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

[Firestone]

No idea, but the original footage is still available at the address I gave yesterday: here.

Guess the NWO doesn't read my posts.

Funny, because I can't get access to the rest http://www.911blogger.com/node/6391

So the NWO removed all the files, EXCEPT THE INCRIMINATING ONE???

Someone is going to be eaten up by the lizards pretty soon ...

 

[Aphelion]

There may be any number of innocuous reasons why.

Name one.

 

[uk_dave]

Name one.

Brian.

 

[CHF]

They didn't respond.

Frankly Aphelion, after yesterday's debacle on the FDNY and WTC7 I'm surprised you'd show your face here again.

So explain it to me again:

- WTC7 was a CD
- it was done to help rescue operations
- this was covered up for some reason
- The FDNY knew it would collapse
- The FDNY wasn't in on it

That about right?

 

[Totovader]

I emailed google yesterday when the video kept disappearing. I emailed archive.org early this morning when the archives started disappearing. I'm not holding my breath for a reply.

And when you get one, I won't be holding my breath that you will accept it and/or post it.

 

[einsteen]

I emailed google yesterday when the video kept disappearing. I emailed archive.org early this morning when the archives started disappearing. I'm not holding my breath for a reply.

i'm behind a firewall now and cannot test it but it looks like you mean

http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=sept_11_tv_archive

If you click on it and view the source you will see that the mp4 format is using the rtsp:// protocol, you can download that with special kind of tools, let me know.

 

[PerryLogan]

Name one.

Computer problem. Problem with unexpected amount of computer use. The only hypothesis that doesn't make sense is yours, since the cows are out of the barn.

 

[Aphelion]

Frankly Aphelion, after yesterday's debacle on the FDNY and WTC7 I'm surprised you'd show your face here again.

So explain it to me again:

- WTC7 was a CD
- it was done to help rescue operations
- this was covered up for some reason
- The FDNY knew it would collapse
- The FDNY wasn't in on it

That about right?

I was speculating. I really didnt believe the CD theories until this video. It is now patently clear that wtc7 was demolished. I do not believe the firefighters were involved in any 911 plot. What is unclear about my position?

 

[Darat]

I emailed google yesterday when the video kept disappearing. I emailed archive.org early this morning when the archives started disappearing. I'm not holding my breath for a reply.

What email addresses did you use?

 

[Totovader]

I was speculating. I really didnt believe the CD theories until this video. It is now patently clear that wtc7 was demolished. I do not believe the firefighters were involved in any 911 plot. What is unclear about my position?

How can the firefighters not be involved in a CD theory?

No CT has been able to answer that...

 

[Totovader]

Computer problem. Problem with unexpected amount of computer use. The only hypothesis that doesn't make sense is yours, since the cows are out of the barn.

I'd be willing to bet that since the streaming versions are still available- all the questions about "what does this mean" caused someone to notice that the files were available, which I'm guessing violates the usage.

Pure speculation- but it's rational to believe that since the streaming versions are still available, there was some kind of mix up, not cover-up.

Edit: Also, any attempt to watch them currently gives the following error message:

We're experiencing system slowness - please try again in a little while.

So it looks like you were right.

 

[twinstead]

How can the firefighters not be involved in a CD theory?

No CT has been able to answer that...

Yes. Every fireman who reported that the building was in immediate danger of collapse due to bulging, damage, and fire is suspect if the buildings could only have come down via CD.

These are some of the 'little people', whom they are indirectly accusing, that most CTs ignore when they sweep a broad brush claiming 'the Man' is guilty of mass murder.

 

[parmanides]

Nuh-uh!

Any conspiracy might leave a few clues. But 9/11 Truth Movement people posit huge numbers of "smoking guns." They also claim that the perpetrators of the 9/11 deliberately made the cover story absurd and hard to believe. None of this is consistent with a real conspiracy.

Why would conspirators--trying to keep their hoax a secret--leak tons of obvious clues? Why would they make their cover story absurd or impossible? They would not do this deliberately, so far as I can figure. And it seems unlikely they would make that many stupid mistakes and still fool everyone in the world except the conspiracy guys.

So, in finding a zillion smoking guns, the Truthers are busily disproving their own hypothesis, but are too dumb to know it. We try to tell them, but they just cover their ears and start calling us shills.

thanks for your response PerryLogan

Just because I can entertain the possibility of a conspiracy, doesnt mean I slavishly agree with every 'smoking gun' put forward - I dont. Put another way, an idea is not responsible for those that believe in it.

I stick with the big anomilies - and this is pretty big

 

[uk_dave]

I was speculating. I really didnt believe the CD theories until this video. It is now patently clear that wtc7 was demolished. I do not believe the firefighters were involved in any 911 plot. What is unclear about my position?

Everything.

You say you never believed wtc7 was cd until you saw a single messed up news report which can easily be explained by accepting that initial reports can be mis-reported in the confusion of a major event (rather than some kind of weird premature release of information regarding the collapse of a building everyone is looking at, which makes no sense whatsoever) and now that you believe wtc was cd you're unable to explain how it was carried out without accepting that those on the ground, i.e the firefighters, would have been involved in the controlled demolition, witnessed it first hand and have kept silent about it ever since.

Nope, no confusion there

 

[MikeW]

The entire 400GB 911 tv archive at archive.org has now been removed. Could a debunker please explain that? Is it just more coincidences and errors?

Well, if you go to the site and search for 9/11 TV you'll find pages like http://www.archive.org/details/bbc200100112023-2104 . They carefully note that it's available as a "loan (stream) only" (and note the stream is still available). I'd hazard a guess that's the only way they can legally distribute someone else's content.

The archives you were talking about, though, are presumably the source files, not available via the front end of the site. If people start downloading those then maybe the "it's available as a loan (stream) only" defence no longer applies, and so they decided these source files had to be removed.

Or maybe the answer is even simpler: bandwidth. I've been downloading CNN files overnight since these links appeared on 911blogger, for instance, and have grabbed maybe 30GB in a few days. I expect others have been doing the same, and I wouldn't be surprised if hundreds, maybe thousands of files were being downloaded last night. Archive.org must have a lot of bandwidth, but even they might be concerned if traffic increases by hundreds of gigabytes a day, in which case moving the files is exactly what anyone would do.

 

[Mashuna]

I was speculating. I really didnt believe the CD theories until this video. It is now patently clear that wtc7 was demolished. I do not believe the firefighters were involved in any 911 plot. What is unclear about my position?

Well, the part where you arrive at this conclusion (the bolded part) isn't clear to me.

 

[Firestone]

I'd be willing to bet that since the streaming versions are still available- all the questions about "what does this mean" caused someone to notice that the files were available, which I'm guessing violates the usage.

Pure speculation- but it's rational to believe that since the streaming versions are still available, there was some kind of mix up, not cover-up.

Well, if you go to the site and search for 9/11 TV you'll find pages like http://www.archive.org/details/bbc200100112023-2104 . They carefully note that it's available as a "loan (stream) only" (and note the stream is still available). I'd hazard a guess that's the only way they can legally distribute someone else's content.

The archives you were talking about, though, are presumably the source files, not available via the front end of the site. If people start downloading those then maybe the "it's available as a loan (stream) only" defence no longer applies, and so they decided these source files had to be removed.

Or maybe the answer is even simpler: bandwidth. I've been downloading CNN files overnight since these links appeared on 911blogger, for instance, and have grabbed maybe 30GB in a few days. I expect others have been doing the same, and I wouldn't be surprised if hundreds, maybe thousands of files were being downloaded last night. Archive.org must have a lot of bandwidth, but even they might be concerned if traffic increases by hundreds of gigabytes a day, in which case moving the files is exactly what anyone would do.

And this would explain why precisely the file provoking all the excitement in woowooland is still available.

 

[Aphelion]

Computer problem. Problem with unexpected amount of computer use. The only hypothesis that doesn't make sense is yours, since the cows are out of the barn.

Maybe some cows are still in the barn. It's interesting that every video except the one in question is gone from archive.org. It isn't about bandwidth.

Im so glad im not a coincidence theorist. You are struggling. I understand the corner you have painted yourself into.

 

[Totovader]

Well, if you go to the site and search for 9/11 TV you'll find pages like http://www.archive.org/details/bbc200100112023-2104 . They carefully note that it's available as a "loan (stream) only" (and note the stream is still available). I'd hazard a guess that's the only way they can legally distribute someone else's content.

The archives you were talking about, though, are presumably the source files, not available via the front end of the site. If people start downloading those then maybe the "it's available as a loan (stream) only" defence no longer applies, and so they decided these source files had to be removed.

Or maybe the answer is even simpler: bandwidth. I've been downloading CNN files overnight since these links appeared on 911blogger, for instance, and have grabbed maybe 30GB in a few days. I expect others have been doing the same, and I wouldn't be surprised if hundreds, maybe thousands of files were being downloaded last night. Archive.org must have a lot of bandwidth, but even they might be concerned if traffic increases by hundreds of gigabytes a day, in which case moving the files is exactly what anyone would do.

This is exactly what I would suspect- although it's a shame that they're no longer available (hopefully not for long) because I'd like to get my hands on them as well.

I'm betting the conspiracists are just frothing at the mouth to pour over even more footage, invent more "inconsistencies", and add audio tracks to even more footage. Having the original source footage is the only way to combat that.

If I had a lot of money, and big balls, and lawyers with big balls- I'd host all the footage, no matter what it said.

 

[PerryLogan]

I stick with the big anomilies - and this is pretty big

Yes, each and every Truther picks out the stuff he believes, based on his own intuition. The result is that no two Truthers believe exactly the same thing. On the contrary, they attack one another and declare one another's beliefs absurd.