It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

BBC actually produced 2 9/11 documentaries. Forced to air pro-gov version.

page: 3
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by timeless test

Originally posted by Essan
Anyone know what next week's episode is about?


Next week's programme is about the suicide of David Kelly. You remember, he's the scientist who died after the BBC broadcast criticism of the Government...


Now that will interesting




posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by timeless test
Let's not forget that it was the hugely respected and influential BBC Radio 4 "Today" programme which broadcast Andrew Gilligan's infamous report which accused Alistair Campbell of "sexing up" one of the dossiers and ultimately precipitated David Kelly's suicide. (Which incidentally is the subject of next weeks "Conspiracy Files" programme).

The fallout of that flawed report, (it was Gilligan's own admission that it was flawed by the way), did lead to the resignation of the then Director General amidst much controversy but the fact that the report was cleared by the programme editor and broadcast clearly indicates that the BBC is far from being simply a Government mouthpiece.


It actually led to the murder of a top Nuclear physicist, the resignation of the Director General, Two of his senior staff, and the resignation of the very reporter who broke the story in the first place, Andrew Gilligan. Your statement that that scandal clearly indicates the BBC are not a Government mouthpiece is also completely innacurate.

Good Sir, I now direct you to this BBC article:


news.bbc.co.uk...

BBC apologises as Dyke quits

Director General Greg Dyke has quit as the BBC's crisis deepens in the wake of Lord Hutton's damning verdict.
The BBC's new Acting Chairman Lord Ryder also apologised "unreservedly" for errors during the Dr Kelly affair.

Mr Dyke's departure came 20 hours after BBC Chairman Gavyn Davies resigned following the Hutton Report and after the governors spent Thursday morning in crisis talks in London.
In the wake of his resignation there were spontaneous walkouts at BBC offices in Birmingham, Manchester, Newcastle, Glasgow, Cardiff and Londonderry.

Staff at BBC Somerset Sound walked out and the station aired a minute of silence in protest.

Lord Ryder said: "The BBC must now move forward in the wake of Lord Hutton's report, which highlighted serious defects in the Corporation's processes and procedures.

"On behalf of the BBC I have no hesitation in apologising unreservedly for our errors and to the individuals whose reputations were affected by them."

Prime Minister Tony Blair quickly welcomed the statement, saying it meant both the BBC and the government could move on.

He said: "This for me has always been a very simple matter of an accusation that was a very serious one that was made. It has now been withdrawn, that is all I ever wanted."


I apologise for the somewhat long quotation of the article, there, but I felt it necesarry. I now rest my case on this issue and will not mention it any further.



Anybody who has read or posted on this site for any period of time cannot fail to be aware that plenty of rational and intelligent people who owe no allegiance to either Bush or Blair and have a relatively open mind on conspiracy theories do not accept the controlled demolition theory, or the no Boeing theory or lots of other theories. What is a pity is that one or two people, (not all, fortunately), on this thread and others seem to take such personal affront that a large broadcaster like the BBC presented a programme which adopted this point of view rather than theirs.


Oh don't give me that Crap, I've been posting on this site for over Five years (and no that doesn't necessarily mean that I am a previously banned member). It's not that I take such a personal affront that the BBC adopted that viewpoint and not my own, I'm not that fanatical; I was affronted by the fact that they #ing lied and purposefully withheld crucial information. What is so difficult to understand about that?

Thank you.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
Seems to me that because the BBC don't agree with you then you automatically assume they've been silenced. After it, it's impossible that they are right and that you are wrong ......

Interesting the programme draw similar conclusion to me though



Oh for crying out loud! What's the point of writing about 15 pages worth of text if nobody bothers to stinking read it? I've explained a thousand times right here in this very thread, and with solid evidence, that I don't think the BBC are silenced just because they had a different opinion to myself! They lied! They distorted the facts! They were not "educational or informative!" No it's not impossible that they could have proved me wrong, but the fact of the matter is they didn't! They didn't even come close.

End of story.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by MassiveOrigamiRacoon
I was affronted by the fact that they #ing lied and purposefully withheld crucial information.
Thank you.


I don't believe that anybody has identified where they lied on that programme, they simply presented a point of view which you disagree with. A more mature response would be to point out where they went wrong and not to bandy foul language and accusation of lying around the board.

Neither your case or your credibility is helped when you make statements such as...



It actually led to the murder of a top Nuclear physicist...


Where is the evidence, (and I don't mean speculation and supposition), that he was murdered? That is your opinion, or should I accuse you of lying?



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by timeless test

I don't believe that anybody has identified where they lied on that programme, they simply presented a point of view which you disagree with. A more mature response would be to point out where they went wrong and not to bandy foul language and accusation of lying around the board.


Unbelievable, simply unbelievable. I have been as mature as I possibly can in the face of such massive ignorance and a blatant refusal to acknowledge any information I have provided -- which, I might add, is now becoming substantial. You wont comment on the articles I provide, you just keep asking me to repeat myself and it is driving me absolutely crazy. Look, just please go back and read my posts, it's all there I'm not going to keep repeating myself.

Could somebody please give me a hand here? (Thank you, by the way, neformore, and andy1033).


Originally posted by timeless test
Neither your case or your credibility is helped when you make statements such as...



It actually led to the murder of a top Nuclear physicist...


Where is the evidence, (and I don't mean speculation and supposition), that he was murdered? That is your opinion, or should I accuse you of lying?


You can try and accuse me of lying if you like, but it will not help your already considerably weak argument.

Fine, I'll bite. Eat this one, Buddy. Ironically enough, it's the BBC!


news.bbc.co.uk...

Medics raise Kelly death doubts

Two paramedics who attended the scene where weapons expert David Kelly was found dead have expressed surprise at the official inquiry's conclusion.
The Hutton Inquiry found he died as a result of a slit wrist in July 2003.

But the medics said the small amount of blood they saw around the body was inconsistent with the cut on his wrist being the cause of death.

They spoke to the inquiry and Thames Valley Police, who say the investigation will not be reopened.


My Mother just happens to be a Paramedic, and guess what? She knows these people and agrees with them there is no way that Kelly died how they say he did, or where they say he did.

But wait, I sense a reply in the works from somebody asking why I am now quoting BBC articles to prove my case after I have just heavily criticised them for being subject to masses of Government gag orders? Read the rest of the article, before you bother:



The scientist killed himself after being named as the possible source of a BBC story.

Tom Mangold, a former BBC journalist and friend of Dr Kelly, said: "The fact that the paramedics did not find sufficient blood does not mean that it was not spilt.

"Although I am sure they are speaking in good faith there is no doubt in my mind, or anyone else connected with the case, that David committed suicide."


How can they say that he killed himself considering the subject matter of the article? Why are they bothering to quote Dr Kelly's 'friend' for re-assurance of the Government and Hutton line? If the Paramedics say he didn't kill himself publicly then how the hell would his 'friend' know any better? Not to even ask just why in the hell the BBc felt the need to quote that as the first text under the sub-title "Coroners Decision" when it has nothing to do with the Coroners decision. Blatantly sly. The author of that article doesn't even question the fact that the investigation will not be re-opened inspite of this damning testimony and doesn't say a word about how suspicious it is that Hutton stopped the Coroner from performing his inquest or the fact that the Coroner wasn't even going to reconviene afterwards.

Ridiculous. There was a thread somewhere on ATS that goes further into explaining this for persons that are interested in learning the truth, but I seem to not be able to find it with the advanced search.



[edit on 20-2-2007 by MassiveOrigamiRacoon]



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 10:14 AM
link   
massiveorigami raccoon;

Right; I see you are translating a reference to 'some conspiracy nuts' into a remark directly at yourself. Fair enough, its your choice. As the saying goes "if the cap fits" The fact that I was offering my opinion generally to the thread as a whole and did not actually mention you by name is clearly either irrelevant to you or beyond your understanding. Well, tough luck if you are that insecure that you take everything to heart. Maybe you are still a teenager? if so you will probabaly grow out of it.

If I had been directing the remark at you I would have said so, as I have at the start of this thread and as I do everytime I direct a comment at an individual. take a look through my past threads if you don't believe me.



Are you trying to say now that an observation cannot also act as an insult?


It would only be insulting if it was directed at you, surely? It wasn't, and I didn't think that. But I do now.

For instance, you said;


Irrelevant, you and the person you were paraphrasing from a different thread said that the film didn't contain anything about the Pentagon theories,


and when I pulled you up about it you quoted this passage from my original post;



A case in point is the guy on another thread about this subject who refuses to believe anything in this programme might be right because it did not conclude that a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon, and therefore must be lying.



How does the film not concluding that a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon equate to them not saying anything about it? Is English your first language?



I haven't lied a single time in this thread at all


So how would you describe that last example?



your trickery and dishonesty is right here in this thread for everyone to witness for themselves.

Er, does 'pot, kettle and black' mean anything to you?



Who wrote, produced, and aired the documentary? Walt Disney?


Did 'the BBC' collectively write produce and air the programme? No. Do you know how the BBC commisions programmes? Do you seriously imagine that the people who made this show were recruited by the BBC and told what conclusion to come to?



Besides, you were actually defending this individual programme in your initial post in this thread


I have looked, but cannot find where I said the findings of this programme were 100% correct and must be believed, which is what you seem to be suggesting. Maybe you imagined it. I can see I offered a possibility, which I followed with a question mark. If you didn't understand what was written I can't be arsed to explain it all again.



Tell me something, if the BBC were so critical on Television then why has hardly any of that criticism appeared on their page set up to list their "Day by Day coverage of the War,"

Because the day by day page is, as its name tells you, a diaristic record of daily events. 'Reporting' and 'Opinion' are not the same thing, thankfully, except somewhere like Fox News. The reporting of events in that section are perfectly open, so what on earth are you ranting about?

You might be doing a great job of convincing yourself with your trivial side issues but its not working on me. I've seen too much in my life to be bamboozled by such as you.

You now seem to be basing your opinion on the fact that the BBC screwed up on something and was brought to book about it. Well, hallelujah! They aren't perfect, what a surprise. taking that on to say they then 'obviously' went on to produce a programme attacking the 911 conspiracy theories at the behest of the British Govt is an incredible leap and there is no way of supporting such a claim. 1 + 1 = 763 or what?




ake a look at that last statement -- take a look at the whole stinking article -- and then try and tell me that the Government can't silence the BBC.


But thats not what you have been saying, you said the conclusion of the programme was directed by the Govt - not the same thing at all.

I already said that if the govt intervened because the conclusion of the show was not to their liking there would have been no show at all. Just because the show did air does not prove a thing.



It's evidence of someones control.


Yes, and that someone being the production team on the programme itself.



I have shown unequivocally that the BBC are being gagged and controlled by detailing the atrocities that took place over the Gilligan/Kelly/Campbell/Hutton scandal.


No, you have shown that the BBC is not a law unto itself when it screws up, nothing more than that except in your own fertile imagination. None of it has any bearing on this documentary at all.



You have been utterly destroyed, and I care not what you will now go on to say.


Have I indeed? Destroyed by misrepresentation coupled with circumstantial speculation? Very convincing, I think not.

I see you are now taking out your frustration on other members of the board too. Its no good just jumping up and down screaming 'Liars!'. Show the lie, expose it. Then you might have a chance.

Its all 'they lied, they distorted the facts'. The programme makers might be wrong, but your deduction that this points to deliberate misinformation by the corporation itself is asinine.



[edit on 20-2-2007 by waynos]



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 10:23 AM
link   

You have added waynos to your Ignore List. Refresh the current page to remove their posts from the thread.



Originally posted by timeless test
I don't believe that anybody has identified where they lied on that programme, they simply presented a point of view which you disagree with. A more mature response would be to point out where they went wrong and not to bandy foul language and accusation of lying around the board.


I've got some more for you, too.

Producer Struggles to Defend Flaws & Bias of BBC Hit Piece
BBC Hit Piece a Tissue of Lies, Bias and Emotional Manipulation

You may not like the source, but please just read what they have to say with an open mind. If you can point out any errors then please do so.


[edit on 20-2-2007 by MassiveOrigamiRacoon]



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 10:29 AM
link   
waynos, do you believe that the higher ups at the BBC didn't really care what was going to be said on the 911-conspiracy files? Or the governement, or MI5/6?
Let me remind you that the official version of 9/11 is not an established fact for a rather large part of the UK and european population.

Do you know what would happen if the BBC opened the 6 o'clock news with a story on governement involvement in 911?



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Its not that they wouldn't care, its more that the programme would not go out. Basically the producers make shows and draw conclusions that they believe, this is their right of expression and free speech. It is enshrined in the BBC.


The programme may be wrong in its conclusions but the important thing to remember is that those who made it believe it to be true. There are several tapes gathering dust in the BBC archives waiting for the day they can be broadcast due to the fact that the hierarchy stepped in over the content. Only a couple of years ago a programme made in the 60's was aired for the first time. This is what I am driving at. It is a different thing altogether to say that the BBC is broadcasting govt propaganda.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by MassiveOrigamiRacoon

Originally posted by timeless test

I don't believe that anybody has identified where they lied on that programme, they simply presented a point of view which you disagree with. A more mature response would be to point out where they went wrong and not to bandy foul language and accusation of lying around the board.


Unbelievable, simply unbelievable. I have been as mature as I possibly can in the face of such massive ignorance and a blatant refusal to acknowledge any information I have provided


OK, my sincere apologies. Please humour me here and I will debate the point fully but, you see, I did tend to glaze over a little whilst going through some of your posts. Please tell me where the BBC programme lied - just one example will do at the moment.


Two paramedics who attended the scene where weapons expert David Kelly was found dead have expressed surprise at the official inquiry's conclusion.
The Hutton Inquiry found he died as a result of a slit wrist in July 2003...

...If the Paramedics say he didn't kill himself publicly then how the hell would his 'friend' know any better?

...The author of that article doesn't even question the fact that the investigation will not be re-opened inspite of this damning testimony and doesn't say a word about how suspicious it is that Hutton stopped the Coroner from performing his inquest...


Where to start?

The paramedics claim to have been surprised, they did NOT publically say he did not comit suicide. Furthermore, it is not the job of paramedics or your parents to decide on the cause of death.

Try this article here Sorry, it's only the BBC again.

This one goes into some detail about why the Coroner would not reopen the inquest and also reports that Kelly's family and their legal team fully accepted that decision and the conclusion that he comitted suicide. By the way, Hutton did NOT stop the inquest, he had no such powers. It was adjourned by the Coroner which is entirely normal practice whilst other official investigations are still in progress.

So where is your proof to allow you to unequivocally state that he was murdered? Just like the BBC's programme you have expressed an opinion based on your reading of the evidence which, incidentally, is contrary to the opinions of the experienced judge and Coroner who were both privy to all of the evidence which neither you or I have been.

You have expressed an opinion which did not allow room for debate which I happen to disagree with so, I ask again, does that entitle me to call you a liar? I don't think so, "misguided" would probably be entirely sufficient.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Its not that they wouldn't care, its more that the programme would not go out. Basically the producers make shows and draw conclusions that they believe, this is their right of expression and free speech. It is enshrined in the BBC.

The programme may be wrong in its conclusions but the important thing to remember is that those who made it believe it to be true. There are several tapes gathering dust in the BBC archives waiting for the day they can be broadcast due to the fact that the hierarchy stepped in over the content. Only a couple of years ago a programme made in the 60's was aired for the first time. This is what I am driving at. It is a different thing altogether to say that the BBC is broadcasting govt propaganda.


so the higher-ups can censor journalism in favor of the government (historical fact), but this is not governement propaganda (due to the strict impartiality clause). I understand what you are saying, but it still seems like a mighty thin line to me...



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by MassiveOrigamiRacoon
I've got some more for you, too.

Producer Struggles to Defend Flaws & Bias of BBC Hit Piece
BBC Hit Piece a Tissue of Lies, Bias and Emotional Manipulation

You may not like the source, but please just read what they have to say with an open mind. If you can point out any errors then please do so.


Well, OK, I've read them both and whilst the first one was not so good the second was a pretty decent hatchet job on the programme. To be honest that is not surprising as there is all sorts of conflicting evidence surrounding the events of 9/11 and in an unanswered narrative it is relatively easy to pose a series of questions about why certain topics were either not covered or covered in the way that they were. I don't doubt tha a similar piece could be written from the other point of view as well.

What I asked for was an instance where the programme lied, and I didn't get one. The closest were the use of the word "dropout" which was clumsy, the use of the animation which was not clever in hindsight but it was only ever intended to be figurative and was not held up as being a accurate rendering of the detailed process of the collapse and the question of casualties at Building 7 where a relatively obscure issue, (or obscure to me at least), may have been overlooked but even then it was certainly not central to the evidence presented.

So, where was there a barefaced lie?



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033

Originally posted by Peyres
I'm sorry, who forced the BBC.? The U.S government or the U.K government. Neither have any sway on what the BBC does. The BBC does as it pleases. Much of its News and Documentaries are very left wing, anti-war, anti-American..the list goes on.


bbc gets all its funding from the government, the government(i.e mi5 run bbc). people outside uk, may not know that bbc runs no commercials and they get all there funding from the government. so they are not an independent media, the sky conspiracy show on illuminati did a better job, and thats owned by r murdock.

on the basis that it is said they edited two versions. what does it matter, they could of made 10 versions, at the end of the day, they showed the one they showed, does not really matter if they have another version.


[edit on 2/19/2007 by andy1033]


Well considering I'm from the UK, i understand that the BBC is a public sector organisation. However, there are now laws that prevent the government from setting the agenda. Anyone who thinks the BBC toes the government line the whole time will be sadly disappointed when they actually watch the news, watch the documentaries on BBC2, Newsnight, Question time, Panorama, and other spin-offs like the 'Power of nightmares' for example.

The BBC is anti-israel, anti-Christian, anti American, hardly the mouthpiece of a zionist government intent on globalistation and a NWO. The list goes on and has a habbit of digging around for stories that will damage these respective groups.

We can now see that even the Conspiracy theorists are trying to find a conspiracy in a debunking or balanced consideration of current theories. This is one of the reasons that in the end they cast doubts on many conspiracy theories. There are so many holes and different theories on 9/11 for example, which indicates that there is no concrete proof at all.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 11:04 AM
link   
Mister Jones, Yes, sure. I can see that. But a couple of points I perhaps shouldn't have left out (my error, not a cover up
)are that a this has only happened on a handful of occasions (definitely less than 10) since 1950 (when TV's started to become common in the UK). They are always due to reasons of national security (which this could be said to include as well) and crucially, the ban has always been publicised freely on the News, as have Govt attempts to stop a broadcast which have failed**

Also the tapes have never been wiped, which surely would be the easy way out for the govt, hence the recent broadcast of a previously banned show.

**it is worth mentioning that attemps fail as it appears that I have given the impression that the govt can order the BBC to pull a show. They can't. They have to take the BBC to court and prove their case so they don't always get their own way.

[edit on 20-2-2007 by waynos]



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by timeless test
OK, my sincere apologies. Please humour me here and I will debate the point fully but, you see, I did tend to glaze over a little whilst going through some of your posts. Please tell me where the BBC programme lied - just one example will do at the moment.


Understood (and I already have).


Originally posted by timeless test
Where to start?

The paramedics claim to have been surprised, they did NOT publically say he did not comit suicide. Furthermore, it is not the job of paramedics or your parents to decide on the cause of death.


Actually the article is very cleverly worded and only states in the first line that the Paramedics showed surprise. This is a common tactic used by the BBC to play down a statement before you've even read it. The Paramedics actually go on to say that the blood at the scene was inconsistent with the cause of death stated by the Hutton Whitewash... Erm, sorry, I mean Hutton Whitewash... Damn it! You know what I mean. One of the Paramedics then goes on to say "I just think it is incredibly unlikely that he died from the wrist wound we saw." Even though they didn't actually say "He did not commit suicide," they may as well have. I think that's a pretty safe assumption to make without being labeled as "jumping to conclusions" by some clearly confused and incapable mind, don't you? I mean come on now, Sir, I hardly think the man slit his wrist elsewhere and then took a casual stroll down to the field for a nice lie down. It is clear that he was dumped there after he had already bled out, because if you cut your wrists and don't bleed everywhere then you're not even alive in the first place, are you?

A little common sense is all it takes, why don't you try it!


Originally posted by timeless test
Try this article here Sorry, it's only the BBC again.

This one goes into some detail about why the Coroner would not reopen the inquest and also reports that Kelly's family and their legal team fully accepted that decision and the conclusion that he committed suicide.


Actually it doesn't actually say that the family and legal team fully supported the conclusion that he committed suicide. You have also neglected to mention this (from the article you provided):


Speaking outside the hearing Michael Shrimpton, barrister for the Kelly Investigation Group which wants a parliamentary inquiry or probe by a tribunal into the scientist's death, said the coroner's brief hearing would not end speculation about Dr Kelly's death.

Journalist Tom Mangold, a friend of Dr Kelly, has said suggestions he was murdered are ridiculous.

But he told BBC Radio 4's World At One scientific questions would continue and "without a proper traditional English inquest we may never get the answers to mysteries which inevitably emerge when you get a high profile suicide like this".


Indeed.


Originally posted by timeless test
By the way, Hutton did NOT stop the inquest, he had no such powers. It was adjourned by the Coroner which is entirely normal practice whilst other official investigations are still in progress.


Actually he adjourned the Coroner’s inquest and then stopped it reconvening by Whitewashing it with his dark little 'Report.'



Lord Hutton concluded in his report published in January that Dr Kelly, 59, had killed himself by cutting his left wrist after taking co-proxamol painkillers.

There was no evidence that any third party had been involved, he said.

But those findings have been challenged by some medical specialists, three of whom have said it was "highly improbable" Dr Kelly bled to death from a self-inflicted wound to his wrist.


Oh FFS, I'm out of space again.

To be furthered...



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 12:07 PM
link   


The inquest was adjourned last year while Lord Hutton held his inquiry into the circumstances of Dr Kelly's death.

Lord Hutton's inquiry was deemed to remove the need for a full inquest, unless there were "exceptional reasons".

Coroner Nicholas Gardiner said he had received "substantial correspondence from people believing they had relevant evidence" regarding Dr Kelly's death.

Among the points they made was that Lord Hutton was a judge, not an expert coroner, and also that he did not have the power to compel witnesses to attend.

But Mr Gardiner had concluded there were "no exceptional reasons" for the inquest to be resumed.


Hutton is actually an ex-Judge, and like the article explains he's not a Coroner, and he also didn't have the power to compel witnesses to attend. Not only that, but it states that the inquest should have been re-opened if there were exceptional reasons, and we have those exceptional reasons as I have quoted above and will do so now again below, from the report you have so sloppily selectively quoted from in an attempt to prove your point:


But those findings have been challenged by some medical specialists, three of whom have said it was "highly improbable" Dr Kelly bled to death from a self-inflicted wound to his wrist.



Originally posted by timeless test
You have expressed an opinion which did not allow room for debate which I happen to disagree with so, I ask again, does that entitle me to call you a liar? I don't think so, "misguided" would probably be entirely sufficient.


Pfffft, you can call me what you like, but I have detailed a wealth of information to support my claims and expose yours as inaccurate, I’m just going to let the information speak for itself now. I’ve made my case and it’s right here for everyone to see. That’s one of the beautiful things about Message boards.

I’m done with this.

Good evening.


[edit on 20-2-2007 by MassiveOrigamiRacoon]



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by timeless test
What I asked for was an instance where the programme lied, and I didn't get one. The closest were the use of the word "dropout" which was clumsy, the use of the animation which was not clever in hindsight but it was only ever intended to be figurative and was not held up as being a accurate rendering of the detailed process of the collapse and the question of casualties at Building 7 where a relatively obscure issue, (or obscure to me at least), may have been overlooked but even then it was certainly not central to the evidence presented.

So, where was there a barefaced lie?


Alright, I said I was done here, but you get one more and that's your lot. They lied outright when they said that reports of Israeli's being warned of the attacks beforehand and subsequently missing them originated from Hez'bollah alone on some Militant News Network, saying something about thousands of Jews staying off work. This is but one of the barefaced lies of which you speak, loosely trying to link 9/11 Conspiracy theories to Militants and "Anti-Semites." Reports also originated from Odigo, the Israeli text messaging firm based in the Twin Towers, and it was reported in Haaretz and in the Jerusalem Post. Two of their employees received an advanced warning via text message. The FBI were called in to investigate the warnings and I think confirmed that they did in fact receive them, then they were never heard about again. Don't believe me? Here's the original Haaretz link.

Who sent the warnings if supposedly only the Muslim Hijackers and planners (according to the official story) knew the attacks were coming?

A good evening.


[edit on 20-2-2007 by MassiveOrigamiRacoon]



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by MassiveOrigamiRacoon
Alright, I said I was done here, but you get one more and that's your lot. [edit on 20-2-2007 by MassiveOrigamiRacoon]


Gee thanks, a real red letter day for me then.

Unfortunately I don't have a transcript of the programme in front of me but my recollection is that the reference to the warnings being a a case of "Chinese whispers" originating from a Middle Eastern news source was with specific reference to the claims that 4,000 Jews effectively skipped work that day and I don't recall that the narrative said the story originated from Hezbollah "alone". (I'm quite prepared to confess that I'm wrong if somebody has the exact quotes).

Did the report come from this source? I don't know without doing some further reading but even if you want to try to persaude me that this is biased reporting or reporting with an agenda it still doesn't look like a lie to me.

For heavens sake if every misleading or ill informed statement uttered about 9/11 automatically constituted a lie there would be an awful lot of lying conspiracy theorists out there.

Waynos has already made the point on this thread, before you ignored him I think, that those who wish to promote the conspiracy agenda do themselves and their colleagues no favours by making ill considered statements rather than responding rationally.

And a very good evening to you too.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join