The pictures below are frames from a BBC live broadcast on 9-11-01 that announces the collapse of WTC building 7 (also known as the Solomon Brothers Building). The announcer, Phil Hayton, had earlier told the audience that the Solomon Brothers Building (WTC 7) had collapsed (20 minutes before the actual collapse). Hayton repeats the announcement again at 5:07 p.m. EST. At approximately 5:07 p.m. EST, the newscaster states: “Now more on the latest building collapse in New York, you might have heard a few moments ago us talking about the Solomon Brothers Building collapsing, and indeed it has. . . . Jane, what more can you tell us about the Solomon Brothers Building and its collapse?” The curious thing about the broadcast video is that the building did not collapse until 13 minutes later, at approximately 5:20 p.m. EST.

After the announcer tells the audience that Solomon Brothers Building (WTC 7) had collapsed, he goes to a live feed to Jane Standley on the scene in New York. Initially, her head blocks WTC 7, but she later moves and shows the audience the smoke rising from towers 1 and 2. When she does that, you can see WTC 7 clearly standing in the background. When she resumes her appearance on the screen, you can see WTC 7 in the background over her left shoulder and to the left of her left ear.

Someone at the BBC jumped the gun and had the script read too early. This is evidence that 9/11 was scripted in advance and that the major media outlets were part of the conspiracy.

Pre-reporting of the event before it happened. If the BBC had said that Tower 7 “would soon collapse” they would have some explaining to do. People would want to know how they knew it was going to collapse. However, the BBC did not say Tower 7 would “soon collapse;” the BBC announced that Tower 7 had already collapsed. That is doubly suspicious, because it proves that they had a script about the collapse of Tower 7 and were reading from the script. The BBC made a mistake by reading the script too early.

The BBC premature reporting of Tower 7’s collapse is more than a mere prediction of an event; it is a reporting of an unforeseeable event that actually occurred just as it was reported, but the report was aired before the unforeseeable event occurred. The only way that could happen is if the BBC had a script of the planned events of 9-11-2001 ahead of time. The only source for such a script had to be from the perpetrators. That puts the BBC in the middle of the 9/11 conspiracy and cover-up. The BBC denial does not address that point at all.

When Phil Hayton, the BBC announcer who is seen on screen speaking with Jane Stadley, was apprised of the suspicious collapse of WTC and the BBC broadcast suggesting foreknowledge byThe pictures below are frames from a BBC live broadcast on 9-11-01 that announces the collapse of WTC building 7 (also known as the Solomon Brothers Building). The announcer, Phil Hayton, had earlier told the audience that the Solomon Brothers Building (WTC 7) had collapsed (20 minutes before the actual collapse). Hayton repeats the announcement again at 5:07 p.m. EST. At approximately 5:07 p.m. EST, the newscaster states: “Now more on the latest building collapse in New York, you might have heard a few moments ago us talking about the Solomon Brothers Building collapsing, and indeed it has. . . . Jane, what more can you tell us about the Solomon Brothers Building and its collapse?” The curious thing about the broadcast video is that the building did not collapse until 13 minutes later, at approximately 5:20 p.m. EST.

After the announcer tells the audience that Solomon Brothers Building (WTC 7) had collapsed, he goes to a live feed to Jane Standley on the scene in New York. Initially, her head blocks WTC 7, but she later moves and shows the audience the smoke rising from towers 1 and 2. When she does that, you can see WTC 7 clearly standing in the background. When she resumes her appearance on the screen, you can see WTC 7 in the background over her left shoulder and to the left of her left ear.

Someone at the BBC jumped the gun and had the script read too early. This is evidence that 9/11 was scripted in advance and that the major media outlets were part of the conspiracy.

The BBC has received much attention and a lot of inquiries over their 9-11-2001 broadcast predicting the collapse of WTC Tower 7. It took the BBC until February 27, 2007, to respond to the inquiries, by publishing a short response from Richard Porter. Think about that. This is a news organization that is supposed to be in the business of gathering news and rapidly disseminating an accurate account of events to the public. It took them years to respond to inquiries about their prediction of the collapse of Tower 7. That is the behavior that is consistent with someone who is not quite sure what to say and wants to take their time to ensure that they do not say anything that might later turn out to be incriminating.

The problem in which the BBC finds itself is that the circumstances of the pre-reporting on 9-11-2001 are so compellingly incriminating that no explanation will mitigate its guilt. They have, so to speak, been caught red-handed. The only thing that they can do is either admit guilt, which they are not going to do, or try to cover their tracks with lies, which is what they have done. The BBC response is quite revealing and incriminating. The most notable thing in its response is that the BBC simply makes assertions without any supporting evidence, as though a denial is sufficient. The BBC stated:

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.

The BBC states that they are not part of a conspiracy and that nobody told them in advance that the buildings would fall down on September 11th. However, if they broadcast an event that nobody could possibly foresee, and then the event takes place exactly as they pre-reported, that clearly indicates that they had prior knowledge of the event.

Their pre-reporting was more than a prediction of the event, it was a r the BBC, he did not even try to argue the point. Hayton had to agree that it seems there is a conspiracy. He said: “I sense that you think there’s a conspiracy here-but you might be right.”

The official BBC response through Richard Porter gets worse:

We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy).

A cock up? That is quite simply incredible. The BBC, which is known for its meticulous record keeping and storage of news archives going back over 50 years, inexplicably loses live news footage documenting the crime of the century! That explanation does not pass the smell test. How could the news agency of record for Britain, who is by law required to keep records of broadcasts, lose those records? The answer is that they did not lose them; the records are clear evidence that support a finding that the BBC was part of the 9/11 conspiracy.

Paul Joseph Watson reported on February 28, 2007, which was a day after Richard Porter revealed that the BBC had lost its tapes, that Prison Planet received the following email from a CNN archivist. The archivist’s email eviscerates the BBC claim that they lost the tapes of their 9-11-2001 broadcast:

I’m an archivist with the CNN News Library in Atlanta, and I can tell you with absolute certainty, the mere idea that news agencies such as ours would “misplace” any airchecks from 9/11 is preposterous. CNN has these tapes locked away from all the others. People like myself, who normally would have access to any tapes in our library, must ask special permission in order to view airchecks from that day. Multiple tapes would have been recording their broadcast that day, and there are also private agencies that record all broadcasts from all channels – constantly – in the event that a news agency missed something or needs something. They don’t just have one copy. . . . they have several. It’s standard procedure, and as soon as the second plane hit, they would start recording several copies on other tapes machines all day long.

The BBC, like CNN, has a very strict policy on retaining recordings of all television and radio broadcast outputs. That rigid policy explicitly states:

The following components to be retained:-
-Two broadcast standard copies of all transmitted/published TV, Radio and BBC output – one to be stored on a separate site as a master
-One browse-quality version for research purposes, to protect the broadcast material
-All supporting metadata to enable research and re-use
-A selection of original (i.e., unedited) material for re-use/re-versioning purposes
-Hardware/software/equipment to enable replay/transfer of the media

* * *

A retention schedule for each set of records kept /archived must be created as defined in the Core Records Policy. Retention periods are set according to the status and value of the record.

As reported by Steve Watson: “Even more remarkable is the fact that if the BBC maintains that its footage is indeed lost, this means that at least THREE copies have been lost from DIFFERENT LOCATIONS.” Watson is absolutely correct. As the above BBC regulations attest, in order for the BBC to no longer have the broadcast, they would have had to lose the tapes from three different locations! That is simply unimaginable. It gets worse, after making the incredible statement that the BBC no longer has the tapes of their 9-11-2001 broadcasts, Porter, as official spokesman for the BBC, makes the following ridiculous statement:

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.

How can Porter make such a ridiculous statement? By the time he made that statement, the tapes of the BBC broadcast had been plastered all over the internet. He then states that he has the tapes from his sister channel News 24, but they do not clear up the issue. In fact, the News 24 tapes absolutely prove foreknowledge by the BBC. Below is a frame from that broadcast with a time stamp indicating 21:55 (9:55 p.m. BST, which is London time), which would be 4:55 p.m. EST, (New York time), clearly depicting the announcement in a caption on the screen that accompanied the news reported by the BBC that “Another building near the World Trade Center in New York has collapsed.” That is 25 minutes before the actual collapse of the building.

Richard Porter concludes the February 27, 2007, official BBC response with this gem:

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. . . .”

This is the representative of the BBC giving an official response to a legitimate inquiry and he quotes a juvenile statement by an anonymous poster to conclude his explanation. That is what is called a smokescreen. Notice, he said: “If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so.” He suggests by using the word “if” that perhaps the internet archives are wrong and in fact the BBC didn’t do what is claimed. He puts it that way because he knows that nobody is going to get their hands on the original time stamped video of he broadcast, because they have publicly stated that they are lost. In any event, the time stamped original is not needed, because the taped broadcast clearly shows WTC 7 in the background as the BBC is broadcasting live news of it supposedly having collapsed.

The strangest thing is the explanation he gives as his conclusion. Porter states that the broadcast of the tower collapse in advance was an error and no more than that. Think about that. The BBC broadcasts something that is totally unforeseeable in advance of it happening, and the BBC calls it an error! It is not an error! It would be an error if the BBC was wrong, but they got it right. The report was early, not wrong. The building did collapse just as they reported it. The BBC demonstrated that they had foreknowledge of the collapse by reporting the event before it took place.

The BBC early report of the WTC collapse would be tantamount to reporting the assassination of a President before it happened. Such a thing would be clear evidence of foreknowledge. Foreknowledge of a crime is evidence that the person is an accomplice in the crime. Tower 7 was only the third steel structured skyscraper to have ever collapsed from fire; the other two were WTC Towers 1 and 2 on 9-11-2001. Yet, the BBC was able to broadcast in advance an event that could only have been foretold if the event was planned and the BBC knew about the plans.

There was such a furor over the inadequacy of Porter’s response that he was compelled to post a second comment on March 2, 2007. In that response he tried to explain the reporting of the collapse of Tower 7 before it happened by citing to two previous reports by the BBC stating that Tower 7 had collapsed. He is just throwing up a smokescreen. It does not explain how BBC knew in advance that the towers were going to collapse by admitting that the BBC knew about it earlier. An earlier broadcast of the collapse by the BBC makes the case stronger that the BBC had prior knowledge.

Porter ends his story by saying: “But there was no conspiracy in the BBC’s reporting of the events. Nobody told us what to say. There’s no conspiracy involving missing tapes. There’s no story here.” He is fearfully whistling in the dark, hoping we just go away so the BBC can continue doing its job of spreading propaganda for the ruling class.

Porter makes another odd statement: “Because three BBC channels were saying this in quick succession, I am inclined to believe that one or more of the news agencies was reporting this, or at least reporting someone saying this.” He has the resources of the BBC at his disposal, and he states a conclusion based upon no evidence but only what he is “inclined to believe.” With all of the news resources and connections at the disposal of the BBC, why did he not check out if there were other news agencies that reported the collapse before it happened? Because, his statement is yet another smokescreen. Because, if other news agencies reported the collapse before the BBC then that would expand the suspicions about the complicity in 9/11 beyond the BBC to other media outlets. Porter’s job is to limit damage, not to expose other accomplices. As we will see, he is forced in a later response to drag other news agencies into the fray in order to cover for the BBC.

Porter and the BBC have reason to keep a lid on things, because it turns out that other news outlets reported the collapse of WTC Tower 7 before it happened. The newscaster for Fox5 News in Washington, D.C., Shawn Yancy, in her second day on the job, narrated the collapse of WTC 7 as she watched a live feed of its collapse being broadcast. She had minutes earlier announced that the building had already collapsed as that same live feed was broadcast on screen showing Tower 7 still standing. She didn’t miss a beat and played off her earlier announcement by not mentioning the inconvenient fact that she had already announced the collapse. She seemed clearly flustered and stunned as she tried to act calm in front of the camera.

The furor over the BBC broadcast would not go away, and so on or about July 2, 2008, the BBC felt compelled to present a short video denial of being involved in a conspiracy. Interesting, that in this version, the BBC suddenly announced that it had not lost its tapes of 9/11 after all. They claimed that the tapes were simply mislaid on the wrong shelf in the archives.

It is reasonable to infer that what has happened is that the BBC realized that the unwashed public did not need the original tapes to prove that the BBC broadcast Tower 7’s collapse before it happened. It became clear that the BBC knew that the story that the tapes were lost was simply not being believed, so to put an end to the controversy they pretended to find the tapes, which they truly never lost and in fact had all along.

The BBC then blames its pre-reporting of the WTC 7 collapse on a Reuters newswire that they claim was withdrawn when it was realized that WTC 7 was still standing. But that raises more questions than it answers. On the BBC video, one can see clearly the date of the email from Reuters. The BBC received the email from Reuters on 10 May 2007. Why did it take the BBC over a year to report the discovery about the Reuters newswire?

The Reuters email stated that the story was picked up from a local news station. Who knew with such certainty that WTC 7 was going to collapse that it sent out a story explaining the collapse before it happened? Didn’t the BBC think to ask for the identity of the local news source? The BBC, would like to be known as an objective news agency that digs for the truth, however, it has displayed a suspicious lack of curiosity about the ultimate source of the WTC collapse story. That is not the conduct of a news agency, it is the conduct of the propaganda arm of a huge criminal conspiracy trying to parcel out little dribs and drabs of information in order to convince the public to let go of a news story.

The BBC claim as to how the tapes went missing and how they found them again simply does not add up. The BBC claimed: “They’d just been put back on the wrong shelf – 2002 rather than 2001.” The statement that they were “put back” on the wrong shelf suggests that at some point they were taken off the 2001 shelf. That would mean the tapes were taken off the 2001 shelf after 2002 and then placed on the wrong 2002 shelf when being re-shelved. That is because the 2002 shelf may not have existed in 2001 when the tapes were initially shelved. Even if a 2002 shelf did exist in 2001, it would be obvious that it was the wrong shelf in 2001, since there would be no other tapes on the 2002 shelf to confuse the worker if he were shelving the tapes in 2001. That means that the tapes would have to have been re-shelved after the year 2002 in order for the worker to be confused by similar appearance of the shelves. That raises another question: why were the tapes taken off the shelf and not returned until after 2002?

Furthermore, the purported BBC scenario would only be plausible if one assumes that there was only one tape. We know that there were three separate sets of tapes at three different locations, which makes the entire story about misfiling impossible. The BBC staff would have had to put the tapes on the wrong shelves on three separate locations, since the BBC policies require them to maintain and store at least three full sets of tapes at three different locations.

The BBC has been caught in another lie. Why would they lie about such a thing? The ineluctable conclusion is that they are part of the 9/11 conspiracy, and are trying to use deception to hide that fact from the public.

The deafening silence in the mainstream media outlets about this major story of the impossible disappearance (and then the strange reappearance) of the BBC tapes was noted by Steve Watson:

It has come to light this week that the most pre-eminent broadcasting company in the world has lost the original recordings of its output for the entire day on September 11th 2001, just over five years on, yet no major news agency has even bothered to report the fact.

Despite being currently the biggest story on the internet and in the alternative media, the only place in the mainstream the story has appeared is on a small German news website.

This highlights the fact that the mainstream media is not free to report events. The information it disseminates is strictly controlled and regulated.

Steve Watson’s conclusion that the media is not free to report events is accurate, and there is a reason for that lack of freedom. He who pays the piper calls the tune. Evidence presented before the United States Congress in 1917 proved that J.P. Morgan, who was the American agent for the international Jewish (Rothschild) banking interests, purchased control over the major media in the United States. That control continues today. According to some researchers, Jews own or control 96 % of the world’s major media outlets to include newspapers, television, movies, and other media. The mass media was instrumental in the deception of the American people. The major media outlets played a key role in the deception of attacks of 9-11, by laying the blame on innocent patsies, concealing the treasonous conduct of government officials and the acts of war against the United States by agents of a foreign nation (Israel), and actively relaying false and deceptive portrayals of what really took place on 9-11.

On February 17, 1917, Congressman Oscar Callaway presented the following facts before the United States Congress which explained the successful efforts of J.P. Morgan and his cabal to control public opinion in order to involve the United States in World War I.

Mr. CALLAWAY. Mr. Chairman, under unanimous consent, I insert in the record at this point a statement showing the newspaper combination, which explains their activity in this war matter, just discussed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania,

[Mr. Moore]: In March, 1915, the J.P. Morgan interests, the steel, shipbuilding, and powder interests, and their subsidiary organizations, got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press of the United States.

These 12 men worked the problem out by selecting 170 newspapers, and then began, by an elimination process, to retain only those necessary for the purpose of controlling the general policy of the daily press throughout the country. They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest newspapers.

The 25 papers were agreed upon; emissaries were sent to purchase the policy, national and international, of these papers; an agreement was reached; the policy of the papers was bought, to be paid for by the month; an editor was furnished for each paper to properly supervise and edit information regarding the questions of preparedness, militarism, financial policies, and other things of national and international nature considered vital to the interest of the purchasers.

This contract is in existence at the present time, and it accounts for the news columns of the daily press of the country being filled with all sorts of preparedness argument and misrepresentations as to the present condition of the United States Army and Navy and the possibility and probability of the United States being attacked by foreign foes.

This policy also included the suppression of everything in opposition to the wishes of the interests served. The effectiveness of this scheme has been conclusively demonstrated by the character of stuff carried in the daily press throughout the country since March, 1915. They have resorted to anything necessary to commercialize public sentiment and sandbag the national congress into making extravagant and wasteful appropriations for the Army and Navy under the false pretense that it was necessary. Their stock argument is that it is “patriotism.” They are playing on every prejudice and passion of the American people.

How successful have the Jews and their fellow conspirators been in controlling public knowledge and opinion? Read and weep over the sad truth as John Swinton, the former Chief of Staff for the New York Times, explains the state of the supposed free press in the United States in a speech before the New York Press Club in 1953.

There is no such thing, at this date of the world’s history, in America, as independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to vilify; to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes..

The above information was excerpted from 9/11 – Enemies Foreign and Domestic.

---