COME ON!!! YEAH!!!
Sorry, I just had to erm... Come on feel a lil cheer in your heart admit it. And all you deniers, come on tell us that.. oh they made an obvious mistake. They knew the building was going to collapse, someone mistook that for oh it must have already collapsed, blah blah blah... is that how press releases work?
Come on this is the BBC! That's WTC7 hanging there in the background and then she is obviously disconnected with no explanation... well we know, cause WTC7 is due to collapse. Whose pulling the strings? COME ON!!! ha ha!!!
Joined: 13 Jun 2006 Posts: 374 Location: North East
Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 9:12 pm Post subject:
Serge wrote:
I found the behaviour of those BBC gimps very odd, especially the first woman... clearest case of 'oh *, I must not say anything'. Note how she wanted to cut off as fast as possible?.
If she was mid bulletin the fast cut-off is entirely normal. So I wouldn't read too much into that.
The fact no contact details were taken to follow up after the bulletin is more indicative.
Joined: 18 Apr 2006 Posts: 1158 Location: South Essex
Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 9:25 pm Post subject:
It's the trickle of truth emerging on 9/11.
If you've been watching the tv tonight the same process is happening with the NHS,both on C4 and BBC1,how else can they enrage the masses and this is just the start of it.
Remember the mass of public opinion are still largely unknowing of the full implications of any of this stratedgy of the installing of the new world order/european community/superstates,to the detriment of most on the planet
I found the behaviour of those BBC gimps very odd, especially the first woman... clearest case of 'oh *, I must not say anything'. Note how she wanted to cut off as fast as possible?.
If she was mid bulletin the fast cut-off is entirely normal. So I wouldn't read too much into that.
The fact no contact details were taken to follow up after the bulletin is more indicative.
I can agree with that.
Notice that Goodle are starting to pull the videos. I have downloaded the video they have pulled, so anyone need it, PM me. _________________ The most transparent of all materials on this Earth is a politician.
ok forget what time it was it dosnt matter. they annouce the building collapsed whilst it is still stood there all the way through the following interview. the disconnection proves an error was realised rather than an geniune error of getting information wrong. the bbc at work plain for all to see. maybe they were just hoping people would not realise which building they were talking about.
Re. 'the BBC would have filtered out this anomoly'
No, this wasn't my point. I am saying that no BBC employee has subsequently materialised to say that the report on WTC7 was premature, in other words the fact that it was reported prior to the collapse would have prompted any employee who has subsequently left the employ of the BBC to come forward - this news would have filtered out to the world, not been filtered out.
However, I must be missing something here;
If that is WTC7 standing in the background (my still is further into the video, captured without the reporter in the way - the building is clearer), then the fact they are talking of its collapse and there it is standing makes the actual time issue irrelevent.
Is that WTC7 in the background? If it is, then this is potentially huge. _________________ I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
im sorry to be a party pooper but what are we relying on for the time of broadcast? if i reposted this clip on youtube and claimed it was broadcast at 16:25 on 9/11 would anyone know any differant? or just believe me?
i see no clock that usually is inserted on bbc new 24 which they would of switched to for full coverage on the day.
was bbc news 24 around then? im not sure but my point is what are we relying on for broadcast time?
what a load of rubbish the building is clearly there after they annouced it had collapsed regardless of the time on the screen it is obvious, watch the clip again and then say the clock matters!
Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 312 Location: County Durham, North-East
Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 10:03 pm Post subject:
It's amazing isn't it ^.....the BBC Studio Reporter even gives the official line, the 'official reason' why WTC7 has fallen before it actually has!!
He's just reading what's being fed to him via a newswire service to BBC from official press releases.
And then, when they go to New York live they even zoom in on the area, WTC7 clearly still standing, yet the reporters don't even know because Journalists are just the great repeaters of information.
this is true.
we need the footage for the next hour or so to see how the story changes.
notice that for the entire time they are saying wtc7 collapsed they don't show footage of collapse.
when talking to the bbc,etc you need to:
ask for a reference number,
take their name,
ask them to take your details and call you back.
make a note of the call. _________________ Have No Fear! Peace, Love & Hemp is here!
Remember Tank Man (Tiananmen Sq)
Amazing. This must not be unconnected to the recent media coverage, after a long cover-up, of the Truth movement
From a decision over not planting WMD in Iraq and deliberately fomenting a civil war, Bush and Blair were fatally undermined.
Now we see the release of perhaps the smokingest of smoking gun evidence yet
It would seem to be a planned exercise in bringing about those two puppets' (and their cabal) downfall
Follow the outcomes - we can be sure they're not planned as entirely beneficial to humanity
Still - wow! holy mama! _________________ http://www.exopolitics-leeds.co.uk/introduction
just pointing out oneof the debunks for this is that there was foreknowledge the building was unsafe and going to collapse and it was annouced it had collapsed by mistake.
im mentioning this so you are aware and can test it to see if this could possibly be correct, they excuse anything and everything it seems.
Joined: 18 Apr 2006 Posts: 1158 Location: South Essex
Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 10:48 pm Post subject:
Obviously the deniers will say there was misunderstanding and that the information was building 7 was expected to fall,but was mistaken for had fallen!
Still, it should evoke some queries...
On an aside:
Have we all forgotten the strategy of some 9/11 truth leakage by the ptb to further the masterplan?
just pointing out oneof the debunks for this is that there was foreknowledge the building was unsafe and going to collapse and it was annouced it had collapsed by mistake.
They mentioned people had been 'nearly crushed' in the collapse of wtc 7....what they gonna say?
'The report was a mistake based on reports they'd had that wtc7 could collapse due to the damage from falling debris.. we misunderstood this for wtc7 'had' collapsed....well..naturally we assumed that some people would be 'nearly crushed'
Reports of people nearly crushed??? By A building that hadn't fallen yet???
By the way, there are 3 separate threads on this, shoudln't they be merged?
just pointing out oneof the debunks for this is that there was foreknowledge the building was unsafe and going to collapse and it was annouced it had collapsed by mistake.
They mentioned people had been 'nearly crushed' in the collapse of wtc 7....what they gonna say?
'The report was a mistake based on reports they'd had that wtc7 could collapse due to the damage from falling debris.. we misunderstood this for wtc7 'had' collapsed....well..naturally we assumed that some people would would be 'nearly crushed'
Reports of people nearly crushed??? By A building that hadn't fallen yet???
By the way, there are 3 separate threads on this, shoudln't they be merged?
good point, and thats why i mentioned it so you can all rexamine it and look for the reasons the claim is false. we know they will use anything or say anything even if lieing to debunk stuff but the answers to it are needed as they will preach this as the truth and we know it.
Joined: 09 Feb 2007 Posts: 630 Location: Manchester
Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 11:03 pm Post subject:
Graham wrote:
QuitTheirClogs wrote:
So presumably the BBC has made a decision to release this footage from its archive. Is there any way of getting confirmation of this?
Looking at the directory list, theres footage in there from a LOT of stations. All in order in 40 min sections. I'll put the list up in a mo. It's quite big. It almost seems like an "autosave" depository for several TV stations.
I was looking for some possible motive for releasing it, but I assume then it got released along with everything else - probably without anyone from the BBC having a clue what was on it. _________________ Simon - http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
For me, (So far), it seems very compelling evidence...
2 notes from my examination... Firstly, closely watching the tips of her hair, they often appear to blow around as they would in wind, suggesting that she is at least at an open window (ie. not indoors with a blue screen behind her).
Secondly, the reflection on the lower left of the screen of a building, consists of 6 windows vertically stacked above each other... It appears that this reflection matches the floors (also 6 number) of the building visible on the bottom right of the screen. These two images appear to horizontally match up fairly well (Eg. if you were to take a Tee-Square to the image).
I eagerly await the coming analysis from the many scholars within the movement.
Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 312 Location: County Durham, North-East
Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 11:27 pm Post subject:
The BBC Studio Reporter even gives the official line, the 'official reason' why WTC7 has fallen before it actually has!!
Reading/being told that "it was weakened due to damage"
Just like what we have been told, over and over.
He's just reading what's being fed to him via a newswire service to BBC from official press releases.
And then, when they go to New York live they even zoom in on the area, WTC7 clearly still standing, yet the reporters don't even know because Journalists are just the great repeaters of information.
on a side note: pentagon witness... "it kinda hit short, and sprayed u against the side"
really? that a version I haven't heard.
edit. they don't actually show it in that section, which runs from 16.54 to 17.36, so thats 16 mins that manage to avoid it, by which time it's safely gone. poof. just like that.
wonder how long after 17.36 till they mention it?
Last edited by Graham on Mon Feb 26, 2007 11:41 pm; edited 1 time in total
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
It almost seems like an "autosave" depository for several TV stations.
