February 27th, 2007

BBC and WTC 7

I received an email this morning pointing me to this page concerning a BBC report on the WTC 7 tower. Check it out.

In a nutshell, a BBC reporter is shown on TV talking about how tower 7 had fallen and was discussing everything that entailed. The only problem: WTC 7 had not yet fallen.

What the…?

This latest news clip throws even more fuel onto the fire of 9/11 foreknowledge.

9 Responses to “BBC and WTC 7”

  1. Kelly Winterton
    February 27, 2007 at 3:53 pm #

    I remember seeing video clips about 9 months ago wherein an onlooker was in the act of video-recording an officer while the officer was saying to the videographer: “Move back! Move back! This building is going to come down!” as he was in the process of trying to force the crowd of people away from the immediate area around building #7. Someone had ordered officers to clear the area for the upcoming controlled demolition.

    Just as the BBC cut the feed, and just as there are now other people trying to keep these video clips off the internet, I’m sure that these same people who apparently have something to hide, will be able to keep these clips off of our 6:00 evening news channels.

    Thanks, Connor, for courage to do what the main-stream media is afraid to do. The rest of the USA needs to know this, and they won’t ever find out if not for people like you.

  2. Connor
    February 27, 2007 at 6:55 pm #

    …I’m sure that these same people who apparently have something to hide, will be able to keep these clips off of our 6:00 evening news channels.

    The ommission and control of news by the mainstream media is often appalling, and the main reason that I no longer look to CNN, FOX, ABC, et al, as a resource for news.

    Thank God for the internet. If you read the page linked to in this article, the author states how the video was taken down (censored) and they had to put it back up because there are people out there who do not want this content available to the masses. Were it not for the internet, we would never have the ability to access such information and know of the rampant corruption within the mainstream media.

    We know that truth is independent and acts for itself. With truth, we too can act and not be acted upon. However, when one does not have all the facts (i.e. getting one’s news from the mainstream media), the only option is to be acted upon. This has happened time and time again, and it is exactly how Satan prefers it.

  3. Jason
    February 27, 2007 at 8:20 pm #

    BBC’s response to this issue:

  4. Jason
    February 27, 2007 at 8:21 pm #

    I like the last point:

    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… “

  5. Connor
    February 27, 2007 at 8:29 pm #

    Ha! What a farce. Their response is so pathetic that it almost lends more weight to conspiracy theorists!

    Not knowing what was going on is one thing. Reporting for several minutes about a building falling down—complete with identifying the specific building by its name and quoting other sources in relation to that specific building—is another thing entirely.

    Nice try, BBC. Keep digging that hole you’re in.

  6. Connor
    February 27, 2007 at 8:45 pm #

    Some of the readers’ comments on the BBC page are entertaining to read. I like #8:


    1. You lost the tapes of one of the most important events in US history? REALLY? The citizens of the UK should all stop paying their TV tax as this is the most ridiculous and irresponsible thing I have ever heard. It is probably NOT TRUE as American broadcasters keep ALL FOOTAGE in controlled vaults/rooms.

    2. You anchor CLEARLY states that WTC 7 has collapsED while it is still in the shot. It is repeated. She even says that it WAS 47 stories.

    3. Your point “5” is a joke… just a mistake like:

    A. losing the tapes.
    B. The reporter NOT USING qualifiers such as “apparently” or “it’s reported” or “we’re hearing” as you imply above.
    C. The feed getting dropped.

    Shame on you.

    14 is good as well:

    “We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy).”

    How convenient!!! So of course when you DO get hold of the footage, you can say “well this is not original footage so it’s not reliable!” How utterly unpredictable. The very fact that you claim not to have the archive footage (which I’m sure you’re required to keep for various legal reasons) is enough to prove that in fact the British Brainwashing Corporation IS in fact part of a conspiracy.

    Incidentally, as much as you’d like people to think otherwise, “conspiracy” is not a dirty word. The government conspired to convince us there were WMD in Iraq – which as you know there weren’t. Conspiracy is an integral part of politics, and nothing would happen without it.

    But you’re obviously missing the point. If you had reported the building as having collapsed before it did so, it in fact DOES prove you were part of a conspiracy – for there is NO EARTHLY WAY anyone, not least the BBC, could have known that WTC7 was going to collapse. It had been hit by nothing, and there was no significant damage. And yet you knew it was going to collapse, and even WHY it collapsed – before it even did!!! Sorry, but your quoting some naysayer from Youtube is as weak an explanation as it is possible to give.

    You are the weakest link. Goodbye!!

    How convenient for a major news station to “apparently” no longer have the archived video. Or perhaps it was confiscated and withheld like all the other ones?

  7. Connor
    March 1, 2007 at 9:48 am #

    Infowars.com has continuing coverage on the “9/11 Cover-up Unraveling”.

    Of note is the following quote from a CNN archivist regarding BBC’s alleged “missing tapes”:

    “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.”

  8. Kelly Winterton
    March 1, 2007 at 3:36 pm #

    Strange indeed that someone knew in advance enough details of the impending collapse of #7 that they could inform the media even before it happened. It seems someone had some in-depth knowledge of the hows and whys of the collapse, but somehow this knowledge was totally unavailable to the official 9/11 Commission, because that commission had no clue as to why the building came down, and didn’t even mention it in their huge report. I smell a rat – – a big one! (And I don’t think it’s bin Laden.)

  9. Kelly Winterton
    March 1, 2007 at 3:43 pm #

    In fact, the rat I smell has power of control over BBC and CNN. I think this narrows the pool of suspected persons down to just a few.

Leave a Reply

Leave your opinion here. Please be nice. Your Email address will be kept private.