The BBC in Denial
Edit: This is a copy and paste from the Beeb. Not directed specifically at 911blogger.com
911blogger hasn't accused the Beeb of being "Part of the Conspiracy". Sure would be nice if someone in the UK could cough up some raw VHS footage though... -r.
Richard Porter
27 Feb 07, 05:12 PM
The 9/11 conspiracy theories are pretty well known by now. The BBC addressed them earlier this month with a documentary, The Conspiracy Files, shown within the UK.
Until now, I don't think we've been accused of being part of the conspiracy. But now some websites are using news footage from BBC World on September 11th 2001 to suggest we were actively participating in some sort of attempt to manipulate the audience. As a result, we're now getting lots of emails asking us to clarify our position. So here goes:
1. We're not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening.
2. In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had. We did what we always did - sourced our reports, used qualifying words like "apparently" or "it's reported" or "we're hearing" and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving.
3. Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I've spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn't remember minute-by-minute what she said or did - like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services.
4. We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another.
5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today "so the guy in the studio didn't quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy... "
Richard Porter is head of news, BBC World
- Login to post comments
Pure Arrogance
Pride cometh before the fall.
Dow plunges 415 points
Coincedense, I don't think so!
They are already at denial!
"Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied." - Otto von Bismarck
we have total confirmation..
The bbc's other news outlet, NEWS24 also reported it had collapsed at 4.57, and this time there is a time stamp:
you can download the orrig vid here: http://www.mega-file.net/video/view.php?video=1b2a2daa4332dd157708a14a69... (link underneath on right to download it)
Thanks to Physcisist :http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=57983#57983
That's FANTASTIC Carlos!
So they are caught then.
Now, what news feed gave them this information, and who was the source?
WHO WAS THE SOURCE?
We are NOT saying that BBC was "in on it", but that they recieved their information from someone who WAS.
Way to go!
And to 911veritas, ya done good kid.
This is just a WONDERFUL story for our movement.
I hope we are sending it to news stations, and papers, both throughout the USA and in the UK.
wow!
You have to put this on digg.com!! let´s digg it!
Thanks for providing this!
"4. We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another."
No, they most certainly do not, except to show that your sister channel was consistent and in line with the BBC World News reporting, about things which had not yet happened...!
"3. Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I've spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn't remember..."
So she didn't remember the building she was reporting on, going down five minutes after her feed was "lost"..?
What a lame excuse
"We lost the tapes"
Yeah, right. As if you don't make sure to keep recordings of such an important event as 9/11.
She Remembers
They have a wonderful vantage point from where they are located.
You would think that if a 47 story building had collapsed anytime in the hour prior to broadcast..... that they would have seen it.
Big clouds of dust..... smoke.... chatter all over the police radios.... people pointing and gasping...... one less building on the horizon..... film footage???
She has to know exactly what happened after her broadcast was cut..... because all she had left to do was look out the window..... at the actual collapse of the building.
a building which she didn't report collapsed later.... a building that she found out was building 7 which she had already reported on.
She remembers!
___________________
Ignorance is NOT Bliss
Reminds me of Dan Rather,
Reminds me of Dan Rather, who also claimed that he couldn't remember what he reported that day, when recently asked about whether he thought WTC7 was controlled demolition.
Seems like no one in the press remembers much about 9/11. Anyway, it's not like it's the most important news they have ever covered or anything. :-)
Here's about half of that
Here's about half of that archive that was found earlier this week.
http://conspiracycentral.net:6969/stats.html?info_hash=2d64409b6f179bc99...
It looks like CNN received the press release as well......
From Youtube:
Over an hour before the WTC 7 demolition at 4:10pm, Aaron Brown reports - "building 7, in the wtc complex, is on fire and has either collapsed, or is collapsing".
Link to the footage:
WTC 7 Foreknowledge
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1LetB0z8_o&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fscrewloosec...
what happened later ?
What happened once the BBC had discovered that their report preceded real world events by 20 minutes ? That realisation must have occurred shortly after the footage of the actual collapse of WTC 7 went all over the networks. Did they comment on their apparent mistake at any time during the 9 / 11 coverage ? Such a response might well hold more clues.
As it stands, it looks highly likely that the word was out WTC 7 would be coming down, and this message was somehow misrepresented. That is not really interesting though...the real issue is why the official NIST report is bending over backwards to try to come up with any explanation but the controled demolition one.
The insurance companies by the way are another vital link here : these people have seen every trick in the book and then some, and would be all over anything suspicious : why are they silent ??
google pulled it.. so:
google pulled it..
so:
BBC crystal balls
I remember hearing on BBC Radio that 5 planes had been hijacked; this was before the Pentagon was hit.
I might be able to believe they just got it wrong, because of the unprecedented numbers of collapsing buildings and hijacked aircraft, IF they were prepared to produce an objective report focusing on the many remaining questions evaded and ignored by the rigged 911 commission.
As it is the BBC looks guilty if only by association with its blatantly biased and condescending Conspiracy Files hit piece.
This was the confusion caused by the hijack drills...
I remember at one point 8 planes were reported hijacked.
Best wishes
Icke Quote
"But it doesn't matter in the bigger scheme of life. The world is waking up to the truth about 9/11 despite the mainstream media and the current spate of attacks, 'hit pieces' and condemnation of 9/11 investigators prove that point. The familiar sequence is unfolding once again: (1) Ignore them and they will go away; (2) If they don't go away and people start to listen attack them in every way possible; (3) If that doesn't work ... shit! Stage three is within our sights. "...........I think we already are at the "shit" stage........maddog
Yea, "The world is waking up
Yea, "The world is waking up to the truth about 9/11 despite the mainstream media and the current spate of attacks, 'hit pieces' and " David Icke’s Lizard men madness. David Icke has done as much damage to the credibility of 9/11 truth as have all the "debunkers" combined, because he justifies and reinforces the kooky stereotype of "crazy conspiracy theorists" that we’re constantly associated with.
It is only because enough people who are serious about this and have presented credible enough arguments that 9/11 truth has made any headway, no thanks to David Icke.
No thanks to David Icke?
I wouldn't be too harsh on Icke. At one time I felt the way you did until I started my research on him. He has put everything on the line for what he believes in and to get the truth out. He was talking about what is happening now back in 1993. Watch the Robot's Rebellion sometime. You can find it on Google Videos. It was filmed in 1993. Sure his shape-shifter thing may be wrong but who is to say. At one time people believed the world was flat. There is a possibility he could be right. The way I see it the people in charge of things are sure not human. Look at someone like Bush One. He has more blood on his hands than Gingus Kahn. Same thing with Kissinger and Cheney or how about the Rothschild and Rockefeller crime families. These people are sub-human scum. I could no more do what they do than I could grow wings and fly to the moon. Nor could any other normal human being that I know of. I don't know what these people are but they sure aren't human. Even Meria Heller mentioned Icke when she gave her keynote address at the Chicago convention. Personally I never put any truther down. I don't always agree with everything that is said but I believe in solidarity of the truth movement. If I don't agree with someone I keep my big mouth shut. None of us know the real truth. The only thing we really know is that 9/11 was an inside job and that the Official Story is a fairy tale. All else is speculation. In my opinion the only thing that hurts our movement is the in-fighting that does go on. And like Meria Heller says, we must put our egos aside and stand united. It is the only way we can win this thing.
"He was talking about what
"He was talking about what is happening now back in 1993."
The only reason why he's able to say, "I told you so" is because he helped destroy the credibility of the information and so the agenda carried on. I don't want to be sitting around in a few years saying "I told you so" like Icke does, I actually want to stop the things that are happening before it gets any worse. Icke and his cuckoo bullshit greatly HELPS the scumbags get away with all this, when the crap he comes out with gets associated with 9/11 truth it's highly detrimental.
Edit: If people like Icke fine, some of the things he says I agree with also, but on the whole he's too much and is used to smear everything by the media. It's always "Oh David Icke believes in this so it's nuts" - when that's in relation to 9/11 truth you've got to appreciate how frustrating it is.
people will always ridicule
people will always ridicule us for saying it was an inside job - with or without Icke..
I fully understand where you are coming from Bruce, but I think it is unfair to suggest that he has done nothing - he was one of the first people to talk about these things over a decade ago..
the amount of people he has 'turned on' is probably far more than all of us on this site put togther - his books are global.. you can't just right him off - I see it as on the same level as those that do not engage with what we are saying, and just want to laugh and ridicule any information that shatters your world view.
If you only believe in the material world - then what he has to say will just not be acceptable to you. That does not make it invalid discussion though :-)...
but enough of it here IMO.
I agree, Icke has made an
I agree, Icke has made an impact on people psyches (for better or worse), I have no idea, and no one else does as to whether what he says is 100% right or wrong. Although he did predict the war on ilsam and such an event as 911 - way back in the 90's
So i will not write him off - the fact that he has given up a normal life -and put himself in great danger in pursuit of things that we really should know about: world government, illuminati etc.. In my oppinion he deserves respect - even if you don't accept everything he says.
The Irony - when he first started out he did a presentation in my parents house here in Brighton - that was like 1990 or something.. crazy. Never knew he would go so far..lol
Yes his lizard stuff is way out there - but do a little research and there is a recuring theme throughout ancient societies: that they were governed and manipulated by "gods" half reptilian - the Mayan Priests were in contact with a feathered serpent, Christianity has eve and the serpent, the Emporers of china's claim to the throne was their blood relation to a reptilian god... etc..
I do not make up my mind on anything, unless I have observable evidence: but to just right someone off that can't provide that sort of evidence is premature is in my oppinion limiting your understanding of the universe.
But more important for me, he talks about our true nature of us as beings, and that we are infinite - this is my belief (which i feel i am entitled to), based on many things I have read; carlos castenda books, and other Toltec writings.. Which for me is a positive and empowering slant, on which otherwise would be such a dark world.
This is theorectical, and as such is competely different to the "truth" movement - and as such should be kept very seperate though.
We are infinite.........
Thank you for your comments Carios. You put it beautifully. I too believe as you do. In my mind we are all God's kids. "Children of the Most High." as the Carpenter once said. Our true nature IS divine. I know that for a fact. Like Icke, I had a spiritual experience 30 years ago that completely changed my life. From a street wino I became a father of 3 beautiful children and a productive citizen of this planet. Thanks to the spiritual experience I had, the 12 steps and the people I met in AA. To leave out the spiritual aspects of what happened on 9/11 I think is a grave mistake.
thank you..
for a truly wonderful story
I see Icke's reference
to reptiles as being metaphorical. If you strip away the spiritiul mumbojumbo and sci-fi stuff his ideas about "repeaters" and "problem-reaction-solution" are spot on.
I also think his wacko reputation is now a safety mechanism for him because if he concentrated on the purely political side of things he would get into trouble very quickly.
on edit: BTW I'm not a proponent of Icke, I think he exists in his own category outside of politics, 9/11 truth etc. However, a couple of the terms he uses (as mentioned above) seem quite pertinent.
i think thats part of what
i think thats part of what pisses people off about him so much. the fact that so much of what hes says makes sense and is spot on but then he has to torpedo his own credibility with the reptile stuff. you know what they say about disinfo though, its usually about 90% correct and 10% disinfo.....
my take on Icke
is precisely that he tells the truth about 90% of the time in order to hide it behind the insane other 10%. Think about it this way--you know the truth about everything has the potential to come out at any time, you know that people will then come up with analysis that is good or bad. Knowing you can't stop that from happening, you have to cover all your bases by having various unpleasant people become well-known advocates of certain truths and good analyses in order to dissuade others from examining those truths and forms of analyses, since in the wrong (right) hands, such truths and analyses could achieve mass respect and popularity.
____
♠
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
Media Matters?
Why isn't media matters.com covering this monumental cock-up by the BBC? Why is it that media matters.com ignores all things related to 9/11 so-called conspiracy theories?
It always comes down to
"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate."
--Noam "Sequitur" Chomsky
Which reminds me: What's with the 60s rant thing?
Keith Olbermann
Perhaps that also explains why Richard Porter didn't qualify for Keith Olbermann's "worst person in the world" list.
Instead, Keith gave the gold to the Baseball Hall of Fame committee? I can't even remember why?
Keith, failure to place Porter on your list after his pathetic showing today makes you the WORST PERSON IN THE WOOORRLLDDDD!!!!
IMHO!
Rep, you should be tactful
Rep, you should be tactful dude. I'd suggest changing the title to something like;
BBC responds to the apparent “WTC 7 Collapse Prior-Knowledge” Suggestion
Damned if ya' do, damned if ya' don't.
Huh, Rep? No knock on you Dem, it just seems Rep can't please anyone regarding this story. I had to laugh at your comment.
But they are "denying" that they are part of a conspiracy.
911blogger.com hasn't accused them of being part of a conspiracy.
They have time-stamped tape of every fart that Prince Charles has ever made, every frickin' Doctor Who episode you can think of, but they don't have 9/11 backed up?
Wow. Somewhere in the UK, someone has a raw copy of this on a VHS in PAL format. Gotta be out there.
I see what you’re saying
I see what you’re saying man, and it's your call. I'd just say that it's best to phrase this whole thing as safely as possible, because a) it's more credible that way and b) if they produce some miraculous bullshit it will come back to bite us all in the ass.
I agree, if blogger is now looked on with fresh eyes....
..It would appear to me from this story's heading that people here were over exited and clutching at straws. Obviously we need to get the BBC to reveal its source of this media release, as that is the important point. Doing that now in my opinion with a story title like" BBC in Denial" must be more difficult than if an investigative approach was taken asking a question not making a conclusion! I know we are now at war with the BBC, but we must still play the game with them not force them into lock down.
As a person awakened to the "Inside Job" I love this story and think it adds significantly to the body of evidence for the planned destruction of WTC7! But we must now be more careful how we attack the issues like this as many new comers may sniff our bias and decide that it is indeed easier to believe their controllers.
I hope we are not resorting to the desperate tactics of the enemy, for in the fight for the high ground this definitely will not work. No gutter journalism here please, we are to close to a righteous victory!
Sensation and propaganda is the MSM turf, leave it alone.
Kind regards John
WE GOT TO TAKE THE POWER BACK!
flopping like a fish out of water.....
wow, so the BBC is qouting -"guy from YouTube" now as a source? is that where they get all of their "debunker" material from? i love it........
Youtube Commentor Sources
Maybe the" youtube guy" told them that the building has , or was going to collapse ( due to massive fires which though posssible would have a verylow probabblablabla..;)
it burned all day like a giant torch
according to a New York Times shill.
____
♠
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
Hey Chris
ROTFLMAO!
Richard Porter is head of news, BBC World
That's a Qualifier for Spinmeister!
Let's say, I DO NOT BELIEVE YOU!
Gary
911truthnc.org
“it is possible to fool all the people all the time—when government and press cooperate.” George Seldes - "legendary investigative reporter"
Missing original 911 tapes.
So I guess"cock-up" is the english version of 'incompetence theory'? This only promotes speculation no begs for it. Just another coincidence to glibly accept as accidental.( So it's not green-screened, but rather a live scene?)
What exactly does he mean by "cock-up"?
What exactly does he mean by "cock-up"? A mistake, or something else?
British slang for a mess or 'fuck up'.
"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves" – Edward R. Murrow
Not to be confused...
with Cock-burn!
Is anyone else eager for Jon Gold to weigh in on this?
What do you want me to say?
The one thing that stands out to me is the statement, "We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening."
Media pundits don't just say things on television. They are told what to say, so obviously someone did give them a press release or a script.
Unless the video we were shown is completely fake (which it doesn't appear to be), then this is very incriminating. Or, it's just a ridiculous coincidence. It's possible someone thought that building 7 collapsed, and reported on it, but were mistaken at the time. For instance, it's possible someone was told the building was going to come down, and misunderstood, and thought it already had collapsed, and reported it as such. That's incriminating in and of itself. I don't know what to make of it other than to say it's very weird.
"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."
Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton
Cock-up or conspiracy
As in : do you believe in the cock-up or conspiracy theory of history ?
Most Brits subscribe to the cock-up theory of life, the universe and everything on the basis of Murphy's law :
"Whatever can go wrong, will go wrong (often at the worst possible time)".
Unintelligent design theory on the other hand posits that things mightn't be this fucked up by chance alone and there could be a guiding intent. Eg. Iraq invasion : was it planned incompetence to achieve chaos, which breeds chaos and provides further opportunities for chaos ? Think total war. Think creative destruction. Think faster, please. (Quotes from neocon handbook).
missing tapes syndrome is going around
Just ask NASA!
p>____
♠
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
Or
Rose Mary Woods
A first?
Wow. That was fast. Is this a first - a major news organization responding to something originating on 9/11 Blogger with a one-day turnaround? I'd call that progess. Congratulations. Let's keep them on the rebound.
Gad
Gad. This shows that what we here say, and find out, matters.
No my friend...
That's power! 911blogger is not to be f'd with!
All the cred goes to
All the cred goes to 911veritas!
Hey 911Veritas...
I guess this proves that they are all a bunch of "bloody twits" over at BBC.
Lost the tapes? Give me a bloody break!
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm... that
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...
that doesn't explain why they reported an unplanned total collapse that had not yet happened now does it?
"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves" – Edward R. Murrow
No, it doesn't does it?
I was interested to know how they would try to spin this, and evidentally, they cannot.
Right on Cincy...and as in the confusion of the day
about how things were so confusing, they certainly knew well enough to make that video feed lose its strength before the collapse would be seen to happen "live". But why do that? Since they could claim what they were reporting was the "word goin round" and... whoom!!..down it goes behind them. Instead the video feed loses its transmission. So, the question is right back to why was it reported prior to collapse? Me thinks----oooops.
________________________________________________________________________________
The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles. The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject class has nothing to gain and all to lose --including their lives. -Eugene Debs
BBC chooses to lie?
"We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening."
What a stupid thing to say. We KNOW that they were told in advance that WTC 7 was going to fall down, as was CNN. To deny this is just mind boggling. If say the fire department had reason to believe that WTC 7 was going to collapse, or that the ceiling was going to fall in or something, then they might very well release a public statement to that effect.
But the BBC doesn't make that claim. They claim that they have lost all their 9/11 tapes and that they never received word that WTC 7 was going to collapse ahead of time.
What is this?
Very Good point
In my anger at the arrogance I missed this logical hitch in his statement. It's almost as if they want to stir this controversy, thinking that their fake left status will carry them through with the populace . Deluded hubris. Purposeful selfdestruction? I was sure they would claim green screen or timezones. Instead they pull a Guy (winston) Smith on us and ignore the elephant in the room altogether.
This response is, indeed,
This response is, indeed, more than a little puzzling. If they were not told in advance that WTC 7 would collapse, is he saying that BBC's statement that WTC "has indeed collapsed" was simply a random error? That BBC, without any prompting from outside sources, decided to announce that WTC "has indeed collapsed," and by gosh, even though it wasn't true when they made their mistake, it turned out to be true 23 minutes later? This is obviously nonsense.
No qualifying languge whatsoever was used in the BBC's premature announcement that WTC 7 had collapsed. None. They were not only quite certain that the building had indeed collapsed, they announced the reason for collapse (23 minutes before it happened).
This was "error and nothing more"? Oh my. This cannot be the best they can do. LOL.
And to top it all...
They lost communication 5 minutes before the actual collapse. They're totally BAKED!
BBC just guessed it had already collapsed?
If they were not told in advance that WTC 7 would collapse, is he saying that BBC's statement that WTC "has indeed collapsed" was simply a random error? That BBC, without any prompting from outside sources, decided to announce that WTC "has indeed collapsed," and by gosh, even though it wasn't true when they made their mistake, it turned out to be true 23 minutes later?
Exactly. This needs to be emphasized when we try to find out who leaked the information about the imminent collapse. Let's keep the pressure on these guys - always politely, of course.
Could someone enlighten me about Digg? Despite a huge number of diggs, 9/11 stuff never reaches the homepage. Can a relatively small number of buries prevent that, or what is the mechanism?
In one of the articles several people said that WTC 7 is not a conspiracy, as Silverstein admitted the demolition. I asked why, then, NIST is investigating why it collapsed. WHAT is going on in the minds of these people?
they're reading from a different script
"In one of the articles several people said that WTC 7 is not a conspiracy, as Silverstein admitted the demolition. "
Silverstein has a two pronged defense strategy. He is on record admitting to the demolition in such a way as it can be read two ways. One way is that they decided to demolish it with some quickly positioned explosives, the other is that they feared it might collapse so they withdrew the firefighters after which it collapsed because of fire and debris damage, which is in fact what his sopkesperson has claimed he meant (but which he has not himself apparently acknowledged to be true.)
So depending on who asks, Silverstein can say he either did or did not agree to have the building demolished.
As far as Digg goes, I think it's obvious that most if not all of these new "rating" sites that have popped up are designed precisely to create the illusion of a democratic filtering method only to be rigged to censor information those who control the sites don't want getting out.
____
♠
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
Precisly
Bulding new Gates with new Gatekeepers, that's what this sides are all about. Not the mention what i call the Ilusion of Democracy and Freedom. It worked for at least 100 years so i can't blame them to try the same with the net.
The people who vote decide nothing, the people counting the votes decide everything!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"in the end deceivers deceive only themselves"
- Mahatma Gandhi
Interesting, isn't it?
If they were not told by anyone and were not given this information on a new feed, but randomly reported this in error, then what are we left to believe, that they are psychic?
There is no other logical inference from thier statement.
How could they erroniously and spontaneously report on something which has YET TO OCCUR?
Rather prescient of them..
By the way.......can someone
By the way.......can someone please let me know when the BBC announces winning lottery numbers? I'd like to buy my ticket shortly AFTER that announcement.
Thanks.
what would be the rush?
Good point. Also consider the idea that anyone would be anxious to issue a press release detailing the collapse of WTC7. Why? To what end would such information be considered vitally important? Of the torrent of information being relayed that day, there's no reason to believe some reporter jumped the gun and reported a collapse that had yet to occur (unlike, say, EVERY reporter blaming Osama Bin Laden before even a hint of an investigation took place).
That is, one excuse they could eventually try is to say, "We goofed. The information received actually said the building MAY collapse, but we interpreted it to mean it HAD collapsed."
What would be the rush to release this information (with an on-site reporter using the building itself as a backdrop)?
Be the first to serve the explanation:
Fire did it. Time is of the essence in trauma conditioning.
yes
I was trying to say, "What would be the rush, if the cover story were true..."
It is not a simple error
I am copying in the text of Carlos' post which appears above on this thread:
"The bbc's other news outlet, NEWS24 also reported it had collapsed at 4.57, and this time there is a time stamp:
I've uploaded it to you tube, just taking a moment for it to show.. I'll update this post when it does:
but you can download the orrig vid here: http://www.mega-file.net/video/view.php?video=1b2a2daa4332dd157708a14a69... (link underneath on right to download it)
Thanks to Physcisist"
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=57983#57983
They Do that to Control People's Ideas About the Event
If you notice, with all of the staged terrorist (or assassination) events, the government (and its politic bureau mass media) always has its patsies or explanations for the cause lined up right as the event is occuring or very near it.
There is a very important reason for that. The government doesn't do that just on a whim: they know very well the importance of doing this. Remember, the government has spent many billions of dollars on psychology research, as well as on outright mind-control (e.g., MK-Ultra), so they know more than a bit about what they're doing.
The reason they always do that is because when such a traumatic event is occuring, people are looking for answers and explanations for the event. Moreover, during such a psychological trama, people are in a very suggestible state of mind (it essentially reverts them into a child-like mind [i.e., if one isn't aware of this type of processing, and hence able to consciously resist it], wherein they're looking for a parent-figure to comfort them [i.e., say that they are here to protect them] and explain the world to them). Hence, this is the time-frame that is absolutely critical for the government to offer up the supposed causal agents of the event, in order to direct anger and to alleviate people's wondering minds, i.e., to preempt any verboten thoughts.
Since people's minds are searching for answers at this phase, and being that their outlook on reality has just been altered, people could well come to the "wrong" (i.e., veridical) conclusions if the government didn't do this.
Hence, explanations for WTC 7's fall would by default have been scripted beforehand, as people seeing the collapse would be liable to think "What the hell just happened?! That building looked fine to me; no plane hit it! What's going on here?" Thus, the "fire" explanation would be put out very close to the event (in time) to provide a ready answer, thereby avoiding subversive thoughts regarding the causal agent of the collapse.
But at least one of the criminal insiders with the script (not to be taken literally: most of these plans would have been relayed verbally) botched up by jumping the gun on this case, and released information to the media detailing what had happened and why it happened *before* it had actually happened!
As Walter Scott said, "Oh! what a tangled web we weave / When first we practice to deceive!" (Marmion, Canto VI, Stanza 17.)
____________
"Terrorism is the health of the State."--James Redford, author of "Jesus Is an Anarchist," June 1, 2006 http://praxeology.net/anarchist-jesus.pdf
Yes.
just watch the opening three minutes of this broadcast..... there are many telling frame-ups which need to be examined.
___________________
Ignorance is NOT Bliss
look....this video is
look....this video is it!!!
911veritas got the prize----the ultimate 911cybertruther
flat out-------
------------------------------------------
they can say whatever they want-----that video is unmistakeable-0----undeniable
this is totally taking the shills off guard in a major way
total congratulations
randkiller
Agree. Congrats to 9/11veritas
Congratulations!
You bagged it!
^_^
Someone digged this already. 911 Vertitas brought it to
911 blogger's attention, but someone else had already "dug it" and brought it to the world wide web's attention. Unless that was another identity of 9/11 Veritas that did that. The question is who initially figured out that BBC reported this before it happened? Who was watching those old tapes and saw this BBC blunder? Was it 911 veritas?
Stop the orgy until we can verify this fact...
On the defensive from the Truth Movement...
Please define "cock-up" for us Yanks.
Please release the entire set of tapes from your sister station News24 immediately.
Where did you get the information that the Salomon Smith Barney (WTC7) building fell? What was your source and did you corroborate it before you reported it? If so, who corroborated it?
Who was in charge of what was aired that day on your station?
Cock-up
I lived in the UK for 30 years. A "cock-up" or sometimes "screw-up", means a silly mistake. Emphasis on the silly.
Cock-up not conspiracy or THE BBC COCK-UP
So basically a chagrinned "the dog ate my homework" answer , but you'll just have to trust me that there aren't other more seemly" cock-ups" in the missing files. Okelydokely!
I'm sure Guy Smith would disagree!
A "cock-up", just like a "drop-out", can mean vastly different things on both sides of the newspeak equator, uh, I mean pond.
Well we know she was in New York
"Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks" So for anyone who wants to say she was behind a green or blue screen try again.
A mistake?? Thats a pretty big mistake saying a 47 story steel skyscraper collapsed before it did.
They're such sick and talented disinfos
that I wouldn't be surprised if they turn around and say " well Jane WAS IN NEW YORK , but due to the chaos had to shoot that segment from a greenscreen studio , showing events from earlier in the day by accident. Notice he didn't deny or clarify the issue. Perfect way to show that the twoofers can't tell what's real -see tv fakery/spacebeams.Thankfully 911blogger has shown admirable restraint. Regardless , such videos are a boon to the truth movement no matter how you look at it and should be disseminated far and wide.
Rather-gate
Under the category of: "Too Good To Be True"...:
Let's make sure we don't get "Roved" (set-up).....
Call me paranoid, but could this be a sophisticated way to marginalize the WTC7 smoking-gun (which they have been unable to do), if this footage is later revealed to be inauthentic in some way?
That cautionary note aside, I too find this footage to be believable and damning....
Doubt it
remember, this may not be the first issue of foreknowledge or lucky punches:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/oem_wtc.html
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_giuliani.html
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fematape.html
Also consider the VAST effort to censor it!
.
Bruce,
Wouldn't you do that too? If you were as sophisticated as we know the Mockingbird psyops, disinfo folks are. They have been doing this for years. Complex, well-based on social psych researched and Bernays' work in propaganda. Remember,
“A paranoid is someone who has all the facts at his disposal.”
—William Burroughs
Fair point medicis!
In order to bring in a trojan, it would certainly help to fake resistance. But then again, and not belittling the power of Bernay's approach, this seems a little too sophisticated coming from the very same people selling the imbecillic OCT.
Ha
It'd be pretty rich to make that claim after saying they'd lost all the tapes, wouldn't it? "You know, we screwed up and lost the back-ups, and Jane can't remember too clearly what was being reported in the confusion. But hey, we can all remember one thing clearly: faking up that particular live shot"...
If the time is correct it
If the time is correct it wouldn't even matter if it was green screen, the REAL building would be standing also !
Mistake?
It's damn near clairvoyant! Hell, I want all of my news from her!!! Hey Jane, what's gonna happen tomorrow????
It's like Minority Report.
It's like Minority Report.
This is NEWSWORTHY
I agree with you, Andrew. We all, eveyone here, should alert any and all news outlets to this item. The more the better. Someone will definitely pick it up. Again, the more the better.
If BBC does not do it, somone else will and it will not look good for BBC. This is quite newsworthy.
Insurance fraud
"Surely the insurance companies want to know about this."
Does anyone have contact info for the insurance company/ies involved?
I'm sure they would appreciate thousands of emails from around the world informing them of the fraud.
There is currently a big push for a fraud investigation
In several of the insurance companies. Again, the policyt is always to pay out first, and then prosecute if it turns out to be fraud. (Insurance, and re-insurance companies know all about inside jobs and how common they are.)
How did 911veritas find the video?
Please explain: How did 911veritas find the video? What exactly was his source?
It's called research ;-) and days of slogging...
Gangster posted a list of archived live feeds for CNN, FOX, BBC, ABC, NBC etc.
I downloaded most of the day for the BBC (16 x 1GB files - each were 41mins 40secs each of contiguous footage as broadcasted on 9/11 - which equates to 09:16 to 20:23 New York Time) and sat there watching.
I'm really tired as I've only had about 10hrs sleep in 4 days and have answered this on more than one occasion.
Last answer here : http://www.911blogger.com/node/6482?page=4#comment-119968
Best wishes....
if same questions, then
Awesome job, dude. Congrats and thanks.
One suggestion: If the same questions keep coming up again and again, that means that the answers should be featured more prominently in the lead of the story.
Two big ones I've noticed are:
- Exact source of video?
- How did you determine the time frame?
Most of the Archive is now GONE
Deleted. Gone. I just looked. There's ONE clip in the TV archive of news coverage on 9/11.
Sanity for sale website
Do you run this site? Because this had it before 911blogger did.
http://sanityforsale.wordpress.com/2007/02/26/exclusive-video-bbc-lies-o...
Does it matter?
Essentially, you're implying 911veritas was faming in on other people's work - yet we don't see him basking in glory. So, why do you allege ulterior motives? Got some yourself?
I just hate it when...
stupid people walk around without their sign...
I'll gladly give you the third minus vote simply for not doing your homework.
BBC losing footage... so laughable!
The same BBC who've kept all sorts of gems and trash alike. Want the original studio appearances of Led Zeppelin... BBC. Beatles... BBC
But 9/11 It was such an insignificant event, that the chain of custody for the film/video is ostensibly LOST due to "cock-up".
OMFG! That has to be the most lame-ass excuse I've heard. LOL
Yet another chance occurrence... a mere coincidence (without connection) to go along with the myriad of other "non-related" coincidences... like war games taking fighters away, FEMA being on location the DAY BEFORE, and good 'ol Larry "pull it" Silverstein.
Not just laughable, Anderson
Not just laughable, Anderson (Son of man); this "loss" of footage THE DAY AFTER 9/11 truth finds the WTC7 footage is a frank admission of guilt. Otherwise, why wouldn't they have just dismissed the assertions by saying, "Oh, people on the ground just said it looked like it was going to collapse and we got it wrong, stupid us, making such a careless misreport on global television in reference to such a catastrophic world event," (I'm assuming a lot of things here) which wouldn't have really been a stretch, since isn't that what they've been claiming vis-a-vis reports that people on the ground were told to back away from 7 before it fell anyway? This could have been turned into solidification, albeit an embarassed solidification, of that particular line, but instead, after (Google kept) pulling the video off the web, WITHIN 24 HOURS of the accusation, BBC craps its pants and flushes the tapes down the toilet. Couldn't be a clearer self-indictment and that ridiculous 5-point reply they posted (the laughable part) from the HEAD OF WORLD NEWS, no less, was them backed into a corner. Truth apparently has 'em falling apart at the seams, unless they're playing some serious games with our minds on the world stage. This is about as big an event as they day the planes hit the towers themselves. The (albeit small) part of me that "wants to believe" is truly disheartened; the rest is pouring champagne.
P. S. - Looks like Building
P. S. - Looks like Building 7 was the weak link in more than one way.
The part of you that wants to believe...
must be pretty damn steadfast. ^_^
Digg is suppressing the original prisonplanet.com story
The following is my correspondence via e-mail with Digg support:
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 12:09:22 -0800 Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
From: "digg support"
To: "super nova"
Subject: Re: Suppressed Story On Digg - BBC Reported Building 7 Had Collapsed 20 Minutes Before It Fell
That story was reported as lame and subsequently removed by the digg
community. Please review our FAQ (digg.com/faq) for more information
on
the promotion/burial of stories.
--digg support
super nova wrote:
> To Whom It May Concern,
>
> It appears Digg is not interested in media democracy.
> In your "How Digg Works" section your website Digg
> states the following:
>
> "Digg is a digital media democracy. As a user, you
> participate in determining all site content by
> discovering, selecting, sharing, and discussing the
> news, videos, and podcasts that appeal to you."
>
> This is appears to be deceptive. Your company is
> purposely suppressing a story that deals with 9/11.
> The following story clearly illustrates this:
>
> BBC Reported Building 7 Had Collapsed 20 Minutes
> Before It Fell
>
>
http://digg.com/politics/BBC_Reported_Building_7_Had_Collapsed_20_Minute...
>
> It is now 11:55 A.M. PST. This story was first posted
> 23 hours and 26 minutes ago. It was made popular 22
> hours and 1 minute ago. At the time I am sending this
> email it currently has 1,364 Digg's. Despite the fact
> that it has this number it is not listed under ANY of
> your top story lists. It appears as though it is
> listed under both "World and Business" and "Political
> News". It is not in the top 10 listing of either of
> these sections nor the "All Stories" category. When I
> check all three of these categories under the top
> stories of the last 24 hours, I see that it is absent.
> According to the stories that I see in these sections
> and the number of "Digg's" attached to them, it
> clearly should be listed in the top ten of all three
> of these categories.
>
> This information clearly exposes your company as being
> deceptive and a practitioner of censorship. I would
> appreciate a prompt response clarifying your reason
> for doing this.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> J. A. Simon
>
>
>
>
Additional Correspondence With Digg Support
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 12:27:12 -0800 Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
From: "digg support"
To: "super nova"
Subject: Re: Suppressed Story On Digg - BBC Reported Building 7 Had Collapsed 20 Minutes Before It Fell
This is just how the system works. This is crowd-generated media.
There was a high number of diggs with very low karma and a high number
of buries from users with very high karma. There is no conspiracy,
there is no abuse, the buries happened from veteran users on digg with
proven track records.
We do understand your concerns, however. In the future we may include
a
feature that allows users to view buried stories and vote to re-instate
them. But we do not manually re-instate stories as that undermines the
decisions of the digg community. Sometimes good stories get buried and
bad stories get promoted. This is what happens with user-controlled
content. But it's also what sets us apart from the pack, the users
decide the relevance of stories, not gatekeepers.
--digg support
super nova wrote:
> Digg Support -
>
> Why was this story reported as "lame"? It has a high
> number of Digg's. 1,364 Digg's at the time of my
> e-mail. Does this not indicate that a large number of
> people do not consider this story to be "lame"? All
> this shows is that your site is a deceptive farce and
> you practice censorship. Do you not find the fact that
> the BBC was reporting the collapse of WTC-7 as having
> already occurred while it is still standing behind the
> very reporting who is saying this the least bit
> newsworthy? She was reporting this a full twenty
> minutes before it occurred!
>
> On the Digg website it states that you practice "Media
> Democracy". This obviously is an outright lie. This
> exposes your company as a fraud. Digg has no
> credibility.
>
> - J. A. Simon
>
Even More Correspondence With Digg Support
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 12:57:10 -0800 Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
From: "digg support"
To: "super nova"
Subject: Re: Suppressed Story On Digg - BBC Reported Building 7 Had Collapsed 20 Minutes Before It Fell
You do realize that even while stories are buried the direct link stays
active, right? I'm telling you the specific reasons WHY and HOW the
story were buried. USERS bury stories. And how they we able to bury a
story with a high amount of diggs is because the diggers had low karma
while the buries had very high karma.
--digg support
super nova wrote:
> Digg Support-
>
> It is now 12:39 P.M. PST. the original story now has
> 1,385 Digg's. This is produced by user's digging it
> and users burying it. Is this not how it works for all
> of the news items you have on your site? How and why
> is this any different? The fact that it has 1,385
> Digg's means it should be a top story despite what
> your ridiculous excuse is. In the how it works section
> Digg does not mention the method that your have just
> explained to me. Digg has been exposed as a fraud.
>
> - J.A. Simon
>
Even More Correspondence With Digg Support
Digg Support-
This is getting ridiculous. I see Digg makes up their
method as they see fit. Your "How Digg Works" section
does not mention the following being used in the
system:
"....story was reported as lame"
"...high number of diggs with very low karma and a
high number of buries from users with very high karma."
"....buries happened from veteran users on digg with
proven track records."
"....And how they we able to bury a story with a high
amount of diggs is because the diggers had low karma
while the buries had very high karma."
This is what is says on "How Digg Works
(copied and pasted from the Digg website)
How Digg Works
Digg is a digital media democracy. As a user, you
participate in determining all site content by
discovering, selecting, sharing, and discussing the
news, videos, and podcasts that appeal to you.
Discover
Discover media online. Find an article, video, or
podcast online and submit it to Digg.com. Your
submission will immediately appear in “Upcoming
Stories,” where other members can find it and, if they
like it, Digg it.
Get popular. Once a submission has earned a critical
mass of Diggs, it becomes “popular” and jumps to the
homepage in its category. If it becomes one of the
most popular, it qualifies as a “Top 10” (If a
submission doesn’t receive enough Diggs within a
certain time period, it eventually falls out of the
“Upcoming” section.)
Discover media on Digg. Visit the “Upcoming” section
to discover recently added news, videos, and podcasts.
Track submissions as they come in with Swarm or Stack,
our realtime Flash visualization tools. Or use Spy to
watch the titles and descriptions as they roll down
the page.
Of course, you can always check the topic homepages to
see what’s newly popular. And you can subscribe to RSS
feeds of particular topics, popular/upcoming sections,
individual users, and the search terms of your choice.
Select
Digg. Participate in the collaborative editorial
process by Digging the stuff that you like best. As
you Digg, you contribute to the count on any given
item. You also build a profile of Diggs that your
friends can view.
Bury. If you find stories with bad links, off-topic
content, or duplicate entries, click “Bury.” That’s
how we get the spam out of the system.
Share
Email your friends (Diggers or non-Diggers) when you
find something you Digg.
Build a friend list; then your friends can track what
you’re Digging. They can also subscribe to an RSS feed
of your submissions and/or your Diggs.
Discuss
Comment. Share your opinions by commenting on stories,
videos, and podcasts.
I do not see any of the reasons you explained as
fitting in the the method as described above. Are you
a comedian?
P.S. All of our ur correspondence is being posted on
blogg.
- J.A. Simon
--- digg support wrote:
> You do realize that even while stories are buried
> the direct link stays
> active, right? I'm telling you the specific reasons
> WHY and HOW the
> story were buried. USERS bury stories. And how
> they we able to bury a
> story with a high amount of diggs is because the
> diggers had low karma
> while the buries had very high karma.
>
> --digg support
>
Who are these veteran users?
He says they count on "veteran users" to decide what DIGG will bury. Hmmmm.
The users have become the
The users have become the gatekeepers. What what a bunch of dumbed-down zombies they are! It is so annoying to watch these morons leave mindless comments that make no sense, when they think they are in some way debunking. While at the same time burrying the stories.
No.
The gatekeepers are those who allude to unknown (to us) mysterious heavy dudes that count more than others. That is not in there description. Digg is/are simply a liar(s).
The simple, incontrovertable truth.
DIGG..... You Are Exposed.
LOL
Users with HIGH KARMA?????
Laughable!
___________________
Ignorance is NOT Bliss
DIGG IS USED TO QUASH DISSENT, NOT AID IT!
Why are we going along with DIGG and the other TAG services? Do we know who owns them, who's pushing the buttons/censoring or whatever?
Rupert Murdoch own's Myspace... He also owns Faux (Fox) news. Does anyone doubt the same interests control both?
With Digg we are not only "digging up" news stories, we are handing debunkers and disinformation agents the EXACT info. they need to combat in the daily news casts. We are enabling the information jailers, and aiding in our own censorship.
Instead of paying for ads one website XYZ (with donations) how's about starting a Truth (9/11 ++++) news linkage service? Or is this like Air Miles... and the participants have to buy in?
This is just frustrating, and self-destructive.
great point Mr A
SOMEone is very happy every time poeple treat digg, kos, and other shilly sites/services as some kind of legitimate and trusted service provider.
theyve proven themselves to be irrelevant gatekeepers, so why give them the free publicity?
Karma indeed. What a bunch of BS.
____
♠
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
I was just calling them on it
I was just calling them on it. I think it is healthy to do so.
Thanks R/T
The rules are hidden, and the justification given for one opinion being more meritorious than the next is some bastardized interpretation of “karma”.
We KNOW dig isn’t an equitable exchange. If it were there’d be transparency beyond doubt...
So then… why then participate? Aren’t we empowering it if we do?
I fully believe in using the tools provided… in some cases against the very intent of the inventor. In this case the tool (DIGG) was invented with a singular purpose: observation of mass Internet activity and interest… what the data is used for one can only guess.
I believe that when possible one works within "the system"… whatever it might be... But when you KNOW it’s rigged you only play along where you must.
The system – overall is long broken. Anyone in doubt should have been convinced back when the Supremes gave the presidency to the current pResident. The wars, roll back of civil rights and defiance of conventions like Geneva should’ve sealed the deal for most… But for some reason there exists this naïve expectation of fairness.
I see this from a very Jeffersonian perspective these days… I do not believe the power brokers will allow themselves to be exposed and tried via the media they outright own... and that goes for the very IT/ telecom companies we use to link to THIS site.
Sorry, I don’t intend to sound discouraging. I would like to have only positive and additive comments and solutions for the concerns expressed… but sometimes I just can’t see that far ahead. I share these thoughts in the hope that some positivity will come from them… that other’s who’ve considered similar thoughts recognize they are not alone in they’re thinking /plight.
Not completely self-destructive
Digging stories will never be a walk in the park. But to even hit the front page for an hour could be thousands or tens of thousands of people reading these stories who wouldn't have otherwise. There will be many immature trolls, and there will be those who will bury it. But those are not the people we are after. We need to get stories onto digg for the silent majority of readers who may not have heard this stuff before or are on the fence about it.
This is the equivalent of getting onto the media several times a day to speak your mind and have them make ridiculous arguments in debate, always trying to supress it from being heard by the tens of thousands who are watching. It is not enjoyable, but it is necessary. Every digg from every 911 Blogger and Prison Planet reader helps.
What do we do about this?
"That story was reported as lame and subsequently removed by the digg community."
And what does that mean? It can still be found there:
http://digg.com/politics/BBC_Reported_Building_7_Had_Collapsed_20_Minute...
It’s simple then, we all
It’s simple then, we all need to build up “good karma” on Digg if that’s the way it works. That and appeal to them in the meantime to change their “some diggers are more equal than others” bullshit. Surely in a “democracy” all votes are meant to be equal, Digg’s version of democracy is clearly a false one. It’s an elitist, hierarchical user system.
This DIGG situation is another story
I wonder if WIRED would do an expose on this. Failing that, we can at least compile these bizarre statements from DIGG Support into a blog entry here. It's a start.
This needs exposing, damn it. Don't you agree? It goes against what DIGG claims it is.
It gets a little tiring having all this obvious stuff to expose. Wherever you look...
But, look at how quickly BBC got onto the defensive. We can do it. Let 's keep doing it.
It's Called False Advertising..ie. A FRAUD
Yes, obviously Digg is a complete fraud. They outright lie about what they are and represent. "Media Democracy" .....my ass. I have saved all of the e-mail correspondence with their support. Compare that with their "How Digg Works" section and it clearly shows they are a fraud and have no problem telling outright lies.
and you are still assuming it works as the say it does...
when will we finally accept many, if not most of these sites like DIGG are manipulated. Trying to become members of the 'Idiot Savant' class at DIGG is meaningless. You Digg?
USE THIS AS A WEDGE
Hey, surely we can use this (the BBC "cock-up") as a wedge. THIS IS A NEWS STORY. Contact this guy, i;.e., BBC itself. Ask them to look at the collapse of Bldg. 7.
(I see now that "This is a copy and paste from the Beeb," which is of course, none other than the BBC itself. It's their comments page. I still say we can and should use this story. It provides useful ammunition for some forum or other, no doubt about it.)
Some news org or mag or something will just love taking the BBC on on this. GO FOR IT. Either that, or the BBC will do it, if only for damage control.
(Furthermore, and by the way, the fact that he calls it a 'cock-up,' which is evidently a screw-up, shows what would happen to this bit of 'evidence' in a court of law. It would go nowhere.)
(But as a news story, it is EXCELLENT.)
Where was the BBC footage found?
Was it from that massive archive that someone posted earlier in the week?
---From a decon @ my church: "I want to tell you something very serious..very serious, but I don't want you to say 'I told you so'. I want you to forgive me..You were right. I know the truth about 9/11.
Yes
99% sure. 911Veritas?
BBC comments just disappeared
They just cut all the comments on the Richard Porter editorial. There were 24 so far. I was refreshing, waiting for mine to appear. Now they're all gone. Whimps.
nevermind?
Okay, so now they're back. But where's mine???
WOW... Some GREAT comments !!!
The important FACT is that BBC London host "Philip Hayton" who breaks the report first at 5:00pm New York time (4:33 into the vid).
With the words...
"We've got some news JUST coming in"
Followed immediately by his announcement that Salomon Brothers Building has just COLLAPSED.
This must imply that it came in over a press wire or release system, The BBC then repeat this in the headlines at 5:03pm, then again, then the live feed etc.
I would never suggest that the host and reporter were "in on it", they are just doing their job, reporting what comes in.
I bet that if they looked at the "News 24" footage between 21:55 and 22:20 UK time, it would show the very same footage...
Best wishes.
Porter is full of it
(1) They obviously did get told about the collapse by somebody, and it looks like the other stations might have as well, so his point one is a lie. The alternative is that they are clairvoyant.
(2) The information wasn't sourced or qualified, so his point 2 is crap as well.
(3) What feed was it coming in on then? That's what we want to know.
(4) Lost the tapes! - you're extracting the Michael. They're all over the internet.
(5) Anonymous posters on YouTube are not generally regarded as being the ultimate authority - thanks for the laugh, though.
This is the most piss-weak response they could have come up with. I can't believe they're compounding the error by issuing such a silly denial.
liking your style, kevin
Its literally sickening that they can treat such a question with such flippancy. And the tone is so condescending and insincere, like that of an indulgent father trying to ease his kid's distress on finding his stash of dope. Its as if they believe everyone in the blogosphere is still in high school. People like Porter have spent their whole lives making themselves into efficient replicators of the memes that move wealth and power up the heirarchy of elites. To such people, anyone who resists the cultural pressure to become a more efficient replicator of the ideas and beliefs on which the institutionalization of injustice and immorality depend is still a child, either literally or figuratively. Sites like this, and archeological efforts like this latest one of 911veritas, force people like Porter to communicate with the rabble. And this patently makes them profoundly uncomfortable and condescending. You can't wear your propaganda broadcaster and your democratically minded public relations manager hats both at the same time. When you try to, the result is grotesque. Of course, there's no agent literally standing over his shoulder telling him what to say. But you can almost hear him trying to work out the response that will be most pleasing to the constellations of power that have allowed him to rise to the top of the propaganda machine. If he was able to step out of his accustomed role of selfish little meme-replicator, he'd quite simply reply: "Yeah, you know that's really strange. How DID that happen?" But of course, if he even began to allow such questions to play on his mind, he'd be half way to the chopping block. So he has to literally repress those questions in his mind. He has to press them down and keep them down. Not exactly a prescription for psychic health - but that's the price you have to pay to be a courtier to power. I reckon that if these high level media propagandists were required to answer the questions of a well-informed audience of lay people for an hour every day before work, ninety five percent of them wouldn't survive the resulting psychic dissonance. They're not demons, after all. Its only because they're protected from exposure by a hundred bureaucratic doors that they can live with themselves.
Two points
1) They are not denying it's their video.
2) By saying they lost the original, they make it so that they do not have to explain the video further, or probe the story more deeply.
Good Points
Does anyone dispute that this isn't a live BBC report from 9/11 and if you do why? As far as I can see they have admitted that the clip was from new york city on the day of 9/11 and in the clip the BBC says live on tv that building 7 had collapsed before it actually had with the building being clearly seen in the background and if anyone is trying to deny that its WTC 7 in the background you better do a little more reasearch on WTC 7 because that is without a doubt WTC 7 behind her back, and in the clip the male anchor says its its been about 8 hours since the attack which puts the time at around 5pm New York Time and then of coarse they magically lose her connection before WTC 7 collapses because im sure it would of looked pretty strange to be seeing this news anchor talking about another building collapsing and then having the building she said had collapsed, collapse right behind her I probably would of been scratching my head on that one.
But there is one more very important point, this isn't the smoking gun of WTC 7 noir is Larry Silverstein's WTC 7
quote the real smoking gun of WTC 7 is the collapse its self
You mean to tell me...
that the BBC - because of a screw-up - either lost or destroyed all of the tapes from the most infamous day in modern history?
I am curious, was anyone at the BBC held accountable for such a "cock-up?"
Pardon me, 'ol chap, but I think you guys are full of bull dung.
Preposterous indeed, old chap......
I am frankly astonished that the purported "head" of an organization like BBC World would actually compose and publish such a seemingly ill-considered response on behalf of that organization. It's like he pecked this out in ten minutes without even considering the consequences of his statements.
This is the head of BBC World? This is the best they can do? You just have to be kidding me.
They must be panic stricken over there. This guy simply cannot be that stupid.
3. "Our reporter Jane
3. "Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I've spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn't remember minute-by-minute what she said or did - like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services."
Good point
Good point because it was London that initiated the claim. She did not seem to know what was going on. Just responding to those in London who were " monitoring feeds and wires services."
what's confusing is
the use of past tense. She "was" in New York, she "was" seeing, she "was being told"...
and then they cut to a "live" shot.
Can you smell the...
BULLSHITTTTTT!!!!
The very first clarification point is a complete and total LIE!
These NWO punks are even using straw-man tactics to defend themselves with!
Doublethink and doublespeak at it's finest...
"4. We no longer have the original tapes"
While this totally defies credibility, watch this commenter capture the bittersweet irony and beauty of it all in unrivalled brevity:
Stewart Cowan: "4. I believe you. You can view it here http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/260207building7.htm"
PWNED.
BBC gaining new meanings
Britain's Best Clairvoyants
Busy Broadcasting Clairvoyance
Behold Balls of Crystal
well, you catch my drift...
British Bamboozling Cunts
70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11
John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/
johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.
Here's what I wrote in response
Though my comment has yet to be posted.
Sorry BBC, you have just as much credibility on the issue of 9/11 as the u.s. media: zero.
I'm sure it's quite helpful to you to oversimplify the issue by declaring that you aren't part of a conspiracy.
I don't think many people actually think, "Gosh, that Jane Standley must be in on the WHOLE THING! I bet she works for the CIA!!!"
No, it is obvious that she and the fellow in the studio both received what they believed to be factual information stating that WTC 7 (aka The Saloman Bros. building) had already collapsed.
They state it as accomplished FACT, obviously not realizing or recognizing that the building in their live shot, right behind Standley, showed the building they were saying had collapsed, still standing!
That just means that they received erroneous information and didn't know what the building looked like. Neither did I, before all of this, and I'm sure I would have made the same mistake.
The problem is that this story further corroberates MANY other reports of foreknowledge of the the imminent collapse of WTC 7. Your footage is important for that reason, not because it shows that the BBC was part of a conspiracy on that day, which is a childish way to respond.
CNN also reported it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1LetB0z8_o
And CNN ALSO showed footage of emergency responders and reporters saying the the building is "about to blow up."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwjmqkjwnvQ
So what's the problem here?
No steel scyscraper before 9/11 had EVER collapsed due to fire, and the official account states that the collapse was unexpected and still unexplained (NIST report), although they are trying to blame fire.
Your report from that day strongly suggests that an official fairy tale was already prepared, and someone started disseminating it to the media a little to early.
Why don't you try to redeem what is left of your integrity and soul by repudiating your ridiculous "documentary" of last Sunday and doing some REAL investigation of how your journalists came to report what they reported on that day?
Your vague and shallow attempts to dismiss this very reasonable and troubling question are absurd and transparent. I will do you the courtsey of assuming that the article above is an example of arrogance, laziness and a priori assumptions, rather than something more sinister.
However, it still exemplifies the BBC's incompetence and incoherence, vis a vis 9/11.
"We listened all day to the
"We listened all day to the reports and we knew well in advance of the fire department's fear that WTC 7 would collapse from the fire AND damage afflicted on it."
That's a complete red herring.
No steel skyscraper in history, including ones that had sustained MUCH more damage, had EVER collapsed due to fire.
If anyone was expecting that WTC 7 was going to or even MIGHT collapse, it had to be because someone planted that idea in their head. Someone who WANTED that idea planted.
Buildings 5 sustained MUCH more damage, both from falling debris (WTC 7 had none) and much more expansive fires.
Yet no "collapse zone" was defined for them, nor was there ever any chatter about their possible collapse.
Why not? Because Someone knew 7 was coming down and that 5 was not.
Nice try.
You're a waste of time
And a waste to humanity.
""No steel skyscraper in history, including ones that had sustained MUCH more damage, had EVER collapsed due to fire."
Well, yes there have, but that is irrelevant because every situation is unique."
Got a link to back up that claim?
Oh never mind. I'm playing your game just by engaging your foolishness. Troll somewhere else.
Neither of your links lead
Neither of your links lead to examples of skyscrapers collapsing from fire. The Windsor Tower, however, did suffer from partial collapses from fire. It's instructive to look at that example to see how the building partially collapsed:
"The fire apparently caused the collapse of the top floor spans surrounding the still-standing core structure of the ten uppermost floors. As in the case of the other large skyscraper fire since 9/11/01, fears of total building collapse in the case of the Windsor fire were widely reported. 2 Those fears would again prove unfounded."
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html
You are not thinking logically
It is irrelevant whether another steel skyscraper collapsed from fire or not. No other skyscrapers were built like any of the WTC towers. No other skyscrapers built like WTC 1 and 2 EVER were hit by jet airlines operating at close to cruise speed before. No other skyscraper was built like WTC 7 before NOR suffered the unique damage from falling debris like WTC 7 did.
As much as you try, your claim that "no other skyscraper collapsed from fire" is irrelevant.
The tho structure illustrated were "steel-framed buildings" that collapsed from fire ALONE. Therefore you are wrong about "steel-framed" buildings.
The Madrid Tower fire, a concrete-core building, lost it's top ten floors steel frame from fire ALONE.
"....fears of total building collapse in the case of the Windsor fire were widely reported. 2 Those fears would again prove unfounded."
Unfounded BUT justified. Do you know why?
Let's drop your silly canard. You know it's illogical and wrong. OK?
What do NIST and FEMA say
about the molten metal found in the debris of all three WTC buildings? What do they say about the thermal photography taken days and weeks after 9/11 still showing temperatures in the range of 1200+ degrees? Just curious? ;-)
See source:
http://www.arsenalofhypocrisy.com/911/9-11_Truth.htm
"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves" – Edward R. Murrow
WTC molten metal studied by WPI
in 2002
They were stumped (never considered thermite. Guessed it might have been cause by acid rain). Molten metal was subsequently denied by all official reports. That is a cover up, which has been proven with other hard-fast examples of evidence. A cover up makes those responsible for upholding the Constituiton engaged in obstruction of justice, accessory to mass murder after the fact or worse . . .
9/11 WAS an inside job BECAUSE ignoring evidence IS ILLEGAL. Period
Now get a life and stop repeating the official fairy tale. Go to some discussion about the existence of the tooth fairy or something else your parents told you was true. And . . nevermind. You get the point. Read it and weep and grow up.
http://thewormtownspy.com/wpimoltenmetal.htm
Justice deferred is justice denied-MLK
Check this out...
You said "Let's remember that no confirmation of molten metal other than anecdotal reports has ever surfaced."
Here's a 4+ minute video entitled "NIST engineer, John Gross, denies the existance of Molten Steel.'
Video source: http://tinyurl.com/yr34gl
STILL SAY THERE'S NO EVIDENCE?
"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves" – Edward R. Murrow
not our job
our job is to demand an investigation looks at the evidence. You admit there is evidence. Why is it okay with you that it was ignored? Ignoring evidence in a criminal investigation is a cover up, a crime, obstruction of justice, accessory after the fact or worse.
Justice deferred is justice denied-MLK
Yes, there is lots of evidence.
Why do you ignore the investigations have already taken place?
From Physicist Dr. Steven E. Jones peer reviewed paper
From Physicist Dr. Steven E. Jones peer reviewed paper entitled "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?" (see page 19)
"Of course, there is a straightforward way to achieve 1000°C temperatures (and well above) in the presence of sulfur, and that is to use thermate (or a similar variation of thermite). Thermate is a high-level thermite analog containing sulfur developed by the military (see http://www.dodtechmatch.com/DOD/Patent/PatentDetail.aspx?type=descriptio...). Thermate combines aluminum/iron oxide (thermite) with barium nitrate (29%) and sulfur (typically 2% although more sulfur could be added). The thermate reaction proceeds rapidly and is much faster than thermite in degrading steel leading to structural failure. Thus, both the unusually high temperatures and the extraordinary observation of steel-sulfidation
(Barnett, 2001) can be accounted for -- if the use of thermate is allowed in the discussion. Note
that other oxidizers (like KMnO4) and metals (like titanium and silicon) are commonly used in
thermite analogs.
Finally, sulfidation was observed in structural steel samples found from both WTC7 and one of the WTC Towers, as reported in Appendix C in the FEMA report. It is quite possible that more than one type of cutter-charge was involved on 9/11, e.g., HMX, RDX and thermate in some combination. While gypsum in the buildings is a source of sulfur, it is highly unlikely that
this sulfur could find its way into the structural steel in such a way as to form a eutectic. The evidence for the use of some variant of thermite such as sulfur-containing thermate in the destruction of the WTC Towers and building 7 is sufficiently compelling to warrant serious investigation.
There's much more info on the molten metal in his paper.
Source: http://tinyurl.com/2xo8pd
""A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves" – Edward R. Murrow
Answer now or go away
Ignoring evidence in a criminal investigation is a cover up, a crime, obstruction of justice, accessory after the fact or worse.
You admit that molten metal exists. The official fairy tale cannot account for it. The official investigative report chose not to look at it.
Why is that okay with you?
Justice deferred is justice denied-MLK
Ignoring evidence
There is no criminal investigation.
Then we agree?
You are here to advocate for a new, honest and independent criminal investigation?
Justice deferred is justice denied-MLK
Of course not
You have to come up with a reason. After 5 years, you haven't.
Of course you think you have but you do not yet understand that you haven't. You first need to refute the findings of all the other investigations.
Mineta, molten metal, Zelikow, track record of lies
just a few reasons we need a new investigation.
And now you are on record as saying you believe the official fairy tale, even though it ignores inconvenient evidence and was created by an administration that has been caught in numerous lies.
What will Santa bring you this year, little Timmy S?
Justice deferred is justice denied-MLK
tims = S. King/ Sky King
Everybody else--ignore this wanker!
He's been registered a while, claims to be a 911activist, but, since I humiliated SLC, he's been activated. And, he's just revealed himself to NOT be a 911activist, contrary to his claims.
Why do I say "activated" instead of just being a common troll? Timing. He popped up here to harrass me after SLC capitulated, then said exactly the same things on SLC forum under the handle of S. King.
He's just here to disrupt. Another toss pot to look out for is "jabba"--that one registered at about the same time the beebs footage was gaining traction, 2 days and 18 hours ago.
Make no mistake--the bastards are worried about this one.
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.
Jenny is running scared
Poor Jenny is running scared since I caught him/her/it violating International Copyright law.
Jenny believes it is OK to violate the law and to do so is part of the 9/11 Truth Movement creed.
Do any of you REALLY want such a person as part of your movement?
Thought you said you're a 911activist, "tims"
At least in my blog you did. What made you change your mind?
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.
Amen Brother
Could not have wrote it better myself.
so BBC what is up, respond we know you are watching
In God I Trust, All Others Bring Data
Dear BBC
Contact BBC World here:
http://www.bbcworld.com/Pages/ContactUsDepartments.aspx
Dear BBC,
The head of your division, Richard Porter has just given the world a disgraceful response to a matter of enormous importance and seriousness.
The fact that your New York reporter said that the Salomon Brothers Building (WTC7) had collapsed a full 20 minutes before it had, with accompanying graphic, should be cause for a thorough investigation of how that information came to be in the heads of your personnel. This investigation does not appear to be in evidence. No serious effort, apart from allegedly asking the reporter to recall, seems to have taken place.
Next, in the realm of absurdity beyond belief, your department head claims that the BBC has LOST the tapes of September 11th coverage!
This might seem more plausible if the BBC hadn't been pressuring Google Video to remove the clip all day yesterday. No. This seems like a flat out lie designed to cover up your original "cock up" whereby you told the world that a building had collapsed even though it remains 'in the shot' behind your reporter's head. That particular "cock up" actually has evidence to back it up, unlike the claim by Richard Porter that this particular bit of footage has mysteriously disappeared, with no back up copy available.
What utter nonsense.
IMPORTANT QUESTIONS:
1) Is it BBC policy to keep only 1 copy of your reports?
2) What sort of backup regime do you employ?
3) What OTHER tapes from September 11th 2001 New York are allegedly missing as of today?
4) Where are the reporter's notes and scripts from that report? What other data exists that bears upon the report that the Salomon Brothers Building (WTC 7) had collapsed as of 5:00pm on 9/11?
5) What data exists regarding your New York reporter's live feed dropping off 5 minutes before the ACTUAL collapse of the WTC 7 building?
In closing, independent investigators haven't accused the BBC of participating in a "conspiracy" as your irresponsible head, Porter, misrepresents. We have focused on the evidence broadcast as a possible indication that there existed a conspiracy to deliberately demolish building WTC 7, and other buildings, and that a "cock up" revealed prior knowledge by some parties of this building's demolition.
If Richard Porter cannot differentiate between factual claims and persecution, then he probably is not qualified to run an important news organization like the BBC. His reliance on an anonymous sarcastic remark from Youtube as a source in this matter is shocking and revealing of bias and a pathetic resorting to non-factual arguments.
If BBC employs an Ombudsman or Inspector General, please forward this matter to them immediately for a fair and honest look at what really happened, devoid of "the dog ate my videotape" excuses, and infantile sarcasm.
John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/
70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11
johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.
(My complaint to Digg) Dear
(My complaint to Digg)
Dear Digg,
I'm writing to you in complaint about your apparent "digital media democracy", why is it that just as in George Orwell's Animal Farm, “some diggers are more equal than others”? Why is that some users "votes" or "buries" carry more weight than new users for example? Surely in a “democracy” all votes are meant to be equal, Digg’s version of democracy is clearly a false one. It’s an elitist, hierarchical user system. I fully appreciate that in a user moderated content system it's preferable to have users with a "good track record" helping with the running of the site. But surly this method of imbuing certain members with such disproportionate influence in relation to new users is deeply flawed and inherently unfair. If thousands of people vote for a story, but yet just a handful of "veteran users" have sort of a veto, surly that's wide open to abuse and entirely undemocratic? I appeal to you to readdress this system so that such a massive imbalance in the user moderation can be corrected to a fairer compromise.
-------
Here’s the mail;
mailto:feedback@digg.com
This is all great news BUT
keep in mind the recent advice of Dr. William Pepper - we will be given lots of disinfo in attempts to discredit us. Beware of honey pots.
Have these questions been addressed:
- What was the original source for the videos? A home recorder running on 9/11? Where have they been since then?
- Why have these reports on WTC7 been noticed only now, and not 5 years ago? (This is very strange to me, at least).
- Can anyone find an independent source that has the same video? (there must be many private tapes out there).
- Richard Porter's statements, especially the 'admission' that the BBC has lost the tapes, are sooo incriminating. It seems too good to be true, so as to draw us into the story. Why didn't Porter just ignore us, like most people?
I don't want to spoil everyone's party. However, people are being paid well in attempts to discredit us. We have to look at this new situation with the same critical eye. ( I mean, like you don't believe the fattie Bin Laden video, do you??!)
Dis-info
It is only dis-info, if you suspect the source. The source seems legit. Criminals always leave a trail.
The Bush "in-crowd" seems to be getting nervous, I hope they sleep well tonight.
Great work 911veritas!
We need more of the sort of enterprise that led to this extremely intriguing discovery. I imagine there are still a number of crucial clues to be found by patiently digging through media records around the date. Really, man, I think you've given the whole movement a significant amount of new impetus with this. I know you're not doing it for the prestige, but I gotta say "congratulations".
BBC NEWS24 also did it..
The bbc's other news outlet, NEWS24 also reported it had collapsed at 4.57, and this time there is a time stamp:
I've uploaded it to you tube, just taking a moment for it to show.. I'll update this post when it does:
but you can download the orrig vid here: http://www.mega-file.net/video/view.php?video=1b2a2daa4332dd157708a14a69... (link underneath on right to download it)
OMG that's fantastic!
Way to go!
What does ARCHIVE.ORG have to say?
OK. From my POV, the HUGE list of URLs were originally posted by Gangster here:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/6391
Then, 911veritas used this list to obtain the BBC file(s) as stated here:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/6501#comment-120106
"I downloaded most of the day for the BBC (16 x 1GB files - each were 41mins 40secs each of contiguous footage as broadcasted on 9/11 - which equates to 09:16 to 20:23 New York Time) and sat there watching."
THE FILES WERE OBTAINED FROM SERVERS "OWNED" BY ARCHIVE.ORG, NOT THE BBC!
Yesterday, during the flurry of activity surrounding the Google deletions, some others were downloading the same files from ARCHIVE.ORG. Suddenly, according to others, these files were no longer available from the ARCHIVE.ORG servers. One could preruse directory listings on those same servers but, receive 403 errors forbidding listing directory contents. This sort of indicated that the files possibly still resided on the servers, only they were now inaccessible.
I was able to obtain a directory listing on this one around 4:00AM today:
http://ia311517.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109111654-1736/
It is now verbotten.
Not only were the BBC files suddenly not available but, apparantly ALL of the major network news files in Gangster's HUGE list were no longer available from the ARCHIVE.ORG servers.
So, the BBC has released a statement that basically says "shit happens" and "we dunno".
What does ARCHIVE.ORG have to say?
I called them at their number listed in the WHOIS lookup for the domain:
415-561-6767
The receptionist was out (sick?) and a person named Steve was answering the phone. Steve said that he was a programmer there. I told hime that I was inquiring about the sudden and mysterious unavailability of the files in Ganster's HUGE list.
Steve said that there was no one available to take my call, he would have to pass my inquiry along, and as he said, "I have nothing to add to the conversation."
I asked Steve to whom he would be passing my inquiry. He said that it would be passed to person(s) who have control over content. He wanted to get off the phone. I asked him if he would like a number for a return call and then gave him a number to include with my inquiry.
I asked who these persons were and Steve said that he "could not tell me." I asked whether he could not or would not tell me who these persons were. He said "I honestly don't know."
Steve suggested that an inquiry be made to:
info@archive.org
He aslo stated that information regarding inquiries into the members of the board of directors, etc. shoud be made to that email address or snail mail. I assume that snail mail would go here:
Internet Archive
116 Sheridan Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94129
I left it at, thanked him and hung up
Anyone want to try and get substantive a response from ARCHIVE.ORG? They are supposed to be there until 5:00PM PST.
--
The true threat to liberty comes not from terrorists but from our political leaders whose natural inclination is to seize upon any excuse to diminish them.
~~ Walter Williams, Nightly Business Report, September 2001
ok.. we need to get those
ok.. we need to get those files hosted somewhere..
did anyone get them all???
I downloaded the 1GB source
I downloaded the 1GB source file yesterday afternoon (Mon) from archive.org containing the WTC7 screw up. I have it in case anyone needs the raw file. It's encoded in MPEG2. I know others got it as well though.
Thanks dicktater...
It's a scandal that over 400GB of "realtime" live news archives from the 11th, 12th and 13th of September 2001 have been removed at a whim !!!
9/11 was and is the most important event I know of.
It is our right to investigate.
Thanks for contacting them, it is important to hold all parties accountable.
Best wishes and good luck.
At a whim?
"Removed at a whim" is an interesting phrase.This whole thing is just too weird.
Removed on orders? It would be nice to get a lead on that. Keep the heat on them.
Excellent!
I also contacted IA:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/6391#comment-120178
Lost the tapes? I am
Lost the tapes? I am wondering, did they pull from their footage library of 9/11/01 as B-roll for their new hit piece, which aired on 2/18/07? Anyone notice any shots in the hit piece that were from the newly discovered archive with the WTC7 screw up?
If there was identical footage used in the hit piece, wouldn't that mean they pulled it from their library/file footage? Meaning they haven't lost the tapes.
B-Roll
Lost the tapes? I am wondering, did they pull from their footage library of 9/11/01 as B-roll for their new hit piece, which aired on 2/18/07? Anyone notice any shots in the hit piece that were from the newly discovered archive with the WTC7 screw up?
If there was identical footage used in the hit piece, wouldn't that mean they pulled it from their library/file footage? Meaning they haven't lost the tapes.
Oops sorry I posted this twice....
Ok, I called internet archives and spoke with "Paul Hickman".
He/she (because "Paul" has a very feminine voice) told me that it was some kind of formatting error and that they had to take the archive videos down temporarily because they were not ready at first when they put them up.
I pointed out to them that the format seemed to be working fine before. S/he said this was all just a misunderstanding.
He/she suggested sending in an email request for information to info@archives.org.
The number I called was 415-561-6767.
Christo
It may be that they weren't supposed to be downloadable.
If you look at the description, they all say "Video available as a loan (stream) only". Yet the version they had up before was a download.
http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/4563/archiveorg9119pageslr7.png
I'll be fine with it if they just put up a streaming version. It should still be possible to research it and make clips from that. It's still suspicious timing, but we'll see if they pull through.
NEWS 24 reported it at 21.54 - 4.54 New york time
way to go carlos!
I can't believe those massive archives have been suppressed! I hope they're hosted somewhere else.
Good work Carlos!!!
That time stamp is important, to shut up the debunkers on the time aspect.
Good work getting this for us!
Is there a little more, to give it a big more of a frame?
My hope is that, maybe you, or 911veritas or someone skilled in cobbling these videos together and adding content, even narration, might consider putting together a WTC Smoking Gun film for the "noosphere" to consume..?
And? Millions have learned about Building 7...
thanks to the BBC story and to the people who've promoted it. This is a huge positive for the 9/11 truth movement.
_______________
"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!" -Dan Wallace
<illions? or just a <andful..
911researchers.com currently runs the following poll: "Do you believe that the CNN WTC 2 Crash Footage is animation?" 66% of respondents voted for "Yes, I' m sure of it". In my view, this makes the negative comment you quoted almost sound like a compliment.
I see you guys are also still into the spire thing. It took me a couple of minutes and a fistful of common sense to figure that one out back when it was first presented. That was at least two years ago. You should have learned something in the meantime.
How to interpret information.
The specificity of the information:
47 storey Salomon Brothers building has collapsed.
This is not just any building, but is identified exactly. It is also a building that does collapse, exactly as reported, just minutes later.
No qualifier. No disclaimer that the report is not verified, as with other reports at that time. Claim is repeated by the anchor in London and by BBC channel 24 local British news. This is a claim from a source that they felt comfortable with not trying to verify. This is from a solid source, who the BBC trusts to always be accurate. Who is that source?
Finally we have the satellite feed which WOULD HAVE SHOWN THAT COLLAPSE IN REAL TIME cut off for no apparent reason just minutes before the building went down.
That's just too many coincidences for my taste. I want to know who told them the building had collapsed, and I will pressure them to find out.
70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11
John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/
johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.
I must give my credit to
I must give my credit to someone called phycisist from http://www.nineeleven.co.uk boards...
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=7523&start=210
It's Called False Advertising..ie. A FRAUD
Yes, obviously Digg is a complete fraud. They outright lie about what they are and represent. "Media Democracy" .....my ass. I have saved all of the e-mail correspondence with their support. Compare that with their "How Digg Works" section and it clearly shows they are a fraud and have no problem telling outright lies.
So BBC Reported it TWICE too early?
Good catch carlos.
So...this means that two different anchors within 3 minutes of each other reported that WTC7 had fallen before it had.
This just keeps getting better and better.
That's also an important find by Carlos!
So who was dishing them their information, THAT is the question, a question which they ought to have to answer, and if enough UK Citizens pose it, they HAVE to answer it by law. Things work differently with the BBC and we need to remember that. It's entirely possible to pressure them to make statements, and to respond to questions.
PBS Reporter also reports 7 down in the morning
I am almost certain I remember seeing a clip of a PBS reporter reporting that 7 was down and this was in the morning of the 11th. This was a couple of years ago. Does anyone else remember that? Or know how to find it?
www.northtexansfor911truth.com
BBC in a pickle
The most charitable interpretation on the recent BBC revelation is that they were told that WTC 7 was going to collapse, and that they jumped the gun. If that is true, the BBC may be innocent of complicity.
Yet we are left with the followinng questions:
1. Who told the BBC that WTC 7 was going to collapse, and how did they know?
2. Why did the link with Jane Standley so conveniently break down?
3. Why does the BBC no longer have the original tapes of such a momentous event?
It would be nice to think that the BBC's 'investigative' journalists try to find answers, but in view of their near-certain passive complicity, I'm not holding my breath.
The BBC World Team are NOT Complicit !!!
They never jumped the gun... They just reported what was fed to them.
1. They were not told the building was "going to collapse"... They were told at least 20mins prior to it actually collapsing, that it "had indeed collapsed"...
And whilst the building was STILL there, Philip Hayton is reading crap about fire weakened etc... obviously from the storyline being spun over the wire by the perps.
2. Good question, because in 2-3 minutes if she had stayed live you would have seen it come down behind her, I find it hard to believe that the collapse of WTC7 is not imprinted on her mind, to this day.
3. Good question, many others have copies of the footage, as a public service broadcaster, the ombudsman should investigate this fact.
Yes, we need to see some BBC journalists with "teeth", much needed and fast.
Best wishes
Hi 911veritas. Have you had a chance to listen to this one yet?
From PUMPITOUT.com:
"Yestreday I tried getting ahold of Jane Standly and the guy said she was gone for the day. I forgot about the 5 hrs time difference. He told me to call her today and and shed be there. He gave me her direct number: (011 - 44 - 208 - 576 - 4440)
Started calling at 7:30am, when someone finally answered her phone this is what they had to say !
click link to listen or right click and save as to download !"
Jane's Office
http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/janes_office.mp3
_______________
"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!" -Dan Wallace
But what about the "connection lost" crap?
That was a deliberate attempt to cover up the crime. An attempt to cover up of facts about mass murder is a VERY serious crime and they are clearly complicit!
Take this filthy bastards and there lies down! You should read stuff from Orwell, he was reporter at the Ministry of Truth (BBC) for quite some time. He learned quite a lot about the "Matrix" there. Coverung up stuff and altering histroy is nothing new for the Spinmeister at the Ministry of Truth!
They'll get what they deserve for all the lies and spin. For all the people who had been murdered and oppressed in the last 75 years because of there filthy lies and smoke screens!
-------------------------------------------
"in the end deceivers deceive only themselves"
- Mahatma Gandhi
The BBC Archive
From a 2003 press release:
The BBC plans to open up its archive to make a treasure trove of material available to everyone, BBC Director-General Greg Dyke announced today (Sunday 24 August 2003). Giving the Richard Dunn Memorial Lecture at the Edinburgh Television Festival, Mr Dyke said: "The BBC probably has the best television library in the world."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2003/08_august/24...
From Matt Biddulph, a guy that is developing the BBC Programme Catalogue:
"Ever wondered what's in that archive? Who looks after it? It turns out there's a huge database that's been carefully tended by a gang of crack BBC librarians for decades. Nearly a million programmes are catalogued, with descriptions, contributor details and annotations drawn from a wonderfully detailed controlled vocabulary."
http://www.hackdiary.com/archives/000071.html
Oops, but the BBC lost the original tapes from 9/11. Oh well, sh*t happens.
LMAO!
That's funny!
Yeah, when it comes to the seminal event of the modern era, they lose the tapes. That's absurd.
That's one heck of a bloody "cock-up"! lol
Send in your comments
Don't forget to send in your comments.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html
I sent them two comments today.
I hope they realize that we are going to hold their feet to the fire on this.
Christo
The Story has just detonated
We haven't even SEEN the mushroom cloud or experienced any fallout yet.
I cannot see how the UK media could ignore this.
It's a very interesting story no matter WHAT you think about 9/11 or 9/11 "conspiracy theories", and lets face it, everyone in the UK knows about it, if they are not thinking or talking about it, especially after the recent hit piece on the 9/11 truth movement by the BBC.
The irony of this story coming out now is incredible.
And the BBC's reply, at least so far, is utterly absurd. In fact, the only thing that can be deduced from it, is that the BBC was accidentally and spontaneously clairvoyant on 9/11, knowing in advance that a large 47 story tall steel skycraper would collapse, almost half an hour before it actually did, when never before in the history of the world had such a thing happened, and this building was not hit by any plane.
Don't forget...
CNN's Aaron Brown's clairvoyance, at 4:10PM:
WTC 7 Foreknowledge
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1LetB0z8_o
Brown says that 7 has collapsed or is about to collapse. Then he looks out the window and marvels at the billowing smoke and "how long this scene has gone on." The billowing smoke does not seem to be coming from WTC7. Instead, it appears to be coming from the pile.
There was one other posted here (BBC24?) announcing the collapse before the collapse.
--
The true threat to liberty comes not from terrorists but from our political leaders whose natural inclination is to seize upon any excuse to diminish them.
~~ Walter Williams, Nightly Business Report, September 2001
Does anyone see more than 24 comments?
It's been stuck at 24 for hours...time is 3:20 GMT now.
Incompetency excuse
If someone has the time or materials, a simple list of each and every "incompetency" excuse for the official story would be a total laugh.
Include:
NORAD and no jets
Rice--No one ever imagine planes flying into buildings...
Secret Service not taking Bush out of the school
BBC "lost" all the tapes
But we couldn't find no stinkin' black boxes
Not being able to track Flight 77, let alone shoot it down
No videos from any airport but Portland
No videos from the Pentagon
And then there might be the amazing competency list
Hani Hanjoor being able to hit the Pentagon
The grass people being able to redo the Pentagon lawn pronto
ALL evidence removed from Ground Zero
Being able to identify ALL 19 RIGHT AWAY
Finding Atta's suitcase; with all the evidence
the FBI being able to confiscate the gas station videos within minutes
two planes being able to take down three buildings
etc.
you get the idea...
the lists would be really long and say a great deal
Well, I'll take reason No. 2
Richard Porter says:
2." In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate"
It was bonafide information, Richard..It really, really did collapse!!
"- but at the time were based on the best information we had".
The best "inside" information.
"We did what we always did - sourced our reports,"
We are curious about that source.
"used qualifying words like "apparently" or "it's reported" or "we're hearing" and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving"
Again, what , where, and who was the source?
Richard I like to double check too. Where did that double-checked info come from? Please share with us so We can be "certain" about this.
Richard Porter's cock-up
Next the BBC will have a video Richard Porter looking under his desk and sarcastically saying "I know those tapes of mass destruction are around here somewhere."
I wonder if Richard Porter has asked ARCHIVE.ORG for copies of their "tapes" that mysteriously disappeared yesterday during "the chaos and confusion of the day." It looks as though they still exist (see below).
This is getting VERY interesting. The more they feel compelled to respond to this stuff, the deeper they dig their own graves.
WHO ORDERED ARCHIVE.ORG TO REMOVE THE MASSIVE NEWS ARCHIVES FOR SIX MAJOR NETWORKS ALL AT ONCE?
Note: (for what it's worth) Gangster's MASSIVE list indicate that the files were spread across many servers. Do an IP lookup for each subdomain and it will return a unique IP for each.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/6501#comment-120185
Ok, I called internet archives and spoke with "Paul Hickman".
He/she (because "Paul" has a very feminine voice) told me that it was some kind of formatting error and that they had to take the archive videos down temporarily because they were not ready at first when they put them up.
I pointed out to them that the format seemed to be working fine before. S/he said this was all just a misunderstanding.
He/she suggested sending in an email request for information to info@archives.org.
The number I called was 415-561-6767.
Christo"
See also:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/6501#comment-120166
A formatting error? Give me a break. Take down the files temporarily? ALL SIX NETWORKS AT ONCE? JUST AS A HUGE STORY IS BREAKING? Spare me.
So, when will they be back up? ALL OF THEM!
"Can someone from 9/11 Truth San Francisco,
www.sf911truth.org
go down there and get a statement on the record from ARCHIVE.ORG?
Internet Archive
116 Sheridan Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94129
Take a video camera and additional witnesses, too. Ah heck, call the local media, too.
The plot sickens. And this act reeks.
--
The true threat to liberty comes not from terrorists but from our political leaders whose natural inclination is to seize upon any excuse to diminish them.
~~ Walter Williams, Nightly Business Report, September 2001
Internet Archive Files
I've exchanged a few polite emails with them and in my last one offered to drive down and copy the files to a hard disk for distribution.
I'm not at all convinced at this point that the IA removal was a nefarious act.
The reason given was that the News Archive is in an experimental stage, and they were not prepared for those files to be downloaded. I assume due to bandwidth concerns.
I am giving them the benefit of the doubt for now and seeing if there is some other way these files can be accessed.
Stay tuned...
PS: This is the latest email reply
"Thank you for following up. The TV Archive is still in project form, and not ready to be available to the public. It's an internal project, and we do have engineers working on these issues.
We do make most of our content available for download, it's true. We like it that way. Sometimes we can't do that, but it's rare and we would rather not to. That is why we were shocked that someone pulled the files anyway.
We are working on the formats and the issues surrounding the TV Archive.
There is a lot of groundwork to be done to make it ready to be open to the public.
I do not know when they will be available again. Since they were pulled, we will have to do some re-examination about the project as a whole. We are a small non-profit with limited resources and a lot of projects, so I don't know when this will be done."
Paul Forrest Hickman
Office Manager
Internet Archive
www.archive.org
I hope you find them cooperative...
However, I don't expect them to let you have anything. It is most generous of you to offer to make copies available while they work out the problems with their project.
The MSM stopped running their footage shortly after 9/11 because it "too painful for the American people." Instead, we could buy DVDs made by the likes of CNN of what they thought they wanted us to see. This issue is too important to keep in the can any longer.
Obviously, they now know what they are sitting on. Will they be like NIST and make us wait five plus years, only to make us wait some more?
I hope that you told Mr. Hickman that the Richard Porter of the BBC would be most grateful for copies to replace their missing tapes.
Thank you and good luck Yarrow Mahko! I wish you success.
--
The true threat to liberty comes not from terrorists but from our political leaders whose natural inclination is to seize upon any excuse to diminish them.
~~ Walter Williams, Nightly Business Report, September 2001
Update
Here is the latest email I received from Paul Hickman.
"Hello Yarrow,
Thank you for your offer of getting the files in hard copy. We can not offer this. We do not have the resources to do what you propose.
Please respect that we are a small non-profit with limited resources and a lot of projects on our plate. We do recognize that this is an important issue for much of the world, but we have a lot going on. Our staff can not and does not provide access to our servers to anyone outside the organization.
I do not have a timeline at this point. Please be patient with us on this matter.
Paul Forrest Hickman
Office Manager
Internet Archive
www.archive.org"
I have responded and upped the ante slightly. I hope that we can resolve this without resorting to any sort of harassment. It may come to a campaign of public pressure. Let's hope not.
Tip
I'm sure we could round up some cash for their trouble to copy the footage to a portable device
money does a non-for-profit gooooood!
___________________
Ignorance is NOT Bliss
Where's
the short clip with the firefighter that says the building is about to come down?
I think this is what you're looking for...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwjmqkjwnvQ&eurl
_______________
"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!" -Dan Wallace
dz
when threads grow this large, it gets increasingly tiresome to locate the new comments as they are not marked as such after page 1. Now I don't know if that is just a cock-up on my part - if it is, can anyone tell me how to correct it? If it isn't, can it be improved?
wondering the same thing
the new posts only show up on the first page, then I'm going, gee, I wonder where the other 26 are?
Try tracker
Bruce, I found the new comments here by means of the tracker tab. It marks stuff as new, in whatever thread.
The Story finally made it to Digg!
http://www.digg.com/world_news/BBC_Response_to_Recent_WTC7_Video_from_BB...
Be sure to digg and add your comments.
The shills started out strong and are now fading away..
Note that this, the BBC "rebuttal" gets Digged, but the other, original story does not..
Anyway, digg and comment away..
Fuck the paid shills who work the digg system. Screw them!
Digg does this to me for no reason
"This Account is Disabled Your account has been disabled due to misuse."
has anyone else got this?
www.northtexansfor911truth.com
I am contemplating doing
I am contemplating doing just that. I am in Sacramento but my circumstances don't help. At any rate, here's how it should go down.
People should go with video cameras record the entire incident. Bring laptops and blank DVDs in order to request on the spot the ability to copy their data. If they refuse they are obstructing justice. Craig Miller died in WTC7 and the video they have is evidence in that crime. If anyone else is thinking about going please speak up or contact me. I have a laptop, blank DVDs, and a video camera.
"... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1564 - 1642)
OIL IS OBSOLETE - WAKE UP - YOU'VE BEEN LIED TO, AGAIN!
http://www.waterfuelcell.org/
Blacklist the Phlogs
Hey guys.We should compie a blacklist of Phlogs.Here is one
http://www.blairwatch.co.uk/node/1662#comments
the pretend to be anti government ie Blair.But it´s all bollocks.They absolutely refuse to publish any comments abot on 911calling conspiracy theorists neo nazis.True fuckin wankers.OPay them a visit and tell them what you think.
http://www.blairwatch.co.uk/node/1662#comments
neo nazis
http://www.blairwatch.co.uk/node/1509
Message For 9/11 and 7/7 Conspiracy theorists
Posted December 18th, 2006 by quarsan
in
* not politics
Listen guys, you've posted the same thing time after time on Blairwatch. We do not believe the theories based on the evidence you present. We're also concerned that you also appear to get a lot of your 'evidence' from neo-nazi sites.
You are welcome to post here on other subjects, but we're bored of the same old story you're spamming us with.
Therefore we will delete any further posts by yourselves on 9/11 and 7/7.
I hope you do that
I wish I could help but am n New York
Let's see how it went, please.
Conspicuous Plot
I Posted Something Here Before, But Now I'll Post This
Sorry, but I had a reply that I posted in response to another person, and the way I logged in, it ended up here. So I corrected that by posting in the proper spot, and now I have this space available which I can't delete.
And no, don't delete this space, as I'll here post something wonderful that people should know. Please download the audio files available below. This is very much related to the 9/11 attacks, as it's just more of the same government-staged terrorism.
##########
It was the FBI that bombed the World Trade Center in 1993:
None of this would be known today if it were not for the FBI's undercover agent Emad A. Salem taping his conversations with his FBI handlers (unbeknownst to them). Salem thought that the FBI might try to pin it on him so he took measures to protect himself. Indeed, without the FBI the '93 WTC bombing would never have happened, as it was agent Salem who built the bomb for the would-be Muslim "terrorists." Salem wanted to use fake ingredients for the "bomb" but the FBI ordered him to make a real one. When the making of the bomb was complete Salem told the FBI that they could now arrest the would-be terrorists, but the FBI told Salem that the bombing is to go forward. After agent Salem went public with his tapes in a news conference the FBI found it necessary to pay him over a million dollars just to shut him up.
For more on the above, see the below New York Times articles:
"Tapes Depict Proposal to Thwart Bomb Used in Trade Center Blast," Ralph Blumenthal, New York Times, October 28, 1993, Section A, Page 1, Column 4;
"Tapes in Bombing Plot Show Informer and F.B.I. at Odds," Ralph Blumenthal, New York Times, October 27, 1993, Section A, Page 1, Column 4:
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b3c830e34de.htm
http://stateterror.web1000.com/fbi-bombed-wtc-new-york-times.html
And see also:
"Who Bombed The World Trade Center? FBI Bomb Builders Exposed," Paul DeRienzo, Frank Morales and Chris Flash, The Shadow, October 1994/January 1995 Issue:
http://pdr.autono.net/WhoBombedWTC.html
On the above webpage you can find the below two audio clips from one of Emad A. Salem's recorded telephone conversations with one of his FBI handlers, FBI Special Agent John Anticev:
http://nwo.media.xs2.net/tape/emad%20salem.mp3
http://stateterror.web1000.com/emad-salem.mp3 (Backup copy.)
The above clip is an excerpt from the below longer clip:
http://nwo.media.xs2.net/tape/SalemWBAI.mp3
http://stateterror.web1000.com/SalemWBAI.mp3 (Backup copy.)
The above clips are from a broadcast on WBAI Radio in the city of New York which aired this taped conversation between Emad A. Salem and FBI Special Agent John Anticev.
The below transcript is from 2:57 to 4:31 min:sec from the longer clip (SalemWBAI.mp3):
FBI Special Agent John Anticev: But, uh, basically nothing has changed. I'm just telling you for my own sake that nothing, that this isn't a salary, that it's--you know. But you got paid regularly for good information. I mean the expenses were a little bit out of the ordinary and it was really questioned. Don't tell Nancy I told you this. [Nancy Floyd is another FBI Special Agent who worked with Emad A. Salem in his informant capacity.]
FBI undercover agent Emad A. Salem: Well, I have to tell her of course.
Anticev: Well then, if you have to, you have to.
Salem: Yeah, I mean because the lady was being honest and I was being honest and everything was submitted with a receipt and now it's questionable.
Anticev: It's not questionable, it's like a little out of the ordinary.
Salem: Okay. Alright. I don't think it was. If that's what you think guys, fine, but I don't think that because we was start already building the bomb which is went off in the World Trade Center. It was built by supervising supervision from the Bureau and the D.A. and we was all informed about it and we know that the bomb start to be built. By who? By your confidential informant. What a wonderful, great case!
Anticev: Well.
Salem: And then he put his head in the sand and said "Oh, no, no, that's not true, he is son of a bitch." [Deep breath.] Okay. It's built with a different way in another place and that's it.
Anticev: No, don't make any rash decisions. I'm just trying to be as honest with you as I can.
Salem: Of course, I appreciate that.
Anticev: And as far as the payments go, and everything like that, they're there. I guarantee you that they are there.
www.sanityforsale.wordpress.c
www.sanityforsale.wordpress.com is my site. The first place I saw the article on was the UK 9/11 truth site which had a link to a story on 911blogger (not this one- something unrelated) it seemed 911veritas had just cottoned onto something. everybody else here has not replied to his info and i checked it out and i was stunned. So i just whacked it up on my site and got the most hits in my history! heh
People, we need to build
People, we need to build "karma" on Digg to bring articles to the front page.
We can do this by building a circle friends who digg each others news items. The Digg site makes this easy by showing which articles have been reported by your friends.
Just add the following people to your group of friends on Digg:
checkmate0
dazinith
onedeaddj
Chewbacca2000
MrEguy
sonof101
unleached
ChristopherR
mageant ( that's me)
Digg is censoring Alex Jones' article right now.
This article has 1845 "Diggs" and should be #2 on the list. Digg refuses to allow it.
http://digg.com/politics/BBC_Reported_Building_7_Had_Collapsed_20_Minute...
Instead they have a mocking piece about the "Death Star" being an "inside job" with less than half the number of Diggs.
I have emailed them, and received no answer. This is deliberate. Digg may have dug its own grave. If the "Diggs" don't mean anything, and are arbitrarily censored, even though there are thousands of supporters, then the company has no reason for existing.
70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11
John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/
johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.
Amazing They Dind't Deny And Just Call It A Forgery
Wonder why they didn't just deny and claim it a forgery.
I think with there, "We've lost our files." they are leaving that possibility/defense open.
They don't put as much faith into "TV fakery" as you do
simple.
I found one Google Video with the extra comments.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=2072999289423434892&q=WTC7+9%2F11...
Seems they didn't want this one going to the top of Google Video, while having no problem with it going up on Youtube, though at first it was getting pulled from there as well.
Now it's all OVER Youtube. There are about 40 different versions of it on there.
But I like the original presentation, with the opening comments set to U2, and Google Video enables the whole thing to play continuously without having to break it into parts.
So use and move this Google Video link
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=2072999289423434892&q=WTC7+9%2F11...
Let's drive it to the top of the top 100! :-D
Make them pay for removing it so often on the first day this story broke..! ;-)
Some action over here
There is a fair amount of 9/11 action on this site: http://americanbuddhist.net/node/4750
If people want to make some comments, it would help and it would get the information out to a new audience that is generally quite thoughtful.
They also have some stuff here: http://americanbuddhist.net/node/4768
Wow, whoever posted there utterly nailed it.
Kudos.