

But they are HELPING the cover up.

Sorry nygdan, but i have to say it that i've seen you often put words in other peoples mouths to make things a little confusing.
Just wanted to point that out.
I like your skepticism of everything though, it's good.

[edit on 2-3-2007 by T0by]

[edit on 2-3-2007 by T0by] put the wrong quote in = D

[edit on 2-3-2007 by T0by]

Originally posted by Giordano Bruno
tons of stuff on youtube and google video is copyrighted, but doesnt get removed as aggressively as has been seen in the last few days. This stands out.

That's publicity for you

Put a copyrighted video on Youtube and keep quite about it, no one will know and it'll stay there. But broadcast the fact you've broken copyright laws to all and sundry, including those who own the copyright, and what do you think will happen?