Explain this?

By | September 16, 2009

I don’t own a tinfoil hat. I’d like an explanation for this. Jane Standley of the BBC broadcasting LIVE from Manhattan said WTC Building 7 had collapsed when in the scene behind her the building was still standing.

According to one “conspiracy” web site :

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. 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. [emphasis added]

You can see this yourself in the video:

I was thinking it must be a blue screen showing a delayed video, but then I read this:

stillstandingwtfhttp://xenophilia.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/bbc-wtc7-precollapse-775252-2.jpgI’m a cameraman and editor. I can tell you from my professional expertise – they would not zoom into a blue screen. You would be able to tell. The timing would be almost impossible to replicate. The zoom would have to executed on the reporter’s camera and the video being played on the blue screen at the same time in the exact same way. A blue screen is not like you are projecting it on a screen behind the reporter (like a movie theater) and when you zoom in with the camera, you zoom into the image on the blue screen. It is an image that is keyed in afterward. It is completely separate. If they zoomed in on a blue sceen, the background image would actually stay the same, with no zoom, unless the keyed in “blue screen” image was also running a zoomed in image at that exact time. Let me know if that explanation makes sense. I work with blue and green screens, so I know how they work, but it might not be the best explanation. Bottom line is – the zoom proves NO BLUE or GREEN SCREEN.

Also, in the wider shot, you can see a reflection of downtown off of some glass on the right side of the shot. This is after they zoom in, when the reporter steps aside, they cut to the anchor and then cut back out to her. It’s pretty clear that she’s in a building overlooking the scene. – dig.com

The 1 G mpg version of the entire BBS is no longer available “due to issues with the item’s content”) Get this one while it lasts:

http://ia331313.us.archive.org/1/items/bbc200109111654-1736/V08591-16.ogv

Here are some times I’ve confirmed:

WTC 7 collapsed on 9/11/2001  at 5:20 PM, (yes 5:20 p.m, right 5:20:52 p.m)

At location 2:55 in the youtube video, the one where he previously says Building 7 had collapsed, the announcer says, “It’s now what, some 8 hours since the attacks…”

The first plane hit the tower at 8:46 a.m. ET. This means WTC 7  collapsed 8 hrs 34 min after the first plane hit.

The building had not yet collapsed 8 hours after the attacks and the LIVE video shows the building had not collapsed. How can the event be anything other than scripted?

I’d like to believe the official story, so someone help me out here. Perhaps one of the 9/11 debunking web sites has something about this? Or Popular Mechanics? Or the 9/11 commission report which I haven’t gotten very far on.

Ah, found something. Here is what the BBC had to say. They aren’t part of a conspiracy, there was confusion, they sourced their reports, and they’ve lost the original tapes.

270207bbc41. 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.

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.

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.

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.

Well, I got this from a conspiracy web site. Had trouble getting to the BBC web site for some reason. If the above is really from the BBC, then I’d say the whole thing is cleared right up, wouldn’t you?  In the confusion of the day they accidentally declared that a building had collapsed when it hadn’t.  But it later did. This kind of thing can happen in the chaos and confusion of the day.

This from WRH:

Members of We Are Change UK questioned ex-BBC reporter Phil Hayton about the early reporting of WTC 7’s collapse during a speaking appearance. Hayton failed to recollect even being in the studio on the day of 9/11– at first– but then recalls the situation when it is described in detail, including the actions of Jane Standley, who reported the collapse some 26 minutes in advance with WTC Building 7 still visible in the background.

“A lot of eyebrows were raised,” We Are Change reporters point out in summary, because many saw it as a clear controlled demolition, including a number of engineers. Hayton responded, pointing out that he was not aware of the situation with WTC 7. “This sounds so significant– I’m just amazed I didn’t know about this… This is completely news to me.”

“So, is there no official explanation?” Hayton further probed.

We Are Change continues to explain the delayed NIST report on WTC 7 as well as the response from a BBC editor who claimed 9/11 tapes were “lost” in a ‘cock-up.’

“I sense that you think there’s a conspiracy here– but you might be right,” Hayton concluded. [Prison Planet]

So I am STILL trying to believe that 9/11 is not a conspiracy… and I’m thinking, well, there are no time stamps on the LIVE video where the building is still standing but we are told it collapsed. But then there is this:

21:54 GMT is 16:54 (4:54 PM) East Coast time, 26 minutes BEFORE WTC 7 actually collapsed.

280207bbc_3

The WRH site has a video showing Fox News also reported the building had collapsed before it actually came down. There are no time stamps on the Fox News video and it does not say LIVE,  but combined with the BBC thing, it is very odd. Look at the look on her face. It looks to me like she is thinking, “oh god. what just happened.” and then tries to play it off in a cool manner. But I could be reading into it.

“…we are getting word from New York that another building has collapsed and we understand this is a 47 story building … is that smoke coming from this third collapse?””Take a look at that right hand of the screen.”

“It’s going down right now.”

In a debunking video, someone named Ryan hurls some insults, then says that since the towers had collapsed and building 7 was on fire, with 47 stories burning and people hearing the building groan, at 3:00 PM the FDNY  fire chief  Daniel Nigro determined that the building was in imminent danger of collapse and started pulling everyone back three blocks.

In the chaos and confusion of the day, “will collapse” became “has collapsed”.

Yikes, CNN also reported it had collapsed before it did. Showing the building standing, the announcer is saying,  “we are getting reports … has either collapsed, or is collapsing …”

Conclusion

Views on 9/11 are like views on religion. There is a right answer and a wrong answer. One group is wrong. And let’s be honest, each side secretly can’t wait to say something like this:

Ha ha ha!! Idiots! Morons! Fools! We told you so!!! You ignored us, now eat crow!!! Eat it! Eat IT! Spend the rest of your lives in shame for your stupidity!! An apology is not enough. We suffered years of your BS. You must no longer spout off about ANYTHING because you were so completely …  amazingly … utterly … stupidly … WRONG! HA HA HA HAAAA!!!! *gasp* *wheeeze*

… But which group is it? At this point, whichever group you are in, you can pretty much be 100% convinced by physical evidence that you are right.

9 thoughts on “Explain this?

  1. Cole

    RKOwens4 makes all the best debunk videos. He explained this quite well. That is sort of confusing, but it’s a common mistake, and naturally, one side eats it up and the other one tries to debunk it. There are a lot of very unruly people on both sides, completely ignoring logic and reason, just agreeing with whatever they think makes them appear more of an individual. Alas, humans are like that, and no man can change the fact.

    1. Xeno Post author

      Hi Cole, Can you tell us his explanation? Watching the building collapse, it looks like a very fast event. It does not look like it started to collapse in any noticeable way before it actually pancaked down. I’d love to hear a better explanation. Who first told the media that the building had collapsed? What was the source that the BBC says they sourced?

      1. Cole

        Firemen can tell if a building is in danger of collapsing long before it actually does. When the media got word that it might, they broadcast it, some before others. As information traveled through the grape vine, it got distorted. Sort of like in a game of Telephone. So the networks that heard it last might have gotten information that had been distorted. So “will collapse” turned into “has collapsed.”

  2. Shaun

    Just so you know, Europe goes through different time zones, depending on the time of the year we either stick our clocks forward or clocks back.

    I remember watching this, and that scene which claims to be 26 minutes before it actually happened was actually 34 minutes after it had happened.

  3. Zach Bell

    Not that I buy into the conspiracy things but how could it be 36 minutes after the fact if the reporter is standing on front of the building still standing? That doesn’t make any sense Shaun.

    You’re saying that the reporter is reporting on the building’s collapse 36 miutes after it collapsed but…it’s…right there behind her. Uhh…what?

    1. Shaun

      Sorry what I meant is;

      The person doing this article said:

      21:54 GMT is 16:54 (4:54 PM) East Coast time

      When on that day it was actually;

      21:54 GMT is 17:54 (5:54 PM) East Coast time

      Because of Europes Daylight Saving during that time of the year. (Our clocks go forward and back throughout the year due to an old tradition which helped French Farmers.)

      Therefore, the reporter was reporting it 34 minutes after it had happened.

      1. Xeno Post author

        Shaun, What you are saying makes no sense. The building was still standing 34 minutes after the building fell? Huh?

        Her report, whenever she is giving it, contained a LIVE shot of the building still standing. She is interacting with the BBC reporter in real-time, so your claim is not possible. It was obviously broadcast before 5:20 PM ET when WTC 7 fell.

  4. Zach Bell

    Not only that Shaun but you’re obviously not aware that daylight savings time is a practice that is common across the globe. I think you’re way off base here.

    Cheers

    1. Cole

      Yeah, the change is universal, except in Arizona, and maybe some other places. But it is in EST and GMT. So the building hadn’t collapsed yet, Shaun.

Leave a Reply