Your Blog

Are you prepared to revise your position on 9/11 after the BBC's WTC7 fiasco proves there was foreknowledge?

Posted by IAmNoOne on Monday, 05 March 2007 00:36:25

"It seems this was not a result of a new attack, it was because the building had been weakened during this morning's attacks." - BBC World News studio anchorman, talking about the collapse of WTC7 at approx. 17:10 on 09/11/2001 - approx 10 minutes BEFORE the actual collapse of WTC7.

How could that conclusion have been reached before the building ACTUALLY COLLAPSED?!

http://rattube.com/blog1/2007/02/26/the-smoking-gun-wtc7-bbc-jumps-the-gun/

David,

Archive video footage from 9/11/2001 came to light on Monday evening (26th Feb) which shows beyond reasonable doubt that the BBC had prior knowledge of how events were going to unfold on that tragic day. For this footage shows that BBC World News started reporting that WTC Building 7 had collapsed - 20 minutes before it actually did! As the video clearly shows, as on-site BBC reporter Jane Standley is reporting on the event, i.e. the collapse of WTC7, also known as the Salomon Brothers' Building, WTC7 can clearly be seen STILL STANDING behind her! So far the BBC's response has been unsatisfactory and totally self-contradictory, as can be seen here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html

and here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/03/part_of_the_conspiracy_2.html

As you can see from the comments, there are very few people who are buying the BBC's explanation - which amounts not so much to an explanation as an outright evasion. I have emailed the head of the BBC World news team, and his response was that "he believes none of his fellow journalists were told what to say". This belief is however surely highly subjective, and would surely need to be closely investigated in light of this footage, and also in light of Mr. Porter's later comment that "it came on the wire". Which is it, Mr. Porter? Did the BBC receive some kind of notification that WTC7 had collapsed or not, and if so, who was the source?

The all-too convenient (and all-too predictable) claim by the BBC that they have lost their footage from that time ("for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy", naturally) has since been contradicted by Mr. Porter himself. And despite the best efforts of the BBC, Google , YouTube and many other video upload services to suppress this footage, the video appeared in numerous places and shows a number of significant things. Among them:

1. The timestamp on the original footage downloaded from the Internet Archive Organization is:

Date: 2001-09-11 20:54:47 UTC
Air Time: 2001-09-11 16:54:47 EDT
Length: 0:41:41

This effectively answers any questions about the time of the broadcast. Not that this is necessary - for even if the BBC was reporting on the collapse of WTC7 only 30 SECONDS before it actually collapsed the fact still remains that NO-ONE had any earthly (or divine!) reason to suspect that WTC7 was GOING to collapse - and so the BBC could not possibly have known about it - UNLESS they were somehow notified by someone who DID know it was going to collapse! And the fact that Richard Porter said "it came on the wire" would tend to confirm this suspicion.

2. That the BBC reported on the collapse of WTC7 before it actually happened.

3. That WTC7 was clearly still standing as Jane Standley moved to one side so the cameras could zoom in on it.

4. That the video feed to New York was mysteriously lost 5 minutes before the actual collapse occurred.

This begs a number of questions, only a few of which I will raise here.

1. How could the BBC have known WTC7 was going to collapse and therefore report on it before it actually did? It had been hit by nothing and there was only minimal damage; indeed it had been specifically re-engineered in the late 1980s to allow for the removal of whole floors without losing any structural integrity, as can be seen here:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DEFDD113BF93AA25751C0A96F948260&sec;=&spon;=&pagewanted;=1

Remember that WTC3, 4, 5 & 6 were much closer to the Twin Towers, indeed WTC3 had them collapse directly on top of it, they all had major fires and yet none of them collapsed. WTC7 was over 300 feet away, had been hit by nothing except (apparently) some falling debris. Remember also that none of the 3 official reports have so far come up with a definitive answer as to why WTC7 collapsed - indeed, the NIST report said that their best guess (that fire had weakened the building to the point of collapse) had "only a small probability of occurrence". And yet, the BBC somehow knew 20 minutes before it collapsed that this was WHY it had collapsed!! How is that possible???

2. WHO told the BBC that WTC7 was going to collapse (or who "put it on the wire"), and how did THEY know?

3. How could the BBC have known the CAUSE of the collapse? The BBC's conclusions, far from being guesses, mirrored those of the subsequent NIST report. In the words of the BBC World News studio anchor man:

"It seems this was not a result of a new attack, it was because the building had been weakened during this morning's attacks."

How could that conclusion have been arrived at before the building even fell?!

Conclusions that could be drawn from this footage:

1. The BBC was given a press release or something similar in which they were told to report that WTC7 had collapsed - except the BBC released this information earlier than planned!

2. Jane Standley did not know which building was WTC7, despite her commentary on the live scene behind her. If she had, she would have no doubt commented on the fact that the building she was talking about still stood!

3. Jane Standley was told what to say, was reading from a script, had an autocue, or something similar.

4. Someone at the BBC realised that WTC7 (the largest rectangular building in the right hand side of the picture) was still standing because they yanked the live feed 5 minutes before the actual collapse - which was after the BBC had been reporting on the collapse for a full 20 minutes!!

Please bear in mind that the events of 9/11 were supposedly a surprise. If we are to believe the official story, the attacks were low-tech, carried out by 19 Islamic hijackers carrying Stanley knives, under the direction of Osama Bin Laden from his cave in Afghanistan. If this version of events, supported by the British government and so far endorsed by yourself too, is to be believed then there can be no prior knowledge at any stage. If there is found to be prior knowledge, by anyone, then this automatically calls into (further) doubt the entire official story. And remember that there is a widespread view, supported by REAL evidence, that the attacks WERE an inside job, carried out by the US government in order to give it carte blanche in the War Of Terror. Just SOME of this evidence includes:

1. Molten steel in the basements of the WTC 6 weeks after the attacks, still at temperatures which far exceeded those at which aviation fuel could ever burn;
2. Eyewitness testimony and seismic data showing the occurrence of at least one explosion BEFORE the first plane hit, which would explain point 1...!;
3. Eyewitness testimony, including that of firemen, of subsequent explosions after the planes hit, and the subsequent gagging orders placed on those firemen;
4. The fact that WTC7 fell at free fall speed, and displayed all the classic signs of explosive demolition, coupled to the famous words of Larry Silverstein, the WTC lease holder: "And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." "Pull" being demolition slang for "demolish", i.e; "pull it down."
5. The fact that the Twin Towers fell at almost free-fall speed, far faster than any expert estimates of how long a "progressive pancake collapse" would have taken (approx: 6 seconds per 10 floors - giving a total collapse time in the region of 60 seconds, as opposed to the 10 - 13 seconds in reality);
6. The fact that Rudy Giuiliani somehow knew that the Twin Towers were going to collapse - again before there was any reason to think they would do so! For it has been proven by the radio transcripts that the fires were nowhere near as bad as we are led to believe - firement made it to the 78th floor of the North Tower and actually said they could "knock the fire down with just 2 lines"!
7. The rather dubious claim that the passport of one of the hijackers somehow managed to survive the crash of the plane and the subsequent explosion and end up virtually undamaged on the streets of New York - and yet the black boxes, specifically designed to withstand any and all known crash conditions, were so badly damaged they could yield no useful information!

8. The testimony of Secretary of Transport Norman Minetta, not included on the 9/11 Commission's report, that indicates that Dick Cheney had issued an order to allow the plane approaching the Pentagon to reach its target unmolested.

I could go on. There is far more evidence, for those who care to look (and the numbers of those who DO care to look is increasing on a daily basis!), and those who have an interest in the truth, supporting the "conspiracy theory" that the US government did it, than that supporting the far more unlikely "conspiracy theory" that Osama Bin Laden and his band of merry men somehow managed to defeat the entire US air defence establishment (which had at least ELEVEN exercises in progress, not the single one that the BBC claimed in the Conspiracy Files last Sunday...) in order to hijack not one but four planes they could not fly in real life, and fly them unmolested around the northern USA for AN HOUR before somehow finding their way to miniscule targets without benefit of Air Traffic Control assistance. When you think about it in those terms, it really does look weak, doesn't it?! And remember also that the "evidence" supporting the official story is almost totally circumstantial - for we have seen none of it and are asked to trust our governments that they actually HAVE this evidence!! In fact, we are STILL waiting for Tony Bliar to show us the evidence that Osama Bin Laden really was responsible... I suspect we will go on waiting!

Further analysis, including links to the BBC video, can be found here:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/260207building7.htm
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/270207trustanything.htm

and here:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/6458

Whilst www.PrisonPlanet.com is not my favourite website, it at least has links to the videos saved on its own servers - Google, Youtube, Liveleak and most other video upload sites have taken down every video, even suspending the accounts of those trying to upload them. It seems that the Internet Archive footage has now also been removed, which is not exactly a surprise, although far far far too late!! One would ask why they are doing this...!

I would hope that you would examine this footage and raise the subject in the House as a matter of some urgency, for it clearly undermines the entire basis of the "War of Terror" - much like the government's outright lies over Iraqi WMD. There is no way this can be interpreted as anything other than prior knowledge on the BBC's part - and sad to say ANY response other than concern at that possibility, or denying the veracity or the urgency of this material, as demonstrated on the BBC Editor's blog above, will show the public in no uncertain terms that the Opposition has as little interest in democracy or truth as the Labour Party does right now!!

I eagerly await your response...

PS. Since compiling this entry, it has also come to light that not only BBC World News, but also BBC 24 news and CNN were somhow able to report on the collapse of WTC7 before it did so. I refer you to these articles:

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/010307mediablacklists.htm

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/010307Clairvoyant.htm

If one news station broadcast this news early you could conceivably claim "sloppy reporting"; for three to do so indicates that there were notifications going out on the news wire that WTC7 had collapsed. This is confirmed somewhat by the words of Richard Porter in a personal email, in which he said:

"It got on to the wires..and we reported it too. That's how it works..."

So to sum up; it had "got on the wires" that WTC7, a steel-cored building, the likes of which had never collapsed before 9/11, hit by nothing and with only minimal damage, had collapsed - before it actually did, when there was no theoretical earthly reason for it to do so. Once again, this brings into sharper focus the words of Larry Silverstein: "they gave the order to pull"...

WAS WTC7 DEMOLISHED?

AND IF SO, WHY HAVE THE US GOVERNMENT AND THE UK GOVERNMENT CONSISTENTLY LIED ABOUT IT?

Post edited by IAmNoOne on Monday, 05 March 2007 07:41:03

, , , ,

You could comment if you logged in | Read comments


 

Posted by BrianH on Monday, 05 March 2007 00:40:48

Iamnoone - If it's at all possible to edit - could you phrase a question at the beginning of this?

Posted by IAmNoOne on Monday, 05 March 2007 00:47:54

BrianH - yes, will do some editing during the course of the night. Any suggestions?

Posted by kozmicstu on Monday, 05 March 2007 00:51:34

"What is your definition of inappropriate material?

...

Multiple postings (includes reposting your own content or reposting someone else’s)"


https://www.webcameron.org.uk/page/faq#inappropriate

Posted by IAmNoOne on Monday, 05 March 2007 01:03:06

So you're now a site moderator are you Stu? Are you THAT desperate that people don't discuss 9/11?

Posted by kozmicstu on Monday, 05 March 2007 01:15:28

Au contrair, IAmNoOne. You can debate 9/11 all you want - I don't think it's what this website was intended for, and there are plenty of other forums which welcome such debate, but if you feel you must talk about it here it's not my place to say you shouldn't, and I'm sure you wouldn't want to suggest that I not be allowed to complain if I feel the need. I'm not moderating (I can't moderate, I don't know where you got that idea from), I'm making sure you are aware that reposting identical messages falls under the description of 'inappropriate content' according to the rules of the site.

Naturally, the admin team have the final word on what's inappropriate and what's not - they have made this abundantly clear several times in the past. Seeing as last time a post was removed which talked about 9/11 there was something of an outcry, I thought I'd give you a forewarning that there is a possibility that your post could be removed for not complying with the site rules.

Stu

 

Comment edited by kozmicstu on Monday, 05 March 2007 01:19:46

Posted by IAmNoOne on Monday, 05 March 2007 01:43:15

I do hope you've been good enough to point that out to the writers of the 3 other questions which have been posted so far, Stu - as they are also "reposts". I have no doubt you've made your point to the moderators too. And it's gratifying to see that promoting total non-issues like the length of a piece of string is more important to you than getting to the truth about an act of government-sponsored mass-murder which has been used to justify yet more mass murder. Good to see the values being taught in Bliar's Britain today....................................

Posted by Kenenth on Monday, 05 March 2007 02:05:39

That's an interesting question, IAmNoOne.

I'm guessing that David will have regretted ducking this issue so far just so as not to blow his chance of the Top Job.

I bet that on reflection and having just returned from the Promised Land, he will want to save his sole by acting in a more honest, fothright fashion - as required by God and the UK population who may decide to elect him.

Yeah, I reckon he'll be glad for the opportunity to revisit this subject and really start telling the truth about it! He won't want to ignore it or help cover it up.

He'll want to at least show a bit of respect the 400 families who for years have seen the US Admin cynically block their attempts to get a supoena empowered, independent court hearing or investigation into the murder of their loved ones, by not dismissing them wild conspiracy theorists.

Or maybe not....

Posted by IAmNoOne on Monday, 05 March 2007 07:48:03


http://www.archive.org/details/bbc200109111654-1736

Posted by spivver on Monday, 05 March 2007 08:24:13

News from Reuters this morning "Police launch anti-terrorism ad campaign"

See http://uk.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUKL041931620070305

Could this be because so many people are now starting to wake up and realise the fiction all this "war on terror" is? Dawn terror raids every other week, yet no terror trials every other week. Huge coverage in the media when these raids take place, yet little mention when the "arrested suspect terrorists" are quietly released. Hiking of terror alerts when elections loom, (yet the chances are you will be more likely to get killed driving your car home), ricin threats which turn out to be nothing, 'Manchester United' bombers who turn out to be ordinary football fans.... I could go on.

Yup, many people are starting to wake up and question, so the State's handle on your fears is slipping. What better way to control your thoughts than by advertising your fears so you'll believe once again that the Government is protecting you.. move on now, nothing to see here, stay sleeping...!! Nah....

Still believe that 10/08 bombers can mix a bomb from their fizzy drinks and toothpaste in the toilets on an eight hour flight to America? Takes 24 hours plus extraction and drying time, and this is using the raw ingredients. Don't believe me, check it out from University sources?

If you read the paragraph "Experimental Section" in the document by the American Chemical Society (JACS) entitled "Decomposition of Triacetone Triperoxide is an Entropic Explosion" on page 13 at http://www.technion.ac.il/~keinanj/pub/122.pdf then one day, when standing in a long queue at an airport with your toothpaste in a see through plastic bag, you may also start to question the psychology behind all this.

Posted by Stjimmy on Monday, 05 March 2007 08:45:17

Im trying to find out if its true that the BBC also reported Pearl Harbour before it happened (someone mentioned it) but cant find anything about it on the internet.

Can anyone help??

Posted by flamesong on Monday, 05 March 2007 12:23:06

Raise the profile of this issue on the Number 10 petition:

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/9-11-Truth/

Posted by IAmNoOne on Monday, 05 March 2007 16:58:19


A good summing up:

BBC's 9/11 Yellow Journalism Backfires

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/050307yellowjournalism.htm

Posted by Votedave on Monday, 05 March 2007 17:55:58

How many more of these 9/11 questions do we have to endure? Look back at the previous three answer sessions - 9/11 features in all of them - whether you agree with David Cameron's answers or not is down to your own discretion - but what's the point of being so repetitive when you know the answer won't change?

Posted by spivver on Monday, 05 March 2007 18:02:56

Who says the answer won't change, VoteDave?? You don't have to read the questions. I, for one, will continue to ask them as this matter is probably one of the most fundamental and important matters in the world at the moment.

Just take stock at how the world has changed since 9/11. You may find yourself looking into the gates of hell.

Posted by kozmicstu on Monday, 05 March 2007 18:45:15

Actually, Spivver, David Cameron said the answer won't change, in his response two weeks ago:

"I’m afraid my view on this issue hasn’t changed in the last couple of weeks, and is unlikely to do so no matter how many different ways the question is put!"

You say the matter is one of the most important in the world today, but that is only its importance to YOU. The many Junior Doctors who are posting on this site would beg to differ. The cannabis users from previous weeks would also beg to differ. Importance is a subjective quality. What's important to you is often entirely irrelevant to others. I think you ought to recognise this and realise that there are other people on this public forum who have heard your message and don't feel it's as important as you do. What makes you believe that your opinion on the importance of this is more valid than anyone else's?

Don't miss these