BBC TV WTC 7 Fiasco - Even More Media Complicity In 911 Watch The BBC TV WTC 7 Video! Why No One Could Have Predicted Fall Of WTC 7 Media HIdes BBC Fiasco; Google, Digg Censor 911 Truth Time Stamp Confirms BBC WTC 7 Collapse Blunder BBC Responds To WTC 7 Flap - Claims Tapes Now 'Lost' Don't worry, i'm sure there's a (Joes)logical explanation for this.
'Misinformation'? That accurately predicted the completely 'unexpected event'? What are the odds on that? And what are the odds of that on top of allllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll the other 'odds' in the whole neatly timed launchpad for the PNAC agenda, far too numerous to mention? Silly Major. :-* Let's see what the BBC had to say: BBC Responds to Building 7 Controversy; Claim 9/11 Tapes Lost Pathetic five paragraph blog rebuttal does not answer questions as to source of report that Salomon Building was coming down, BBC claims tapes lost due to "cock-up" not conspiracy The BBC has been forced to respond to footage showing their correspondent reporting the collapse of WTC 7 before it fell on 9/11, claiming tapes from the day are somehow missing, and refusing to identify the source for their bizarre act of "clairvoyance" in accurately pre-empting the fall of Building 7. Here is the BBC's response to the questions about the footage that was unearthed yesterday, with my comments after each statement. 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. "We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down." If this is true, then how on earth did the BBC report the collapse of Building 7 before it happened? Psychic clairvoyance? Of course they were told that WTC 7 was coming down, just like the firefighters, police, first responders and CNN were told it was coming down. They had to have had a source for making such a claim. The BBC is acting like the naughty little boy who got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. No one here is claiming the BBC are "part of the conspiracy," but their hideous penchant to just repeat what authorities tell them without even a cursory investigation (and with the Building they are telling us has collapsed mockingly filling the background shot of the report), is a damning indictment of their yellow journalism when it comes to 9/11. 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. How do "chaos and confusion" explain how the BBC reported on the collapse of a building, a collapse that happened "unexpectedly" according to their Conspiracy Files hit piece documentary, before it happened? In one breath the BBC is claiming they were not told of the impending collapse of the Building and in the next they are telling us that all their information is sourced. Which is it to be? Did the BBC have a source telling them the building was about to collapse or not? If not, how on earth could they pre-empt its fall? Do BBC reporters have access to a time machine? What was the source of this information? 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. Trying to make sense of what she was being told? She obviously didn't make much sense of the fact that the Building she was reporting had collapsed was prominently standing behind her! Unfotunately, for a news organization that prides itself on accuracy and credibility, "she doesn't remember" just doesn't cut it as an excuse. BBC included a screenshot of yesterday's Prison Planet article in their brief response. 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. We are asked to believe that the world's premiere news organization has somehow lost all its tapes of perhaps the biggest news event of the past 60 years. This is a copout. Whether they have lost the tapes or not, the BBC simply doesn't want to verify one hundred per cent their monumental foul-up, because they know it would only increase the exposure of this issue and lead to further questions. What is there to clear up? The reporter is standing in front of the building while saying it has already collapsed! This is a blatant effort to try and placate people making complaints while refusing to admit a monumental faux pas that further undermines the BBC's credibility in the aftermath of the Conspiracy Files debacle. 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... " So now the BBC are so devoid of answers, they have to enlist the help of some moronic comment on a You Tube blog? Instead of issuing official statements and seeking the advice of legal professionals they produce a cobbled together five paragraph blog and include the testimony of some moron on a You Tube comment board. Pathetic! Answer the question BBC - what was your source for reporting on multiple occasions that Building 7 had collapsed before it had collapsed, and identify the source that enabled the anchorman to comment that the building had collapsed due to it being weakened, an explanation still unanswered by NIST five and a half years later. If you had reported the collapse of the twin towers before it happened would that have been just an error too? This "error" translated as $800 million plus in insurance bounty for Larry Silverstein - I'm sure Industrial Risk Insurers would be interested to know the source of your "error." In addition, two seperate sources reported that Secret Service Agent Craig Miller died as a result of the collapse of Building 7. Do you think he would have been interested in the "error" that led to your correspondent reporting the building's downfall in advance?
This was on the Alex Jones show last week, the point was basically that the media kept to a script, which was out of sync with real life events, they reported building 7 had collapsed when it was still erect and smoking in the background. Joe's answer would be 'Yawn..'
As 'Yawn.. isn't there, like, some MTV we could be watching right now.. totally... like whatEVerrr...'
Nah, he's actually more of a 'Yawn...isn't there some Anne Coulter we could be watching right now...totally...like...s-u-r-e d-u-d-e' type of guy.
u2 so funny ;D Look there is nothing wrong with having a conspiratorial mindset but sometimes it is important that you take a look in the mirror at yourself with the same critical analysis. Your righteous claim to fame is that you are not so naive as to march to the beat of a particular drum and while this may be true. That means nothing when you simply meld into the mold and march to the beet of another common drum. You need to start thinking for yourself instead of spending all your time surfing the Internet for people to backup your suspected theory. The irony is that its a really big huge Internet out there and you seem to have missed how the Jerry Springer analogy applies. Rather than discuss logically the balance of fact you arm yourself with the power of the Internet to to empower your position with sheer bulk of endless rambling text. I encourage you to pick your favorite and most solid factual point and discuss that with out a post of anything. If I do not ...yawn... fall asleep or become bored to death I will explain the error in your logic.
This coming from the guy who posts endless rambling texts which he has to reply to himself. You so funny, Joh!
Pffft I wonder what Lucy is up to these days. The Challenge still stands. I'd love to discuss Scooter Libby with absolutely zero copied text or links. A topic that is about as close to a perfect example of my peeve with the media, both public as well as higher education system, and the stupidity of most of the world population as I can get. An easy debate to win and 99 percent of the population eager to chime in with their common stupidity confident in the integrity of their position as being solidly endorsed by the majority consensus of public opinion. But the ball is in your court you pick the point of discussion.
actually.. i didn't prove your point... i just do not care.. if i did care then i would know.. but i have not engaged you in a debate.. just offered up a topic for debate on what i do know about him... oh and asked what he's supposed to have done.. but rather than answer my question and inform me (thanks btw i didn't actually want an answer).. you've just pretended i've proved your point. go find a post of mine where i've expressed any opinion or interest in scooter libby and your point would have been proved by my not knowing who the fuck the yankee prick is...
