She's standing in front of a green screen, with old video playing behind her. This is common on news programs, especially when they don't have a nice view out their studio windows. BBC's NYC bureau was (and still is) located at 1120 Avenue of the Americas on the 5th Floor, which would make this perspective of Building 7 impossible.
They screwed up by using outdated B-Roll of WTC 7 still standing, but there isn't really a conspiracy here. The Daily Show does the same thing when they go "live" to their "Middle East Conflict Correspondent" reporting from Tahrir Square, but they're not really actually there. (In those cases, they're usually in the same studio)
I think you miss the point. How did they know WTC7 was going to fall, before it fell? That was live TV aired half an hour before the actual collapse.
They reported it fell but in reality it wouldn't fall for like another 23 minutes.
That's like Silverstein saying they decided to "pull it" means he had some say in the First Responders pulling out. That's absurd. WTC7 didn't crumble in its own footprint from office fires and minor structural damage. That defies logic, physics and common sense.
Thousands of highly decorated and experienced structural engineers and architects agree that 1+1 doesn't = 3.
WTC 7 fell at 5:20 PM local NYC time. The BBC video is from their 11 PM nightly news program, and the youtube video is taken from the Europe feed. London is 5 hours ahead, so when the video was filmed it was 6:00 pm in New York, and 11:00 pm in London. WTC 7 had fallen about 30 minutes BEFORE the BBC feed, but they didn't have any video of it, just the news, so they stupidly used B-Roll from earlier in the day.
Why do you think this video was filmed before 5:20 PM EST? This is taken from their nightly 11:00 pm broadcast, which is 6:00 pm U.S. time.
Keep doing your googling. It's well known it was aired before wtc7 actually fell. The most common excuse is "they were notified it was going to fall" and just aired the story early...
I mean damn. If you're going to attempt to downplay something at least know what you're talking about..
WTC7 - Analysis and Conclusion. A complete Empirically Verifiable Scientific Method Driven Graphical Target System Analysis and Conclusion arrived at by Process of Elimination.
Except that the image is a screencap of the AP article, which came out June 6 and their title suggests their own "version 2" was created June 4, which is already 2 days earlier than the AP release. But, then the metadata suggests it was created way back on May 25 and they updated the image with the screencap when AP gave it to them.
InstanceID gives the date last saved for the PSD, but not the date it was saved in another format (or exported, actually) through "save for web and devices".
If you have Photoshop, try it for yourself:
Create a PSD, save it, close it.
Wait a few minutes, open it again, paste something in, select "save for web and devices".
Upload it here to get the InstanceID (or use ExifTool), and paste that into the site you linked (format: xxxxxxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx).
Compare the datetime to the moment you last saved the PSD and the moment you created the jpg. You'll see that it matches the former, not the latter.
The only thing this tells us is that their designer is a bit lazy and didn't save a copy of the updated PSD before exporting it.
10 comments
13 wheelinganddealing 2016-06-07
HOW IS SHE NOT IN PRISON YET?
1 BrazenBull 2016-06-07
They expected to get the super delegates on this date, so they prepared in advance. Nothing more, nothing less.
Not much different than news agencies pre-writing scripts for expected future events, as seen in this lampoon skit from SNL about Gerald Ford's death.
6 ithoughtsobitch 2016-06-07
Ya. Like the BBC reporting WTC7 fell half an hour before it actually fell.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltP2t9nq9fI
0 BrazenBull 2016-06-07
She's standing in front of a green screen, with old video playing behind her. This is common on news programs, especially when they don't have a nice view out their studio windows. BBC's NYC bureau was (and still is) located at 1120 Avenue of the Americas on the 5th Floor, which would make this perspective of Building 7 impossible.
They screwed up by using outdated B-Roll of WTC 7 still standing, but there isn't really a conspiracy here. The Daily Show does the same thing when they go "live" to their "Middle East Conflict Correspondent" reporting from Tahrir Square, but they're not really actually there. (In those cases, they're usually in the same studio)
2 ithoughtsobitch 2016-06-07
I think you miss the point. How did they know WTC7 was going to fall, before it fell? That was live TV aired half an hour before the actual collapse.
They reported it fell but in reality it wouldn't fall for like another 23 minutes.
That's like Silverstein saying they decided to "pull it" means he had some say in the First Responders pulling out. That's absurd. WTC7 didn't crumble in its own footprint from office fires and minor structural damage. That defies logic, physics and common sense.
Thousands of highly decorated and experienced structural engineers and architects agree that 1+1 doesn't = 3.
It really doesn't matter what you think .
0 BrazenBull 2016-06-07
WTC 7 fell at 5:20 PM local NYC time. The BBC video is from their 11 PM nightly news program, and the youtube video is taken from the Europe feed. London is 5 hours ahead, so when the video was filmed it was 6:00 pm in New York, and 11:00 pm in London. WTC 7 had fallen about 30 minutes BEFORE the BBC feed, but they didn't have any video of it, just the news, so they stupidly used B-Roll from earlier in the day.
Why do you think this video was filmed before 5:20 PM EST? This is taken from their nightly 11:00 pm broadcast, which is 6:00 pm U.S. time.
1 ithoughtsobitch 2016-06-07
Keep doing your googling. It's well known it was aired before wtc7 actually fell. The most common excuse is "they were notified it was going to fall" and just aired the story early...
I mean damn. If you're going to attempt to downplay something at least know what you're talking about..
http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/6118/was-the-bbc-report-of-the-wtc-7-falling-before-it-happened-a-scripted-event
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7242&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=url
3 damaged_but_whole 2016-06-07
Except that the image is a screencap of the AP article, which came out June 6 and their title suggests their own "version 2" was created June 4, which is already 2 days earlier than the AP release. But, then the metadata suggests it was created way back on May 25 and they updated the image with the screencap when AP gave it to them.
0 guebja 2016-06-07
No.
InstanceID gives the date last saved for the PSD, but not the date it was saved in another format (or exported, actually) through "save for web and devices".
If you have Photoshop, try it for yourself:
Create a PSD, save it, close it.
Wait a few minutes, open it again, paste something in, select "save for web and devices".
Upload it here to get the InstanceID (or use ExifTool), and paste that into the site you linked (format: xxxxxxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx).
Compare the datetime to the moment you last saved the PSD and the moment you created the jpg. You'll see that it matches the former, not the latter.
The only thing this tells us is that their designer is a bit lazy and didn't save a copy of the updated PSD before exporting it.
2 [deleted] 2016-06-07
[deleted]
2 guebja 2016-06-07
Without saving or before saving. Probably the latter.