Wednesday, February 28, 2007

More from the BBC.

Another video has been found, this time from BBC news 24, with a UK timestamp.

The BBC is a nexus at the heart of the establishment, for all intents and purposes, it IS the establishment. Their number one priority with regards to 9/11 was to ignore the truth at all costs. Only when the truth would not go away, did they lend their enormous credibility to the 'official' conspiracy to try to shut up, once and for all, the so called conspiracy nutters.

The problem is, the people who made sure that 9/11 happened, left far too many clues and we are now living in an age where the information is available. We surfs are not stupid, and can make our own minds up. BBC take note, the truth movement will never let this go and after your inteventions in this subject area, you are either part of the solution, or you are part of the problem. You can decide which.

the facts remain. the BBC announced the collapse of a building with pre-prepared, detailed, specific talking points before the actual building collapsed.

These where not, "a source tells us", or "we are hearing that" sort of qualifications. this was reported as established fact with talking points.

1. Where did the talking points come from?

2. Who prepared them?

3. How did they know the building was going to collapse before it actually did?

4. How did they know the cause of the collapse five and a half years before NIST?

5. Did they provide talking points for WTC buildings 3, 4 and 5, (which where closer to the two towers), Just in case these buildings also fell down? if not, why not?

6. Why did the BBC not check this story at all? even to the extent of a glimpse through the window?

The BBC obviously trusted the source implicitly, or was following orders from ? whom?

If the source was trusted, then it must be part of the mainstream media, or the Government. first responders on the scene are not trusted enough to provide information, without it being checked, or attributed to them as a source. This story was niether checked, nor attributed. it was reported as established fact.

BBC, we are coming after you!.

EDIT ) 01 March 2007.

So, Google have removed the 'fair use' timestapmed clip from their website eh? WHY? If all this was a mistake on a shocking and confusing day, why hide it?

Why are the Questions not being answered and the footage that the questions refer to is constatantly being (pointlessly) removed? Something to hide?

The BBC videos of the report of WTC 7 collapsing, before it collapsed are available here:

Shouldn't someone let the Department of Homeland Security know about this?

Bush funding Al Queda? State sponsored terrorism brought to you by the GOP!

And as a brilliant put down of the ignorant and incompetenet Condi Rice:

'Nuff said!

The BBC responds! with utter contempt for our intelligence

My response to the BBC's contemptuous reply:

"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."

You did not get told in advance that the building was going to fall down? Then how did you report, from detailed talking points, that the Building had collapsed, what caused it to collapse, that people had been evacuated etc etc? BEFORE it had happened? clairvoyance? Tarot cards? Time Machine? This is BBC world service, not some two piece amatuer wacko news like FOX or SKY! HOW THE HELL COULD YOU NOT EVEN LOOK THROUGH THE WINDOW AND SEE THAT THE BUILDING WAS STILL STANDING??? Your excuse is not good enough by a long shot! The news crew obviously picked the information about the Solomon Brothers Building collapsing from somewhere and had talking points prepared and even had the news ticker saying that the Solomon Brothers Building had collapsed. This all happened BEFORE the building collapsed.

"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."

There where no "qualifying words" in the ticker. The additional information that was discussed were void of the kind of qualifying statements that should have been used too, considering that the building in question was clearly visible over the reporter's shoulder. This was a pre prepared set of talking points presented as established fact. Who would prepare these talking points before the building had actually collapsed, and WHY? Were there also talking points prepared for any of the other buildings in the WTC complex, for just in case they collapsed also? If not why not? How could they have known in advance that the building would collapse? and how would they know the cause in advance too, when NIST still have not decided how wtc 7 collapsed over 5 years later?

"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."

You have just contradicted your point in number 1. Either you were being told or you were not. Which is it? and if so, who by?

"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."

You can get copies that are flying all over the internet. If the BBC was engaged in any serious genuine investigative journalism, that should not be a problem. Why not recruit a proper journalist, like Mike Rivero, or Alex Jones? They have more footage of that day than the BBC do apparently.

"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... ""

An error, sure, but who gave you the detailed talking points before the building had collapsed? How did they know it was going to collapse?

This is the key point here. That many many first responders, police, fire fighters, emergency workers, amblulance workers have all come forward and told that they where told that they were going to 'bring the building down' Larry Silverstein, the leaseholder of the WTC complex, admitted on PBS that they decided to pull the building. It may be this news that was misconstrued and reported mistakenly as fact, before the building was pulled, BUT the point is, this shows pre-determination that the building was to be brought down. How long does it take to do that? was the building wired up before 9/11 to be brought down?

WTC 7 was quite a long distance from the two towers. There where other buildings between the two towers and wtc 7. No plane hit wtc 7. No steel frame building has ever collapsed due to fire prior to, or since 9/11. Even large skyscrapers that have burned for days and days have not collapsed.

All this information added together is VERY suspicious, and for the BBC to try to brush this under the carpet and dismiss it, instead of investigate is just staggeringly unbelieveable. The last part where you quote some loon from youtube is just beyond a joke. I could quote some nutter from youtube saying that 9/11 was caused by aliens, would that automatically make it true?

Your defence of this is far from satisfactory, and in fact is bordering on contemptuous. Enquiring minds want to know the truth, as the official version of what happened that day, the Government and mainstream media backed version is a wacky conspiracy theory that has been massively debunked. Why cannot the BBC take this seriously and actually investigate?

Is the BBC too scared?

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

What has the BBC to say about this?

Below is a message that I have sent to the BBC. Now I am NOT claiming that the BBC is part of a conspiracy and it was inside the 'inside job'! Nor am I suggesting that those who may possibly (but not certainly) be behind an inside job have given the BBC inside knowledge of it in advance. That would be preposterous.

I suspect that in the confusion of that day, the BBC picked up some prematurely released, and possibly speculative talking points and ran with them, WITHOUT ANY INVESTIGATION AT ALL! All they had to do was look out of the window for pity's sake, but no! they ran with a story that the Solomon Brothers Building has just collapsed and read off the pre-prepared talking points of how and why it collapsed, whilst the building in question was clearly STILL STANDING in the background!

As for some of the people querying this news, it was live, (as the ticker proves) it was filmed in front of a window - NOT A PREVIOUS RUN VIDEO, the news anchor in Manhatten turns and look out of the window at the scene to describe it. Additionally the time can be Established as the newsreader in London says that the attacks started eight hours previously and there is a top of the hour news headline review during the clip. This clearly places the time of this live news as being before WTC 7 Collapses.

The established facts therefore are that the BBC prematurely announces a building collapses 25 minutes before it actually does.

below is my submission to the BBC. If I get a response I shall post it immediately:

I know that on 9/11 there where many conflicting reports surfacing and there was lots of confusion, but given the revelations surrounding WTC 7, from the admission by it's leaseholder (Larry Silverstien) on PBS that he ordered the building 'pulled' and the revelations that emergency crews on the scene were told in advance that the building was to be brought down, is it not suspicious that the BBC reported that the building had collapsed a full 25 minutes before it actually did, and that the building was visible behind the correspondent clearly standing as she was describing, live, how and why it had collapsed?

This video is blazing around the internet and being seen by hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions. the BBC's reputation as an accurate reporter of news is at risk.

What is the BBC's response to this?
Why did you run with a set of talking points before they had been checked?
Where did these talking points come from?
Who prepared them in advance of the building collapsing? and Why?
How did the source of the talking points know that the building was likely to collapse?

No steel framed building (not leased by Mr Silverstien) has ever collapsed due to fire and there is significant doubt surrounding the cause of this particular building. The BBC's lax editorial control is adding fuel to the conspiracies surrounding this building and the rest of the attacks in general. What have you got to say for yourselves?

Will the BBC respond accurately or honestly? Watch this space.

Monday, February 12, 2007

Propaganda Extravaganza

So I have spent a good deal of this evening reading the accounts of the "highly" secretive, "ultra-classified" and "on monumental background" Iran briefing that the White House orchestrated today, just in time for Monday's breaking news. What is quite clear is that US corporate press has become an extension of the White House public relations department.
Under what circumstances would the following criteria for a news story ever be considered "journalism:"

The U.S. Administration have been caught lying again and again to deliberately and willfully launch un-neccessary wars. Why should we believe them now, on such utterly pathetic and flimsy evidence (and that is being generous) and when the stakes are so much higher.

As I have been saying, until I am blue in the face, the intelligence was NOT wrong on Iraq. the intelligence community was constantly telling the Pentagon and the Whitehouse that they could NOT corroberate the intelligence coming from the zionist office of special plans. Feith was twisting, exaggerating and inventing evidence of WMD plans, even from known disreputable single sources.

IN FACT: there are more witnesses that can claim that WTC 7 was deliberately brought down in a controlled demolition on the afternoon of 911, than there where to corroberate the lies coming out of the office of special plans. many, many, separate emergency workers have come forward stating that they were told to evacuate the media and the public out of the vacinity as the Building was going to be "BLOWN UP"