Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
GridIronAssassin#1

The BBC Reports Collapse of WT Building 7 Early -- TWICE

Recommended Posts

 

 

How would the reporters know that WTC7 would collapse before it actually did? You can see it behind the lady's head who is reporting live from Manhatten.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would the reporters know that WTC7 would collapse before it actually did? You can see it behing the lady's head who is reporting live from Manhatten.

 

Because Bush walked in, selected the proper weight bearing columns, laced each with 40 lbs of c4, after about a 18 hrs of that silliness it was time to call the lady reporting from the UK that he was about to flip the switch to bring the buildings down. But after he made the call he was distracted by one of those little office toys with the five balls that click together, and totally forgot to blow the phucker up in time. But alas, he got around to it, but not before he crashed a plane into the ground, another into the pentagon, 2 more into the WTC and THEN flipped the detonators to finally bring them down controlled demolition style which was sure not to raise any eyebrows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HOLY CRAP! AN INCORRECT PRESS REPORT!! CLEARLY THERE IS A VAST GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY AFOOT!!!!

 

 

Do you ever stop and think about how stupid this sh!t actually sounds?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That British lady said it looked like a huge atom bomb went off down there...

 

Alert everyone....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Brits are like 8 hours ahead of us so they always know things before we do. This splains why they tend to be arrogant prycks.

 

yw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Brits are like 8 hours ahead of us so they always know things before we do. This splains why they tend to be arrogant prycks.

 

yw

:dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Brits are like 8 hours ahead of us so they always know things before we do. This splains why they tend to be arrogant prycks.

 

yw

 

:dunno: :doh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Brits are like 8 hours ahead of us so they always know things before we do. This splains why they tend to be arrogant prycks.

 

yw

:pointstosky:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HOLY CRAP! AN INCORRECT PRESS REPORT!! CLEARLY THERE IS A VAST GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY AFOOT!!!!

Do you ever stop and think about how stupid this sh!t actually sounds?

 

:blink: :clap: :doublethumbsup: :headbanger:

 

Read my sig......Which I stole from Riddlen.

This MUST be true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would anyone like to bet that over 90% of the 911 conspiracy theorists are liberals? Let me know.

 

Oh, and anyone willing to bet that less than 90% of those who take part in the "Global Warming" thing are liberal, Id like to talk to you also.

 

Does anyone see a trend?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would anyone like to bet that over 90% of the 911 conspiracy theorists are liberals? Let me know.

Yeah, I'll take it. Anxiously awaiting your proof. :doublethumbsup:

 

I can tell you that MrSteak21, one the biggest true believers in 9/11 conspiracies here was railing about what a load of sh!t global warming is just the other day. Not that you really care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What it "proves" is anyone’s guess, but it sure makes for hilarious viewing. But BBC reporters and anchors who maybe didn’t know the Manhattan skyline so well could possibly be forgiven for reporting an erroneous story and not knowing that great big highrise was World Trade Center 7 (otherwise known as the Salomon Brothers building). So why doesn’t the BBC simply say it got a story wrong and didn’t know any better? Stranger still, why did New York-based CNN anchor Aaron Brown do the same exact thing on September 11, 2001?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would the reporters know that WTC7 would collapse before it actually did? You can see it behind the lady's head who is reporting live from Manhatten.

 

 

See...this is my problem with people who raise these issues. So, they announced it early. What are we to understand from that? Seriously? What does that make you think? Does it persuade you to think that 9/11 was an inside job or something? Please explain your thoughts. thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"So why doesn’t the BBC simply say it got a story wrong and didn’t know any better?"

 

They did exactly that.

 

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

 

 

"The 9/11 conspiracy theories are pretty well known by now. The BBC addressed them earlier this month with a documentary, The Conspiracy Files, shown within the UK.

Until now, I don't think we've been accused of being part of the conspiracy. But now some websites are using news footage from BBC World on September 11th 2001 to suggest we were actively participating in some sort of attempt to manipulate the audience. As a result, we're now getting lots of emails asking us to clarify our position. So here goes:

1. We're not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening.

2. In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had. We did what we always did - sourced our reports, used qualifying words like "apparently" or "it's reported" or "we're hearing" and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving.

3. Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I've spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn't remember minute-by-minute what she said or did - like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services.

4. We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of ######-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another.

5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today "so the guy in the studio didn't quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy... "

Richard Porter is head of news, BBC World

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"So why doesn’t the BBC simply say it got a story wrong and didn’t know any better?"

 

They did exactly that.

 

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

"The 9/11 conspiracy theories are pretty well known by now. The BBC addressed them earlier this month with a documentary, The Conspiracy Files, shown within the UK.

Until now, I don't think we've been accused of being part of the conspiracy. But now some websites are using news footage from BBC World on September 11th 2001 to suggest we were actively participating in some sort of attempt to manipulate the audience. As a result, we're now getting lots of emails asking us to clarify our position. So here goes:

1. We're not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening.

2. In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had. We did what we always did - sourced our reports, used qualifying words like "apparently" or "it's reported" or "we're hearing" and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving.

3. Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I've spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn't remember minute-by-minute what she said or did - like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services.

4. We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of ######-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another.

5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today "so the guy in the studio didn't quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy... "

Richard Porter is head of news, BBC World

 

6. Also, we are 8 hours ahead, so well ya know.......just saying :cheers:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"So why doesn’t the BBC simply say it got a story wrong and didn’t know any better?"

 

They did exactly that.

 

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

"The 9/11 conspiracy theories are pretty well known by now. The BBC addressed them earlier this month with a documentary, The Conspiracy Files, shown within the UK.

Until now, I don't think we've been accused of being part of the conspiracy. But now some websites are using news footage from BBC World on September 11th 2001 to suggest we were actively participating in some sort of attempt to manipulate the audience. As a result, we're now getting lots of emails asking us to clarify our position. So here goes:

1. We're not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening.

2. In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had. We did what we always did - sourced our reports, used qualifying words like "apparently" or "it's reported" or "we're hearing" and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving.

3. Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I've spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn't remember minute-by-minute what she said or did - like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services.

4. We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of ######-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another.

5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today "so the guy in the studio didn't quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy... "

Richard Porter is head of news, BBC World

 

 

But Chronic said.... :cheers:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"So why doesn’t the BBC simply say it got a story wrong and didn’t know any better?"

 

They did exactly that.

 

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

"The 9/11 conspiracy theories are pretty well known by now. The BBC addressed them earlier this month with a documentary, The Conspiracy Files, shown within the UK.

Until now, I don't think we've been accused of being part of the conspiracy. But now some websites are using news footage from BBC World on September 11th 2001 to suggest we were actively participating in some sort of attempt to manipulate the audience. As a result, we're now getting lots of emails asking us to clarify our position. So here goes:

1. We're not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening.

2. In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had. We did what we always did - sourced our reports, used qualifying words like "apparently" or "it's reported" or "we're hearing" and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving.

3. Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I've spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn't remember minute-by-minute what she said or did - like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services.

4. We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of ######-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another.

5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today "so the guy in the studio didn't quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy... "

Richard Porter is head of news, BBC World

 

 

I commend you for constantly killing these threads with facts...but warn you that you are wasting your time...this will not be the last theory that has already been blown out of the water that gridiron or MrSteak will post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"So why doesn’t the BBC simply say it got a story wrong and didn’t know any better?"

 

They did exactly that.

 

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

"The 9/11 conspiracy theories are pretty well known by now. The BBC addressed them earlier this month with a documentary, The Conspiracy Files, shown within the UK.

Until now, I don't think we've been accused of being part of the conspiracy. But now some websites are using news footage from BBC World on September 11th 2001 to suggest we were actively participating in some sort of attempt to manipulate the audience. As a result, we're now getting lots of emails asking us to clarify our position. So here goes:

1. We're not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening.

2. In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had. We did what we always did - sourced our reports, used qualifying words like "apparently" or "it's reported" or "we're hearing" and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving.

3. Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I've spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn't remember minute-by-minute what she said or did - like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services.

4. We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of ######-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another.

5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today "so the guy in the studio didn't quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy... "

Richard Porter is head of news, BBC World

 

Thanks for your research and comments on this, OakHeadFootball. I guess Mr. Porter stated in #5 it was an error, thus answering my aforementioned question. But based upon the link you posted, you should read all the comments or just some of them. Pick any.

This explanation Porter is giving just doesn't wash. What happened to the tapes of the 9/11 coverage owned by BBC? Where is the explanation of the basic question, how could the BBC report this news 23 minutes before it actually happens? Major news organizations don't just simply lose their data bases of the most important events in history. You'll have to admit, even though you did answer a question of mine accurately, after reading the comments from the link you posted, one cannot be very convinced of Richard Porter's list of explanations.

 

scroll down to the comments section==>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007...conspiracy.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"how could the BBC report this news 23 minutes before it actually happens?"

 

It was no secret WTC 7 was in danger of collapse. People on the scene feared it for hours before it actually happened.

 

But don't take my word that the news crews were told to expect a collapse.

 

"Ashleigh Banfield of MSNBC is interviewing a woman when WTC 7 collapses in the background. Banfield: “This is it!” Newsman Brian Williams: “What we’ve been fearing all afternoon has apparently happened. We’ve been watching number seven World Trade, which was part of the ancillary damage of the explosion and collapse of the other two.”

 

Sago mine disaster major media headlines. (Just for example)

 

"12 Miners Found Alive 41 Hours After Explosion"

"Twelve Alive."

"Joy At Mine: 12 Are Alive."

"They're Alive."

"12 Found Alive in W. Va. Coal Mine"

"Miracle at Sago, 12 Miners Alive."

Similar reports happened in the Cory Little crash, Dewy defeats Truman, and recent elections.

 

I had previously been to the WTC twice before 9/11 and If someone asked me to point out WTC7 I most certainly would not have known which particular building it was. ;)

 

"Major news organizations don't just simply lose their data bases of the most important events in history."

 

How does it change anything if they had the tapes? Does having this footage exonerate or implicate them ?

It did happen over 5 years ago, not last week. It is a moot point. They gave a fair explanation. Some will refuse to accept it. That is SOP for conspiracy circles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"how could the BBC report this news 23 minutes before it actually happens?"

 

It was no secret WTC 7 was in danger of collapse. People on the scene feared it for hours before it actually happened.

 

But don't take my word that the news crews were told to expect a collapse.

 

"Ashleigh Banfield of MSNBC is interviewing a woman when WTC 7 collapses in the background. Banfield: “This is it!” Newsman Brian Williams: “What we’ve been fearing all afternoon has apparently happened. We’ve been watching number seven World Trade, which was part of the ancillary damage of the explosion and collapse of the other two.”

 

Sago mine disaster major media headlines. (Just for example)

 

"12 Miners Found Alive 41 Hours After Explosion"

"Twelve Alive."

"Joy At Mine: 12 Are Alive."

"They're Alive."

"12 Found Alive in W. Va. Coal Mine"

"Miracle at Sago, 12 Miners Alive."

Similar reports happened in the Cory Little crash, Dewy defeats Truman, and recent elections.

 

I had previously been to the WTC twice before 9/11 and If someone asked me to point out WTC7 I most certainly would not have known which particular building it was. ;)

 

"Major news organizations don't just simply lose their data bases of the most important events in history."

 

How does it change anything if they had the tapes? Does having this footage exonerate or implicate them ?

It did happen over 5 years ago, not last week. It is a moot point. They gave a fair explanation. Some will refuse to accept it. That is SOP for conspiracy circles.

 

 

Damn. This may go down as the largest/best ass whipping this board has ever seen. Two of the biggest slams ive ever seen in the same thread against the same guy. Superb Oak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would the reporters know that WTC7 would collapse before it actually did? You can see it behind the lady's head who is reporting live from Manhatten.

 

Because it was scheduled to be imploded that day, just like the other two buildings. The Amerikan goverment's operational HQ for that day was located in WTC 7. That building had to come down no matter what. And it imploded just like the other two buildings......just seven hours later. And they had to ruin the evidence and melt all the fake Jew gold.

 

It was an inside job by the Amerikan govt. and the Mossad.

 

Just like the plane in SW Pennsylvania was shot out of the sky by an unmarked air force jet fighter.

 

But, I am sure the Amerikan Sheeple will continue to believe that some loser needing a kidney dialysis machine was responsible for this. That a few Arabs who wanted to fly around some crop-dusters and not land them were able to pilot Amerikan commercial aircraft. That one of the planes was doing focking loopdeeloops all over DC before smashing into the Pentagram.

 

If you have questions.....ask the Pres. ask Larry Silverstein.

 

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Way to commit doooosh ;)

So, you failed at calling me out on the 9/11 thread and now, since you realize you couldn't call me out on it, you criticize me for not committing to something to call me out on.

 

Who's the doooooosh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also - NOBODY has discredited (because they can't) the FACT that YEARS before the planes hit the towers, we "conveniently" made our emergency phone number NINE. ONE. ONE. - The exact same date as 9/11!!!

 

This baby had been in the planning stages for years, I tell ya. Years. :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your research and comments on this, OakHeadFootball. I guess Mr. Porter stated in #5 it was an error, thus answering my aforementioned question. But based upon the link you posted, you should read all the comments or just some of them. Pick any.

This explanation Porter is giving just doesn't wash. What happened to the tapes of the 9/11 coverage owned by BBC? Where is the explanation of the basic question, how could the BBC report this news 23 minutes before it actually happens? Major news organizations don't just simply lose their data bases of the most important events in history. You'll have to admit, even though you did answer a question of mine accurately, after reading the comments from the link you posted, one cannot be very convinced of Richard Porter's list of explanations.

 

scroll down to the comments section==>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007...conspiracy.html

 

 

What did I tell you Oak...no matter what you do...no matter how many times you poke holes in their assertions...they can never admit it and will just keep going with nonsense.

 

Save your time...just get out now and mock them instead...its much more fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would anyone like to bet that over 90% of the 911 conspiracy theorists are liberals? Let me know.

 

Oh, and anyone willing to bet that less than 90% of those who take part in the "Global Warming" thing are liberal, Id like to talk to you also.

 

Does anyone see a trend?

 

yes. repubtards like you continue to ignore facts and are dumb. :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What did I tell you Oak...no matter what you do...no matter how many times you poke holes in their assertions...they can never admit it and will just keep going with nonsense.

 

Save your time...just get out now and mock them instead...its much more fun.

 

Stop spreading lies...educate yourself

 

prisonplanet.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, you failed at calling me out on the 9/11 thread and now, since you realize you couldn't call me out on it, you criticize me for not committing to something to call me out on.

 

Who's the doooooosh?

 

 

ummm....you are. I just told you so. Boy, you really are an idiot. :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where is the explanation of the basic question, how could the BBC report this news 23 minutes before it actually happens?

 

 

Oaks whole post directly addressed that "basic question". Moron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stop spreading lies...educate yourself

 

prisonplanet.com

 

What particular level of "suck" are you shooting for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What particular level of "suck" are you shooting for?

 

I was in Best Buy yesterday...saw a crapload of 9/11 Truth DVDs on sale.

 

It was then when I said..."we belong."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stop spreading lies...educate yourself

 

prisonplanet.com

 

Thanks...you disagreeing with me only confirms my beliefs as the correct ones.

 

Have a nice day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks...you disagreeing with me only confirms my beliefs as the correct ones.

 

Have a nice day.

 

Just mind along with the rest of your sheep...good boy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×