WANTED: 3rd Party Source for the BBC World Segment

For posterity, please put feelers out for a copy of Jane Standley's live report on the BBC World News service on 9/11, that matches this one:

A raw, unedited VHS recording in PAL format is preferred, so that we can all independently verify that the source file discovered on the Internet Archive was not altered in any way before it was upped to the Archive.

If the person who ripped and upped the footage to the Archive can send us a copy, that would be great, too.


Mr. Hickman posted this today;

March 01, 2007 10:18:32am

I apologize, I have started to understand more of the history of this collection (it started way before my time). There is an important correction to a previous post: the Television Archive is a separate not-for-profit from the Internet Archive.

I now understand that these materials were available, in streaming form, from October 11, 2001 (when it was launched at the First Amendment Center in Washington DC) for a couple of years. Unfortunately a datacenter move brought these down. The Internet Archive has been working, pro-bono (meaning free), to bring these back up in an appropriate way. When we can do a reasonable job of this, we will let everyone know. Until then, please be patient with us.

In the mean time, we hope the BBC is ok with our allowing some form of distribution of this key program. In which case we will do this immediately. Fingers crossed on that front.

Paul Hickman

Office Manager

This post was modified by PaulForrest on 2007-03-01 18:18:32

This post over there make some very good points

"Your explanation is as obtuse and unacceptable as that of the BBC regarding how they reported the collapse of the WTC7 building 20 minutes before it occurred - which, incidentally, is what one of the files you removed exposed.

Personally, I am not prone to conspiracy theories and I would have been content in allowing for the possibility that there was confusion between reports that the building was going to collapse and that it already had. But the way this has been handled raises my suspicions.

First, video copies of the BBC's amazing precognition started being deleted from Google and Youtube. Then the BBC puts out an uncharacteristic rapid response claiming it was just an error, but, and without provocation, announced that their tapes of September 11 have been "lost" due to a "cock-up." The BBC no longer has possession of their coverage on 911. Think about that.

Then, copies of that coverage are removed from the Internet Archive.

My first thought on that was the bandwidth was crashing your servers. But, once again, my suspicions are raised by the explanation.

You claim the files were in streaming format when in fact they were in MPEG format.

Your claim that they were "not yet ready for public viewing."

What is this obtuse statement supposed to mean?! The public is viewing them - at least some parts - pretty well despite repeated attempts to prevent it.

Then, in an even more incomprehensible response, you say, "We are not censoring the files, but we have to make sure that we can offer the information in the correct way to preserve the content"

The "correct way"? To "preserve the content?" The content was preserved well until you removed it.

I want to know why you really removed these files, who applied pressure, and who provided the files in the first place.

The principles of the free flow of information which you espouse are surely not being applied here.

Perhaps you were instructed upon receipt of the archive to provide them in streaming only format. If that's the case, then just say so. Why the tip-toeing around the issue.

Is there no one who's on the side of the public interests here?"

Indeed it does. Thanks.

Indeed it does. Thanks.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

Do tell us, what was the

Do tell us, what was the cock - up? Somebody taped a Benny Hill show over it ?

Here's another sweet piece I found on the UK truth forum:

Part of the conspiracy?

"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."

The 9/11conspiracies are not "pretty well known" even the best informed have fragmentary knowledge of most - some are plainly plainly loopy - laser holograms planes hitting the Twin Towers etc., Information in the public domain is limited, but it increases every day like silt and a solid body of evidence is developing. Public perceptions are remarkably stubborn - people cannot conduct mobile phone conversdations from aircraft flying at 550 mph and 35,00 feet cannot but few people grasp that simple fact and persist in the belief about fights, red bandanas, cutting tools etc.,

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." - did you ;
1. Make it up ?
2. Guess ?
3. Have a chat with Mystic Meg ?

"We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening" -
1. Have you been back to check ?
2. When did you check ?
3. Who did the checking ?

How can you explain the repeated reference in the past tense to the Salomon Bros building collapsing - i.e not exploding, falling ? Somweher, somehow there is an explanation and only people within the BBC can provide that explanation.

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.

Forgive me, I didn't hear any caveats - simple bald statements without any qualification.Period.

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.

So Jane Standley has just found out that she was talking garbage today ? You mean between 9/11 and today nobody at the BBC has noticed this remarkable ability to forecast 47 story buildings colapsing ? An event seared on her mind ? She has never looked back and thought .. Merde, Zut alors ... c'est incroyable ?

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.

Well I'll go to the foot of our stairs, you've no longer got the news tapes for the biggest news event in the history of BBC TV ?

Do tell us, what was the cock - up? Somebody taped a Benny Hill show over it ? ... and you ask for a recording and it's all over the web ? Bollocks Mr Porter. Well the WWW have a copy and unless you want (in the absence of your copy) to tell us it is a palimpsest, a forgery, a fraud, or in some way corrupt, we can all SEE and HEAR what the BBC put out that day.... and it was no slip of the tongue, error, mistake, technical problem.

Simply. The BBC put out a news Bulletin and had live coverage that told the watching world a building had collapsed (not exploded or fell over ) 20 minutes before it did. That is not an error Mr Porter.. and if you believe it is, you are a bigger * than was first apparent.

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... "

Richard Porter

"an error - no more than that" I can't wait for Gary Lineker to tell us the final result at half time, or Brian Moore tell us that France will score three tries at twickers next weekend - or even better the winner of the 3.00 at Newmarket at 2.30.

Now if you had said. Crikey this is incredible , because if true it would provide huge support to the people who believe that Larry Silverstein did have the building pre loaded to demolish it ( 2 weeks of a job the experts say) and decided to "pull" it.

I will put all the resource we can behind finding out how Jane Standley and that nice man who read the News at 10.00 was given a script with autocue feeed, to tell us WTC 7 had collapsed.

If that nice but ineffectual man who is called the Director General , close friend and best man of Geoff Hoon, a Cabinet Minister decided to tell us all that you had his support in this endeavour.

If Jane Standly (who looks like a good and efficient pot thrower ) said,"how the hell was I fed such bollocks and now made to look so * stupid - somebody had better find out what went wrong!" ... "and pretty bloody quickly!" Then we might begin to believe that you and the PR wallahs / politicos / media spinners at No 10 etc., were not trying to spin us a line.

Because until that happens, everyone who sees that clip, everyone who reads the blogs will think you are talking *.

Unadulterated. 100% copper bottomed at Lloyds. Perfect. *.

PS. Mystic Meg tells me that you will be wearing your balls for a bracelet if you * this up for the Gubment, Alastair Campbell , etc., .... and we don't want anything to divert attention away from hauling in the guilty in the CASH FOR CORONETS saga do we ?

What Mr Porter put on the blog is probably copyright of the BBC - it is probably illegal to reproduce blah , blah, blah - hey Mr Porter, we don't give a *..... and you can also tell Fraser Steele to go * himself as well if he sticks his nose into the affair.

PPS - Have you any ideas Mr Porter who might have put some pressure on Google / You Tube etc., to "pull" as they say in the business the BBC clips - lawyers crying Copyright maybe ? Toni Fabuloso here is a teensy weensy bit suspicious that someone in the Metropolitan Gubment media nexus may have had a hand in it... nothing of course to do with the fragrant, beautiful, sparkling, intelligent, ex Governor Lady Pauline Neville Jones and her Fan Club perchance ? (They were after all in town at their latest gig at the RUSI today )

I've got a copy of the archive file.

Best I can do. Anyway, do you have an account there at internet archive, Rep?

If so, ask them why the CBS & Fox footage for the time in question are missing. Call me a 'conspiracy theorist' , but I'd love to see them. I'd love to see Dan Rather's reaction to building 7... & he thought the towers looked like a CD.

Edit: Rather was referring to building seven when he made the CD comment. I could have sworn he said something similar in regard to the towers.

Here's some places to start...

The http://tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/order.pl may give you the tape for blanks and postage. I signed up for an account, and did a search. You have to be a staff member to see the results from that day, but I can see stuff from the 12th and 13th. I know they have all the tapes from the US media, but it doesn't look like they have stuff from the BBC.

I'd also try http://www.cinema.ucla.edu/.

Someone has them...


The day after this discovery was made, they pulled the archives.

The day after this discovery was made, they pulled all the videos from the archive...hmmm...

The BBC 23 minute gap was discovered by a poster on www.911blogger.com named 911veritas. He made this discovery by poring over the video archives from that day. The archives had been up for weeks at this site, www.archive.com . More specifically, right here:

The day after 911veritas used that archive to make the original video exposing the BBC's magic ability to predict the future, all of the videos in the archive were suddenly removed.

The day the videos were taken down, I called the archive office in San Francisco personally to ask them about it. I spoke with a person who identified themselves as Paul Hickman. S/he (voice indeterminate) told me that the videos should not have been up because they were not in the right format. I asked a few more questions then thanked them for their time and told them I would send an email with similar questions and hope for a written response as well.

After the conversation, I immediately posted what I had found out to the site www.911Blogger.com, the site is where the BBC story was first broken. Paul Hickman subsequently sent me this email response explaining why all of the archived videos had been taken down.

"Thank you for contacting us about this. The files that were pulled were not designed for download, and were not available for that purpose.
They were in streaming format for a reason. Until we can figure out how to plug those holes, we have to take the information off-line.

Our TV Archive is a project that is currently for testing purposes only.
We have pulled the footage because it was not yet ready for public viewing."

Paul Forrest Hickman
Office Manager
Internet Archive

It is, however, just a coincidence that the videos were taken down the day after we used them to uncover evidence of an insider conspiracy on 9/11. It is not evidence that we have scared them badly.

Oh well. Time to move along, I suppose. Nothing to see here.