Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

BBC 'lose' all 9/11 footage

Options
«1

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


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

    Interesting about when the bbc reporter predicted the building collapse before it happened!

    No BBC reporter predicted the building collapse before it happened.

    They simply misreported something on a chaotic news day.

    There has not been a single explanation for why the BBC would report the building collapsing early in the context of the conspiracy theories.

    It's a very silly notion to suggest that the BBC were involved in the conspiracy and announces the buildings collapse before it happened.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


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

    Interesting about when the bbc reporter predicted the building collapse before it happened!

    They did not predict it they got info from a Reuters the building collapsed half an hour before it did. Reuters claims they got their info from a local station in New York. They would not name their source for the info.

    The timing of the announcement is interesting because is near within the hour it came down. If they announced it earlier in the day it is less suspicious.

    In light of NIST findings of one girder expanding causing a cascading of floors across the width of the building, then there no possible way anyone could have predicted a collapse. If the girder did not slip from its seat then WTC7 would still be standing and will have to be pulled down.

    If you believe the building was controlled demolition the info got leaked early for the media to prepare for the event and for people to clear the area.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    If you believe the building was controlled demolition the info got leaked early for the media to prepare for the event and for people to clear the area.
    This is abject, silly nonsense.

    There is no reason they would leak the information early and expose the conspiracy.
    It's self contradictory and ridiculous.
    This is just you scrambling for any straw to grab to allow this silly notion to remain part of your increasingly silly conspiracy.

    People had already cleared the area. The BBC falsely reporting the building had collapsed would not clear the area more. It's silly you suggest otherwise.
    The BBC falsely reporting the building had collapsed did not "prepare the media for the event". That is a nonsense meaningless phrase.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,817 ✭✭✭liam7831


    Sounds like some type of False Flag Operation


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    This is abject, silly nonsense.

    There is no reason they would leak the information early and expose the conspiracy.
    It's self contradictory and ridiculous.
    This is just you scrambling for any straw to grab to allow this silly notion to remain part of your increasingly silly conspiracy.

    People had already cleared the area. The BBC falsely reporting the building had collapsed would not clear the area more. It's silly you suggest otherwise.
    The BBC falsely reporting the building had collapsed did not "prepare the media for the event". That is a nonsense meaningless phrase.

    The building was collapsing due to fire and damage this was the narrative in 2001 and still is the narrative today. Though the damage narrative is now a debunked theory and even NIST discounts it.

    You guys believe fire brought down the building so they have done a good job.

    There would be still rescue crews looking for survivors and firemen fighting fires nearby. Fire crews nearby would have to move back to avoid falling debris from a collapsed building.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 16,943 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    Interesting about when the bbc reporter predicted the building collapse before it happened!

    This never happened. The link is to a 12 year old article (2007). Nothing came of the story then & there's nothing to the story now


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 40,061 ✭✭✭✭Harry Palmr


    Look it keeps Cheerful Spring happy we'll pretend this is a real thing eh? :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    job.
    There would be still rescue crews looking for survivors and firemen fighting fires nearby. Fire crews nearby would have to move back to avoid falling debris from a collapsed building.
    Lol.
    Cheerful, you have repeatedly told us that there was no such rescue crews and firefighters around building seven. You bring that up every time you want to go on about your Larry Silverstein canard.

    You are once again contradicting yourself as your theory is made up on the spot.

    Secondly, it's laughable.
    You are suggesting that these rescue crews were relying on some random BBC news station for information regarding their working conditions. That is a silly idea. They wouldn't do such a thing.
    You also make the silly assumption that these people in the course of firefighting and rescue work, while also watching TV, wouldn't then just look up at building 7, see that it hadn't collapsed, then just return to work.
    Them hearing a false report from one random news station (that they wouldn't be watching) wouldn't make them pull out.
    If the conspirators wanted them to pull out, they'd just tell the fire chiefs to pull them out.
    But it also makes no sense for why the conspirators would want them to pull out at all. They had just murdered 3000 people including firefighters and rescue workers.

    You have also failed to explain how a false report would "prepare the media".
    Because that is a nonsense idea you've plucked out of your head because it sounded cool and smart and super serious...


  • Registered Users Posts: 666 ✭✭✭bunderoon


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    This never happened. The link is to a 12 year old article (2007). Nothing came of the story then & there's nothing to the story now


    ???

    I saw that report live as we were glued to the screens all day since the reports of the first tower was hit. I recall that there was no live footage of the first place hit.

    Myself and GF were watching the BBC news and they went 'live' to reporter in the area. She was standing with her back to the lower Manhattan skyline. She started to talk say that another building has just fallen and that it was WTC7. She noted the correct name and how many floors it had. I turned to my better half and said that is nuts. B7 is still standing. Its right over the reporters left shoulder, in the distance.....
    I knew it well my mates and I worked in both towers in '98 and '99 (construction). There was a massive job going on in both towers in mid floor and near the top. Complete office floor clear out.


    Anyway, within a minute or two of the reporter stating the latest update about WTC7, the sat feed to the BBC newsroom failed and the newsroom said that they had lost connection to the reporter. We changed to CNN and it was about 20-30 mins later that the report came in that WTC has just gone down.
    4th building of the day. WTC6 was half destroyed aswell.


    I'm not one for tinfoil hat stuff, but I remember that day clearly.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Lol.
    Cheerful, you have repeatedly told us that there was no such rescue crews and firefighters around building seven. You bring that up every time you want to go on about your Larry Silverstein canard.

    You are once again contradicting yourself as your theory is made up on the spot.

    Secondly, it's laughable.
    You are suggesting that these rescue crews were relying on some random BBC news station for information regarding their working conditions. That is a silly idea. They wouldn't do such a thing.
    You also make the silly assumption that these people in the course of firefighting and rescue work, while also watching TV, wouldn't then just look up at building 7, see that it hadn't collapsed, then just return to work.
    Them hearing a false report from one random news station (that they wouldn't be watching) wouldn't make them pull out.
    If the conspirators wanted them to pull out, they'd just tell the fire chiefs to pull them out.
    But it also makes no sense for why the conspirators would want them to pull out at all. They had just murdered 3000 people including firefighters and rescue workers.

    You have also failed to explain how a false report would "prepare the media".
    Because that is a nonsense idea you've plucked out of your head because it sounded cool and smart and super serious...

    Never said this. I actually said this- Silverstein spokesperson said there were several firemen inside building seven fighting fires and that Silverstein and a fire chief agreed on the phone, 'it was best to pull it ( remove them) to save lives. This narrative is problematic and you still refuse to answer basic questions about it. You prefer to engage in whataboutery.

    FEMA says all WTC7 firefighting efforts stopped at 12 pm and there were no firemen inside the building. The spokesperson said the firemen were pulled in the late afternoon and this complicates matters if you believe Silverstein. And Silverstein also refuses to name the fire chief. The fire chief who was linked with Silverstein denies speaking with him and he said he does know why anyone would phone him anyhow to tell him about firefighting efforts.


    You making it out to a bigger deal then it actually is. The conspirators obviously knew when the building was coming down. They could have leaked the info to prepare the media and for them to not question it. The media is a useful tool to spread disinformation. They wanted to implant in the minds of people this was perfectly normal ie a building hit by no plane would collapse. It worked only conspiracy theorists find it suspicious a few random fires brought a large-sized building down symmetrically at freefall speeds. You want people to clear the area so all evidence can be hidden too and all reporters are not nearby to film the final collapse up close later. I never saw a video of workers removing the WTC7 steel and debris have you?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob



    Never said this. I actually said this- Silverstein spokesperson said there were several firemen inside building seven fighting fires and that Silverstein and a fire chief agreed on the phone, 'it was best to pull it ( remove them) to save lives.
    Ah...
    So there was lots of people around the building firefighting fires.
    Good to know.
    This narrative is problematic and you still refuse to answer basic questions about it. You prefer to engage in whataboutery.
    Lol, again parroting things said to you, but you have no understanding of what they mean. It's adorable.
    You making it out to a bigger deal then it actually is. The conspirators obviously knew when the building was coming down. They could have leaked the info to prepare the media and for them to not question it.
    Again, this is a nonsense notion.
    It makes no sense and is utterly meaningless.
    It is also self contradictory.
    If the media will just report what they are told without question then there's no need to prepare them to accept something without question.
    The media is a useful tool to spread disinformation. They wanted to implant in the minds of people this was perfectly normal ie a building hit by no plane would collapse. It worked only conspiracy theorists...
    Lol. More waffling nonsense.
    They want people to accept their explanation... So they do something that shows their explanation is a conspiracy?
    That's nonsense, Cheerful. Silly silly nonsense.

    It's further made more nonsensical as not one person has thought "well I believe the official story cause one random BBC report said the building collapsed before it did."
    You want people to clear the area so all evidence can be hidden too and all reporters are not nearby to film the final collapse up close later. I never saw a video of workers removing the WTC7 steel and debris have you?
    Now never mind that is is different to what you previously claimed was the reason, you are ignoring several points.

    Go back and try again.


  • Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    bunderoon wrote: »
    I knew it well my mates and I worked in both towers in '98 and '99 (construction). There was a massive job going on in both towers in mid floor and near the top. Complete office floor clear out.

    Putting in all the explosive charges? :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 666 ✭✭✭bunderoon


    Putting in all the explosive charges? :D

    Ha, no. Installing H (I) beams with several Ironworkers.
    It was a pain in the hole actually, 8 floors in both towers were inaccessible directly. We had to get the service elevator either two up or two down and carry the gear the rest of the way.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,571 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    bunderoon wrote: »
    Ha, no. Installing H (I) beams with several Ironworkers.
    It was a pain in the hole actually, 8 floors in both towers were inaccessible directly. We had to get the service elevator either two up or two down and carry the gear the rest of the way.

    Apparently it only would've taken 8 guys 1 weekend to plant the explosives to bring down the towers.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,331 ✭✭✭jeremyj1968


    King Mob wrote: »
    No BBC reporter predicted the building collapse before it happened. They simply misreported something on a chaotic news day.

    Yeah I thought that as well, just a reporting error. But when you think about it. They just happen to report that a (much clichéd) steel structured building collapses because of fires, which has never happened before, which happens to occur on the same day as two planes hit the two building beside it in a completely unrelated event. Which is more likely to be the case - 1. that a steel framed building happens to collapse because of fire on 9/11 or 2. it is somehow related to the main events that occurred on that day.

    tbh, I'm just sick of all the BS, I just want to know the truth.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Yeah I thought that as well, just a reporting error. But when you think about it. They just happen to report that a (much clichéd) steel structured building collapses because of fires, which has never happened before, which happens to occur on the same day as two planes hit the two building beside it in a completely unrelated event. Which is more likely to be the case - 1. that a steel framed building happens to collapse because of fire on 9/11 or 2. it is somehow related to the main events that occurred on that day.

    tbh, I'm just sick of all the BS, I just want to know the truth.
    Ok, so what's the alternate explanation?
    Why do you believe the BBC reported the collapse early?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,331 ✭✭✭jeremyj1968


    King Mob wrote: »
    Ok, so what's the alternate explanation?
    Why do you believe the BBC reported the collapse early?

    I believe the BBC were just passing on the story that they were fed, same as all the other news channels that passed on the same story. So I don't blame the BBC for being in part of some conspiracy. The real question is where did that story originate, who knew that the building was coming down.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    I believe the BBC were just passing on the story that they were fed, same as all the other news channels that passed on the same story. So I don't blame the BBC for being in part of some conspiracy. The real question is where did that story originate, who knew that the building was coming down.
    Ok, so why would tge BBC report on something that was obviously not true? Why did they not verify it or look out a window?

    Why would the people behind the conspiracy pass on the knowledge that the building was going to come down before it happened?


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,800 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Yeah I thought that as well, just a reporting error. But when you think about it. They just happen to report that a (much clichéd) steel structured building collapses because of fires, which has never happened before, which happens to occur on the same day as two planes hit the two building beside it in a completely unrelated event. Which is more likely to be the case - 1. that a steel framed building happens to collapse because of fire on 9/11 or 2. it is somehow related to the main events that occurred on that day.

    tbh, I'm just sick of all the BS, I just want to know the truth.

    The simple truth is that live news is chaotic at the best of times, on that day it was especially chaotic, I remember it clearly. At one point there were reports of up to 8 hijacked planes, this is because rumours and speculation were rife, not everything could be verified on the spot, news outlets were being hit by a deluge of information. Due to the unprecented nature of the attacks, anything seemed possible

    With WTC 7, firefighters had noticed a large bulge developing, I saw several interviewed who claimed it was going to "go", and on most news stations that was a lot of speculation that it was about to go. It's unsurprising really that a news network mistakenly reported that it had fallen

    That's perfectly plausible

    It's completely implausible to suggest that would-be plotters decided to call up an international news network, suggest to that network that the building had fallen, when it hadn't. That would make no sense for the plotters, for the news network, it makes no sense on any level whatsoever


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    With WTC 7, firefighters had noticed a large bulge developing, I saw several interviewed who claimed it was going to "go", and on most news stations that was a lot of speculation that it was about to go. It's unsurprising really that a news network mistakenly reported that it had fallen

    That's perfectly plausible
    Again, the actual phrasing was along the lines of: "there are reports that building 7 collapsed."
    This would still have been true and accurate as the would have been mistaken reports.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 12,571 ✭✭✭✭The Nal



    tbh, I'm just sick of all the BS, I just want to know the truth.

    You know the truth. Bin Laden is on video admitting to it. All roads lead back to Al Qaeda.

    He even talks about melting the steel and the building collapsing, partially. What part of this do people not understand?



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,101 ✭✭✭Technocentral


    Conspiracy theorists have got to be amongst the most pathetic, brain dead far right f***wits in existence. Get a life, get off your computers, go for a walk, get a partner, grow up.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,101 ✭✭✭Technocentral


    The Nal wrote:
    He even talks about melting the steel and the building collapsing, partially. What part of this do people not understand?


    Their minimum IQ means they can't accept reality, no one remotely succesful or happy believes that bull**** just sad sacks.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,571 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Their minimum IQ means they can't accept reality, no one remotely succesful or happy believes that bull**** just sad sacks.

    "Thats not really him" is standard response.


  • Registered Users Posts: 88 ✭✭John2136


    To the Nal

    Just for an example groups like the UVF were mainly controlled by the British state it is estimated 80% of the UDA were British agents and everyone of the high ranking members were agents meaning the British state effectively controlled the organisation.

    I'm not saying that that's true with Al Qaeda I really don't know much about the subject.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    The Nal wrote: »
    You know the truth. Bin Laden is on video admitting to it. All roads lead back to Al Qaeda.

    He even talks about melting the steel and the building collapsing, partially. What part of this do people not understand?


    Still promoting this fake video I see. Arab speakers are on the record and are saying they can't hear the Arabic and don't understand what they are saying in the room. The US government placed subtitles on the video and they are an untrustworthy source. UBL is supposed to be Bin Laden in some parts, you can see he not even speaking someone else in the room is. If Arabic speakers don't believe the translation is accurate, why should we?

    Info about thus tape
    The German tv station, Westdeutscher Rundfunk, had the video examined by three experts1, Dr. Abdel El M. Husseini, researcher of Arabic culture, Dr. Murad Alami, certified translator, and Professor Gernot Rotter, Islamic researcher and researcher of Arabic culture at Asien-Afrika-Institut, University of Hamburg, Germany.

    Dr. Abdel El M. Husseini: “I have examined the Pentagon’s translation thoroughly. This translation is very problematic. At the most important parts, which should prove that bin Laden was the culprit, it is not identical with the Arabic tone.”1

    I posted this before but it important to look at other evidence the tape may be a recording of another conversation.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,800 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Still promoting this fake video I see.

    Hmm what about this admission..

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/bin-laden-claims-responsibility-for-9-11-1.513654


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »

    Who knows, it not like Bin Laden has not denied involvement before. He was pointing the fingers at others days after 9/11. So what do you believe? This tape also came out just before the Presidental election in 2004. It almost like someone wanted Bush to be reelected for a second term. How do we know the translation is accurate? The Americans mislead the public about the claims in the video above.


    -- Islamic militant leader Osama bin Laden, the man the United States considers the prime suspect in last week's terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, denied any role Sunday in the actions believed to have killed thousands.

    In a statement issued to the Arabic satellite channel Al Jazeera, based in Qatar, bin Laden said, "The U.S. government has consistently blamed me for being behind every occasion its enemies attack it.

    "I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons," bin Laden's statement said.

    "I have been living in the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan and following its leaders' rules. The current leader does not allow me to exercise such operations," bin Laden said.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,800 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Who knows

    Who knows? you've literally written hundreds of posts feverishly stating he wasn't involved

    In your theory, he was knowingly involved or he wasn't?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 12,571 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Still promoting this fake video I see. Arab speakers are on the record and are saying they can't hear the Arabic and don't understand what they are saying in the room. The US government placed subtitles on the video and they are an untrustworthy source. UBL is supposed to be Bin Laden in some parts, you can see he not even speaking someone else in the room is. If Arabic speakers don't believe the translation is accurate, why should we?

    Info about thus tape
    The German tv station, Westdeutscher Rundfunk, had the video examined by three experts1, Dr. Abdel El M. Husseini, researcher of Arabic culture, Dr. Murad Alami, certified translator, and Professor Gernot Rotter, Islamic researcher and researcher of Arabic culture at Asien-Afrika-Institut, University of Hamburg, Germany.

    Dr. Abdel El M. Husseini: “I have examined the Pentagon’s translation thoroughly. This translation is very problematic. At the most important parts, which should prove that bin Laden was the culprit, it is not identical with the Arabic tone.”1

    I posted this before but it important to look at other evidence the tape may be a recording of another conversation.

    Nothing fake about it apart from 3 mistranslated words. Thats him, on film, admitting to it. Closed case.

    Who knows

    lol


Advertisement