PDA

View Full Version : BBC reports WTC 7 fell 23 minutes too soon Version 2



thumper
02-28-2007, 01:03 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eUD93vVcQk

somebigguy
02-28-2007, 01:27 PM
You can see them in MP4/WMV formats here:

http://www.911podcasts.com/display.php?vid=200

AuGmENTor
02-28-2007, 01:28 PM
Any idea what the officail rebuttal to this is? Or are they just ignoring it like they do everythig else?

thumper
02-28-2007, 03:56 PM
i can see it now

"this (foreknowledge) proves nothing"

dtravni
02-28-2007, 04:25 PM
AuGmENTor - partial answer to your question regarding reply or rebuttal ... see

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html

Richard Porter (BBC World) furnishes reply. Judging from the comments, it is not well recieved.

MrDark71
02-28-2007, 05:01 PM
That has to be the funniest tidbit to date...lol

thumper
02-28-2007, 05:22 PM
checkout these douchebags

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=198375

AuGmENTor
02-28-2007, 05:48 PM
checkout these douchebags

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=198375I just registered, with every intention of being banned as soon as I possibly can...

thumper
02-28-2007, 05:58 PM
wow, already moved to the trash bin. gotta love these left wing gate keepers.

AuGmENTor
02-28-2007, 06:00 PM
AuGmENTor - partial answer to your question regarding reply or rebuttal ... see

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html

Richard Porter (BBC World) furnishes reply. Judging from the comments, it is not well recieved.Thanx. I am still reading... And getting madder and madder. I could see if there weren't another collapse. THAT would be a "mistake" or saying the WRONG building had collapsed. But to call the VERY building BEFORE it collapses, and your best answer is a MISTAKE. Gimme a fuckin break. I have to go get banned from that forum, if you'll excuse me....

thumper
02-28-2007, 06:01 PM
what pisses me off more are these huge political forums like iidb that back up the offical fabe, no matter how egregous, who cow others into agreeing with them.

AuGmENTor
02-28-2007, 06:04 PM
Oh yeah.... I see you lookin Neimad9. Can't WAIT to get your take on this one...

AuGmENTor
02-28-2007, 06:11 PM
wow, already moved to the trash bin. gotta love these left wing gate keepers.What are you talkin about?

AuGmENTor
02-28-2007, 06:14 PM
Oh yeah.... I see you lookin Neimad9. Can't WAIT to get your take on this one... Where'd you go dood? You can run... But you can't hide. It will be right here waiting when you get back. Will you just quote Mr. Porter as your excuse? The suspense is KILLIN me...

thumper
02-28-2007, 06:14 PM
What are you talkin about?i posted that thread in the political section. now its in 'elsewhere'

thumper
02-28-2007, 06:14 PM
Neimad's on invisible, Jon told me.

AuGmENTor
02-28-2007, 06:18 PM
Oh, so i guess he CAN hide. When did he go invisible? Cuz I saw him just a second ago...
Also, when the hell did you talk to Jon? He's been MIA all day (well from AIM anyway...)

thumper
02-28-2007, 06:20 PM
i was trying to draw him out!

AuGmENTor
02-28-2007, 06:24 PM
Jon, or Damien... I just saw him again! (damien)

Neimad9
02-28-2007, 06:24 PM
I am not Invisible unless thats on by defalut.

What take about what? When did I ever say the BBC documentry was the truth? I recommended another one about how governments use fear to control populations. I also found inaccruacys in the Alex Jones Terrorstorm video. I also disagreed with the illuminati stuff but again I backed that up.

None of this is evidence of me 'explaining away' 9/11 debunking. I even said multiple times that there are many holes. I do not have to agree with you with everything for fear of incurring your wrath. That said I do not even think I disagree with you that much. So what exactly is your point?

Neimad9
02-28-2007, 06:26 PM
Jon, or Damien... I just saw him again! (damien)

Its not Damien, its Sebastian. I have no reason to lie about that

like i was saying:

I am not Invisible unless thats on by defalut.

What take about what? When did I ever say the BBC documentry was the truth? I recommended another one about how governments use fear to control populations. I also found inaccruacys in the Alex Jones Terrorstorm video. I also disagreed with the illuminati stuff but again I backed that up.

None of this is evidence of me 'explaining away' 9/11 debunking. I even said multiple times that there are many holes. I do not have to agree with you with everything for fear of incurring your wrath. That said I do not even think I disagree with you that much. So what exactly is your point?

AuGmENTor
02-28-2007, 06:27 PM
What wrath dood? I'm teasin ya, ya bloke! Why not unclench those limey asscheeks a tad, eh?

Neimad9
02-28-2007, 06:29 PM
What wrath dood? I'm teasin ya, ya bloke! Why not unclench those limey asscheeks a tad, eh?

Because I have noticed a patten that you keep baiting me in every topic and I am not sure why.

AuGmENTor
02-28-2007, 06:30 PM
Just cuz it's from your neck of the woods. And it does show that whoever was feeding information across the pond prematurely ejaculated a few facts into your upturned face...
BTW remember you asked me about any other good documentaries? HERE (http://www.thepentacon.com/googlesmokinggun.htm)

AuGmENTor
02-28-2007, 06:32 PM
Because I have noticed a patten that you keep baiting me in every topic and I am not sure why.Now you have me thinkin bad things about you dood. I CONCEDED your point on a few topics, and yet here you come with this "waaaaa, why you always beat me up AuG?" Get off it. I have asked you direct questions, and asked you to be accountable for your claims. When you are, I admit it.

AuGmENTor
02-28-2007, 06:37 PM
Its not Damien, its Sebastian. I have no reason to lie about that

like i was saying:

I am not Invisible unless thats on by defalut.

What take about what? When did I ever say the BBC documentry was the truth? I recommended another one about how governments use fear to control populations. I also found inaccruacys in the Alex Jones Terrorstorm video. I also disagreed with the illuminati stuff but again I backed that up.

None of this is evidence of me 'explaining away' 9/11 debunking. I even said multiple times that there are many holes. I do not have to agree with you with everything for fear of incurring your wrath. That said I do not even think I disagree with you that much. So what exactly is your point?My my my, aren't WE defensive today? We were running a GAG. It was funny to us. I don't blame the BBC in the least, except that now they are guilty of conspiring to cover up the information that they were given, and when, and who they go it from....

thumper
02-28-2007, 06:37 PM
I am not Invisible unless thats on by defalut.

What take about what? When did I ever say the BBC documentry was the truth? I recommended another one about how governments use fear to control populations. I also found inaccruacys in the Alex Jones Terrorstorm video. I also disagreed with the illuminati stuff but again I backed that up.

None of this is evidence of me 'explaining away' 9/11 debunking. I even said multiple times that there are many holes. I do not have to agree with you with everything for fear of incurring your wrath. That said I do not even think I disagree with you that much. So what exactly is your point?i think u need to educated yourself on the notion of gatekeeping, or telling as much truth as is neccesary, to remain credible, but on the big things lie your ass off.

noam chomsky is a good example of this.

by that token we can see how the BBC can appear 'anti-establishment' just because they might say something about blair or the queen, even though they get their money from the gov't.

Neimad9
02-28-2007, 06:38 PM
Now you have me thinkin bad things about you dood. I CONCEDED your point on a few topics, and yet here you come with this "waaaaa, why you always beat me up AuG?" Get off it. I have asked you direct questions, and asked you to be accountable for your claims. When you are, I admit it.

Calling me limey and upturned face does not help at least. You also claimed in another topic that I didnt back up facts or answer direct questions. When I did with the illuminti topic which was the only one we really debated.

Anyway, Sorry ive had a bad day and its late here. As for this I have no idea. Sounds like they were sloppy.

Neimad9
02-28-2007, 06:42 PM
i think u need to educated yourself on the notion of gatekeeping, or telling as much truth as is neccesary, to remain credible, but on the big things lie your ass off.

noam chomsky is a good example of this.

by that token we can see how the BBC can appear 'anti-establishment' just because they might say something about blair or the queen, even though they get their money from the gov't.

Look, I know everyone is saying they get money from the goverment and TECHICALLY its true. You need to look into how the licence fee in the UK works.

This is not got much to do with anything since I am not sticking up for the Beeb in this case.

AuGmENTor
02-28-2007, 06:43 PM
Sorry, American humor is apperantly lost on you. And I am a bit crass by nature. I didn't know Limey was a slur. It doesn't sound like sloppy at all. It sounds like cover up. Did you read Mr. Porters explanation of all of this? Tell me that rings true to you when taken as a whole.... The BBC loses ALL of their footage, adn Goggle pulls it all. Why?

Neimad9
02-28-2007, 06:47 PM
Looking at the video, is there any proof of the time of the BBC WORLD news time?

AuGmENTor
02-28-2007, 06:48 PM
When I did with the illuminti topic which was the only one we really debated.

Really? Then why do you say I always bait you? You make it sound as if I do it with every post.... Yet if we have only debated once? Well, you're a smart guy, you can figure out what I am askin you.

AuGmENTor
02-28-2007, 06:50 PM
Looking at the video, is there any proof of the time of the BBC WORLD news time?The World news (which was what that program was, aired at 5 oclock.) The building collapsed at 520. EVEN if the times were wrong. It DOES NOT CHANGE the fact that the building is clearly pictured behind the NY correspondent. And if they hadn't cut the feed, we would have SEEN it collapse right behind her. AFTER she reported that it had collapsed.

Neimad9
02-28-2007, 07:06 PM
Yeah I see that now. It could have been a mistake though, I remember that day like we all do and a lot of news was all over the place. Same as 7/7. There were reports of a plane heading towards the white house, hitting skyscrapers in london on that day. Not saying that is what happened but it is a possible.

AuGmENTor
02-28-2007, 07:13 PM
As I say, if another building had collapsed, I would consider the contention that it was a mistake... None did, and further you are forgetting: The anchor reported 1: The exact blg that colapsed 2: taht it had collapsed as a result of the earlier attacks 3: that there were no casualties. Pretty concise information for a mistake. Espeacially before the fact...

thumper
02-28-2007, 07:14 PM
i don't think you're being fair neimad. there is too much evidence at this point.

Neimad9
02-28-2007, 07:17 PM
As I say, if another building had collapsed, I would consider the contention that it was a mistake... None did, and further you are forgetting: The anchor reported 1: The exact blg that colapsed 2: taht it had collapsed as a result of the earlier attacks 3: that there were no casualties. Pretty concise information for a mistake. Espeacially before the fact...

Well, and again I am not saying this happened, WTC 7 had fires and had been evacuated by the time of the fall. So its not unresonable that it looked like falling and no presumption that no one died. This could lead to the mistake of it being reported as collapsing when it had not (yet).

Basically its not as if no one saw it coming so it was a surprise when it happened.

I think its very odd though, but not by itself evidence of a conspiracy.

AuGmENTor
02-28-2007, 07:18 PM
i don't think you're being fair neimad. there is too much evidence at this point.I agree, almost to the point of it being intentional. But he has had a long day, and is extra thin skinned today. Go back in this thread Sebastian, and find the link someone gave me that said it partially answered my question. It will take you to all of mr Porters blog replies. Read all of that, and tell me you think it is a mistake. Did you watch the utube video of this event? And see what it said about how in addition to that sorry excuse Mr pote gave us, ALL of the video is now gone. If ou keep your stance, I WILL debate every thread you post to, as then it will be painfully obvious that you are full of shit...

Neimad9
02-28-2007, 07:19 PM
i don't think you're being fair neimad. there is too much evidence at this point.

Yes. I do not buy the offical story of 9/11.

I also wonder why this did not appear until after the BBC hit-piece.

But again, I do not know enough about the WTC 7 to comment into what I think happened.

AuGmENTor
02-28-2007, 07:22 PM
Well, and again I am not saying this happened, WTC 7 had fires and had been evacuated by the time of the fall. So its not unresonable that it looked like falling and no presumption that no one died. This could lead to the mistake of it being reported as collapsing when it had not (yet).

Basically its not as if no one saw it coming so it was a surprise when it happened.

I think its very odd though, but not by itself evidence of a conspiracy.Oh my dear sweet Jesus Christ!!! How many SINGLE pieces of evidence do you need before you admit this is a HUGE cover-up? Did you go watch the PentaCon video I posted for you? I think it is official. Whoever the hell this guy really is, he is just gonna troll until we ignore him...

AuGmENTor
02-28-2007, 07:24 PM
Yes. I do not buy the offical story of 9/11.

I also wonder why this did not appear until after the BBC hit-piece.

But again, I do not know enough about the WTC 7 to comment into what I think happened.Beacuse that is where the newscast was shown, in the BBC piece. When you have a skeleton in your closet, pieces of bone fall out every time you open the door.

Neimad9
02-28-2007, 07:28 PM
Oh my dear sweet Jesus Christ!!! How many SINGLE pieces of evidence do you need before you admit this is a HUGE cover-up? Did you go watch the PentaCon video I posted for you? I think it is official. Whoever the hell this guy really is, he is just gonna troll until we ignore him...

See? This is what I mean.

At the moment I am looking into the BBC stuff so no I havent seen the video. I dont go as fast as you, I am sorry for that. I also think that the 9/11 story has too many holes and likely is a cover up but I am not sure of what.

Terrorstorm and the Illuminti. I have not trolled I asked questions and had proof. If I accepted every topic without question then whats the point? I have even posted links to stuff that I think is suspect or good watching which also is evidence of a cover up

Neimad9
02-28-2007, 07:30 PM
Beacuse that is where the newscast was shown, in the BBC piece. When you have a skeleton in your closet, pieces of bone fall out every time you open the door.

Oh, The news thing is a clip from the BBC Hit-peice itself? Mmmm Might have to watch this peice then. What context was it used in the video?

AuGmENTor
02-28-2007, 07:31 PM
Well, and again I am not saying this happened, WTC 7 had fires and had been evacuated by the time of the fall. So its not unresonable that it looked like falling and no presumption that no one died. This could lead to the mistake of it being reported as collapsing when it had not (yet).

Basically its not as if no one saw it coming so it was a surprise when it happened.

I think its very odd though, but not by itself evidence of a conspiracy.Really? I was standing about 300 yards away when that motherfucker fell, and we were all pretty surprised. All of the firemen, and engineers, and rescue personell were absolutely astounded that it fell, as there was practically no damage to it. Buildings CLOSER, that DID sustain some REAL damage, did not fall. Funny how no one over a certain pay grade seemed all that surprised, yet the grunts stood there with our jaws on the ground. I am explainig this to a guy that is not even from here, whose knowlege of this day is growing more suspect by the second. Seems like the extent of your knowlege is loose change, and finding a misstated fact in terrorstorm. Yet your own fucking news agency can lie to the world, and you make up excuses for them too.

Neimad9
02-28-2007, 07:35 PM
Really? I was standing about 300 yards away when that motherfucker fell, and we were all pretty surprised. All of the firemen, and engineers, and rescue personell were absolutely astounded that it fell, as there was practically no damage to it. Buildings CLOSER, that DID sustain some REAL damage, did not fall. Funny how no one over a certain pay grade seemed all that surprised, yet the grunts stood there with our jaws on the ground. I am explainig this to a guy that is not even from here, whose knowlege of this day is growing more suspect by the second. Seems like the extent of your knowlege is loose change, and finding a misstated fact in terrorstorm. Yet your own fucking news agency can lie to the world, and you make up excuses for them too.

It seems like all news agencys have lied, they are also not mine. Terrorstorm I actually said was good expect for that point. I actually said it was good. It did make me suspect of the rest though, as I am sure it would you.

Sorry that you were so close, I cannot imagine what a horrible experance that may have been. Not all of us were that close and i freely admit my knowledge about 9/11 is not great.

thumper
02-28-2007, 07:37 PM
Yes. I do not buy the offical story of 9/11.

I also wonder why this did not appear until after the BBC hit-piece.

But again, I do not know enough about the WTC 7 to comment into what I think happened.let's break this down into its smallest parts.

when someone has foreknowledge of something about to happen that no one else knows about, barring psychic powers, doesn't that STRONGLY link involvement?

AuGmENTor
02-28-2007, 07:41 PM
when someone has foreknowledge of something about to happen, barring psychic powers, doesn't that STRONGLY link involvement?See I dont think the were really involved... It would be silly to think the BBC would have a motive to be involved in the murder of 3000 Americans. BUT, they are NOW guilty of covering up WHO gave them the information about the impending collapse. AND of trying to hide the evidence. They ARE linked to it now...

thumper
02-28-2007, 07:42 PM
See I dont think the were really involved... It would be silly to think the BBC would have a motive to be involved in the murder of 3000 Americans. BUT, they are NOW guilty of covering up WHO gave them the information about the impending collapse. AND of trying to hide the evidence. They ARE linked to it now...sorry, bad word choice. i meant conspiracy, or planned to happen.

thumper
02-28-2007, 07:43 PM
the BBC is just one tenticle of the octopus.

i think the evidence for the illuminati is how all the major news outlets make a CONCERTED effort to hide things, as if they're all taking orders from central command.

Gold9472
02-28-2007, 08:46 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1LetB0z8_o&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Einformationliberation%2Eco m%2Findex%2Ephp%3Fid%3D20521

thumper
02-28-2007, 09:01 PM
jon, what do you think about going to other forums and starting truth campaigns over there as a group?

thumper
03-03-2007, 12:43 AM
thizzump