What do you think happened on 9/11?

I concur, Super Goat (^_^).

Here's what two of the letters said, it's from wikipedia,

The New York Post and NBC News letters contained the following note:

09-11-01

THIS IS NEXT

TAKE PENACILIN [sic] NOW

DEATH TO AMERICA

DEATH TO ISRAEL

ALLAH IS GREAT

The second note that was addressed to Senators Daschle and Leahy read:

09-11-01

YOU CAN NOT STOP US.

WE HAVE THIS ANTHRAX.

YOU DIE NOW.

ARE YOU AFRAID?

DEATH TO AMERICA.

DEATH TO ISRAEL.

ALLAH IS GREAT.

One of the victims is from my town, the old lady that died. But I heard it was just a coincidence that she got it at the sametime due to their being low levels of it in soil by farms.

Questions:

On it's own, this is not very significant, but given the dubious circumstances surrounding 911 it is.

Originally posted by Ovidius  and that most of the info is from a blog. Not to mention that most of the reports are from BBC World and not the BBC?

It was actually also reported on BBC24
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPxnS3PDqIg

and also on CNN
">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1LetB0z8_o




Edited by bg_turk - 01-Mar-2007 at 16:12

There was a 23 minute gap between the BBC reporting its collapse and its actually collapsing.  I refuse to believe the BBC simply made up that WTC7 collapsed out of the blue - what a stupid thing to report, if unverified.  There was onbviously a cock up in the media food orchestration.

As someone who dabbles in Media History I have to tell you how normal this is.

The BBC has a long history of losing its live reports, especially if they are wrong.

The BBC and other media sources have a long history of making things up to fill the news when they are covering a situation live. The BBC, on 11/9 was constantly running from the moment the event occurred until it finished. If archives existed, you would be able to go to Colindale and get them, News 24 is ALWAYS there as are the news reports from the day - 9am news, 1pm news, 6pm news and 10pm news. But in cases of Live, non organised, news reports in a time of crisis, there are obvious reasons why they may have lost it.

As for the mistakes, who knows where the reports came from. The fact is 50% or so of what people report in times of confusion is normally wrong or based on specculation. Specifically, I have been involved in analysing the reports about Revolutions in the modern period. From Newspapers to TV News, most of the reports present many facts that when checked later just turned out not to be true. But they are missed because so much was going on and things continue to go on. They do not go back and look at mistakes, especially with TV News.

The most annoying thing is that TV News resources DO NOT record where they got information from either. They don't record who they talked too, nor do they record exactly where their reporters went. They rely heavily on the initiative of their people on teh ground and any work on what they were doing at specific times and where news specifically came from nearly always relies on the memories of those present at teh time, the producer or reseachers they had available or from notes created at the time, if notes were created.

Although I have very little knowledge of this case, I have personally been through BBC reports that have made some astonishing claims that have even altered the way contemporary History has been written, only to find that no one has any knowledge of where the information came from and find that most of it was untrue.

It is the nature of Chaos, you cannot reorganise chaos after it has happened. You cannot look into it and try and create some logic. On the 11th October everyone within the BBC was working as hard as they could, I'm sure. Things get missed, things get lost, things get confused.

One more thing - The truth about why it was reported etc will never come out. Probably because the answer is - no one Knows.

The only way to prove anything, one way or another, is to look at who reported to the BBC that day. Find out who said this building was going too or had collapsed. And work out why that information was misintepreted or whatever.


Edited by Ovidius - 01-Mar-2007 at 11:40

I also give a lot of credence to the conspiracy of controlled collaspe, but I think that most new stations show a pre-recorded image of the background behind their reporter. Could this explain the above discrepency?

Originally posted by Zagros After watching this, I must say, that without a shadow of a doubt, not just based on engineering and physical facts, but also on accounts of eye witnesses, the towers were 100% brought down with demolition techniques.   This was the Neo-Con Crystal Nacht, gives them the pretext to carry out their evil designs on the world.   The official story is a conspiraacy theory, this video is fact.

Witch one exactly did you watch?

I never said that the people in the film said it was a controlled demolition what I said was "I have watched the film and just because a handful of people think that it is a controlled demolition doesn't make it true." Although this statement might be ambiguous to some it infact never states that the people in the film felt it was a controlled demolition. I understand how some people could take the comment that way but it is not what I meant. What I meant was; I have watched the film. Just because a handful of people think that it is a controlled demolition doesn't make it true. The second part of that statement was aimed at some of the conspiracy theorists out there.