FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
BBC Reported WTC-7 collapse twenty minutes before it fell
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps General Investigation
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
obeylittle



Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 442
Location: Middle o' Mitten, Michigan Corp. division of United States of America Corp. division of Global Corp.

PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Caution. Not. Enough. Information. Yet.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Hocus Locus



Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 847
Location: Lost in anamnesis, cannot forget my way out

PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 1:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stallion4 wrote:
Couldn't disagree with you more on this one, Hocus Locus. Building 7 was controlled demolition -period. First responders were even told that the building was going to be "brought Down" on purpose. People heard what sounded like bombs going off seconds before it fell. Some witnesses have even come forward to say that the official damage report to Building 7's South side is BS.

I hear ya, most worthy disagreeing discussant. I don't rule out deliberate demolition of Seven -- heck, I hate the silly thing, just glad no one was hurt. Being profoundly unmoved by Seven makes me feel more objective about it at least. ;-)

Consider that Seven being an imminent collapse threat, mere discussion at Ground Zero regarding how to help it along to mitigate that threat quickly so rescue work could resume on the pile (responders pulled off at ~3:30pm) could continue, is rational and plausible. And would make excellent fodder for misreporting and subsequent Truth Movement mismanagement.

It seems to be a road less travelled -- my intuitive track that hidden in the Oral Testimonies (among noise) are some pertinent pieces of data -- and the gut feeling that the psyop movement has been steered away from scrutiny of those first responder interviews.

I also feel that when the final torch is carried regarding the towers' (NOT Seven) fate, it will be a member of the NY Fire Department that wields it. And someone knows it -- and they have taken direct action to attack credibility of the group: in ways indirect, insidious ways, that seek to tiptoe around their 'hero' status. In ways that are documentable and there will be a trail to follow, backwards. The Gap Jeans smear for example.

Oral Testimonies are seldom mentioned except the snippets of directed quoting out of context of explosions heard which is to be expected on a day where everything's on fire. You have collapse overpressure waves carrying and depositing small smoudering bits of paper for blocks in every direction, which can easily explain other shocking trivia like vehicles' gas tanks detonating, when the bits become lodged near the air vent behind the gas cap. You have military jets making sonic booms. So 'boom' isn't enough. It's got to come down to people, places, situations and things.

Contrast this treatment with the excellent parsing job of the Columbine witnesses' statements. Responder interviews simply have not had this level of corroborative collation. The task is immense! But I'm on it; one fruit being the suspicious blowout of elevator doors on 22FLNT, as if taking out control systems there was an in-building objective.

Not all first responders have the same flavor, however. In that two part Guns'n'Butter interview, Indira Singh's interview on Ground Zero was riveting and poignant... but when she began to discuss one of her other pet topics, the vocal artifacts (repetition of vowel phenomes and 'sss' that indicate the speaker is doing 'constructive' versus 'recollective' mental processing) went through the roof, beyond. (Fintan has proved to be a master at reading these nuances, what say dude)

And the topic was a certain X-files Ruppert-esque allegation of a PTECH Promis-type computer infiltration. Which she investigated and presented in a purely conspiratorial (so and so 'associated with' so and so) way. When telling where she had gotten the information, in one moment her voice seemed about to say 'retired' (EDIT: or 'fff-former', been awhile since I listened) when refering to the source, then paused (slightly) and dropped the 'retired' (so as not to infringe on credibility?). Worth listening for, pains me to point such things out another human but the subject is of grave importance. Arriving me at the conclusion, 'spoon-fed' or even 'daily bread'.

Quote:
they told us we had to move from that triage site up to Pace University a little further away because Building 7 was going to come down or being brought down.

Why mention both possibilities? Unless one was not sure what one heard, or one knows one actually heard 'come down', and one wishes to ply the audience with the other as conspiratorial currency. Inclusion of both yields a result neither convincing nor (with due respect to the speaker) certain.

obeylittle wrote:
Caution. Not. Enough. Information. Yet.

Yes. Agreed. But I'm. pedalling. As fast. As I can. Whew!

___
Churchill's Commentary on Man: Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on.


Last edited by Hocus Locus on Thu Mar 01, 2007 4:26 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LuCidiTy



Joined: 18 Feb 2007
Posts: 229
Location: USA

PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 2:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hocus Locus wrote:


Quote:
they told us we had to move from that triage site up to Pace University a little further away because Building 7 was going to come down or being brought down.

Why mention both possibilities? Unless one was not sure what one heard, or one knows one actually heard 'come down', and one wishes to ply the audience with the other as conspiratorial currency. Inclusion of both yields a result neither convincing nor (with due respect to the speaker) certain.


Another possibility here is that they were told both...that it was not clear to her which they meant. Just a nit but maybe an important one.

It's kind of along the lines of "it's going to blow up" or "it blew up" versus "it's coming down" or "it came down." Why have we heard so much of both?

Confusion?

_________________
~that which is to shed light must endure burning~ victor frank
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 7527

PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:52 pm    Post subject: Beware the BBC-WTC7 Sucker Play Reply with quote

9/11 Campaigners:
Beware the BBC-WTC7 Sucker Play


by Fintan Dunne, Editor http://BreakForNews.com
1 March 2007

Leading CIA-run 9/11 Fake websites are running hard with the story
that the BBC announced the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7
well before it's eventual demise, and are touting this supposed gaffe as
a major embarrassment for the official version of events, and a shot
in the arm for the 9/11 Truth movement.

Of course, it's the complete reverse, but don't expect the CIA Fakes
to point that out to 9/11 campaigners hungry for any gain in their
battle to expose the grisly truth of September 11th.

Many of the truth campaigners, already sitting on a veritable raft of
incriminating evidence that the official tale is bogus, are keen to add
what Alex Jones' Prison Planet website has called the BBC's "Psychic
clairvoyance" to their list of gripes against the mainstream version.

Writing on Prison planet, Paul Joseph Watson bluntly says: "Of course
they were told that WTC7 was coming down", and presses the BBC to
reveal the source of it's misinformation.

The BBC has responded that if they misreported, it was "an error, no
more than that". They quote a blogger saying "so the guy in the studio
didn't quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves
conspiracy..."

SWINGS AND ROUNDABOUTS

There is admittedly some wry humor in the sight of a reporter advising
that WTC7 has collapsed, while it stands proudly in the background.
But the real joke is on the truth movement.

Understanding why requires an appreciation for political dynamics,
something of which the cover-up team are keenly aware, but which
comes harder to those unversed in the slimy tricks of the trade of public
opinion management and manipulation.

The CIA Fakes, who espouse 9/11 truth -while continually undermining it,
are steadfastly keeping the movement focused on the misdeeds of it's
"enemies" in the mainstream media and the political establishment. It's
a clever emotional tactic which neuters the effectiveness of the whole
movement.

The reason why, is known to every media manager in every political
party which has a support base larger than the relatives of it's own
members.

Rhetoric about how nasty the other guys are is great fodder for the true
believer membership, but is of little use in attracting the huge group
known as the 'swing voter'. The process of public persuasion is one of
steadily winning over the middle ground. One percent here, two percent
there eventually leads to gaining a clear majority.

One of the most potent tactics in winning that ground is to try engineer
situations where the 'other guys' seem to be the extremists while one's
own party is portrayed as a bastion of sensibility. Of course the media
managers in the 'other guy' party are as aware of this and are as adept
at refusing bait and 'spinning' things the opposite direction. In modern
politics this produces a balanced tug-of-war where gains are hard to
come by.

JOKE BACKFIRES

That kind of appeal to the middle-ground is exactly the clever game
being played by the engineers of the BBC-WTC7 'controversy'.

To the undecided, the question of the BBC calling it wrong on the WTC7
collapse seems like no big deal. Two skyscrapers had already fallen that
day, and word had been circulating for some hours prior to the BBC
misstatement that the burning Building 7 was in imminent danger of
collapse. The question of why that kind of word was circulating is
another issue entirely, by the way.

So, on the face of it, as far as the undecided are concerned, making a
big deal about the BBC error can be portrayed as the raving of fanatics.

Which is exactly how the BBC are portraying all this. Expect other media
to follow suit in due course. And expect the BBC to chalk this down in
their book of lunatic fantasies of the 9/11 truth Movement. To be
wheeled out at every suitable occasion to deem themselves as the
aforementioned bastion of sensibility.

Meanwhile, expect the CIA Fake websites to rail against the BBC and
keep pushing their demands for the organization to come clean. All of
that will build a nice file of quotable quotes from the CIA-controlled
luminaries in the 9/11 truth movement to be used by the mainstream.

Really, all this might well have been a storm in a teacup, were it not
for a couple of things used to hook the interest of the 9/11 truthers.

A video of the BBC broadcast went missing on Goggle, and now the BBC
has apparently 'lost' it's tapes of their own transmission. Both of
these were smoke screening lures to try convince the 9/11 campaigners
that there really was something of advantage to them being suppressed.

Actually, the whole thing, triggered by the original 'discovery' of
video of the BBC transmission, has been carefully timed to follow
hard on the heels of the BBC's own one-sided 'Conspiracy Files' episode
attacking the 9/11 Truth Movement.

It's designed to copper fasten perceptions carefully built up in that
program, that 9/11 campaigners are lunatics who tread insensitively on
the memories of the bereaved while propagating wild allegations.

And so, as if on cue, in fact precisely on cue, comes a package of
wild assertions wrapped in suspicious circumstance and pushed by
CIA-controlled personalities and websites --designed to prove the BBC
right in their recent demonization based on carefully selected 'facts'.

So the BBC lost their 9/11 tapes, did they? I think not. The only
thing lost in this case is yet another round of the clever courting
of middle ground opinion over the true nature of the 9/11 attacks.

But then, you hardly expect the 9/11 truth campaigners to win in a
mainstream arena where the opposition is playing one-sided, dirty
PR games and is aided and abetted by the CIA-engineered leaders
and spokespersons for the 9/11 truth movement.

Even if ordinary 9/11 truth campaigners wise up to the latest devious
episode in this information war, it will matter little. The CIA Fakes
will shrill on relentlessly, providing more and more quotable quotes
to be used against the people they nominally represent.

USE THE INTERNET

The only arena where this battle for minds will be won is the internet.

It's as stacked a deck as the mainstream media, due to the vast army
of well-funded CIA Fake 9/11 websites. But at least the ordinary
9/11 truth campaigners can articulate a more balanced view in forums
and on blogs. Sans the simplistic booby-trapped sloganeering of their
own CIA-chosen 'leadership'.

Only by exposing the deeper manipulations such as the one detailed
here, can any ground be gained. In truth, the numbers are vast who are
deeply suspicious about the official tale of 9/11. Given the facts,
their suspicions would soon harden into convictions.

The 9/11 campaigners have a vast array of facts much more convincing
that mere bitching about the accuracy of a staged BBC error.

But, they'll never get those facts into the mainstream. Where even
as I write a travesty of fact is being passed off as a legitimate 9/11
controversy, and an elaborate farce is being played out to try hold
the line on the crumbling edifice of the official account of 9/11.

We must expose the CIA Fakes. Unless and until we do, they will
continue to play fools to the gallery of public opinion.

Spread the word.

Fintan Dunne, Editor
BreakForNews.com


Read "The CIA Fakes":
http://www.BreakForNews.com/TheCIAInternetFakes.htm


Last edited by Fintan on Thu Mar 01, 2007 8:40 pm; edited 4 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
LuCidiTy



Joined: 18 Feb 2007
Posts: 229
Location: USA

PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 8:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's hard.
_________________
~that which is to shed light must endure burning~ victor frank
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
toeg



Joined: 01 Mar 2007
Posts: 11

PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 9:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fintan,

That makes sense and explains a lot of the anomalies with the story.

1. How is it possible that this story hasn't been raised earlier, years earlier?

2. Why doesn't she ever look behind her to notice that she's got the WTC7 behind her the whole time?

3. Why can't they find this little ditty today?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stallion4



Joined: 26 May 2006
Posts: 692

PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 10:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FYI, I personally witnessed the evolution of this story, and at this point I do not believe it is some sort of psy-op or whatever. To the best of my knowledge the BBC footage was discovered after hours of 9/11 coverage was uploaded on the website Archive.org. A 9/11 researcher (who I'm familiar with) from 911Blogger.com who goes by the moniker "911veritas" discovered the footage after downloading it from Archive.org. If anyone else would like to see how the story evolved, visit this thread at 911blogger:

Danny Jowenko - Dutch Demolition Expert Still Maintains WTC7 Could NOT Collapse Due to Fire

http://www.911blogger.com/node/6400#comment-119070

After the discovery was made, someone started this thread a couple of days later...

BBC Error ! Huge smoking gun of pre-knowledge collapse of WTC7
http://www.911blogger.com/node/6458

Here's the original thread where the Archive.org links were posted on February 22, 2007:

Massive 9/11 TV Archive
http://911blogger.com/node/6391

More info regarding how this story evolved can be found here:

Jim Hoffman's article on BBC's 9/11 Timeline & Foreknowledge of WTC 7's Collapse
http://www.911blogger.com/node/6512


THERE IS NO DOWNSIDE TO THIS STORY COMING OUT. Millions of people are now hearing about Building 7 for the first time thanks to it, and to 9/11 researchers who are working hard to expose the 9/11 criminals.

BBC got caught with their pants down on this one. Nothing more, nothing less...


_________________
"Someday a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets." ~Travis Bickle
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
obeylittle



Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 442
Location: Middle o' Mitten, Michigan Corp. division of United States of America Corp. division of Global Corp.

PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 11:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This isn't for everyone here so ignore this and move on if you haven't been suckered today. For those that aren't so sure... well we never have all the facts about anything. We can only hope to assemble enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

The wonderful thing about human life is that we all make mistakes that are correctable. Its human nature and totally acceptable to be imperfect and flawed. But as beings capable of analytical and rational thought, we may learn from our mistakes should we expend a little effort to reflect on our experiences. Other beings are not so gifted with this choice. And learning is a choice, nothing more.

But even in the animal world a creature may adjust to its actions, hangouts and habit. Even a dog, who cannot assemble any complicated analytical thoughts, may cease to chase cars, after being run over by them a few times. A smart dog avoids cars entirely, while other dogs may chase until hit by a car once, then learn the permanent painful lesson.

The bottom line is: The fake medias on the Internet produce lies. The mainstream medias produce the same lies, co-existing and bolstering each others mandates. They are symbiotic parasites, we are all convinced of that. We have analyzed volumes of proof to show that they exist only to twist lies to dissipate critical questioning and analytical thought.

How can we now believe that the fake media is suddenly and uncharacteristically, against their mandate, disseminating a truth? Why is it that some of us are still chasing the same cars down on the same corners? The next level awaits those crippled and battered chasers. It is a simple human choice.

Show off your battle scars and show us where you got them. Perhaps we can eliminate those dangerous corners and hold responsible their liars out front directing the traffic. These are criminals after all and justice will help to heal the wounds.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mortimer



Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 12

PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 12:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

We have to look about what is the content of this "new" event. BBC knew in advance? If it's true, what we can prove beyond this? That BBC is infiltrated by agent provocateur or something. Maybe, but it's not the way to prove it like it seems to be done now because the real "agent provocateur" knows the skepticism felt by a part of the public toward the mainstream media and want to guide the popular anger to it. I'm not defending BBC in specific but freedom in general because if we go on with this reasoning, in the finish we'll find ourselves without any professionnal media. Only a voice which says us what we desire to hear.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 7527

PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 1:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Stallion4: FYI, I personally witnessed the evolution of this story, and at this point I do not believe it is some sort of psy-op or whatever. To the best of my knowledge the BBC footage was discovered after hours of 9/11 coverage was uploaded on the website Archive.org. A 9/11 researcher (who I'm familiar with) from 911Blogger.com who goes by the moniker "911veritas" discovered the footage after downloading it from Archive.org......

You think we should be reassured by you being in at the genesis of this story.
I'm not.

And yeah, I'm sure the BBC-error tale has a well-laid "back-story".
I would expect no less from the agency.

So it's all just a coincidence that this angle emerges within days
of the BBC hit-piece on the 9/11 Truth movement, and provides
them more ammunition to portray us as grasping at straws by
trying to implicate a news reporter and the BBC in the collapse?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
obeylittle



Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 442
Location: Middle o' Mitten, Michigan Corp. division of United States of America Corp. division of Global Corp.

PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 1:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mortimer wrote:
We have to look about what is the content of this "new" event. BBC knew in advance? If it's true, what we can prove beyond this? That BBC is infiltrated by agent provocateur or something. Maybe, but it's not the way to prove it like it seems to be done now because the real "agent provocateur" knows the skepticism felt by a part of the public toward the mainstream media and want to guide the popular anger to it. I'm not defending BBC in specific but freedom in general because if we go on with this reasoning, in the finish we'll find ourselves without any professionnal media. Only a voice which says us what we desire to hear.


You sound really confused with fragmented thoughts. What you just said doesn't make any sense at all.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LuCidiTy



Joined: 18 Feb 2007
Posts: 229
Location: USA

PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 2:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fintan wrote:

So it's all just a coincidence that this angle emerges within days
of the BBC hit-piece on the 9/11 Truth movement, and provides
them more ammunition to portray us as grasping at straws by
trying to implicate a news reporter and the BBC in the collapse?


You're most probably correct, Fintan, but there is another possible explanation.

Perhaps someone, having seen or been incensed by the BBC hit-piece, was looking for footage and happened to notice this.

I'm just saying...

_________________
~that which is to shed light must endure burning~ victor frank
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps General Investigation All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Page 4 of 9

 
Jump to:  
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


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.