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 claiming fallout in the USA?

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Yeh its all part of a NWO agenda, they started the earthquake and tsunami, so that the Nuclear reactor would blow, and that a deadly cloud of radiation would hit the US




posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   
My apologies. It could be related to this. Though "a matter of hours" is stretching it.
www.ktla.com...
edit on 3/17/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Ehh.. The purpose of the video was to show the BBC news website main page.. I didnt think to click into the link there, and if I did, it would have been "404" not found. Ok?



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   
I am sure those who live in California know that minimal amounts are getting there by tomorrow morning.
My father is there on business and he said that is what they are hearing that low amounts will arrive.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Yes phage, there you go my man - so the question is *why* did the BBC pull the story today?? That's my main concern. The media is being silenced at the minute.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by theghosthunter
 

Right. You took the time to make a video showing the headline and you never clicked on the link until after doing so.

You are the only person. The only conspiracy theorist to have seen it. Right.


i've got to agree with Phage here. Considering how you are the only one to see it and that you never clicked on the link when doing the video makes me suspicious. But I have no doubt that probably radiation will come to the USA if it gets out of control in Japan.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by theghosthunter
 
I'm sure I saw that same headline and article before it was pulled (apparently). I didn't think there was anything unexpected or sensationalist about the story, so the fact that was pulled is actually more concerning than the fact that we're getting "fallout" from Fukushima. It's been almost a week, hasn't it? So why wouldn't we be getting it?



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by theghosthunter
 

Well, because if the article were posted as shown it was inaccurate.

"Deadly Nuclear Fallout" (capitalized?)
"Will hit"
"Matter of hours"

I'm not convinced of the authenticity of the video.

edit on 3/17/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by tsimitpo
 


Finally!! Someone else that saw it too!! Good man, I've been beginning to think everyone is just looking to "debunk" me. I swear guys.. I came on these forums looks for answers about ghosts.. and then I stumbled upon this. If I thought I was going to get this much grief about being a fraud I probably wouldn't have even bothered posting to begin with.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by theghosthunter
 

Well, because if the article were posted as shown it was inaccurate.

"Deadly Nuclear Fallout" (capitalized?)
"Will hit"
"Matter of hours"

I'm not convinced of the authenticity of the video.

edit on 3/17/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Perhaps it was pulled due to being poorly written then? But why didn't the repost it with corrections?



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by theghosthunter
 


It's not grief its skepticism.
if you can't handle people not believing you then next time you should provide a bit more evidence.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 
We all know if "accuracy" was a requirement of a "news" article, there would be precious little actually published, LOL!

But just for grins, do you not think radioactive fallout is potentially "deadly"? Or do you question it's arrival "in a matter of hours"?



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   
If anyone is bothered this is pretty much how you edit any part of the internet you want just for yourself because its not viewable to other people using the internet.




posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by LetsBringIt
 


Well, that's impressive, but we're not all nerds!!! lol! I guess you're right that, what can we believe anymore?? Nothing?? How can I prove I saw what I saw? I don't know what else I can do?



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by tsimitpo
 

Yes. High levels of fallout can be deadly. But there is no way that fallout which may reach North America on Friday (the product of the first low level leakage) could get any where near a "deadly" level.

"Matter of hours?" 24 of them? Ok.

I don't put sensationalism out of realm of possibility but the BBC isn't really known for it on this level. That weird capitalization "Deadly Nuclear Fallout", makes it really seem fishy.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by theghosthunter
 


Lol thank you, to be honest after the link that Phage gave I would say I pretty much believe you but the lack of evidence and witnesses made me pretty skeptical. But now we have 2 witnesses and a video and a article.


Knowing the media they were trying to install fear in a poorly written article or something.
edit on 17-3-2011 by LetsBringIt because: Adding a line.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


So who's paying you to control the peace?



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by LetsBringIt
reply to post by theghosthunter
 


Lol thank you, to be honest after the link that Phage gave I would say I pretty much believe you but the lack of evidence and witnesses made me pretty skeptical. But now we have 2 witnesses and a video and a article.


Knowing the media they were trying to install fear in a poorly written article or something.
edit on 17-3-2011 by LetsBringIt because: Adding a line.


Yeah, I mean, I'm not out to be some amazing fraud extraordinaire, I just want to know why the hell the BBC released a story then withdrew it almost straight away - this was at about half 12 today I think, then the story was gone by one. I just want to know if we are being lied to?



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   
It was utter garbage , its our (u.k) lazy media taking words from a so called expert then mixing them up to form a dooms day headline . The BBC story was the same as this headline grabber

news.uk.msn.com...


They seem to like to remove the word COULD so it sounds like it has already.
edit on 17-3-2011 by ljonesyuk because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-3-2011 by ljonesyuk because: cant spell

edit on 17-3-2011 by ljonesyuk because: still cant spell



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by tsimitpo
 

Yes. High levels of fallout can be deadly. But there is no way that fallout which may reach North America on Friday (the product of the first low level leakage) could get any where near a "deadly" level.

"Matter of hours?" 24 of them? Ok.

I don't put sensationalism out of realm of possibility but the BBC isn't really known for it on this level. That weird capitalization "Deadly Nuclear Fallout", makes it really seem fishy.
I agree with you about the inaccuracy, but the MSM is just as guilty as unfiltered media of spinning truth so it looks accurate to the unsuspecting swallower. I imagine sometimes this is inadvertent and corrected or cleaned out before much damage is done, but at other times it almost seems motivated to achieve a desired response. That's why I'm skeptical about everything I read no matter what kind of track record the source has.
edit on 17-3-2011 by tsimitpo because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-3-2011 by tsimitpo because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join