BBC World Caused 9/11

Until someone can get a definite timestamp on the broadcast and confirm that the building standing behind is WTC7, then it doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

However, if such evidence is provided and shown to be reliable, it would certainly be interesting to know the trail of events that led to Jane Standley being informed that a building that was still standing had collapsed 20-or-so-minutes before it happened.

Most of the conspiracy theories out there re 9/11 don't do anything for me personally, but there are quite a few things that happened on 9/11 that have not been sufficiently "debunked" yet to my satisfaction.

If I'm not mistaken. archive.org has copies of BBC World's coverage. World and N24 did several simulcasts during that day and even if they were not at the right time, you could use things like the buildings collapsing as time stamps to compare the coverage.

Remember this is BBC World, the channel that didn't notice the north tower collapsing.

It is very worrying about the BBC's journalistic standards, whatever happens.

If they failed to notice one tower falling to the ground, it doesn't speak that highly for either their own journos' reporting abilities or even powers of observation.

Don't the BBC state that they must get two reports of the same event to give something over as "fact"? If that is so, which two sources or newswires gave them a report apparently from up to 20 minutes in the future and why didn't they use their own eyes to fact check, assuming the allegations about the video stand up to scrutiny?

However this turns out, the BBC's credibility does look very comprimised.

The thing that is really concerning is that, if the videoclip of them reporting the falling down of a tower still standing is "as is" and has not been altered or misreported, how much media management was employed that day by the authorities in the US and New York? How could they know it was going to fall down as no-one seemed to know the original 2 were going to come down (after all, who would send NYFD's finest into a building at risk of imminent collapse)?

It would be as mysterious as saying that the second tower had been hit by a plane 20 minutes before it actually did.

Well when the second tower came down it was just the person in the newsroom bleating on and she probably thought it was the footage of the south tower coming down being shown again.

I think they corrected themselves within a minute or two once they realised what had happened.

You're right, Hyma. Nisha Pillai was the on-duty news presenter that afternoon and when they showed the plane hitting the second tower, she confused that with the gallery re-playing footage of the first. Of course, it was not known that there was going to be another strike, so that was quite an easy mistake to make, especially with everything she was probably listening to in her ear, along with keeping up with scripts and watching the output.

I think that link must have gone, but enjoyed reading some of the reports - especially about

(I shouldn't mock names - sorry!!!!)

Here is a longer video of BBC World during this period. It includes the Jane Stanley interview but also the 20 minutes or so before that, when Phillip Hayton was reporting the collapse of 'Building 7'

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=49f_1172526096

Precisely. World used to have a similar arrangement to N24 IIRC - it would play a ten-second countdown and sting at BOTH.

I'm not so sure - the video on liveleak certainly looks like a TOTH to me. Though that site also seems to be getting its time zones confused - they say 5pm EST is 10pm BST; I presume they mean EDT (Daylight Savings time)

This whole thing just shows that when bbc say its a live interview many people obviously believe it!

I've done some looking around and it appears that N24 and BBCW were not simulcasting at the time.

BBC News 24 Coverage from 21.54 BST/16.54 New York Time reporting that another building had collapsed - the building actually collapsed at 17.20 NYT - 26 minutes in the future

On the video, which lasts 25 seconds, there is no mention of the name of the building which has apparently collapsed, in contrast with the BBC World video.

Make of it what you will, but it is quite strange. The question is, which two sources provided the BBC with this "fact" that led them to report it and ignore the evidence of their own eyes?

It was probably just an error. That day had so many things happening it's no wonder things got confused a few times.

I'd hate to be working at one of the wires on that day.