BBC Responds to Building 7 Conspiracy

February 27, 2007

As of right now, yesterday’s story has nearly 1400 Diggs and 800 comments.  Even though those are insane numbers, the story failed to ever hit Digg’s front page.  Instead, the front page was full of useless distractions to real news, such as Obama and Clinton stories, with around 400 Diggs each as of last night.  This, along with the fact that Google deleted hundreds of uploads of the BBC video yesterday prove that what was uncovered yesterday is important, and is (was) being censored by the mainstream media. 

The clip was on Google Video (now back again here), but was removed within hours of the story breaking. However, hundreds of people had already managed to download the clip and it has gone viral on the Internet and the censors won’t be able to shut the lid this time. A You Tube upload is available here but we fully expect this to be removed soon. You can watch it for the time being at this link and also here. A WMV link is here and a Quicktime here. Bit torrent versions of the file can be found here. An avi version can be found here.

Here is today’s story, which is once again making its way up

The BBC has been forced to respond to footage showing their correspondent reporting the collapse of WTC 7 before it fell on 9/11, claiming tapes from the day are somehow missing, and refusing to identify the source for their bizarre act of “clairvoyance” in accurately pre-empting the fall of Building 7.

Here is the BBC’s response to the questions about the footage that was unearthed yesterday, with my comments after each statement.

1. We’re not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn’t get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn’t receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening.

“We didn’t get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down.” If this is true, then how on earth did the BBC report the collapse of Building 7 before it happened? Psychic clairvoyance? Of course they were told that WTC 7 was coming down, just like the firefighters, police, first responders and CNN were told it was coming down. They had to have had a source for making such a claim. The BBC is acting like the naughty little boy who got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. No one here is claiming the BBC are “part of the conspiracy,” but their hideous penchant to just repeat what authorities tell them without even a cursory investigation (and with the Building they are telling us has collapsed mockingly filling the background shot of the report), is a damning indictment of their yellow journalism when it comes to 9/11.

2. In the chaos and confusion of the day, I’m quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate – but at the time were based on the best information we had. 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.

How do “chaos and confusion” explain how the BBC reported on the collapse of a building, a collapse that happened “unexpectedly” according to their Conspiracy Files hit piece documentary, before it happened? In one breath the BBC is claiming they were not told of the impending collapse of the Building and in the next they are telling us that all their information is sourced. Which is it to be? Did the BBC have a source telling them the building was about to collapse or not? If not, how on earth could they pre-empt its fall? Do BBC reporters have access to a time machine? What was the source of this information?

3. Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I’ve spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn’t remember minute-by-minute what she said or did – like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services.

Trying to make sense of what she was being told? She obviously didn’t make much sense of the fact that the Building she was reporting had collapsed was prominently standing behind her! Unfortunately, for a news organization that prides itself on accuracy and credibility, “she doesn’t remember” just doesn’t cut it as an excuse.

BBC included a screenshot of yesterday’s Prison Planet article in their brief response.

4. We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I’d love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don’t help clear up the issue one way or another.

We are asked to believe that the world’s premiere news organization has somehow lost all its tapes of perhaps the biggest news event of the past 60 years. This is a copout. Whether they have lost the tapes or not, the BBC simply doesn’t want to verify one hundred per cent their monumental foul-up, because they know it would only increase the exposure of this issue and lead to further questions. What is there to clear up? The reporter is standing in front of the building while saying it has already collapsed! This is a blatant effort to try and placate people making complaints while refusing to admit a monumental faux pas that further undermines the BBC’s credibility in the aftermath of the Conspiracy Files debacle.

5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error – no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today “so the guy in the studio didn’t quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy… “

So now the BBC are so devoid of answers, they have to enlist the help of some moronic comment on a You Tube blog? Instead of issuing official statements and seeking the advice of legal professionals they produce a cobbled together five paragraph blog and include the testimony of some moron on a You Tube comment board. Pathetic! Answer the question BBC – what was your source for reporting on multiple occasions that Building 7 had collapsed before it had collapsed, and identify the source that enabled the anchorman to comment that the building had collapsed due to it being weakened, an explanation still unanswered by NIST five and a half years later.

If you had reported the collapse of the twin towers before it happened would that have been just an error too? This “error” translated as $800 million plus in insurance bounty for Larry Silverstein – I’m sure Industrial Risk Insurers would be interested to know the source of your “error.” In addition, two separate sources reported that Secret Service Agent Craig Miller died as a result of the collapse of Building 7. Do you think he would have been interested in the “error” that led to your correspondent reporting the building’s downfall in advance?


More WTC7 Controversy

February 26, 2007

You can Digg this story here.

(Click to watch)

An astounding video uncovered from the archives today shows the BBC reporting on the collapse of WTC Building 7 over twenty minutes before it fell at 5:20pm on the afternoon of 9/11. The incredible footage shows BBC reporter talking about the collapse of the Salomon Brothers Building while it remains standing in the live shot behind her head.

Minutes before the actual collapse of the building is due, the feed to the reporter mysteriously dies.

This amazing clip is currently carried on Google Video and you can watch it above but many expect it to be removed shortly (it already has been once today). We are attempting to download an original copy from the source.

The fact that the BBC reported on the collapse of Building 7 over twenty minutes in advance of its implosion obviously provokes a myriad of questions as to how they knew it was about to come down when the official story says its collapse came as a result of fire damage weakening the building’s structure.

Click here to watch the video.

As have been documented before, firefighters, police and first responders were all told to get back from the building because it was about to be brought down.

More WTC7 Video and Information:

Video broadcast by CBS – 1.4MB – mpeg
This 36 second video shows Building 7 from an elevated vantage point to the distant northeast.

Video from an NBC news camera – 1.5MB – mpeg
This 9 second video shows the Building 7 collapse from a vantage point about mile to the northeast on West Broadway.

Video broadcast on CBS – 1.7MB – mpeg
This 9.6 second video shows the Building 7 collapse from a vantage point only about 1000 feet to the north.

Larry Silverstein, the owner of the Twin Towers & #7 was interviewed on a special that aired on PBS, and within it, he says that just before the collapse he gave the order to, “pull it”. Since this, Silverstein has said he meant to pull the firefighters, but no firefighters were in or near the building. Everyone had been evacuated several hours before the collapse, and no firefighters were engaged on fighting the internal fires.

“Pull it” was used as a demolition term by the teams at Ground Zero however when they actually did a controlled demolition to building #6. Here’s some video and links on this for more details:

Building #7’s tenants included the Department of Defense, IRS, CIA, Securities and Exchange Commission (which investigate things like insider trading, which were at massive levels just days before 9/11), and more. WTC7 was possibly the place the detonators within the Twin Towers were set off from, and the detonation of the building #7 got rid of all that evidence forever, not to mention all the insider trading that had been done on the airline stocks just a day or two before 9/11. Like the Twin Towers, most of the debris from the crime scene that was Ground Zero was shipped to China and India and melted down.

After looking at this summary of what happened to that building, do you still believe it suddenly crumbled to the ground in a nice pile due to some fires from debris? If you do, think about this, have you ever seen the collapse of #7 on the news? Whenever any news channel talks about 9/11, they mostly focus on the Twin Towers, with some mention of the Pentagon. Not only are the images of the Twin Towers coming down a lot more powerful that anything else, they are the least obvious flaws in the official 9/11 story at first glance. Once again I ask, have you ever seen footage of WTC#7 on TV since the day it initially fell? I would bet you haven’t, and there is a very good reason you haven’t, it’s an obvious controlled demolition.

Bush Refuses To Outlaw Enforced Disappearances

February 8, 2007

New York IFP – 2.7.07

US will not sign a global treaty that outlaws enforced disappearances and allows victims’ families the right to learn the truth about what happened after the pact, after Bush administration rejected the UN sponsored treaty as the authorities would have to account for thousands of detainees who were abducted, detained and forcibly disappeared by the CIA.

The International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances contains an absolute prohibition on the practice and calls on all States Parties to ensure that it is an offence under their domestic laws.

Significantly, it deems any widespread or systematic practice of enforced disappearances to be a crime against humanity.

The advocacy group American Civil Liberties Union expressed disappointment and urged Congress to examine the government’s policies and practices that would have conflicted with the agreement and to shut down permanently all secret detention programs and facilities and end the practice of illegal kidnapping.

“Our government’s practice of kidnapping people off the streets and sending them to secret detention cells violates due process and core American values,” Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office, said. “This is the behavior we expect of repressive regimes and not from our government. The accord sought to bring an end to forced disappearances, used by dictatorships to secretly detain, arrest or kidnap individuals and then deny it occurred.”

In a speech to today’s ceremony in Paris marking the opening for formal signatures, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour said the task now is to make sure the treaty is implemented as soon as possible.

“Far from being a tragic relic of past ‘dirty wars,’ this shameful practice still persists in all continents,” Ms. Arbour said. “This treaty closes a glaring gap in international human rights law by making explicit the prohibition on disappearances.”

The treaty was adopted by the General Assembly on 20 December, and sixty countries have so far signed it.

The convention affirms the right of victims – including families of those abducted – to know the truth about the circumstances of an enforced disappearance and the fate of the disappeared person and to claim reparation for the harm inflicted to them.

The treaty’s monitoring body will be entitled to receive requests for urgent action on individual cases, to conduct visits with the agreement of States parties concerned, and, in the situation of suspected widespread or systematic cases being practised in the territory under the jurisdiction of a State party, to urgently bring the matter before the General Assembly.

“We urge Congress to shine a bright light on our government’s use secret detention and rendition,” Fredrickson said. “The Bush administration should stop stonewalling congressional efforts to examine these abuses of basic due process and human rights. Congress must permanently shut down these secret programs and facilities.”

You can “Digg” this story here