BBC Reporting WTC7's Collapse... Created 17 years ago2007-05-16 15:13:00 UTC by Jahzel Jahzel

Created 17 years ago2007-05-16 15:13:00 UTC by Jahzel Jahzel

Posted 17 years ago2007-05-16 15:13:00 UTC Post #222252
...Before it even happens!
Recently discovered footage of early reporting of the collapse of WTC Building 7 by the BBC, as well as CNN and BBC24-- while WTC7 was still standing in the background of the shot (a.k.a. Solomon Bros. Building-- a 47-story skyscraper within the WTC complex) seems to indicate direct scripting of Mainstream Media.
Go check it out here

Note: I bet most of you will say how I'm lying and that the BBC never reported this and that everything's fine and nothing suspicious took place..blah blah blah, the usual...
Posted 17 years ago2007-05-16 15:20:45 UTC Post #222254
Time zone differences?

I take 9/11 and any other conspiracies this way:

If I assume that 9/11 didn't happen as the government told us, i'd have to not believe everything else the govenrment tells us. Might as well start an anarchist revolution. (Also conspiracies are full of shit relying on video grain/ noise and misinformation.)
Posted 17 years ago2007-05-16 15:34:11 UTC Post #222260
No time difference, no hoax, I can tell you.

This is genuine, footage. On BBC's Nick Robinson's blog, they even admit it was genuine but say that nothing was... wrong, no of course not BBC...
Posted 17 years ago2007-05-16 15:44:34 UTC Post #222262
So what the hell can you do? No one's manage to get actual proof out on JFK's death and aliens.
Posted 17 years ago2007-05-16 15:46:53 UTC Post #222264
I'm not saying you're lying.

Just that what you believe to be true may, or may not be. The fact that you believe it, doesn't necessarily make it true. If you didn't believe it - that wouldn't make it untrue either.

All of your information on that subject has probably come from the media. TV, internet, whatever. You haven't got any first hand knowledge or experience of these events, and you haven't seen any real proof of anything with your own eyes.

Just like me. I'm not claiming to know anything.

What you and I believe has been fed to us by a variety of people, all of whom have an agenda of their own.

I'd like to re-iterate :- I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying, you might be. And you can't consider yourself to be fair about it, until you can consider that without predjudice.

Most normal people don't like things that go against what they believe. It's part of human nature and nobodys fault.

When people see things that go against what they believe, they dismiss them simply because they don't like them. You can see yourself doing it if you try, you've probably done it already while reading this post. Or, If you're an athiest, you'd probably scoff when you see posters outside churches with slogans like "Jesus will save you" --- you dismiss them out of hand because you don't believe them. You don't actually consider that it might be true, because to you it seems stupid. And it does sound stupid! (I'm no Christian) But if you have any belief in the methodology of science, then you'll know that personal feelings and opinion play no part whatsoever in ascertaining the truth.

To consider the opposite side of the argument fairly and without any of your own personal feelings getting in the way, no matter how stupid it might be, is very hard to do. There are milliions of scientists who spend all day, every day, trying to work out ways of testing things fairly, to eliminate bias.

Until you can eliminate bias, then there's always going to be a definite possibility that you're wrong about what you believe.

That's what I believe.

And so, we're all wrong.

About everything we all believe.
Posted 17 years ago2007-05-16 15:47:54 UTC Post #222265
Yes, BBC knew about WTC before it happened and they're involved with some super-elite plot to take over the world and also we never went to the moon it was all a fake and there's space lizards living in the white house mind controlling the vice president and everyone is secretly being governed by mind controlling subliminal messaging in our advertisements and the government is out to get me!
Posted 17 years ago2007-05-16 15:52:41 UTC Post #222267
An good example of bias right there from Zombieloff. You mock it because you don't believe it.

I'm not saying you're right or wrong.

Just that you made your decision based at least somewhat on your own feelings.

And therefore, it means very little.
Posted 17 years ago2007-05-16 16:04:49 UTC Post #222269
tl;dr

anyone up for some sex?
Posted 17 years ago2007-05-16 16:10:04 UTC Post #222270
Those looked nothing like the WTCs...
Luke LukeLuke
Posted 17 years ago2007-05-16 16:13:30 UTC Post #222271
I mock it because most conspiracy theories are ridiculous and have very little fact to back them up, not simply because I don't believe in them. I'm tired of conspiracy nuts claiming supreme evils are conspiring against people to enslave them in their wicked schemes for power.

I'm not saying this conspiracy theory is downright wrong, I'm just tired of all these quasi-scientific theories about what did and did not happen.
Posted 17 years ago2007-05-16 16:13:36 UTC Post #222272
Those looked nothing like the WTCs...
You're an idiot.
Posted 17 years ago2007-05-16 16:15:15 UTC Post #222273
Oh, I get it. I was still watching the video, and it finally clicked to me that they were referring to buildings next to it, silly me.
Luke LukeLuke
Posted 17 years ago2007-05-16 16:19:15 UTC Post #222275
Oh, and my angry-rant post was also to discredit Alex Jones credibility, as he actually does believe a superior space reptile race are in control of the power seats of the world.

Or was that some other infowars loon? Blah. In any case, they're all fear-mongerers.
Posted 17 years ago2007-05-16 16:44:07 UTC Post #222283
they're all fear-mongerers.
Yup, as are all the folks on the other side of the argument too.
Posted 17 years ago2007-05-16 16:59:13 UTC Post #222286
and so still 5 and a half years later even moar conspiracy theories are brewed only to be thrown away within the next month... Seriously who the fuck comes up with this shit? Do people spend days on end watching old footage just so they can come up with this shit?
And who the fuck then ends up finding it? Do people Spam "9/11 conspiracies" in google until they get a new hit that they can spam for another useless thread in a forum. -_-
Posted 17 years ago2007-05-16 19:42:28 UTC Post #222325
Terrorists fly planes into tall buildings, buildings fall down, America starts a war.

The End.
monster_urby monster_urbyGoldsourcerer
Posted 17 years ago2007-05-16 19:55:41 UTC Post #222329
I love conspiracy theories. My view on them is that either side could theoretically be correct: at least we get to hear of what the other side has to say, rather than simply get spoonfed an outline of "what happened".
AJ AJGlorious Overlord
Posted 17 years ago2007-05-16 20:10:00 UTC Post #222333
I can't be bothered with conspiracies. I've got my own shit to worry about.

Bring on the basic outlines and spoons!
monster_urby monster_urbyGoldsourcerer
Posted 17 years ago2007-05-16 20:11:46 UTC Post #222335
A [perpetual] war.
Posted 17 years ago2007-05-16 20:20:23 UTC Post #222342
So about the most famous news institution in the world isn't organised enough to avoid reporting on such a major fake news story hours early by accident? You'd be surprised they got the idea together in the first place, eh?
Seventh-Monkey Seventh-MonkeyPretty nifty
Posted 17 years ago2007-05-17 08:28:01 UTC Post #222401
as he actually does believe a superior space reptile race are in control of the power seats of the world.
Alex Jones does not believe in anything of the sort, a simple search or check of his material will show this. He often jokes about such theories on radio. I should know, I have been listening to the Alex Jones show for just over 5 years. The actual people you are refering to with beliefs similar to what you are saying are David Icke and Michael Tsarion.
Terrorists fly planes into tall buildings, buildings fall down, America starts a war.
The End.
Actually the orders to invade Iraq were on the Whitehouse desk prior to 9/11, (the year 2000 to be precise). You see, an invasion doesn't get planned in one week or so, it takes years of tactical preperation (you are talking about peoples lives here!)

If you read Project For A New American Century's document entitled Rebuilding Americas Defences 2000 - page 50, you will see that Saddam w as not considred a threat, he had nothing to do with al CIA-da, I mean al-Qaeda, and that they needed some type of 'new Pearl Harbor' to justify military intervention in the middle east.

Supporting the troops with bumper stickers does not mean you support the troops in reality guys, you are supporting a fake war for Haliburton.

The End.
Posted 17 years ago2007-05-17 13:54:02 UTC Post #222427
oh god not that old rotten carcass of a document again
Posted 17 years ago2007-05-17 14:48:29 UTC Post #222432
(...speaks as though he's heard of it...) :roll:
Posted 17 years ago2007-05-17 15:21:25 UTC Post #222435
i have, you linked us to it in a similar debate quite a while back.
Posted 17 years ago2007-05-17 15:44:35 UTC Post #222440
Nice. I've personally got nothing against conspiracies theories, I think they're rather interesting. Doesn't mean I believe in them all 100%, but I don't immediately discredit them as bullshit just because it isn't what the majority believe in.
Posted 17 years ago2007-05-17 16:07:55 UTC Post #222444
I dont believe in every conspiracy theory, I dont think many people do. Especially fringe theories such as 'space men attacked the trwin towers which were actually just holographic...blah blah blah' - these only ever ruin a good substantial case for more investigation.

I think when you see hatefilled neo-con pundits like Michelle Malkin, Bill O'Reilly, Hannity & Colmes etc calling for the arrest of anyone who criticises Government, then the level of suspicion increases.

FOX, b.t.w, is admittedly Pentagon funded.
Posted 17 years ago2007-05-17 17:37:50 UTC Post #222461
Source.
Seventh-Monkey Seventh-MonkeyPretty nifty
Posted 17 years ago2007-05-18 06:27:15 UTC Post #222527
Half-Life 2?
Posted 17 years ago2007-05-18 07:26:02 UTC Post #222532
9/11.....thats when Israel completed its unilateral disengagement from the Gaza Strip, right?
Penguinboy PenguinboyHaha, I died again!
Posted 17 years ago2007-05-18 10:08:52 UTC Post #222538
Just seems to me like one of them screwed up, and everybody jumped off the handle and started reporting it too without actually verifying it first. Simple case of 'well they said it was true, so it must be true'

That video wasn't too well organized either. It was in like reverse order, "This happened 20 minutes before it fell, this 5 minutes before that, this a hour before THAT" which really doesn't help to follow anything at all.
Posted 17 years ago2007-05-18 10:35:45 UTC Post #222539
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression Strong, credible allegations of high-level criminal activity can bring down a Government. When
the Government lacks an effective, fact-based defense, other techniques must be employed. The success of these techniques depends heavily upon a cooperative, compliant, controlled press and a mere token opposition party. This sums up, in totality, the press, the media and either of the political parties here in America.

1. Dummy up. If it's not reported, it's not news, it didn't
happen.

2. Wax indignant. This is also known as the "How dare you?" gambit.

3. Characterize the charges as "rumors" or, better yet, "wild rumors." If, in spite of the news blackout, the public is still able to learn about the suspicious facts, it can only be through "rumors." (If they tend to believe
the "rumors" it must be because they are simply "paranoid" or "hysterical.")

4. Knock down straw men. Deal only with the weakest aspects of the weakest charges. Even better, create your own straw men. Make up wild rumors (or plant false stories) and give them lead play when you appear to debunk all the charges, real and fanciful alike. Republicrat's are masters at this.

5. Call the skeptics names like "conspiracy theorist,"
"nutcase," "ranter," "kook," "crackpot," and, of course, "rumor monger." Be sure, too, to use
heavily loaded verbs and adjectives when characterizing their charges and defending the "more reasonable" government and its defenders. You must then
carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people you have thus maligned. For insurance, set up your own "skeptics" to shoot down. A classic tactic that has been used in America by both the Government and the press for a number of years now.

6. Impugn motives. Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting strongly that they are not really interested in the truth but are simply pursuing a partisan political agenda or are out to make money (compared to
over-compensated adherents to the government line who, presumably, are not).

7. Invoke authority. Here the controlled press and the sham opposition can be very useful.

8. Dismiss the charges as "old news."

9. Come half-clean. This is also known as "confession and avoidance" or "taking the limited hangout route." This way, you create the impression of candor and honesty while you admit only to relatively harmless,
less-than-criminal "mistakes." This stratagem often requires the embrace of a fall-back position quite different from the one originally taken. With
effective damage control, the fall-back position need only be peddled by stooge skeptics to carefully limited markets. In other words, spread "disinformation". Another classic tactic of the Government and ALL
agencies, especially the CIA, NSA, FBI, DOD and so fourth.

10. Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as ultimately unknowable. (What?)

11. Reason backward, using the deductive method with a vengeance. With thoroughly rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is irrelevant. E.g. We have a completely free press.

12. Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely.

13. Change the subject. This technique includes creating and/or publicizing distractions. Again, the Republicrat's are masters at this. Just look at how many times "Leaders" bombed and strafed innocent countries simply to distract attention away from the criminal diasters they had created for themselves.

14. Lightly report incriminating facts, and then make nothing of them. This is sometimes referred to as "bump and run" reporting.

15. Baldly and brazenly lie. A favorite way of doing this is to attribute the "facts" furnished the public to a plausible-sounding, but anonymous, source. A tactic practiced daily by the various Federal Agencies of
America.

16. Expanding further on numbers 4 and 5, have your own stooges "expose" scandals and champion popular causes. Their job is to pre-empt real opponents and to play 99-yard football. A variation is to pay rich people
for the job who will pretend to spend their own money.

17. Flood the Internet and ALL levels of society and business with agents, precisely as Hitler did in Germany so many years ago. Supposdely, that number (of agents) has reached a minimum of 40,000 - probably a
very low (estimate). This is the answer to the question, "What could possibly motivate a person to spend hour upon hour on Internet news groups defending
the government and/or the press and harassing and REPORTING genuine critics?" Don't the authorities have defenders enough in all the newspapers, magazines, radio, and television? One would think refusing to
print critical letters and screening out serious callers or dumping them from radio talk shows, rarely printing the truth in any written document, would be control enough, but, obviously, it is not.

? The Global New Deal media, an insider's view ?
Help Free Speech TV grow by sharing this post with:
delicious | digg | reddit

Submitted by truthsupplier on Sun, 2004-09-12 09:54. login or register to post comments | email this forum | 0 points
javablack
Posts: 13
Joined: 2005-03-08
Without Justice, there is JUST_US
#12 is the creepiest one. I've read a lot of conspiracy theories. Most are nuts, but some of the facts are nonetheless eerie. I often wonder if they just refuse to publish any conspiracy theory not containing lizard people or satanic rituals (lizard people still seem more plausible to me than anything Ann Coulter says). But getting to the point, I also study sociology. And since C. Wright Mills, many of us have barked up the tree of the elitists that keep us all under control and we always keep saying that it's a structural thing, not a conspiracy. Rather than an illuminati or even a military industrial complex, we implicate subtle social forces that manipulate people in power to work together. Still, someone has to be feeding this process and knowing it. Reaganomics (which is supported by top-tier Democrats, otherwise known as new democrats) took away from the middle class and gave to the rich. Was this unintentional?

What I'm leading up to is this: Why do we waste all this time worrying whether it's a conspiracy or not? All the most troubling facts about conspiracy theories (other than lizard people) are true. The middle class is disappearing. Both parties, at their highest levels, are controlled by the interests and values of Wall Street. Meanwhile groups of civilians are becoming more and more polarized and the checks and balances are falling out of government. Apathy and consumerism are the biggest shared qualities of Americans and we are generally more concerned with others' lack of morality than our own morality. Does it matter if this is the root of a conspiracy theory or a structural problem? Either way we must work together to stop it or suffer the consequences.

But what do they always say? There is no conspiracy. Ok. But this answer does not dismiss the problem. That seems to be a big thing in politics these days. Use a powerful dismissal that kills the opponent's credibility, then ignore the rest of the problem. If part of it is false, the whole thing must be false. The public buys that logic, but there have to be some who see it is a fallacy.

From: http://community.freespeech.org/without_justice_there_is_just_us

One thing I might add is:
  • Divide any debate into either "Left" or "Right"
If you dare become a skeptic of the official story you are instantly described as being a "Leftwing Loony". On the other hand you might be named a "Rightwing Extremist" for supporting the 4th Ammendment.

Timothy McVeigh was hired to infiltrate the Patriot movement in America and associate their activities with that of the far right.
Posted 17 years ago2007-05-18 16:49:30 UTC Post #222574
tl;dr
You must be logged in to post a response.