• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged BBC WTC7 Programme

Hm, can't watch collapse accompanied by screaming, knowing so many died, so many people full of rule 10 say crap about it. :(
 
Apollo20 said:
The BBC initially wanted the programme airing to coincide with the release of the much-anticipated NIST Report on building 7 and was therefore shooting for September 2008.
Click to expand...
I believe they're planning to produce a new version for September, which presumably will be recut to add details of and response to the finished report.
 
Thanks Mike, I think I heard about that plan too .... the point is that the BBC could not get a firm committment from NIST about when the final report will be issued, (who can?!), so decided to proceed with an airing in July and wait and see what happens in September.
 
mrbaracuda said:
Hm, can't watch collapse accompanied by screaming, knowing so many died, so many people full of rule 10 say crap about it. :(
Click to expand...

I get the same reaction whenever twoofers JAQ off while these people's deaths is being replayed, rewinded, played back, paused, slowed down frame by frame....

But nobody died in WTC7, so let's not get too sensitive. ;)
 
It's advertised that it's to be aired on Sunday the 6th.
However, in the television guide it says The Conspiracy Files will be shown tomorrow (Tuesday, the 3rd) on BBC2 at 11:20pm. The synopsis simply states that it will examine a range of theories surrounding the attacks.
With that, i'm unsure if the showing on Tuesday will simply be a repeat of the original, and that the programme dedicated to WTC7 will, in fact, be shown later on Sunday the 6th.
 
My listing says tomorrow's programme is the repeat of the previous Conspiracy Files, and the WTC7 programme will be on Sunday at 9 pm.
 
Apollo20 said:
The BBC initially wanted the programme airing to coincide with the release of the much-anticipated NIST Report on building 7 and was therefore shooting for September 2008. However, the Beeb eventually realized that NIST may take forever, (or never manage), to issue a final word on 7, so the producers decided to go ahead with an earlier release date ...... Can't say I blame them .....
Click to expand...
Apollo20 said:
Thanks Mike, I think I heard about that plan too .... the point is that the BBC could not get a firm committment from NIST about when the final report will be issued, (who can?!), so decided to proceed with an airing in July and wait and see what happens in September.
Click to expand...



I get it. You’re cross with NIST.

ETA: Incidentally, what’s with all, (this), business?
 
Last edited:
Just in case you missed Charlie and Lola. :)

Thanks for the heads-up though. I reckon I'll watch it.
 
WTC7 on BBC24 now

On a roundtable discussion right now, the BBC have followed up in their typical fashion by giving voice to the conspiracy theories before demolishing them.

Clips of the program on 6/7 show a fairly good documentary with an interview from the reporter involved in the '7 collapsed early' event in New York.

Strange to see the banner 'BBC alleged to be part of the cover-up' underneath the discussion.

Hang on.. 6/7? The day before 7/7?
 
Strange that only after the BBC aired their brilliant Conspiracy Files documentary which well and truly tore loose change apart, did the 'truth'ers start saying that the Beeb were in on the collapse of wtc 7.
 
I saw that programme last night - was it a repeat? I'm guessing it was. The CTers came over as dangerous nutters, especially the academic guy with his basement all set up as a research office.

I'm afraid it was late at night and I fell asleep for a bit before the end. They were explaining how the proportion of Jews who died in the Twin Towers was about what you'd expect from the proportion of the NY working poulation that was Jewish. I didn't hear anything about how the buildings were supposed to be wired for demolition - can anyone fill me in on what I missed?

It really did do a good job of showing these nutters up for what they are. The only problem was that in an hour or so it's impossible to give every little nitpick the demolition job it deserves, and I suppose the CTers were just left saying "propaganda cover-up".

Rolfe.
 
For my money, the entire program came over as a desperate attempt to cut off as many heads of the hydra as they could with one slash.
 
It was alright, but not great. They had a tendency for 'impartialityism' which didn't befit the facts. Obviously we're biased here, but you can't leave a statement like "A boeing jet cannot physically fly that close to the gound" (Fetzer, paraphrased, re pentagon) hanging there without rebuke for the sake of evening the dollops of dramatic tension. If you want to give them the one up occasionally, you need skilled writers, capable of contextualising. You can't just stop the debate unnaturally where it suits you; that's plain sloppy.

Overall, it did clearly come down on the side of sanity. But I think it also quite prominently used animations designed to illustrate pancake collapse initiation, which by my limited understanding have about as much relevance to what happened as perturbations in the luminiferous aether. Fair enough, it might be old, but put a ticker over it saying "Does not conform to present understanding" or something. A once highly esteemed broadcaster lying to its viewers deliberately - saddening.

Reserve judgement till next week I think. But I agree Ragnarok. Ultimately, they needed to just pick one theory. Stooping to their opponents shotgun approach doesn't help anything - except perhaps making cheap television.
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
It really did do a good job of showing these nutters up for what they are.
Click to expand...

And the best bit is it required virtually no effort on the part of the producers to do this. Just stick them in front of a camera, get them talking and then sit back adn watch them slowly make complete arses of themselves.
 
cludgie said:
And the best bit is it required virtually no effort on the part of the producers to do this. Just stick them in front of a camera, get them talking and then sit back adn watch them slowly make complete arses of themselves.
Click to expand...


Yup! They contrasted very badly with the rational witmesses who came over as sensible and balanced. Then - "How do you know a word that guy's saying is true???!!!" And so on. Swivel-eyed loons.

I did think it wouldn't have taken too long to point out that certainly, a Boeing jet cannot physically fly that close to the ground and not crash. But hey....

I just wished they'd had Malcolm there dementing on about the "bagman".

And I wish I hadn't fallen asleep in the middle.

Rolfe.
 
The BBC editors blog is covering the wtc7 programme. Interesting they also repeat the usual claims such as "....that makes this the first and only skyscraper in the world to have collapsed because of fire." and yet..... "Having talked to key eyewitnesses who were actually at Ground Zero that day it is clear that, as early as midday, the fire service feared that Tower 7 might collapse."

So no skyscraper had ever collapsed before but the fire service feared wtc7 would collapse. Just goes to show that experts in building fires are fully aware of the potential dangers of a fire in a damaged multistorey structure regardless of any lack of historical precedent.

World Trade Center Building 7 has become the subject of heated speculation and a host of conspiracy theories suggesting it was brought down by a controlled demolition. And some people suggest it was not just the government and foreign intelligence, but the police, the fire service, first responders and even the media that were involved.

It is certainly true that on 9/11 the BBC broadcast that WTC7 had collapsed when it was still standing. Then the satellite transmission seemed to cut out mysteriously when the correspondent was still talking. Then Richard Porter admitted in his blog last year that the BBC had lost those key tapes of BBC World News output from the day.

So is that proof that we at the BBC are part of a huge sinister conspiracy or is there a simpler explanation?

The mystery of the missing tapes didn't last that long. One very experienced film librarian kindly agreed to have another look for us one night. There are more than a quarter of a million tapes just in the Fast Store basement at Television Centre. The next morning I got a call to say the tapes had been found. They'd just been put back on the wrong shelf - 2002 rather than 2001. Not so sinister after all.
Click to expand...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/07/controversy_conspiracies_iii.html#commentsanchor

And......

The internet movie Loose Change has been viewed by more than 100 million people according to its makers and it asks this question in the latest film release: "Where did CNN and the BBC get their information especially considering the building was still standing directly behind their reporters?"

It turns out that the respected news agency Reuters picked up an incorrect report and passed it on. They have issued this statement:

"On 11 September 2001 Reuters incorrectly reported that one of the buildings at the New York World Trade Center, 7WTC, had collapsed before it actually did. The report was picked up from a local news story and was withdrawn as soon as it emerged that the building had not fallen."

I put this to the writer and director of Loose Change, Dylan Avery. I asked whether he believed the BBC was part of the conspiracy. Given the question his film had posed about the BBC I was surprised by Dylan's response: "Of course not, that's ludicrous. Why would the BBC be part of it?"

He added candidly: "I didn't really want to put that line in the movie."
Click to expand...

:boggled:
 
Why are you surprised? He didn't include the truth about 9/11 in his movie so why that line?
 
Was anyone else struck in the interviews by a fair degree of certainty that he knew perfectly well that he'd made it all up?

I almost feel sorry for him. It's that run away balloon conundrum: do you let go, or pray you can hang on for the ride?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom