Wonkette: BBC, CNN Employ Magical Psychic News Announcers

digg_url = 'http://digg.com/world_news/BBC_CNN_Employ_Magical_Psychic_News_Announcers';

From my favorite source for political satire:

The Internets are buzzing with the bizarre story of BBC News reporting the 9/11 collapse of WTC7 before the building actually collapsed - all over a live shot of Ground Zero, with the 47-story highrise clearly in view and clearly standing.

What it "proves" is anyone’s guess, but it sure makes for hilarious viewing. But BBC reporters and anchors who maybe didn’t know the Manhattan skyline so well could possibly be forgiven for reporting an erroneous story and not knowing that great big highrise was World Trade Center 7 (otherwise known as the Salomon Brothers building). So why doesn’t the BBC simply say it got a story wrong and didn’t know any better? Stranger still, why did New York-based CNN anchor Aaron Brown do the same exact thing on September 11, 2001? We’ve got all the creepy video and much more to make your head asplode, after the jump.

First, the BBC video which has been posted and then deleted by Google and then posted and then deleted by YouTube again and again this week. The great big highrise next to the lady reporter’s head is WTC7:

This apparently aired some 20 minutes before WTC7 collapsed - supposedly from damage sustained when the Twin Towers collapsed or from the jet crashes. Whatever the "timestamp," WTC7 is standing there throughout the news report of its collapse, so at minimum it’s an inaccurate story. Such things happen. And then, presumably right before the actual WTC7 begins to collapse, the signal from New York mysteriously degrades and vanishes.

Google is quickly deleting copies of the video, although it’s unknown who or what is requesting the clips be deleted. BBC presumably owns the copyright on the footage, and it seems BBC would want to collect and examine this footage - because the BBC now claims it lost all the 9/11 video. Because who would want to save video of the biggest news event of the last 40 years?

It’s important that you not get upset! The BBC's news chief explains: "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."

And now here’s Aaron Brown at CNN, also getting word from some unnamed source that WTC7 has collapsed or possibly is currently collapsing. Once again, WTC7 just stands there, mocking us:

Other than being another set of examples of how dumb everybody is about everything, forever, it’s also a crucial thing for people convinced that 9/11 was an "inside job."

Why? Because they’ve been suspicious of the picture-perfect implosion of WTC7 (not to mention the Twin Towers themselves) and how much it resembled the carefully orchestrated and widely televised demolitions of so many Las Vegas buildings in the 1990s. Even FEMA investigators concluded that the official reason for the collapse - the building’s steel infrastructure weakened by a fire started from debris that came from the Twin Towers - had a low probability of actually happening.

Here at Wonkette, we’re mostly suspicious of why these five-year-old video clips were suddenly dropped on Google Video and YouTube this week. Be careful, Iran! Watch out, U.S. dollar! As for you American citizens... duck!

Part of the conspiracy? [BBC News]
BBC Has Lost Tapes Of 21st Century’s Defining Moment [InfoWars]

thanks to 'nobodyparticular'

thanks to 'nobodyparticular' who also submitted this about the same time.. just went with this one because of some formatting..

This article is definitely a step in the right direction!

This is awesome, but I'm not

This is awesome, but I'm not going to make another entry about it. Dude covers this story the day he's leaving his job.

Devin Green signing off, 03/01/2007 -- Good morning and good luck:

As today is my last day setting the homepage for The Santa Fe New Mexican I thought I would bid you all farewell. I resigned two weeks ago to better pursue my personal interests. It is to my great amusement however that this day coincides with an astonishing story to share in this blog. There is an uproar rising across the Internet over what is being called yet another blatant, 9/11 smoking gun.

Now that's what you call...

Going out in a "Blaze of Glory" :-)

Thanks for sharing, best wishes

be wary of overly hyped stories!

This one is starting to get a bit of interesting attention. Here's on devil's advocate possibility: what if the point of releasing this is just to create a false sense of what the debate about building 7 is? To make people think that it's just about when it collapsed and when it was reported, as opposed to what its collapse means?

Think of how this stroy will sound different to us who know what it means and to people who are just finding out about 9/11. To them it will sound like the debate over building 7 is just one of inside nformation about its imminent collapse got misconstrued as reports of its collapse by people who didn't know the skyline.

However that sounds, it still makes for a better debate in the coverup's eyes than THERE IS NO OTHER WAY BUT CONTROLLED DEMOLITION FOR WTC7 TO HAVE FALLEN THE WAY IT DID!

Remember how they got Dan Rather with the fake but accurate memo about Bush's dereliction of duty!

beware the ides of march!

and check out wtcdemolition.com's new look!


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force



I think you're being overly paranoid, RT (did I just say that?;) There IS such a thing as over-analyzing.

Fact is, this is a golden opportunity to reveal the incredible collapse of WTC7 to the millions of people who aren't even aware that a third building collapsed that day. Someone posted a poll awhile back -- what was it -- 60% or some such weren't even AWARE of WTC7?

This is the last aspect of the case they would want to draw attention to.

So even if you don't agree that the BBC footage is a smoking gun, all I see here is an immense boon to the 911 truth movement. Run with it.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

Yes, the exposure of WTC7 is key

that the BBC chose to completely discredit itself in the ensuing panic is just a bonus.

Just because RT is paranoid...

doesn't mean they aren't out to get us.

But I agree, exposure of WTC7 is the key. When it comes to that, there is no such thing as bad publicity.

Okay, I've met my cliche' quota for the morning.

Mistake due to Confusion

The point you are making is borne out by reading the YouTube comments. Many of the OCT believers are clinging to the "confusion" hypothesis. They cannot make the connection "If they knew it was going to come down it must have been controlled demolition" . We have to make that elementary inference explicit. The Wonkette story above makes this error.

Has this story made it to any MSM publication yet? I haven't seen it anywhere.

Show "Honestly, how does this make" by bobarctor

You fail to see the obvious

If the building had fallen due to structural damage, it would not have fallen directly into its own footprint. NIST cannot resolve this issue, which is why they introduced the hypothesis of the diesel generators.

It also doesn't explain the squibs, pyroclastic clouds, or any other elements that are unique to controlled demolition.

This video is just another element that shows there was foreknowledge about an event that perfectly resembles an industrial demolition. It's quite sad that you're not able to fathom that very basic concept.

And you have like *no* evidence to support your bulging-creaking-leaning theory, either.

Reality got you down? Read the La Rochelle Times: http://www.rochelletimes.blogspot.com

Show "Bulging & Creaking Evidence" by bobarctor

bulging and creaking

are perfectly consistent with a controlled demolition being performed bit by bit. We know from eyewinesses that there was an explosion between the 7th and 8th floors in the morning.

To the folks who think i'm being overly paranoid, it's not that I think this is necessarily a horrible trap, it's just to be aware that this may well be part of an effort at some kind of damage control. Ignoring building 7 worked for 5 years, but now people are finding out, and the coveruppers may be trying to frame the debate little by little.

Just use caution, that's all, especially when herd mentality starts setting in. Building 7 IS key, which is why we have to anticipate and counter any efforts at muddying the debate about it.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force


Yea, in controlled

Yea, in controlled demolitions the companies doing it always pre-weaken the buildings long before the main takedown, often by manually taking out sections with tools, not with explosives. For the Towers and WTC7 I think a lot of the pre-collapse explosions were the on the spot pre-weakling of the structures, so that they were primed for the main demolition sequences.

Unfortunately for you that article

is an interview where the firefighter refers to "creaking and strange noises" coming out of WTC 7. That is of course completely consistent with internal devices planted to weaken the structure.

The obvious contradiction of other structures, such as the Deutsche Bank Building, that were closer and suffered more exterior damage, but did not collapse and are still standing strong today, cannot be overlooked.

Reality got you down? Read the La Rochelle Times: http://www.rochelletimes.blogspot.com

Show "Unfortunately for me?" by bobarctor

In this post I say that

In this post I say that Wonkette is my favorite sources for political satire, but that's not true. You have the funnest blog ever! La Rochelle Times is awesome!

Thanks for the shout out Slipgrid [nt]

Reality got you down? Read the La Rochelle Times: http://www.rochelletimes.blogspot.com

bobarctor--been with us for just over 8 hours at this point....

Come on, you lot--he/she/s only registered for the purpose of "debating" the Beeb issue. Like "tims" and "jabba"-- the mission is to distract.

See some one saying something that WAY doesn't make sense? Click on their name and see how long they've been with us. That might give you some idea where they're comeing from--this is topical and the bastards are desparately trying anything. In this case trying to make it look like there's doubts amoung truthers that this whole sitch is dodgier than a three legged goat.

Engage these wankers if you must, but call them on their shite.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

LEANING & creaking

Yup should have toppled. I was thinking of getting into the controled demo buisness business.
I think i could under bid the next company hands down.
No need to plan weeks to months in advance.No need to precut and weaken columns.
No need to wire timed charges.
Just blow up one side of the building , and it will
drop straight down! Hell it even pulverizes itself !

what are you talking about,

what are you talking about, wisdom? Don't waste all your time blowing up a whole SIDE of a building...just blow out a chunk in the corner, light some fires on random floors, and wait 8 hours. You'll have minimum debris to clean up and everything will be great!


exactly. ive heard that this method is being refered to as 'to pull' it., in the demolition industry.

Our job is to make use of it.

RT's caution to 'be wary of overly-hyped stories' is definitely a good one.

But maybe not here, since ANY mention of WTC 7 is very good, right? The more the better. Let's hope some writer picks up this very interesting story about a truly bizarre BBC cock-up.

As for letting this story out as damage control: first off, even if that's true, we can take this one and run with it.

Secondly, wasn't it 911veritas who found this? And did ne not find it at nineeleven.com? It isn't officialdom spreading this stuff.

If only in comments or letters to the editor, any mention of WTC 7 can lead to wonderful 9-11 exposure. If this goes MSM, who cares how they may think or say it collapsed. They will have to mention that it did collapse. We will use this opportunity to show how dumb those fables are.

the BBC has been distorting since day one!


So, were they in on it?  Was SOMEONE over there in on it?  It's clear that the BBC has some splainin' to do--if they continue to help the coverup there will be serious issues between Britain and the US.  The BBC is, after all, providing aid and comfort to terrorists by producing hit pieces like their conspiracy files 9/11 show.  There WILL be consequences.  The following graphic, courtesy of DOn Paul and Jim Hoffman's book Waking up form our nightmare, was used for years on the BBC's story of what happened on 9/11.  I couldn't find it after a quick search but I know it was up for years after 2001...  just look at the amount of BS they condensed ionto such a small picture!



Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

Exactly man, they have been

Exactly man, they have been distorting since day one, day one of their existence probably. I think it's definitely got worse over the years, and that there are still some excellent journalists working there, but if there was any integrity in their institution before its certainly almost all gone now.

You know what?

I could imagine that the overly ridiculous response given by the BBC - which even went to the lenghts of incriminating themselves for losing all tapes 9/11 _without_ actually disputing the actual, viral video in question - was a very gentlemanly way of them saying: "Yea, we're tired of covering this shit up, too"...

but I don't know.

Show "It's a Red Herring" by bobarctor

Because it was showing what?

"Because it was showing signs of structural failure"

Hey everybody the Harley Guy is here.

Show "No Really" by bobarctor

Ratings suck

Because they foster herd mentality. I can understand people using them to get rid of spammers and trolls, but what if someone is honestly expressing an oppinion others don't share?

Being part of the truth movement, how can you not relate to that?

i agree

One can never be sure of the information they are recieving. It's annoying that I click your comments but they are not accessible and I end up getting one side of the argument.

Can't Stop 9/11 Fever

Why can't you read downrated comments?

Just expand and read away. Maybe you will have to enable scripts if you can't.

You know, apart from herd mentality, being rated down can also mean that you're just flat-out wrong.

the rating system

i wonder if it wouldn't be better to have ratings that aren't anonymous. I've seen some forums where it says such and such users recommend this article, and such and such users don't. helps you understand where people are coming from, and also identify patterns...


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force


Show "Patterns" by bobarctor


as in those who registered for an account earlier this morning in order to make comments downplaying the significance of the BBC footage.

ya got me!

I am actually about 3 out of every 5 users here myself.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force


I think I can safely say

that I'm always for transparency, except for when it comes to clothing.

why are you making BBC's case for them?

If this was all they had to say, why did they not simply say it? Remember, we do not have any legal power to investigate. We need to get the answers, not offer them for the defense.

You are suggesting that we should find evidence, then dismiss it before it is even explored. That's why I voted you down. you are intellectually dishonest and making apologies for the media.

Justice deferred is justice denied-MLK

Show "The BBC is hopeless" by bobarctor

Try harder.

"I've been a 911 activist ever since the start..."

"...but I didn't bother to take part in discussions on this blog until I had a chance to downplay the BBC footage."

You guys are in desperate need of a competent scriptwriter.

Show "Sure." by bobarctor

bob...so you're saying a

bob...so you're saying a reporter announcing the accidental fall of Building 7 WHILE the building stands in the background isn't at LEAST a small boost to 9/11 Truth?
Does it not prove, in the very least, that news anchors are given a script to read and do ZERO investigative research themselves?

Here's another thing to think about:

If building 7 was so obviously about to fall that even people at the scene can see easily that this huge building was going to collapse then how can NIST not have an official story about WTC7 yet?
How could it take 6 years to evaluate a building's collapse that everyone around can easily see it's going to fall?

Makes no sense.

Show "Thank you for being civil." by bobarctor

we are gaining ground and you are worried?

where is the source of the collapse? Who is the source? They use their best sources. Who told them? They have a record of where the info came from. They know they know they know. They are boobs, but they are lying boobs.

You need to press for the truth, not dismiss evidence (unless you want a job with Zelikow). In fact, is that you, Phil? What's with signing up today? Haven't you been here before? Attempting to control the myth?

Justice deferred is justice denied-MLK

"Boobs!" Love it! Just

"Boobs!" Love it! Just like BushCo! Yes!! Savor it! They are soooo INCOMPETENT! Yes! :DDDDDDD

You've been an activist "since the start" but have been a "Member for 7 hours 24 min" Yay! Yay for Bob, the all-time activist!

Hoo-RAH for Bob, who tells us to "take blogs with a grain of salt" because "they're hardly official" except that the head of BBC World News flushed all their 9/11 footage within 24 hours of exposure of their precognitive WTC7 collapse announcement, yay...

I can rest easily now that Bob's here, Bob the psychiatrist diagnosing "massive paranoid psychosis," yay...can I have a pill, a salty, salty pill, Bob?

(dreaming of unicorns and cotton candy and...zzz...)

Oh shut it.

I sincerely doubt any "opinion" you've expressed is honest as most would understand the word. But just for the excersise of fairness, here's your oportunity to share with us why you joined 911Blogger just over 8 hours ago:

Go on--we're listening:

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Show "Go ahead vote this down" by bobarctor

How noble of you ;-/

Could be we're like a private dick who's been working on a case a long time--that would be thinking ALOT, in case you missed that--and we're excited there's been a break in the case.

You did read my blog about how there are no leaders at 911Blogger and how I'm not taking ratings seriously because I KNOW there are organized wankers targeting the loud-mouths? Of course you did. Now back to the beeb:

They are lying their arses off--definately about WTC7, possibly about being live. They are lying their arses off. And we've caught them. AND we're excited about that. And no, we are not going to let it go or calm down about it.


Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Show "Sorry, I don't read your" by bobarctor

"WTC 7 is not the smoking gun we'd all like it to be. "


Do you guys get dental?

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Well, the interns don't...

Well, the interns don't...


and who are they? You don't know if it's possible to get at the truth?  Not with your pessimistic, c'mon let's forget about the evidence attitude.

Drama? Do you suggest that 9-11 is an event to forget?

Bob Arctor? Is Arctor the English way of saying actor, the way arse is English for ass?

Hey Bob, go back to arcting school.

Justice deferred is justice denied-MLK

What does a scanner see?

...darkly. I wonder if Bob still wears his scramble suit while trollin'?

LMAO! Harley guy has


Harley guy has emerged and he’s posting on blogger!

Hey dipshit: how do you explain the molten metal beneath WTC7? How ‘bout free-fall? I thought so.

Go back to fetching Condie’s donuts; you suck at this job.


The Eleventh Day of Every Month

"...because it was showing signs of structural failure"

See, this inference is faulty. Apart from repeated announcements that the building was coming down, there is nothing to suggest that it was poised for collapse - not even close. I would say they cordoned off the area to let the rats leave the sinking ship quietly, but that's just speculation.

But even if there was, reporting future events as fact cannot be attributed to error, unless you're willing to make A LOT of errors in the process, if you catch my drift.

Show "Faulty my butt" by bobarctor

Sorry, had to vote you down.

Herd mentality. We all don't like bullshit. ^_^

Me too.


Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

this is the same argument

that used to be used by people who claimed that the govt was withholding the many photos and videos of AA77 hitting the Pentagon because one day they would release them and wouldn't we all look foolish. Still waiting for those!

now, "bob", I realize you've just been assigned this task and it's taken you a while to get up to speed on the parlance and all that, but Col. Jenny is right--you need to do better if you want us to petend to believe you are legit.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force


Actually, it was casseia who

Actually, it was casseia who said "try harder", but otherwise, yeah, everything else you said. ;-)

BTW--at the risk of sounding musically ignorant, what is the name of the peice near the end of the clip playing during themontage sequence of WTC7 coming down? Who does it? I've heard it playing at the gym--but I never could make out the words until now-- I want to get all the lyrics.


Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Black Eyed Peas - Where is the Love

or so I assume.

Cheers. Impeachment.


Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

It is newsworthy

Hey, bobarctor, I'm sorry your question got voted down. I will push it up one notch, when I finish writing this.

You say, "This information could have then disseminated through the wire services and then to the BBC and subsequently the BBC could have just gotten the story wrong."

This might be what happened. But the strange behavior of the BBC higher-ups on learning of their error does look remarkable, no? Isn't it suspicious?

Also, any story that is interesting has potential for getting 9-11 questions into mainstream discussion. That is why I really like this particular story. It has lots of newsworthiness.

First post. I have visited

First post. I have visited this site daily since I discovered it. Thank you for the information you have imparted!

If you have contacted the BBC then I'm sure you have or will receive a little form letter from them. I wrote:

As an American citizen I have often relied on the BBC's thorough and even handed presentation of the news (in comparison to what we receive here). I hope the BBC will publicly address the issue of it's reporting of World Trade Center Building #7's collapse before the event actually took place.
Thank You,
++++ +++++

The form letter from the BBC:

Hello and thank you for your email in reaction to claims made in an article published online.

The notion that the BBC has been part of any conspiracy is patently ludicrous. We reported the situation as accurately as we could, based on the best information available. We cannot be categorical about the exact timing of events that day - this is the first time it has been brought to our attention and it was more than five years ago. If in the chaos and confusion of that day our correspondent reported that the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been a genuine error.

With regards
BBC World Customer Relations

Now, I'm realistic and didn't expect anything but a form letter from them. They are swamped with e-mails, I'm sure. Still, this is just another whitewash of an explanation.

"reaction to claims made in an article published online." - more condescension from the dinosaur media not knowing that the comet of new media has destroyed their world.

"The notion that the BBC has been part of any conspiracy is patently ludicrous." - Well, the vast majority of those chatting online about this agree with you, BBC. You seem paranoid.

"We reported the situation as accurately as we could, based on the best information available." and "If in the chaos and confusion of that day our correspondent reported that the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been a genuine error." - The best information available provided by whom?? The Psychic Friends Network?? Yes there was chaos and confusion, but what was the source that prompted you kick off the news hour with this incredible report? What was your source? I repeat... what was your source?

"We cannot be categorical about the exact timing of events that day" - That's why you have us to help you!!

Try again, BBC.

That's It. Guilty

"part of any conspiracy is patently ludicrous"

I have noticed that obliviously guilty parties try to deflect cricticism by using words like ludicrous, adsurb,

I concluded anyone deflecting cricticism this way is more than likely GUILTY! Past users of these terms, dubya, dickhead cheney, puppet rice, dumsfeld.

I rest my case.

“it is possible to fool all the people all the time—when government and press cooperate.” George Seldes - "legendary investigative reporter"

It's a non-denial

that sounds like a denial.

It's also a sort of passive-aggressive attack - with a
subtext of "how dare you criticise me".

Blair uses this technique as well.

They reported WTC7 going down while it was still up because...

... when it really came down they could say "oh ... we already reported that" - they would not have to actually broadcast the footage since it was already "old news".

The fact that the footage of the collapse was not broadcast on either CNN or BBC (correct me if I'm wrong) provides further support for this argument.

Editor - www.911oz.com

You may be onto something there.

It would be interesting to know if/when were the first pictures of WTC7 collapse shown on CNN and the BBC. I remember flicking between several news channels all evening on 9/11 and can't remember seeing footage of WTC7.

Regarding the CNN live footage...

Just checked the CNN footage from 5:08pm to 5:50pm EDT.

The first few minutes show a few shots of "smoking" WTC7, close and distant.

Then around 5:19pm shows a brief distant shot of "smoking" WTC7 (still standing).

Then around 5:21pm they cut back to a distant shot with WTC7 gone, with rising dust and smoke.

Then about 5:24 show the famous CNN distant shot of the building collapsing is repeated.

Hope this helps...

At some point I will double check the post 5:20 BBC footage, but I cannot recall seeing it fall, or them issuing any retractions on their footage, have to get back with that one.

One thing for sure... That Jane Standley would have known that WTC7 had gone down, 2-3mins after her feed failed (no doubting that).

Best wishes

911Veritas please contact me


we are interested in interviewing you for Guns and Butter next week.

Hi Yarrow...

Many thanks for the offer...

I'm not much of a public speaker and at the moment I'm concentrating on getting the BBC data out there.

If that goes ok, I will email you and arrange something... What sort of time would it be ?

If I'm gunna discuss this, I would rather do it whilst it's fresh in my mind.

Best wishes

Can we see?

Any way you can upload that CNN footage? I would like to see how they covered WTC7 when it fell. I remember seeing 7 fall on 9/11 with my dad. I think we were watching ABC at the time. I clearly remember looking over at him and asking, "Why did that one fall?", but that was the extent of my questioning. Like most people, I had no idea it was a controlled demo

At the moment I'm concentrating on the BBC video.

I just quickly skimmed through the CNN file for that range, posting the key points.

Hopefully someone else grabbed the footage who can help...

I might have time in the near future, but to be honest I have been sat in front of this computer (almost non stop) since 22-Feb !!!

Still trying to finish the BBC info...

Best wishes

I dugg this article

but the main digg page seems to be "down" for "maintenance." 

I would respond to the above skepticism about this BBC story as being over-analysis. Most people don't know about WTC7, or if they do, they haven't thought critically about it.

This exposure is good and necessary, and the response of the BBC and internet censors to stop the spread of this footage should confirm that. This is not a "red herring." We need to keep working on this story.

Reality got you down? Read the La Rochelle Times: http://www.rochelletimes.blogspot.com

Show "Red Herring? I agree" by williamwallace

Let Building 7 go?

That's absurd. 

Okay, should we just let go of all the evidence of a controlled demolition, and ignore the fact that there hasn't even been an official report by NIST on this building? Maybe we can focus on space beams and hologram airplanes to really build up our credibility, ya think?

There are plenty of anomalies to go around from 9-11, but this one is unexplainable if the official story is to be believed. 

Reality got you down? Read the La Rochelle Times: http://www.rochelletimes.blogspot.com

Show "I agree, lets make that the" by williamwallace

Glad to see that we agree

and I'd add that while I think skepticism is healthy and necessary (approaching this story with caution initially) I haven't seen any credible arguments about why it is not believeable (the video is legit, the timestamp is legit, everything checks out).

Keep in mind that everyone here is more or less "in the know," but the average citizen who doesn't pay attention to these issues needs to find out about how the media was up on buildings collapsing before they "accidentally" did in reality. Anyone can see the logical paradox there.

This is as much about educating, remaining succinct and building credibility as it is about getting this story out. This is why they are scared to death of us. And they should be. We're not going away.

Reality got you down? Read the La Rochelle Times: http://www.rochelletimes.blogspot.com

Williamwallace, you maybe

Williamwallace, you maybe don't agree with my (and others') sense of tactics here... but to me this looks like a potential bonanza as a news story.

You say, "we need to follow a process of logical thought, physical evidence, eyewitness testimony, direct video or audio evidence..." That is all true.

If 9-11 ever gets to a real court of law with valid powers and actual interest in discovering truth, then your methodology is the only one that will work. This particuar BBC bungle -- whatever is behind it in terms of forewarning -- would go nowhere, unless the method of forewarning also got exposed.

BUT THIS IS ABOUT MEDIA EXPOSURE! in my hopefully humble opinion...

...and it is now our job to get this out to the media, any media, get someone, anyone, writing about it...

It is a remarkably interesting story.

For Media Exposure?

If we run risk of over-hyping events for the reward of media expsoure, we run the risk of loosing our intellectual honesty, which is what at its' core is driving this movement.

I'd like to see 24 / 7 vigil outside of NIST until the report detailing #7 is written. That may be a more "logical" path to follow for media exposure, although admittedly much harder to oragnize.

I just don't want to see "us" use easily dismissed events to gain exposure, I'd like to keep to the rock solid truths,

and Oh by the way, to some other neophytes out there, , not you student, ..."evidence" is not molten metal or free fall speed, it is Fireman John Doe's affidavit that he witnessed molten metal and is going to show up where he needs to, to explain what he saw (similiar to William Rodriguez's evidence) or Structural experts Jane Doe video footage, that in her expert opinion that building could not have come down in the manner without "Blown Support Columns"

One more thing, whoever voted me down, and hid my comments, my feeling are really hurt and oh yea, I'm a white house intern too, check out my other blogs and comments......

anyway you get my drift...


I'm not sure if there'll ever be a grand committee, commission or other similar top-down effort to provide the kind of "evidence" you'd like to see. Not if they simply ignore the call for it. It might come down to each single mind being its own jury - I could see how the firefighters' affidavits or structural experts video testimonies could be broadcast over the internets, though. Anyway, Kant once said:

"Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's mind without another's guidance. Sapere Aude! Dare to Know! Have the courage to use your own understanding is therefore the motto of the Enlightenment."

Truly a great quote, in case there is such a word as "nonage". Anway, I think it's time for just that (enlightenment, not nonage). Whoever is not willing to think for themselves will let others dictate, and doesn't truly desire freedom. That's the way it was, and that's the way it always will be. All others we can reach on the streets and through the internets, all the while Auntie BBC has donated premium evidence - Hit it!


Dude, I want to see people frog marched with hand-cuffs on.
and tearful confessions and a genuine change to our foreign policies, not some Yoga & Hippie non-sense, "enlightenment" what ?

In God I Trust, All Others Bring Data

Hey, I want a genuine change, too

I'm just not willing to wait for any establishment agency to certify the evidence.

Some sanity, please

Not wishing to claim the BBC is in on any conspiracy ( let's stay sane, please ) , the ' Aha, caught you ' atmosphere on all the forums strikes me as inappropriate. CNN reported WTC 7 as being about to collapse of having just collapsed way before the BBC did. The fact that the word was clearly out that the building was in trouble and might well be coming down, doesn't in itself prove controlled demolition. Don't forget that towers 1 and 2 had come down unexpectedly just hours before, so it would not be such a strange assumption for the fire department etc. to make. Apparently a collapse zone was prepared, so they were taking the possibility into account. The BBC error ( what else can it be ? ) is not a smoking gun. The real smoking gun is the fact that NIST can't explain why WTC 7 came down like it did. Or perhaps I should say : NIST can't publish why the building came down the way it did.

I agree

Although this video draws attention to possible foreknowledge, and the actions of the BBC just show that they want the issue to go away.

Accusing them of being part of the 9-11 conspiracy is ridiculous, and any intelligent person should say so. However it would be naïve to think these media organizations are not propaganda mouthpieces for those who did intend to use 9-11 as a "coup d'état."

Reality got you down? Read the La Rochelle Times: http://www.rochelletimes.blogspot.com


If there was nothing for the government to hide why would they be so secretive?

Unless the idea was to build a counter culture of theories and conspiracies which, if given enough circumstantial evidence, could engulf almost all of the dissenters.

Then later, once the movement has reached a critical boiling point, they can release some damning evidence against controlled demolition, and dismantle the truth movement in one simple action and forever hide the facts of their involvement.


I think you're giving them too much credit.

Sure, it's possible - but is it likely? To do that, they would have had to fabricate a staggering amount of evidence that they would have to completely devalidate in the future. How?? To me it appears like they just ran their show like they used to and were caught off-guard by the internets. In fact, I'm sure that's what's up.

I think you're right.

The PNAC crew are Cold War dinosaurs used to having their way with the MSM, particularly the concept of "down the Memory Hole". There's no way they could have known the future impact of the blogosphere when they were (allegedly) hatching their plans.

stop answering for the BBC

Why do so many, aftger the BBC has supplied an answer, continue to wish they would just say something far more credible? Let them answer (try) for themselves. They lost the tapes? They never knew about this huge error that day? I am surprised at the lameness of their excuses, but why are so many people trying to sign up as their defense attorney? Your logic applied to the whole event of 9-11 would have cloesed the book long ago, but look what happens, things keep popping up. Let this air out on its own. Do you work for the BBC or what?

In fact, initially, I didn't think much of this until they came back with such feeble and self-incriminating rubbish! Give them enough rope and look, they hung themselves, and you want to cut them down? I don't get it.

Justice deferred is justice denied-MLK

don't let the BBC debacle be the message about 7...

I totally agree.. The BBC angle is GREAT for exposure and interesting, but it gives the same exits for those still having trouble coming to terms with WTC 7.

Anyone have any doubter friends out there? Have you mentioned this to them? I have..the response is "they knew that building would fall all day." - They read into the fire dept. revelations that 7's fall was an "inevitable" event.

Saying the BBC said this first in their minds justifys TO THEM that "see they knew all day, BBC jumped the gun and reported it before the unstoppable collapse occured".

However, of course, we know the more crippling truths about 7 and the REAL evidence that points to controlled demo:

The video clips of it's fall and Steven Jones' paper is it!

We can all agree molten metal and "partially evaporated steel members" causes the most head scratching and strong resistance in the minds of those clinging (hoping?) that 7 was a fire induced freefall. It's also these smoking guns that make the case.

But dots like this BBC clip do indeed fall into our picture perfectly. But the disbelievers will claim it falls into their own as well... The significance of the video signal loss at the end certainly elicits "conspiracy theory" aromas that help them maintain their fires collapse building thoughts.

My disbeliever friends can never meet me head on when I ask about molten metal and evaporated steel members, sulfidation of steel--- their only defense is "shoot the messenger", ad hominem attacks, etc... Ah, that's when you know their paradigm is nearing global collapse...

could this story have been timed to prepare for the final report

Early 2007 was when they said the report on building 7 would be released. Is this the first step in that process? The thing to do will be once they release the report, and if as we assume they will claim to have determined it must have been fire and damage, will they in any way use this BBC story, which may be fresh in peoples' mind, to somehow try to make their report's conclusion seem more credible?

We need to remember to use our imagination, think three steps ahead, and maintain a healthy skepticism. Time is on our side--we have forever to expose the lies.

Analyze, interpret, share, refine, rinse, repeat.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force


Timed by... who?

RT, again I welcome your care and skepticism.

But also again, blogger 911veritas got this for us, from nineeleven.co.uk. If we are being 'fed' something, that website is either in on the feeding or a victim of it.

That website looks reasonably good to me. Might be very good, but I only just glanced at it quickly.

The timing here might in fact become a big pain in the ass for NIST.

You keep stating this... it did NOT come from nineeleven.co.uk

I never got it from anywhere, it was obtained from days of hard research and verification....

This is where it started....


Then here is where it got moving...


I spent several days going through the archive.org footage, produced version one of the vid, uploaded to Google Video (awaiting processing), felt pretty despondent coz no one seemed interested, woke up the following day and it seemed to be everywhere (went live on Google vid during the night)...

The rest is history...

The archive was there for all to access, sadly few did.

Hope that clears things up.

I have upload the live footage from 14:40 to 17:18 to 911podcasts (with my verification instructions), just waiting for the admin team to do what they have to.

Best wishes

Beg pardon...

Thanks for the correction; good work.

Then ask your doubter friends

how the BBC could so accurately guess the time of collapse that they felt confident enough to report it as (future) fact multiple times? Ask them if they don't find the timing of the feed-termination just a wee bit too convenient. Then show them what they should have seen: The near perfect implosion of WTC7.

Then, in case they still see nothing suspicious, part of me says help Darwin. Then again, some people are really just too spineless to stick up, and it probably wasn't their choice, so...

Double post, sorry


They were ' Aha, caught' the moment it 'collapsed'.

Our 'shadow government' that is. They will never be able to explain away the free-fall speed, molten metal, or solid steel beams turned into something resembling Swiss cheese.. Sorry, Kerosene, nor diesel fuel could ever cause these 'anomalies'.

Digg stinks!

I have been tracking the action at Digg with respect to this story.
This story took off fast, got hundreds of diggs, then started to be suppressed. It has been stuck just under 2000 diggs for almost 24 hours. Now, dont get me wrong, 2000 digs is alot, enough in fact that the story should be on many of the various "front pages" at Digg, but of course it is not.
Not only that, but the story had nearly 1200 comments!
More than any other story I could find on digg.

Not only that! It is un-searchable... there is no set of search terms I could find that would retreive the story.

This is blatant suppression. Caught in the act.
Now, at least for me, Digg is down.... guess it's down for "maintenance" to wipe any trace of the story from memory.


He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future. - Orwell

The site is "down"

What seems to be more and more apparent to me is that many people who actively question the administration don't want to look at this 9-11 evidence because it is too damning and would require action and investigation.

It is therefore easier to suppress and ignore it. The problem is, it generates so much interest that the stories and reports receive more comments  than usual.

The only defense is to manipulate otherwise democratic voting systems (like digg) through "karma" and other tricks, and constantly change the rules. If that doesn't work, you brand everyone who supports a new investigation as a troll and accuse them of hijacking the conversation. Oh, the irony!

Reality got you down? Read the La Rochelle Times: http://www.rochelletimes.blogspot.com


Re: Matt's comment -- to me it looks like we will also have to keep studying what Digg does and exposing it too. Again, this too is newsworthy. Nice to get a story out somewhere on this one too, this Digg doggeyness.

lost the line

"It almost seems too far fetched.. oops look like we've lost the line".




Sorry if anyone thinks that

Sorry if anyone thinks that to be too of topic, but I think that's pretty kickass and I thought a few people here would like to check it..... God, what the hell is up with the squares on this site?

Thanks DBLS

Enjoyed that very much.

LOL, That guy wouldn't last five seconds...

on the Gong Show.

Seriously though, Has 911blogger been really slow, as in not loading, seeing 'page cannot be displayed' type stuff? I couldn't even log in yesterday (Wednesday). One minute it would load fine, five seconds later, nothing.


I figured as much, dz.

I figured this story was generating a lot of new traffic. Just felt like having you answer a stupid question :) I also see this story has inspired some new members.

Well he’s had 2,334,739

Well he’s had 2,334,739 views, 10325 Comments, Favorited 35251 times, 24800 star ratings with an average of 80% and is part of “Youtube’s Best”.


DBLS how do you embed videos like that?

I came across some footage from the day that I would like to post in the comments.

It’s easy, just look to

It’s easy, just look to the side of the video on the Youtube page and you’ll see “URL” and “Embed”, just copy and paste the “Embed” code.

Thanks so much!

appreciate it.

Spread this link!

Help make it go viral.


It isn't getting taken down and is the only Google Video link with 911veritas' textual commentary with the prelude set to U2.

It would be nice to see it go "viral" and quickly end up in Google Video's top 100. Given how they feverishly tried to take it down at first, this would represent still more pathetic irony and another victory.

Plus, if it goes viral and hits the top 100, then the truth will get out to 100's of 1000's more as people in turn spread the link to their friends and acquaintances.



Veritas should be on Alex Jones...

Just listened to Alex Jones podcast from Wed. show.. he says "researchers found BBC footage on archive.org BBC footage"....

Hey, Veritas should be on Jones show to tell people another way to help spread 9/11 Truth--research it!

I certainly think he deserves a platform because Veritas sets such a great example of "good use of your 9/11 truth hunting time" and how inspiring: a guy who used a little elbow grease, sacrificed some ZZzzz time, and found a pearl.

No doubt the best grassroots story in a while.... paging Mr. Jones.

again, great job, and it would be great to hear him encourage others about what they can do....

oops, I meant Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

oops, I meant....

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

...that would make for great radio: examples of grassroots activism- research!

In that spirit

Here are a few anomolies I was hoping somebody could help to explain. The explosion at the pentagon at the end of this clip is what I'm curious about. Please watch very short...

thanks, but i think you meant veritas

I didn't find the BBC video...

and I don't mean to brag, but I have indeed been told I have a great face for radio. :)

speaking of, i gave my website a facelift while procrastinating on the boston 9/11 film fest video and new trading card series.

9 1 1 T T T - Tell The Truth! 9 1 1 T 3 IX XI III T

tell the truth about the twin towers! TTTATTT

buzzzz whirrrrr clang clang... building the movement one meme at a time!!

/viral jedi mind tricks


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force


an amusing comment at wonkette

"branded says:

The Spanish sunk the Maine through stealth 'n cunning.

The Germans sunk the Lusitania, an innocent passenger ship.

An entire Jap battle group crossed the Pacific, undetected, and 'surprised' us at Pearl Harbor.

Gulf of Tonken?

Saddam getting the tacit knod from Bush I on the Kuwait invasion?

Iraq has WMDs?

Iran is the reason Iraq hasn't been pacified?


Sure, that and 9/11 was pulled-off by islamo nazi communist freedom hating puppy kicking exchange students.

...and the BBC just 'happened' to get the scoop on 7, along with multiple other news outlets at the same premature time.


OT-flight 93 "Eyewitness"

Hi , I'm Darrell , this is my brother Darrell , and this is my other brother Darrell...

Can we see?

Any way you can upload that CNN footage? I would like to see how they covered WTC7 when it fell. I remember seeing 7 fall on 9/11 with my dad. I think we were watching ABC at the time. I clearly remember looking over at him and asking, "Why did that one fall?", but that was the extent of my questioning. Like most people, I had no idea it was a controlled demo.

Edit: This was supposed to be a response to an earlier post.

911Veritas please contact me


We are interested in interviewing you for Guns and Butter next week.

A better video of foreknowledge

I agree this is a little gem, and as a way to draw more attention to the collapse of Building 7 may indeed prove useful. So by all means spread it around.

Having said that, how important is it in comparison to other evidence of complicity? This might get the movement some attention (although that's now coming anyway by other, more potent routes), but at the end of the day what are we left with? The BBC got it wrong. CNN was also confused. Firefighters had been told all day WTC7 was going to collapse.

What is it Chomsky likes to dismiss the debate with? "These people don't understand the nature of real evidence." This would be a case in point if people start insisting this proves government complicity. Hopefully we won't be that irresponsible as we rightly spread this interesting piece of the circumstantial puzzle around.

A far more potent piece of "real evidence" that could be effectively used in court to pry open the tin of worms is Rudy Giulliani's testimony to the 9/11 Commission where he testifies (under oath, I believe---correct me if I'm wrong, because that's crucial) that they were warned the Towers were going to collapse, and dutifully abandoned their command post at a time the Commission says none of the fire chiefs thought there was any chance of collapse. Now that would be a video worth locating and spreading around.

Can anybody find the C-Span footage of Giulliani's testimony?

Oh, and let's not forget the other important developments in the last week!

Hey 9/11 Veritas..there is something else I was wondering.

It was something on Skynews, I believe, where on 9/11 at the time WTC 7 was going down, those changing info prints below or beside the stations name, it said UA 175 was still reported as missing. how can a person find this? I don't know if that would be along the same line as this here, but it would seem similar in the way as reported that UA 175 as one of the planes that hit the towers, and still reported as "missing". Anybody's thoughts on this?