..but you must of course do what you think is right.

Good luck with your future prospects. ;-)

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

thee's something odd abut itthough I can'ts ayi'm convced t's fake orin som e way manipulated

it might just be me, but there's something that sounds vaguely scripted about it. kind of like an rpisode of the office. it just seems... i dunno.

fake or not, it's still cool to watch them talking about the perps whoever they may be and imagining that they are talking about the REAL perps and not the patsies.

but the point to be taken is that we should cultivate a healthy skepticism. i think one good reason to do so especially in the case of video evidence is the fact that "video fakery" has been wrongfully alleged before, perhaps to pre-emptively sour people on REAL cases of video fakery.

it's not for us to determine exactly what is tru and what isn't--it is to train people to think for themselves and never assume the majority are right about anything.

for once i agree with magishcommish--the cost/benefit ratio should be considered. since building 7 is so obvious, the marginal gain of piling on yet more proof is hardly worth promoting a fake. i sthe point here to try to allege that the BBC was complicit? confused? deceived?

whether or not this particular line of inquiry proves fruitfuil is irrelevant--we should consider all possibilities, however implausible they may seem. the more certain we can be about what we know to be true, the more confidence we will exude and the more convincing we will be!

hey OT-- I'm torn between working on more 9/11 trading cards, or taking the hint from erin myers and contributing something a bit more refined than cards to the cause. so i'm thinking of writing a cook book, "EAT GOOD CROW, 101 delicious ways to admit you were wrong"

if you'd like to contribute, please submit your own (or someone else's) favorite crow recipe (maybe each time a shill posts something)

____

♠

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

...she clearly points to it, repeatedly says it is "behind her", and then turns around to look at it ....what the hell do you want?

on the video when she does that? I don't remember seeing abything that convincing. i could well be wrong--just asking!

____

♠

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

No I don't think it's a blue screen, she turns around to point out the smoke etc.

and you also see the sunlight on her hand as she sticks it out the window to point...

Also if you check the footage throughout the day and later into the evening, the same window is used.

You can even see the backgrounds reflection in the glass to her right (left as you look at the screen).

Best wishes

You should try and get this on Divx Stage6 as well dude;

http://stage6.divx.com/

^ You can get much higher quality hosting on that and they probably won’t do a Silverstein and "pull it" like google either.

uploading it to google vid again...

see how long it take them to 'Larry' it.

http://stage6.divx.com/content/show/1133782?user_id=245557

I posted this at Prison Planet but I will repeat it here:

The video does NOT appear to be blue screened at all.

1) The camera is North of WTC looking south and given the time of day (5pm) the sun should be setting in the west which would be on the RIGHT side of the frame.

2) The scene is lit from the RIGHT and we can clearly see the sunlight on the woman coming in from the windows so the lighting is perfect. A studio lighting would be very neutral and not have that harshness at all.

3) The news anchor in Britain is talking to her over a live feed... therefore it follows that she is likely in New York city.

4) I have checked the original source video (from archive.org) and it is full D1 with interlacing. There are absolutely NO aliasing or artifact effects that are normally very evident whenever a composite shot is used on TV. First, the resolution makes seeing the matte lines easy and second the overlay is done in real time so that a lot of pixelation occurs. Next time you see your weatherman in front of a bluescreen look closely and you'll see the pixelation.

5) The woman actually turns and looks out on the scene, which if it was a bluescreen seems odd to say the least.

6) As she turns the camera ZOOMS in on the scene. Both the woman AND the image behave exactly as one would expect from a live shot. If it were composite we would see the image zoom but not the woman. It is at this point quite obvious that the image behind the woman is indeed NYC as seen through a window.

To sum: There is absolutely NO evidence to suggest any composite work and LOTS of evidence that points to it being your standard bonafide camera shot. This one is real folks, now we need to figure out what it means, if anything.

shec ould be there and the "building 7" could be.... yes, video fakery. but really, we don't need more proof that building 7 collapsed than this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExUTAbUCYL0&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ewtcde...

 ____

♠

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

...before you start nit-picking. At exactly 16:58, the breaking banner says "The 47 storey Salomon Brothers building close to the World Trade Centre has also collapsed."
The shot is clearly marked "Live" and the correspondent is standing in front of the patently visible WTC7 itself. No time stamping is necessary. The paradox is encapsulated in that singular shot.

absolutely spot on.

How many times have we jumped the gun making announcements without thinking it through?

I think its kinda messed up that people are voting down posts that seek to examine the time-zone questions associated with this video.

Another legitimate questions could be: Is it possible the BBC just got it wrong? Its true that word was being widely circulated that Building 7 was in danger of collapse. This could have been part of their cover story - circulating the rumor that Building 7 was in DANGER of collapse before actually pulling it.

Is it possible that the BBC got hold of this rumor and misreported it in the chaos that was going on?

what could be the possible alternative? are you suggesting that the BBC had a script of events and reported it before it happened? wouldn't that mean that every technician and camera man and console man and producer and grip and BBC intern in the studio would have to be in on the plot?

why are we just finding out about this now?

is it possible that this is a red herring being thrown at us to embarass us yet again?

does not the TRUTH MOVEMENT have a RESPONSIBILITY to ask responsible questions, and eliminate all possibilities before making blanket announcements?

i would say its also a case of "consider the source" though. Nicholas has a habit of telling people to sit on most evidence because the "debunkers" will use it against us. asking legit questions about the time stamp is one thing, calling this piece of evidence "troll bait" like Nicholas did in another thread is another.

for having high standards.

William Pepper said in his speech at the Chicago conference that, given the efforts to discredit us from the obvious enemies of this movement, we need to be EXTRA careful about our facts - and make sure we KNOW all the facts before making claims.

Now - i am not suggesting that we sit on this story. But, here Nicholas poses questions regarding the time zones and people down vote them so that they are hidden.

If we can't ask questions - we are not a truth movement.

Getting voted down is part of the risk we all take when we put our questions or arguments up.

I don't understand what the controversy is. It's obvious that Building 7 is behind the reporter. BBC has a fancy graphic saying the building had already fallen. The anchor in the studio sells the story that the building fell (before it did) because of fire and not from anything nefarious. The reporter's live feed mysteriously drops out five minutes into her report...

I agree that the time the video was shot needs to be locked down. From looking at the shadows on the buildings in the background, the sun is low in the west.

Anyone have rock solid proof that this vid was shot 15-30 minutes before Building 7 fell down?

EDIT:

I just noticed that the news anchor in the BBC studio looks at a clock and confirms that the video was shot "some 8 hours" after the attack. If anyone has the Google video (before they "pulled" it) forward to 17:30

_______________
"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!" -Dan Wallace

I totally agree, the problem is I think Nicholas incorporates a bit of disdain into those otherwise very sensible points. So it’s like an attack on everyone else, the dude’s being too cynical. This needs to be vetted, Nick’s caution is definitely shared by me but there are other ways to phrase things basically.

VERIFY IT FOR YOURSELF...

Download the 5 MPEGs listed and linked above.

Join them together to prove that the 208 minutes of footage is contiguous and chronological.

Fast forward to 29 minutes, check the live clock should be 2:40pm, jump forward another 1hr 20 mins and you'll hear the host say it's 4pm in New York...

You then have your reasonably corroborated timeline...

From there you can view that at 5pm New York time... that they are reporting WTC7 down...

This is then confirmed by visuals for many minutes until the live link to New York goes down at 5:18 (just two minutes before you would have seen it go down in the background).

Hopefully this answers your questions.

Best wishes

PS. Nick was being an obnoxious and antagonistic troll, that's what he was voted down.

no, shame on Nicholas for being a "debunker" appeaser. its ok to have high standards but its ridiculous to tailor your message to please the "debunkers". this is about activism and waking up as many people as possible. the BBC saying WTC7 was demolished when it was clearly still standing may be a small piece of evidence but its yet another piece of evidence that points to the official story being a sick joke. but yeah, lets shove it under the rug because a time stamp might be wrong and a "debunker" might use it against us online. nobody even has to make any claims about this video. its damning enough alone and people should come to their own conclusions as to why the BBC would say such a thing at the time that they did. this isnt to be hidden like Nicholas would like.

And besides, "debunkers" will be appeased by no less than capitulation.

Yeah, that's going to happen...

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

im convinced a signed confession on national television from all of the perps that are TRULY connected to 9/11 wouldnt be enough for most of them. they like having someone to hate and pretending to be patriotic.

Go here - http://www.911blogger.com/node/6391#comment

I didn't download any of the BBC archives at first, I've been puzzling over the CNN archive link - time dated 1545-1626, where 25 minutes & 30 seconds into the clip they say building 7 "Has either collapsed or is collapsing" all while showing building 7 clearly still standing. By my calculations that's well over an hour before the 'collapse'.

Always watch out for skeptic bait.
The Eleventh Day of Every Month

"wouldn't that mean that every technician and camera man and console man and producer and grip and BBC intern in the studio would have to be in on the plot?"

Why? I haven't seen the video but if she is reporting something that has not happened yet (wtc 7 collapse) she obviously has no idea what she is talking about. The information could have been relayed to her and, in that day of chaos, went straight to live without checking.

I think...

Her and the staff are idiots. They got some information that had turned sour on it's way down the chain. Maybe someone first reported that wtc7 was 'likely to collapse' and on it's way the workd likely was stripped off.

But I don't rule out a pre-planned release to the media by the perps. If this was an 'inside job' then that would be expected. Control the situation.

Can't Stop 9/11 Fever

yeah they get 'fed' what to say -

she has obviously been given that info by the story tellers, but they got the timing wrong on when to release it.

her anchorman be talking on & on about the unfortunate collapse of the WTC-7 long before it did so--(under the most suspicious of circumstances, don't forget!)

It seems obvious that they were accidentally fed their scripted lines to read way ahead of time! (They are talking about WTC-7 being down, while unknowingly looking right at the massive building on their screen. It's a HUGE smoking gun!)

BTW, why are you immediately trying to make lame excuses for this blatant, perhaps fatal, error Albanese?