• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

BBC and WTC 7 on 9/11: confusion or NWO-blunder?

TruthSeeker1234 said:
They didn't want to take any chances on reporters actually discovering things like WTC7 being demolished. No. No. No.
Click to expand...

So they therefor didn't take chances...by telling the media WTC7 was gonna go down, leading to the BBC reporting it too early.

Brilliant. :faint:
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
No, the reports were not erroneous. They were premature, and perfectly accurate.
Click to expand...

And you thought it useful to cherry pick two sentences to respond to (in a wholly ridiculous and unsubstantiated manner, I might add), and you managed to ignore all the rest of that post and the entirety of subsequent ones in the process to try to "prove" your self-debunked point. Typical.

Sometimes, it truly amazes me to see the extremes to which troofers will go to spread nonsense that you know full well to be complete and utter nonsense.

But when you get around to it, please address the rest of my post from which you cherry picked the sentence you quoted, and please address my subsequent posts as well.

They are here, here, and here.

I won't hold my breath in expectation of receiving any rational response to any of these posts, but I would particularly like to see your response to the last of the three, so I'll repeat it here since you are unlikely to actually read the link to it:

In that case, since this is splitting your sides, perhaps when you stop laughing, you'll do something constructive with this incredible evidence of yours. I mean, come on, you've got what you consider to be riveting and compelling evidence of involvement in mass murder! Nearly 3000 dead and you're laughing when you manage to find a five year old video that "proves" to you the complicity of the BBC and the other co-conspirators?

What on earth are you laughing about? Shouldn't you be doing something constructive with this evidence that you believe to be compelling? Certainly, if I believed that I had compelling evidence of complicity in mass murder, the last thing I'd be doing is laughing and posting on an internet forum.

So, stop your chuckling, rally your troofers, and storm the castles already if you believe the nonsense you post.

ETA: At the very least, take your compelling evidence to the authorities if you're having an off day and don't feel like storming the castles today.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
TruthSeeker1234 said:
It was essential to spread the disinfo "official story" as fast and as far and as often as possible. People at ground zero spoke of "explosions". That was quickly replaced with the official meme "collapse". "Terrorism" and "Osama bin Laden" were injected within 5 seconds of the second "plane" strike. The whole thing was scripted and with good reason.

They didn't want to take any chances on reporters actually discovering things like WTC7 being demolished. No. No. No. Can't have any of that. They had "witnesses" on the streets. They had press releases ready to go. The whole story was in the can. That is nothing new for the government. They script stories for the media all the time. It is standard operating procedure. The media report everything the government tells them to, every day. Watch the news.
Click to expand...

:confused: So the Government tells the media what to report but they couldn't risk them reporting what they didn't tell them to so the tell them to report it but the BBC reports it too fast so they cover it but by not doing anything which proves that they did do it, oh no I've gone cockeyed...
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
They didn't want to take any chances on reporters actually discovering things like WTC7 being demolished. No. No. No. Can't have any of that. They had "witnesses" on the streets. They had press releases ready to go. The whole story was in the can. That is nothing new for the government. They script stories for the media all the time. It is standard operating procedure. The media report everything the government tells them to, every day. Watch the news.
Click to expand...

Wait a minute, so they didn't want the reporters and news agencies to discover to demolition of WTC7(as well as 1&2) - so they included them in the conspiracy by staging news reports the entire day?
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
I think you have two choices.

1. The BBC news people are psychic, and deserving of the JREF million dollar prize.

2. They were fed a press release from "official sources" that said that the Sololman bros. building had collapsed because of structural damage and fire.
Click to expand...

Nah, these are rubbish. But how about the following:

3) They were "fed" a press release which said that the building was likely to fail, soon- and they: a) misread it b) taped a version for when that event would occur and failed to understand what the layout of the WTC buildings were.

4) They heard miscellaneous reports that the building was anticipated to fail- and a and b apply again.


It makes absolutely no sense that they would intentionally divulge this information and then show the building in the background. It makes no sense that they would know this information according to your silly conspiracy theory- unless you really do think that everyone but you was in on it.
 
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234
They didn't want to take any chances on reporters actually discovering things like WTC7 being demolished. No. No. No. Can't have any of that. They had "witnesses" on the streets. They had press releases ready to go. The whole story was in the can. That is nothing new for the government. They script stories for the media all the time. It is standard operating procedure. The media report everything the government tells them to, every day. Watch the news.
Click to expand...
(my bold)

Maybe you missed the post where I told of how I worked in a TV station for 16 years.

I can honestly say that in all my time in the media I have never once seen a Journalist take anything the government say at face value. Once again you have revealed your total ignorance.

Oh and Happy Birthday Dogtown! ( Iguess it's not your birthday where you are yet, but I live in the future)
 
Last edited:
So in order to make sure that the media doesn't find out about WTC7, the conspirators decided to....tell them about it!....by feeding them information which the BBC reported on too early.

Retarded doesn't begin to describe it.

Besides, if the media is on-side with the conspirators, then why the need to prevent the media from uncovering stuff about WTC7?
 
CHF said:
So in order to make sure that the media doesn't find out about WTC7, the conspirators decided to....tell them about it!....by feeding them information which the BBC reported on too early.

Retarded doesn't begin to describe it.

Besides, if the media is on-side with the conspirators, then why the need to prevent the media from uncovering stuff about WTC7?
Click to expand...


Don't be silly, the media aren't in on it. They're just reading what the government gives them. Everyone knows the media blindly repeats whatever the government says because...er... hang on... lemme rethink this...

-Gumboot
 
Totovader,

I feel I should warn you now that Ace Baker aka Truthseeker1234 is not amenable to reason. If you're enjoying yourself then have at it - but there's no shame in giving up in frustration.

Luckily his ideas are too dumb and crazy to appeal to anyone who isn't as bat[rule8]insane as he is (and by that token, beyond help).

To get an idea, I suggest you peruse the Star Wars Beam Weapon thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66444

He is at least quite amusing in his combination of extreme pomposity and utter wrongness.

I'm waiting for Aphelion to explain how TruthSeeker1234 isn't crazy, but is in fact a disinfo agent. If that's so, I'd like to know why he's practising his disinfo mojo on this board - and not out in troofland.

Maybe Ace can defend Judy Wood's honour on this thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=75445

(By the way, he wrote her a song - to go with this one.)
 
Last edited:
Brainache said:
(my bold)

Maybe you missed the post where I told of how I worked in a TV station for 16 years.

I can honestly say that in all my time in the media I have never once seen a Journalist take anything the government say at face value. Once again you have revealed your total ignorance.

Oh and Happy Birthday Dogtown! ( I guess it's not your birthday where you are yet, but I live in the future)
Click to expand...

So I guess I'm not the only one NOT receiving memos, plans and money from the NWO in connection with my work?

And no, I don't support bush. I am highly critical of the current danish government and not to thrilled about the Iraq war.......
 
Him: Now more on the latest building collapse in New York you might have heard a few moments ago I was talking about the Salomon Brothers Building collapsing. And indeed it has. Apparently that's only a few hundred yards away from where the World Trade Center Towers were. And it seems that this was not a result of a new attack, it was because the building had been weakened during this morning's attacks. We'll probably find more out more now about that from our correspondent Jane Stanley. Jane, what more can you tell us about the Salomon Brothers building and its collapse?

Her: Well, only really what you already know. Details are very very sketchy, there's almost a sense downtown in New York behind me down by the World Trade Centers of just an area completely closed off as the rescue workers try to do their job. But this isn't the first building that has suffered as a result ...

[rambles about stuff which has nothing to do with WTC7]

Him: Presumably there were very few people in the Salomon Builing when it collapsed. I mean, there were, I suppose, fears of futher collapses around the area.

Her: That's what you would hope, because this whole downtown are behind me has been completely sealed off and evacuated ...

[rambles about stuff which has nothing to do with WTC7]

---

Did these people Know Too Much?

Or too little?

Hint: Apparently neither of them was capable of recognizing WTC7. So possibly they were not well informed.
 
Last edited:
TruthSeeker1234 said:
It wasn't wrong Gumboot. Is was just too soon.
Click to expand...
They also reported that it "collapsed" because it had been "weakened", not that it was "blown up by Larry Silverstein and his suicide squad of arsonist firefighters."

They were wrong about that, weren't they?
 
Last edited:
I need to know a few things:
When was the video shot?
Who is in the shot?
What are they talking about?

I will then e-mail the BBC and ask where their studio was in Manhattan.

It's not that hard to find out the information that might put some of this to rest.
 
Oliver said:
Someone is deleting these files right now! :boggled:
Click to expand...

Within minutes...
ALL GONE!

~400 Files spread over several server and directories ... :eek:

This is pretty suspicious because there is no copyright infringement:

Archive.org said:
News from [STATION]-TV was recorded by the Television Archive, a non-profit archive.
Click to expand...
 
Dr Adequate said:
They also reported that it "collapsed" because it had been "weakened", not that it was "blown up by Larry Silverstein and his suicide squad of arsonist firefighters."

They were wrong about that, weren't they?
Click to expand...

BBC were advancing the official story: "WTC7 collapses due to structural damage and fire". Their recitation of the official story was perfect. Flawless. They just did it too soon. Obviously the reporter woman did not recognize WTC7. They had been given information that the building had collapsed. And they reported it.

They didn't report that it was threatening to collapse. Or that it might collapse. Or that it could collapse. Or that people were worried it might collapse. They said it had collapsed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom