BBC 'lose' all 9/11 footage

evolving_doors · 17-03-2019 5:06pm #1

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!

King Mob · 17-03-2019 5:11pm

evolving_doors wrote: »

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.

Cheerful Spring · 24-03-2019 10:44pm

evolving_doors wrote: »

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.

King Mob · 24-03-2019 11:12pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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.

liam7831 · 24-03-2019 11:21pm

Sounds like some type of False Flag Operation

Cheerful Spring · 24-03-2019 11:24pm

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.

Sleeper12 · 24-03-2019 11:26pm

evolving_doors wrote:

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

Harry Palmr · 24-03-2019 11:41pm

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

King Mob · 24-03-2019 11:49pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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...

bunderoon · 25-03-2019 12:16am

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.

Cheerful Spring · 25-03-2019 12:18am

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?

King Mob · 25-03-2019 12:37am

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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."

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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.

Guy:Incognito · 25-03-2019 1:32am

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?

bunderoon · 25-03-2019 2:08am

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Putting in all the explosive charges?

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.

The Nal · 25-03-2019 10:07am

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.

jeremyj1968 · 13-04-2019 10:53pm

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.

King Mob · 14-04-2019 12:41am

jeremyj1968 wrote: »

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?

jeremyj1968 · 16-04-2019 8:38pm

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.

King Mob · 16-04-2019 10:56pm

jeremyj1968 wrote: »

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?

Dohnjoe · 17-04-2019 5:06pm

jeremyj1968 wrote: »

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

King Mob · 17-04-2019 5:12pm

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.

The Nal · 17-04-2019 5:13pm

jeremyj1968 wrote: »

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?

Technocentral · 17-04-2019 5:16pm

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.

Technocentral · 17-04-2019 5:21pm

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.

The Nal · 17-04-2019 5:22pm

Technocentral wrote: »

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.

John2136 · 17-04-2019 5:25pm

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.

Cheerful Spring · 17-04-2019 7:46pm

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.

Dohnjoe · 17-04-2019 9:49pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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

Cheerful Spring · 17-04-2019 10:01pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Hmm what about this admission..

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

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/

Dohnjoe · 18-04-2019 1:09am

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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?

The Nal · 18-04-2019 9:22am

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Who knows

lol

Cheerful Spring · 18-04-2019 1:07pm

The Nal wrote: »

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

lol

Again you keep ignorning what the experts said. They clearly said where Bin Laden supposedly admits he was involved with the attack ie the culprit (subtitle part) the translation is problematic.

The Nal · 18-04-2019 1:29pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Again you keep ignorning what the experts said. They clearly said where Bin Laden supposedly admits he was involved with the attack ie the culprit (subtitle part) the translation is problematic.

Theres more than 1 video of him admitting to it. Why would he admit to something he didn't do?

Cheerful Spring · 18-04-2019 1:34pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

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?

All i know for sure is there was a large number of Saudi nationals involved with hijacking the planes on 9/11. I never seen Atta or his conspirators from 9/11 pictured with Bin laden have you?. There no evidence that directly ties any of the 9/11 hijackers to Bin Laden conclusively .

We see even today Al Qaeda is group heavily funded by Saudi Intelligence. They are arming them with American weapons to fight the Houtis in Yemen.. We all saw evidence of the ties in Syria civil war also.

You asking me is Bin Laden Involved in 9/11. Where the evidence he was? Were the martyrdom tapes of the 9/11 hijackers? You planning the biggest attack on America soil, since Pearl Harbor, and you don't documented it beforehand? Nobody seems to want to know why Saudi Arabia and Pakistan funded the 9/11 attack? They are supposedly America strongest allies in the Middle East and South Asia. This information should be out there and known so we can understand the reasons why.

Bin laden is some rogue figure who just emerged from nowhere in the mid 90s. We know very little about him too. One day he just got pissed of with America and decided to have a jihad?

The Nal · 18-04-2019 1:36pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

All i know for sure is there was a large number of Saudi nationals involved with hijacking the planes on 9/11. I never seen Atta or his conspirators from 9/11 pictured with Bin laden have you?. There no evidence that directly ties any of the 9/11 hijackers to Bin Laden conclusively .

We see even today Al Qaeda is group heavily funded by Saudi Intelligence. They are arming them with American weapons to fight the Houtis in Yemen.. We all saw evidence of the ties in Syria civil war also.

You asking me is Bin Laden Involved in 9/11. Where the evidence he was? Were the martyrdom tapes of the 9/11 hijackers? You planning the biggest attack on America soil, since Pearl Harbor, and you don't documented it beforehand? Nobody seems to want to know why Saudi Arabia and Pakistan funded the 9/11 attack? They are supposedly America strongest allies in the Middle East and South Asia. This information should be out there and known so we can understand the reasons why.

Bin laden is some rogue figure who just emerged from nowhere in the mid 90s. We know very little about him too. One day he just got pissed of with America and decided to have a jihad?

We know loads about him. Loads. There have been countless books and studies about him. In incredible detail, from childhood to death. You clearly don't want to know because learning about him would show that he was behind the attacks. Ignorance is bliss for you.

Read this and then come back to me.

https://www.amazon.com/Osama-Bin-Laden-Michael-Scheuer/dp/0199898391

Heres your "fake" video totally debunked. Which was unsurprisingly very easy to do. Again.

http://www.911myths.com/index.php?title=Confession_video

Dohnjoe · 18-04-2019 1:47pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You asking me is Bin Laden Involved in 9/11.

You're the one challenging historical facts here, claiming it's all somehow wrong, and that your personal account is what really happened, which begs the obvious question..

In your personal account was Bin Laden involved in the plot or no?

If yes, how? if no, then what is going on?

Cheerful Spring · 18-04-2019 1:53pm

The Nal wrote: »

We know loads about him. Loads. There have been countless books and studies about him. In incredible detail, from childhood to death. You clearly don't want to know because learning about him would show that he was behind the attacks. Ignorance is bliss for you.

Read this and then come back to me.

https://www.amazon.com/Osama-Bin-Laden-Michael-Scheuer/dp/0199898391

Heres your "fake" video totally debunked. Which was unsurprisingly very easy to do. Again.

http://www.911myths.com/index.php?title=Confession_video

You can find hundreds of tapes were different people are talking about the 9/11 events and what happened. Does that automacially mean they planned 9/11? We are talking about the translation of the conversation. Arabic experts have stated Bin Laden does not confess to been involved in the attacks. I never said was not Bin Laden in the video. Bin Laden a week after 9/11 said it was others who pulled off 9/11 not him, this tape is ignored today.

Look at the history. Al Qeada was not even entity till the mid 90s and emerged out of nowhere. Bin Laden past before this murky all we know he fought for the CIA backed Mujahideen and was born rich. The Bin Laden familiy are one of the wealtiest families in Saudi Arabia and are close friends with the Bush family.

The Nal · 18-04-2019 2:00pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You can find hundreds of tapes were different people are talking about the 9/11 events and what happened. Does that automacially mean they planned 9/11? We are talking about the translation of the conversation. Arabic experts have stated Bin Laden does not confess to been involved in the attacks. I never said was not Bin Laden in the video. Bin Laden a week after 9/11 said it was others who pulled off 9/11 not him, this tape is ignored today.

It is absolutely not ignored.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Look at the history. Al Qeada was not even entity till the mid 90s and emerged out of nowhere. Bin Laden past before this murky all we know he fought for the CIA backed Mujahideen and was born rich. The Bin Laden familiy are one of the wealtiest families in Saudi Arabia and are close friends with the Bush family.

Thats all we know is it?

Thats all you know it seems. Or want to know. Everyone else knows a lot more.

I'm not going to take the time to give you a Bin Laden bio. Why don't you read a book about him? Or even his wiki page.

Also if you think Al-Qaeda "emerged out of nowhere" you.... well.... thats just embarrassing, posting that on a public forum.

Dohnjoe · 18-04-2019 2:05pm

The truth has a habit of being consistent, whereas a bull**** artist constantly has to invent their way out of their own inconsistencies

Cheerful Spring · 18-04-2019 2:06pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You're the one challenging historical facts here, claiming it's all somehow wrong, and that your personal account is what really happened, which begs the obvious question..

In your personal account was Bin Laden involved in the plot or no?

If yes, how? if no, then what is going on?

Historical fact is Saudi officials and diplomants and Pakistan ISI generals send money to the hijackers. If you want to believe this was just some operation planned out in a remote cave believe it, i don't.

I seen enough available information to know the CIA had enough intelligence to stop the hijackers before the boarded the planes. There still no confession from the CIA why they kept relevant information from the FBI. It is the FBI job to catch terrorists who came to America to carry out terrorist attacks.

Cheerful Spring · 18-04-2019 2:17pm

The Nal wrote: »

It is absolutely not ignored.

Thats all we know is it?

Thats all you know it seems. Or want to know. Everyone else knows a lot more.

I'm not going to take the time to give you a Bin Laden bio. Why don't you read a book about him? Or even his wiki page.

Also if you think Al-Qaeda "emerged out of nowhere" you.... well.... thats just embarrassing, posting that on a public forum.

I look at the evidence unlike you. Richard Clarke was a senior politician at the White House and even his on the record saying the CIA restricted all access to material about the hijackers pre 9/11. They even stopped the flow information about their arrival on planes coming into the the United States. Richard Clarke was not some low level guy he was head of Terrorism ( he would have had the need to know access) He said the top brass at the CIA are the only people who could have stopped this flow of information to him and he never got answer as to why. He even said George Tenet the Head of the CIA back then lied under oath, about what he knew about the hijackers pre 9/11.

The Nal · 18-04-2019 2:24pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I look at the evidence unlike you. Richard Clarke was a senior politician at the White House and even his on the record saying the CIA restricted all access to material about the hijackers pre 9/11. They even stopped the flow information about their arrival on planes coming into the the United States. Richard Clarke was not some low level guy he was head of Terrorism ( he would have had the need to know access) He said the top brass at the CIA are the only people who could have stopped this flow of information to him and he never got answer as to why. He even said George Tenet the Head of the CIA back then lied under oath, about what he knew about the hijackers pre 9/11.

Ive read Richard Clarkes book. Its excellent. At no point does he suggest 9/11 was organised by anyone but Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. And at no point does he suggest it was an inside job. He lays the blame at the Bush administrations obsession with Iraq and general complacency.

He 100% believes it was Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. Like you say, "not some low level guy".

So, are you saying that the National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection and Counter-terrorism, who sat on the United States National Security Council and worked in the State Department in the 80s during the formation of Al-Qaeda is a liar?

Have you read his book?

Tell us again about how you look at the evidence?

Dohnjoe · 18-04-2019 2:33pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

If you want to believe this was just some operation planned out in a remote cave believe it, i don't.

The people who planned this had connections and money, you don't seem to know much about it

It is the FBI job to catch terrorists who came to America to carry out terrorist attacks.

As we know, terrorist attacks happen. Psychologists have written article after article demonstrating that conspiracy/paranoid minded people have a problem grasping this because in their minds everything is "controlled", they can't fathom how these grande events can be missed therefore they assume conspiracy

The subsequent FBI investigation was the largest in it's history - if you feel you know more than them from reading conspiracy sites, fine

Dohnjoe · 18-04-2019 2:35pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I look at the evidence unlike you. Richard Clarke was a senior politician at the White House and even his on the record saying the CIA restricted all access to material about the hijackers pre 9/11. They even stopped the flow information about their arrival on planes coming into the the United States. Richard Clarke was not some low level guy he was head of Terrorism ( he would have had the need to know access) He said the top brass at the CIA are the only people who could have stopped this flow of information to him and he never got answer as to why. He even said George Tenet the Head of the CIA back then lied under oath, about what he knew about the hijackers pre 9/11.

Yeah and Richard Clarke stated that he suspects the CIA wanted to get one of the men "onside", to get a mole. But that he suspects it didn't happen, and the men slipped through their fingers, and the attacks later happened

There are always questions of failures in the CIA/FBI after a large attack like that. It doesn't mean there was some secret giant plot.

The Nal · 18-04-2019 2:41pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The subsequent FBI investigation was the largest in it's history - if you feel you know more than them from reading conspiracy sites, fine

Well apparently "all we know he fought for the CIA backed Mujahideen and was born rich" and Al-Qaeda "was not even entity till the mid 90s and emerged out of nowhere" despite historical fact showing the were an entity in 1988!

But Cheerful Spring "look at the evidence unlike you"

Astonishing stuff really. Posting that in a discussion.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Yeah and Richard Clarke stated that he suspects the CIA wanted to get one of the men "onside", to get a mole. But that he suspects it didn't happen, and the men slipped through their fingers, and the attacks later happened

There are always questions of failures in the CIA/FBI after a large attack like that. It doesn't mean there was some secret giant plot.

Clarke absolutely admits that there were failures in the FBI and CIA. He admits his failures. Thats not even up for discussion. But as you say, that doesn't automatically mean conspiracy.

Cheerful Spring · 18-04-2019 2:43pm

The Nal wrote: »

Ive read Richard Clarkes book. Its excellent. At no point does he suggest 9/11 was organised by anyone but Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. And at no point does he suggest it was an inside job. He lays the blame at the Bush administrations obsession with Iraq and general complacency.

He 100% believes it was Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. Like you say, no some low level guy.

So, are you saying that the National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection and Counter-terrorism is a liar?

Have you read his book?

He is Washington politician, they don't consider the alternative, the attacks were a false flag.

He's speculation was the CIA were trying to recruit some of the 9/11 hijackers as double agents when they arrived in America- no evidence this is true, and the top brass at the CIA kept this ongoing operation secret. This obviously means bin laden and Al Qeada were still involved if this is the theory youi believe is true.

Richard Clarke is ignorning they may have kept him out of the loop so he would not hunt down the hijackers before they boarded the planes. If these guys are truly terrorists, and the CIA is tracking them, and their whereabouts to turn them, how in the hell then did they manage to boards planes on 9/11? They would have seen them with other terrorists and them taking flying lessons at flight schools?

I just not buying the double agent excuse, personally.

The Nal · 18-04-2019 2:46pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

He is Washington politician, they don't consider the alternative, the attacks were a false flag.

Right. So the person that you were using as a reference to back up a claim of a conspiracy 30 minutes ago is suddenly not credible because you've been presented with facts about him.

I see.

Cheerful Spring · 18-04-2019 2:53pm

The Nal wrote: »

Right. So the person that you were using as a reference to back up a claim of a conspiracy 30 minutes ago is suddenly not credible because you've been presented with facts about him.

I see.

Double agent info is speculation, by him. No way is that a fact :rolleyes:

The CIA has never admitted to anything, and its criminal, they are not telling the American public- the reasons why the kept this information secret.

The public has a right to know why the allowed these men to enter the United States and carry out 9/11.

Overheal · 18-04-2019 2:54pm

Not sure what this has to do with the BBC...

Dohnjoe · 18-04-2019 3:00pm

Cheerful, the problem you have with this event, is you keep using anything that isn't 100% black and white (to you) as some sort of springboard to some vast silly conspiracy

Yup Clarke may be right, the CIA may have tried to "turn" one of the men, ****ed it up, lost track of them and they later carried out the attack, **** like that happens - it doesnt mean the FBI and CIA sat down in a hollowed out volcano and planned flying planes into buildings

Yup there's still a bit of a grey area regarding how many in Saudi knew or potentially knew of the attacks, a suspicion that possibly other Saudi officials may have had knowledge, a third of the population works for the government over there, there have always be Wahhabi sympathies for groups like AQ from portions of the country - it doesn't mean the Saudi leadership, and Larry Silverstein, and the FBI, and Joe Biden sat down and planned the attacks

The BBC reports something by mistake during fluid 24 news - it doesn't mean they had some secret contact in a bizarre inside job

Some parts of the final NIST report may be highly complex, may be difficult to understand/grasp, may be ambiguous, may even be debatable - it doesn't invalidate the findings, it doesn't mean they are part of some immense secret coverup

Whatever the event (911, Sandy Hook, Boston bombing, NZ gun attack), conspiracy theorists put it under the microscope, and anything that doesn't make "sense" to them and their perceptions of how the world works becomes an "anomoly" that can only point towards a conspiracy. Which is coincidentally also their passion - finding conspiracies.

Cheerful Spring · 18-04-2019 3:24pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Cheerful, the problem you have with this event, is you keep using anything that isn't 100% black and white (to you) as some sort of springboard to some vast silly conspiracy

Yup Clarke may be right, the CIA may have tried to "turn" one of the men, ****ed it up, lost track of them and they later carried out the attack, **** like that happens - it doesnt mean the FBI and CIA sat down in a hollowed out volcano and planned flying planes into buildings

Yup there's still a bit of a grey area regarding how many in Saudi knew or potentially knew of the attacks, a suspicion that possibly other Saudi officials may have had knowledge, a third of the population works for the government over there, there have always be Wahhabi sympathies for groups like AQ from portions of the country - it doesn't mean the Saudi leadership, and Larry Silverstein, and the FBI, and Joe Biden sat down and planned the attacks

The BBC reports something by mistake during fluid 24 news - it doesn't mean they had some secret contact in a bizarre inside job

Some parts of the final NIST report may be highly complex, may be difficult to understand/grasp, may be ambiguous, may even be debatable - it doesn't invalidate the findings, it doesn't mean they are part of some immense secret coverup

Whatever the event (911, Sandy Hook, Boston bombing, NZ gun attack), conspiracy theorists put it under the microscope, and anything that doesn't make "sense" to them and their perceptions of how the world works becomes an "anomoly" that can only point towards a conspiracy. Which is coincidentally also their passion - finding conspiracies.

This is complete nonsense. How would you lose track of them when they are not incognito? They were using their real names to rent cars, rent apartments, they even used credit cards with their supposedly real names. They even checked into hotels before 9/11 and signed the resigtsry with their real names. There not a chance in hell they could have lost track of them. Just a quick search of bank records you find their address.

FBI would track these guys down in 24 hours, if given the info. They obviously were protected by the CIA, and in my view the attacks were allowed to go ahead. They're not there for anything else there plan was to carry out a terrorist attack. The CIA had all the info they needed before 9/11 to know who these guys are and what the plan was. Two of the Pentagon attackers were involved in the bombing of the Cole in Yemen in Oct 2000, so should have raised red flags immediately they should have got arrested when they landed on American soil.

Not true. When hijackers are meeting diplomants and Saudi spies then it obvious there a part of the Saudi government backing them. How many of them were arrested for this (none i know of) and why did the Bush neocons ignore this and not list Saudi Arabia as a country in the axis of terror. Even Pakistan was left out. No Afgan or Iraq citizen hijacked planes on 9/11.

BBC 'lose' all 9/11 footage

Comments