did the bbc have foreknowledge ? by vincenoirrocknrollstar

Oh the BBC planned the whole thing. Tony Blair and Osama Bin Landen are the same person, which is why you never see them in the same room at the same time. George Bush is really the Devil, that's why you don't see them in the same place at the same time.

But wasn't the building brought down?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 26, 2007 10:19 AM

well according to the bbc programme `the conspiracy files ` the wtc7 collapsed due to intense heat from the other towers

and now you come to mention it you may be on to something with your tony osama blair laden theory!

shoot the moon ...shoooooot the mooon

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 26, 2007 10:20 AM

America loves a winner!

All this time, and we're STILL getting nonsense like this? Ughhh!

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 26, 2007 10:25 AM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.

That site doesn't seem trustworthy enough to take seriously. If you wish, you may discuss that - but, until credibility is established, this story is bunk to me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 26, 2007 10:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
All this time, and we're STILL getting nonsense like this? Ughhh!

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

sorry i was just revelling in the fact that nonsense like this is still in abundance obviously irony isnt your strong point

shoot the moon ...shoooooot the mooon

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 26, 2007 10:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by vincenoirrocknrollstar:
well according to the bbc programme `the conspiracy files ` the wtc7 collapsed due to intense heat from the other towers

The twin WTC towers did, WTC7 did not.

And don't mind AURaptor, it's one of the resident trolls.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 26, 2007 10:43 AM

MAL4PREZ

I find it odd that there's no clock being displayed in the corner of the screen, which most news channels have...

Hence, I very much question the clock syncing. The commenters - whoever they are - say that the theme music bit is 5:00, but I know that BBC plays that more than once an hour! It would line up fine if that music was 5:30. Then BBC would have made the announcement at 5:25 - perfectly sensible.

As for the building still standing behind the reporter, There's no proof that what they point to is actually the building. I'm not a New Yorker, and I don't where the buildings were, but I was at the site several months after and remember several large buildings still up.

What these conspiracy theorists need is a diagram of where exactly the reporter is, and where the building is. Or pictures of the skyline before and after.

Somehow, I doubt these folks can provide such solid evidence, or they would. In the end, nothing in this vid is proof of anything.

Go figure. How this theory is still around is beyond me.

-----------------------------------------------
I'm the president. I don't need to listen.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 26, 2007 1:28 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
citizen wrote:
Monday, February 26, 2007 10:32
Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by vincenoirrocknrollstar:
well according to the bbc programme `the conspiracy files ` the wtc7 collapsed due to intense heat from the other towers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The twin WTC towers did, WTC7 did not.

And don't mind AURaptor, it's one of the resident trolls.

Don't mind citizen. He feels the need to interject his opinion about that which he has no clue, what so ever. Plus he's surpressing homosexual feelings for me from afar. He tends to get a bit cranky.

I generally do get such irony, but thanks to the likes of PN and his ilk, too much gets treated as 'serious' discussion that sometimes it's har to decipher. A dozen pardons.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 26, 2007 1:41 PM

A bigoted homophobic racist troll at that. Always nice to see

Remember everyone, please don't feed the trolls.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 26, 2007 10:28 PM

SOUPCATCHER

I have a sneaking suspicion that WTC-7 is a favorite of the conspiracy theorists primarily because the NIST has not yet released their report (it is expected some time during the first half of this year). Once the report is released, we shall see how well the claims stack up and figure out which claims are automatic tune-out indicators (in other words, when someone makes those claims you can automatically discount them because they are not serious. For example, as Finn noted, anyone who claims that the steel columns couldn't have failed because the fire didn't get hot enough to melt steel can be automatically discounted as a non-serious idiot).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 2:47 AM

America loves a winner!

For all the utter nonsense and conspiracy theory junk I've seen, there IS one thing about WTC # 7 I've yet to have explained. For those who watched the documentary - 9/11, done by the 2 French brothers, everyone should see it. But there's one part, near the end , which is shown, but simply unexplained. From behind a building, the camera centre's on BLD # 7, and then it just collapses. Why was the camera man focusing in on that building? Was there some talk from around those on the ground that it sounded like it might collapse? I know there were many false alarms from various other buildings, but in this case, I never heard an explanation.

Also, to be honest, I've never seen any footage which shows all this 'damage' that WTC 7 had before it fell. The few shots I have seen, the building looks just fine.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 3:18 AM

SIMONWHO

That's because the side of the building that was damaged was the side that had 1 and 2 Trade Centre burning and collapsing onto it.

But you can see pictures of the damage here:

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 4:43 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by vincenoirrocknrollstar:
i was sent this today and wondered what you guys make of it ...is this the smoking gun ?

Dr. Who told them. He would know.

The real conspiracy is...which Doctor told them and when did he tell it to them?

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 5:47 AM

REDLAVA

Well #1 they never said that the building collapsed because of heat stress. They said it collapsed because of falling debris from the WTC.

#2 the reporter said "some 8 hours ago" not exactly 8 hours ago. Most of the time reporters are not going to say eight hours and 23 minutes ago, they are going to round up or down and say approximately eight hours or about nine hours, or a little over eight hours.

Just one more pathetic attempt at a conspiracy theory. And not a very good one at that.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 5:50 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
That's because the side of the building that was damaged was the side that had 1 and 2 Trade Centre burning and collapsing onto it.

But you can see pictures of the damage here:

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html

Looking at the photo, there clearly is damage to #7, but it's hard to tell just how much. Thinking back, the OK City Murrah Building had much more damage, and it still stood. Still a tad perplexed. Honest, I'm just a bit curious here. Don't paint me as trying to mimic PN.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 8:03 AM

pardons accepted auraptor...as for the doctor who question ...it was tom pertwee 1975

back to the subject matter..

the bbc conspiracy files shown 2 sundays back showed wtc7 in what looks to me (having a background in building property developing and construction )very very much like a controlled demolition ,i could also say the same for both the other towers too ,but thats not what i was curious about ..the origins of my thread was to try and figure out whether anyone still believes in the bbc`s credibility as world news reporting leaders after showing an unbalanced view of the whole 9/11 subject followed by a shoddy piece of reporting about dr david kelly ,the weapons inspector found dead a few years back

shoot the moon ...shoooooot the mooon

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 8:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by vincenoirrocknrollstar:
the origins of my thread was to try and figure out whether anyone still believes in the bbc`s credibility as world news reporting leaders after showing an unbalanced view of the whole 9/11 subject followed by a shoddy piece of reporting about dr david kelly ,the weapons inspector found dead a few years back

How was the reporting of 9/11 unballanced? And what are you talking about with David Kelly?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 8:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by vincenoirrocknrollstar:
the origins of my thread was to try and figure out whether anyone still believes in the bbc`s credibility as world news reporting leaders after showing an unbalanced view of the whole 9/11 subject followed by a shoddy piece of reporting about dr david kelly ,the weapons inspector found dead a few years back
How was the reporting of 9/11 unballanced? And what are you talking about with David Kelly?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
]

the conspiracy files (is what i was referring to when i said unbalanced reporting )interviewed many people for the show ,sadly they chose to show more views supporting the u.s governments official story than the `conspiracy theorists` versions of events ...and surely if a tv station makes claims that they give a unbiased and balanced viewpoint then they should have balanced out the conspiracy theorists vs the official theory so that the viewer could decide for themselves what they think is the correct version of events ..even if both viewpoints are incorrect at least the programme makers couldn`t have been accused of fueling the conspiracy behind the reporting of 9/11..instead it has caused a serious flurry of complaints to the bbc and many viewers are now questioning the validity of its reporting and programme makers

as for dr david kelly ,if you dont already know he was found dead (i was going to say in mysterious circumstances ..but thats just too spurious)he was a wepons inspector who was sent into iraq to inspect saddams wmd ..dr kelly`s conclusion was that there were none and none would be found ,a few days later he was a dead man

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3076869.stm

http://dr-david-kelly.blogspot.com/

shoot the moon ...shoooooot the mooon

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 9:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by vincenoirrocknrollstar:
the conspiracy files (is what i was referring to when i said unbalanced reporting )interviewed many people for the show ,sadly they chose to show more views supporting the u.s governments official story than the `conspiracy theorists` versions of events ...and surely if a tv station makes claims that they give a unbiased and balanced viewpoint then they should have balanced out the conspiracy theorists vs the official theory so that the viewer could decide for themselves what they think is the correct version of events ..even if both viewpoints are incorrect at least the programme makers couldn`t have been accused of fueling the conspiracy behind the reporting of 9/11..instead it has caused a serious flurry of complaints to the bbc and many viewers are now questioning the validity of its reporting and programme makers

The conspiracy files has nothing to do with the BBC's news reporting, any more than EastEnders does. To be perfectly frank the conspiracy theorists are so off the wall it's hard to find one that is part way lucid, if the BBC really did have an unbalanced report in that program they probably did the conspiracy theorists a favour by not letting them embarrass themselves too much. Though I saw the David Kelly program, and for each person on the official line they had a conspiracy theorist, including a guy who couldn't seem to separate real life from a Tom Clancy novel. I didn't see the 9/11 one, though I'm curious as to why they'd be so inconsistent with their biases. Also to be honest characterising a television documentary as News reporting seems a might unbalanced, BBC channel and BBC News are different things.

Quote:
as for dr david kelly ,if you dont already know he was found dead (i was going to say in mysterious circumstances ..but thats just too spurious)he was a wepons inspector who was sent into iraq to inspect saddams wmd ..dr kelly`s conclusion was that there were none and none would be found ,a few days later he was a dead man

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3076869.stm

http://dr-david-kelly.blogspot.com/

I'm well aware of who David Kelly is and what the conspiracy was, what I was asking was how it proved this or that about the BBC, unless you're implying the BBC 'offed' him?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 11:21 AM

OLDENGLANDDRY

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
I find it odd that there's no clock being displayed in the corner of the screen, which most news channels have...

Hence, I very much question the clock syncing. The commenters - whoever they are - say that the theme music bit is 5:00, but I know that BBC plays that more than once an hour! It would line up fine if that music was 5:30. Then BBC would have made the announcement at 5:25 - perfectly sensible.

As for the building still standing behind the reporter, There's no proof that what they point to is actually the building. I'm not a New Yorker, and I don't where the buildings were, but I was at the site several months after and remember several large buildings still up.

What these conspiracy theorists need is a diagram of where exactly the reporter is, and where the building is. Or pictures of the skyline before and after.

Somehow, I doubt these folks can provide such solid evidence, or they would. In the end, nothing in this vid is proof of anything.

Go figure. How this theory is still around is beyond me.

-----------------------------------------------
I'm the president. I don't need to listen.

That pretty much says what I would have, but I will add a couple of questions of my own.

First: Does anyone know what the BBC's responce is to the claims of them jumping the gun? I'd like to hear their version of events.

Second: Given the obvious chaos ensuing on the ground is'nt it possible that reports of an IMPENDING collapse of WTC7 were misinterpreted and sent through the overworked system to appear on the other side of the world as reports of an ACTUAL collapse?

It is rather convenient that there is no clock on the screen.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 1:15 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Occams Razor.

They, like many lazy or busy news agencies, simply cut the reporter out and pasted them over a stock footage image.

This is done a LOT for supposed "live" coverage of events in Washington DC, they just smack in a stock background and the reporter in fact never leaves the studio.

I wonder if it's possible that due to danger on the ground, they just clipped a loop of earlier footage and used that instead of realtime ?

Truly it's the simplest explaination of this anomoly.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 7:26 PM

ROY

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Oh the BBC planned the whole thing. Tony Blair and Osama Bin Landen are the same person, which is why you never see them in the same room at the same time. George Bush is really the Devil, that's why you don't see them in the same place at the same time.

But wasn't the building brought down?

BBC ? What have the British Brown Coats got to do with it ?

*************************
"You all still be here when I wake up ?"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 28, 2007 7:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
They, like many lazy or busy news agencies, simply cut the reporter out and pasted them over a stock footage image.

Actually BBC News doesn't do this, it was a recent bit of controversy because they send reporters at great expense to the scene even when it's not required.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 28, 2007 12:02 PM

KANEMAN

Some idiot bbc reporter says wt7 instead of wt5, and....presto......conspiracy. The funniest line is the "Some 8hrs ago". could that mean 8.5hrs? or is that a stretch?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 28, 2007 12:45 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Bear in mind that with the limited and quite debateable "evidence" there's no way a logical conclusion to foreknowledge could be made at this time.

That bein said, apparently some folk have dug up some CNN folks making the same mistake, don't have a link handy at the moment.

What looks bad, and unfortunately will feed into this far more than need be, is the Beeb claiming to have lost the tapes, imma hafta call BS on that one, it doesn't really hold water.

I'm of the opinion that the tapes in question matter a lot less than those of the NYFD channels during the period in question, specifically the rescue personnel being given a countdown to the buildings collapse.

I don't have a conclusion on any of it, as there's just NOT enough evidence to make one with any surety, but I will say that the official story reeks, which in turn leads to exhaustive speculation in the lack of hard evidence.

So many folk concentrate on this or that specific detail to the point of almost ludicrousness, but taken as a whole picture the entire event stinks to high heaven, and I would say there's cause for suspicion.. beyond that, we don't know, probably never will know.

For my own part I think folks are wrong when looking for one great, grand all encompassing conspiracy, when they should be looking for a combination of a whole lot of little ones buried in incompetence and office politics.

One need look no further than the mess following hurricane Katrina for a good case example of such.

Don't know, prolly won't ever know, but sure as hell not buying the official approved version of events, no.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 28, 2007 12:58 PM

FLETCH2

The problem here is that reporters report what they are told. It's not the case that the BBC man had 8 years of civil engineering experience and had personally inspected the site, he will have asked someone and that person would have told him the wrong building number, probably the same source would be quoted by CNN.

Real life is messy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 3, 2007 8:32 AM