BBC Finds Missing 9/11 Tapes

BBC News : The Editors - Conroversy and Conspiracies

It seems that the BBC has found some missing video info that was misfiled with the wrong year codimg.

It is certainly true that on 9/11 the BBC broadcast that WTC7 had collapsed when it was still standing. Then the satellite transmission seemed to cut out mysteriously when the correspondent was still talking. Then Richard Porter admitted in his blog last year that the BBC had lost those key tapes of BBC World News output from the day.

So is that proof that we at the BBC are part of a huge sinister conspiracy or is there a simpler explanation?

The mystery of the missing tapes didn't last that long. One very experienced film librarian kindly agreed to have another look for us one night. There are more than a quarter of a million tapes just in the Fast Store basement at Television Centre. The next morning I got a call to say the tapes had been found. They'd just been put back on the wrong shelf - 2002 rather than 2001. Not so sinister after all.

This seems to blow a hole in a few peoples ideas about what the BBC showed that day, how they got the info and where it subsequently went. I'm not here to pass judgement at all, just passing on the information for discussion.

Does this make any difference to the overall picture of the day?

Tbh who cares if they find some tapes around some collapse, logic and common sense, make´s 9/11 go from conspiracy to a real thing, when something is to good to be true its maybe just what it is

Best regards

Loke.

I dunno, it just all seems odd,

surely they would of looked for tape, and 09/01 isnt far from x/02 on the timeline.

also, there only reason is that reuters accidently reported something that hadnt happened yet.... yet it actually happened shortly after?

that doesnt remove the suspicion around 'this' particular event for me.

How hard is it for someone to say something ? especially when they are asked to.

it's the bbc trying to cover their tracks... and failing miserably lol

Doesn't change a thing for me.

How much of a coincidence is it for a news channel to falsely report incorrect information, then for that thing to actually happen?

Please see my signature for the answer.

And since this should be a criminal investigation of these parties, has anyone in any way verified to see if this is the original chunk of broadcasting from that day, and that it hasn't been edited in any way since it was "lost"? My guess would be "no."

Then again, there may have been nothing else on it in the first place. I remember the reports of these tapes first being lost coincided perfectly with someone realizing that the BBC had reported WTC7 falling too early, even while gesturing towards it in the background, like someone was trying to yank them out even as people were already looking at them. CNN did the same thing, but was BBC the only station to "lose" chunks of that day's broadcast? My memory is fuzzy there.

[edit on 2-7-2008 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
I dunno, it just all seems odd,

surely they would of looked for tape, and 09/01 isnt far from x/02 on the timeline.

Not quite. A television studios records would be very extensive. You try recording everything on TV for a year and see how close you can stack this years tapes to last years tape of the same month.

also, there only reason is that reuters accidently reported something that hadnt happened yet.... yet it actually happened shortly after?

that doesnt remove the suspicion around 'this' particular event for me.

They also reported 15,000 people killed.
They also reported bombs on bridges going off.
They reported there were more planes hijacked than actually were.
Etc, Etc.

My point is, lots of things were being reported that day based on hearsay in order to be "first with the scoop". All it would have taken is someone to see the huge gaping hole in the side of WTC7 and mention to someone else that they think its gonna collapse. We have all played the "telephone game" and know how easy it is for something to get distorted way beyond what it originally was. I think thats what happened here.

Huge gaping hole in building 7? I can't say I recall a huge gaping hole in the building. At least it was in much better condition than buildings 3,4,5,and 6. Why were none of these building reported as being collapsed?

So the BBC found the tapes...thats just great! The problem is, that doesn't matter one bit. They need to be explaining what is ON the tape. Yes a lot of things were reported that day, however the only problem with that is that in this case the reporter was on location and simply had to turn around to see building 7 still standing. Reporters are supposed to report. They are told things from officials, individual sources and they report the things they see with their own two eyes. This "reporter" was there, "reporting" the collapse of building 7 yet there it was for us all to see- still standing. That tells me that she was not "reporting" she was repeating and there is a difference. So what I would like to know is who was her source? Who told her that the building had collapsed? Someone HAD TO if she was reporting it to be fact because OBVIOUSLY she did not verify the facts herself by looking. It would be hard to miss, after the towers collapsed, building 7 became the tallest building in the area.

Heh. funny i not long ago Filed an official complaint at the bbc on this video, and suggesting that they are part of a conspiricy. maybe someone got round to looking at it.

Originally posted by MrWendal
Huge gaping hole in building 7? I can't say I recall a huge gaping hole in the building. At least it was in much better condition than buildings 3,4,5,and 6. Why were none of these building reported as being collapsed?

Here is a report done by Wecomeinpeace a while ago..


Photographic Analysis of Damage to WTC7 and Critical Errors in NIST's Estimations
It uses photos taken from WTC 7 and calculates the whole isnt actually that bad..

He also did one here on ATS.. I will hunt it down for you and post a bit later

::EDIT::

Photographic Analysis of the WTC7 Hole - NIST Debunked

Here is that post.

::END EDIT::


[edit on 7/2/2008 by ThichHeaded]

[edit on 7/2/2008 by ThichHeaded]

If there was a "huge gaping hole" on one side of WTC7, why didn't the huge gaping hole cause that side to collapse first? Why would the side without the huge gaping hole collapse at the same time? The huge gaping hole side should have at least caused the building to lean, but we don't see that. We see the penthouse collapse then the middle crimps, and the lower portions all fail simultaneously. The huge gaping hole side provided the same resistance as the non huge gaping hole side. If you believe the huge gaping hole caused the collapse, could you please explain to me how.

I'm a little confused by this thread. Did the BBC somehow find a tape that makes the tape we all saw not exist? Whatever they found doesn't change the video we have seen. So how does that "blow a hole" in anything?

It dosent change a thing for me.

BBC still trying to cover thier rumps.

I dont trust the News on TV anymore, I stop watching new altogether after I saw, and hear, to many lies.

Main-stream News has become propaganda News, they lost thier way in reporting the truth, most people know that.

Gee I hope the UK Intel can solve this big 9/11/01 mystery.
We sure need their help this time.

As for most of the WTC we know there were no planes, thermate
took out the beams and videos of parts and planes were forgeries.

And whats left is WTC7 cause it had no plane hit.
Oops neither did the others.

Good solve the missing tape mystery.
How about who handed you the script so we and talk to him
with a little Versaid persuasion like they did on Tesla.

I can't see how a news agency can possibly get *ahem* factual *cough* information wrong!! Either it had collapsed or it hadn't.

The news report is very clear - "it has collapsed" and "you can see the smoke" etc.. - all whilst the building is STILL THERE!!!

We need to follow the news reporting chain backwards. The BBC obviously take Reuters at face-value, even though they have people in the area. IIRC live on air they don't retract their comments on the event, but instead comment that she "was cut off" and move to another story.

I don't buy the whole link-on-a-timer thing and that it was set to cut off at exactly 15 minutes past the hour either. The news reporter was surprised when she suddenly went, so he wasn't aware, and I presume everyone who set up that interview, weren't aware either.

Where did Reuters get their information? Why did no-one verify the information before reporting it as fact on live TV?

The whole news chain became very inept at that moment, to the point I think someones making it up.

The BBC is running a piece about the WRC7 collapse today actually.....


news.bbc.co.uk...


and of course, the neglect to mention reporting the collapse before it even happened.