The Truth Behind 9/11

[Albert Tatlock]

UPDATE: Shortly after I posted this link, Google removed the video referenced by this page from their servers. wrh

 

UPDATE: They're watching you

Just because you're paranoid - doesn't mean they're not after you.

[WilDDog]

Wow another conspiracy.

[Chinahand]

I'm willing to say that your video is fascinating. As you say is that building WTC 7 ... looks like it, but the brown building in front of it and partially obscuring it on the BBC Video isn't on the video of the collapse - its very hard to tell distances and foreshortening - but there is another smaller, similar building to WTC7 on the collapse video half off the view on the bottom right - now if I could see what is infront of that building I'd be happier.

 

Find me some more pictures of that brown building partly obscuring what is claimed to be WTC7 in context with WTC7 and I'll be interested.

 

Plus I'm very suspicious that there is no ticker in the video - a BBC standard. These are on every other BBC video: like this

And how does the video know the time - it is never mentioned once in the news reports - at what is said to be 5 O'clock that seems odd - no anouncement of the time - plus the intro graphics are shorter than usual - they seem to be edited.

Those discrepencies make me very suspicious, but I'll honestly say this is the first 911 conspiracy that has even slightly made me interested.

[Albert Tatlock]

[VinnieK]

From what I can gather from the thread and the controversy regarding the video, are we to believe that Dr Fiendish and Evil Corp not only blew up WTC7, but also told the BBC (of all organizations) what was going to happen who then told their correspondent but forgot to mention it was all hush hush top secret evil work, who then went on to blab it all over the screen?

 

Chinahand has already given an example of how the news can become confused in the heat of the moment (the planes being shot down example), so how is this any more likely to be down to conspiracy than sheer human error (especially when everyone's attention at the time was concentrated on the towers). To this end, it's a damn sight more likely that rumours regarding the evacuation and imminent or possible collapse of WTC7 quickly became confused in the rush for details and turned into 'has collapsed' by the time they reached the presenter. That the link was cut is no surprise either - most likely is that someone looked out of the window, noticed the building was still standing, and they quickly decided to pull the live coverage until they could verify all the details they were reporting. It's a lot more likely than the hypothesis that some careless work experience kid at the BBC's secret underground bunker accidentally mixed up the batch of folders marked "real news" with the one marked "lies for the proles".

[Crozza]

.

[LurkerBoy]

i turned tv over after 15 min knowing no serious investicative journalisim was going to be shown. it fell way short of askin why wt7 colapsed in its own footprints from a non perfect spred fire we have a perfect colapse . it never shown silverstien the owner saying he pulled the building. and in the 7 hours from the first tower colapse wtc7 could not have been primed to a controled demo unless it was primed in advance . its been 5 years since i payed cash 4 a jewspaper i will never pay for false info. bbc is a goverment tv station that tryed to back up the usa goverments take on 911 and failed in my opinion

 

blairs first words as to 77 was there will be no inquiry why? if theres nowt to hide i guess all the peoples storys and the days timeline would tell a difrent story

 

That was one of the funniest posts I've ever read, although I'm sure it wasn't meant to be. Thank you for making me literally LOL.

 

I especially liked the line:

 

'been 5 years since i payed cash 4 a jewspaper i will never pay for false info. bbc is a goverment tv station that tryed to back up the usa goverments take on 911 and failed in my opinion.'

 

My question is was the Jewspaper a spelling mistake, or an intentional attack on jews 'controlling the media!!!', or a jungian slip? I hope it's the latter, as that makes it even more funny...

 

Oh, and I hate to break it to you but the BBC is NOT a 'government TV station' in any shape or form, have you ever actually watched ANY BBC reportage/news/documentaries? The BBC is independent of government control; remember the Falklands, when Thatcher went mad after the BBC news used to say things like '...the British Government claims...'.

 

Anyway, thanks for the diversion into your land of mis-spelled insanity.

 

(please ignore any spelling mistakes in this post, they are clearly intentional so shut it)

[stevie]

No Vinny i think the only thing this video clip shows is how choreographed the BBC and all the MSM is. You said it was more likely to be a mix up when the people were being evacuated? Yet as you know, the people were evacuated hours before the wtc7 was demolished. Yet you are right that they pulled it after someone probably noticed the building still there, but how could they not? they would have looked even worse had it fell in front of them while they were telling everyone the building had collapsed half an hour earler!! The only part it gives an idea of time on the video is when the reporter says "it has been some 8 hours since the attacks" 9am plus 8hours = 5pm.

i am extermely curious as to how the MSM are going to try and spin this one!!

Oh and someone copied the video so it is now back up again after google pulled it.

 

http://rattube.com/blog1/2007/02/26/the-sm...-jumps-the-gun/

[Lost Login]

I think the link says it all, "crude" video, and my gut feeling is that it is a crude hoax. As you say it is completely illogical that the beeb were told in advance but it does seem strange that after nearly five and a half years later this "video" is suddenly found.

 

I am also far from convinced that it is WTC 7 as it just does not appear to be right. I am not sure if it is another building or just a computer generated image that has been added in. But it does not look right. I have added a link to a picture of WTC7 prior to the collapse of the towers and this clearly shows WTC 7 in front and the scale does does not appear to match up with that in the video.

 

http://www.september11news.com/AttackSkylineEmpire.jpg

 

It also does not appear to match up with numerous pictures I have in my desk when I took a helicopter flight over the area in 1994.

 

I am sure somebody will eventually uncover the hoaxer but it is fairly irrelevant as once the theorists have accepted the link there is absolutely no way they will ever believe it to be disproved. They will only argue that those denying it are part ogf the Govt plot etc etc

 

 

From what I can gather from the thread and the controversy regarding the video, are we to believe that Dr Fiendish and Evil Corp not only blew up WTC7, but also told the BBC (of all organizations) what was going to happen who then told their correspondent but forgot to mention it was all hush hush top secret evil work, who then went on to blab it all over the screen?

[tameelf]

[

quote name=Lost Login' date='Feb 27 2007, 03:35 PM' post='222197]

I think the link says it all, "crude" video, and my gut feeling is that it is a crude hoax. As you say it is completely illogical that the beeb were told in advance but it does seem strange that after nearly five and a half years later this "video" is suddenly found.

It also does not appear to match up with numerous pictures I have in my desk when I took a helicopter flight over the area in 1994.

 

see if this matches up to your chopper flight .

 

[Mr. Sausages]

Here's a transcript of the birth of the conspiracy:

 

BUSH: "We're running out of cheap oil, I propose we invade Iraq."

BLAIR: "OK, I'm with you. But we'll to need to make up a good reason."

BUSH: "How about this. We stage a fake hi-jacking of multiple passenger planes, and fly them into the WTC, Pentagon, and a random field."

BLAIR: "And say it was all organised by Saddam?"

BUSH: "Don't be daft! We say it was Osama Bin Laden!"

BLAIR: "...erm..."

BUSH: "Then, we bomb Afghanistan. Our pilots are a bit rusty, they need a bit of practice."

BLAIR: "So what about Iraq?"

BUSH: "Well, while all this is going on we'll say Saddam has WMDs, and use that as an excues to invade"

BLAIR: "But he hasn't"

BUSH: "I know, but we'll make it up, you can get the BBC to go along with it can't with?"

BLAIR: "Yes, I'm sure Greg Dyke and Andrew Gilligan will play ball. They won't try to rumble us."

BUSH: "Great, then we'll invade, and everyone will find out that Saddam doesn't have WMDs, but it'll be too late by then. Ha!"

BLAIR: "If we're going to all the trouble of destroying the WTC and Pentagon, why don't we just plant WMDs in Iraq? That way nobody will suspect anything."

BUSH: "Because."

[Lost Login]

That link matches exactly with the pictures I have from my 2004 visit. Sorry I put 1994 previously. That only makes me more convinced that the BBC video is a hoax as the scale of WTC7 in the too appears wrong as does the amount of smoke. At this point WTC7 presumably was heavily on fire

 

[Grumble]

My head hurts from reading about diesel fire temperatures and the metallurgical properties of hot steel. And there ARE undoubtedly some nutcases who see conspiracies everywhere.

 

It will be hundreds of years before we know the truth about 9/11. Like the Kennedy assassination though there are just too many holes in the 'official' version' of events.

 

So the question is: Would Bush and his powerful chums want to start a war with Iraq/Iran, to mobilise an army, rejuvenate a stagnant arms industry, take control of the oilfields and give themselves almost limitless powers over their own people? Would it need to be a 'spectacular' to get the American people and world opinion onside?

 

Hell yes.

 

"Back, and to the left...back, and to the left" (Bill Hicks)

[Albert Tatlock]

That link matches exactly with the pictures I have from my 2004 visit. Sorry I put 1994 previously. That only makes me more convinced that the BBC video is a hoax as the scale of WTC7 in the too appears wrong as does the amount of smoke. At this point WTC7 presumably was heavily on fire

 

I would say that the CNN video in your link is a couple of hours ahead of the BBC film (from the amount of smoke plus shadows/sun on buildings). I would estimate 2 - 4pm in the afternoon.

 

From looking at the layout of buildings, camera angles etc. my guess would be that the BBC video was filmed from the tall building in front of the CNN video (bottom right large brown building). The shadows/sun on buildings show the BBC film to be consistent with early evening. Sunset in New York that day was 19:11pm.

 

The collapse videos of WTC-7 don't show the building 'heavily on fire' - as you can see on most videos (before the building hits the ground) the smoke behind from the towers is fairly consistent and WTC-7 is not obscured by smoke.

[stevie]

ok so what was the official reason that wtc7 collapsed, lost login?

It's just that on the BBC conspiracy files it said it was because of the Twin Towers 'collapsing' and so caused structual damage to building 7? and it was on fire as well?