Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
konstantinius
General
Joined: 22-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 762
|
Quote Reply
Topic: What do you think happened on 9/11? Posted: 07-Jan-2007 at 07:34 |
I also agree that the report did not lie on purpose. Perhaps it didn't push hard enough to get all those answers. But lets not forget that a good many of the "conspiracy" theories are based precisely on the (mis)findings of that report. The report is written as to not deal a decisive blow to the "system"; yet it upholds the traditional values of audit and dissent inherent to democratic societies by highlighting many of the inadequacies without necessarily trying to point to culprits.
Edited by konstantinius - 08-Jan-2007 at 01:13
|
" I do disagree with what you say but I'll defend to my death your right to do so."
|
|
pekau
Caliph
Atlantean Prophet
Joined: 08-Oct-2006
Location: Korea, South
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3335
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Jan-2007 at 21:41 |
Possibly responsible by CIA's ULTRA program to get the brainwashed assassins (Assassins are possbily from Arabic background to make US easier to blame on Middle East) and had them to hijack the planes which collided the World Trade Centre. The other attacks may not have been a plane crash, especially the pentagon attack.
So who's responsible? It was Kyle. (Watch South Park, if you don't get it)
|
Join us.
|
|
King John
Chieftain
Joined: 01-Dec-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1366
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Jan-2007 at 21:58 |
That was a very good episode. Especially the end when they summed up by saying that because 1/4 of the population are retards the Gov't has to act like they were responsible or something like that.
|
|
Zagros
Emperor
Suspended
Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Jan-2007 at 15:46 |
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.
|
|
King John
Chieftain
Joined: 01-Dec-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1366
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Jan-2007 at 16:01 |
Wow it seems that some people are grasping at straws here. You really think that the American gov't would kill its own people?
|
|
Zagros
Emperor
Suspended
Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Jan-2007 at 16:12 |
John, this is all I have left to say on this matter:
Do you really think a parent would really kill his/her child for profit?
Have you watched the film? I don't just mean the first ten minutes. I am 34 minutes into the 90 minutes and I don't need to hear or see any more.
Listen to the witnesses, your fellow Americans who were there; firemen and other civilians. Go to 36 mins and watch from there.
All of this draconian legislation passed under the Neo-Con regime has a purpose, just wait... when people go out onto the streets to protest this huge betrayal and violation they will be crushed without mercy.
Edited by Zagros - 15-Jan-2007 at 16:46
|
|
King John
Chieftain
Joined: 01-Dec-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1366
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Jan-2007 at 16:57 |
My brother was there so I have heard witness testimony. I have watched the film and just because a handful of people think that it is a controlled demolition doesn't make it true. I could walk into my neighbor's backyard blow-up his house and then blame it on the Gov't. Just because I say this doesn't make it true. Funny I haven't see any protests crushed without mercy, actually if the gov't did that they would be violating the Constitution and would cause more protests and possibly a revolt of some sort.
In response to your question parents kill their children all the time. My question to you was about whether the Gov't would kill it's own people not parents killing children. If you still want to pose that question I ask thusly; How many people in the American Federal Gov't lost relatives/children in the WTC?
|
|
Zagros
Emperor
Suspended
Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Jan-2007 at 17:18 |
Well, those people didn't think it was a controlled demolition they didn't even mention demolition. I don't know where you got that from... not the movie anyway.
|
|
King John
Chieftain
Joined: 01-Dec-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1366
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Jan-2007 at 17:35 |
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.
|
|
Zagros
Emperor
Suspended
Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Jan-2007 at 17:42 |
How do you explain the "squibs", clearly visible when watching the buildings collapse? How do you explain the explosions beneath ground level prior to the buildings' collapse as reported and experienced by firemen and Mr. Rodriguez (security)?
setImgWidth();
Edited by Zagros - 15-Jan-2007 at 17:44
|
|
bg_turk
Sultan
Joined: 28-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2347
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Jan-2007 at 01:15 |
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?
|
|
|
Zagros
Emperor
Suspended
Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Feb-2007 at 19:18 |
It was one off google video that started out with a guy saying that he was shocked and outraged by accusations that the US govt. would ever commit this crime... he set out to prove otherwise, but information he came across was consistant with the accusations.
Anyway, this is a find and I have no idea how it remained undiscovered for over five years:
BBC reports WTC7 collapse 23 minutes befor eit actually came down... allegedly they received "information indicating as such" from a source. Very sketchy indeed.
|
|
Dolphin
Arch Duke
Suspended
Joined: 06-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1551
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Mar-2007 at 09:15 |
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?
|
|
bg_turk
Sultan
Joined: 28-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2347
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Mar-2007 at 11:22 |
Zagros, Thanks for posting this. I was planning to, but never had the time. I think this is a very important piece of news, and may as well be the turning point towards a new independent investigation. Dolphin, The BBC official response can be found here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.htmlSo far they have neither denied nor confirmed the authenticity of the video. They claim they cannot check their archives because they have lost the video of one the defining moments of the century! It will be very hard for them to deny the authenticity of this video, because millions have watched it on that day, including myself (though I do not remember this particular reporter, I am sure the news presenter is authentic). I hope that we will eventually get a satisfactory answer to how they new the building was going to collapse.
Edited by bg_turk - 01-Mar-2007 at 11:24
|
|
|
Ovidius
Baron
Joined: 20-Jun-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 422
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Mar-2007 at 11:38 |
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
|
|
bg_turk
Sultan
Joined: 28-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2347
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Mar-2007 at 11:59 |
Originally posted by Ovidius
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.
|
I can accept that the BBC made a mistake, but I will never believe that the BBC has psychic powers. How likely is it to mistakenly report that a building collapsed 5 mins before it actually did collapse "spontaneously"? I would literally give anything to see the expression on the face of the reporter when she actually saw the collapse of that building behind her 5 minutes after she was conveniently cut off.
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.
|
The main point is nobody could have known the building was going to collapse, because supposedly it collapsed spontaneously due to structural damage. The
source of this information would indeed be the key to debunking the official story and understanding who really staged the collapse
of WTC7.
|
|
|
Zagros
Emperor
Suspended
Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Mar-2007 at 13:06 |
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.
|
|
Ovidius
Baron
Joined: 20-Jun-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 422
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Mar-2007 at 15:22 |
you are right, the BBC probably didn't 'make it up'. They probably got a report about it from somewhere, within the confusion. But you never know how that report was.
My guess is that the report was somethnig to do with buildings around the area being in jeapordy or someone reported that this specific building may be at risk, which was misunderstood. I think if you looked through the whole report you will find more anomalies.
There are 2 options, either the people who collapsed the WTC7 Building gave the BBC information about what was going to happen before the time... But how is that likely, why would they report a collapse of a building if they wanted it to stay a secret, let alone report it to an independent News source. Thats really a silly way of linking up the situation.
Or the BBC made an error based on the reports they got.
Zagros - stupid mistakes are made all the time in such situations. Other examples are the rolling news of Iraq. Eventhough I'm not aware of anyone studying the BBC's news of that period, there will have been numerous stupid errors reported.
On the studies I have done, I found some ridiculous assersions made by the BBC and other news sources. They just don't get picked up because they are about events that no one is really interested in.
Now although I'm sure there is something going on with the WTC7 Building, I just don't understand how the two things can be connected in anyway. Even if i put my conspiracy hat on.
The only other thing I'd say is how much has this been mainpulated? Why is there no time stamps on any of the reports? It all seems a bit odd, considering this didn't 'come out' until 2007?!? 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?
Edited by Ovidius - 01-Mar-2007 at 15:31
|
|
bg_turk
Sultan
Joined: 28-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2347
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Mar-2007 at 16:05 |
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=gPxnS3PDqIgand also on CNN ">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1LetB0z8_o
Edited by bg_turk - 01-Mar-2007 at 16:12
|
|
|
Ovidius
Baron
Joined: 20-Jun-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 422
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Mar-2007 at 16:27 |
so the second report is at the time saying it may collapse and the BBC said it has collapsed.
Simple mistake?
|
|