BBC announced collapse of WT7 before it happened!

[Jazzz]

I do find it very very strange that the BBC are claiming they've lost the original recording of the 9/11 broadcast and would like people to contact them if they have a copy:

Yes, it's beyond belief. This is from the BBC's own regulations

The following components to be retained:-
· Two broadcast standard copies of all transmitted/published TV, Radio and BBCi output – one to be stored on a separate site as a master
· One browse-quality version for research purposes, to protect the broadcast material
· All supporting metadata to enable research and re-use
· A selection of original (i.e. unedited) material for re-use/re-versioning purposes
· Hardware/software/equipment to enable replay/transfer of the media

So that's at least three copies gone missing - and one would think it very likely that any tapes of 9/11 were kept under the strictest security.

 

[Jazzz]

This email was sent to prisonplanet:

I'm an archivist with the CNN News Library in Atlanta, and I can tell you with absolute certainty, the mere idea that news agencies such as ours would "misplace" any airchecks from 9/11 is preposterous. CNN has these tapes locked away from all the others. People like myself, who normally would have access to any tapes in our library, must ask special permission in order to view airchecks from that day. Multiple tapes would have been recording their broadcast that day, and there are also private agencies that record all broadcasts from all channels - constantly - in the event that a news agency missed something or needs something. They don't just have one copy... they have several. It's standard procedure, and as soon as the second plane hit, they would start recording several copies on other tapes machines all day long.

source

 

[editor]

Yes, it's beyond belief. This is from the BBC's own regulations
So that's at least three copies gone missing - and one would think it very likely that any tapes of 9/11 were kept under the strictest security.

Why do you think the News 24 footage hasn't gone missing too?

Surely if it was all one big fake-plane flyin', invisible-bomb explodin', news media conspirin' cover up, both channels would have reported the same thing?

Oh, and I've got to say again that your notion of a massive commercial skyscraper being built with thousands of super-longlife invisible explosives already pre-wired inside really is the stuff of a lunatic mind. It's up there with the space beam stuff!

 

[Jazzz]

editor, maybe you should spent a little more time hauling up posters for outrageous personal abuse and stop being quite so vituperative yourself.

These boards would be a much nicer place.

 

[editor]

Are you claiming that the people who claimed they recieved calls are liars? There are dozens of phone calls yiu rancid pathetic waste of flesh. People like Mark Bingham you dirty little fuck wit.

I can understand your anger at Jazzz for trying to cheapen the lives of these people with his ludicrous claims - especially as he's saying that the people making calls from the plane were either liars or their partners/family were all too stupid to recognise their own loved one's voices - but please cut out the personal abuse.

Frankly his claims disgust me too, but let's try and keep it civil (and I'll be the first to admit I've cracked under the strain of his foul fantasies too)

Thanks.

 

[editor]

editor, maybe you should spent a little more time hauling up posters for outrageous personal abuse and stop being quite so vituperative yourself. (

I find some of the stuff you post up here more offensive to be honest. You accuse untold amounts of people of being complicit in mass murder here on a daily basis.

But seeing as you're saying they were fake planes in the sky on 9/11, were the calls faked or were the passengers on the plane all liars? And where did they go?

 

[Guineveretoo]

Can anyone give me a good reason why this thread is still going?

 

[Jazzz]

Well.. this story is an internet phenomenon Guineveretoo, the vids have now been viewed hundreds of thousands of times.

 

[editor]

Well.. this story is an internet phenomenon Guineveretoo, the vids have now been viewed hundreds of thousands of times.

That doesn't make your lies true, though. Any thoughts on why BBC News24 failed to make the same mistake, sorry, played its part in the evil conspiracy?

As for being an "internet phenomenon," that's like saying the Crazy Frog was a big hit on mobiles.

 

[TeeJay]

Well.. this story is an internet phenomenon Guineveretoo, the vids have now been viewed hundreds of thousands of times.

So is that 'tubgirl' picture and 'goatse'.

Goatse.cx was an infamous Internet shock site that became well-known among various Internet forums because of trolls who posted links in order to upset other forum readers. Its front page featured a picture, hello.jpg, of an apparently naked man, though his entire body was not visible, stretching his anus open to a diameter roughly equal to that of his hand. Visible below his anus were his scrotum and dangling, flaccid penis.

Tubgirl: A series of images, purported to be Japanese in nationality, depicting a girl wearing a superhero mask shooting orange juice from her anus. Interestingly enough, her vulva is censored while her asshole shooting a fountain of "shit" is not. Interestingly, the substance is in fact orange juice.

 

[detective-boy]

The way the smoke goes behind the reporter makes it unlikely. PK will back me up, it's difficult and unlikely that a BBC reporter would stand behind a green/blue screen and pretend it's live.

The smoke was the first thing I watched and it doesn't appear to be a repeated loop of footage at least.

But it's not so much that I'm saying the reporter stood in front of a green or blue screen then it was pretended she was there, it's more a question of whether the windows behind her were the windows now, or a backing screen showing recorded footage of the windows from earlier in the day (maybe only by a few minutes).

It was plain from the recording that the BBC were doing their usual repeated loop of footage (the bloke with the bandaged head walked out of the dust at least five times in about ten minutes and if I saw one plane hit a world trade centre I saw about twenty ...).

I do quite a bit of comment for TV news programmes and quite often I am "live" but the pictures being shown behind me are not "live" but footage from earlier being played on screens. I'm certain that "Live" does not always mean that everything on the screen is live. (And, on occasion, I have travelled home from the studio and watched myself on a later run of the rolling news still captioned "live" anyway ... )

I'm NOT saying this IS what happened. I'm simply saying that we have insufficient reliable information to know whether or not it was.

 

[detective-boy]

Sorry mate thats just as paranoid as Jazzz.

OMG! I've become a conspiraloon ...

 

[TAE]

Why do you think the News 24 footage hasn't gone missing too?

By the way, I note that they said 'the original tapes'. Perhaps they do still have the usual high quality copies of the original tapes. Journalists twisting the truth to avoid embarressing questions about their competence, who would have thought that?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

By the way, I note that they said 'the original tapes'. Perhaps they do still have the usual high quality copies of the original tapes. Journalists twisting the truth to avoid embarressing questions about their competence, who would have thought that?

How dare you imply that mediocre, bog standard, arse covering may be at work rather than some conspiracy! How Dare you!

 

[kyser_soze]

Despite what Mr/Mrs CNN said, I can absolutely believe that something like this could be lost by the BBC - this is a corporation with archives so large that it's lost about 2/3 of it's early broadcast history through re-use of tapes, wholesale dumping of stuff when additional space was needed etc.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

editor, maybe you should spent a little more time hauling up posters for outrageous personal abuse and stop being quite so vituperative yourself.

These boards would be a much nicer place.

Stop posting offensive shit, we'll stop throwing it back at you

Deal?

 

[editor]

Despite what Mr/Mrs CNN said, I can absolutely believe that something like this could be lost by the BBC - this is a corporation with archives so large that it's lost about 2/3 of it's early broadcast history through re-use of tapes, wholesale dumping of stuff when additional space was needed etc.

Hardly on the same scale, but BBC completely lost an interview with *before* it had even been broadcast! They came around and filmed it in my house and then rang back a few hours later saying they'd lost it and would have to come back to film it again.

Naturally my second performance was about a 100 times worse than my first!

 

[Aldebaran]

1) a) & b) The WTC security was controlled. This is the key. You control the security, you can let in people to do the work, also you can keep an eye out for anyone who might find something they shouldn't. Explosives would have to be of the remote-detonation variety. Still this is no easy task, granted. It would take months I would guess.

You saw all the posts following this remark of yours.
I have a few more questions:
1. Explosives and detonations
a) Can you describe the explosives you think were used.
b) Can you describe the workings of their remote-controlled detonations
c) how could these simultaneous detonations led to only one explosion (as you say heard by witness, but not recorded by scientists as such)
d) how this was then almost flawless coordinated with the impact of the plane.

2. from which which follows that those in charge for the detonation must have had a perfect view on that plane to begin with.
a) were they in the plane
b) if not, where was their location?

2) The plot would have been carried out by the highest levels of the US military, with lower levels knowing nothing of it. Maybe they used the few $trillion missing in the accounts. Why? An immediate answer is to fulfil the desires of PNAC, who infamously stated they needed 'a new pearl harbour' to accomplish their ambitions to empire within a few years. But that's just half the chessboard - a grander plan is the scheme to remove freedoms of the populace. You can see this happening by the day.

I am fully aware of the PNAC papers and the convenience of the 9/11 events for the aspirations as written out in them, but just like someone else asked in this thread:
Why putting into public view –years on forehand- the footprint for a plot to murder thousands of people among which a vast amount of US citizens, if the 9/11 events indeed were a conspiracy to accommodate the aspirations of PNAC?

3) a) Crucial to the impact of 9/11 was that we watched the horror unfold live on television, it happened before our very eyes. This would not have been accomplished if the buildings were simply demolished.

Why? Don’t you think that as soon as one of the two towers would start to implode, TV crews would run from their feet to bring it live on TV? (How long did it take for the media to be there to report on the first attempt?)
The effect would have been just as dramatic and brought live on TV world wide. Why simulate the impact of passengers planes - with all that comes to it - just to give some “extra boost” to the horror of it?

b) I'm only aware of one recording from a plane which was recorded - Betty Ong. There are a mixture of methods by which the calls could have come around. They could have been faked, they may have been the genuine person tricked into fooling his next of kin, they may have been even been genuine calls (flight 93 may have been a staged hijack, nearly all the calls were from there). The point is that the reported calls, however appealing emotionally, are far from hard evidence; and it's telling that they are presented as the incontrovertible evidence for the official story.

I heard of many other recordings. Weren’t they heard only recently as part of a US trial?
I heard also the voice of one of my friends in the WTC. He tried to reach his wife. Yes, it is indeed very "emotional" to hear but nevertheless I can tell that he didn’t say anything about explosions - and if your version is true, they must have been all around him going off. (He was never found. Maybe he was in the conspiracy? Living in a “protected witness” program somewhere?)

d) e) f) I don't think it's for me to identify who the paymasters were or who indeed was paid

Yes it is. You know more then I do about the death of one of my oldest friends. I want names.

4. The planes that hit their targets were not the ones that took off. I don't believe anyone committed suicide on September 11 2001.

I have no clue about piloting planes of the size we saw – live on TV, remember – impacting the towers, but you agree with me they were not small private jets, don’t you?
So where did they took off completely unnoticed, how come they could fly undetected by any radar and indeed: where are the original planes, why are they said to have deviated from their flightplan following exactly the route of your "fake" planes (why didn't they all collide???) where are their passengers and crew and if as you say “nobody committed suicide”: Can you explain the workings of the remote control you say was able to fly them all the way and to plunge them right into the WTC towers. Who designed that, where and how got it tested and who operated it that very day?

salaam.

 

[kyser_soze]

Alde - you're approaching this the wrong way, using things like logical process and reason...

 

[Aldebaran]

I think the BBC records gone missing is a conspiracy of the conspirationists to give credit to their conspiracy theories.

salaam.

 

[editor]

There are a mixture of methods by which the calls could have come around. They could have been faked, they may have been the genuine person tricked into fooling his next of kin, they may have been even been genuine calls (flight 93 may have been a staged hijack, nearly all the calls were from there).

What a load of deeply insulting shit.
Was Betty Ong a liar then?
Were the relatives too stupid to notice that it was a CIA Mike Yarwood on the line?
How could you possibly fake the calls of people who weren't even due to be on the doomed flights?

Or are you really going to excel yourself and insist that some of the passengers were in on it too/taken off and executed in some dystopic, undetectable fairlyland/alive and well and working for the government?

Oh, and I hope you're not going to embarrass yourself and link to that piece of toy software for faking voices. That was almost as ridiculous as your sci-fi technology from 2012 and holographic planes that would have to be flat as a pancake, about 5 metres in length and float over the skies with an angelpoise lamp over them,

 

[Aldebaran]

Alde - you're approaching this the wrong way, using things like logical process and reason...

I'm religious, hence designed and pre-conditioned to have no ability to logic and reason, remember?

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

deleted. Double post. My proxy is conspiring against me. Must be the CIA.

salaam.

 

[Jazzz]

You saw all the posts following this remark of yours.
I have a few more questions:
1. Explosives and detonations
a) Can you describe the explosives you think were used.
b) Can you describe the workings of their remote-controlled detonations
c) how could these simultaneous detonations led to only one explosion (as you say heard by witness, but not recorded by scientists as such)
d) how this was then almost flawless coordinated with the impact of the plane.

I'm a bit confused here. There appear to have been explosions which coincided with the plane impacts, but they weren't the sole cause of the building collapses. I can only speculate on the exact nature of the demolition method, and don't see that it's productive to do so here.

2. from which which follows that those in charge for the detonation must have had a perfect view on that plane to begin with.
a) were they in the plane
b) if not, where was their location?

I would guess WTC7. But without a view they'll have been able to manage it anyway.

I am fully aware of the PNAC papers and the convenience of the 9/11 events for the aspirations as written out in them, but just like someone else asked in this thread:
Why putting into public view –years on forehand- the footprint for a plot to murder thousands of people among which a vast amount of US citizens, if the 9/11 events indeed were a conspiracy to accommodate the aspirations of PNAC?

It follows from this line of reasoning that the best way to hide malevolent intent would be to be completely open about it, and obviously that's perverse logic. We can only go on what is in front of us. PNAC stated they needed such an event therefore we can ascribe to them the motive for it.

Why? Don’t you think that as soon as one of the two towers would start to implode, TV crews would run from their feet to bring it live on TV? (How long did it take for the media to be there to report on the first attempt?)
The effect would have been just as dramatic and brought live on TV world wide. Why simulate the impact of passengers planes - with all that comes to it - just to give some “extra boost” to the horror of it?

No it wouldn't. If a world trade center towers were simply imploded, the TV crews would certainly miss the first altogether. They might catch the second, but the story would be a confused narrative. With the way 9/11 happened we got three events happening live (South Tower impact and two collapses) plus the drama of the burning buildings. No comparison with tuning in to find out that two WTC towers had come down for no reason whatsoever (and how do you then blame the collapses on muslims?).[/quote]

I heard of many other recordings. Weren’t they heard only recently as part of a US trial?
I heard also the voice of one of my friends in the WTC. He tried to reach his wife. Yes, it is indeed very "emotional" to hear but nevertheless I can tell that he didn’t say anything about explosions - and if your version is true, they must have been all around him going off. (He was never found. Maybe he was in the conspiracy? Living in a “protected witness” program somewhere?)

I'm very sorry to hear about your friend.

Yes it is. You know more then I do about the death of one of my oldest friends. I want names.

I'd like names too. As I said, the FBI have not come up with an acceptable list since eight or so of the guys they named turned out to be still alive!

I have no clue about piloting planes of the size we saw – live on TV, remember – impacting the towers, but you agree with me they were not small private jets, don’t you?
So where did they took off completely unnoticed, how come they could fly undetected by any radar and indeed: where are the original planes, why are they said to have deviated from their flightplan following exactly the route of your "fake" planes (why didn't they all collide???) where are their passengers and crew and if as you say “nobody committed suicide”: Can you explain the workings of the remote control you say was able to fly them all the way and to plunge them right into the WTC towers. Who designed that, where and how got it tested and who operated it that very day?

salaam.

Exactly what was witnessed by radar operators that day is a crucial question Aldebaran. When we have a proper investigation into 9/11, maybe we'll find out. Remote control technology for directing planes has been around since the 1950s, and indeed switching a passenger plane for a 'drone' aircraft to be shot down was part of the plot for Operation Northwoods all those years ago. I cannot say where the original planes got to or how dead passengers met their fate.

 

[Giles]

If you were going to crash planes into the buildings, why the need to do all this "controlled demolition" as well?

Surely "just" crashing the planes would be enough of a terrorist outrage, and far less complicated to arrange? Why bother with blowing the buildings up as well? One or the other would be sufficiently outrageous.

Given the track record of Bush, Blair and co in "planning" what to do in Iraq, I really find this notion of a vast, well-organised, very secret, long-lasting, perfectly planned and executed conspiracy very hard to take.

Giles..

 

[TAE]

You could even pack the planes with explosives like the japanese did in WWII.

 

[Dandred]

Jazz why are you wasting time here?

There are so many more problems with the world that need fixing right now.......



You are looking at a big smoke screen hoping to get a small detail out of it, everyday businesss people make loads of money from small deals that fuck loads of people. Why don't you get them?


If this bullshit is as high as you say, why waste your time and not look at bank charges like PK?

At least that matters to people.......

The USA has fucked up in Iraq already.............People are getting fucked all over the place right now

 

[axon]

I'm a bit confused here. There appear to have been explosions which coincided with the plane impacts,

If only there were some clue as to what caused the explosions that coincided with the plane impacts. In fact, if you watch the footage of the impacts, explosions occur almost immmediately that the aircraft enter the buildings. A little too suspicious I think everyone will agree. Maybe there was some flammable material in the plane? And we could further hypothesise that this somehow ignited upon impact? The timing of the ignition would have to be very precise,so that it happened just at impact. I believe that only a beam weapon in space could deliver this sort of precision.

 

[bristol_citizen]

the desires of PNAC, who infamously stated they needed 'a new pearl harbour' to accomplish their ambitions to empire within a few years

I assume you're referring to PNAC's 'Rebuilding America's Defences' document? The reference to 'a new Pearl Harbour' in that document has nothing to do with 'accomplishing ambitions to empire'.
The comment appears in the section of the document concerned with ICT. It is discussing the potential speed of change and innovation in ICT technologies for the future and concludes that: "the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."
Fuck all to do with ambitions to empire then. Actually a fairly dry and measured judgement on the future prospects for ICT and defence. And it doesn't say anywhere that PNAC "needed" a new Pearl Harbour.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

I assume you're referring to PNAC's 'Rebuilding America's Defences' document? The reference to 'a new Pearl Harbour' in that document has nothing to do with 'accomplishing ambitions to empire'.
The comment appears in the section of the document concerned with ICT. It is discussing the potential speed of change and innovation in ICT technologies for the future and concludes that: "the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."
Fuck all to do with ambitions to empire then. Actually a fairly dry and measured judgement on the future prospects for ICT and defence. And it doesn't say anywhere that PNAC "needed" a new Pearl Harbour.

Hold it! Jazzz quoting out of context!

YOU MUST LIE! ​