Interestingly it has often been remarked on, that the melting-point of the girders in the tower is a lot higher than the temperature kerosene burns at (about double the amount I think?).
they don't have to actually melt to lose enough strength to hold an entire building up.
Firstly, the video referred to at archive.org simply isn't there where it states it is. Whether it was or not at some other point, I don't know, but it's not there now.
I think someone's just got their time zones mixed up and then used it to their "advantage", or even just made the times up.
If the video is from 16:54 EST (21:54 GMT) then it's from 17:54 EDT (22:54 BST) and therefore after the building collapsed at 17:20 EDT.
It all depends on whether the times stamped on the video is correct. It's been suggested that they aren't, and that this was half an hour later. The headline sequence could be a x:30, putting the report at 17:24 EDT, four minutes after the collapse of the building.
At one point the video claims it is 22:00 BST and 17:00 EST at the same time, which is not possible. So if it's not at a x:30, it is either actually 22:00 GMT (don't forget BBC World would refer to times as GMT even in the summer) which is 18:00 EDT - after the building collapsed, or it's 17:00 EDT - before the building collapsed - and I would suggest it's the former.
BBC World could have been half an hour slow in reporting that 7 WTC had collapsed?
Jane Standley, to answer someone's earlier question, was the BBC's New York correspondant, having left Africa in May 2001 according to a From Our Own Correspondant article from that time. Jane could have been stood in front of a blue screen or monitor showing pictures recorded earlier for reasons that might seem trivial. It's not clear enough to tell from internet video. Whoever created the video could also have edited it frame by frame to show the building. Conspiracy theorists could to such lengths to try and "prove" a point, and if it was known that the BBC didn't have original tapes of its coverage, just what was available on the internet, it is entirely possible.
Lastly, in the video Philip Hayton states "it is some 8 hours" since the planes hit the towers, which was just before 9:00 EDT, so I would estimate he spoke those words sometime well after 17:00 EDT.
The News 24 video won't load for me so I can't see what time is on its clock.
Does anyone know what happened to that September 11th video archive which was around shortly after the attacks? I remember there was days worth of footage from many channels, including BBC World. I've often looked for it again in the last few years but cannot find it. Somehow, that person has dug up the Philip Hayton footage from it, so it must still be around. Does anyone have any idea where it is?
Does anyone know what happened to that September 11th video archive which was around shortly after the attacks? I remember there was days worth of footage from many channels, including BBC World. I've often looked for it again in the last few years but cannot find it. Somehow, that person has dug up the Philip Hayton footage from it, so it must still be around. Does anyone have any idea where it is?
I believe it used to be on a subsite of archive.org, but it has long since gone. The amount on offer was massive and must have chewed bandwidth (when it used to be much more expensive).
From memory, there were around 12 different stations' coverages of the event, including BBCW but not N24.
Firstly, the video referred to at archive.org simply isn't there where it states it is. Whether it was or not at some other point, I don't know, but it's not there now.
I think someone's just got their time zones mixed up and then used it to their "advantage", or even just made the times up.
If the video is from 16:54 EST (21:54 GMT) then it's from 17:54 EDT (22:54 BST) and therefore after the building collapsed at 17:20 EDT.
It all depends on whether the times stamped on the video is correct. It's been suggested that they aren't, and that this was half an hour later. The headline sequence could be a x:30, putting the report at 17:24 EDT, four minutes after the collapse of the building.
At one point the video claims it is 22:00 BST and 17:00 EST at the same time, which is not possible. So if it's not at a x:30, it is either actually 22:00 GMT (don't forget BBC World would refer to times as GMT even in the summer) which is 18:00 EDT - after the building collapsed, or it's 17:00 EDT - before the building collapsed - and I would suggest it's the former.
BBC World could have been half an hour slow in reporting that 7 WTC had collapsed?
Jane Standley, to answer someone's earlier question, was the BBC's New York correspondant, having left Africa in May 2001 according to a From Our Own Correspondant article from that time. Jane could have been stood in front of a blue screen or monitor showing pictures recorded earlier for reasons that might seem trivial. It's not clear enough to tell from internet video. Whoever created the video could also have edited it frame by frame to show the building. Conspiracy theorists could to such lengths to try and "prove" a point, and if it was known that the BBC didn't have original tapes of its coverage, just what was available on the internet, it is entirely possible.
Lastly, in the video Philip Hayton states "it is some 8 hours" since the planes hit the towers, which was just before 9:00 EDT, so I would estimate he spoke those words sometime well after 17:00 EDT.
The News 24 video won't load for me so I can't see what time is on its clock.
From memory, and I emphasise from memory, the planes hit the WTC at just before 2.00pm BST on Sep 11, just before 9.00am New York Time.
Therefore, the suggested timings are right. If WTC7 at 5.20pm New York Time, that would have been at 10.20pm BST. The News 24 report is just before 10.00pm British time. Is my logic right?
Suggesting that some conspiracy nut has edited a 7-minute piece frame-by-frame sounds a little bit like a conspiracy theory to me!
It would be great to hear, however, whether the video is accurate from the BBC itself. However, they seem to no longer possess the tapes from the defining day of the young 21st century!
From memory, and I emphasise from memory, the planes hit the WTC at just before 2.00pm BST on Sep 11, just before 9.00am New York Time.
Therefore, the suggested timings are right. If WTC7 at 5.20pm New York Time, that would have been at 10.20pm BST. The News 24 report is just before 10.00pm British time. Is my logic right?
Your memory and logic are correct but the question I want an answer to is wedged in the middle, i.e. what time is on the clock on BBC News 24, on the video that
was
on Google, at the point it is reported 7 WTC has collapsed?
Quote:
Suggesting that some conspiracy nut has edited a 7-minute piece frame-by-frame sounds a little bit like a conspiracy theory to me!
As it is all voice over pictures, I'm inclined to say that the audio from perhaps half an hour later could have replaced the original audio from this part of the programme.
EDIT: I wrote that without noticing the aston that appeared on screen at the same time, so I'm confused.
As it is all voice over pictures, I'm inclined to say that the audio from perhaps half an hour later could have replaced the original audio from this part of the programme.
EDIT: I wrote that without noticing the aston that appeared on screen at the same time, so I'm confused.
If it is a fake video, it is possible to easily fake those astons. All the animations can be done in most video editing and animation software.
If it is a fake video, it is possible to easily fake those astons. All the animations can be done in most video editing and animation software.
You make a good point, Orry.
Even though it doesn't *look* fake with the opaque purple astons showing the action behind, it could well be a video montage with a mocker's graphics on top.
It is possible that someone got a bit of the soundtrack from a different part of the broadcast, cut a few pictures together and mocked the whole thing up with the graphics.
I think someone going to this effort is unlikely, but the fair-minded person can not rule it out completely.
If there was some time-stamped clip of the presenters in the studio on screen reading this announcement with the opaque astons (which I believe could not really be faked because of the complexity of rebuilding the background behind the opaque areas), that would be very close to irrefutable. However, no clip has yet surfaced so that doubt over its authenticity must remain.
bit of follow up here, it appears it WAS the top of the hour bulletin although everyone, from five live to CNN were reporting about the Soloman Building collapsing.
Nice try Richard, but this doesn't add up.....So now your ''news'' are based on other news channels, without daring to verify the validity of the said news....very professionnal, sir. This is a pathetic dammage control lie, and you shpuld be ashamed of yourself. I wonder how can you sleep at night, I really do.....
At last, proof of the BBC's incompetence and unreliability!
The most interesting bit for me is..."I am inclined to believe that one or more of the news agencies was reporting this, or at least reporting someone saying this."
So, despite the fact that the self-styled "world's most trusted news organisation" had reporters on the ground, they can't check to see if a building is still standing or not, even when it is in shot.
