Leadership (lack of) issues raised by BBC/WTC7 story

[Bongo]

I have been away since the BBC story broke, I spent all night up, uploading and downloading to make sure youtube etc did not succeed in supressing this information. I then flew out to sunny spain on the 28th Feb and am now back (with a tan!)... but just one question?

What are all the so called 'leaders' in the 9/11 truth movement doing about this absolutely BIGGEST breaking story in the 5 years that I have been researching 9/11 lies?

I see nothing!!!

(Apart from Alex Jones who has been all over it, nice one Alex!)

Where are the 'loose leaders' responses? On the front of this website it says...

[The Watcher]

Bongo asked:

[Bongo]

Please Watcher and with all due respect, that is not a sensible argument...

[The Watcher]

Bongo wrote:

[The Watcher]

Bongo states:

[wickywoowoo]

Watcher, I agree with your open minded posts and I am interested in the exact same topics you are, BUT, it was slightly ridiculous to expect the man to cancel his pre-booked holiday because of a video being posted on the internet that, to this moment, has done absolutely nothing in relation to anything.

I think that was his main issue with your post.

[telecasterisation]

When this story originally broke, there was huge expectation. There seemed to be no doubt that it would rock the world, the event that in theory, could open the eyes of the world. However;

The BBC simply played the 'mistake card', in other words, 'Sorry but we screwed up'.

This was basically an admission, not the one hoped for more's the pity, but it had the effect of severely limiting options. All the official bodies that could be approached said 'Nope sorry, we don't intervene with issues surrounding mistakes!'.

I completely agree that it is frustrating and there are still unanswered questions, but can anyone who keeps insisting that this still has mileage list the options;

[thought criminal]

[wickywoowoo]

Telecaster is not stating they are mere co-incidence, merely that they are claimed to be co-incidence and really, we have no proof to say otherwise.

He is just pointing out that all we have is this video, which plays 100% perfectly into the "we made a mistake" story, you can't argue against an admitted mistake really, unless you have other proof to state otherwise.

That isn't stating a belief in the co-incidence, merely that it is the most easily accepted reason given, it's two different things.

[The Watcher]

wickywoowoo exclaimed:

[telecasterisation]

We’ve seen all the tricks here, all the little turnarounds and turns of phrases, the merciless use of sarcasm, drole and dramatic irony, liberally spiced metaphor, cringingly poignant pathos, crude puns, seemless parody, hugely understated litotes and biting satire. Even I am prone to antanaclasis at times.

However, by far the biggest ploy in such communal environments is plain and simple avoidance. You ask a question, a direct easy to understand, no strings question and the person to whom it is directed, or has the gumption to bother to type back simply refuses to acknowledge it was ever asked and we are off on a tour de force of semantic chicanery, all in a bid to avoid ever answering.

Thought Criminal is a master at this, a craftsperson. I pose a question that enquires what options we as a body, a movement, can implement to gain a better foothold by utilising, exploiting this broadcasting faux pas? The response just consists of waffle. It isn’t a difficult premise, for if you don’t know the answer, you either simply ignore it or have a crack at supplying an understandable reply.

A thousand times yes - the hundreds of 'mistakes' and the hundreds of 'coincidences' all become something slightly more sinister than everyday ineptitude – but this isn’t the issue, I am asking what options does this leave us, who do you get to act on our behalf, what legal avenue does this leave with the intention of doing what exactly now it has been explained away as a mistake? Agreeing with someone is a very powerful weapon/tool and deflates most attacks and in essence this is what the BBC have done - 'You did XXX', 'Yep, sorry we did''.

Perhaps the starter of this thread would like to supply a list of things that he would do if he was a '9/11 Leader' as he is so incensed by the apparent lack of action?

As for the police question – ‘Did you actually ever solve a crime? Did you ever actually catch a criminal? Is it not the job of a policeman to 'join the dots'? – you completely misconstrue the role of the police officer in uniform, I was not a detective.

[Bongo]

Tony sensored the following...

[Bongo]

Quote:

Disgust with 911 Truth UK over BBC WTC7 story

Tony Gosling's words... not mine!

Maybe the moderators could engage in some discussion before labelling hard working truth seekers (ie. Me) with 'CRITIC' labels and criticising them just because they make an informed decision... In my experience of debate, contradicting viewpoints are not sensored in the manner that this thread one has been.

Ps. Telecastration wrote...

[telecasterisation]

Bongo said;

[rodin]

Perhaps a less easily brushed off line of enquiry would be to ask the man from MOSSAD what he meant by 'Our purpose was to document the event'?

[Bongo]

Post Deleted By Bongo. (Mainly due to me ending this line of debate... maybe because my personal frustration just temporarily got the better of me with the UK media and BBC in particular).

[TonyGosling]

On issues regarding anything to do with the front page please PM or email suggestions to JHR who, to my knowledge, is the only person who can change the front page.

[ian neal]

Hi Bongo

Many share your view, myself included, that as a campaign we need to get professional and have clear and accountable leadership. This forum is not the campaign however.

It's late, I'll post more later

[Bongo]

TG wrote...

[TonyGosling]

No - although I have done so with your complaint

I suggest you come along to meetings Bongo - it'd be good for you to meet some people - and to air your views