BBC Responds to Building 7 Controversy; Claim 9/11 Tapes Lost | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 202235 United States 02/28/2007 12:10 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
way to awake User ID: 160399 United States 02/28/2007 12:15 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | You people cherry pick incidents for your agenda. Mistatkes were made in a lot of the first hand info. Mistakes are almost ALWAYS made in first hand reporting of disasters. Quoting: Artist FKA HiRisqueJust to show you how selective you are in what you choose to to make your points; I happened to be watching multiple networks during the incidents. I distinctly remember about four different witnesses telling of their experience of seeing an airliner fly into the Pentagon. Yet you all either ignore that or say they were plants. You tend to decide what really happened according to how much you despise the government, Bush, whatever. Another case in point on mistakes seen in reporting or eyewitness reports is shown in the recent incident where the ballplayer flew his twin engine aircraft into a building. Many witnesses claimed it was a helicopter. The pilots identification ended up being found in the street. Just like one of the hijackers of the WTC crash aircraft. But of course because you have an agenda regarding the WTC it just isn't possible in that case. They would not have survived the explosion you say. One of the things I remember the most about the WTC disaster is the Millions of sheets of paper that came out of the building. Even though there was an explosion and fire from the crash; and from what you woo woos claim thousnad of explosive charges, thermite cutting charges (which don't even exist), concentrated energy beams, miniture fusion bombs, et all. But of course a passport wouldn't come through unscathed as it doesn't fit your agenda. Let me tell you something. Explosions in high speed crashes do not originate at the very front of the aircraft, it follows in its wake with all the debri, fuel etc. The hijackers passport did have a decent chance at survival. It's mass was very low dow it wouldn't get messed up with any certainty from decelleration. There is also the chance it was sheilded by other debri from fire as it made it's way out of the building. But again you have an agenda so you won't consider that. Did you mean, the paid shills who said something hit the Pentagon, or this U.S. general? 1 min video [link to www.youtube.com] |
-Freak- User ID: 201185 Norway 02/28/2007 12:22 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | <chuckle> Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23Ah, is it just that their transcripts have never been released or just that I haven't seen the transcripts? Both are possible especially the later! Who put you on the idea that releasing CVR and Flight Data recorder transcripts to the public is common practice after a crash? It's not, in the end that's up to the NTSB and FBI (in this case) to decide. |
Chuck User ID: 85992 United States 02/28/2007 12:24 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Did you mean, the paid shills who said something hit the Pentagon, or this U.S. general? 1 min video Quoting: way to awake[link to www.youtube.com] That's the general that was head of the Army's Remote Viewing project. Do you believe in Remote Viewing? I do but for those that don't, the general's statements are going to be irrelevant. I think his statements are irrelevant because he wasn't at the Pentagon. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 202191 Australia 02/28/2007 12:45 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 202251 United States 02/28/2007 12:54 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 202223 Australia 02/28/2007 12:58 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
cabaretvolt User ID: 186739 United States 02/28/2007 01:01 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
way to awake User ID: 160399 United States 02/28/2007 01:01 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Did you mean, the paid shills who said something hit the Pentagon, or this U.S. general? 1 min video Quoting: Chuck[link to www.youtube.com] That's the general that was head of the Army's Remote Viewing project. Do you believe in Remote Viewing? I do but for those that don't, the general's statements are going to be irrelevant. I think his statements are irrelevant because he wasn't at the Pentagon. Well, Hi, Chuck, did you check out what his specialty was, while employed in the military? The remote viewing program, is far more developed, than we know.......... |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 202191 Australia 02/28/2007 01:09 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Who put you on the idea that releasing CVR and Flight Data recorder transcripts to the public is common practice after a crash? Quoting: -Freak-It's not, in the end that's up to the NTSB and FBI (in this case) to decide. this was no ordinary crash. So in every instance that the purveyors of the official story have had to clear things up they don't… instead they lie, over and over. So why would they lie? Rofl. Simple simon, meet the PI man. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 147938 United States 02/28/2007 01:12 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | out of curiosity what has become the consensus as to how the cnn footage claiming collapse or collapsing prior to actual collapse or collapsing ties into the BBC footage? Quoting: cabaretvolt 186739You mean this - [link to www.youtube.com] Obviously, somebody was putting the info out there in the hope that if it was expected, they could get away with ("pulling") it, and we would all believe that it was a given that fire would result in catatrosphic failure. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 202191 Australia 02/28/2007 01:29 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I just ripped this from someone else at a different site… I'd love to link the site but I truly can't be that generous because I hate the sites owners… information is still good as far as I can gather…obviously verify for yourself… anyway, interesting. ----------------- "……….In a related note which is of interest here, BBC World was (I’m reasonably sure) being run by a woman called Dame Pauline Neville-Jones in 2001. BBC World is also not funded by the British state, which many people won’t know, but is funded by corporate donations and other “sponsors.” Anyhow, Dame Pauline once headed the Joint Intelligence Committee in the UK, a body which brings together the heads of the various British intelligence bodies with political leaders. She went from intelligence, to running the BBC World Service (radio) from which BBC World was spun off in 1995. Since leaving the BBC World Service, she has taken up a role on the board of QinetiQ (a corporation spun off from the UK defense establishment, from the privatization of which the Carlyle Group recently made a killing). She is also on the advisory board of the Intelligence Summit – where she joins Richard Perle, Kenneth Timmerman, Alrezi Jafarzadeh (the source of the U.S. “intelligence” on Iranian nuclear weapons programs). I thought that might be of interest, but as for any broader implications, I have nothing to add." ---------------------------- So BBC 'world' is NOT funded by the British state? |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 202259 United States 02/28/2007 01:32 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 114602 Canada 02/28/2007 01:47 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The original thread seems to be fading away like the rest of the 9/11 evidence. Quoting: SHRThe only debunking i've seen so far on this was SHR saying it was a taped feed. Can't wait for him to say he was wrong. Please make me, if I am wrong I will be the first to admit it. I already showed you all that even according to your own video that it was aired between 16:54 and 17:36 EST. or 4:54PM EST to 5:36 EST it even says time sync at the start of the 10 o'clock news 10 PM BST (5:00PM EST) All likely true and never disputed, since it is actualy the 10 o'clock new from the BBC. WTC7 collapsed at 4:23 EST, the problem that you guys won't face is that NYC was not on EST Eastern Standard Time on 9-11-2001, it was on Eastern Daylight Time, EDT which is what the collapse time was documented as 5:23 EDT, or 4:23 EST. If you want to catch some fish just say,"Hmmmmm this video was shown at 5 o'clock EST and WTC7 crashed at 5:23....right?" It never aired 23 minutes before, it aired 37 minutes after. As far as the video with Jane, it must be a composite. Will that be hard to prove? It likely will, but if you want to go believeing that the BBC shocked the world by scooping a rather large portion of the event of the millenium and didn't just put out a news feed with a background that was tape and pimped it as live, go ahead. The looking into the future, broadcasting it to millions, and the fact that nobody noticed is far more pausable, don't you agree? Very weak reply. Again the onus is on YOU to prove it is a composite/taped feed, and you cannot. It's not a matter of the BBC being clairvoyant or being able to see the future. I'm certainly aware of how news broadcasts can be taped to look live, but this video, unless proven by you, is live. So MY assumption, possibly wrong, is that it was a live feed, and Jane was reading from a teleprompted report. Watch any CNN live broadcast, Iraq feeds for example, and it will show a reporter obviously reading from a teleprompter. I haven't seen an ad libbed report in a very long time. Even the questions from the anchor are pre-written so the live reporter can respond in kind. So I would say this was the same situation, except that the teleprompter gave the report too early for Jane to read. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 202273 Canada 02/28/2007 02:09 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
ChecksInTheMail User ID: 185033 United States 02/28/2007 02:17 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
ChecksInTheMail User ID: 185033 United States 02/28/2007 02:21 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | you're all a bunch of crackpots. Quoting: ChecksInTheMail 185033So the camps are divided into crackpots on one side, and idiots on the other? Why do you even come here? Leave us crackpots alone, idiot. (responding to above idiot: ) It's like the radio station I was listening to on the way to work... the game/theme was "beat a 5th grader" (some new show, I don't normally pay attention to the same shit on tv most do). The question to an adult caller was: Does the moon provide it's own light? Retard caller was "yes, it does!" This is the level of stupidity we have to deal with every day from most people. Fucking sad. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 202282 Australia 02/28/2007 03:20 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The language of this editorial reveals so much - the BBC truly believes that no-one of consequence will believe this story, and therefore they do not need to release anything which seriously addresses the issue. Frankly this editorial is a JOKE - it's much too formal, and proves that the BBC thinks anyone who would even consider the story to be true and seek out their response must be an idiot. I am amazed they even bothered to release it. The throwaway tone of the editiorial belies a vehement opinion - would you believe ANYONE who is about to tell you the truth of a situation, and then begins their sentence with "So here goes"? Just about every criminal confession I've read which begins with "so here goes" (or similar terminology) is followed by fabrication. As to whether Mr Porter is lying or not - I really wouldn't have believed that a piddling little editor who came five years after the event would have any insider knowledge - I would expect this guy to be in the dark - so I find this whole thing very odd... Richard Porter is either an utter moron who hates questions he can't answer - or he KNOWS what happened at the BBC that day, and is quite shaken that people are beginning to ask questions. I tend to believe the former - but after reading that editorial, I am really shocked the BBC would release somthing so amateur, and so unconvincing. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 202282 Australia 02/28/2007 03:25 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | E-mail lie detector launched by LAURA ROBERTS 26th February 2007 Academics say cheats give away tell-tale signs of lying through their word patterns. They say the basic patterns in our language change dramatically when we are uncertain or lying. Researchers found five indicators which show with a 70 per cent accuracy rate if someone is lying. Look out for lengthy messages. Emails with fibs have around 28 per cent more words than those telling the whole truth. Liars also feel they have to try harder to prove they are not faking, so they overuse 'sense terms' to make a fake scenario more realistic. They tend to blame others in their emails and they use emotionally negative words like 'stressed out' which expresses their discomfort at lying. Finally, liars limit the 'causal phrases' they use to reduce the chance of being found out. Instead of giving a specific explanation a cheating spouse, for example, will be deliberately vague when providing a reason for being late home. Analyse the email according to the indicators given in this article, and there would definitely seem to be something Richard Porter is hiding about this scandal - and it's not just a simple 'cock-up' which resulted in lost 9/11 footage. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 77 Hong Kong 02/28/2007 03:37 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I just ripped this from someone else at a different site… I'd love to link the site but I truly can't be that generous because I hate the sites owners… information is still good as far as I can gather…obviously verify for yourself… Quoting: Anonymous Coward 202191anyway, interesting. ----------------- "……….In a related note which is of interest here, BBC World was (I’m reasonably sure) being run by a woman called Dame Pauline Neville-Jones in 2001. BBC World is also not funded by the British state, which many people won’t know, but is funded by corporate donations and other “sponsors.” Anyhow, Dame Pauline once headed the Joint Intelligence Committee in the UK, a body which brings together the heads of the various British intelligence bodies with political leaders. She went from intelligence, to running the BBC World Service (radio) from which BBC World was spun off in 1995. Since leaving the BBC World Service, she has taken up a role on the board of QinetiQ (a corporation spun off from the UK defense establishment, from the privatization of which the Carlyle Group recently made a killing). She is also on the advisory board of the Intelligence Summit – where she joins Richard Perle, Kenneth Timmerman, Alrezi Jafarzadeh (the source of the U.S. “intelligence” on Iranian nuclear weapons programs). I thought that might be of interest, but as for any broader implications, I have nothing to add." ---------------------------- So BBC 'world' is NOT funded by the British state? BBC World Service is funded by the British Government's Foreign Office. Thanks for the Dame info. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 101239 United States 02/28/2007 03:44 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 183694 Canada 02/28/2007 04:20 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The original thread seems to be fading away like the rest of the 9/11 evidence. Quoting: SHRThe only debunking i've seen so far on this was SHR saying it was a taped feed. Can't wait for him to say he was wrong. Please make me, if I am wrong I will be the first to admit it. I already showed you all that even according to your own video that it was aired between 16:54 and 17:36 EST. or 4:54PM EST to 5:36 EST it even says time sync at the start of the 10 o'clock news 10 PM BST (5:00PM EST) All likely true and never disputed, since it is actualy the 10 o'clock new from the BBC. WTC7 collapsed at 4:23 EST, the problem that you guys won't face is that NYC was not on EST Eastern Standard Time on 9-11-2001, it was on Eastern Daylight Time, EDT which is what the collapse time was documented as 5:23 EDT, or 4:23 EST. If you want to catch some fish just say,"Hmmmmm this video was shown at 5 o'clock EST and WTC7 crashed at 5:23....right?" It never aired 23 minutes before, it aired 37 minutes after. As far as the video with Jane, it must be a composite. Will that be hard to prove? It likely will, but if you want to go believeing that the BBC shocked the world by scooping a rather large portion of the event of the millenium and didn't just put out a news feed with a background that was tape and pimped it as live, go ahead. The looking into the future, broadcasting it to millions, and the fact that nobody noticed is far more pausable, don't you agree? Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I've spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn't remember minute-by-minute what she said or did - like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services. [link to www.prisonplanet.com] |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 183694 Canada 02/28/2007 04:22 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 147938 United States 02/28/2007 04:34 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 57325 Germany 02/28/2007 04:43 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 197761 United States 02/28/2007 05:12 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | e-mail it to all local media. Stop wasting time debating the disinfo idiots here. Their job is anchor you, and keep you from doing much damage. Get out there and get after it. [link to pissedoffcabbie.blogspot.com] |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 202306 United Kingdom 02/28/2007 05:16 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Un-fucking-believable!!! Quoting: killdamonYep, that sums that up. The BBC just got bitch slapped in the face from the big hand of TRUTH ! :Usfla2: BBC = POO BBC = Every other channel BBC = Bloody Bullshit Cometh BBC = Nickelodeon BBC = RIP hang on, this is a BBC forum right if you want a real shocker find the tape of the morning breakfast show they did where they advertised the movie for flight 93 youll see a 7ft tall reptilian woman boisterously shout over the top of a family member who lost someone that day and oh boy does she try to SELL it see if you can dig it out BBC'rs i promise you its worth it youll see the slime oozing out of every pore |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 147938 United States 02/28/2007 05:16 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Ignore the debunkers, and concentrate on spreading the word. Go to every message board and forum that you can think of, and Quoting: Anonymous Coward 197761e-mail it to all local media. Stop wasting time debating the disinfo idiots here. Their job is anchor you, and keep you from doing much damage. Get out there and get after it. [link to pissedoffcabbie.blogspot.com] RIGHT ON! |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 147938 United States 02/28/2007 05:23 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Un-fucking-believable!!! Quoting: Anonymous Coward 202306Yep, that sums that up. The BBC just got bitch slapped in the face from the big hand of TRUTH ! :Usfla2: BBC = POO BBC = Every other channel BBC = Bloody Bullshit Cometh BBC = Nickelodeon BBC = RIP hang on, this is a BBC forum right if you want a real shocker find the tape of the morning breakfast show they did where they advertised the movie for flight 93 youll see a 7ft tall reptilian woman boisterously shout over the top of a family member who lost someone that day and oh boy does she try to SELL it see if you can dig it out BBC'rs i promise you its worth it youll see the slime oozing out of every pore You know what the show is, so go dig it up! Sounds good. More dirt, please! Are you in the UK? If so, is this a story over there? |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 101239 United States 02/28/2007 05:26 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |