Aug 01 2008

Conspiracy Theory?

From AxisofLogic.com

February 26, 2007

This video 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 footage shows BBC reporter Jane Standley talking about the collapse of the Salomon Brothers Building while it remains standing in the live shot behind her head [you can see WTC-7 over her left shoulder].

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

Who told the BBC that the building was going to collapse before it did and why were they reporting its fall in advance of the event actually taking place?

Here is the response from the editors of BBC News:

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.

5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error – no more than that.

14 comments

Skip to comment form

    • Edger on August 1, 2008 at 04:36
      Author
    • #

    …and no attempt to answer why Standley was filmed with an obviously intact WTC-7 behind her while she reported that it had already collapsed.

    ?

  2. …that I would have automatically dismissed the conspiracy theories.  After the last few years, sadly, it’s not possible for me to not have at least a “shadow of a doubt” that an Administration that can justify torture and starting an unprovoked war, etc. is capable of much evil.

    I saw this story today: (emphasis mine) To Provoke War With Iran, Cheney Considered Proposal to dress up navy seals as Iranians and shoot at them:

    “…I asked Hersh specifically about this meeting and if he could elaborate on what occurred. Hersh explained that, during the meeting in Cheney’s office, an idea was considered to dress up Navy Seals as Iranians, put them on fake Iranian speedboats, and shoot at them. This idea, intended to provoke an Iran war, was ultimately rejected:”

    “HERSH: There was a dozen ideas proffered about how to trigger a war. The one that interested me the most was why don’t we build – we in our shipyard – build four or five boats that look like Iranian PT boats. Put Navy seals on them with a lot of arms. And next time one of our boats goes to the Straits of Hormuz, start a shoot-up.”

    “Might cost some lives. And it was rejected because you can’t have Americans killing Americans. That’s the kind of – that’s the level of stuff we’re talking about. Provocation. But that was rejected.”

    The very fact that American “leaders” at the top levels would even discuss such a plan, even if the supposedly “rejected” it later, made me wonder again just how far they’ve been willing to go in the past to gain and retain power, as long as it didn’t involve “Americans” killing “Americans”…

  3. And they fell within about an hour of each other.  The first plane hit the first tower a little before 9 a.m.  The second plane hit…I’m not sure, but maybe 20-40 minutes later.  The first World Trade tower went down after 10 a.m., and the second…maybe 20-40 minutes later.  I don’t remember exactly, except that it was a bit more than an hour between when the first tower was hit and the first tower fell.  Both were down before 11 a.m. IIRC.

    If someone said another tower fell that afternoon, they are feeding you Kool-Aid.

    Hijackers rammed jetliners into each of New York’s World Trade Center towers yesterday, toppling both in a hellish storm of ash, glass, smoke and leaping victims, while a third jetliner crashed into the Pentagon in Virginia. There was no official count, but President Bush said thousands had perished, and in the immediate aftermath the calamity was already being ranked the worst and most audacious terror attack in American history.

    The attacks seemed carefully coordinated. The hijacked planes were all en route to California, and therefore gorged with fuel, and their departures were spaced within an hour and 40 minutes. The first, American Airlines Flight 11, a Boeing 767 out of Boston for Los Angeles, crashed into the north tower at 8:48 a.m. Eighteen minutes later, United Airlines Flight 175, also headed from Boston to Los Angeles, plowed into the south tower.

    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f…

    • on August 1, 2008 at 07:30
    • #

  5. i’d ask how it is possible, then, that we can, at dKos, freely acknowledge/accuse BushCo of stealing two elections (a coup by any other name) and lying to get us into Iraq, how is it soooooooooooo fucking far-fetched to believe they were behind 9/11… that dKos would suspend people for promoting such views

    it is ridiculous, no?

    carry out the logic for christ’s sakes. you can’t possibly believe a man stole an election but wouldn’t even dream of destroying the Twin Towers.

    now this makes me angry.

    we were working on being happy, just yesterday, weren’t we Edger????

    • Edger on August 1, 2008 at 18:26
      Author
    • #

    From Top Ten Reasons for a New 9/11 Investigation

    Amazingly, the idea that all three of these buildings – one of which was not  hit by a plane – would collapse in precisely this way without  demolition charges or other covert assistance is controversial. That does not mean the matter is settled; it is not  settled, and the fact and manner of these building collapses remain important reasons to suspect foul play on the part of some person or persons in addition to the hijackers. But given that expert opinion is divided on the topic and that the WTC building collapses are already the subject of more discussion than perhaps any other element of the 9/11 story, I have left this very large concern off my list.  

    Still, the collapse of those towers is worth a moment’s reflection. Note that the first steel-framed skyscraper dates to 1885, so we have 122 years of real-world data to draw upon.  

    How many other steel-framed buildings (skyscrapers, not utility buildings or smaller structures without protective insulation around the steel) have collapsed from fire in those 122 years?  

    Once again: none that I know of. Certainly not the Empire State Building, which was hit by a B-25 bomber in 1945 – and which sustained a substantial fire as a result. The building still stands today.  

    In Los Angeles , the First Interstate Bank Building sustained a horrific fire in 1988; the LA Fire Department called it “. . . the worst, most devastating high-rise fire in the history of Los Angeles .” The account at lafire.com continues: “Extinguishing this blaze at the 62-story First Interstate Bank Building, 707 West Wilshire Boulevard, required the combined efforts of 64 fire companies, 10 City rescue ambulances, 17 private ambulances, 4 helicopters, 53 Command Officers and support personnel, a complement of 383 Firefighters and Paramedics, and considerable assistance from other City departments.”  

    No collapse, though.  

    In 2004, a high-rise in Caracas burned, suffering severe damage to the top 22 stories. Here again, no collapse.  

    • icosa on August 1, 2008 at 19:57
    • #

    that morning that it was done by bushco.  I taped for hours because I knew the stories would change.  The ‘experts’ were all on telling the same story on all the channels, guess they had all received their ‘talking points’ in advance.  They had names, faces, etc. within like two hours. Amazing.  

Comments have been disabled.