murgatt Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 Total nutters ........... all that video needed was an appearance by David Ike and it would have been complete. you won't be laughing when the lizard overlords throw you in the dungeon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 AFAIK the BBC (along with other TV channels) did say something like "there are reports coming in of another building collapsing" about 20 minutes before WTC7 collapsed. This was traced back to Reuters who were talking about an imminent collapse (chinese whispers syndrome) - given that firefighters had noticed the building listing out of true (having been damaged by a collapsing skyscraper and having unfought fires for several hours) and had established a safety cordon for several blocks around the building it was no real surprise it collapsed. Or you could believe the cordon had been to allow a crack team of suicide ninjas to go in and rig the building for demolition. haha the ninjas bit made me chuckle, this thread is yet another example of how events can be joined and used to show anything you want Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 Quite. We would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for you pesky "anorak wearing middle aged blokes who still live with your mum!" Ha, ha ... that made me giggle. Scooby Scooby Do! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 The tapes did turn up eventually. Put on the wrong shelf or something. ---------- Post added 26-02-2013 at 21:49 ---------- No way on earth could anyone predict a total collapse of the building unless it was a planned demolition. Someone had foreknowledge , and not just the source at Reuters. Insider trading previous to 9/11 also indicates people knew what was going to happen. do you really think firemen don't know when structures are critically damaged? or that newsmen don't talk to the firemen? ---------- Post added 27-02-2013 at 12:33 ---------- ****-up is always more likely than conspiracy. This was the busiest day in the history of the 24 hour rolling news channels, the offices at the BBC will have been as hectic as they have ever been, is it really that far-fetched to suggest it was a mistake? exactly, sometimes someat comes out the mouth wrong or not in the right order I'm guilty as charged mi ludd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vResistance Posted February 27, 2013 Author Share Posted February 27, 2013 Like I said the firemen had foreknowledge - experienced firefighters at the scene had noticed the building had sustained damage, had flashover fires, was bulging and was, in their opinion, in danger of collapse. They withdrew and established a cordon - even though that meant calling off the search for their fallen brothers in the debris of the twin towers. Thats the cover story they came up with Longcol, yes. The building had by all accounts suffered damage and fires to one end, I could accept that there was a danger of a partial collapse at this end. But as no other steel and concrete building had ever collapsed due to fire, I don't believe anybody, no matter how experienced could have foretold it's complete collapse as the BBC very clearly did unless it was pre planned, and the news pre scripted. Total nutters ........... all that video needed was an appearance by David Ike and it would have been complete. Would that be the same David Icke that was for years trying to expose Savile as a paedophile before it came to light? ****-up is always more likely than conspiracy. This was the busiest day in the history of the 24 hour rolling news channels, the offices at the BBC will have been as hectic as they have ever been, is it really that far-fetched to suggest it was a mistake? This happened, five hours or so after the collapse of WTC, yes it must have been a very busy day so why did they spend so much time and effort reporting something that hadn't happened (yet) and twice? If it was just down to confusion, don't you find it at least a little odd that this incorrect report became correct, to the letter, nearly half an hour later? ---------- Post added 27-02-2013 at 12:39 ---------- do you really think firemen don't know when structures are critically damaged? or that newsmen don't talk to the firemen? ---------- Post added 27-02-2013 at 12:33 ---------- exactly, sometimes someat comes out the mouth wrong or not in the right order I'm guilty as charged mi ludd I suppose they may have been a little paranoid after seeing the towers collapse but, they are trained to put fires out, not predict never before seen events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 As I read all this nonsense, the words "conspiracy of the gaps" pops into my head. Seems appropriate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 Thats the cover story they came up with Longcol, yes. The building had by all accounts suffered damage and fires to one end, I could accept that there was a danger of a partial collapse at this end. But as no other steel and concrete building had ever collapsed due to fire, I don't believe anybody, no matter how experienced could have foretold it's complete collapse as the BBC very clearly did unless it was pre planned, and the news pre scripted. Sorry but that is absurd, you've just multiplied the size of your conspiracy many times. Now not only do we have to keep 10s of thousands of government emplyees quiet, now we have all of the journalists at the BBC (and presumably all the other major news networks). Who the hell can afford to pay all these people off? And how on earth can they guarantee 100% success rate? That not 1, not a single 1 of the 10s of thousands of people they've had to pay off has ever come forward. How can you possibly believe that? ---------- Post added 27-02-2013 at 12:46 ---------- This happened, five hours or so after the collapse of WTC, yes it must have been a very busy day so why did they spend so much time and effort reporting something that hadn't happened (yet) and twice? If it was just down to confusion, don't you find it at least a little odd that this incorrect report became correct, to the letter, nearly half an hour later? Do I find it odd that the BBC corrected a mistake on it's website? No of course not what a stupid question. Why wouldn't they correct it once they noticed it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vResistance Posted February 27, 2013 Author Share Posted February 27, 2013 Sorry but that is absurd, you've just multiplied the size of your conspiracy many times. Now not only do we have to keep 10s of thousands of government emplyees quiet, now we have all of the journalists at the BBC (and presumably all the other major news networks). Who the hell can afford to pay all these people off? And how on earth can they guarantee 100% success rate? That not 1, not a single 1 of the 10s of thousands of people they've had to pay off has ever come forward. How can you possibly believe that? ---------- Post added 27-02-2013 at 12:46 ---------- Do I find it odd that the BBC corrected a mistake on it's website? No of course not what a stupid question. Why wouldn't they correct it once they noticed it? How the heck did you come to those conclusions? "have to keep 10s of thousands of government emplyees quiet, now we have all of the journalists at the BBC" Why? they just do their jobs, why do they have to keep them quiet unless they had to know something? which most wouldn't "Do I find it odd that the BBC corrected a mistake on it's website? No of course not what a stupid question. Why wouldn't they correct it once they noticed it?" What are you talking about? They didn't correct a mistake, the mistake became correct. And it wasn't on a website. Have you got a clue what we are talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 How the heck did you come to those conclusions?A logical principle called Ockham's razor. Why? they just do their jobs, why do they have to keep them quiet unless they had to know something? which most wouldn'tSome people there would have had to know something. And if you're right then surely they didn't stop at the BBC, and must have fed news stories to other organisations right? What are you talking about? They didn't correct a mistake, the mistake became correct. And it wasn't on a website. Have you got a clue what we are talking about? Ah no sorry I did misunderstand you on that last part. What you said was not clear. Allow me to try again:If it was just down to confusion, don't you find it at least a little odd that this incorrect report became correct, to the letter, nearly half an hour later?No I don't think it's that strange at all that the building did in fact collapse half an hour later. The reason they made the mistake in the first place was because they misinterpreted a report saying it was badly damaged. The explanation does not rely on an unlikely coincidence, as you seem to imply. Anyways, if you do reply again I've just thought of another question that seems even more important. If, as you claim, it was a conspiracy, then why on earth would they have to script the news? How would that day have gone any differently? Can you imagine the meeting? Lizard-person no.1 "Hey, you know what? We should write up some reports about how all the buildings we're gonna blow up are gonna collapse and then give them to the media so they know what to say" Lizard-person no.2 "Yeah that's a great idea, that way we can involve loads more people from news organisations across the world in our conspiracy, and have even more people who know about it, for pretty much no reason" Lizard-person no.3 "all glory to the hypnotoad!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xt500 Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 3 buildings fall in a way that exactly mimicks being pulled and one wasnt even hit and its the conspirasists that are nuts! Maybe building 7 blew down in the wind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.