BBC proves time travel is possible



  • Here's an interesting one: the BBC used time-traveller reporters during 9/11 to report on WTC building 7's collapse prior to the actual collapse.

    Handy fuel for any conspiracy nuts out there http://wtc7.net/foreknowledge.html



  • But of course. You don't think they use Dr. Who just for a sci-fi series, do you?



  • @AbbydonKrafts said:

    But of course. You don't think they use Dr. Who just for a sci-fi series, do you?

    Torchwood is a documentary.



  • yeah, I always thought that the BBC was 100% trustworthy.  In reality, they just got a little excited and confused and scared and etc.

     to quote that page:

    5. 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... "



  • Ok, lets try this:

    * The area around the WTC is in chaos on 9/11

    * Building 7 is badly damaged

    * Everyone who has already seen the main two towers collapse is in a state of shock and paranoia

    * Building 7 suffers pre-collapse events (large chunks of concrete falling from the outside, internal structures collapsing)

    * People on the ground start reporting "Building 7 is going next"

    * Reporters in the studio, who are also in shock, start getting second-hand and third-hand reports that building 7 is collapsing or has collapsed

    * Someone is tasked to "confirm the reports that building 7 has collapsed"

    * Meanwhile the reporter on air starts saying that they "have heard reports of the collapse of building 7"

    * Someone manages to contact someone at ground-zero and asks if it is true that building 7 has gone too

    * That someone has seen the state of building 7 and, although they can't see it at the moment, knows that it was on its way out - even if it doesn't collapse it will need to be demolished

    * The reply "Building 7 is history man!"

    * Report confirmed - we can now start saying "the building has collapsed"
     



  • I'm not particularly worried by the conspiracy aspect - as I remember there were several reports of other nearby buildings collapsing due to damage, which later turned out to be false, so it's not hard to imagine the same thing being reported about WTC7. But to lose the tapes? ... that's grossly negligent for such an important event, even if it didn't directly affect the UK.



  • Of course, the other explanation is that in general, the backgrounds behind reporters are not real. The are done with bluescreen type effects. So maybe, whoever was in charge of the background made a goof. Considering the chaos on that day, hardly surprising.

    Also, I am quite skeptical whenever I hear that X "lost the tapes/documents/whatever", unless the statement comes from X themselves. Corporations do not usually comment on internal records to private citizens, so any reports about such things from private citizens is unreliable.



  • @mallard said:

    Also, I am quite skeptical whenever I hear that X "lost the tapes/documents/whatever", unless the statement comes from X themselves. Corporations do not usually comment on internal records to private citizens, so any reports about such things from private citizens is unreliable.

    The BBC is not really a corporation, it's a UK public service. They are required by their charter to be far more open about their cockups than any regular corporation would be.

    They admitted that they lost the tapes. This is a fairly common occurrence. The BBC really SUCKS at archiving things - they lose stuff all the time. It's something that they are notorious for (in particular, several old Doctor Who episodes are believed to no longer exist - the BBC lost all their old reels, and it was the early days of television, so nobody else had any copies).
     



  • The BBC really SUCKS at archiving things

    Actually that is being a bit unfair!

    Currently the BBC tries to archive anything and everything, and manages it quite well - better IMHO than most other broadcasters.

    There have been some major oddities in the past, in the days before repeating old programmes was thought to be a useful thing to do. When they were stored on film they were difficult to store (you would not imagine how hard it can be to store certain types of film - you can't just put it on a shelf) and the amount of material could take up far more space than a publicly funded corporation could justify. Everything was prioritised, the low priority items were deliberately discarded (and were sometimes taken home by enthusiasts).

    Worse still, in the early days of video tape, the tapes themselves were incredibly expensive and so they were reused as much as possible - you couldn't just pop down the local shop for a pack of 2" Ampex tapes!

    Edit: Oh yes, and the BBC really is a corporation (in the British sense at least) and the Queen regularly signs a charter to prove it!



  • perhaps related, perhaps not....  Michael Vick (Quaterback (guy who throws the football) for Atlanta Falcons National Football League team for those of us with our heads stuck too far into the IT mud) goes to an airport with "special" bottle of water.  Gives it up to the gate cops after a little stress.  No charges filed.  In the end, they (airport security) erase the tape for their own "protection from liability".  Perhaps BBC has a similar policy in effect...  especially with their "quality" of reporting.



  • plus, what is all this ballyhoo about them keeping things or not if this famed archive.org doesn't have it on archive?

    plus, plus, we can't blame current archiving practices or difficiencies on things that happened when tv was first invented.  They were just happy to have something show up in a seperate room!  </rant>


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.