The Conspiracy Files

MacG · Post by **MacG** » 26 Feb 2007, 23:02

Bozzio wrote:I've now watched this archived film and yes, it's the same footage as featured in the Google Video, which begs the question of how deep can a hoax go?

There's no doubt the camera is looking at Jane Standley with the real Manhattan skyline behind her. The way she makes reference to it and the focussing in of the camera is all too revealing.

Still, I would not pick this one up and run with it. It could very well be a trap. No need for this one either. The open questions already in place provide enough itch as they stand. Careful! Don't rock the boat!

Vortex · Post by **Vortex** » 26 Feb 2007, 23:18

Hey team, instead of endlessly - and pointlessy - discussing how this video supports "The Conspiracy" why not simply send FOI emails to the BBC to back up my email?

The BBC might cough up some hard data which might prove this case one way or the other.

MacG · Post by **MacG** » 26 Feb 2007, 23:27

Deleted. Meaningless.

GD · Post by GD » 26 Feb 2007, 23:38

Bozzio wrote:
GD wrote:I'm just saying what I read in that guy's account. I can't quote further, as I read it ages ago, and the book belong to my father-in-law who lives up in Wales. Perhaps if anyone's interested enough they'll seek it in their local Library.
But you make it sound as if this is the final word when clearly it isn't. Sorry to sound like I'm getting angry, it's just that pulling a building is not a normal event, especially to one which had been burning for only a few hours and without much noticeable structural damage (contrary to what the BBC stated last week)

Don't mean to make it sound "final" or anything. Just a piece of data.

GD · Post by GD » 26 Feb 2007, 23:48

EmptyBee wrote:
GD wrote:Last man down, the Fireman's story by Richard Piccioto. He describes the call going over the Radio to "Pull" WTC 7. He explains what it all means.
I presume he corroborates Silverstein's testimony that "pull" in this context meant, pull out, abort or whatever, not demolish.

He makes it clear that it means demolish.

EmptyBee · Post by **EmptyBee** » 26 Feb 2007, 23:58

GD wrote:
He makes it clear that it means demolish.

Really? How bizarre, that doesn't mesh with the official version at all.

Well I've emailed Jane and the Beeb too, so let's see if we hear any more about this.

Incidentally Google has definitely pulled the video now, but the raw footage is still up on archive.org. I just dowloaded it too:

1 gig file of archive footage

P2P is still distributing the file as well.

GD · Post by GD » 27 Feb 2007, 00:32

EmptyBee wrote:
GD wrote:
He makes it clear that it means demolish.
Really? How bizarre, that doesn't mesh with the official version at all.

I never knew when I first read it. I'm surprised nobody else mentioned it. He doesn't seem to be the kind to BS in any way either. It's an astonishing book in it's own right, he's one of the luckiest people alive. (Next time I'm up in Wales, someone remind me to type up that quote.)

Vortex · Post by **Vortex** » 27 Feb 2007, 14:00

Incidentally Google has definitely pulled the video now,

I bet that it was not the CIA who pulled the file ... more likely the BBC has got fed up with receiving emails about the thing.

if it was a canned backdrop, whoever set that up is probably getting a good kicking.

However if it was a true video then the reporter and film crew are all probably part of motorway supports by now!

EmptyBee · Post by **EmptyBee** » 27 Feb 2007, 19:40

The BBC makes a statement

Richard Porter for BBC World wrote: Part of the conspiracy?

* Richard Porter
* 27 Feb 07, 05:12 PM

The 9/11 conspiracy theories are pretty well known by now. The BBC addressed them earlier this month with a documentary, The Conspiracy Files, shown within the UK.

Until now, I don't think we've been accused of being part of the conspiracy. But now some websites are using news footage from BBC World on September 11th 2001 to suggest we were actively participating in some sort of attempt to manipulate the audience. As a result, we're now getting lots of emails asking us to clarify our position. So here goes:

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.

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.

An image of the website hosting the alleged BBC World footage3. 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. 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... "

Richard Porter is head of news, BBC World

Case closed, nothing to see here. Return to your simple lives. Go back to sleep.

Bozzio · Post by **Bozzio** » 27 Feb 2007, 20:16

Well we didn't expect anything less and it's a shame the BBC has taken the view that it is being implicated. I blame it on those pesky conspiracy hardnuts who probably emailed the BBC pushing for freedom, justice and to get Aunty to own up to the part it played on 9/11. As if.

That said, the archive.org list of 9/11 footage I posted yesterday evening has suddenly shrunk from 10 pages to only 1 page as of now. Last night each page contained about 30 segments of news footage each being 40 mins long. Now, there are only 3 links! The link to the BBC film in question is now gone, although it was still on this afternoon minus the thumbnail images which I spoke of yesterday. It could just be my computer of course.

MacG · Post by **MacG** » 27 Feb 2007, 20:23

EmptyBee wrote:The BBC makes a statement

Richard Porter for BBC World wrote: Part of the conspiracy?

* Richard Porter
* 27 Feb 07, 05:12 PM

The 9/11 conspiracy theories are pretty well known by now. The BBC addressed them earlier this month with a documentary, The Conspiracy Files, shown within the UK.

Until now, I don't think we've been accused of being part of the conspiracy. But now some websites are using news footage from BBC World on September 11th 2001 to suggest we were actively participating in some sort of attempt to manipulate the audience. As a result, we're now getting lots of emails asking us to clarify our position. So here goes:

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.

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.

An image of the website hosting the alleged BBC World footage3. 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. 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... "

Richard Porter is head of news, BBC World
Case closed, nothing to see here. Return to your simple lives. Go back to sleep.

Guess they will get many more emails now. Until they come clean about the canned backdrop, a statement like this will just encourage wild theories.

It's been amateur night this far - it's time for some REAL CT! Here we go: The vid was intentionally released as a bait for the CT-crowd. The recent statement was designed to enhance the excited feelings and invite a mail flood. A couple of more "enhancers" are in the pipe. After three weeks the original tapes are "found", showing clear evidence of canned backdrop, and the entire crowd of 9/11 skeptics will be made to look like idiots.

Come on folks! Suggesting this kind of involvement from the BBC is pretty ridiculous. It's more than enough with the open questions which are already there.

EmptyBee · Post by **EmptyBee** » 27 Feb 2007, 20:42

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1LetB0z8_o

This report (also from the archive.org footage I think) comes shortly after 5pm EST as it's apparently gone 11pm in Jerusalem.

"We are getting information now, that one of the other buildings in the World Trade Center complex is on fire and has either collapsed or is collapsing. You to be honest can see these pictures a little more clearly than I"

Building 7 clearly visible and standing.

So this is CNN clearly reporting the same news story that the BBC got.

What does the CNN footage of the scene on the ground as it unfolded later reveal?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwjmqkjwnvQ

"Keep your eyes on that building it'll be coming down soon"

"building is about to blow up, move it back"

"we are walking back, the building is about to blow up. {inaudible)swaying?, debris coming down."

CNN doesn't catch the collapse live however, only the smoking aftermath.

So...did it fall or was it pulled? If the former, how was the demise of building 7 predicted with such confidence?

EmptyBee · Post by **EmptyBee** » 27 Feb 2007, 20:45

MacG wrote: Come on folks! Suggesting this kind of involvement from the BBC is pretty ridiculous. It's more than enough with the open questions which are already there.

I don't see any evidence of the BBC doing anything other than repeating an erroneous report, which presumably came from AP or Reuters or someone. The predictive nature of that report is what's perplexing.

MacG · Post by **MacG** » 27 Feb 2007, 20:54

EmptyBee wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1LetB0z8_o

This report (also from the archive.org footage I think) comes shortly after 5pm EST as it's apparently gone 11pm in Jerusalem.

"We are getting information now, that one of the other buildings in the World Trade Center complex is on fire and has either collapsed or is collapsing. You to be honest can see these pictures a little more clearly than I"

Building 7 clearly visible and standing.

So this is CNN clearly reporting the same news story that the BBC got.

What does the CNN footage of the scene on the ground as it unfolded later reveal?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwjmqkjwnvQ

"Keep your eyes on that building it'll be coming down soon"

"building is about to blow up, move it back"

"we are walking back, the building is about to blow up. {inaudible)swaying?, debris coming down."

CNN doesn't catch the collapse live however, only the smoking aftermath.

So...did it fall or was it pulled? If the former, how was the demise of building 7 predicted with such confidence?

The very fact that WTC 7 actually DID collapse at free fall speed into it's own footprint is really strange, but I dont give much for the recent speculation. Looks like canned backdrop behind the CNN guy also. NY Fire Dept might have known about the collapse, since they most probably controlled the button, but this is nothing new.

Bozzio · Post by **Bozzio** » 27 Feb 2007, 21:21

MacG wrote:The very fact that WTC 7 actually DID collapse at free fall speed into it's own footprint is really strange, but I dont give much for the recent speculation. Looks like canned backdrop behind the CNN guy also. NY Fire Dept might have known about the collapse, since they most probably controlled the button, but this is nothing new.

Perhaps CNN was using the same studio team as BBC World. The amazing sunlight type light shining on the left cheek of each of the reporters of CNN and the BBC as they stood against their respective canned backdrops is amazingly lifelike. It's especially so considering the sun was to their left at that time of day (the scene behind them is looking south).

I don't believe that is a back drop. The CNN guy looks to be stood on a roof.