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:
2 comments:
These entries are the ravings of a mad man. It's a shame that such a wonderful facility as the internet has resulted in people like you getting a platform for your imbecilic views.
Andy, thank you so much for taking the time to comment on my blog.
You will understand that I disagree with your comment, but I do thank you for it and appreciate your time in doing so..
Are you a qualified psychotherapist? Or a psychiatrist? Have you any qualifications to back up your claims that these are the ravings of a mad man? or is it purely your own 'beliefs' that are being challenged causing you to think this?
Do you not think it strange that the BBC, accurately managed to report on the collapse of a building 25 minutes before it happened? There are many many people who do and they are asking very reasonable questions that the BBC is refusing to answer. The BBC are even actively avoiding the questions to the extent of lying and contradicting themselves, adding to the notion of the possible suspicion of a cover up.
I know many people believe many different things and that is good. people believe all kinds of things on pure faith alone, without any evidence to back their beliefs up. Including on 9/11.
Some people (not me) believe that George Bush is responsible for 9/11 without there being a shred of evidence to prove it. They are basing those beliefs on pure faith.
Some people (not me) believe that the US administration (or even some elements therof) could never ever be a part of this conspiracy and did nothing and could never ever have done anything to encourage these attack to happen. Again, there is no evidence available to support this contention either. Pure faith in an honest and democratic government is what these people are baseing their beliefs on.
I would like to see actual proof, before I determine a definitive cause. I have not seen proof, but I have seen a huge amount of contradictory evidence that both supports parts of, and provides agreat deal of doubt in many other parts of the 'official conspiracy theory' of 9/11.
I have never supported the no plane at the pentagon theory, nor the pod theory. whilst interesting, there is not enough evidence for me to wholey support them. Whereas the example of WTC 7 contains many areas of evidential support for an official involvement in the collapse. NOTE I am NOT claiming that this is proof, merely an example opf evidence pointing in a number of directions. This is why this needs to be PROPERLY investigated. and the laws of physics should NOT be conveniently ignored if they contradict the official conclusion.
There are many reasonable doubts surrounding WTC 7.
These reasonable doubts are what causes many many people to ask questions. What, prey, is wrong with that?
Or do you prefer to base your beliefs in pure faith rather than rational thought and evidencial proof? That is your right, but do not expect to be taken seriously in any kind of evidential based debate.
Again thank you for your assertions and faith based opinion.
Post a Comment