BBC Files Down Again - 1645 Central Time

EDIT: Back again at 1748 Central.

An interesting thread here; copying over for posterity; 1657 Central Time

http://www.archive.org/iathreads/post-view.php?id=107775

Poster: brewster Date: March 02, 2007 06:34:18pm
Forum: movies Subject: couple BBC 9/11 videos available again

Two of the much discussed BBC are available again, but this time as streaming flash files.

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

http://www.archive.org/details/bbc200109111736-1818

Based on the analysis of the time codes, the engineer involved is certain that the BBC was talking about the collapse before the building was reported to have collapsed on the www.911timeline.net site.

We hope to have other videos from this collection available soon.

-brewster
Digital Librarian

---------------------------

Poster: Interogator Date: March 03, 2007 12:05:37am
Forum: movies Subject: Re: couple BBC 9/11 videos available again

Brewster,

Can you explain what you mean by "Based on the analysis of the time codes, the engineer involved is certain that the BBC was talking about the collapse before the building was reported to have collapsed on the www.911timeline.net site".

1) Are you an Internet Archive "Digital Librarian"?

2) What "times codes" are you referring to?

3) Where is that information for all of the other files which were available earlier in the week.

4) Which engineers are you referring to?

5) There is one report that one of the xml files associated with the key clip
http://www.archive.org/details/bbc200109111654-1736 may have been edited on 18th February (the implication being that edited file may have been the file which held crucial time code information about the BBC WORLD clip (the downloadable file was V08591-16.mpg)

6) Have any of the mpg or .xml files been tampered with/edited over the past couple of weeks (especially since the BBC broadcast of the 911 Conspiracy on 18th February)?

It would have been more helpful to have had earlier footage so the material in the above clip could be searched for in broadcasts earlier in the day. As it is, it's still not crystal clear that the remarks you have posted clear up all of the critical issues. The Google 'flash' clip which appeared on the net on Monday 26th February (with its erroneous/misleading EST and 5 hour NY-GMT difference text alleging the GMT BBC WORLD broadcast was in fact before the 17:30 collpase of WTC7), did reference the original .mpg at www.archive.org in the text at the beginning, but the info at www.archive.org earlier on Monday/Tuesday (i.e. before the files were pulled) did state (in the reputably edited .xml file?) that the 41 minute clip was was 1654-1736 EDT (not EST).

There are too many still too many unresolved anomalies surrounding this entire matter. Has this site been hacked, edited or phished in recent times? Can a malicious effort to discredit the BBC in the wake of their highly critical 911 conspiracy theorist programme on 18th February be entirely ruled out?

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

This post was modified by Interogator on 2007-03-03 08:05:37

-----------------------------------------------------

Poster: brewster Date: March 03, 2007 07:15:35am
Forum: movies Subject: Re: couple BBC 9/11 videos available again

Thank you for the thoughtful reply. Let me reply to some of these points.

> Brewster,
>
>Can you explain what you mean by "Based on the analysis of >the time codes, the engineer involved is certain that the >BBC was talking about the collapse before the building was >reported to have collapsed on the www.911timeline.net site".

>1) Are you an Internet Archive "Digital Librarian"?

Yes.

>2) What "times codes" are you referring to?

The Television Archive lays down a timeline track on the mpeg2 file as it is being encoded and stored. The storage medium at that time was digital tape.

>3) Where is that information for all of the other files which were available earlier in the week.

I assume you mean-- what happened to them. We still have them, but we took then out of public view so that we could work on making them available but with more context and possibly streaming.

The reason for streaming the files is so that we replicate the Internet availability these files had from October 11, 2001 for a couple of years.

>4) Which engineers are you referring to?

The engineer that encoded the video in 2001.

>5) There is one report that one of the xml files associated with the key clip
>http://www.archive.org/details/bbc200109111654-1736 may >have been edited on 18th February (the implication being >that edited file may have been the file which held crucial time code information about the BBC WORLD clip (the downloadable file was V08591-16.mpg)

We have transcoded these videos into streaming format.

The original file V08591-16.mpg has been recently pulled off of the original tape recorded in 2001 and the timecodes examined. They are the same. There is no evidence of tampering. We take our jobs seriously, and this is our opinion.

>6) Have any of the mpg or .xml files been tampered with/edited over the past couple of weeks (especially since the BBC broadcast of the 911 Conspiracy on 18th February)?

XML and derivative files have been made recently. We have been working to bring these files back online since before Sept 11, 2006 when we wanted these back up for the 5th anniversary. We have moved into high gear since this flared up in the last week.

>It would have been more helpful to have had earlier footage >so the material in the above clip could be searched for in >broadcasts earlier in the day. As it is, it's still not >crystal clear that the remarks you have posted clear up all >of the critical issues. The Google 'flash' clip which >appeared on the net on Monday 26th February (with its >erroneous/misleading EST and 5 hour NY-GMT difference text >alleging the GMT BBC WORLD broadcast was in fact before the >17:30 collpase of WTC7), did reference the original .mpg at >www.archive.org in the text at the beginning, but the info >at www.archive.org earlier on Monday/Tuesday (i.e. before >the files were pulled) did state (in the reputably edited >.xml file?) that the 41 minute clip was was 1654-1736 EDT >(not EST).

Our timecodes are UTC and we believe they are correct. The early analysis, therefore, appears correct even though there was a mistake of daylight savings time.

>There are too many still too many unresolved anomalies >surrounding this entire matter. Has this site been hacked, >edited or phished in recent times?

Not that we are aware of, but for the purposes of this discussion, the timecodes in the mpeg2 available earlier this week are the same as what was on the tape recorded at the time.

I don't know much about this controversy, but even if this time line is correct as it appears, I understand there are explanations every which way. All we are trying to do is provide the provenance and our opinion of how to interpret the data that is in the Archive.

>Can a malicious effort >to discredit the BBC in the wake of their highly critical >911 conspiracy theorist programme on 18th February be entirely ruled out?

We have no intention of this. I hope to see their program at someone.

Thank you again, for such a thoughtful and respectful interaction.

-brewster

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

>This post was modified by Interogator on 2007-03-03 08:05:37

--------------------------------------------------------

Poster: Interogator Date: March 03, 2007 09:16:53am
Forum: movies Subject: Re: couple BBC 9/11 videos available again
This post was modified by brewster on 2007-03-03 02:34:18

Brewster

Thanks for the response.

There are still points which don't quite make sense to me. Can you confirm that you are Brewster Kahle the Director and Co-Founder? (http://www.archive.org/about/bios.php) Are you a 'techie'?

I downloaded the critical clip on Tuesday and at present it isn't clear to me what timecode you're referring to. Nor have you really cleared up what the xml files are and how they relate to timecodes and other data. I asumme they are separate from the .mpg files? If files were put onto DAT back in 2001 how many files for each clip were stored and retrieved? How did you know what the timecodes were given the 1GB files downloaded give no clue?

Please understand that users have no way of confirming the authenticity of posters to this forum, or even that this site as the genuine site. With all the ire and the odd goings on since the BBC broadcast on 18th February, anything's possible. Many of the '911 Truth forums' are little more than alternative 'evangelical' businesses concerns, and the BBC programme was definitely bad for some of their business, so a retaliatory hit job is not out of the question.

The next file is in the BBC sequence *is* downloadable by the way. Why?

http://ia331338.us.archive.org/3/items/bbc200109111818-1859/V08591-24.mpg

System administratively, what makes little sense to me is a) why all of the other files went offline on Tuesday or Wednesday b) whether they were ever all available (just a few at a phished site would have sufficed for the scam if there had been one), and why were only these few files put back up? The critical files to have put up would have been *other* BBC files, i.e. from earlier in the day, along with similarly timed footage from other newscasters so the BBC clip http://ia311517.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109111654-1736/V08591-16.mpg could have been corroborated.

The problem for users is authenticity. Not only of these files, but of the source.

No disrespect, but we need facts not what people think.

------------------------------------------------

Poster: brewster Date: March 03, 2007 11:39:26am
Forum: movies Subject: Re: couple BBC 9/11 videos available again

> Brewster

>Thanks for the response.

>There are still points which don't quite make sense to me. Can you confirm that you are Brewster Kahle the Director and Co-Founder? (http://www.archive.org/about/bios.php) Are you a 'techie'?

Yes.

>I downloaded the critical clip on Tuesday and at present it isn't clear to me what timecode you're referring to.

it is embedded in the mpeg2 file. beyond that I don't know, but mpeg2 wizards would.

>Nor have you really cleared up what the xml files are and how they relate to timecodes and other data. I asumme they are separate from the .mpg files?

yes, the xml files are separate from the mpg files. these are used for metadata.

>If files were put onto DAT back in 2001 how many files for each clip were stored and retrieved?

1 for the video, and then we sometimes have other files such as electronic program guides and closed caption data, but I believe you guys are concerned with the video.

>How did you know what the timecodes were given the 1GB files downloaded give no clue?

They are in the file.

>Please understand that users have no way of confirming the authenticity of posters to this forum, or even that this site as the genuine site.

Understood. You can do some online research about the Internet Archive to see what we do.

>With all the ire and the odd goings on since the BBC broadcast on 18th February, anything's possible. Many of the '911 Truth forums' are little more than alternative 'evangelical' businesses concerns, and the BBC programme was definitely bad for some of their business, so a retaliatory hit job is not out of the question.

Good to question everything. We have tried to be straight about the files we have. We try to give full access to everything, but in the US, libraries have come under increasing restrictions based on changes in copyright law (see Kahle v Gonzales case for instance).

>The next file is in the BBC sequence *is* downloadable by the way. Why?

>http://ia331338.us.archive.org/3/items/bbc200109111818-1859/V08591-24.mpg

These issues are in active evolution. We are attempting to make these available streaming. If a balance can be struck that publishers and libraries can work with, we all win. We made it too easy in this case, so we will be tightening it up. Publishing ways to copy the video files so that it is easy for others to do may not help us with this balance.

>System administratively, what makes little sense to me is a) why all of the other files went offline on Tuesday or Wednesday

We took them out of public view because they were downloadable in their original mpeg2 form.

>b) whether they were ever all available (just a few at a phished site would have sufficed for the scam if there had been one), and why were only these few files put back up? The critical files to have put up would have been *other* BBC files, i.e. from earlier in the day, along with similarly timed footage from other newscasters so the BBC clip http://ia311517.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109111654-1736/V08591-16.mpg could have been corroborated.

We would like to get all of these videos back up as they had been for a couple of years after October 11, 2001.

>The problem for users is authenticity. Not only of these files, but of the source.

Yours to judge, but we have tried to make the underlying facts around these recordings and our organization available.

>No disrespect, but we need facts not what people think.

I am happy with the respectful and thoughtful tone of this and your other forum post.

-brewster
Digital Librarian
Internet Archive

>Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)

--------------------------------------------------------

Poster: Interogator Date: March 03, 2007 01:15:21pm
Forum: movies Subject: Re: couple BBC 9/11 videos available again

Brewster

Thanks for your patience. Just a few more.

I was also interested in more info on the allgedly edited .xml file associated with the key file (as pointed out by Janice Matthews earlier in the week).

I have two of your 1GB files. Are you saying that the original timecode (time and date from 2001?) are embedded in those? If so, if anyone can point to some software which displays these, please let me know.

http://www.debugmode.com/userforums/viewtopic.php?p=4391&sid=bcca8b76de8c13b486e69ea12af21276

As to the files going offline, I'm puzzld as to why you didn't you just change all the permissions? Why did that take so long, and why did only two files (and not 102, 202) come back, and why even then was the second file I mentioned *still downloadable today?

Do you understand why I am puzzled?

My head is gunna explode !!!!

If 911blogger has the bandwidth, it might me good to release the 14:40 to 17:18 EDT continuous footage file... get it mirrored and out on torrent etc.

At least people can check that out for continuity etc.

I'm working on the 17:18 to 20:26 EDT continuous footage file as we speak, hopefully be up tomorrow around this time.

Best wishes

I avidly await your next posting

Thank you for taking the time to analyse and verify that footage, even with the tumbleweed rolling by and crickets chirping as you say;)