BBC reported WTC7 collapse 30 minutes before it happened

jessop1

After shooting itself in the foot with its ridiculously biased 9/11 "hitpiece" aired last week, the BBC's credibility takes yet another nosedive as 9/11 footage recently coming to light shows a bbc reporter talking about the collapse of WTC7 (also known as the Salomon Brothers Building) while the building can be clearly seen still standing behind her. It is believed that this report was aired around 30mins before the wtc7 collapse, although no timestamp can be fully confirmed. Regardless of this though, the video itself is the smoking gun.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/270207trustanything.htm

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/270207bbcresponds.htm

the reality of the conspiracy is coming more and more into public awareness...

So Glad

What the hell? Thats crazy. How can she say it collapsed when it's standing right behind her? This is MADNESS......

oleras

the irony....

Though the video was almost immediately purged by the crowned kings of censorship - Google

......who are they using as a search engine for the site ?

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

i suppose much the same as our own RTE reporter outside the hospitals telling us about the unionist that died up north... he died next morning.

Mitch Connor

Maybe they were told it was going to come down, misunderstood and in haste, reported that it had come down, while not actually being aware what building they were talking about.

jessop1

So Glad wrote:

What the hell? Thats crazy. How can she say it collapsed when it's standing right behind her? This is MADNESS......

Yes, it is.

Any attempts to debunk this can only be clutching at very thin straws.

DublinWriter

I can just see David Icke having a field day with this: "The BBC...the Illuminati!...look carefully at 2.37 and the reporter changes into a shape-shifting lizard!"

Seriously, I do believe 9/11 was somewhat of an inside job, WTC7 being the loose-thread in the overall jumper, but to suggest that the BBC were complicit is nutz. Nutz, not because the BBC is beyond reproach (which they are not!), but nutz because the BBC is one of the most shambolic and beurocratic organisations you'll ever encounter.

I'd suggest, given the overall drama and panic of the day, they were told that WTC7 was about to collapse and the reporter arsed it up.

But it still begs the question, how were they so sure (not the BBC, whoever told the BBC) that WTC7 was about to collapse when it looked so structurally intact and had only a handful of fires inside?

jessop1

they are complicit because they are shills and yes men who do and say what they are told. No-one is accusing them of having the mental capacity to be masterminds behind the whole thing. That doesnt exhonerate them of their services to very very evil people. (or lizards as the case may be)

DublinWriter

The official BBC response:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html

Note how in point 1 he states "Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th." then contradicts himself in point 3 "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." (my emphasis)

bonkey

How is that contradictory?

The BBC says no-one told The BBC what to say or do, but says that a BBC reporter was being fed information from other BBC colleagues who were monitoring information sources.

So, the BBC received info from one-way-communications, the BBC decided internally what to pass on to the BBC reporter, who then reported on it. Where in this is there a contradiction with the assertion that no-one told the BBC what to do???

Diogenes

jessop1 wrote:

they are complicit because they are shills and yes men who do and say what they are told. No-one is accusing them of having the mental capacity to be masterminds behind the whole thing. That doesnt exhonerate them of their services to very very evil people. (or lizards as the case may be)

Jessop are you suggesting that the dozens of BBC reporters, technicans, camera people, editors, producers and directors were in on "teh conspiracy"? If so, how have they been kept silenced over the years?

So Glad wrote:

What the hell? Thats crazy. How can she say it collapsed when it's standing right behind her? This is MADNESS......

Why yes So Glad it is standing right behind her. At least a mile right behind her. With the benefit of hindsight she looks like she's foolish or lying but tell me this; On the day of sept 11th 2001, could you idenitify WTC7 in the NYC sky line? Did you even know there were more than two building in the WTC complex? And which is more plausible that the BBC were in on the fact that the WTC 7 was about to be brought down in a controlled demolition, and leaked the news too soon? Or that the BBC recieved constant reports throughout the day that the WTC 7 was in danger of, or about to collaspe. Reports that have been already published on this forum. Statements from FNDY personal about the building being fully involved in fire, and in serious structural danger of collaspe.

So using Occam's razor which is more plausible that the BBC accidently jumped the gun (BTW do I need to provide further examples of live 24hr rolling news cock ups?) or that yet more people were in on this ever sprawling conspiracy theory?

mike65

Oh noes! Comfusing rains!

Seriously folks GET A FUPPING LIFE

Mike.

jessop1

As I've said, the debunking attempts on this one can only be clutching at thin straws, in the face of the smoking gun evidence.

So far on this thread we've seen - attack the messenger, irellevant comparisons, attempts to sidetrack the debate etc.

Quoting Diogenes:
"Jessop are you suggesting that the dozens of BBC reporters, technicans, camera people, editors, producers and directors were in on "teh conspiracy"? If so, how have they been kept silenced over the years?"

No Diogenes, as I believe you well know. We've had this argument before where you attempt to imply that in order for any covert media manipulation to occur everyone from the camera man to the tea boy must be in it otherwise it wouldnt work, therefore it cannot be happening. This is of course ridiculous - to suggest it is not only is it an insult to my and others intelligence, its an insult to your own intelligence I feel! Media corporations, like all corporations, governments and power structures are controlled through hierarchies, where only those at the top have absolute knowledge and power and where the scope for unchecked corruption at this top level is massive.

But anyway, I digress (as many a debunker here would have it ).

The bottom line on this thread is that the BBC have been caught here with their pants down bigtime and no amount of debunking attempts can cover it up or muddy the waters this time

peace y'all :cool:

Diogenes

jessop1 wrote:

As I've said, the debunking attempts on this one can only be clutching at thin straws, in the face of the smoking gun evidence.

So far on this thread we've seen - attack the messenger, irellevant comparisons, attempts to sidetrack the debate etc.

No. We've asked some simple questions which you've side stepped. You call this a smoking gun. A smoking gun that proves what crime?

That the towers were in danger of collaspe? Not even worthy of debate. I've literally quoted two dozens FDNY personal on the ground on the day who stated that they knew that WTC 7 was in danger of collapse. DublinWriter is still ignoring the evidence of the massive widepsread fires, that the building was "fully involved" in fire. And recieved serious structural damage from falling debry.

That the BBC were in on this? You've not provided a shred of evidence that the BBC isn't jumping the gun. They've recieved reports that the building is danger of, or about to collapse, and that there was a crossed wire on the day, and a miscommunication.

No Diogenes, as I believe you well know. We've had this argument before where you attempt to imply that in order for any covert media manipulation to occur everyone from the camera man to the tea boy must be in it otherwise it wouldnt work, therefore it cannot be happening. This is of course ridiculous - to suggest it is not only is it an insult to my and others intelligence, its an insult to your own intelligence I feel! Media corporations, like all corporations, governments and power structures are controlled through hierarchies, where only those at the top have absolute knowledge and power and where the scope for unchecked corruption at this top level is massive.

Yes Jessop you've made this claim before. Where you have fallen down is when you've been asked to clarify who in these media corporations are "in on it". The head of news? The board of governors? The director general?

Jessop I sincerely doubt you've been in the gallery of a major news organisation in the midst of a major breaking news story. But can you not imagine how bizarre it would be if the Director General, or Head of News buzzed in and informed the Director that WTC 7 had collapsed? How out of place and bizarre should a call would be placed? How the director, and his technicans, and everyone else who overhears this call wouldn't comment on this?

But anyway, I digress (as many a debunker here would have it ).

The bottom line on this thread is that the BBC have been caught here with their pants down bigtime and no amount of debunking attempts can cover it up or muddy the waters this time

peace y'all :cool:

No. I don't really thinks that what happened hear at all. If anyone is clutching at straws its the conspiracy theorists. You keep shouting that this is a smoking gun, you just cannot tell us just what this proves.

mike65

Media screws up during live coverage in chaotic environment shocker!

Bored desk-bound mouse-clicking monkey posts about it 6 years later shocker.

I just read through this and the comments thread on PrisonPlanet (!) , really you are in the company of total fruits.

Mike.

is_that_so

Look at US networks calling the US Presidential Election 2000 or Sky any day of the week for two simple examples. Big stories like that cause enormous confusion and there tend to be a lot of "unconfirmed reports". That venerable institution "The Sun" used to have a sign (so it is said) which said "Make it fast, Make it accurate". Proper journalism works the other way round but with 24 TV that luxury doesn't exist any more.
I recall the day well myself and there was huge confusion over what was happening, what had happened and when things happened.
With respect to the OP, your premise is flimsy at best and merely reinforces the comments of the X-Files writer at the end of the

ridiculously biased 9/11 "hitpiece"

.

Diogenes

is_that_so wrote:

Look at US networks calling the US Presidential Election 2000 or Sky any day of the week for two simple examples. Big stories like that cause enormous confusion and there tend to be a lot of "unconfirmed reports". That venerable institution "The Sun" used to have a sign (so it is said) which said "Make it fast, Make it accurate". Proper journalism works the other way round but with 24 TV that luxury doesn't exist any more.

Sky News' internal informal staff motto is;
"Sky News. Never wrong for long."

For those who believe the BBC could never make such a cock up. Remember this guy?

DublinWriter

mike65 wrote:

Oh noes! Comfusing rains!

LIZARD LANGUAGE! The mask finally slips!

...I for one always had my doubts about you, Mike65, or should I say TRANTOR OF THE ELIXIS NEBULAE!

mike65

Heh! Reading through those website threads one has to wonder about how many would be worthy subjects for Jon Ronson.

A poster asks why does the feed from NY suddenly die about two mins before the block in question collapses. Well it died due to a tecnical SNAFU, to suggest anything other is to invite ridicule. I mean its not like John Birt (in charge of BBC at the time) is a Jew or anything.

Mike.

jessop1

mike65 wrote:

Bored desk-bound mouse-clicking monkey posts about it 6 years later shocker.

Mike.

While these types of personal insults bother me not a jot, I'll be interested to see how the conspiracy forum mods react to this, if at all (after all mike is a mod himself), given that they have given me lengthy bans for things far less offensive.

Billy the Squid, what say you good sir?

In the meantime, I shall post some more interesting resources on this topic later this evening. Go on debunkers - say it - you cant wait!

mike65

Ban me, ban me now!

Thankyou (I'll say this now before it happens).

Mike.

bonkey

If we are to take this reporting by BBC as being somehow sinister, I'm wondering how we should interpret reports from the same day that a bomb went off on Capitol Hill, or that there was a car-bomb at the State Department.

Should we also take these as statements of fact? Should we not assume that tehre was supposed to be a bomb at Capitol Hill, but that a timing mistake meant its existence was announced before it went off, and it was either found/defused and/or simply failed to go off?

Similarly, does it not suggest there was a screw-up with the car-bomb at the SD, and that again its detonation was prematurely commented on?

If not, why not?

That WTC7 was going to collapse was known hours before the building fell down. There was no doubt.

That reporting errors were made on the day in question is beyond question.

That these two factors could combine to result in a mis-reporting of the collapse of WTC7 is, however, apparently proof-boyond-doubt that something is fishy. I'm not sure how, but we're assured it is. I'm hoping someone can explain to me how....and explain why the same logic has not been applied to other reporting errors of the day, such as the afore-mentioned Capitol Hill and State Department cases.

Most importantly, I'm hoping someone can explain to me what possible logic someone would apply to pre-inform news stations of an event like this. We have the biggest news story in a decade, unfolding live. We have unprecedented amounts of live coverage - untold numbers of television stations worldwide are giving it constant coverage. And yet, despite this massive concentration of attention, we're supposed to believe that someone informed some news stations that a significant event was about to occur that they needed to pay attention to!!! Why??? What possible reason would they have for this (whoever they are supposed to be)? What possible reason would they have for ensuring the world's attention was brought onto an event that apparently they wanted to hide in the confusion of the day? What possible reason would they have for communicating this to news channels, thus risking additional exposure (if the communication were ever discovered/leadked)???

If its not clear...the point I'm driving towards is this: there is no explanation which makes as much sense, or which is as consistent with the events of the day as "it was a case of mis-reporting".

Naturally, some people will take up Macco's Razor instead of Occam's and conclude that this simple explanation takes second place to a far more complex one, which raises more questions than it allegedly answers and which involves a greater number of assumptions.

They are, as always, entitled to their belief.

Nick_oliveri

CNN did something similar.

Why start a new thread?

mike65

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Mike.

jessop1

mike65 wrote:

A poster asks why does the feed from NY suddenly die about two mins before the block in question collapses. Well it died due to a tecnical SNAFU,

said with such authority! how in the bejebus do you know this?? and you dont think its even slightly strange that this feed died 2 minutes before the building collapse and the reporter having already reported in the same feed/camera shot its collapse a good number of minutes before???? hmmm....

mike65 wrote:

to suggest anything other is to invite ridicule.

To suggest anything at all other than the official story of 9/11, to question its credibility in any way at all here is to invite ridicule from the incessant debunkers.

To answer the questions as to what the smoking gun is, well, the immediate reporting and media coverage in the aftermath of such a significant and emotional event plays a major part in shaping peoples views of it, because perceptions are still so fluid at that point. Experienced mind manipulators and propagandists know this. Is it possible the BBC and CNN's "SNAFU's" were to accidentally run this particular part of the script for the day ahead of schedule?

While we are on the subject, here is a short video which shows some of the the media tactics used on the day to shape perceptions...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2769765528126140323

Of course there are reams of other examples and one of them I recall finding very strange at the time was that bin ladens face and talk of bin laden was all over the tv screens within a couple of hours .. now in all of this media mellee you debunkers say was happening on the day, is it not slightly strange that all the major networks knew within a couple of hours of the attacks that it was bin laden and were incessantly purporting this story? and of course now bin laden and 9/11 are totally synonamous with each other in in the public perception...

jessop1

mike65 wrote:

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Mike.

I think you mean Muck.

try this instead.

http://www.wtc7.net/toc.html

Diogenes

Again jessop1 who exactly in media organisations is in on the conspiracy. You've spouted on that "certain indviduals" have control and can dictate media so please name them, and their positions. Since you speak with such authority.

jessop1 wrote:

said with such authority! how in the bejebus do you know this?? and you dont think its even slightly strange that this feed died 2 minutes before the building collapse and the reporter having already reported in the same feed/camera shot its collapse a good number of minutes before???? hmmm....

Yeah because live feeds never breaj down. Ever.

To suggest anything at all other than the official story of 9/11, to question its credibility in any way at all here is to invite ridicule from the incessant debunkers.

To answer the questions as to what the smoking gun is, well, the immediate reporting and media coverage in the aftermath of such a significant and emotional event plays a major part in shaping peoples views of it, because perceptions are still so fluid at that point. Experienced mind manipulators and propagandists know this. Is it possible the BBC and CNN's "SNAFU's" were to accidentally run this particular part of the script for the day ahead of schedule?

While we are on the subject, here is a short video which shows some of the the media tactics used on the day to shape perceptions...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2769765528126140323

Of course there are reams of other examples and one of them I recall finding very strange at the time was that bin ladens face and talk of bin laden was all over the tv screens within a couple of hours .. now in all of this media mellee you debunkers say was happening on the day, is it not slightly strange that all the major networks knew within a couple of hours of the attacks that it was bin laden and were incessantly purporting this story? and of course now bin laden and 9/11 are totally synonamous with each other in in the public perception...

You know bin laden attacked the WTC before and wanted its collaspe|?

So Glad

Hmm, I forget what post it was put I'll just talk about it anyways. The whole "If there is a conspiracy, how can it be kept from all the people working on it". Really easily. For example, don't tell them. Nobody gives a **** in their daily lives to be considering a conspiracy until it's right in their face, and undeniable.

Also, millions of Germans, praising a guy they called their great leader who was nice to kids and new better for the country, killed millions of people intentionally, big shock, nobody new, happens.

jessop1

Diogenes wrote:

Again jessop1 who exactly in media organisations is in on the conspiracy. You've spouted on that "certain indviduals" have control and can dictate media so please name them, and their positions. Since you speak with such authority.

zzzz.. I'm getting bored with this silly tactic of yours. Its clear that the scope and potential for unchecked corruption is there, that was the point I made earlier. The onus is not on me to name all of these criminals, what a ridiculous request and indicative of your shambolic argument on this point.

Diogenes wrote:

Yeah because live feeds never breaj down. Ever.

strange that you dont find the circumstances and timing strage. hmmm...

Diogenes wrote:

You know bin laden attacked the WTC before and wanted its collaspe|?

so the story goes

nacho libre

What is puzzling about it is how the BBC news tapes of the most significant new story of the new millennium semmingly no longer exist. Though, the conspiractors would have to be morons to release this information in advance to the BBC or any news organisation. Logically, if they were that moronic they couldn't pull off 9/11.

jessop1

nacho libre wrote:

What is puzzling about it is how the BBC news tapes of the most significant new story of the new millennium semmingly no longer exist.

As Diogenes might sarcastically say: "News tapes never go missing. ever.

nacho libre wrote:

The conspiractors would have to be morons to release this information in advance to the BBC or any new organisations. Logically, if they were that moronic they couldn't pull 9/11 off.

Well, leaks happen. or perhaps eventual full or partial revelation of the conspiracy is all part of the plan? or perhaps the whole thing is a psyop whose purpose is not yet known.

nacho libre

jessop1 wrote:

As Diogenes might sarcastically say: "News tapes never go missing. ever.



Well, leaks happen. or perhaps eventual revelation of the conspiracy is all part of the plan? or perhaps the whole thing is a psyop whose purpose is not yet known.

leaks? if that's the case why hasn't the leaker revealed more? I am assuming there reason for doing so would be a moral issue. However, surely those who were part of the conspiracy would be screened to ensure they were reliable?
Also, what would be their gain in revealing what was going to happen then or now? A bluff- as in no-one will believe we'd be stupid enough to reveal this therefore augmenting the offical story. Is this what you mean???

Diogenes

jessop1 wrote:

zzzz.. I'm getting bored with this silly tactic of yours. Its clear that the scope and potential for unchecked corruption is there, that was the point I made earlier

You're just interested in making claims of corruption not in naming who is corrupt. Rightttt....

The onus is not on me to name all of these criminals, what a ridiculous request and indicative of your shambolic argument on this point.

So if I have your logic utterly clear it's acceptable to accuse a massive media organisation consistenting of thousands of people, of being complicit in a massive media cover up just as long as you decline to name who in this organisation is complicit in this coverup.

And you really think you've got evidence that said media organisation is complicit in the cover up? Jessop1 have you gotten used to people laughing at you dismissably?

strange that you dont find the circumstances and timing strage. hmmm...

Even stranger than you've yet to prove it strange.


'

so the story goes

So the straw clutching goes.

Diogenes

jessop1 wrote:

story goes

why shouldn't these tapes go missing?
Are you claiming the BBC is infallible?

jessop1

Diogenes wrote:

So if I have your logic utterly clear it's acceptable to accuse a massive media organisation consistenting of thousands of people, of being complicit in a massive media cover up just as long as you decline to name who in this organisation is complicit in this coverup.
And you really think you've got evidence that said media organisation is complicit in the cover up?

Ah yes, I see your tactic here is to attack the very idea that any conspiracy could possibly exist by implying or suggesting that I am also accusing the thousands of workers of being complicit, when I have done no such thing. Your silly tactics are so easy to expose.

Diogenes wrote:

Jessop1 have you gotten used to people laughing at you dismissably?

=

Tactic from the debunkers guide posted on my other thread wrote:

Ridicule, ridicule, ridicule. It is far and away the single most chillingly effective weapon in the war against discovery and innovation. Ridicule has the unique power to make people of virtually any persuasion go completely unconscious in a twinkling. It fails to sway only those few who are of sufficiently independent mind not to buy into the kind of emotional consensus that ridicule provides.

In practice

Diogenes wrote:

Even stranger than you've yet to prove it strange.

shambolic stuff

Diogenes

jessop1 wrote:

Ah yes, I see your tactic here is to attack the very idea that any conspiracy could possibly exist by implying or suggesting that I am also accusing the thousands of workers of being complicit, when I have done no such thing. Your silly tactics are so easy to expose.




=


In practice


shambolic stuff

Jessop for several months now you've claimed that the NWO control the media at some level. Now put simply;

A) At which level do these NWO operatives work?

Can you name names?

C) What are you basing this assumption on?

D) Why has no working in these organsation, under them ever challenged their control of the media?

Those are four questions. Could you please answer them.

So Glad

Diogenes wrote:

Jessop for several months now you've claimed that the NWO control the media at some level. Now put simply;

A) At which level do these NWO operatives work?

Can you name names?

C) What are you basing this assumption on?

D) Why has no working in these organsation, under them ever challenged their control of the media?

Those are four questions. Could you please answer them.

I can answer all 4 questions: With This Video

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

jessop1 wrote:

Any attempts to debunk this can only be clutching at very thin straws.

oh well, that's it then. argument over.

great post, and point very well made. case closed.:rolleyes:

bonkey

So Glad wrote:

I can answer all 4 questions: With This Video

Just as a matter of interest...

Are you even aware of irony of a video distributed over the most mainstream internet media-distribution available being offered as proof that mainstream media-distribution is controlled by some secret organisation

Its one small step less than, say, CNN running a news article alleging how it is itself secretly controlled by some similar org.

Mitch Connor

Diogenes wrote:

Again jessop1 who exactly in media organisations is in on the conspiracy. You've spouted on that "certain indviduals" have control and can dictate media so please name them, and their positions. Since you speak with such authority.



Yeah because live feeds never breaj down. Ever.

To suggest anything at all other than the official story of 9/11, to question its credibility in any way at all here is to invite ridicule from the incessant debunkers.



You know bin laden attacked the WTC before and wanted its collaspe|?

They are called the "Patriots", and they use something called a "Gear" (which comes in various sizes, and versions) to control the media.

See here for a little info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_Gear_Solid_2:_Sons_of_Liberty#Arsenal_Gear

oscarBravo

jessop1 wrote:

...and you dont think its even slightly strange that this feed died 2 minutes before the building collapse...

I may have missed something, but how do you know when the building collapsed in relation to this video clip? There's no timestamp on it.

oscarBravo

Interestingly, the CNN clip on the same prisonplanet page gives credence to the view that this was simply a mistaken report based on confused information: the anchor says that they've received information that WTC7 has collapsed, or is about to collapse. The marquee displays the caption "Building 7 at World Trade Ctr. on fire, may collapse".

It seems logical to me that it became obvious to the firefighters that the building was on the verge of collapse, and they pulled everyone away from it. The news channels would have been informed of the situation - CNN stated the ambiguity of what they'd heard, but BBC misreported it.

This, incidentally, is consistent with Silverstein's version of events, in his gleefully misinterpreted "pull" statement.

Diogenes

So Glad wrote:

I can answer all 4 questions: With This Video

Oh look another video.

So Glad. I understand media isn't perfect and occasionally works off an agenda.

However you cannot prove that this means that members of the BBC were lied or made report on material that was feed to them by their NWO handlers.

Nick_oliveri

About the whole media thing. We choose what to watch and we should draw our own conclusions but sometimes we choose to believe everything they tell us.

Now i dont believe the media is manipulated over absolutley (no spell check on IE7!!) every single story, obviously some stations have a certain amount of bias.

This NWO thing is getting a bit out of hand, like, those who choose to look at independant news sources are not sheep. If there was a large amount of control i doubt it would involve some guy controlling every story in every agency.

You must realise how those words "New World Order" are paranoia in themselves.

And yes, i do think that skys aquision of (shares?) or part of UTV isn't in the interest of everyone. Massive media buyouts are teh ghey. And people with certain ideologys, ie Murdoch shouldnt vomit their political bias all over every thing that they are in control of.

And i like the BBC, RTE and especially Channel 4 news. They do a deadly job.

The whole web2.0 thing, with sites like google video, digg and youtube being selective about whatever videos they keep, is more than likey in the interest of keeping their servers up and running without people insulting each other in the comments section on whatever 9/11 conspirasaw video.

i dont condone googles use of the remove button, but fúck them, you can always catch the latest written word or even, video, somewhere else.

I read information liberation all the time, around twice a day. And i do not believe everything they tell me and i think (know) that most stories are sprinkled with a dash of paranoia.

You cant let preachers like alex jones and rupert murdoch tell you what to think. Make up your own mind. And dont use thier overused paranoia words like NWO, impending terror threat and muslim extremists!

Diogenes

Nick, I find it ironic that So Glad will link to a documentary like Outfoxed as proof the NWO control the media.

If anyone had as much control over the media as jessop and So Glad think it is, could a documentary like Outfoxed be made, never mind released.

Furthermore the problem is that too many media companies are controlled by too few people, is a real concern. However to take this and make the leap that individuals could control specific media stories. Plant information, suppress information, stop journalists from talking to each other.

Nick_oliveri

I was under the impression that the film was shown through independant channels. I only came across the film on shoutcast video (streaming through me xbox). I could be wrong though.

Heres a quote in relation to the film lol.

Eric Shawn, FOX News Reporter wrote:

"It's unfair, it's slanted and it's a hit job. And I haven't even seen it yet."

An example of US ignorance is the casualty and death list from iraq. We know how many soldiers, they wont tell us how many civilians. One could only conclude that soldiers>Iraqi people. BUT, an independant report on the civilian deaths made it onto the mainstream media, and was immediatly denied.

This is a small example of US control/manipulation. Obviously, this paranoia about the NWO uber control, is unfounded.

Diogenes

Nick_oliveri wrote:

I was under the impression that the film was shown through independant channels. I only came across the film on shoutcast video (streaming through me xbox). I could be wrong though.

It's been shown on channel 4 as well. Hell my local videostore has a copy of it on its shelves. At one point it was the top seller on Amazon.com

Heres a quote in relation to the film lol.



An example of US ignorance is the casualty and death list from iraq. We know how many soldiers, they wont tell us how many civilians. One could only conclude that soldiers>Iraqi people. BUT, an independant report on the civilian deaths made it onto the mainstream media, and was immediatly denied.

This is a small example of US control/manipulation. Obviously, this paranoia about the NWO uber control, is unfounded.

The problem is the film is focused entirely on fox news, who's bias and slant is obvious to anyone who has a pair of eyes and a remote control. The flaw in So Glad's logic is to apply the model of fox news to any and all media stations. Secondly, as bonkey pointed out, if whistle blowers came forward, it clearly demostrations that jessop1's claims that the NWO could get away with it. Fox's slant, bias and abuse are exposed in Outfoxed, so how do the NWO pull off their media manipulation?

nacho libre

Diogenes wrote:

It's been shown on channel 4 as well. Hell my local videostore has a copy of it on its shelves. At one point it was the top seller on Amazon.com




The problem is the film is focused entirely on fox news, who's bias and slant is obvious to anyone who has a pair of eyes and a remote control. The flaw in So Glad's logic is to apply the model of fox news to any and all media stations. Secondly, as bonkey pointed out, if whistle blowers came forward, it clearly demostrations that jessop1's claims that the NWO could get away with it. Fox's slant, bias and abuse are exposed in Outfoxed, so how do the NWO pull off their media manipulation?

They screen people before recruiting them and only pick only those who are deemed reliable and patriotic as well as competent to perform the critical role they are assigned to.

Like the retired senior MI5 officer who was interviewed for a BBC programme about MI5 action against trade unionists in the the 1970's.
He said he didn't regret anything he did as it was his job and for the good of the state.
So, with this mind if you recruit such people and plant them in various professions they are unlikely to leak information...

Diogenes

nacho libre wrote:

They screen people before recruiting them and only pick only those who are deemed reliable and patriotic as well as competent to perform the critical role they are assigned to.

Like the retired senior MI5 officer who was interviewed for a BBC programme about MI5 action against trade unionists in the the 1970's.
He said he didn't regret anything he did as it was his job and for the good of the state.
So, with this mind if you recruit such people and plant them in various professions they are unlikely to leak information...

The flaw with that claim is well, I freelance working in news. I work for CNN, Al Jazeera, Sky, BBC, ITN, Bloomberg, and Reuteurs. The recruiting process is less than rigourous, and on any given month I can work in anything up to four agencies.

Now heres the thing, my position is minor, yet I am privy to half a dozen stories that no news agency in their right mind would publish or transmit. Hell in fact I've been in situations where I am a primary source of stories that involve the resignation of a senior member of the British Cabinet. And another which involves the death of a foreign national in the UK, in suspicious circumstances, and a claim he made before he died, involving a serving head of state, and football club owner who's team just won some silverware.

My point is, when I moved from news agency to news agency these stories were already ahead of me. Journalists and people in the media are by nature gossipmongers. Involving the media in 911 and expecting them to keep quiet about a massive news story is impossible.

News making is a colaberative effort, particularly tv news. The number of people involved makes such a conspiracy implausible. Consider the handful of people involved in Watergate. And how easy that conspiracy fell apart. Now look at 911. The media? The controlled demolition teams. The FAA staff. The security at the WTC. Theres thousands of people needed to be involved in such a conspiracy. How do you keep them all quiet?

Danuogma

Diogenes wrote:

The flaw with that claim is well, I freelance working in news. I work for CNN, Al Jazeera, Sky, BBC, ITN, Bloomberg, and Reuteurs. QUOTE]


You sure spread yourself around.:rolleyes:

Nick_oliveri

BBC Respond again.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/03/part_of_the_conspiracy_2.html

There is no story

I would also point out that the image's rollover on the blog says "An image of the Website hosting the alleged BBC World footage" (emphasis added)

Do they think its faked? Alleged is a funny word to be using.

Edit: Screenshot