|
Post by smatt834 on Feb 28, 2007 15:32:47 GMT -5
If this doesn't prove conspiracy I don't know what does. The BBC reported on 9-11 that Building 7 collapsed literally 20 minutes before it did. In fact you can see building 7 directly behind the reporter. And it's still standing. This video is time stamped. There is no denying what you are watching. The down side to all this is that over the last few days Google, Youtube, and other sites have been pulling the video almost the moment it goes up. To get yourself started I would go here so you can get an idea of what was happening on the day this video was discovered. digg.com/politics/BBC_Reported_Building_7_Had_Collapsed_20_Minutes_Before_It_FellTHIS IS ABSOLUTE PROOF that something strange is indeed going on. Instead of you seeing this on your nightly news it is instead buried and deleted all over the internet. However this attempt has been unsuccessful as truthers around the world continue to archive and download this information. The 9-11 coverup is about to unravel in the faces of those who would decieve us. Here is some links, that at the time I am writing this still work. video.google.com/videosearch?q=BBC+wtc+7+Salomonwww.infowars.com/articles/sept11/bbc_wtc_7_timestamp_confirms_bbc_reported_collapse_26_min_advance.htmAnd a little quote so all of you don't think I'm claiming that the whole of BBC is somehow involved in an elaborate conspiracy. "The only information they need to give out is the source of the collapse claim. No one is saying the BBC is "part of the conspiracy," we're saying that someone gave that reporter the information ahead of time. The source of that information is the only thing they can reveal that would be meaningful." and one last link for good measure where you can find video from the PBS documentary "Rebuilding America's Defenses", wherein the owner of Building 7, Larry Silverstein, literally says, "we made the decision to pull it, so thats what we did, we pulled it" Pulled is industry lingo for demolish the building. And we all know that it takes weeks or even months to set up an implosion properly. www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/260207building7.htmThe fact that the BBC reported on the collapse of Building 7 over twenty minutes in advance of its implosion obviously provokes a myriad of questions as to how they knew it was about to come down when the official story says its collapse happened accidentally as a result of fire damage and debris weakening the building's structure. ACTION: E Mail the BBC and ask them to clarify exactly why their reporter is announcing the collapse of Building 7 before it has collapsed. news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/3281777.stm
|
|
|
Post by smatt834 on Feb 28, 2007 17:11:41 GMT -5
just a little addition to the story. BBC has officially responded. They claim they cannot go back and check to see because they have accidentaly lost all of their archived tapes. www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.htmlim gonna break down a couple of the BBC's statements for you all. "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. " If this is true, then how on earth did the BBC report the collapse of Building 7 before it happened? Psychic clairvoyance? Of course they were told that WTC 7 was coming down, just like the firefighters, police, first responders and CNN were told it was coming down. www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/100207heardbombs.htm"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." How do "chaos and confusion" explain how the BBC reported on the collapse of a building, a collapse that happened "unexpectedly" according to their Conspiracy Files hit piece documentary, before it happened? In one breath the BBC is claiming they were not told of the impending collapse of the Building and in the next they are telling us that all their information is sourced. Which is it to be? Did the BBC have a source telling them the building was about to collapse or not? If not, how on earth could they pre-empt its fall? Do BBC reporters have access to a time machine? "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." Trying to make sense of what she was being told? She obviously didn't make much sense of the fact that the Building she was reporting had collapsed was prominently standing behind her! Unfortunately, for a news organization that prides itself on accuracy and credibility, "she doesn't remember" just doesn't cut it as an excuse. "4. We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of thingy-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. " We are asked to believe that the world's premiere news organization has somehow lost all its tapes of perhaps the biggest news event of the past 60 years. This is a copout. Whether they have lost the tapes or not, the BBC simply doesn't want to verify one hundred per cent their monumental foul-up, because they know it would only increase the exposure of this issue and lead to further questions. What is there to clear up? The reporter is standing in front of the building while saying it has already collapsed! This is a blatant effort to try and placate people making complaints while refusing to admit a monumental faux pas that further undermines the BBC's credibility in the aftermath of the Conspiracy Files debacle . "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... " " So now the BBC are so devoid of answers, they have to enlist the help of some moronic comment on a You Tube blog? Instead of issuing official statements and seeking the advice of legal professionals they produce a cobbled together five paragraph blog and include the testimony of some moron on a You Tube comment board. Pathetic! Answer the question BBC - what was your source for reporting on multiple occasions that Building 7 had collapsed before it had collapsed, and identify the source that enabled the anchorman to comment that the building had collapsed due to it being weakened, an explanation still unanswered by NIST five and a half years later.
|
|
|
Post by DrShot on Feb 28, 2007 20:32:22 GMT -5
I am not sure if the tapes are acurate or not. BBC( the reporter) was alerted to the collapse of the building: Could She have misspoken the building(number) name? Could she have been selected as the person to tell everyone about some sabotage b4 it actually happened? (hey, we want to ignigte a spark of hatred towards a group for our cause -to start a war perhaps- now lets<<leak>> inform someone about it instead of them just waiting a few mins. and obviously seeing it themselves. yea, certainly worth the risk.) It really sounds like BS to me. however if it is on tape it MUST be absolute proof... BTW, go to worth1000.com you'll see some things there that have far better clarity than the ape and are proof positive they exist as well
|
|
|
Post by notagoodname on Mar 1, 2007 1:05:05 GMT -5
Fact: Whether you beleive the conspiricy or not the reporter obviously didn't know which building was building 7. Otherwise they wouldn't have had building 7 standing right there in the background.
So given that the reporter didn't know which building was building 7 they may well have been refferring to the buildings which had collapsed by that time. They simply got the name of the buildings wrong.
|
|
|
Post by DrShot on Mar 1, 2007 2:41:45 GMT -5
The Mona Lisa was defaced, here is ABOSOLUTE PROOF! ...just making a point... again. Anyway, since when has the USA ever required a reason to go kick some ass? Therefore this 9/11 "plot" as a motive routine gets old. What reason would it serve?
|
|
|
Post by DrShot on Mar 1, 2007 2:43:18 GMT -5
I just realized that was a terrible pun, unintended, I apologize!
|
|
|
Post by cryptococcus on Mar 1, 2007 3:50:12 GMT -5
Smatt834 is a terrorist! I agree with Dr. Shot, maybe we did need a reason to go fight for oil, but they could of come up with something easier than this plot you claim.
|
|
|
Post by smatt834 on Mar 2, 2007 16:18:57 GMT -5
If the tapes didn't exist why would BBC make a sad attempt at pacification by MAKING A PUBLIC STATEMENT regarding the matter? www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.htmlIf there wasn't something strange about the whole situation surrounding the video, why would google, BBC, Digg, and a others, be making a huge attempt to remove and delete the video? 48 hours after the BBC issued its pathetic rebuttal to startling footage that shows their correspondent Jane Standley live on 9/11 reporting the collapse of Building 7 as it mockingly stands behind her , and the inconceivable excuse that the BBC has lost its 9/11 tapes, no establishment media has picked up on the story, not even to dismiss it as a "conspiracy theory." All people want to know is what was BBC's source for the info. There was no mix up on building numbers. The Salomon Building is WTC Building 7. Think what you will all I'm asking is that you watch the story unfold. infowars.com/articles/sept11/media_blacklists_bbc_fiasco_google_digg_censor_911_truth.htm
|
|
|
Post by cv431410 on Mar 2, 2007 16:35:39 GMT -5
If there wasn't something strange about the whole situation surrounding the video, why would google, BBC, Digg, and a others, be making a huge attempt to remove and delete the video? Finding a video will soon be done by machine so it will not be a huge attempt. See attrasoft.com/videofinder70/
|
|
|
Post by thegreatsatan on Mar 5, 2007 11:52:07 GMT -5
I gotta say this is interesting. Kinda reminds me of how Nero had a couple guys burn out a area of down town Rome so he could build a massive palace (freedom tower) there. Could just be history repeating itself. In that case, let the next dark age begin.
|
|
|
Post by smatt834 on Mar 5, 2007 17:04:47 GMT -5
yes Nero is a great example of false flag terror. the Christians were out of control according to Nero so he had some buddies burn down part of rome and blamed it on the christians. classic example, good for you to catch it I really wish some of the Spaniards on the ladder would interject here and tell some of these peeps about the Windsor building in Madrid!!!! Just adding 2 things to this. On Friday the BBC responded with a second public statement regarding this matter. It can be found here..... www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/03/part_of_the_conspiracy_2.htmlThe other side of this debate has also responded to this second statement. It can be found here.... infowars.com/articles/sept11/bbc_yellow_journalism_backfired.htmwhichever camp you hang your hat in, you gotta admit this is quite interesting
|
|