9/11: "Honest Mistake" or BBC Foreknowledge of Collapse of WTC 7? Jane Standley Breaks Her Silence

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by Yankee451

 

And yet you still don't buy into the fraudulent video hypothesis? Here is proof of media complicity. Period. This is an example of a mistake, one of an endless string of examples. The fact is, if this wasn't a big lie, not one single image or "anomaly" like this would have occurred.

This is just one anomaly that is answered when you open up your field of vision to include the media as suspects, the rest just fall into place.

The media being handed scripts is one thing, but the media faking videos to cover up missiles is too much for me and is a pretty big leap.

I watched some of the September Clues videos, and I have to admit there were some pretty strange things that point to video fakery, especially the video of the nose of the airplane penetrating the building and it fading to black during impact.

But when there are dozens of videos, hundreds of people that saw the commercial aircraft hit, and an imprint of the airplane that matches the witness/video evidence, there's really no denying it for me.

Fortune favors the audacious.

-Desiderius Erasmus
www.brainyquote.com...

So audacious, most folks don't even bother looking.

Originally posted by patternfinder

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by patternfinder
the funniest thing is, why are the OSers not commenting on the fact that demo companies don't have to use explosives or thermite anymore now that we know that the fires will cause the buildings to come down at free fall speed and within their own footprint with out much chance of a fail.....

Demo companies do not use thermite. The effects of thermite cannot be timed or predicted accurately enough for controlled demolition. Fire is like thermite in that the effects cannot be timed but with even far less accuracy.
Neither method produces a controlled demolition.

well, the OSers would seem to disagree with you on the fire not being accurate enough, we saw three buildings fall at free fall speed into their own tidy little footprint piles that day and the OSers think it was done using fire that was dispursed across a couple of floors...unevenly no less....

Neither thermite nor fires produce a controlled demolition. If you like thermite, you can start the collapse with it but you can't get it to work fast enough to sequentially drop floors. Thermite and fire would start the collapse and gravity would do the rest. If you claim thermite, then what you saw was an uncontrolled collapse. Note also that there was structural damage to all the buildings that collapsed except for WTC6 which was fires only, as I remember.

No need to plant a story like this ahead of time the collapse would have been the story in itself. The logical answer is that the BBC happen to get it wrong and right at the same time.

CHAIN OF COMMAND.

Top officials in the U.S. military chain of command consistently failed to exercise authority during the period of the actual attacks from 8:20 a.m. to 10:06 a.m. on September 11, 2001.

www.justicefor911.org...

Yeah, and remember that the day before, Monday 9/10, 2001 Rumsfeld announced that the Pentagon couldn´t account for over 2 trillion dollars. Such a gigantic whopper you´d usually disclose on a Friday but of course it was all forgotten the day after and the federal debt has gone up by 170% since that day. The military got their endless wars.


Funny thing is they don't have and never have had a budget this size, so if they are missing 2 trillion dollars where did it come from in the first place?
Regards, Iwinder

reply to post by Iwinder


Apparently it was an accumulated mess, over several years.

Interesting:

"""On June 1, 2001, Rumsfeld signed on to a revision of previous procedures for interception of errant flights, which specified for the first time that cases of potential intercept orders for errant flights are to be forwarded "to the Secretary of Defense for approval." (CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF INSTRUCTION, J-3 CJCSI 3610.01A) This goes unmentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report. A full investigation must determine what effect, if any, this revision had on actual practice after June 1, and on September 11 itself; and whether the order makes Rumsfeld culpable for his absence from command and authority as Secretary of Defense during the decisive time of the attacks."""

www.justicefor911.org...

reply to post by galdur


Yes that may be possible but, they must have forgot to tell congress during budget time that they had a few trillion set aside for a rainy day....(black ops and hidey holes and whatnot).
Possibly money for some real bad script writers for a tv disaster?


Glad you mentioned the money angle.
Regards, Iwinder

Oops...meant for tupac.


If they had composites of before and during shots, they could easily make a composite of the event and make it look like Dumbo did it.

The fact that Naudet made his Dumbo look vaguely plane-like was a great distraction for many a long year.

Easy schmeezy to make a composite of this shot. Sit in the street with a tripod, take an image of the tower, and then still on the tripod, pretend you are following a bullet-fast plane, and come back to the original tower perpective of your before shot, then overlay them using the blue sky as a green screen.

This is probably why the plane is so fuzzy...could be a missile, dunno, could be anything. If it was a plane, I'm guessing it wouldn' t be so fuzzy.

Can't seem to keep this clip on you tube. I recommend buying the Naudet Film 911.

reply to post by Iwinder


Weird stuff ...

"The technology revolution has transformed organizations across the private sector, but not ours, not fully, not yet. We are, as they say, tangled in our anchor chain. Our financial systems are decades old. According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions. We cannot share information from floor to floor in this building because it's stored on dozens of technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible."

--- Rumsfeld

You know, anyone who was alive that day in the US knows how crazy and hectic and scary that day was...

There was so much going on.... So much confusion.... It is very easy to see and understand that there was a mistaken report of it collapsing before it did....

reply to post by gimme_some_truth

There was so much going on.... So much confusion.... It is very easy to see and understand that there was a mistaken report of it collapsing before it did....

I completely disagree. Reporting a future event that has never occured in history does not seem like a simple error, it seems like they read the script too early.

There have been several skyscrapers that have been torched for hours, burning much worse than building 7, and none of those collapsed. Sure, there was some falling debris damage that it sustained, but that wasn't what caused the collapse, fire damage on a single column supposedly caused that.

I can't look at this situation and think of it as a lucky coincidence, I think they knew it was going to happen because they were told what to say and when to say it, but someone screwed up.

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
You know, anyone who was alive that day in the US knows how crazy and hectic and scary that day was...

There was so much going on.... So much confusion.... It is very easy to see and understand that there was a mistaken report of it collapsing before it did....

What? Haha!

So they randomly pick a building to accidentally say it collapsed and 20 minutes later it actually collapses?

You actually believe this?

Wouldn't the logical explanation be, it was so hectic that day things were missed. How could you come to the conclusion it was so hectic that day that things were prophesied?

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
You know, anyone who was alive that day in the US knows how crazy and hectic and scary that day was...

There was so much going on.... So much confusion.... It is very easy to see and understand that there was a mistaken report of it collapsing before it did....

This has got to be sarcasm right?
If it is good post if it is not I disagree.
Regards, Iwinder

Originally posted by MissingRonnieR
No need to plant a story like this ahead of time the collapse would have been the story in itself. The logical answer is that the BBC happen to get it wrong and right at the same time.

I doubt that very much. Did you bother listening to the report?

How can you claim a building had collapsed when it was still standing? Come on, are you trolling?

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
You know, anyone who was alive that day in the US knows how crazy and hectic and scary that day was...

There was so much going on.... So much confusion.... It is very easy to see and understand that there was a mistaken report of it collapsing before it did....

But what if it hadn't collapsed, what would have happened then?. I keep hearing this, but I just can't buy into it.

I think it is disrespectful to the people who lost their lives to try and white wash over this. Not to mention the millions of people who subsequently lost their lives in Afghanistan and Iraq, as a result of what happened that day.

What nobody as mentioned in all of this, is our loss of freedoms since 9/11.

The state has more control over our every day movements than ever before. I used to frequently visit the U.S for holidays and business, but since the TSA have introduced their body scanners and body checks, forget it.

There is no way I will ever visit your once great country ever again. Look at the technology being introduced, look at the costs, look at who pays for all of this.

They monitor our movements, our business, jeez they are not too far away from monitoring our thoughts (Facebook).

The world is a far more restrictive place since 9/11, that no one can deny.

All it takes is the chutzpah to present it as real.


Green Screen Magic

Thank you Patternfinder !! The media has convicted themselves in this matter. I await the inevitable criminal law suits against BBC.

Prosecuting Attorney (Questioning the defendant, BBC) : WTC 7 collapsed at 22:20
GMT. What time, in GMT, did the BBC broadcast their information that WTC 7 had fallen?

Defendant BBC 21:54 GMT.

Prosecuting Attorney I rest my case, your honor.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f3693cc589be.jpg[/atsimg]




We DO NOT NEED TO KNOW WHY the BBC did it - or HOW they did. All that is necessary is to prove to the world is that those 2 things happened at those 2 times. DONE DEAL.