Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile Recent Messages

Deep Creek Hot Springs

The Moon is Waning Gibbous (75% of Full)


Re: SC38

All posts are those of the individual authors and the owner of this site does not endorse them. Content should be considered opinion and not fact until verified independently.

March 07, 2007 10:00PM

After This Fiasco, How Can We Trust Anything They Told Us About 9/11?

The fiasco of a BBC journalist reporting in advance that Building 7 had collapsed as it loomed large behind her strikes at the very root of how the media were complicit in acting as facilitators for the OFFICIAL MYTH THAT WAS MANUFACTURED on 9/11. After this debacle, how can we trust anything we were told about September 11?

Though the video was almost immediately purged by the crowned kings of censorship - Google - it has since been re-uploaded to You Tube and feverishly copied everywhere...........

.........how did officials know the building was going to collapse when NO MODERN STEEL BUILDING ( ever ) HAD COLLAPSED FROM FIRE DAMAGE ALONE ( like the two twin towers, and building 7 did in one day, building 7 never being hit by a jet, and only hit in a limited manner by twin towers falling debris ), and why were the BBC reporting its collapse in advance with the added knowledge of why it collapsed - a question that is still being investigated by NIST five and a half years later? Whoever the BBC's source was for reporting the collapse of Building 7 were ahead of NIST by five and a half years and had already determined why the building had collapsed before it had collapsed. Is this not in the least bit suspicious?.............

.......CNN had also been told the building was about to collapse.....

..........What seems obvious is that Silverstein ( who bought all the trade center buildings, just three months prior to 9-11, taking out huge insurance policies on them ) was getting the cover story out as quickly as possible before the building was intentionally demolished, and that's how they were so sure it was going to collapse before it eventually did. In addition, NYPD officer Craig Bartmer reported hearing bombs tear down the building as he ran away from it..........

.........Nowhere was this more evident than on 9/11 when the corporate media mechanically relayed the 'Osama did it' fraud within hours of the attack, and afforded copious air time to highly suspicious individuals who just happened to know the intricate details of how each building collapsed within minutes of it occurring. This was key to solidifying the dogma of the official story, because anyone who saw the collapse of WTC 7 without having had the official propaganda drilled into them could see plain as day that it was a CONTOLLED DEMOLITION..............

.........Indeed, controlled demolitions expert Danny Jowenko, unaware that the structure had collapsed on 9/11, immediately concluded that Building 7 had been deliberately demolished when he was shown the footage by a Dutch television crew, and maintains that position to this day.

The BBC Building 7 fiasco lends about as much credibility to the official story of 9/11 as weapons of mass destruction do for the justification of invading Iraq.

Besides the advance reporting of just the collapse itself, how could the news anchor tell us the reason for the collapse before it happened?

"This was not the result of a new attack," states the anchor, "It was because the building had been weakened during this morning's attacks."

How else could the BBC have relayed this information unless by way of some kind of press release or official statement by Silverstein, Giuliani or the NYFD? Who told them that the building had been weakened? In effect, the BBC were working to a 9/11 script and made the error of orating their lines too early..........

........24 hours after the video first surfaced and was then unceremoniously "pulled" from Google Video (but not before it went viral everywhere else), there is still no response from the BBC and no mainstream coverage whatsoever.........

.........Where is the BBC's clarification on this? How about Industrial Risk Insurers, surely they would be interested to find out that Silverstein was rapaciously anticipating their $861 million payout before Building 7 "accidentally" collapsed?

Our sense of outrage on this matter should not be quelled by time and the stubbornness of official channels, namely the BBC and whoever their source for reporting the collapse was, to answer for, in the case of the BBC, their hideous "mistake," and the source for exactly how they were able to predict that a modern steel building that had suffered limited fire damage would suddenly collapse in its own footprint without the aid of explosive demolition............

Silverstein is seen in a video interview, after 9-11, stating that the firefighters told him, that they had to " pull " building 7 because of its weakened condition. Pull is a term meaning to do a " controlled demolition " of a structure. Firefighters fight fires, they are not controlled demolition experts. The kinds of exposive charges necesary for a successful demolition of the scale of Building 7 would takes weeks to prepare, even for the professionals in the demolition field, and yet Silverstein suggest that Firefighters rigged Building 7 for a controlled demolition, in mere hours, while the structure had fires burning in it. So on 9-11, three modern high rise steel structures fell in essentially a complete freefall, almost entirely in thier own footprints, when no stuctures of these kind had ever fallen, because of fires alone, in the history of such buildings. And to top it off, it was all orchestrated by people living in caves, halfway around the world. This is but one, of the hundreds of glaring inconsistencies that defy logic. Honest and intelligent people around the world are trying to wake up the American public to this crime of monumental proportions. Others of great power in this country, complicit in fascilitating this horrific event, are using all the tools at thier disposal, to keep the public blind to reality of thier corrupt and immoral actions regarding 9-11, thier New Pearl Harbor, False Flag Event.


Wizard 858February 28, 2007 10:29PM

Re: SC38

Wizard 531February 28, 2007 10:54PM

Re: SC38

Wizard 476February 28, 2007 11:36PM

Re: SC38

LaughingBear 530March 01, 2007 09:58PM

Re: SC38

Wizard 494March 02, 2007 08:16PM

Re: SC38

Wizard 606March 02, 2007 08:30PM

Re: SC38

Wizard 622March 02, 2007 09:45PM

Re: SC38

mojavegreen 597March 03, 2007 07:49PM

Re: SC38

Rick 590March 03, 2007 08:17PM

Re: SC38

mojavegreen 572March 03, 2007 08:51PM

Re: SC38

Wizard 512March 05, 2007 11:03PM

Re: SC38

mojavegreen 533March 06, 2007 07:31AM

Re: SC38

Paul P. 512March 06, 2007 05:27PM

Re: SC38

Wizard 522March 07, 2007 05:48PM

Re: SC38

Wizard 601March 07, 2007 07:07PM

Re: SC38

Wizard 514March 07, 2007 10:00PM

Re: SC38

Wizard 553March 09, 2007 01:35PM

House of cards?

mojavegreen 571March 09, 2007 06:08PM

Re: SC38

Wizard 453March 09, 2007 02:11PM

Re: SC38

Wizard 591March 10, 2007 09:32PM

Re: SC38

Wizard 992March 10, 2007 10:10PM

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login