Building 7 controversy

darkbeaver
Republican
#1



BBC Responds to Building 7 Controversy; Claim 9/11 Tapes Lost

Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com (external - login to view)

Pathetic five paragraph blog rebuttal does not answer questions as to source of report that Salomon Building was coming down, BBC claims tapes lost due to "cock-up" not conspiracy

February 27, 2007


The BBC has been forced to respond to footage showing their correspondent reporting the collapse of WTC 7 before it fell on 9/11, claiming tapes from the day are somehow missing, and refusing to identify the source for their bizarre act of "clairvoyance" in accurately pre-empting the fall of Building 7.
Here is the BBC's response (external - login to view) to the questions about the footage that was unearthed yesterday, with my comments after each statement.
1. We're not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening.
"We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down." If this is true, then how on earth did the BBC report the collapse of Building 7 before it happened? Psychic clairvoyance? Of course they were told that WTC 7 was coming down, just like the firefighters, police, first responders (external - login to view) and

CNN

were told it was coming down. They had to have had a source for making such a claim. The BBC is acting like the naughty little boy who got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. No one here is claiming the BBC are "part of the conspiracy," but their hideous penchant to just repeat what authorities tell them without even a cursory investigation (and with the Building they are telling us has collapsed mockingly filling the background shot of the report), is a damning indictment of their yellow journalism when it comes to 9/11.
2. In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had. We did what we always did - sourced our reports, used qualifying words like "apparently" or "it's reported" or "we're hearing" and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving.
How do "chaos and confusion" explain how the BBC reported on the collapse of a building, a collapse that happened "unexpectedly" according to their Conspiracy Files hit piece documentary, before it happened? In one breath the BBC is claiming they were not told of the impending collapse of the Building and in the next they are telling us that all their information is sourced. Which is it to be? Did the BBC have a source telling them the building was about to collapse or not? If not, how on earth could they pre-empt its fall? Do BBC reporters have access to a time machine? What was the source of this information?
3. Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I've spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn't remember minute-by-minute what she said or did - like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services.
Trying to make sense of what she was being told? She obviously didn't make much sense of the fact that the Building she was reporting had collapsed was prominently standing behind her! Unfotunately, for a news organization that prides itself on accuracy and credibility, "she doesn't remember" just doesn't cut it as an excuse.

BBC included a screenshot of yesterday's Prison Planet article in their brief response.
4. We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another.
We are asked to believe that the world's premiere news organization has somehow lost all its tapes of perhaps the biggest news event of the past 60 years. This is a copout. Whether they have lost the tapes or not, the BBC simply doesn't want to verify one hundred per cent their monumental foul-up, because they know it would only increase the exposure of this issue and lead to further questions. What is there to clear up? The reporter is standing in front of the building while saying it has already collapsed! This is a blatant effort to try and placate people making complaints while refusing to admit a monumental faux pas that further undermines the BBC's credibility in the aftermath of the Conspiracy Files debacle (external - login to view).
5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today "so the guy in the studio didn't quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy... "
So now the BBC are so devoid of answers, they have to enlist the help of some moronic comment on a You Tube blog? Instead of issuing official statements and seeking the advice of legal professionals they produce a cobbled together five paragraph blog and include the testimony of some moron on a You Tube comment board. Pathetic! Answer the question BBC - what was your source for reporting on multiple occasions that Building 7 had collapsed before it had collapsed, and identify the source that enabled the anchorman to comment that the building had collapsed due to it being weakened, an explanation still unanswered by NIST five and a half years later.
If you had reported the collapse of the twin towers before it happened would that have been just an error too? This "error" translated as $800 million plus in insurance bounty for Larry Silverstein - I'm sure Industrial Risk Insurers would be interested to know the source of your "error." In addition, two seperate sources reported that Secret Service Agent Craig Miller (external - login to view) died as a result of the collapse of Building 7. Do you think he would have been interested in the "error" that led to your correspondent reporting the building's downfall in advance?

:: Article nr. 31013 sent on 28-feb-2007 05:43 ECT
www.uruknet.info?p=31013 (external - login to view)

:: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Uruknet .


 
hermanntrude
#2
I watched the entire episode ON BBC1. There was no clairvoyance. No one predicted the building was going to fall. IMO it'd be nice if people would stop making an already complex and painful issue worse by clouding it with conspiracy theories
 
Toro
#3
People are saying the BBC is part of the conspiracy!

lol at the conspiracists!
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by hermanntrudeView Post

I watched the entire episode ON BBC1. There was no clairvoyance. No one predicted the building was going to fall. IMO it'd be nice if people would stop making an already complex and painful issue worse by clouding it with conspiracy theories

What particular conspiracy are you objecting to in the series of theories?
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
#5
Geeeeez. There was no conspiracy. One critter and one critter only brought down #7:

 
hermanntrude
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

What particular conspiracy are you objecting to in the series of theories?

specifically i was objecting to the one that suggests that the BBC knew what was going to happen and had a script to read and accidentally said it too soon. Although having said it I think all the conspiracy theories are of such low probability that we should stop discussing them entirely and concentrate on the present day, as those affected are still attempting to do. Conspiracy theories simply cloud the issue further.
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by hermanntrudeView Post

specifically i was objecting to the one that suggests that the BBC knew what was going to happen and had a script to read and accidentally said it too soon. Although having said it I think all the conspiracy theories are of such low probability that we should stop discussing them entirely and concentrate on the present day, as those affected are still attempting to do. Conspiracy theories simply cloud the issue further.

Low propability my ****, read the congressonal report, it's so full of holes it won't hold water. It's strange to me that in a world run on conspiracy the theories surrounding 9/11 are not given more consideration, but there are psycological articles that explain that aspect of group mentality.When and if you consider the absolute necessity of sucess for the western capitalists in the middle east you should understand that no limits on death and destruction exist, it is life and death for those interests, a few buildings and a relative handfull of people mean nothing to them. Consider the millions of dead Iraqis to date, and that horror shows no sign of an end, if you think domestic colateral damage in any way deters these interests you're mistaken. It did not matter to Hitler and it certainly dosn't matter to G J W Bush and crew. Motive and reward is always to be considered in crime, the beneficiaries of this crime are clearly implicated, and it most defineatly has not rewarded any ficticious Islamic Horde. Nothing and nobody will be spared by power.
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
#8
There are unanswered questions about #7 but that doesn't mean there was some fantastic conspiracy. It's premature to leap to conclusions before the facts are in.
 
hermanntrude
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

There are unanswered questions about #7 but that doesn't mean there was some fantastic conspiracy. It's premature to leap to conclusions before the facts are in.

exactly. Thank you. And I suspect it's hurting people too.
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#10
When I worked, I was a mechanical engineer. My work was mainly with building services, Heating, air conditioning, etc, in large commercial buildings. Over a 35 year career I have seen a lot of buildings come down by planned, pinpoint, demolition. For what it's worth, I have never seen a building come down smoother than bldg 7 did.
 
hermanntrude
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

Low propability my ****, read the congressonal report, it's so full of holes it won't hold water. It's strange to me that in a world run on conspiracy the theories surrounding 9/11 are not given more consideration, but there are psycological articles that explain that aspect of group mentality.When and if you consider the absolute necessity of sucess for the western capitalists in the middle east you should understand that no limits on death and destruction exist, it is life and death for those interests, a few buildings and a relative handfull of people mean nothing to them. Consider the millions of dead Iraqis to date, and that horror shows no sign of an end, if you think domestic colateral damage in any way deters these interests you're mistaken. It did not matter to Hitler and it certainly dosn't matter to G J W Bush and crew. Motive and reward is always to be considered in crime, the beneficiaries of this crime are clearly implicated, and it most defineatly has not rewarded any ficticious Islamic Horde. Nothing and nobody will be spared by power.

It's really hard to take you seriously sometimes with that smiley after everything you say. I always feel you're joking.
 
hermanntrude
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

When I worked, I was a mechanical engineer. My work was mainly with building services, Heating, air conditioning, etc, in large commercial buildings. Over a 35 year career I have seen a lot of buildings come by planned, pinpoint, demolition. For what it's worth, I have never seen a building come down smoother than bldg 7 did.

But i suppose you never saw a building get struck near the top by an aircraft before either. Pretty much no one had, and certainly not a building like that one.
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by hermanntrudeView Post

It's really hard to take you seriously sometimes with that smiley after everything you say. I always feel you're joking.

If you can't take someone with a smile on thier face seriously what is your world coming to.
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

When I worked, I was a mechanical engineer. My work was mainly with building services, Heating, air conditioning, etc, in large commercial buildings. Over a 35 year career I have seen a lot of buildings come down by planned, pinpoint, demolition. For what it's worth, I have never seen a building come down smoother than bldg 7 did.

I thought it was pretty slick, too.
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

There are unanswered questions about #7 but that doesn't mean there was some fantastic conspiracy. It's premature to leap to conclusions before the facts are in.

Five plus years might be premature to you, but it ain't to me, and I'm by no means alone with that feeling. The conspiracy we're considering is by no means fantastic, it's completly realistic, if I stood to gain the entire planet why would so little investment in crime and time deter me?
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by hermanntrudeView Post

It's really hard to take you seriously sometimes with that smiley after everything you say. I always feel you're joking.

You mean he's sometimes serious? SH|T!! I've wasted a lotta humor and sarcasm then.
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by hermanntrudeView Post

But i suppose you never saw a building get struck near the top by an aircraft before either. Pretty much no one had, and certainly not a building like that one.

I was led to believe that #7 had avoided aircraft impact. Hmmmmm. Better research that again.
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by hermanntrudeView Post

But i suppose you never saw a building get struck near the top by an aircraft before either. Pretty much no one had, and certainly not a building like that one.

I wasn't aware that bldg 7 was struck by an aircraft. I read that it was struck by some debris from one of the towers.....In any case, that bldg came down as neat as a pin, in it's own footprint. I don't see where being hit by an aircraft would cause that.
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

If you can't take someone with a smile on thier face seriously what is your world coming to.

That's your face? You really are yellow and round-faced with no nose?
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

Five plus years might be premature to you, but it ain't to me, and I'm by no means alone with that feeling. The conspiracy we're considering is by no means fantastic, it's completly realistic, if I stood to gain the entire planet why would so little investment in crime and time deter me?

Ah, the fallacious argument called "argument by authority". "Well, lotsa people think it so it must be fact". Again, people pay more attention to what everyone else is saying and thinking and do precious little thinking of their own. Hence the leaping to conclusions comment.
Thanks, but I'll wait till the facts are all in. Till then, the big conspiracy can be no more than a theory at best.
 
hermanntrude
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

I was led to believe that #7 had avoided aircraft impact. Hmmmmm. Better research that again.

sorry, I am showing my ignorance. I assumed, from context, number 7 was one of the two main towers, both of which were struck and did seem to collapse rather neatly
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

Ah, the fallacious argument called "argument by authority". "Well, lotsa people think it so it must be fact". Again, people pay more attention to what everyone else is saying and thinking and do precious little thinking of their own. Hence the leaping to conclusions comment.
Thanks, but I'll wait till the facts are all in. Till then, the big conspiracy can be no more than a theory at best.

No body with vested authority is investigating the case. It's been buried by the media and congress.I'v read a lot about the mess and the whole thing stinks. What we witnessed is just not possible by the given means.Just the magical lapse of airspace security alone points to monumental incompetence or conspiracy, you cannot get a balloon into that space without inside help.
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

That's your face? You really are yellow and round-faced with no nose?

Yes, the tragic radiation experiment that created me had a sence of humour.
 
EagleSmack
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

When I worked, I was a mechanical engineer. My work was mainly with building services, Heating, air conditioning, etc, in large commercial buildings. Over a 35 year career I have seen a lot of buildings come down by planned, pinpoint, demolition. For what it's worth, I have never seen a building come down smoother than bldg 7 did.


35 years as a mech engineer? Didn't you say you were a fighter pilot for five years as well?
 
EagleSmack
#25
A couple of years ago I was in Disney and was staying at a hotel and met a NY Fireman at the bar. We started talking about 9/11 of course. He was there as most were. I asked him about Building 7 but being very cautious as to not get him mad. He said

"Anyone who says Bldg. 7 was a controlled demolition is a (bad word) nut case. The building was damaged by falling debris and fires raged unchecked for hours. We did not even go near the building as we were trying to rescue as many people as possible. They're idiots."

From one who was there.
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

35 years as a mech engineer? Didn't you say you were a fighter pilot for five years as well?

Yes I did. The answer is pretty simple but I doubt you have the math to understand it. In about 2 weeks I will be sixty eight years old....don't tell anybody...
 
Sparrow
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by hermanntrudeView Post

But i suppose you never saw a building get struck near the top by an aircraft before either. Pretty much no one had, and certainly not a building like that one.

Wasn't the Empire State Building stuck by an airplane many years ago?
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

No body with vested authority is investigating the case. It's been buried by the media and congress.I'v read a lot about the mess and the whole thing stinks.

I agree. The big q is why did it fall down when it wasn't touched?
Quote:

What we witnessed is just not possible by the given means.

What we see is obviously possible. I think you mean that the excuses we are given don't equate to what we saw.
Quote:

Just the magical lapse of airspace security alone points to monumental incompetence or conspiracy, you cannot get a balloon into that space without inside help.

....... let alone load the basement with tons of thermite. I agree. But as I said, I am not going to start saying what happened until I know what happened. It's a fool's game to say absolutely that something happened when one only suspects. That's all I'm saying.
 
EagleSmack
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by SparrowView Post

Wasn't the Empire State Building stuck by an airplane many years ago?

Yes it was. But are you telling me that you don't see the difference between a B-24 (i think that is what it was) prop plane from the 40's and jumbo airliner?
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

35 years as a mech engineer? Didn't you say you were a fighter pilot for five years as well?

Multitasker. I did that, too. Only I was a firefighter and a HD mechanic at the same time, also had the third highest medical first responder ticket.
 

Similar Threads

18
Naomi Kline re: TIFF controversy
by earth_as_one | Sep 15th, 2009
15
The Shakespeare controversy
by Libra Girl | Apr 21st, 2007
32
Its just a game, whats with the controversy?
by Robert_Strain | Apr 17th, 2007
55
no new posts