BBC debunks 9/11 conspiracy theories

Post Reply New Topic

ASPIE, I have been gone for a few days.

I will try check up try to check up on the latest messages in this topic today.

UPDATE: Busy with religion topics....

Re: the BBC video. While it is somewhat strange, I don't think it is anything more then a blunder. The background appears to be a live shot, rather then a video feed. It seems likely that they may not have known what building number 7 (referred to as "The Solomon Building") was. Everybody knew what the twin towers were (although not their individual "north," "south", and "1," and "2" designations) but it is doubtful the average journalist is familiar with every skyscraper in Manhattan.

The BBC is also hardly known for exhibiting a pro-American bias, although I guess that is more subjective.

There were concerns of the impending collapse of buildings in the damage area at the time and for days afterwards. These caused sudden evacuations.

The building was expected to possibly fall, which was why firefighters and civilians were pulled from the structure. The collapse, rather then being anything similar to a conventional collapsed, tilted to one side, as shown by these pictures taken from a different angle then the usually shown videos:







You can also detect a slight tilt if you look closely at the videos.

You know what probably happed! This BBC reporter reporter was told over the telephone that WTC 7 was "going to collapse," but somehow missed the word "going to." She told this to the host. Neither of them knew that WTC 7 (The Solomon Building) was standing directly behind them, so they just repeat the information to the best of their knowledge.

Isn't this a better explanation then a giant conspiracy?

Out of curiosity, does anyone have some clips from later in BBC broadcasts to see if they correct their incorrect report?

no they just said they dont have the tapes anymore,they were lost or deleted for getting more space in their libraries of tapes,the explanation of the BBC talking about this video tells you not much about it(they made it due to request,short and internet type).

news have a list of things to report(in this case the happenings of 911),with all the chaos of that day it could had leaked,what makes it suspicious its the coincidental connection loss at the end,about 5 minutes from actual collapse,u can make more research on how people have calculated the time because there was no clock on the screen for like 20 minutes before that report of solomon building collapse, which it is wtc7,the 47 stories steel reinforced third building to collapse from fire in history.

i know u say it could have been a mistake,but from they way they lie,and the explanation they gave to the public makes it really hard to accept.anyways thanks for giving it a look.

peace

they would have come out,they would use it to kind of "excuse" the "mistake" but it isnt avaliable nowhere,
how the video came out to the public 5 1/2 years after? an inside worker did the favor? dont know....thats the other question that is unanswered,but by the explanation they made they surely say its not fake.

peace

I am told the Internet Archive has a page where you can download the original 1 GB mpg file. Top link of this page: Full-length original BBC broadcast
The bottom link leads to a video stream of the broadcast that starts at 3:54 PM and ends 5:36 PM (EST). WTC 7 collapsed at 5:20 PM.

You can also find an assortment of shorter clips just by typing the words: 911 BBC into youtube's search bar.

To get an accurate appreciation of the still-frames that jimservo posted (5 posts up) you need to view the video they were taken from.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwjmqkjwnvQ[/youtube]

Time stamp confirms BBC reported collapse of WTC 7 26 minutes in advance.


This still-frame is from newly discovered footage of BBC channel News 24. The time stamp 21.54 (circled in red) is known as military time. Convert it to civilian time and subtract 5 hours for UK summer time differential, you get 4:54 PM in New York City.

The issue here is not inaccurate reporting. It is that the BBC predicted, in effect, that building 7 was going to collapse 26 minutes before it did. The collapse WTC 7 into its footprint was, officially speaking, an unexpected event. The BBC does not claim otherwise.


It looks like CNN is now caught up in this act too.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1LetB0z8_o[/youtube]
At around 4:15 PM (EST) CNN's Aaron Brown announced that WTC 7 building "has either collapsed or is collapsing."



I have read some interesting speculation that the intended target of flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania, was the Solomon Building. If true, it would explain this major discrepancy in the 911 plot and the total brazenness of taking down building 7.

To claim that the BBC and CNN were both in on the "conspiracy" actually weakens your claims that this was in fact a "conspiracy". As you have just added hundreds, if not thousands of people to this so called "conspiracy". All of whom have not come forward, nor leaked word about your so called "conspiracy". All humans have the urge to confess, or relay secrets or information. We just can't keep secrets. The more people that you claim are in on it, without any of them coming forward, actually weakens your argument.

I don’t believe that the BBC and CNN were in on the 911 plot. What I and others have recognized is that both news networks have reported the collapse of WTC 7 well in advance. Conspiracy or no conspiracy this has occurred. The fact that neither network has divulged the source of this information is further grounds for suspicion.

It only takes a few people at the top to put the clamp on something like this. Obviously not everyone who works for the BBC is a decision maker or has pertinent information. The only reaction from the BBC so far has been from Richard Porter, he is the Head of News at BBC World. Whatever the people who work for the BBC might suspect or know, they understand that their jobs and careers are in jeopardy if they publicly voice an opinion that deviates from Porter’s response.

Criminal conspirators do not have an urge to confess. If the people who committed these crimes on Sept. 11 are caught, they will surely be put to death. Similarly, people who may have information about 911 but were not involved, can expect little help from a federal law enforcement that refuses to investigate 911 any further. Even people outside the loop like Steven Jones, physics professor at BYU, have paid a price. Jones was put on leave from the university for his statements concerning Sept. 11.

Suspicion of what? If you aren't implying conspiracy, then this whole post is pointless. It wouldn't make sense to point out that certain people left the bank before a bank robbery than deny that you thought they were in on the job. Why point out that they left? I don't quite understand what you are trying to say here.



What could these people at the top possibly have to gain from being in on the "conspiracy"? I thought that the reason people claim the government instigated 9/11 was to have an excuse to start wars in the middle east? Why would the same news organizations who bash the war effort help to start the very wars they bash?

Whistle blowers are out there. They sacrifice their job, their privacy, their safety to bring attention to certain things the public should know about. Surely a scandal the size of 9/11 is more important than what happened at all the energy companies.



Again, why do you bring up criminal conspirators when you deny that you are implying that there were any at the two networks?

Federal law enforcement? Probably not the ones in on it (pun here). So, unless you are claiming that the entire arm of the government charged with investigating these crimes are in on it, there will always be people to listen to anyone who has proof. And, if they truly have an honest story, and the evidence to back it up, the public will not ignore them.

You keep saying, "well if there is any evidence, it will never come out" in different ways. Which is not a good position to take when one is trying to prove something. Thus, your story can never rebutted, because you actually use the lack of evidence to strengthen your argument. This is a classic tactic used to create fiction where there is none.

When I was first introduced to the theory that 911 was an inside job I laughed. That was my first reaction, because I believed that no one could ever get away with something that big. As time passed I came across the same information again and decided to actually sit down and give it a chance. Two things got my attention and changed my mind:

1. Videos of demolition squibs
2. Buildings crushing themselves at free fall speed


There is a difference between orchestrating a false flag operation like 911 and failing to report on it. The refusal of the BBC and CNN to reveal their sources does not mean they helped plan the attacks on the twin towers. Lumping the media and plotters into one group and calling them all conspirators is disingenuous. There is a considerable degree of difference between the two groups. Refusing to report a news item is not criminal.

Most people believe that reporters serve as a sort of watch-dog on the government. They think that if something irregular is discovered, it will be reported and justice will follow. Nothing could be further from the truth. The main stream media is not an unbiased institution of fact-finders and investigators. They are the true power of modern society. If they really wanted to bring down the Bush government they would. It is their emotionally based presentations and their omissions that decide who gets elected and what policies the government will follow. The BBC documentary that started this whole thread is a point in reference. That video concludes with scenes of a misty-eyed woman grasping a chain linked fence at ground-zero while saying “when I hear these conspiracy theories it hurts me a lot.” The intention of that “docu-drama” is not to give us the hard core facts, it is to mold our opinions.

The news and entertainment media have an agenda. They are proponents of what some call the “New World Order.” They favor the current government because it is largely the creation of their work. Virtually all broadcast and print media are owned by a handful of conglomerates. The elitists who control these companies favor free-trade, open borders, Zionism, diversity, and international corporate-merging. Grass roots movements like “911 truth” are a threat to that existing order and the governments that enforce it. This is why the media/government ignores the mountain of evidence that has been so well documented at web sites like 9-11 research, and why they are silent about who tipped them off about WTC 7.

I don’t argue for the sake of winning an argument. I’m interested in arriving at factual conclusions based on science and reason. If I make an error here I hope someone will point it out for correction.



For the record, these quotation marks are around words that I never said.

J_L, can you tell us 1) exactly what is the speed of "free-fall"? 2) what is the speed of the WTC collapse?

I will ask you then, what was the purpose of letting the news organizations in on the plot, if they were not in on the plot? This makes no sense. As you said before:



So, why would the conspirators tip off the news organizations when they are at risk of death? This makes absolutely no sense. This statement used to argue a point before contradicts your statement above. And, again, you point to a lack of evidence as evidence for a conspiracy.



A lot of people would argue that the media is trying to bring down the Bush Administration. Notice how they enjoy reporting on all the carnage, but never the successes in Iraq? I am quite sure that if anyone (reporter, anchorman, cameraman) had evidence of 9/11 being planned by the Bush administration that they would happily expose it, even at the cost of their jobs. There are people out there who hate Bush with a passion. And, your position relies on the fact that everyone out there who has any info on this "conspiracy" is a Bush supporter, which is highly unlikely. If it was Fox news, then maybe I could buy it a little, but its not.



Niether do I. All of my arguments have been based on logic and reason. And, your position just doesn't make any sense. Factual conclusions? So have all of jimservo's posts been fiction?



Acknowledged. I was not quoting you exactly, but paraphrasing your position.

This is largely a rehash of what you have already said.

The paragraph below was written in my previous post to clear up any misconceptions that the 911 plotters and the media were somehow part of the same group. It really doesn’t get any clearer.


A lack of evidence is not evidence of a conspiracy. I have not made any such claim. In this thread I have presented and linked to a mountain of information that proves WTC 1, 2 and 7 were brought down by controlled demolitions.


When I say that the corporate media could bring down the Bush government, I am using Bush as an example. I could just of well of said Clinton, Kerry, Gore or whoever wins the next election. Indeed, many in the media do despise Bush. The fact that he was re-elected, and is still around, signals that he retains significant support from within the media power-structure.

The laws of physics can not be broken because conspirators haven’t been caught. Scientific analysis is not voided by of lack whistle blowers. Not knowing the identities of the 911 plotters is conceivable, it is a physical possibility. A skyscraper pulverizing into dust and debris at virtually free-fall rate, without the use of explosives, is not a physical possibility!.

Last edited by Jacob_Landshire on 12 Mar 2007, 2:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

When I say speed I am referring to the time it takes gravity to pull an object over a given distance. The Twin Towers were 1350 ft. in height from roof to sidewalk. When counting for air resistance, it would take approximately 15 seconds for a typical piece of top-floor debris to hit the ground from that height. Fifteen seconds is about how long it took for each tower to collapse.