9/11: BBC reports WTC7 collapse 25 minutes before it happened

MakingWaves

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

There is no way you guys would have bought this kind of explanation from us. It's quite a reach and involves disregarding what was actually reported.

Not necessarily. It is a simple explanation in my opinion. I like to believe the most simple explanation is the correct one. In the chaos of that day as local officials saw that building burning and some damage that was done to it they probably said the building was going to collapse. Someone along the line heard it wrong and there is your report.
What is another explanation? I am very open minded and if there is a better one I would definetly change my mind.

gue_barium

MakingWaves wrote:

Not necessarily. It is a simple explanation in my opinion. I like to believe the most simple explanation is the correct one. In the chaos of that day as local officials saw that building burning and some damage that was done to it they probably said the building was going to collapse. Someone along the line heard it wrong and there is your report.
What is another explanation? I am very open minded and if there is a better one I would definetly change my mind.

It's kind of odd that a foreign correspondent would be reporting something the american media hadn't reported yet. She mentioned the Marriott building damage, so she was getting info, obviously, from somebody closer to the area...or...from the american media.

jlew24asu

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

There is no way you guys would have bought this kind of explanation from us. It's quite a reach and involves disregarding what was actually reported.

what are you talking about?

DPrival78

hippiemom wrote:

No way this is a government conspiracy. If our government was going to tip off a network and give them an early exclusive, they sure as hell wouldn't pick the freakin' BBC! Now, if it had been Fox News, we might be onto something .....

who says it was "our government" who tipped them off?

who says it was "our government" who masterminded this whole thing?

the question is: where did the bbc get the info that the buidling collapsed when it clearly hadn't?

and if the explanation is well, we heard the building was going to collapse, and it was a mistake, then i would ask why nist said wtc7's collapse was a mystery? why did they make no mention that it was expected to come down?

farfromglorified

...this is a response to this from BBC World Editor Richard Potter:

"Part of the conspiracy: Richard Porter 27 Feb 07, 05:12 PM

The 9/11 conspiracy theories are pretty well known by now. The BBC addressed them earlier this month with a documentary, The Conspiracy Files, shown within the UK.

Until now, I don't think we've been accused of being part of the conspiracy. But now some websites are using news footage from BBC World on September 11th 2001 to suggest we were actively participating in some sort of attempt to manipulate the audience. As a result, we're now getting lots of emails asking us to clarify our position. So here goes:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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... ""

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/

MakingWaves

DPrival78 wrote:

who says it was "our government" who tipped them off?

who says it was "our government" who masterminded this whole thing?

the question is: where did the bbc get the info that the buidling collapsed when it clearly hadn't?

and if the explanation is well, we heard the building was going to collapse, and it was a mistake, then i would ask why nist said wtc7's collapse was a mystery? why did they make no mention that it was expected to come down?

Good questions. But from what I have read, and I think what I read came out after nist, the collapse isn't a mystery.

jlew24asu

DPrival78 wrote:

who says it was "our government" who tipped them off?

who says it was "our government" who masterminded this whole thing?

you are your buddy kabong

DPrival78 wrote:

the question is: where did the bbc get the info that the buidling collapsed when it clearly hadn't?

ask the BBC where they got the info. what do they have to loose by keeping that a secret? it actaully would benefit them to come out and say " the us government told us that"

DPrival78 wrote:

and if the explanation is well, we heard the building was going to collapse, and it was a mistake, then i would ask why nist said wtc7's collapse was a mystery? why did they make no mention that it was expected to come down?

it was no secret that the building was badly damaged.

MakingWaves

farfromglorified wrote:

...this is a response to this from BBC World Editor Richard Potter:

"Part of the conspiracy: Richard Porter 27 Feb 07, 05:12 PM

The 9/11 conspiracy theories are pretty well known by now. The BBC addressed them earlier this month with a documentary, The Conspiracy Files, shown within the UK.

Until now, I don't think we've been accused of being part of the conspiracy. But now some websites are using news footage from BBC World on September 11th 2001 to suggest we were actively participating in some sort of attempt to manipulate the audience. As a result, we're now getting lots of emails asking us to clarify our position. So here goes:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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... ""

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/

Just as i suspected. Damn, I'm pretty good

Rushlimbo

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.

How convenient.

Abookamongstthemany

MakingWaves wrote:

Not necessarily. It is a simple explanation in my opinion. I like to believe the most simple explanation is the correct one. In the chaos of that day as local officials saw that building burning and some damage that was done to it they probably said the building was going to collapse. Someone along the line heard it wrong and there is your report.
What is another explanation? I am very open minded and if there is a better one I would definetly change my mind.

I don't know who could have told them or even if anyone did tell them the building had collapsed before it actually had. But with all the other things that don't add up, this just adds to the pile. I'm not going to give you a theory of how they got this info and reported it as collapsed just to fit into what I already think and I don't think you guys should either. All I'm pointing out is, things that day were definitely not as they seemed or were reported to us.

MakingWaves

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I don't know who could have told them or even if anyone did tell them the building had collapsed before it actually had. But with all the other things that don't add up, this just adds to the pile. I'm not going to give you a theory of how they got this info and reported it as collapsed just to fit into what I already think and I don't think you guys should either. All I'm pointing out is, things that day were definitely not as they seemed or were reported to us.

Fair enough and I can't argue with your point of things not being as they were reported to us that day. Again, I think that was because of all the chaos and uncertainty as to what was happening.

hippiemom

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

All I'm pointing out is, things that day were definitely not as they seemed or were reported to us.

I absolutely agree with that. I don't think that the government has been anything close to forthcoming or honest in regards to 9/11. I don't buy into most of the conspiracy theories, but that it no way means that I believe the "official" version. I do think things have been covered up, not because the government plotted the whole thing, but to cover up their bumbling incompetence. That was my hunch a few years ago ... seeing their performance during Katrina reinforced that hunch to the point where it's now a pretty firm belief.

gue_barium

farfromglorified wrote:

...this is a response to this from BBC World Editor Richard Potter:

"Part of the conspiracy: Richard Porter 27 Feb 07, 05:12 PM

The 9/11 conspiracy theories are pretty well known by now. The BBC addressed them earlier this month with a documentary, The Conspiracy Files, shown within the UK.

Until now, I don't think we've been accused of being part of the conspiracy. But now some websites are using news footage from BBC World on September 11th 2001 to suggest we were actively participating in some sort of attempt to manipulate the audience. As a result, we're now getting lots of emails asking us to clarify our position. So here goes:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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... ""

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/

That's a mighty lame reply.

MakingWaves

hippiemom wrote:

I absolutely agree with that. I don't think that the government has been anything close to forthcoming or honest in regards to 9/11. I don't buy into most of the conspiracy theories, but that it no way means that I believe the "official" version. I do think things have been covered up, not because the government plotted the whole thing, but to cover up their bumbling incompetence. That was my hunch a few years ago ... seeing their performance during Katrina reinforced that hunch to the point where it's now a pretty firm belief.

Off topic, but I bet there were some good debates in here about Katrina before I started visiting the Train.

Abookamongstthemany

hippiemom wrote:

I absolutely agree with that. I don't think that the government has been anything close to forthcoming or honest in regards to 9/11. I don't buy into most of the conspiracy theories, but that it no way means that I believe the "official" version. I do think things have been covered up, not because the government plotted the whole thing, but to cover up their bumbling incompetence. That was my hunch a few years ago ... seeing their performance during Katrina reinforced that hunch to the point where it's now a pretty firm belief.

I think it goes deeper than that but to each their own. The government couldn't keep this kinda thing covered but I believe a few powerful people inside the government with ties elsewhere could. It could go either way, no one knows for sure. There's just so much that seems convenient, fishy and just straight up doesn't make sense about that day.

farfromglorified

gue_barium wrote:

That's a mighty lame reply.

Just curious...what were you expecting? Why is it "lame"?

DPrival78

Richard Porter, BBC wrote:

1. ...We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down.

ok, but somebody told you that wtc7 came down, and you ran with it for 23 minutes while the building stood behind your reporter.

Richard Porter, BBC wrote:

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...

ok, so who was the source for that report?

Richard Porter, BBC wrote:

3. Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks... 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.

ok, so who was telling her what? what news wires were reporting that wtc7 was on the ground?

Richard Porter, BBC wrote:

5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that.

that's kind of an interesting coincidence that your error described an unexpected event, that had not happened yet.

Abookamongstthemany

MakingWaves wrote:

Off topic, but I bet there were some good debates in here about Katrina before I started visiting the Train.

that's what sparked the whole "gut you like a fish" extravaganza.

hippiemom

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

that's what sparked the whole "gut you like a fish" extravaganza.

Hahaha ... I was just about to say "As I recall, there have been more than a few bannings over Katrina debates."

Best thread ever

farfromglorified

DPrival78 wrote:

ok, but somebody told you that wtc7 came down, and you ran with it for 23 minutes while the building stood behind your reporter.

We had no idea which building we were talking about.

ok, so who was the source for that report?

We don't know.

ok, so who was telling her what? what news wires were reporting that wtc7 was on the ground?

We don't know.

that's kind of an interesting coincidence that your error described an unexpected event, that had not happened yet.

It wasn't unexpected. The building and grounds were evacuated. Firefighters told CNN et al that the building was going to collapse.


How unsexy.....