BBC

BBC MEDIA MANAGEMENT POLICY:

This is only a portion of the policy. Archiving and material retension statements can be found within. See the direct link below for the full HTML version. I have attached an unofficial 14-page PDF copy that I made. Included in this post are only the Introduction, Section 1, and a portion of Section 2. The bold emphasis is mine.

I discovered this at http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ . Thanks Mike!

How long can the BBC expect their explanation to hold now?

--

BBC MEDIA MANAGEMENT POLICY: OVERVIEW

http://www.bbc.co.uk/foi/docs/historical_information/archive_policies/media_management_policy_overview.htm

Status
Policy

Intended Audience: Global. All areas of the BBC need to ensure they are archiving relevant material.
Use: This document is intended to give background and context to the Media Management Policies and Requirements. It includes all the high Level Policy Statements, and summary archive requirements.
The policy Statements and Requirements set out what must be retained, and how. Most of the sections within this document are available as separate documents, to enable different business areas to ensure that the requirements are met.

Last Reviewed: 15/04/03

The BBC Covers Pearl Harbor....

Granted, there was no television coverage of Pearl Harbor - but you get the idea :)

Wonkette: BBC, CNN Employ Magical Psychic News Announcers

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

From my favorite source for political satire:

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

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

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

New 3-minute BBC/WTC 7 compilation - Full story at 911Truth.org

"Clairvoyant Collapse"

BBC World News started reporting that 7 World Trade Center had collapsed about 23 minutes before the building actually came down... (...) A video clip establishing this anomaly was discovered on the archive.org news service and first pointed out to the public Monday by the blog writer veritas911 at 911blogger.com. The ensuing controversy has prompted a swift, unusually angry response from the BBC, which however has failed to address the substantive issue: (...) [b]Who was that source?[/b]

The answer may be essential to settling the long-standing dispute over whether the third skyscraper to fall on 9/11, which was not struck by an airplane, was demolished using explosives, or collapsed entirely due to structural damage and fire.

(...) we are making available a three-minute, 10-megabyte WMV video showing the key excerpts from the segment, with inserted time labels based on a start time of 4:54pm EDT.

DOWNLOAD VIDEO – FULL COVERAGE OF BBC WTC 7 CONTROVERSY
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20070228173157804

More thoughts about BBC / WTC7

I had a similar thread earlier this day:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/6513

Here are more points that came to my mind:
******************************************************************************************
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html#c861586

· 119.
· At 09:44 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
· Jason wrote:
I'm confused...what is the conspiracy? What are the implications of reporting WTC7 falling before it actually did? Who cares I was living in NYC at the time and it was widely reported that other building that were part of the WTC were collapsing or would collapse eventually. So they jumped the gun? What are the implications everyone is getting at here????
******************************************************************************************

So, spot on.

I have heard several times now the spin that the BBC probably mixed up these other reports that “other buildings might collapse” with “Building 7 has collapsed”. Besides all doubts that the BBC could made such an unbelievable error and that other news-outlets were running similar news:

archive.org data request

Early Monday morning, after reading the initial blog post (http://911blogger.com/node/6458) I located a list of what raw news files were available via archive.org (posted below) and downloaded as much as possible because it was obvious that this was too good to continue. As the story broke the content was removed. Timestamps indicate the data had been available for a few weeks if not longer.

Every one of these files is "in the wild" and I bet that a few people were able to get all of them. Below I have posted what I was able to download. Please help fill in the missing files or missing links. If you can help, contact me via http://911blogger.com/user/1665/contact and we will arrange a data transfer. The goal is to make this entire archive available via bittorrent. I'll host the trackers on the moon if necessary.

Putting the WTC7 in context

Now, with three confirmations about early (means before it actually happened) reports on the collapse of WTC7, we can assume that there was indeed an early press release, stating that Building 7 has collapsed due to fires and damage from the fallen debris of the Twin Towers.

The CNN guy was confused, as he could see the building still standing in the skyline, which made him switch to “Is collapsing” as he reads the news.
The BBC reporter, who did not necessarily knew the Manhattan skyline in detail, gave us the original report: “indeed it has collapsed.”

The people behind this press release should be taken unter close scrutinity, they are most likely the real perps of that day. We can only speculate, if it was the OEM or a similar organisation or group of persons.

I mean, this early reporting was not necessarily an “error” in the script Matrix.

Remember that WTC7 slided into oblivion after that day, from 01-09-12 on?

Dear BBC

Contact BBC World here:
http://www.bbcworld.com/Pages/ContactUsDepartments.aspx

Dear BBC,

The head of your division, Richard Porter has just given the world a disgraceful response to a matter of enormous importance and seriousness.

The fact that your New York reporter said that the Salomon Brothers Building (WTC7) had collapsed a full 20 minutes before it had, with accompanying graphic, should be cause for a thorough investigation of how that information came to be in the heads of your personnel. This investigation does not appear to be in evidence. No serious effort, apart from allegedly asking the reporter to recall, seems to have taken place.

Next, in the realm of absurdity beyond belief, your department head claims that the BBC has LOST the tapes of September 11th coverage!

Looks like I was wrong about the BBC / WTC 7 video

Tuesday, February 27, 2007:

BBC World News started reporting that WTC 7 had collapsed about 23 minutes before the building actually came down, as video of news coverage on September 11th shows. The segment establishing this is available on the archive.org news service and was discovered by veritas911, a member of 911blogger.com.

(The 1-gigabyte video of BBC World News coverage on Sept. 11th starts at 4:54pm EDT and is available at http://ia311517.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109111654-1736/V08591-16.mpg)

Speaking from London on the afternoon of September 11th, BBC World News anchorman Philip Hayton asks reporter Jane Stanley in New York about the collapse of the "47-story Salomon Brothers Building," also known as WTC 7. Although the building is still standing and clearly visible through the window behind Stanley, its collapse is repeatedly described as a past event. Hayton asks Stanley if there were any casualties in the building, and advances an explanation for its collapse already provided by officials, that it was weakened structurally by the prior collapses of the Twin Towers.

The Famous BBC WTC7 Video viewable at LiveLeak

Direct download, 911podcasts mirror: http://www.911podcasts.com/display.php?vid=200

Edit(s): Changed title and text to "Famous" from "Infamous" - added Digg for PrisonPlanet story.

PLEASE NOTE: This is NOT a tacit or overt endorsement of the veracity of the claims made in the linked video by 911blogger.com.

Please stop submitting blogs on this! Message received!

BBC Error ! Huge smoking gun of pre-knowledge collapse of WTC7

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1471985581749234824&q=9%2F11

See at 15:00 time mark.

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.

9/11 was unusual enough, without BBC World being able to foretell the destiny of WTC 7.

What is even stranger, is that the women reporter is telling the world that the building had collapsed when you can see it in the background over her left shoulder.

Then at 5:15pm EST, just five minutes before the building did actually collapse, her live connection from New York to London mysteriously fails.

So the question is, on 9/11 how did the BBC learn that WTC7 collapsed 23 minutes before it actually did.

Building Seven was 47 storeys, modern in design with structural steel throughout, yet symmetrically collapsed in 6.5 seconds, was someone leaking information.

"9/11: The Conspiracy Files: The BBC Joins The Ranks of the Untrustworthy US Media

GlobalResearch.ca has published a review of the BBC documentary, 9/11: The Conspiracy Files:

"9/11: The Conspiracy Files: The BBC Joins The Ranks of the Untrustworthy United States Media
by Debbie Lewis

Global Research, February 24, 2007

More than five years after the disaster of September 11, 2001, England’s BBC stepped into the ring of media outlets airing programs about the tragedy that is now referred to as “9/11” on February 18, 2007. The program, entitled “9/11: The Conspiracy Files,” took the time to interview some well-known Americans on both sides of the 9/11 argument. The hour-long program looked as if it might reveal something worthwhile, for about nine minutes. Guests like the outspoken Alex Jones, 911 Scholars for Truth Co-Founder Dr. Jim Fetzer, and Loose Change producer Dylan Avery actually got to make several excellent points before the real conspiracy was revealed.

BBC Hit Piece Updated, Available for Download

BBC hit piece available for download here, including a high quality, 1.3GB AVI version, Big thanks to Dem Bruce Lee Styles for getting these for us:

http://www.911podcasts.com/display.php?vid=197

Also, here are a couple of flyers for placing in windows, sticking to light posts, etc compliments of Matthew from www.ts911t.org:

April Fools Day
Wanted: The Real Masterminds of 9/11

BBC Discredited; Retractions on 9/11 Hit Piece Forthcoming?

BBC Discredited; Retractions on 9/11 Hit Piece Forthcoming?
Complaint responses suggest consternation within corporation on revelations of bias in Conspiracy Files documentary, indicates large number of complaints received

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/210207bbcdiscredited.htm

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
Prison Planet
Wednesday, February 21, 2007

The BBC's response to complaints made against the bias and inaccuracy of the 9/11 Conspiracy Files documentary suggests that an overwhelming backlash has caused considerable consternation at the network and possible retractions or apologies may be forthcoming, with BBC bosses potentially fearing the company's credibility has been tarnished.