In the last few days there has been an archived BBC broadcast posted on various sites like Google and Youtube which claims to reveal guilty knowledge in possession of the BBC that Building 7 (the CIA building) was to collapse before it actually collapsed.
The video, alleged to have been broadcast a few minutes prematurely to the actual collapse of the 3rd building, (it shows the 3rd building still standing in the background), discusses the collapse of building 7 as a past event.
You can view the video here, which I recommend, before reading the answer as to how the hoax has been perpetrated.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lW_JR...elated&search= (without text)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KztvvgT0P2E (with text)
Hidden Text:
Jane's broadcast from NY was pre-recorded a short time earlier than the broadcast. As is usual with 'semi-live' on-site broadcasts, the reporter follows a script, which is rehearsed a few times before a 'take' is sent back to the BBC.
Off-camera, an assistant reads off the pre-agreed questions, while Jane (the live correspondent) answers them. This unmiced person is suppressed with an audio 'noise-gate' for the video.
The video is then reviewed by the interviewer and show director, who may edit out some questions or responses, or cut it short if time constraints prevent running the full monty.
A revised script is given to the interviewer which it meant to sync with the video feed. It is presented as a 'live' broadcast by the BBC or other network, although it really isn't. It's only 'half-live'.
Since the 3rd building had obviously collapsed after the interview video was recorded, the opening question was reworded to include the latest news, and dovetailed into the interview to look like the correspondent was responding to the question about Building 7.
Two good clues (besides the still standing building) reveal what probably took place.
(1) The correspondent does not respond directly to the first question about the Building 7 collapse. Instead the banter is vague, anticipating the leading question might be re-worded, but the format would be general.
(2) The correspondent never mentions the building 7 collapse.
Other signs that this is a cut-and-paste job are:
(1) She only discusses the two trade-center buildings as missing from the skyline when the smoke finally clears.
(2) The interviewer gets the direction of the fleeing crowds wrong (fleeing INTO Long Island instead of off of it) but the correspondent doesn't bat an eyelash over this boob. The interviewer has made a typical mistake but a minor one.
(3) The usual gag at the end of a faked (cut short) semi-live interview onscene is pulled. The signal 'breaks up' at the end conveniently to cut short the interview, although the signal was fine throughout the useable sections.
(4) There is no actual time-indicator in the key video footage.
-----------------------------
Others have tried to spoof this, based on the idea of a 'green screen' but that is nonsense. The building background is real. There is no need to fake it, nor would anyone bother in a situation like this.
Also the behaviour of the camera zoom and stability of the background when the camera moves indicates a real broadcast too (and the angle of sun) although the correspondent is also backlight for detail. Also there are no telltale edge-errors in the 'bluescreening' which is typical even of expensive bluescreening productions, from reflections off of clothing and body at a high angle to the camera.
Who would pull this hoax? Not pranksters. This is too well done, and serves too useful a purpose for the Bush administration.
The goal here is simply to embarrass the 9/11 truth movement, by getting them to buy into this real video footage as 'evidence of foreknowledge', then at a much later and more appropriate time, exposing the hoax, and making fools of those who thought the video was hard evidence.
Sorry to blow the whistle neo-con clowns. Try again.
The video, alleged to have been broadcast a few minutes prematurely to the actual collapse of the 3rd building, (it shows the 3rd building still standing in the background), discusses the collapse of building 7 as a past event.
You can view the video here, which I recommend, before reading the answer as to how the hoax has been perpetrated.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lW_JR...elated&search= (without text)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KztvvgT0P2E (with text)
Hidden Text:
Jane's broadcast from NY was pre-recorded a short time earlier than the broadcast. As is usual with 'semi-live' on-site broadcasts, the reporter follows a script, which is rehearsed a few times before a 'take' is sent back to the BBC.
Off-camera, an assistant reads off the pre-agreed questions, while Jane (the live correspondent) answers them. This unmiced person is suppressed with an audio 'noise-gate' for the video.
The video is then reviewed by the interviewer and show director, who may edit out some questions or responses, or cut it short if time constraints prevent running the full monty.
A revised script is given to the interviewer which it meant to sync with the video feed. It is presented as a 'live' broadcast by the BBC or other network, although it really isn't. It's only 'half-live'.
Since the 3rd building had obviously collapsed after the interview video was recorded, the opening question was reworded to include the latest news, and dovetailed into the interview to look like the correspondent was responding to the question about Building 7.
Two good clues (besides the still standing building) reveal what probably took place.
(1) The correspondent does not respond directly to the first question about the Building 7 collapse. Instead the banter is vague, anticipating the leading question might be re-worded, but the format would be general.
(2) The correspondent never mentions the building 7 collapse.
Other signs that this is a cut-and-paste job are:
(1) She only discusses the two trade-center buildings as missing from the skyline when the smoke finally clears.
(2) The interviewer gets the direction of the fleeing crowds wrong (fleeing INTO Long Island instead of off of it) but the correspondent doesn't bat an eyelash over this boob. The interviewer has made a typical mistake but a minor one.
(3) The usual gag at the end of a faked (cut short) semi-live interview onscene is pulled. The signal 'breaks up' at the end conveniently to cut short the interview, although the signal was fine throughout the useable sections.
(4) There is no actual time-indicator in the key video footage.
-----------------------------
Others have tried to spoof this, based on the idea of a 'green screen' but that is nonsense. The building background is real. There is no need to fake it, nor would anyone bother in a situation like this.
Also the behaviour of the camera zoom and stability of the background when the camera moves indicates a real broadcast too (and the angle of sun) although the correspondent is also backlight for detail. Also there are no telltale edge-errors in the 'bluescreening' which is typical even of expensive bluescreening productions, from reflections off of clothing and body at a high angle to the camera.
Who would pull this hoax? Not pranksters. This is too well done, and serves too useful a purpose for the Bush administration.
The goal here is simply to embarrass the 9/11 truth movement, by getting them to buy into this real video footage as 'evidence of foreknowledge', then at a much later and more appropriate time, exposing the hoax, and making fools of those who thought the video was hard evidence.
Sorry to blow the whistle neo-con clowns. Try again.
