 | |  |  | | | | | | | | | | | | |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
| |
| Author |
Message |
inja
B.V. VIP - Contributor
Joined: Sep 28, 2001
Posts: 10244
Location: USA
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 11:54 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| |
Both of your infowar links do not work CG.
Yesterday I read that a friend of yours stated a lot of this is talk in the pub over seas. I don't know where this information is being broad casted....however I did scan a variety of foreign news sources and I can't find anything that shows me that Europe is making any of the happenings during the day of 9/11 an issue.
I am going to move this thread to the conspiracy forum because until mainstream media picks up on this issue....it is just reality that people will view this as something being fabricated or if they are generous enough they feel that 2+2 isn't being added up together correctly.
I'm guessing we have come full circle again and you will be pissed of again at me. |
|
_________________
"All truth passes through 3 stages.
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
-- Arthur Schopenhauer |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Author |
Message |
etraveler13
B.V. Info-a-holic
Joined: Mar 13, 2003
Posts: 5813
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 11:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| |
I will repeat what I just researched and posted in another thread on the BV...
| Quote: |
Actually, the elevator shaft that she and the other guy were near experienced rapid exhaust from collapsing floors which blew out the lower elevator shaft doors in the basement. The elevator doors, big and heavy in their own right were found across the opening, 56' away from the shaft. They picked up debris as they travelled as well. The pressure from that downblast of air and the debris that was picked up in the blast matched the injuries to both workers, and the fact that sliver like metal and wood, and even paper cuts were consistent with an air blast, as hematoma was absent from the injuries (surrounding bruising from blunt trauma at the injury site). This was covered in several of the books written on the subject concerning witnesses. Psychologists who interviewed these people as well as hundreds of others, concerning what they saw, confirmed that they could see nothing, and that fright, and flight were normal in this situation. Anybody suggesting a solution would be quickly believed. Both finally said they were not sure what happened, but felt it was reasonable that their version could happen. They never went back to the site of the basement after that point.
Seismologists, and structural engineers concluded that the movement in the structure at the basement level and the elevator shaft damage would be consistent with what they experienced. Later, scaled computer simulation testing confirmed, that it was a better than 70% probablility that the lower elevator doors blew out, taking electrical power, and activating emergency sprinkler systems which helped emergency services cutting down dust for better visability in the rescue that ensued. Oh, and the 6 firefighters that rescued those two people, confirmed that the elevator doors were blown out and were across the rooms, they evacuated the people up emergency stairs. |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
rob61872
B.V. Info-a-holic
Joined: Oct 10, 2001
Posts: 13669
Location: With JRZGRL
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 2:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| |
5 and a half years after the fact, this stuff is just now being uncovered by the conspiracy theorists?
All the investigating, the BS photos supposedly showing this and that, all in attempts to prove the conspiracy was real, and all the conspiracy theorists had to do was watch the damn news for 14 minutes that day to get "conclusive" evidence? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Computer_Guy
B.V. Info-a-holic
Joined: Sep 28, 2001
Posts: 7863
Location: US
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 3:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| |
| inja wrote: |
Both of your infowar links do not work CG.
I am going to move this thread to the conspiracy forum because until mainstream media picks up on this issue....it is just reality that people will view this as something being fabricated
|
Below is not a response to a fabrication.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html
Media Blacklists BBC Fiasco; Google, Digg Censor 9/11 Truth
News 24 'timestamp' video disappears from Google Video, despite the fact it's under 30 seconds in length and clearly constitutes fair use, Digg lets small minority of morons decide its content
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/010307mediablacklists.htm
Great effort is being made to keep this quiet, it's been removed from every major source that it's posted on. Big media doesn't go to that much trouble to cover-up fabrications. And they don't loose tape of the most horrific attack ever on American soil.
Thats all right, there is usually better company at the back of the bus. |
|
_________________
Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind.
JFK |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Computer_Guy
B.V. Info-a-holic
Joined: Sep 28, 2001
Posts: 7863
Location: US
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 3:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| |
The BBC's 'WTC 7 Collapsed
At 4:54 p.m.' Videos
At 21:54 GMT on 9/11 the BBC announced that WTC 7 had collapsed. There was just one problem with this news: WTC 7 did not collapse until 22:20 GMT.
The videos below show the BBC World broadcast.
The following screenshot shows the satellite feed mysteriously breaking up roughly five minutes before the actual collapse.
BBC News 24 also broadcast that WTC 7 had collapsed, and a corroborative time stamp was on their broadcast. [357kB WMV video download]
21:54 GMT is 16:54 (4:54 PM) East Coast time, 26 minutes BEFORE WTC 7 actually collapsed.
Richard Porter, the head of news at BBC World issued this explanation of the BBC World video:
1. 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.
2. In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had. We did what we always did - sourced our reports, used qualifying words like "apparently" or "it's reported" or "we're hearing" and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving.
3. Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I've spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn't remember minute-by-minute what she said or did - like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services.
4. We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). 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.
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... "
Below are some selected comments made in reply to Mr Porter's explanation:
How deservedly ironic that the BBC gets exposed for what it really is (a propaganda bureau that attempts to indoctrinate Britain and the world with a false reality) so soon after the airing of the appalling hit piece (9/11 conspiracy files) last Sunday night. Please show some respect for the BBC and the license fee paying public by answering a simple question. How did the BBC know that Building 7 was going to collapse 20 minutes before it actually did when prior to 9/11 no steel-structured building had ever collapsed due to fire?
I'm not a conspiracy nut. But this footage of your reports of WTC7 collapsing a full 20 minutes prior and repeatedly discussing it's collapse is highly suspicious.
If you were talking about a building that never did collapse, well then you'd just look incompetent. But as we all know, building 7 did, in a feat that suspended all laws of physics and logic, collapse spontaneously due to fires on floors 7 & 12.
You can't possibly expect us to believe this. Let's look at all the pieces here.
1. BBC reports for 20 solid minutes that WTC7 has collapsed when even in the live shot it stands as sturdy as the day it was built.
2. The idea that WTC7 would collapse spontaneously due to minor fires and minimal damage to the north face is laughable and an insult to intelligence. But it did, approximately 5 minutes AFTER BBC's report....or at least 5 minutes after Jane Standley's live shot was disconnected.
3. BBC loses all of it's 9/11 footage so this cannot be reviewed or explained. My nephew still has all his VHS tapes from that day. He recorded almost every news station for 24 hours straight. He's 19 now. He was 13 when it happened. So, a 13 year old can be more responsible with his VHS tapes than one of the largest news organizations?
4. The archive footage is mysteriously pulled off of YouTube and Google video repeatedly and without provocation or explanation.
5. BBC's response is, 'there is no conspiracy. it was a mistake.'
Grant us logical thinkers at least one thing. This is highly suspicious. The BBC needs to reveal what source they drew the conclusion that WTC7 had collapsed.
Oh, and the ez-out phrases like 'it appears' and 'we're receiving reports that..' were not used throughout this footage.
Especially when the anchor starts talking about the (lack of) body count since there was so much time to evacuate since the collapse of WTC 1-2.
The BBC needs to reveal what source they drew the conclusion that WTC7 had collapsed. I do not necessarily think the BBC is a witting participant in some 9/11 conspiracy, but it's definitely looking like you were a pawn. Revealing who/where the BBC received the information that WTC7 had collapsed would be a good start in clearing your name.
To report that a building had collapsed before it had done so would be an odd sort of error, wouldn't it? A bit like reporting that the Lord Mayor's trousers had fallen down before they did so.
Let's say for a second that you messed up and reported a building going down that didn't - why the exact one that DID? What are the odds? Why not by mistake report a building going down that DIDN'T actually go down?
You lose footage of one of the most important days in modern history... 
(Good job! That way no one can "prove" anything that day...)
Out of all the surrounding buildings that suffered massive damage - WTC 3,4,5,6 - and assorted others that suffered minor damage (amoung them, WTC 7 - Salomon Brothers Building), BBC - by merely a mistake and in confusion - picked exactly the right one that was going to fall -....
(Good job! Hey, BBC is incompetent - they lose tapes AND they claim buildings fall that haven't - but what LUCK! They hit the lottery! What a 'lucky guess', huh?)
BBC should go to Vegas, with those odds - you'd be rich.
BBC is not part of the conspiracy - but you are just a bunch of pathetic dupes.
You capture the biggest smoking gun in history ... and your response is ..... to call yourselves incompetent and go play 'blind/deaf/dumb monkey' on your public.
Good job, Guys!!
"If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that."
Uh, it WASN'T an error... That's the point. You keep harping on about what a chaotic day it was. Then why didn't the anchor say something like, "We're getting some unconfirmed reports of some other building apparently collapsing... We'll have to check up on this... etc." No, he had (23 minutes before hand) the name of the building, the correct # of floors in the building (47), the explanation of the collapse (weakened by other collapses), and he was reporting that the building was apparently empty. You even had graphics made up for the scrolling info at the bottom of the screen. That is some pretty precise reporting for a day of chaos when everyone was "...trying to make sense of what they were seeing... and what was being told by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services."
And there lies the key (perhaps). No doubt the info was just being fed to the anchor and reporter off the wires as the news would cross... So, which agency fed that bit about WTC7 collapsing? AP? Reuters? VOA? We'll probably never know, but you got the information from some source more than 23 minutes before it happened (had to be longer than 23 minutes, because there must have been some delay from the time the story came over the wires and the time the anchor actually got the news out on the air).
Do I think the BBC is "...part of a conspiracy"? No... but you were played perfectly by some entity, IMO.
With respect, the response to this issue is unacceptable. At the very least you are minimizing your error and trivializing the life’s lost or the potential of life’s that could have been saved.
In the most important final 7 minutes and 15 seconds of the said segment the words "apparently", "it's reported" or "we're hearing" ARE NOT USED in context of building 7.
The words used are those have definite and past tense.
"Now more on the latest building collapse in New York,...the Solomon Brothers Building collapse... and indeed it has"
"What can you tell us about the Salomon Building and it's collapse?"
"When it collapsed"
Ticker –“The 47 storey Salomon Brothers building close to the World Trade Centre has also collapsed.”
Who is responsible for the newsroom in desk and floor prompters being used by the news presenter?
Who is responsible for the news report on the bottom screen news ticker?
Who is responsible as the newsroom floor source for giving these people information?
What is the complete list of editors and journalists responsible for this program on said day?
The words in your statement #4 of footage being lost may very well redefine irresponsible. The BBC Media Management policy clearly states TWO broadcast standard copies be retained one on a separate site as a master.
As follows.
Ref No.
Policy Area / Policy Statement
01
Components to be Retained
01-01
The following components to be retained:-
Two broadcast standard copies of all transmitted/published TV, Radio and BBCi output – one to be stored on a separate site as a master
One browse-quality version for research purposes, to protect the broadcast material
http://www.bbc.co.uk/foi/docs/historical_information/archive_policies/media_management_policy
_overview.htm#top
If the footage had continued, we'd all have been able to watch WTC 7 collapse right on your program.
Good thing you lost the feed five minutes before THAT happened in front of all your viewers.
What in the world would you have said if that had happened?
What is going on here?
I'd like a little truth please.
I never actually thought I would live to see the day that things would surpass even Orwell, Huxley, Wells, Jack London, Sinclair Lewis, Zamyatin, Ayne Rand, on and on...but, the virtual reality that the "media" create for us now is truly more unfathomable than even those great minds warned us of.
Contrary to the dismissive tone of the "explanation", whether or not the building was known to be about to fall goes to essential point of culpability for 9/11, foreknowledge.
Those who are in the dock and being cross-examined are not allowed to wave their hands and create a plausible explanation. It's gone too far for that. There is a disastrous war built on false evidence, and that falsification process may have begun much sooner than is generally now understood.
In ordinary life, a witness who lies about one thing will be assumed to lie about everything. And we aren't talking about private matters, but about the essential role of a government to defend its country. This issue is about credibility of news sources during a terror attack, in which a rush to judgment resulted shortly in an invasion of a sovereign nation, and the BBC know it.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bbc_wtc7_videos.html |
|
_________________
Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind.
JFK |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Brightraven
B.V. Lurker
Joined: Feb 22, 2007
Posts: 85
Location: Barcelona, SPAIN
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 11:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| |
As regards some of the latest comments:
VERY interesting ... But stupid!
Nothing, absolutely nothing will deflect from this particular story!
Smoking gun evidence is here, well and truly amongst us.
Indeed. the LIE of 911 is all being revealed; the trickery unravelling faster than the Earth is travelling through space! Thanks only be to God in heaven!
Everyone wanting to live in TellyTubbyland and those who want to get through Alice's looking-glass at all cost are in for a nasty shock!
WELCOME FOLKS TO THE REAL WORLD! WAKEY-WAKEY! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
TheSlan
B.V. Info Seeker
Joined: Oct 14, 2006
Posts: 818
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 11:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| |
| I guess I'll try and ask this again, as it just seems to continue to be passed by or ignored. Why would they script the reporters and risk being caught when they could simply allow the building to collapse and have the reporter report it normally? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Brightraven
B.V. Lurker
Joined: Feb 22, 2007
Posts: 85
Location: Barcelona, SPAIN
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 11:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| |
BRILLIANT! ... "Computer- Guy" ...
B+R+I+L+L+I+A+N+T!!
KEEP IT UP FOR GOD'S SAKE! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
okiejack
B.V. Info-a-holic
Joined: Sep 29, 2001
Posts: 8767
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 2:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| |
Well I was hoping that this "smoking gun" of the "9/11 cover up's unraveling" was legit.
But Computer guys response is the same as the other bogus allegations. Instead of addressing the questions of the skeptics, Computer guy posts a repeat of all the allegations gathered into one verbose post with links to sites that support the current conspiracy mongers.
This is typical, and sadly so, of the conspiracy mongers to biasedly choose only the information that supports their position and disreguard any information that doesn't support their position. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
bgak47
B.V. VIP - Contributor
Joined: Feb 25, 2002
Posts: 13094
Location: Oklahoma
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 4:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| |
| Does that really surprise you Okie? The Entire premiss of all of these conspiracy theories is that our government caused the events of 9/11 in order to promote wars in Afghanistan & Iraq & to take away the Rights of American citizens. The people that believe this can't be convinced by any FACTS because they think that the source of those facts are Questionable. It just goes on & on. |
|
_________________
Freedom isn't Free |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
thomaspayne
B.V. Info Seeker
Joined: Aug 27, 2006
Posts: 999
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 5:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| |
| TheSlan wrote: |
| I guess I'll try and ask this again, as it just seems to continue to be passed by or ignored. Why would they script the reporters and risk being caught when they could simply allow the building to collapse and have the reporter report it normally? |
That is called "framing". Somebody put out a script, in order that We The People would perceive this event in the way someone wanted us to. There was no reason for WTC7 to come down (other than planned demolition), so by putting out the idea that it was inevitable that it would come down (CNN), when it did, it was just accepted. Somebody at the BBC just jumped too far ahead in that script. When they realized it, Standley's feed was cut. Man, I would loved to have seen her face whenthat bldg came crashing down.
Make no mistake, the BBC was not at all specualting. they didn't say they had heard that it "might" collapse, and they were VERY specific about which bldg - even though many other bldgs were FAR more damaged than WTC7. None of those others collapsed into their footprint. Even the most heavily damaged had to be demo'd to get them down.
This video seems to have been brought to light by one of the 9/11 researchers in Canada. Thank GOD, those of us who seek justice for the 3000 people who were murdered that day, downloaded it immediately. We all KNEW thet it would get pulled (where have I hear THAT word, before, lol). Try as they might, Google, the BBC, and whoever else can't get rid of this. It's all over the web. Too bad for the liars. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
TheSlan
B.V. Info Seeker
Joined: Oct 14, 2006
Posts: 818
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 6:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| |
| All scripting the report would have achieved is the potential of being caught and it would be nothing short of moronic to do it. Even if the buildings were demolished, they could have done it and let the reporter do their job as it happenened. If I can work that out, I'm pretty sure anyone that had to plan the greatest conspiracy of all time could too. The BBC reporter probably had no idea what WTC 7 was and in the chaos of that morning mistakes were bound to be made. It wasn't scripted so the public would percieve things a certain way. If it was scripted and the reporter had told us about it at the correct time, then she would be doing exactly as she would have if she was reporting it naturally. This was simply a case of misreporting. It happens. It happened this week in Britain with a train crash. There is no smoking gun here, all there is is clutching at straws. You are so desperate to prove that 9/11 was an inside job that the slightest unusual thing, despite having a more than reasonable explanation, becomes a smoking gun. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
thomaspayne
B.V. Info Seeker
Joined: Aug 27, 2006
Posts: 999
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| |
| Nope, you're wrong. You are the one who is desparate to hang on to your Truman Show reality, so you can feel safe. The BBC does NOT make a mistake, specifically naming the correct building, the number of floors, and reporting no casualties. It was framed, just as I said it. This kind of stuff has been done before, and it works, as evidenced by sheep like you. Those 3000 people desrve justice, and they're gonna get because one hell of a lot of people are WIDE AWAKE. You can remain asleep. We have it covered. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
TheSlan
B.V. Info Seeker
Joined: Oct 14, 2006
Posts: 818
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| |
| Firstly, until you have fact, you can not tell me I'm wrong. You have no evidence that the reporter was scripted, none at all. All that video shows is that the reporter misreported something. Secondly, the BBC don't make mistakes? No, you are wrong. I have the proof to back that up, as just this week they reported that nobody died in a train crash. However, it then became apparent that someone did die. So there you have it, proof that the BBC, and every other news broadcaster in the world make mistakes. They've done it before and they'll do it again. Thirdly, I am Scottish and therefore wether it is a conspiracy or not does not directly effect me. That means I am unbias and can be rational with the evidence put before me. I am not looking for specific evidence to support one side, unlike you. If anything, you are the sheep, as you are told that something totally innocent is a smoking gun and you jump right on it. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
etraveler13
B.V. Info-a-holic
Joined: Mar 13, 2003
Posts: 5813
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| |
| WTC7 was gutted. The fire radiated from the center. It is visable on all the videos, a small fire would not burn like a chimney as this one did. Conspiracy theorists stated that on a few small fires were see on one side of the building. The Mayor was in that building, he had to leave because it was buring from the top to the bottom floor in the middle of the building. The fire chief took them out of the building just before it collapsed, these are in Mayor Guilianos own words? When you build a fire in a fire pit, and it burns in the middle, where do the sticks fall? Straight down. If you put a tapered candle near an intense flame, like the fire in a fire place, which way does the candle melt? Towards the flame. Now take four tapered candles and put them evenly in 4 corners around an intense flame, which direction to the candles melt? Towards the center of the source of the heat, ie. the flame, get the picture? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
| | | | | | | |
| |
blocks-left.jpg
blocks-left.jpg
blocks-left.jpg
|  |
Online Stats: 
