9/11 And The BBC Conspiracy

page: 2
69
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 05:48 PM
link   
Oh the irony of news.

They screw everything up and never get anything 100%, which no one does but instead they focus on junk no one cares about I mean really how many times do I have to hear about MJ and his Dr.'s possible negligence causing his death? Well for me once the second time turned it off the third time I canceled my cable subscription lol.

Funny thing while this is all going on the Amelia Earhart story is taking a twist and you see a 2 second blurb about it. Even better over a year ago I told the folks what a second possibility to her story was according to supposed eyewitnesses and family members all stemming from a site like this one.

Guess what? It appears to be spot on. Same island identified, 2 pieces that may have belonged to her found, there is now new technology that if you touch an item your DNA can be extracted from that item. This is being used on the excavated items.

But we don't care about that were more interested in idiot celebrities.

This alone points to the fact that all big news media outlets I have seen never seem to cover the more interesting things and when they do it is just so blatantly wrong I wonder if they ever research half the stuff they talk about. The only people I respect are the ones in the field such as the ones recently captured in North Korea.

News is fabrication by nature. Every news station twists every story to fit the stations best interest and appeal to a wider audience whether it's real news or fake news they do not car. It's all an effort of disinformation to skew the results in the end for mass approval and monetary funds.

A year and a half later I ask my coworkers if they remember my Emilia story when they say yes I tell them to go to CNN and point them to a tiny little link. Heh their jaws dropped.




posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 08:40 PM
link   
The BBC is really disappointing me... how can they only report on the conspiracies? It just shows how non-US based news sources can freely air biased stories that in America would be silenced by the government early on.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Regardless of how weedwhacker or other doubters may view this.....

....one cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that the BBC reported WTC7 had collapsed some 20 minutes prior to it happening...

Remember, the building was beautifully positioned and clearly in view, just over the shoulder of the woman as she announced it had collapsed.....!!

Only 20 minutes later it came down....devoid of any plane crashing into it....


WTC7 really is the smoking gun in this whole disgrace...



.
Surely this in itself should have all on here questioning how that would be possible??

If you still cannot smell something extremely fishy as a result of this unexplainable error on the Beebs part, then quite honestly you should hang your head in shame, so pathetic are your denials....





[edit on 1-8-2009 by benoni]



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by AboveTopSecret.com
 

Too many changes to the official story.

The firefighters put their lives on the line for less money than
lying non representing politicians.

I will take the firefighters and police officers words that have spoken
out over the lying carpet bagger political parasites.

The video in my signature makes it pretty clear something is being
lied about, and 9/11 press for truth makes it even clearer.

Star and Flag, wish I could give more...



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 03:21 AM
link   
Thank you OP for bringing this to my attention as I had not seen this BBC report.

The BBC for sure reported that WT7 had gone down before the event itself so this had to be given to them by someone. Now you have to consider that in all likely hood they didn’t know what WT7 was. Or that in fact it was visible over the shoulder of the female presenter on screen at that time.

As we all know that little toe rag Tony Blair was up the rear passage of Bush. It is becoming obvious that the whole thing was a planed job by the administration of both the USA and English governments at the time.

All I can say is I hope it goes on and on until the truth be know.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 06:38 AM
link   
The BBC have broadcast three different 9/11 Conspiracy Files episodes, though two are different versions of their 'Third Tower' show on WTC7, the second broadcast after the release of the NIST report into that.

They are all uniformly terrible, among the very worst documentaries the BBC has ever made. However, I would be careful of anything produced by drug addict transvestite messiah wannabe David Shayler.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 07:07 AM
link   
I don't feel sorry for the PTB one bit. The people see through there BS. First the MSM Newspapers fail, Now steadily following is the MSM Television and they all know this, that is why they are trying to save there arses by trying to control the internet as a last resort but it won't happen because they f'd up and the people are too smart for that in the information age. So there last resort is to take down everything around them as they go down. This will only work so far and then the people will rebuild earth through the correct information that they share with each other.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by benoni
Regardless of how weedwhacker or other doubters may view this.....

....one cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that the BBC reported WTC7 had collapsed some 20 minutes prior to it happening...

Remember, the building was beautifully positioned and clearly in view, just over the shoulder of the woman as she announced it had collapsed.....!!

Only 20 minutes later it came down....devoid of any plane crashing into it....


WTC7 really is the smoking gun in this whole disgrace...



.
Surely this in itself should have all on here questioning how that would be possible??

If you still cannot smell something extremely fishy as a result of this unexplainable error on the Beebs part, then quite honestly you should hang your head in shame, so pathetic are your denials....




perhaps you don't remember the confusion that reigned on 911. There was all kinds of stuff being reported that turned out to be bunk when the dust settled. Noone had any idea what was going on, communications was in a shambles. When there were explosions in Kabul that night, I remember well it being reported that USAF bombers were hitting that city (I remember because I was talking with some US tourists in the boozer at the time).

What happened here was most likely misreporting. A partial collapse of the damaged sector of WTC7, perhaps, which through chinese whispers got reported as a 'building collapse'. That's the simple explanation.

The kinda alternative view, that the BBC was part of a centralised misinformation campaign, run by a US Govt agency (or NWO agency, whatever) and that they sent this info. to BBC and FOX prematurely.

Which would be exactly the same thing: a cock-up. They messed up and sent the info early.


So this incident literally CANNOT prove anything either way. You either believe that the misinformation came from a fire chief, or whatever; or from some kind of 911 misinformation media centre. This incident gives no new evidence either way. Without further evidence eg whistle-blowers inside those media organisations.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 08:20 AM
link   
It is probably also worth remembering that a collapse zone had been established around the building, and there are something like 25 oral testimonies from emergency workers, mostly firemen, who said they were told the building was coming down.

So there clearly was some kind of prior knowledge (justified or otherwise) that WTC7 was going to implode, and it seems someone, whether by rumour or leak, told the BBC.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by chiron613
I think it was Mark Twain who said, "He who reads no newspapers is uninformed. He who reads them is misinformed".


While an excellent quote, this is not what these videos are about.

These videos are actually about exactly what you are saying, how the Main Stream Media, lies, decieves, and keeps us in the dark. The thread title is misleading.

This video is 100% anti Mainstream Media.

Again the video attacks the BBC's reporting of 9/11, and why the public was not made aware of the hundreds of facts we now are now aware of.

So although it is old news to people who know the real deal, and the LIHOP/or MIHOP (both atrocious offenses) stance the US government took on 9/11, it's a good set of video for the first time viewer to watch.

But again it is biased, totward the "truth movement", so everyone should do thier own research. But these videos are not MSM tripe, they are actually showing vwhat is wrong with the News Media, namely the BBC in this case.

Although it rehashes the same old same old, it's still worth a watch. Cause even if you learn one or two new things that you didn't know beforehand, it's well worth it.

It picks up around segment 3 on the 9 part series I found on youtube. So I'd guess that would be toward the end of part 4, and part four and so on in the 4 part ATS version.

Heres a link if anyone else is haveing trouble watching ATS Video and Media, like myself, this will help.

Part 1 of 9:





[edit on 2-8-2009 by Nola213]

[edit on 2-8-2009 by Nola213]



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   
The NIST report said that it was fires that brought down WT7, and that damage from WTC1 would not have played a part.Yet all post 9/11 documentaries speculate somewhere that WT7 was going to fall because of the the damage AND the fires?
The NIST has also said in 2008, in response to a question of why the debris was cleared so quickly, that the debris,(not a lot of it)? was cleared quickly to look for survivors,since on the day it was not known that noone was any longer in the building??

[edit on 2-8-2009 by smurfy]



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 12:02 AM
link   
eniac...


Mate....what are you on about???????

First of all....there was NO partial collapse of WTC7 ...it all came down together.....after the BBC reported it had come down.....20 minutes after infact....

Secondly...

Are you in all seriousness suggesting that confusion caused the BBC to prophesise WTC7's demise....that they somehow, miraculously, spookily made a massive mistake about its collapse, only for this mistake to come true....20 minutes later???


With respect pal....you need to re think your strategy here....any one with half a brain can realise how ridiculous your suggestion is....with respect.


No, sorry folks....this one cant be fobbed off as Looney Tunes Science or the stuff of tinfoil hatted buffoons........this is one of many CAST IRON SMOKING GUNS.

The impossibility to debunk WTC7 and the BBC is highlighted by the sheer lack of people arguing for the official word.....they cant....they dont have a leg to stand on.....and they dont like that so they steer clear.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by eniac
 


Sorry, I just can't buy the fact that confusion caused the BBC to report a very large skyscraper had collapsed when it was clear in the picture shown.

They knew, it was right there on their monitors.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by eniac
reply to post by Nola213
 


Use Firefox instead of IE. Might help. (is much better anyway, all 'round.)

download from here: www.mozilla-europe.org...

===

Watched part one of the vid, generally not impressed. Mostly because I've seen so much utter crap in 911 doc.s that I'm poisoned against the whole movement and don't believe anything that self-proclaimed Truthers say (Truthers are not impartial, so make less effective reporters on 911 stuff). Which is not the same thing as saying that the US Govt. had nothing to do with some of the stuff which went down that day. Although I broadly doubt it, at the moment.


Of course mainstream journalism is in crisis, but the alternative is currently no better. The appalling record of 911-Truth movement research/reportage in presenting erroneous facts and jumping to erroneous conclusions based on inadequate research is about the best example I can think of. Research and presentation of facts is a skill, it's a job. It's not something which everyone can do, without training and a professional framework of ethics and best-practises.

But the people who possess those skills are currently working for multinational corporations.


It's a tragedy that people like Murdoch and Turner (and orgs like Reuters) exercise oligopolistic power over The Truth (which is basically what they do).

It's actually an intolerable situation.

IMO news organisations should be independent organisations, and not multinationals. Journos should pledge to work only for independent news outlets, and not for companies like Time Intl. which span the globe.

[edit on 1-8-2009 by eniac]

[edit on 1-8-2009 by eniac]


Having read many posts on this site for years - since it was first created, this has to be one of the worst - how is it even possible for someone to be so profoundly confused ?

How is it that you state clearly - that you consider all aspects of those who seek to find the truth to be part of the same movement, to cast them all in the same mould, tar with the same brush - conveniently lumping them all together in one collectively dismissed pile of garbage - a pile of garbage which you do not even consider, research, listen to or try to understand as you have already dismissed them all - yet sprout moral hubris regarding integrity and the search for truth and honesty in journalism - such profound hypocrisy is not merely a denial of fundamental logic - but exceedingly stupid.

To then conclude that only intelligent, capable journalism is only to be found in the mainstream media has to be the single most asinine comment I have ever read - ever. The best research my moronic friend is done by academia, then independant researches / journalists and then probably by grass roots and vested interest groups, followed by think tanks, intellectuals, NGO's etc, without doubt the LEAST capable group are journalists in the MSM - I can point you to dozens of books on this, inumerable research papers from JSTOR, ATHENS etc which will all clear this up for you -.

What disappoints me most is when individuals such as yourself post with such authority - it is a self anointed authority which comes from profound ignorance and is reinforced by laziness, arrogance and a general unwillingness to challenge your own shibboleths - yet this mundane intellectual opinion you sprout is so ill informed, so poorly considered, so utterly moronic that one has little choice but to immediately dismiss you as a dullard - it is this dichotomy which does the damage - the authoritative pontificating by the asinine to the feckless parrots......

Do some research mate -



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 03:20 AM
link   
What do you expect from the BBC? they are a government funded company after all.The second they show some actual back bone her majesty's government will impose a house cleaning and that will be that.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 03:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheLoony
Sorry, I just can't buy the fact that confusion caused the BBC to report a very large skyscraper had collapsed when it was clear in the picture shown.

They knew, it was right there on their monitors.



2 things:

1) The BBC reporters probably didn't know which building they were talking about. Did you know of the Salomon Brothers Building prior to 9/11?

2) They did report is as 'collapsing or collapsed', which could easily be a bit falling off the building, fireman standing back and a reporter on the scene saying 'that's collapsing'.

If anything this episode illustrates how terrible our journalism is, not that the BBC have an inside line to whoever did all this.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 07:34 AM
link   
As a person living in britain I read the bbc website alot to try to catch up on news!

Ive noticed over the years that alot of the stories on the bbc are pretty one sided and spout propaganda!

I first noticed this when they started to report on north korea.
It doesnt surprise me that they include propaganda from their governement linked with america. This 9/11 conspiracy doesnt surprise me either.

I've emailed the BBC and written them letters about their use of propaganda, to which i've had no reply.
The reason I suspect them of putting out propaganda is because Ive done some research into the whole DPRK story.
If we look at the DPRK case a bit closer we can get some answers.
The DPRK doesnt allow journalists into the DPRK so how are true journalists getting their information on the DPRK, we could look at their sources
Japanse journalists, South Korean journalists, Chinese journalists, Russian journalists, and also the military , in particular the American military. and finally the DPRK press releases.
There are also many other sources of information regarding the DPRK to which a keen journalist can access. For instance the KFA - korean friendship association. The KFA whilst run by many who support the DPRK is still a source to which the BBC could get information. My point here is that the BBC only produce stories on the DPRK which make them out as a rouge state which supports terrorism and likes to keep the world guessing.
A report from the KFA regarding the missle tests and nuclear test stated that the first missle tests were to launch weather satellites and communications satellite. Also included in this release was the request letter to the UNSC asking permission to test launch satellites for peaceful purposes. The BBC instead promoted the newsline that they were testing ICBM's, two conflicting stories yet the BBC only chose to report one side of the story.
The UNSC gave permission to launch the satellties and had no problem with them doing so.
As soon as the US government put pressure on the UNSC they issued a resolution ordering the DPRK to cease launching missles.
According to the DPRK this was a breach of their initial war treaty which was signed in the 50's and as such the DPRK took it upon themselves to test a nuclear weapon to deter the Americans.

Anyways there is far more detail in this story and I have emails and newsletters from the KFA showing the DPRK side of the story, however the BBC has not once chosen to comment on the DPRK side, and they are firmly standing with the US and the bullied UNSC

I can provide the emails as further evidence.





new topics

top topics



 
69
<< 1   >>

log in

join