Jim Hoffman's article on BBC's 9/11 Timeline & Foreknowledge of WTC 7's Collapse

digg_url = 'http://digg.com/world_news/Jim_Hoffman_article_on_BBC_9_11_Timeline_Foreknowledge_of_WTC_7_s_Collapse';

From wtc7.net

The BBC Bombshell

Archived footage of television broadcasts from 9/11/2001 shows the BBC reporting the collapse of WTC 7 about 23 minutes before it actually occurred.

BBC News correspondent Jane Standley reports that the Salomon Brothers' Building (WTC 7) has collapsed, unaware that the intact building is clearly visible behind her.

On February 22, 2007, an extensive archive of television broadcast footage covering the attack was discovered on Archive.org and publicized on a blog. The archive consists of 417 mpegs, each covering about 41 minutes of broadcast. The coverage includes the following six television stations and time spans: Continued...

It still seems odd to me

It still seems odd to me that the background skyline is in great focus, but the broadcaster is not. It seems almost as if this is a composite of two videos. Am I totally wrong here?

Yes, you are totally wrong

Maybe you haven't seen the full resolution video yet.
It is some of the best technical quality vid I've seen. Very good resolution and she is definitely standing in front of a picture window with a live view of lower Manhattan.

And to that the fact that the BBC letter makes no attempt to dispute the authenticity of the video clip.


That is great to hear, all I

That is great to hear, all I had seen was the google video clip.

Thanks for the information!!

What's the name for?

Is it just me or I've never heard the WTC7 by the name of Salomon's Brother Building. Are we really talking about the same 47th floor thing?

Just asking. Curiosity

Here, this article explains things a bit

February 19, 1989
COMMERCIAL PROPERTY: The Salomon Solution; A Building Within a Building, at a Cost of $200 Million

"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

Thanks Stalion4!


I agree, the video's real.

I agree, the video's real. The truth is in the cover-up. The archives were deleted quickly. The video was being removed from video sites online, until it was clear that the genie was out of the bottle. I'm sure their are other priceless clips in the archive. But, the reaction alone should be enough to validate the video.

Do you know anyone who goes

Do you know anyone who goes to UCLA? They should have all these videos in their archive. They say the have 27 million feet of news reel footage.


If it's a fake, it should be obvious. There's always a clue. Is the direction of the sunlight in her hair correct? That's what gives me pause. Because if they edited/faked this frame by frame, that would be the hardest part to make look right. It's easier to just distort it image than to cut it correctly.

Regardless, I am sure it's real. That and the CNN video.



Please digg it from there, It counts twice as much.

This story is the real thing!

A german blog reports that one on of the major newspaper in Germany "Die Bild", also had foreknowledge of the whole event!

More evidence that it's "business as usual" for them to sent "pre-event-news" out to the orwelian media around the world!

"in the end deceivers deceive only themselves"
- Mahatma Gandhi

Can anyone definitively answer this?

I'm trying to find out if both of these videos were derived from the same source, the "Internet Archive".

(Let me re-phrase that... does the newest video with time-stamp also derive from the same group of files at the Internet Archive?)

The newest with time-stamp;

The original from the weekend;

Also, does anyone have these on unedited VHS tape?

Assuming that both videos derive from the same raw digital file(s)... who upped them to the Archive?

Anyone have definitive answers on this?

Here's a couple of answers...

Does the newest video with time-stamp also derive from the same group of files at the Internet Archive

NO - The Internet archive had footage for the 11, 12 and 13th Sept 2001 for :

- ABC7 Washington
- BBC World
- FOX5 Washington
- CBS9 Washington

This did not include BBC News 24, personally I would like to see a much longer clip, not saying it is not valid, but would like to see it go on for another 25 minutes to see if the reports are similar to BBC World.

Also, does anyone have these on unedited VHS tape

Each channel had approx 58 hours of continuous and unbroken footage stored on archive.org, so it would many tapes, someone out there has the originals.

Assuming that both videos derive from the same raw digital file(s)... who upped them to the Archive?

Some great person... There are several posts discussing contact with archive.org yesterday.

Last contact in the blog post : http://www.911blogger.com/node/6391#comment-120220


Two days ago, I sent a direct "contact form" to 911blogger admins, regarding FTP upload instructions and assistance.

Mentioning that I had produced a medium res WMV file that shows time sychronized continuous footage from 14:40 to 17:18 (so timings could be verified etc).

The file is approx 700MB and starts at the LIVE Pataki press conference with an accurate timestamp of 14:40 Eastern Time.

NO one responded, not even an acknowledgment.

Best wishes.

NO one responded, not even

NO one responded, not even an acknowledgment.

Who did you send it to? You'll note that I mentioned we were having issues getting our emails the other day, so I added a link to show our direct email addresses instead of using the contact form.. If you click on 'contact us' in the upper left, then click on 'dz' you should see a link to an image there which has my email address..

sorry you didnt get a response, i assure you it wouldnt have been intentional.. let me know where you send it once you resend it.

Thanks dz....

Sorry if that comment came across a bit "strong", it just felt like getting traction with slick tires in mud ;-)

I'm still catching up on my sleep, following this six day marathon, so please excuse any grumpiness.

Started here : http://www.911blogger.com/node/6400#comment-119070 (and that was after two days of archived footage trawling)

I have sent a "test" message, I did not keep the original message text, but DBLS suggested I contact you regarding uploading the 14:40 to 17:18 700MB WMV file.

Best wishes and thanks for 911blogger.com

PS... on my little film 911blogger.com was the first site I suggested viewers visited ;-)

on second thought, i just

on second thought, i just emailed you FTP upload info via your email address you registered with.

let me know if you don't get it!

Thank you.

I'll blog seperately on provenance for video #2.

Hang in there, veritas! You're doing a great job.

Just Stupid

They have a wonderful vantage point from where they are located.

You would think that if a 47 story building had collapsed anytime in the hour prior to broadcast..... that they would have seen it.

Big clouds of dust..... smoke.... chatter all over the police radios.... people pointing and gasping...... one less building on the horizon..... film footage???

She has to know exactly what happened after her broadcast was cut..... because all she had left to do was look out the window..... at the actual collapse of the building.

a building which she didn't report collapsed later.... a building that she found out was building 7 which she had already reported on.

She remembers!
Ignorance is NOT Bliss

Excellent observations JJ

Excellent observations JJ.

They just reported it as a fact, not wondering do we have footage of it? ... So tell me Jane, did you see it going down, etc...

Just incredible!!!

Ding dong, the witch is dead...

...doesn't all of this just make you want to sing?

I have been participating at this sight for a few months now but I never before found myself giggling over anything.  Sure, there have been plenty of great blogs but this BBC thing...

...the wicked witch, the wicked old witch.

I agree, this is by far the

I agree, this is by far the most interesting clip I have ever seen on this topic. It is crazy! We just need to find a way for it to get more play in the msm.

calling all celebrities

Rosie? Get this out to your soccer moms asap.

Justice deferred is justice denied-MLK

Lionel, one of the top-rated

Lionel, one of the top-rated radio hosts in the country (and a great friend to the 9/11 truth community), discussed it in the third hour of his show last night.


Re: Lionel discussed it in the third hour of his show last night

Thanks for the info.

"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 agree.

If she was still there after she lost her feed, trying to re-establish contact with London, there's no way she could have missed it. Can you imagine her surprise? "Wait, what building was that? The one I just reported had already collapsed? Come again?!?" Talk about something that would be seared into your mind! She totally remembers. This is ridiculous.


anyone seen footage of this BBC anchor reporting just after WTC 7 actually falls? Seems to me he would then have said something like, 'We are just getting word that another building has collapsed. It appears that the building is the same building we just mistakenly reported had collapsed. Again, we earlier reported in error, and the Solamon Brothers Building has now collapsed."

Or, did the BBC never re-report this collapse event? In essence, leaving the false report to stand as the original report on the collapse of WTC 7.

I'm going to pretend to be an advocate for BBC...

I'm going to pretend to be an advocate for BBC. Here's an example of what could have been said about the WTC 7 reporting gaff, with minimum spin. Imaginine how much less squirmy and suspicious it would have appeared (than the actual attempt made by the head of news at BBC):

1. On 9/11/01, we pulled a report of the "collapse" of the Solomon Bros. Building/WTC 7 off the news wire (which was available to other news agencies) and reported it.

2. Subsequently, we have discovered, thanks to the submissions from viewers of archived BBC footage of 9/11, that during our report of the above "news", the building in fact still existed, and could be seen in the background of one of our reporters doing a live report.

3. Our reporter (as most people in America and the rest of the world) did not know what WTC 7 looked like, so did not recognize it in her background shot.

So we at BBC are left with some questions to answer:

Q. From where did that erroneous wire information originate?

A. We are investigating that now.
Wire sources are usually credible, but
have at times proven erroneous. When we find out about a wire error, the BBC always make the error known, and reports a correction. In this case, we were not made aware of the gaff until today.

Q. Why didn't any among our reporting crew take a moment to verify which building collapsed and try to identify the location of said building in the background of our live feed?

A. As stated before, at the time, relatively few people outside of NYC would be able to identify WTC 7 in a moments notice.

We would hope our viewers would understand the unique urgency and chaos of that day, and the subsequent increase in the possibility of receiving faulty information. However, we at the BBC regret this error, and are investigating it thoroughly. We will have a report on it in short order.

We thank those sharp-eyed individuals for making us aware of this error. Anything that can help the BBC maintain and even improve upon it's record of high quality, world class reporting is always appreciated.
---end of response.

I'm not saying such a response wouldn't still be weak... just better :)

Alex you're quite the wordsmith...

I'm glad you're on our side. Now stop giving them tips! Surely they must be trawling all of 911blogger right now trying to contain this latest "cock-up".

At last look, I counted well over 100 angry replies to the obvious propaganda piece they released trying to contain this firestorm. Imagine how many replies they actually received.

In my count, fewer than three supported their explanation. That's not a very good percentile.

Certainly makes you wonder why the BBC would risk further damaging its credibility by releasing such an obvious pack of lies and further propaganda.

My only disappointment is that the MSM has completely ignored this story. What does that tell you?

But this will not go away. In fact, we need to make sure this doesn't go away. We need to force our political representatives to comment on this. On both sides of the fence! Particularly the so-called "right".

As far as I'm concerned, the damn has finally begun to crack. Let's burst the baby wide open!!!


the BBC has done more to expose the fact that 9/11 was indeed an Inside Job by releasing it's latest propagand piece.

Take a look at the comments they received after addressing some issues last October 2006: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/911_conspiracy_theory_1.html

Most were supportive of the BBC and it's explanation. Contrast that against the comments they received yesterday: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html

Thanks BBC... you've really helped propel the 9/11 Truth Movement!

BTW, the latest comments are now up to 208. Overwhelmingly slamming the BBC and its shoddy response.

I'm loving this man!

Thanks, Chris R...

... for your kind words, and further info on this topic.

I'll refrain from giving the BBC further PR pointers. Then again, maybe they'll hire me as a corporate liar, er, spokesperson, and perhaps, archivist on the weekends :)

Perhaps the original source of the WTC-7 story was a U.S. Govt

press release (NSA, CIA, or FBI trying to make sure everyone would report the same "story", but they accidentally jumping the gun.) This could explain why BBC & others just want to drop the incident like a hot potato now, not wanting to further open the can of worms.

People, we need to build

People, we need to build "karma" on Digg to bring articles to the front page.

We can do this by building a circle friends who digg each others news items. The Digg site makes this easy by showing which articles have been reported by your friends.

Just add the following people to your group of friends on Digg:

mageant ( that's me)

im ChristopherR on Digg,

im ChristopherR on Digg, feel free to add me too.

MrEguy is an info warrior

I have him on my friends list and I see him everywhere voting up 9/11 truth comments, posting comments, etc.. Checkmate0 too as well as some of the others on your list.

(I just added you "mageant" and "ChristopherR")

Edit: checkmate0 appears to have been banned. I clicked on his name and it comes up as "invalid"

"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


Feel free to add me too, its the same nick I use here cualcrees

add me as well

I'm regged as hbedorf, I primarily digg 9/11 truth articles.

I'm ChristopherRose

Can you Digg it?


Ignorance is NOT Bliss

Slipgrid on digg


Don't forget to tag stuff to del.icio.us. You don't get such a bang, but it's a great site.


Trust Digg?

By all means, Digg all you want. If Digging raises your dopamine or serotonin levels, go for it.

But seriously, Digg = Diebold. These internet content voting systems are an elite funded mechanism to try to establish soft editorial control over what internet content people view. Anyone expecting any aspect of Digg (or the ranking system of Google video) to be uncorrupted is hopelessly naive.

There is an argument that by Digging, you at least give the elite some feedback on how many people are on to their game, and scare them. However, they are already scared just by observing the traffic on 911blogger and similar sites!

i am...

911hijacker on digg

911dvds@gmail.com - $1 DVDs shipped - email for info

Sorry... Digg is a sham and a fraud.

I have been using Digg since it came on-line and I have become more and more convinced that it is a controlled disinfo site every day.
Right now on Digg there is a story pointing to the INFOWARS article about the BBC WTC7 story. That article got alot of attention, but it has been mercilously suppressed. While it has over 2000 diggs it does not appear in any listing of "popular" stories. It has over 1200 comments, more comments than I can find on any other story, yet there is no combination of search terms that will retrieve the story. So effectively the story is completely hidden on Digg.



the question they can never answer

Whoever the source was for the early reports of WTC 7's demise, how did they know that WTC 7 was going to fall straight down?

WTC 7 was damaged on one side. It was on fire on one side. If it was in danger of anything that afternoon, without the use of explosives, it would be tipping over.

News editor at The Watchman Report, www.watchmanreport.com, delivering 9/11 truth to the Christian community

wrh analysis

What seems to be emerging here is that Flight 93 was planned to crash into WTC-7. When Flight 93 had to be shot down instead because the crew regained control, WTC-7 still had to come down or the pre-placed explosives inside would have given the whole game away. What seems likely is that a time was set for the demolition and sent out to agents in the media, but there was an unexpected delay to clear responders from the building, which is why WTC-7 is seen still standing behind the female announcer even as she reports the building as destroyed.

Not sure how you linked flight 93 to this story.

Is that your own spin, or wrh (whatreallyhappened.com) ?

"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

It's very good speculation

I've heard it from a few different sources. It doesn't prove anything, but it does explain a lot of anomalies. For instance, if flight 93 was shot down, why would they cover it up? They would have been regarded as heros for shooting down the plane under the circumstances.

In symbolic logic, let S be the speculation, and A be the anomalies of 9/11.We have S implies A, and A. Although this is not proof of S, it suggests that S is worth looking into.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

I personally think flight 23 could have been on its way to WTC-7

But my speculation is just that. Nothing more...


"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

That is whatreallyhapenneds

That is whatreallyhapenneds analysis ie Mike Riveros view.

That is whatreallyhapenneds

That is whatreallyhapenneds analysis ie Mike Riveros view.
I think its a pretty good one myself

That's what I always

That's what I always thought. It seems so flipping obvious. Wasn't the flight delayed?



What next. I wonder how Alex Jones feels being right every day of the week....lololol. The big lie is unraveling. I love it.

The significance of the BBC ‘bombshell’

The BBC report that Building 7 had fallen is not inconsistent with what we already know. The eyewitness accounts below more than proves that foreknowledge of the collapse (for whatever reason) commenced nearly an hour before the actual collapse.

The BBC report is powerful in that it is a living breathing testament to this fact.

The BBC report is weak in that we face the same debate we engaged in with the eyewitness testimony (below). What does foreknowledge of the collapse indicate? In my opinion I believe that word was spread throughout the area of an impending collapse to move as many eye and ear witnesses away from the impact zone as possible. (You wouldn't want people actually hearing and seeing blasts - right?)

By spreading this rumor early the foundation for the “Building 7 was heavily damaged" meme was established as well. Word quickly spread that "Building 7 was in danger of collapse” as a way of minimizing the questions that would arise from a sudden and unexpected catastrophic failure of the building. One could easily see that spreading this rumor was essential in supporting the official story.

Detractors, of course, can continue to claim that the building was indeed heavily damaged and in danger of collapsing.

The BBC report could simply be the result of poor reporting. It is my opinion that as rumors swirled that Building 7 was ‘in danger of collapse’ the BBC simply jumped the gun and reported the event. And, while none of us know AS A FACT that this is the case, it is consistent with the timeline of witnesses listed below:


1) Firefighter Thomas Smith: "They backed me off the rig because seven was in dead jeopardy, so they backed everybody off and moved us to the rear end of Vesey Street. We just stood there for a half hour, 40 minutes, because seven was in imminent collapse and finally did come down." (Interview, 12/6/2001)

2) Firefighter Vincent Massa: "At this point Seven World Trade Center was going heavy, and they weren't letting anybody get too close. Everybody was expecting that to come down. ... I remember later on in the day as we were waiting for seven to come down, they kept backing us up Vesey, almost like a full block. They were concerned about seven coming down, and they kept changing us, establishing a collapse zone and backing us up." (Interview, 12/4/2001)

3) Firefighter Tiernach Cassidy: "Then, like I said, building seven was in eminent collapse. They blew the horns. They said everyone clear the area until we got that last civilian out. We tried to give another quick search while we could, but then they wouldn't let us stay anymore. So we cleared the area. ... So yeah, then we just stayed on Vesey until building seven came down." (Interview, 12/30/2001)

The list of witnesses telling stories consistent with these accounts stretches out to 9 pages when cut and pasted into Miscrosoft Word. I will not take up space here listing them - but suffice it to say that foreknowledge of the collapse is firmly established - and in this context the BBC report could simply be a product of those rumors.

There is a huge leap between

There is a huge leap between getting word of an impending/potential collapse and reporting that the collapse has occurred. The former would still be newsworthy, would it not?

As has been pointed out in other threads, with the spectacular demise of the Twins only hours earlier, reporters would have assumed that 7's collapse would cause an unavoidable physical stir.

The origin of that newsfeed is vital.

Show "naaa...." by John Albanese

Hey, John, this is the earliest report I could find that...

proves Building 7 was going to be demolished:

-Guns & Butter Radio interview - April 27th 2005:
Hosted by Bonnie Falkner
Guest: Indira Singh (Ground Zero Emergency Worker)

Bonnie: How long did you work as an emergency medical technician and exactly what is it that you were doing (at ground zero)?

Indira: ...when I got there we were setting up triage sites (at ground zero), close, very close to the area. The triage site that I was setting up was behind, well, to the east of Building 7 where Building 7 came down...
...we were setting up triages as close to the pile as possible… so what we were doing was setting up different kinds of stations… IV stations, cardiac stations, wound stations, burn stations ...just trying to have an organized space. What happened with that particular triage site is that pretty soon afternoon, after mid-day on 9/11 we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down... I do believe that they brought Building 7 down... By noon or one o'clock they told us we had to move from that triage site up to Pace University a little further away because Building 7 was going to come down or being brought down.

Bonnie: Did they actually use the word "brought down" and who was it that was telling you this?

Indira: The fire department... the fire department and they did use the word "we're going to have to bring it down."

Excerpt from above is heard approximately ten minutes into the interview."
Audio: http://www.gunsandbutter.net/archives.php?si=78

"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'm not debating CD

I am just focusing on the fact that we have solid evidence that advanced word of the collapse was circulating - and was getting picked up by the press.

Show "Anyone who is voting this down" by John Albanese

Foreknowledge vs News

Well, obviously the demolition of WTC7 was planned and people were told it was to be "brought down" but that info wasn't "news"--or apparently it was and no one knew what WTC7 looked like that day.

For the BBC to have a reporter stand in front of WTC7 and claim it has fallen a half hour before it was demolished--priceless!

John: does it get any better for a 'cock-up'!?

Now, add to it that they've "LOST" the original footage and you've got a criminal conspiracy, no?

"Pick your word" for it.


Hey John Albanese, it all sounds very plausible...

If in fact WTC 7 had collapsed due to structural failure (as they would like us to believe). But sufficient visual evidence suffices to proove that WTC 7 was brought down in a controlled demolition, not an "accidental collapse".

There in lies the difference. The fact that BBC is on record predicting this ultimate occurrence adds further evidence that somebody was in control all along pulling the strings (literally and figuratively).

The fact that this story is being COMPLETELY blacked out by the MSM is further evidence of their complicity and their guilt.

I understand your point John A. It seems to a certain extent you're playing devils advocate. In which case your perspective would hold much more weight if we did not have video of the actual demolition of WTC7.

In fact, I think it's very important that we refer to it as a "demotion" vs a collapse. Words have meaning here. Let's not let them further dictate the terminology in their desperate attempts to control the spin.

They must be utterly terrified right now. Let's shine a light on these cockroaches and keep them scurrying for cover.

Read my post again

I said:

"In my opinion I believe that word was spread throughout the area of an impending collapse to move as many eye and ear witnesses away from the impact zone as possible. By spreading this rumor early the foundation for the “Building 7 was heavily damaged’ meme was established. Word quickly spread that ‘Building 7 was in danger of collapse” as a way of minimizing the questions that would arise from a sudden and unexpected catastrophic failure of the building. One could easily see that spreading this rumor was essential in supporting the official story."

Do i seem like i am not supporting the controlled demolition theory?

Be that as it may - i find it disheartening that people would down-vote a post that discusses the possibility that the BBC seized on these rumors - that were quite clearly circulating - and misreported it. It is a distinct possibility - and needs to be discussed.

exactly what am i saying wrong?

be man enough to debate it

My guess is...

that it seems that you are giving the beeb the benefit of the doubt, when it's clear (if not from their report, then certainly from their response) that they don't deserve it.

Why worry about votes

John, I don't think the voting matters all that much. Who cares.

You have made a good point. The answer to it lies in the fact that the BBC reported that the building "has indeed collapsed." Anyone who works or has worked in the news business knows that a report like this must have come from a trusted, reputable source. They just would not have put it on the air if it had not come from a good source.

The source for this almost certainly was a BBC reporter in New York City. And that person must have received his/her information from a source that they trusted.

How did the original source get the time wrong? Seems that someone rushed this info out the door about 30 minutes too soon. Be very interesting if we can answer that one.

Clearly, BBC's source must be identified, and if they are a serious news organization they will do this. There must be a record of who their people in NYC were on that day.

why answer

if my comments just get covered up?

its not intellectually honest.

but - your comment that the report ONLY could have come from a 'trusted source' is not in synch with the reality on the ground - which was very fluid and chaotic. This was after the collapse of both towers and the streets were extremely chaotic with wild rumors flying in the media.

i am just saying it is POSSIBLE that the rumors of imminent collapse (which is of course a fact) was misreported - as were MANY other events of that day.

What you say is not

What you say is not inconceivable, but it is not the way the news business works.

The dude in London says very clearly that the building "has indeed collapsed" and makes other statements to this effect.

Whatever you want to think of the BBC is OK, but they have all been trained to verify sources and information. That sort of thing would almost certainly not get to the anchorman without it having come from a trusted source that they had used before.

And the anchorman would never have misread the info or altered a speculative story to "has indeed collapsed."

So what you say has value and I don't see why people are hiding your comments either, but it only has a certain amount of value. It is not a knock out point.

A rumor of imminent collapse simply would not translate on the BBC on air into "has indeed collapsed..."

Also, why are people knocking John? We find the truth only by asking ALL relevant questions.

I don't agree

The "dude in London" is in London - not NYC. He only knows what is told to him - handed to him on a piece of paper - or whispered in his ear. His opinions or beliefs have no relevance.

your statement:

"That sort of thing would almost certainly not get to the anchorman without it having come from a trusted source that they had used before."

I disagree. The news that day was chock full of inaccurate rumors and ridiculous claims of bombs going off in Washinton, etc etc.

"A rumor of imminent collapse simply would not translate on the BBC on air into "has indeed collapsed...""

sorry - but this is simply not a defensible position. It assumes that, on one of the most chaotic news days in history, the BBC simply could not have made a mistake.

I disagree. I think it is entirely POSSIBLE that they made a mistake. Do i know this as a FACT? no. But - it is intellectually dishonest to claim that it is NOT POSSIBLE they made a mistake. That's just not a defensible position.

John: Yes, it is possible. I

John: Yes, it is possible. I said in my post "What you say is not inconceivable..."

The point is that the announcer would only read the information he was given. He would not turn speculation into a definite statement.

And THAT means that the info the BBC got from NYC clearly said that the building "has collapsed" or words to that effect.

The BBC organization would not give this info to the announcer unless it came from a trusted, reliable source.

And THAT source would not report a mere rumor as "has indeed collapsed." Yes, there were rumors that day, but it is very unlikely that a rumor would be reported as an accomplisged FACT on the BBC.

Add to this that the BBC now claims the original tape has been lost. OK, that is possible as well. But it is extremely unlikely.

Add to this, Porter's BBC excuse which says" "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."

OK, it is possible that Porter did not even listen to his own station's report (in which they DO NOT use qualifying words), but ...where does it end?

The BBC owes the world a REAL EXPLANATION. And we are completely within our rights as curious human beings to press them on this point relentlessly.

The rumors circulating that

The rumors circulating that WTC 7 were coming from somewhere, and someone had to write up something and put it on the wires that took those rumors that the building was about to collapse and turned it into the building has collapsed.

What we need is to know the source. What wire did they pick up? It looks like CNN got the same message a half hour or so earlier and almost made the same stumble. Luckily Brown and his camera crew knew which building was WTC 7.

The most significant thing about this BBC blunder is that it establishes foreknowlege of the WTC 7 collapse, and the response demonstrates that the BBC wants the question of how this happened to go away.

yeah great stuff all!!!! I

yeah great stuff all!!!!

I have a lttle query for those that are really on it, regarding news footage of that day:


if not, then the early press release would make sense.. as peope on the day wouldn't really notice anything.

This would also be why, when BBC world had their live feed someone made that feed die - could have been BBC, but I doubt it, as it was a sattelite connection - anyone with enough power could have jammed it.

just mussing :-)

I have the CNN footage of

I have the CNN footage of the collapse, they had been talking about the collapse of WTC7 for about an hour before it actually did.  Claiming that it "might" collapse, then, down it goes.

Keep in mind that CNN, BBC, and all the other news organizations were probably given a press release of some sort that WTC7 had collapsed, and were simply reporting what the release said.  They weren't necessarily "in" on it.  

Obviously Aaron Brown started reporting that WTC7 came down based on some release, turned around, saw it still standing, and changed his story. 

We gotta find out who gave them that press release, but we also gotta refrain from saying BBC and CNN were in on it.



Here's a timeline of the CNN

Here's a timeline of the CNN tapes I did up damn near two years ago:


Notice at 4:13 that CNN starts talking about building 7.

I was watching MSNBC when

I was watching MSNBC when building 7 collapsed, live, right behind Ashley Banfield. No idea if that footage can be found...? I've tried looking for it, but no luck so far.

I have it

That's the footage where she tells the woman with the baby to protect her baby as the building started to come down and it looked like the cloud of debris might reach them.

I have it on VHS, but would really have to search to find it.

That clip is in this video...


"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

Jesus Christ & Building 7

Capitol Hill Blue
Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Two news items that may shake the world we know appeared this week. The first one comes from a find in Jerusalem and has been called “The Lost Tomb of Jesus.” The second one comes from London where a news bulletin on September 11, 2001 shows a reporter reading that Building 7 fell along side the Twin Towers, when the building was obvious still standing.

Which story will take over our networks and minds? Let’s talk about it.
saw a nation vote for a man who claimed to be a born-again Christian and watched him destroy much of our American values. The question should be asked whether this man, our President, set up or knew in advance about the 9/11 attacks. Did they somehow send a press release around the world that Building 7 fell on its own accord from the fires and debris falling from the Twin Towers?

Is America living on a false myth? Should we investigate further into 9/11 because 70% of us do not believe our current Administration to tell us the truth about anything? Is finding the truth about the tomb found in
Jerusalem going to destroy Christians in general? Is America not based on the laws in the U.S. Constitution? Do we need to be Christians to believe in the Constitution?

Will these two stories end up destroying our nation if it is, in fact, based on a myth? Can we not look into ourselves and love one another? Will Christianity turn out to be only skin deep? Our Gods still demand wars with the final war to determine which one wins the prize. Is the prize, whatever that means, worth the loss of our individuals?


I'll tell ya right now this

I'll tell ya right now this is going to blow! Alex Jones is saying this is spreading faster then when Charlie Sheen spoke out.

911veritas, you hit this out the park man!

I'll tell ya right now this

I'll tell ya right now this is going to blow! Alex Jones is saying this is spreading faster then when Charlie Sheen spoke out.

911veritas, you hit this out the park man!

Thanks DBLS....

I'll take a pat on the back for finding it and the handling of subsequent grillings and insults...

But getting this out there is down to the 9/11 Truth Swarm and I applaud them all BIGTIME.

Also props to archive.org and others who care about maintaining the truth and integrity.

I have a little more work to do, releasing additional footage for timing verficiation (thanks dz), then I can have a nice sleep (with a little wry smile).

Best wishes dude and good luck to ALL

Alex Jones: The biggest

Alex Jones: The biggest bombshell in 9/11 truth I’ve ever seen, it’s this WTC7 story, we’ve got to go crazy with it!

I hate to burst the bubble, but

how does this logically fit into any alternative theory of what happened on 9/11? I mean, let's assume that the destruction of WTC7 was done with pre-planted explosives. Why would the perpetrators need to get the story out on the wires themselves, as opposed to just doing it and letting the news organizations report it? I don't understand why they would need to "feed" the story to the wires in advance.


the govt (or whoever it was) then controls the discourse. It's much easier to give the media pre-packaged information as a way of controlling them and preventing speculation. If the media are left to figure things out for themselves they are more likely to discover things the govt doesn't want them to know.

I don't know

I could buy that if the premature story passed down the wires was one that would change the perception of what had happened. But that's not apparently the case here. Whether she said it at 5:00 or 5:20, the reporter simply said that the building had collapsed. She didn't say that "it had definitely collapsed due to fire damage as opposed to controlled demolition". And it would have sounded fishy to make such a statement right at the moment of collapse, with no opportunity to review what had happened.

as far I remember

from watching the entire 20 to 30 min clip
the anchor or the reporter did specifically state that the collapse was due to damage to the building (from fire or falling debris I think),.

on edit: the anchor mentions that the building had been weakened and the reporter clarifies that it's due to falling debris. You simply have to watch the first few seconds of their conversation to pick this up.

To control the spin...

Anyone who actually watched the building come down could see that it was obviously demolished in a controlled demolition.

Remember how Dan Rather described it? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tr6_WRPZjIM

While acknowledging the obvious, he still used the term "collapse" as opposed to controlled demolition.

My guess is the press was instructed on how to refer to it in order to contain the obvious. The building was blown the hell up!


I'm hearing what you are saying, but I think there's a limit to how much you can "control the spin", at least in the early hours of the event. Unless you are saying that they delivered an entire script, and the BBC was totally complicit in the event, the best you could do was get some ideas out there. Once that happens, the reporters are going to say what they say. And let's all agree that in any fast-breaking catastrophe, there's going to be confusion and misreporting.

but that's exactly how they control the spin

by releasing a definitive statement. Did you notice in the same clip how the expert said that this looks like a state-sponsored attack, that was the only way such a massive attack was feasible?!

Once the official version was released that bin Laden did it the speculation ended and the media bought the govt line.

Lots of plausible explainations

Guess you can speculate all day, and there has already been a lot of plausible theories on this.

But I don't think the main focus of the 9/11 Truth movement should be to come up with a unified theory of everything. We simply can't do that with the information we have available. Our most important task should be to expose all the mysteries and questions of 9/11 -- all the observations that don't comply with the official theory.

That way we can make the case that we haven't got the real story, and that we therefore need a new real investigation.


I'm not saying that we have to create a unified theory in advance of having all the facts. And I do believe there are many unanswered questions. That's what brought me into the truth movement. But everyone is jumping up and down about this one event breaking things open. And if you think it through logically, it doesn't seem to mean much. There were many reports in the late afternoon that the building was going to collapse. Those could have been genuine or planted. I can see how someone involved in demolishing WTC7 would want to get out the idea that the building was weakened by the fire. But once that plate was set, I see no advantage to putting out the story that the building had collapsed. Once the building dropped, everyone knew it. So it makes much more sense that if stories about an impending collapse were out there during the afternoon, the BBC just misreported.

As to why WTC7 needed to be demolished, that's a whole other line of questioning that I need answers to.

Couple of things Gothamite...

and don't get my wrong, I think it's good to have our logic challenged on this one. Not to form a unified theory, but to get to the truth of the matter.

Sometimes when doing so, it's helpful to use a technique known as occam's razor, which basically states, the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible.

We don't have to assume that they knew the building was coming down, we now have proof that they knew it was coming down.

We don't have to assume that the MSM was uanaware of this situation, the fact that they are completely ignoring this recent revelation is proof positive that this is something they CHOOSE not to discuss.

We don't have to assume that something other than bombs brought WTC7 down. We have video that clearly shows that bombs brought the building down (believe your own eyes, not the lies).

We don't have to assume that this recent BBC revelation "doesn't mean much", the simple fact that the BBC felt compelled to respond IMMEDIATELY clearly prooves that this means a whole hell of alot.

We don't have to assume that the BBC has nothing to hide. The obvious fact that they LIED (unconvingly) prooves that they have an enormous amount to hide.

We don't have to assume that the BBC would rather "forget" about this particular broadcast rather than investigate the truth of the matter. The obvious fact that they have a "chief correspondent" who claims that she "cannot remember" much about her live broadcast on international television during the most significant event (thus far) of this millenium PROOVES that they would rather just forget about it.

We don't have to assume that the MSM just picked up on rumors and speculation in reporting that WTC7 was about to come down, the obvious fact that both the BBC and CNN reported similiar stories BEFORE THE FACT prooves that they were reading from the same or a similiar script. The one difference being that the CNN correspondent realized midway through his report that WTC7 was still standing and corrected himself... somewhat.

We don't have assume that this is something that "they" would have preferred stayed hidden, the obvious fact that Google removed the video several times and other blogs like "Buzzflash.net" and "Digg" are trying to suppress it prooves that this is not something they want us talking about.

No my friend, the facts are on our side. We are winning this fight. 911blogger has just elevated itself to the blogsite of record when it comes to reporting on the truth of what happened on 9/11.

This is an important week in American history. All of us have much to be proud of. It would have been easier for all of us to just lay down and accept what they feed us as truth. The patriots here at 911blogger.com have REFUSED to do that. It makes me proud to be associated with this website and these people. If you ask me, we are the true SOLDIERS in the war on terror! And we are an all volunteer army; Except our "IED's" are measured in gigs.

Last week I was extremely pessimistic about the progress of 911 Truth. In fact, I had all but stopped blogging at 911blogger. Today I am extremely optimistic. I really don't see them stopping us now. In fact, I can't wait to see what happens next!

Mark my words... a change is going to come.

Show "Please help me Chris" by gothamite

If it doesn't fit...

then you must acquit (sorry, I couldn't resist).

But seriously, what you are looking for is all the answers. Nobody here claims to have that. We should avoid making wild assumptions. We should stick to what we can proove beyond a reasonable doubt, or at the very least, based on the preponderence of evidence. By that standard, we have already prooved a prima facie case of conspiracy to commit a crime.

Couple this with the fact that WTC7 was never even mentioned in the 9/11 commission report. NEVER EVEN MENTIONED!!!

We have all we need to justify a new investigation of 9/11! That is our ultimate goal. That is what we must remain focused on.

Building 7 was controlled demolition, it's a fact

Your posts are becoming increasingly suspicious to me.

"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

Don't get excited

I've been a longstanding participant in these forums. I've just seen too many cases of sure-fire blow em out of the water revelations that didn't pan out. And I think we need to think carefully before we run away with things. I'm among those who can't fathom that a plane hit the Pentagon in the way they claim, and yet I have also seen many comments from people who claim to have seen the plane hit. I'm just asking people to think.

Albanese has pretty much the same view.

And by the way

I work 5 blocks from the site, and I was there that day, so the whole thing is a little more personal for me.

Do you or don't you acknowledge that...

I will acknowledge

that to me, it looks like controlled demolition. I strongly believe that all three buildings were dropped with controlled demolition. But I can't prove it. And I'm not an engineer, so my opinion is only worth so much.

It's interesting, because I did ask an engineer at my job about the collapses. And he's a guy who had visited the pile when it was still smoking. He was real dodgy about it. He acknowledged that things looked funny, but he stuck with the line that the buildings fell due to fire.

Do you think it's a good idea that others learn about Building 7

"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


Now I see your point. To the extent that this news gets that picture of the building falling down in the mainstream press and in the view of people who have no idea that it fell that day, this is good.

Thanks for acknowledging that, gothamite!

I have no further questions :-)

"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

You just lost me Gothamite...

now why did you have to play the ' worked down the street from ground zero card'?

Cue the violins!


I can see that this forum is getting hostile, so I'm going to say one more thing and then I'm going to shut up.

I did live through those events in a visceral way.

I initially bought the official line, and was even pursuaded that we needed to go to war to fight those who hit us.

I read the New Pearl Harbor two years later, and my eyes were opened.

I am 100% convinced that the administration was more involved than they have told us.

I would like nothing more than for the truth about that day to be revealed.

I am not a shill or a disinfo agent.

If you pre-announce that a stunning event has already happened,

then when it does happen, it's almost like "old news" by then. Plus, your version of what happened gets out there first, since you've (obviously) beaten everyone else to the punch.

BTW, WTC-7 housed a shitload of big financial/bank offices & spook agencies like CIA, FBI, SEC, IRS, etc. Tons of key records, databases, & case files were "unfortunately" destroyed along with Guliani's command bunker when that building met its deliberate demise.

The Gov't likely spread news/rumers that WTC-7 had already

"collapsed" steal some of the thunder & shock away from the actual occurrence (controlled demolition), and also to try & keep everyone, including reporters, unsure & off balance.

If WTC-7 had just imploded with no such forewarnings, everyone within a very large radius would have been astounded! Reporters would've called their media's headquarters screaming that an enormous WTC building had imploded! This would have been very bad publicity for the perpetrators!

Don't forget, WTC-7 was MASSIVE at 47-stories tall and had the same square footage as one of the towers did! It was only about 15 years old! (Another question that goes with this is why the hell weren't some super-pumpers deluging the building with tons of water if "fire" was "going to bring it down"??? Hoses & super-pumpers had clear shots to the North side of the building, but nobody did anything!!!! I guess someone was making sure Silverstein got his insurance-fraud $$$!!!!)

Two points

Let's add two points to this string:

1) The BBC MUST have had a reliable source for the report. Period. That is the news business. It is inconceivable that the statement just popped out of the announcer's mouth. And it is inconceivable that the source was not a reliable one.

2) In 2001 the internet was still not a big deal. They just did not realize that a video like this might spread around the world in just a few hours. The entire 9/11 Truth story has broken wide open because of the internet and because the people who did 9/11 simply did not understand the power of this new medium back then.

Imagine for a moment that there is no internet. No internet--no one would have found this video and even if they had no one else would have gotten to see it. I believe that that was the way the operation was conceived back then (and in the years before). It was planned for a pre-internet world, but landed in a world dominated by the internet.


That's a crucial point, Colombo. By making out to the audience that the collapse was something to be expected, the media reports stifled the surprise (or more accurately, perhaps, and as you say, astonishment) that would have followed the event and would have been a STRONG motivation for asking questions. I think that if I'd been allowed the impetus of that surprise on the afternoon of 9/11, I might have immediately begun to wonder about how 7 could have come down like that. And that element of doubt may have sowed immediate nagging worries in my mind about the possibility of the twin towers total collapse from the damage and fires they sustained. After all, this is exactly what happened in the minds of people more savvy than I was, even though the media prepared them also for what ought to have been an astonishing and unprecedented event. And five years later, it only took me an hour of reading Dr Griffin's meticulous article to be convinced (and astonished to realize) that what my brain told me I was seeing that day couldn't be real. The nagging doubt that might have been planted if the media had been left to report the collapse of 7 as an inexplicable anomaly that came completely out of the blue (which is how it would have appeared if there hadn't been people in the know preparing us all) might have lead me to that realization a LOT sooner!

Here's the Google Video on it.


And it's all OVER Youtube!

They tried, but were unable to contain it, and it raises some very serious questions which the BBC is obliged to answer.

We're going to hold their feet to the fire on this one, and it's certain to start getting some MSM play in the UK..

Why this isn't getting any media coverage beyond the Internet is just crazy. No matter what you believe about 9/11, this is one very interesting story is it not?

Who was their SOURCE?

Once this story gets into the MSM..

And goes viral there, then the BBC (the Beeb) is going to have some 'spaining to do..

They already do.

I hope our friends across the pond can figure out how to get this story breaking out into the mainstream media over there, both newpapers and television.

This story has LEGS but we've yet to see it start RUNNING!!!

Don't forget a downloadable

Don't forget a downloadable version here:


Here is the updated list of

Here is the updated list of 9/11-Truth-Diggers (digg.com)


I'm somebigguy

I'm somebigguy

Bush was being cryptic

when he said shortly after 911 "you are either with us or with the terrorists",what in fact he was saying is "you are either with the conspiracy or against the conspiracy"

Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.


I'm Micahyah

News editor at The Watchman Report, www.watchmanreport.com, delivering 9/11 truth to the Christian community



stallion4 @ digg too

"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


starring as myself on digg


Evidently I'm traumatized by revelations about Digg

as I had a nightmare last night in which I was furiously explaining to someone how fucked up they are, lol.

But I'm casseia over there as well.

Also, go to your friends

Also, go to your friends section, check people who have befriended you, and add those people.

What's the Alexa rating for Digg.com?

What's the Alexa rating for Digg.com?

I am

I am RPragmatist...............and I approve this message.

vimanaboy on digg

i am

I'm Mikesfedup

Over at DIGG

I'm 7man

I'm 7man at (DIGG-up" (deriviative of "cock-up")!

So what happened?

I think it's clear what happened, the people arranging the demolition sent a press release at the same time as they were going to press the demolition button, but suddenly some technical difficulty came up (perhaps someone still in the building) and they had to delay the demolition, the press release was already out.

Regarding Silverstein's lousy explanation that the term "pull it" meant pulling the firemen, that cannot be true for the following reason: Would the NYPD fire department be asking the building's owner for his opinion on whether to risk the lives of all those firefighters to save his building? No way. Who does that guy think he is some God? Sorry Larry, we know.

I think this is THE turning point for 9/11 truth, spread this far and wide, this is the most incredible piece of evidence to surface over the past 5 years.

I understand that EVERY demolition

requires the authoritzation of the local fire department, in every case.

Just a point worth noting.


They probably wanted to bring it down at 4:19??

I really think that visible damage was caused by something besides falling debris.... and the side closest to the towers was fully rigged with thermite. That whole side was smoking from top to bottom.

I think they wanted it to collapse toward that side.... and when the penthouse started to go.... they pulled the trigger too soon and blew it. and it fell straight down.

They expected the thermite to work faster than it did... either that or they planned on another plane.

I also think 93 was shot down by Air Force pilots who took action and disobeyed orders not to shoot it down.... and that was a major wrench thrown into the plan. They were busted at that point especially after the FAA started getting all the planes out of the air.

They in no way pulled this off to the extent they planned.

I know that they wanted to impose Martial Law on 9/11. There was no reason to take it half way at that point.

But untill the end they thought they had it all under control and thought with their resources.... they could get away with it.

You do not do something like this if you do not think you can get away with it.
Ignorance is NOT Bliss

Taking Stock of the BBC WTC7 Story (fiasco)

But quickly, in response to John Albanese, the report was that the building had COLLAPSED. Nothing about "we're hearing reports of an impending collapse or a possible collapse". It was clear and emphatic, and it was announced up to 26 minutes prior to the event itself. Now if they mistakenly reported it prior to the actual occurance, then they were mistakenly being... clairvoyant, that is, if the official story is to be believed, namely, that this event was an accidental occurance. No one can predict that a 47 story steel structured building is going to completely collapse due to fire, especially when such a thing has never happened before, with the exception of the twin towers. Their "oops" defence simply does not pass muster, and the BBC has not claimed that it was a case of misinterpretation of reports about an anticipated collapse, but simply an "error". That's quite the coincidence such an "error".. since the error manifested itself in reality shortly thereafter.


Stepping back for a moment, let's just think about the implications of this story.

The BBC picked up this information from the "wire" and announced it without even taking the time to check the NYC skyline to corroborate it. Where did the information originate? Who was the SOURCE?

Now in terms of the propogation of this story, is there anywhere it cannot go?

I cannot fathom how this story can't end up getting reported in the mainstream media, if not in the US, then in the UK at the very least. The BBC World director's response was totally inadequate, and the UK people are entitled to hold the BBC accountible and demand a inquiry as to the source of their reporting.

And even if there were some pre-collapse reports "anticipating" a collapse, no one could KNOW for certain that a "collapse" would ensue? It's the type of event which could not be predicted with any degree of assurance.

This story has LEGS, and I hope it starts running fast and far!

What this serves, no matter what the final explanation that BBC attempts to provide, is to point a finger directly at the destruction of WTC7, something which many many people are, or were, not even aware of.

It's in the realm of concievable, that this story could move our movement forward, by tens of millions of people.

Wow. I leave blogger for a

Wow. I leave blogger for a few days and I miss the biggest smoking gun of the year! I can't see how they can possibly spin this; the anchor clearly states that the building has COLLAPSED and even provides a pre-fab explanation as though reading from a script (which he was, obviously). A few minutes before the actual collapse the feed is cut! And now the BBC is claiming they "lost" the footage! The dog ate my homework! Oh my goodness. Clearly the conspirators blundered the timing of the press release with respect 7, anxious to provide an explanation for the bizzare occurence.

We find out who fed the BBC and CNN this information we have ourselves a perp. The 911 truth movement has to seize on this story big time.

Thanks to 911veritas!

P.S.: look for a big distraction item in the media. As the BBC response indicates, they fully realize how explosive this story is.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

The people of the UK

Have the legal RIGHT to challenge the BBC regarding this utter fiasco.

My only hope is that this story breaks out into the UK MSM in a big way. Then you'll have a hundred thousand people writing into the BBC demanding answers..!

That's a bit worrying

"P.S.: look for a big distraction item in the media. As the BBC response indicates, they fully realize how explosive this story is. "

For sure, nuking Iran know would throw aside this story for a couple of days, but that would just add to their enormous crime.

The tsunami of thuth can't be stop now. They got to get a grip on that!

It represents a "critical mass", this story does.

And the release of Loose Change Final Cut represents SUPER critical mass.

Once we have completely shifted US and Global opinion regarding this issue, then we will have helped serve to bring about a historical transformation, and a threshold point beyond which Liberty will not be denied - though the price of freedom is eternal vigilence.

My oh my what a gift the Internet has been.

Just imagine life without it..?

If there's one thing the "PTB" did not anticipate, it was the emergence of the Net as a mass medium for instantaneous information exchange, capable of leaving organizations like the BBC and CNN in the dustbin of history.

We are now entering the phase (phase three) where one worldview is contending directly with another, where both are mutually exclusive, and where the entire weight of this whole chapter of modern history, eminating directly from 9/11 as the first/last cause in this whole mess, is now weighing very heavily in favour of the alternative view.

In the future, no historian worth his salt will be writing about the official story about 9/11, and most certainly not without including the weight of evidence towards the alternative view of 9/11 being a full blown MIHOP.

The truth will not be denied! And the truth, will set us free, and if we are freed for the sake of the truth and righteousness, then we will be truly free indeed!

I told my girlfriend that

I told my girlfriend that the truth will be out some day thanks to Internet and the ease of copying and distributing DVD. The MSM being the strongest opposition to the truth...

BBC ‘Conspiracy Files’ Dr David Kelly (Full Program)


This is quite surprising because it's not exactly a hit-piece, check it out before google probably take it down.

where did they get their 9/11 footage?

i know this is a different documentary, but i thought they had a bit of a cock-up and threw it out with the press releases and crumpets. who would take up the unenviable task of producing a documentary on a subject for which you no longer have your original footage? if not me, then the bbc. as nel carter (r.i.p.)used to say, "gimmie a break!"
i'm going to watch this one now. thanks, dbls.

"and crumpets"

"but i thought they had a bit of a cock-up and threw it out with the press releases and crumpets"



More from prisonplanet.com

We received an interesting e mail from a CNN archivist in Atlanta who stated their utter disbelief at the notion that BBC has lost any of their 9/11 archives. "I'm an archivist with the CNN News Library in Atlanta, and I can tell you with absolute certainty, the mere idea that news agencies such as ours would "misplace" any airchecks from 9/11 is preposterous. CNN has these tapes locked away from all the others. People like myself, who normally would have access to any tapes in our library, must ask special permission in order to view airchecks from that day. Multiple tapes would have been recording their broadcast that day, and there are also private agencies that record all broadcasts from all channels - constantly - in the event that a news agency missed something or needs something. They don't just have one copy... they have several. It's standard procedure, and as soon as the second plane hit, they would start recording several copies on other tapes machines all day long." "The only information they need to give out is the source of the collapse claim. No one is saying the BBC is "part of the conspiracy," we're saying that someone gave that reporter the information ahead of time. The source of that information is the only thing they can reveal that would be meaningful."


Infowars article on the BBC's "lost tapes"

That's a great angle to hit them from. I love this article. Believe it or not, I attempted to post this article at www.buzzflash.net but it was immediately deleted and my "karma" docked 3 points. Yeah, like I'm counting on Buzzflash to safeguard my karma. I think buzzflash.net is trying to send me a message though!

Screw them! They only have like 12 regular readers anyway! Nevertheless, I took an indirect route and posted the article in a bunch of the comments sections of other "safer" articles. http://www.buzzflash.net/story.php?id=7675

Now the other buzzflash geeks are attacking me!

Screw them too!

buzzflash is a waste of time

Forget buzzflash or smirkingchimp or any other of those tiny liberal gatekeeper ghettos populated by a handful of blindly partisan democratic party deadenders. Of course buzzflash supresses 9/11 truth. That is their job. It it the reason for their existence and the source of their funding. Fortunately, their audience is so small, I probably talk to more real people every day than read buzzflash.

It is far more productive to talk to real people face to face in real life wherever you go. Talk to the person next to you at the cafe or on the bus or the ball game or health club or any place. I have had very good responses talking to real people.

"not my purpose to offend"

I followed your link and found this:
"Regroce, thank you for buzzing my previous stories regarding 9/11. I really do appreciate it. But this is something I feel passionate about. I have to do what I have to do. My apologies if my actions offend you in anyway. It is not my purpose to offend. Simply to inform. You are right, Buzzflash has the right to censor my views if they so choose. But one can't help but wonder why they would choose to censor this?
written by Chris_Rose "

:) made me laugh...

The MSM as it relates to 9/11 & the chain of command

The following quotes were found at: http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/globalism/rockefeller.htm 

"David Rockefeller, founder of the aforementioned Trilateral Commission in June of 1991, addressed a meeting of that organization. 'We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine,' Rockefeller told them, 'and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination [read as 'democracy'] practiced in past centuries.'"

"'A handful of us,' wrote Walter Cronkite, again from his introduction to Censored 1996, 'determine what will be on the evening news broadcasts, or, for that matter, in the New York Times or Washington Post or Wall Street Journal.... Indeed it is a handful of us with this awesome power....And those [news stories] available to us already have been culled and re-culled by persons far outside our control.'"

I included these quotes because I believe it is very possible that Richard Porter and most of the other staffers at the BBC are just being manipulated and may in fact be patsies looking only at preserving their paychecks. And like most who have been a patsies on 9/11, they continue to defend the US Gov's official conspiracy theory to protect their own reputations.  Boy, are they wrong to do that.  It would be much better for them to admit they have been duped and then get on the correct side of the Truth Movement.

These videos raise critical questions as to who was giving out information and directives.  I hate to say it, but someone or some people at or near the top levels of the NYFD must have had prior knowledge.  Not to say they were complicit beyond hiding the truth, we just don't know.  Perhaps they, too, were threatened by people 'far outside our control' (like those mentioned in Cronkite's quote above).  I'd like to give the FDNY the beneift of the doubt.  But if you think about it, someone in the FDNY must have known something...

Who was on duty that day?

What was the chain of command?

Who gave what orders?

Who released what information to the NYPD, NYFD, NYEMT, hospitals, etc., and - of course - the media?

Who was in the OEM that day?

There must be an investigation and these and hundreds more questions must be asked and answered.


Just a reminder..

To work to make this Google Video go "viral".


I think this one's going to "stick".

Post it to forums/BBS's and EMAIL it to friends, and they'll surely forward it along in turn and so on and so forth..

If all goes well, it will hit Google Video's top 100 within days..

It's already all over Youtube, but this is the ONLY Google Video with the highlighting comments, which I presume that 911veritas added. Way to go veritas btw!

By driving that Google Video into the top 100, we'll snag another couple million 9/11 truth newbies...!



Views: All time 154
Rank: 1,480,696


All we need is about 5000 views in a short timeframe and it'll be in the top 100, and from there it will quickly rise to the top 20. I cannot think of a better way to get the word out about this amazing story.

Please post to forums, blogs, and email it to friends, today! Thanks.

Hundreds of people are already writing to the BBC


write and tell them what a bunch of cunts they are.

* 1.
* At 06:07 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
* miss daw wrote:

No other building fell around the time of the report (approx 1657hrs)and the solomon brothers building did not fall for approx another 30mins (1720hrs).

What source told the bbc that the 47 storey solomon building (wtc7) had collapsed?

Complain about this post

* 2.
* At 06:09 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
* gregor aitken wrote:

explain that tragic piece of journalism on sunday then

seriously what was that about

it was a joke an absolute joke, when you do progs like that about such a serious issue it leaves us to wonder that either you are in on it or just bad journalists.

Mr. Porter, put your house in order, the bbc is a public service and fourth estate no a propoganda machine for the state.

Complain about this post

* 3.
* At 06:13 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
* Tom wrote:

Sorry but this is nowhere near an acceptable explanation. I suggest you look into this further and provide us with a more detailed explanation of hoq this has happened to stop incriminating yourselves. What a pathetic response.

Complain about this post

* 4.
* At 06:22 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
* Nick Hatton wrote:

Sorry that doesn't wash, and I'm disgusted that you are publicly funded via a licence fee.


Complain about this post

* 5.
* At 06:25 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
* Justin Ross wrote:

If there was no conspiracy on your part, then tell the public who told BBC News that WTC7 fell down before it actually happened. The video you are looking for will show the building before collapse with your reporter telling the public it had already collapsed.

Holy SHIT! Are they ever getting THRASHED


I saw only ONE anti-conpiracy post, and they were asking for the additional coverage after Jane Standley's feed was lost. Of course we know that they never returned to her.

Boy are the Brits and everyone pissed with the BBC's response to this utter FIASCO!

And I don't think the BBC has seen anything yet, in terms of how far this story is going to go.. ;-)

The outrage is accumulating...

Let's add 200 more comments to it!

What I find very interesting, is the amount of unanimity in the outrage and condemnation of BBC World's reponse to the video, a response which was asinine, if not utterly absurd nonsense when you actually read it and pick it apart in light of the revelatory, and rather prophetic nature of the video in question, as well as the claim they've LOST their 9/11 archive..!


And it looks like they are allowing the comments to come through now, and are not censoring or withholding any more. Perhaps we have a friend somewhere in the BBC..

Also, their attempt to flat out MOCK any questions, with the label of "conspiracy" has only served to highlight the very same quality in their recent 9/11 "conspiracy theory" hitpiece.

Talk about blowback and backfire!

Keep the heat on folks and if you're in the UK, be sure to get this news into the MSM. Prepare a synopsis, with the BBC and the 24 clips, and send it out to every UK paper and news channel you can find. We should ALL do that of course, but it will have the most weight coming from outraged UK Citizens. And don't forget to throw in a dig against the recent hit piece while you are at it.

Comments over at the BBC

Comments over at the BBC have been stuck at 208 for hours and hours

I made a comment over 12 hours ago that never made it to the site, even though it was very polite and all

"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." - George Orwell

P.S. What do you make of this argument?

picked up from the loose change forums

New Spin On Bbc And Wtc7

BST and the BBC report on WTC7
Video: BBC was half an hour too early reporting on WTC collapse By thedreadzone 26 Feb 2007 'On September 11th 2001, BBC World reported at 4:57pm Eastern Time that the Salomon Brothers Building (more commonly known as WTC7 or World Trade Building 7) had collapsed. This even made the 5pm EST headlines, what is bizarre is that the building did not actually collapse until 5:20pm EST.' Note: Over 100 people have sent me this link, or links to other websites linking to this video. In the UK, clocks move 1 hour ahead for British Summer Time (BST). In 2001, BST was in effect between the 25 March and 28 October. In New York, Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) was in effect on 11 Sept. As a CLG reader David West observed, the British were on BST on 11 September, and therefore only four hours 'ahead' of Eastern Daylight Time. Thus, the story reported above is simply wrong in its implication. --LRP

Permanent URL for this post: [URL=http://www.legitgov .org/bst_ and_bbc_report_ on_wtc7_280207. html]Permanent url[/URL]

what a crock...


I know it's nonsense, as the building was right there behind her while she was talking to the anchor, but could we get some clarification on this please? Thanks.

Here's something I found in reply

Here's the thing, its true that the difference between BST and new york time on that day was only 4 hours, however you have to take into account that the BBC world video is not broadcast in the UK its worldwide, therefore the time they used on the day was GMT as to avoid confusion with other nations because their time zones are GMT + or - this explains how building 7 is still standing, any recording of BBC world would be time marked with GMT, this however shows us that the BBC 24 reorts of WTC7 falling were actually correct as this is a news channel broadcast in the UK and is showing BST which is 1 hour behind GMT, I think this was a red herring thrown our way to try and confuse us probably by the BBC, so in conclusion the BBC 24 footage was correct at the time and the building had collapsed.
BUT the BBC world footage although appears to be the same time is actually 1 hour earlier because they are on GMT for the benefit of the international audience.
I hope this clears things up. Nice try BBC but we aint as dumb as you hoped we were.


This would suggest (though this needs further clarifcation) that the BBC 24 footage is NOT a valid time stamp... for a pre-collapse report. However, that said, it's rather odd that the event would be first reported on BBC 24 a full 35 minutes after the fact...

We'd better check this out with our British friends across the pond..

BBC News 24

would be on BST and New York was apparently on EDT (Eastern Daylight Time), which is 5 hours behind BST from what I can tell.

There is a time-converter link on another thread that shows this.


"Americans are being brainwashed to ask only the questions the Bushites allow and they are programmed to see everything the Bush junta does as unquestionably correct. The brainwashing has gone so far that Americans no longer see what has happened to our country."
- Norman D. Livergood, Brainwashing America

the "tomb of christ" psyop

the "tomb of christ" psyop is a rush job----they wanted to try to control the dissemination of the 911hoax
so they could destroy christianity and america in a fake 911hoax revelation
coinciding with the world finding out that "jesus was really dead and not the son of god"

fucking stupid
they wanted it to destroy america

but everyone found out way sooner----now they are screwed----they wanted it to just bring down america
but this shows the "international-ness" of it
no more cfr!!
that is hilarious----the building is right behind her---i told this guy about it and he just gasped

he got it in one sentence-
the irony in how the bbc was trying to be dickheads to us---and now look at the situation

Well.....thats not subtle.

Well.....thats not subtle.

Questioning 911 = questioning the divinity of Christ.

Who the hell writes this shit? ......I think some agent got lazy and just copied the propaganda talking points ver batim.

"You were to suppose to subtly imply this equation, not make it the centerpiece of your article...you dumb ass!!!!!!..."
( comment over heard coming from a small corner office in a large unnamed government building)

Works beautifully for the

Works beautifully for the non-Christian audience, however.

Hey, RP -- I see you made it home from AZ in one piece!

Yes it does!

But their not really concerned about the non-christian or even thinking christians, accept for labelling them the enemy of God and Country(in that order) ...this is a 'culture war ' remember, a 'clash of civilizations'....

Anyway, its much more fun to have these discussions or agreements over a few drinks at the hotel bar...don't you think?

It was really a pleasure to meet and talk with you in AZ. Sorry I didn't get to officially say goodbye after breakfast. Hopefully we can all meet up again for the next action/event on the East Coast.....

Radical Pragmatist