|
Post by adamwalton on Jul 15, 2008 12:08:16 GMT
Take the BBC's mis-reporting of building 7 coming down. That would never have happened in the days before rolling news coverage. Fucking up that one aspect of reporting the story has given conspiracy theorists more kerosene for their bonfire. more than just "mis-reporting" would'nt you say? The fact they were reporting the collapse of Building 7, with it clearly in the background, in their footage before it happended is somewhat suspicious? No, it was mis-reporting. It happens. Especially in rolling, 24hr news coverage of a major event. The fact that the BBC broadcast evidence of their own journalistic ineptitude worldwide proves that they weren't in on any conspiracy. These events unfolded over the course of a few hours. At that time, no one knew what the fuck was going on. Rumour and conjecture were more a part of the news coverage that day than would ever be allowed on a 'normal' news day. It widens the holes in the net of journalistic integrity and the Reuter's report on Building 7 fell through. In the grand scheme of things it's a wholly understandable and wholly explained faux pas on the part of the BBC. But does it point towards a grand conspiracy? No. Not in the slightest. Why on earth would anyone involved in a conspiracy to bring down building 7 fabricate a press release and then publish it before the building came down? Why? Simple question. This is the main problem with the "truthers". They're not interested in aspects of the official explanation that are demonstrably true, which undermines the rest of their argument. Your song, "Seven", implores us to ask questions, which is a fucking essential philosophy, but only if you ask the right questions, ask them to the right people, and then listen to the answers. Of course, determining what is and who is 'right' is the challenge. But, in this instance, and for that exact example: why did the BBC report that Building 7 had come down before it had, broadcasting irrefutable evidence of their own ineptitude to a watching world? Well, because they [and Reuters] made a mistake. What is suspicious about that?
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Jul 15, 2008 12:22:40 GMT
The fact the broadcast was LIVE was suspicious?
And the rest of my post?
But some good points made Adam. I'm open to it, coming from someone who has spent more time trying to find flaws in the alternative-to-the-official-version-of-events theories, it's hard, but the official version....very easy.
|
|
|
Post by adamwalton on Jul 15, 2008 12:35:03 GMT
The fact the broadcast was LIVE was suspicious? Please explain, Matt -- the fact that it was live makes you suspicious of what? The fact that the BBC / NBC / Reuters all reported that Building 7 had come down [well, technically reported that 'another' building had come down] minutes before it actually came down? Let's assume that that indicates that there is something suspicious about Building 7... that one question. What does it indicate? Does it indicate that Reuters / the BBC / NBC had been primed with information about Building 7 beforehand? Does it mean that these news organisations were in on the conspiracy? Whatever your answers to the above questions, please just answer me this: Why would the conspirators want to give out a [fabricated] press release about Building 7?
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Jul 15, 2008 12:50:06 GMT
It was actually reported nearly 30 minutes before the event.
It's ridiculous to suggest entire organsations are conspiring behind an event, same with govenments, it's criminal elements within. It's the exposure via a mistake in timing of the fabricated, apprent pre-scripted news on a live broadcast that is suspicious, a mistake that could be read and dwelled on by conspiracy theorists (alternative, remember the official version of events is merely a conspiracy theory too!) i agree, i also agreee it's not the strongest peice of evidence, or the most important, but what about the rest of it? what about the physics behind the collapse? First building of its kind in history to ever collapse from fire damage, there's a shit load more suspiciousness about it too.
|
|
|
Post by adamwalton on Jul 15, 2008 13:43:02 GMT
It was actually reported nearly 30 minutes before the event. It's ridiculous to suggest entire organsations are conspiring behind an event, same with govenments, it's criminal elements within. It's the exposure via a mistake in timing of the fabricated, apprent pre-scripted news on a live broadcast that is suspicious, a mistake that could be read and dwelled on by conspiracy theorists (alternative, remember the official version of events is merely a conspiracy theory too!) i agree, i also agreee it's not the strongest peice of evidence, or the most important, but what about the rest of it? what about the physics behind the collapse? First building of its kind in history to ever collapse from fire damage, there's a shit load more suspiciousness about it too. I take your point that this one element of what happened that day is minor in comparison to everything else that went on, but you focused attention on it earlier in the thread. My point is that people still bring it up even though the explanation for the report is entirely plausible... and no one can provide an explanation as to why it would be in anyone's interests to fabricate and broadcast such a report in the first place. No one. Finally, Matt - can you elaborate on, "First building of its kind in history to ever collapse from fire damage", specifically focusing on who you're quoting / citing when you say that its collapse was due to "fire damage" and "fire damage", alone [which has been the case with every other skyscraper fire where the structure remained intact].
|
|
|
Post by juz on Jul 15, 2008 13:52:55 GMT
I do believe the answer doesnt lie in politics, how can you get a clear objective view round the shit when your head is stuck in it. Thats why I dont bother with bullshit theories and politicians no more..... people finding out that its are own government (if it is) won't bring the people who died back, it will just cause wide spread panic, riots and a lot of discomfort for millions of citizens being looted by the people who feel pissed off but dont share the same ideals as the minority of "let's play fair now" anarchists.
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Jul 15, 2008 15:07:35 GMT
It was actually reported nearly 30 minutes before the event. It's ridiculous to suggest entire organsations are conspiring behind an event, same with govenments, it's criminal elements within. It's the exposure via a mistake in timing of the fabricated, apprent pre-scripted news on a live broadcast that is suspicious, a mistake that could be read and dwelled on by conspiracy theorists (alternative, remember the official version of events is merely a conspiracy theory too!) i agree, i also agreee it's not the strongest peice of evidence, or the most important, but what about the rest of it? what about the physics behind the collapse? First building of its kind in history to ever collapse from fire damage, there's a shit load more suspiciousness about it too. Finally, Matt - can you elaborate on, "First building of its kind in history to ever collapse from fire damage", specifically focusing on who you're quoting / citing when you say that its collapse was due to "fire damage" and "fire damage", alone [which has been the case with every other skyscraper fire where the structure remained intact]. I am indeed quoting, when I state it apprently collasped due to fire damage, the 9/11 commission, the official version of events. The official government release regarding 9/11: www.gpoaccess.gov/911/you can download it as a pdf. Obviously, fire damage could not of caused this but yea, they are adamant! It's been a while since I was first made aware, It's good to have this recap. 911review.com/attack/wtc/b7.html....this building collapsed from a fire....hahahahahahaha fuckin hell my sides hurt.
|
|
|
Post by adamwalton on Jul 15, 2008 19:41:36 GMT
Finally, Matt - can you elaborate on, "First building of its kind in history to ever collapse from fire damage", specifically focusing on who you're quoting / citing when you say that its collapse was due to "fire damage" and "fire damage", alone [which has been the case with every other skyscraper fire where the structure remained intact]. I am indeed quoting, when I state it apprently collasped due to fire damage, the 9/11 commission, the official version of events. The official government release regarding 9/11: www.gpoaccess.gov/911/you can download it as a pdf. Obviously, fire damage could not of caused this but yea, they are adamant! It's been a while since I was first made aware, It's good to have this recap. 911review.com/attack/wtc/b7.html....this building collapsed from a fire....hahahahahahaha fuckin hell my sides hurt. To the best of my knowledge, the official government report doesn't make any reference to Building 7 [WTC 7, if you prefer]. The 9-11 review makes two incredibly contentious statements in its first paragraph that raise questions about its journalistic integrity. "NIST alleges that it was severely damaged by large pieces of steel ejected from the North Tower, but there is no publicly verifiable evidence of this." There is testimony from fire officers that there was significant structural damage to the South side of WTC 7. There's a good reason why the public aren't in a position to verify evidence from this site. "Yet, excepting 9/11/01, there has never been a case of fires, no matter how severe, causing the collapse of a steel-framed high-rise building." That is a given, but WTC 7's structural integrity was threatened by more than fire. The official investigation into WTC 7 will be published later this year. Anyone else commenting on the causes of the collapse of WTC 7 are doing so purely on a basis of conjecture. I'm no supporter of our government / the U.S. government, but nothing that I have read [and I've read extensively on the subject since 9/11] persuades me that there was any conspiracy involved. Nothing. Apply a certain amount of journalistic rigour to any of the accusations levelled by the "truthers" and they collapse under their own weight without the use of any dicky explosives. The truly terrifying and objectionable aspect of 9/11 was that it was used as an excuse to take us into an illegal war. Everything else is peripheral to this. It's the best example of deflection in modern history.
|
|
|
Post by George W Bush on Jul 15, 2008 22:21:24 GMT
I blame Juz
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Jul 15, 2008 22:46:30 GMT
True there is hardley a mention of wtc 7 in the FINAL commission report and the report regarding this is set to release. I'm sure it will be as ridiculus as the "final" (their words) official 9/11 commision report. "Final Report, but lets leave out wtc 7 shall we" and then "oh fuck shit people are asking questions and there's huge interest in this building's collapse and we thought they wouldn't notice, we better compile another one!" Does that not open up questions alone?
I have also read (up until about a year or two ago so bear with me if i'm out of the loop) extensivley on the subject. I've also read alot on previous alleged false flag attacks. So what with the history of "cabals" within/outside governments being involved in, helping on it's way, whatever perspective you like, these kind of acts (some now somewhat de-classified) it is no way a suprise. We're taught, and quite factually wrongly, how "Hitler" burned the Reichstag and blamed it on the enemy in schools but never about ones carried out by the states or the uk, some leading to major events in our history. See the Gulf Of Tonkin incident.
Adam, there was a conspiracy of some kind, those planes didn't fly themselves into the towers (or did they lol). wtc 7 did come down conviently, you have to admit, it was convient.
What is your opinion on how the towers collapsed? The structure of the towers and the rate/resistance of which they fell? What about the traces of thermite on the steel collums, which are clearly seen in all footage, cut the way they would be cut after professional demolition explosives? There's alot more damning evidence of suspicious acts, im merely scratching the surface, that cannot possibly, as someone who has read extensivley on the subject, lead you to believe there was no foul play. Ok im off on a tangent from wtc 7 but i dont believe you when you say you have read extensivly on the subject that you find no conviction of wrong doing from anyone other than the guys that planned the attack and hijacked the planes.
I believe, and this is plainly put, that "they" knew it was going to happen, and helped it on it's way. There ARE radicial islamic groups, there is massive justified hate towards western governments. They used these groups for there own use over and over, i.e Al Quada fighting the Russians in Afganistan.
Have you read the PNAC document prior to 9/11? Whats your opinion on the bold statements by the PNAC regarding the need for a catastophic event to lead them into the final stages, the catastrophic event is even related to Pearl Harbour as an example.
9/11 was the kick-start of the (and extremly successfull Duncan) main phase of the NWO. It's no secret, "they" make no secret of it either we're watching it unfold before our very eyes, TWO illegal wars that is, and most likely a third and leading to a fourth, along side the progression towards a one world government and increasingly restricted civil liberties. What will Israel do when we're off to Iran on holiday based on propaganda and WMD lies and exaggerations? Egypt like in the 70's? Or some other options. The world is "their" oyster, they've just got convice us they need to take it to preserve our beloved "freedom" for the "love of God".
|
|
|
Post by juz on Jul 16, 2008 13:40:28 GMT
Illegal war? Corrupt conspiring Government, any idea what living under a Taliban or Saddam regimes would be like... you wouldnt have your Adam Waltons playing your paranoid theories over the air waves you'd be killed violently for thinking like that. The Taliban killed Afghanistan, and Saddam was a monster... noone can disagree the evidence is there they needed removing.
|
|
|
Post by NWA on Jul 16, 2008 14:33:56 GMT
Juz in good point shocker!
|
|
|
Post by JuZzY on Jul 16, 2008 14:41:18 GMT
Thankyou, but I'm afraid that may be your lot for this month, maybe the year. While Im on a run though... read the kite Runner and watch Paranoid park, this doesnt belong here either.
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Jul 16, 2008 17:14:10 GMT
If history teaches anything about Afghanistan its that they fight for what they see as an injustice, so you should ask yourselves if the Taleban were as bad as they are made out to be then why were the Afghan population not fighting them back like they have done to countless other oppressors. Giving the reply of the Northern alliance is rediculous since they only got support after the Americans invaded and started pumping money to the corrupt war lords. Leave the country to the people.
And yes Juz, defying UN opposition is an illegal war.
|
|
|
Post by juz on Jul 17, 2008 16:05:31 GMT
I'm not denying that the war was illegal in the eyes of the UN just pointing out that there are many shades of grey and that invading may have been the right thing. After the war with soviets left a very civilised Afghanistan blown to shit, they had the Mujahideen warlords take over and start slaying folk, then there was the promise that the Taliban could make things better but they were even worse than there predecessors screwwing human rights and killing anything and anyone that moved, so yeh Matt they really had a fighting chance, your arrogance and misinformation yet again are on startling form.
It's great when your over in this country putting the world to writes in such luxury, saying dumb shit like "the afghans are fighters, they should fight back" when there once beautifull and very civilised society is blown to pieces and millions of them dead. Could you do that, No, could you fuck. They have had so much shit under forced regimes since the 70's that I bet they would swap a limb to have a stable "free" society like ours. Cos thats what it is really innit, this beautifull country, with an economy strong enough to keep us in shoes as well as slippers, food fit for a Burger King and a roof above a head, so shut up screaming like agirl and put your time into something better than ranting on like a misinformed burke about shit that you only know tidbits on one side of the argument.
|
|