Humint Events Online: A Mega-Smoking Gun

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

A Mega-Smoking Gun



More here, here and here.

One POSSIBLE explanation is that the timing of the footage was wrong AND that the reporter was standing in front of a blue-screen projecting slightly old footage of WTC7 as she talks about it having collapsed... but, it seems less and less likely this was the case as more people look into this. Certainly the lighting on the reporter, Jane Stanley looks like natural sunlight, not like she's in a studio. So it is probably not bluescreen. Moreover, the link with Stanley dies suddenly at the end of the clip, perhaps the producers saw the goof or saw that Building 7 was about come down.

Remember, many people were told ahead of time WTC7 was coming down, for instance here and here. This BBC footage seems to be a stark example of this foreknowledge-- where they actually jumped the gun and said it collapsed before it was taken down.

(And thanks to "DEMOCRAT" for pointing me to this footage initially.)

6 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

So I suppose the Beeb is in cahoots with W! Whodathunk it! Why aren't they on board with the whole Bush World Domination deal? Damn Brits...can't trust 'em!

5:13 PM  
Blogger Early Wynn said...

"Rocknation" (DU poster) asked a very good question: "if she was mistaken about it being WTC7, then which building WAS she referring to"?

Unfortunately, as is all too often the case, "Rocknation", like 99% of other TruthSeekers just let the ball drop and allowed him/herself to be baited with questions about a British slang phrase used in the same post.

That's a HUGE problem at DU: 99% of the T.Seekers there are woefully inadequate to compete with the paid shills. They don't know what they're doing. Don't understand what's going on. Don't know how to fight. Don't know how to stay FOCUSED. Don't have a clue about what's important and what's trivial. Waste most of their posts on UNproductive responses to the BS posted by the professionals (who are extremely competent in what they do). Are totally outclassed before they even step out on the field.

Maybe worst of all, they (T.Seekers ) only THINK they know what they're doing.

7:07 PM  
Blogger Democrat said...

If it was an error, it was quite some error:
*they got the building right (WTC7)
*they got the name of the building right (Solomon)
*they got the number of floors right (47)
*they could tell the cause for the collapse (is NIST ready yet?)
*they could tell that, apparently, the building was empty

Hmm, who plugged this error?

2:41 AM  
Anonymous stickdog said...

This 9/11 BBC World News footage shows the BBC reporting that the WTC-7 building had already collapsed even though WTC-7 is clearly still standing right behind the reporter outside the window. The satellite feed goes dead about five minutes before the WTC-7 building actually collapsed -- making it the first steel frame high rise to collapse due to fire in the entire history of the world!

Here is the BBC's response to this controversy:

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.

So if nobody told told you this was about to happen, how did you correctly predict the collapse of WTC-7 23 minutes before it actually happened? Is Miss Cleo one of your producers?

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.

Sorry, but all of these words are noticeably missing from the report in question.

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.

Does she not remember the building right behind her imploding into rubble just minutes after the anchor told her it had already collapsed?

And why are you blaming poor Jane Standley for this. Wasn't she simply agreeing with what the anchor told her?

Finally, if you were a reporter who confirmed to the entire world on live TV that the WTC-7 building had already collapsed 23 minutes before it actually collapsed on the most historic day of this century, would you be able to remember the source that steered you wrong?

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.

So the dog ate the BBC's only copy of its 9/11 video? Do you actually expect us to believe this? Ever heard of www.archive.org?

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... "

OK, now you are quoting a commenter on youtube.com? Seriously? That's your explanation for going with a psychic prediction that the WTC-7 tower was about to collapse while the building itself is still obviously standing right behind you? And if you read the youtube.com comments, how are we supposed to believe your excuse about the dog eating your video? Didn't you just see it on youtube?

*****

This is some truly bizarre stuff. Who was pushed this story on the BBC such that they went with it without so much as fact checking the obvious fact that the WTC-7 tower was still standing in plain sight on their own camera footage while they were making this very report? Remember that no steel frame high rise has ever collapsed due to fire on any day in human history other than 9/11. So what made the BBC's source so certain that WTC-7 was going to come down 23 minutes before it actually did such that the BBC went ahead and reported that this had already occurred with the WTC-7 building still standing in plain sight in their own footage?

6:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"focus on what can be proven - wtc7 controlled demolition"
~911blogger.com
------
When the South Tower and then the North Tower exploded they each produced vast clouds of dust that first so attenuated the sunlight on the streets below that witnesses described a pitch-black environment. They then settled, covering virtually every surface with fine, penetrating dust. The dust permeated the insides of buildings, and contaminated air conditioning systems, necessitating lengthy decontamination procedures.
The dust was present everywhere around Ground Zero, but settled in thicker accumulations in the downwind directions south and east of the complex. The dust settled to a depth of 3 inches in locations as far as six blocks from the World Trade Center. 1
Apparently the dust contained a significant proportion of the towers' constituents, such as their concrete, glass, and gypsum. Photographs of Ground Zero show piles of shattered steel and aluminum cladding, but show virtually no signs of the tens of thousands of tons of concrete that constituted the 4-inch-thick floor slabs of each of the towers' 110 floors. This observation, combined with the documented extent of the dust, suggests that the vast majority of that concrete was pulverized into fine dust.
~Jim Hoffman
------
total disintegration/pulverization/dustification of the concrete and much of the steel at the astounding rate of 11 floors per second for each tower.
^h.

10:17 AM  
Anonymous shep said...

mixed feelings about this BBC/WT7 issue... Fintan has a nice writeup about this, take it with a grain of salt.

9/11 Campaigners: Beware of BBC-WT7 Sucker Play

i know Dunne distanced himself from alot of 9/11 researchers by releasing his CIA fakes but he still holds alot of credibility in my book, and i think he throughly discredited Alex Jones a few weeks back. And, as far as i know, he was the first to point out Steven Jones' Cold Fusion background.

i'd be interested to hear anything thoughts you guys might have.

2:08 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger