There's no point naming names in this. The 'Shadow People' operate through different engines, using every tool they have, including possession. So names don't matter - fact is that the evidence is hard to find because THE ALIENS have covered it all up using a Darkstar Thought-Ray machine they got from the ninth dimension.
BBC announced collapse of WT7 before it happened!
- Thread starter Jazzz
- Start date
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
fucking nutter. it was from the twelfth dimension. i bet you're one of them *angry*
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
Errr, just how do you interpret them then?Jazzz said:
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
That's what they want you to think.bluestreak said:
It's obvious that it's really the 23rd dimension we should be worried about.
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
http://www.jod911.com/WTC COLLAPSE STUDY BBlanchard 8-8-06.pdf
Still waiting for your response to this Jazzz
Still waiting for your response to this Jazzz
Jazz, you posted something that was no reply at all, and now you don't asnwer my question about your knowledge on flight protocol and flight control.
So far we got absolutely nothing that clarifies, let alone underscores or justifies, your position.
It would be rather productive to answer the following:
a) were there explosions or were there none?
b) in a former post you said the planes were only used to drive up the “dramatic effect”, so to speak. Now you seem to retract that comment. Why?
c)if you can only “speculate”, yet you dispute every research done and every conclusion published by people with an – I suppose - academic expertise. Why? Where does your speculation comes closer to the truth then what specialists in the various fields can provide for?
On the location of those who controlled this demolition, you said
Why were they ready to position themselves in a building that most obviously risked to get hit by debris the WTC?
On the other hand, if they were not so suicidal, you say they would have been able to “manage it”.
Well yes, that is what I asked. You should know the answer or admit -for yourself, not me- that you believe something to have happened while in fact you have no clue what exactly you believe. No?
No, we can not. You can't declare someone to be guilty until proven guilty.
An other poster already highlighted there is no word about “needing” such an event in the whole of the lengthy PNAC papers.
In relation to planes added to the scene, where I said explosives would have produced the same horror effect:
.
Yes it would.
There were amateur recordings from the plane hitting the tower. They were shown world wide, time and time again. Why wouldn’t there have been any such “amateur recording” staged by the conspiracy group to catch the collapsing first tower, and why wouldn’t they have the second one collapse at a moment the media, fireworkers, medics etc.. etc.. were at location?
An explosion big enough to bring such buildings down would have gone “unnoticed”? Was the very light first attack on the same target “unnoticed”? Why do you think planes make a difference in “blaming Muslims”, especially in the light of that earlier attack?
Thank you for your sympathy.
I heard these stories too, I even saw interview with them. I’m not researching any of these issues, hence my purely personal interpretation goes as follows:
a) in concordance with was declared somewhere during the early days afterwards, stolen passports were used
b) much more plausible: People with the same names are indeed “still alive”.
In my part of the world conspiracy theories popped up like mushrooms the second the first tower collapsed and they still flourish on fertile soil. Don’t you find it very odd that if b) was not the case, the “living so-called terrorists” would be very popular by now? Why don’t they write, give TV and other interviews, make money of their ability to undermine the US government? Because the US – and especially the Bush Clan - is so immensely popular in the Middle East today?
What was noticed by them?
I have no clue what you refer to, but you should be able to give the detailed, step by step operation making it possible to switch fully staffed and loaded planes for “remote controlled” on very busy airports, let them take off, enter, and fly through very busy air corridors and bringing not one, but several control towers into action when shifting from one section to the other. To name only one little detail I expect you to clarify: How did they manage to fake the normal, but necessary, communication between pilots and ground control before and during take off? What about all the rest of the communication?
You formerly said the planes were “replaced”, now you think they are all dead; and you have no idea where planes of the format we discuss about can be gone.
Into the air, I suppose.
salaam.
So far we got absolutely nothing that clarifies, let alone underscores or justifies, your position.
It would be rather productive to answer the following:
a) were there explosions or were there none?
b) in a former post you said the planes were only used to drive up the “dramatic effect”, so to speak. Now you seem to retract that comment. Why?
c)if you can only “speculate”, yet you dispute every research done and every conclusion published by people with an – I suppose - academic expertise. Why? Where does your speculation comes closer to the truth then what specialists in the various fields can provide for?
On the location of those who controlled this demolition, you said
Why were they ready to position themselves in a building that most obviously risked to get hit by debris the WTC?
On the other hand, if they were not so suicidal, you say they would have been able to “manage it”.
Well yes, that is what I asked. You should know the answer or admit -for yourself, not me- that you believe something to have happened while in fact you have no clue what exactly you believe. No?
No, we can not. You can't declare someone to be guilty until proven guilty.
An other poster already highlighted there is no word about “needing” such an event in the whole of the lengthy PNAC papers.
In relation to planes added to the scene, where I said explosives would have produced the same horror effect:
.
Yes it would.
There were amateur recordings from the plane hitting the tower. They were shown world wide, time and time again. Why wouldn’t there have been any such “amateur recording” staged by the conspiracy group to catch the collapsing first tower, and why wouldn’t they have the second one collapse at a moment the media, fireworkers, medics etc.. etc.. were at location?
An explosion big enough to bring such buildings down would have gone “unnoticed”? Was the very light first attack on the same target “unnoticed”? Why do you think planes make a difference in “blaming Muslims”, especially in the light of that earlier attack?
Thank you for your sympathy.
I heard these stories too, I even saw interview with them. I’m not researching any of these issues, hence my purely personal interpretation goes as follows:
a) in concordance with was declared somewhere during the early days afterwards, stolen passports were used
b) much more plausible: People with the same names are indeed “still alive”.
In my part of the world conspiracy theories popped up like mushrooms the second the first tower collapsed and they still flourish on fertile soil. Don’t you find it very odd that if b) was not the case, the “living so-called terrorists” would be very popular by now? Why don’t they write, give TV and other interviews, make money of their ability to undermine the US government? Because the US – and especially the Bush Clan - is so immensely popular in the Middle East today?
What was noticed by them?
I have no clue what you refer to, but you should be able to give the detailed, step by step operation making it possible to switch fully staffed and loaded planes for “remote controlled” on very busy airports, let them take off, enter, and fly through very busy air corridors and bringing not one, but several control towers into action when shifting from one section to the other. To name only one little detail I expect you to clarify: How did they manage to fake the normal, but necessary, communication between pilots and ground control before and during take off? What about all the rest of the communication?
You formerly said the planes were “replaced”, now you think they are all dead; and you have no idea where planes of the format we discuss about can be gone.
Into the air, I suppose.
salaam.
Augie March
blahem
A perfectly reasonable explaination to this whole issue. A TV station makes a few mistakes in their news reporting on the most manic news day in modern history.
Or is Mr Porter lying? Is he in on the conspiracy too? Could an English journalist really be covering up information in order to aide an American government's attack on it's own people?
Is this man here complicit in a plot of mass murder?
Or prehaps not. Like all conspiracy theories this one falls apart when you look at it logically. The basic idea that the BBC was somewhow involved in this whole plot is utterly ridiculous beyond belief. Why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why, WHY on earth would English journalists happily help play a part in this conspiracy.... it doesn't make any sense whatsoever!
pk
drink flounce rinse repeat
There is no cock up either.
If someone who was not directly involved at the time with BBC news recording protocol tries to look into it and comes up with nothing, that's just the BBC for you.
But like I said before, I'm in a better position to know exactly what was likely to have happened than most, seeing as I was actually there at the time, working for BBC World.
The logical explanation, no matter how bizarre, is always going to be more likely than the BBC being part of the "inside job carried out with holograms by lizards" that some oddball people insist really happened.
Why should they have kept the BBC World recordings?
They definitely kept the national news recordings, and probably kept the News24 recordings, BBC World carries pretty much the same stuff only with different aston info and different presenters... er... that's it.
If someone who was not directly involved at the time with BBC news recording protocol tries to look into it and comes up with nothing, that's just the BBC for you.
But like I said before, I'm in a better position to know exactly what was likely to have happened than most, seeing as I was actually there at the time, working for BBC World.
The logical explanation, no matter how bizarre, is always going to be more likely than the BBC being part of the "inside job carried out with holograms by lizards" that some oddball people insist really happened.
Why should they have kept the BBC World recordings?
They definitely kept the national news recordings, and probably kept the News24 recordings, BBC World carries pretty much the same stuff only with different aston info and different presenters... er... that's it.
Ok, so the BBC blog was wrong to call it a cock-up?pk said:
Why not? I would have thought it was standard procedure. Software companies keep a copy of everything they release and as far as I am aware so do the newspapers.pk said:
No matter.
I'm still not quite clear about the live feed issue though. You seemed to be saying that all incoming stuff (not pre-recorded but live) was archived. So coming back to the blog, is that BBC guy simply wrong in stating that they do not have any copies of what the reporter in NYC said on live TV ?
pk
drink flounce rinse repeat
TAE said:
Not if the BBC World off-air tapes were never meant to be archived on a daily and kept forever, which they were not.
I already explained why not. You would need a football field sized warehouse to keep all the off-air tapes for more than five years.
You have to remember that the BBC are unlike most TV companies and routinely scrap material that many people would love to keep, it's one of the most frustrating things about working there.
You would not believe the gross fucking incompetance that goes on, and the utter waste of resources taking place daily.
Well, I don't know what I can do to explain it better to you - Aldebaran worked it out. 8den also gave you an additional explanation.
The BBC guy could be wrong - I doubt he's checked the feed tapes for that day - but I can't be sure that the BBC World reporter is on them, it depends on many factors.
Incoming material from NYC was archived, and is still being used.
Not much call for BBC World reports with all the timestamps and all the rest.
Seems to me this is yet another tenuous link jumped on by people eager to blame the Jews or whatever, and any explanation is dismissed by the ultra-paranoid "yeah but you would say that if it was an inside job".
The building (WTC7) was about to collapse, it had been utterly fucked by the adjacent collapses and fires, and word got out that the firemen got out of there... this if anything proves that the conspiranoids with their chronically fatigued ideas got it wrong again - the building didn't just collapse from fire, and neither did WTC buildings 1 and 2.
But you can't convince a David Icke fan that it wasn't the Jews' fault.
Also - and this is important - at the time the BBC news services were going through a major technical upheaval... a shitty inferior system called "Omnibus" was being used to transfer video and sound clips from edit suites to transmission areas for the first time, it was PC based crap, and a lot of the video used in BBC World stuff wasn't actually on a tape, it was held in hard drives, dialled in via SCAR in the same way as I described before.
I can't be totally sure of the operational events on 9/11 itself, but I know for a fact that much of the "package" input to BBC World was not derived from tape archive, that it was a series of clips found on the Omnibus traffic channels that were not required to be on tape as it was assumed and accepted that they would have been recorded for News24 and the national news.
This techie shit probably makes no sense to most, but I'm not surprised that:
a) the BBC guy couldn't find the specific off-air recording
b) the conspiraloons are jumping on this as if they've made some all-important proof of an "inside job", when in fact it's just a simple matter of things like TX logs not being kept forever, they aren't normally.
After all - are there archives available of Urban75 threads such as "9/11 - Here's How They Did It!" where Jazzz pleads to be taken seriously with a holographic plane theory, or "Huntley Is Innocent!" where he tries to prove that the Soham murders were carried out by shadowy US air force personnel and covered up, and Huntley framed for reasons of diplomacy.
Does that mean Urban75 is complicit in some kind of "inside job"?
Does anyone have archived copies of Jazzz's old bullshit threads from 2002, where he was comprehensively ridiculed in much the same way he is being now??
No?
Oh well, obviously this means the site is run by lizards and Bilderbergs...
Could a Mod put this in FAQ please ...bluestreak said:
pk said:
He wasn't wrong to call it a cock-up if it wasn't a cock-up ?
pk said:
We are clearly not getting anywhere here. What Aldebaran said seemed to indicate to me that the BBC blog incorrectly stated that they cannot verify whether the reporter (live on TV) was standing in view of WTC7 while she reported that it had already collapsed.
So you are saying perhaps not everthing which came in live was archived?pk said:
Augie March
blahem
Jazzz said:
It wasn't foreknowledge though was it? It was merly conjecture from one reporter that was relayed as a fact by another reporter.
And ok, so you may not be suggesting that the BBC were 'in on it' per se, but you're still suggesting that Mr Porter and some of his colleagues are witholding information that may be related to the mass murder of innocent civillians.
I again ask the question... why would these journalists be involved in this? What would they have to gain? If simple basic questions of motive of the people involved can't be answered then the whole arguement falls flat on it's face.
TAE said:
I didn't read "the blog" but what I said was that if a reporter was added to a view of material of the input, then it should be possible to retrieve that input even if the version including the added material (reporter and comments) got lost.
The version with the added material is possibly not archived.
salaam.
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
Still waiting.beesonthewhatnow said:http://www.jod911.com/WTC COLLAPSE STUDY BBlanchard 8-8-06.pdf
Still waiting for your response to this Jazzz
Why won't you comment on this article Jazzz?
WouldBe
Dislicksick
That live report would be going out on several BBC channels at the same time with each channel having their own subtitles / captions added to the feed.TAE said:
As this live feed was been shown simultaneously on several channels there is no need to keep a copy of each channels transmission as the only thing different is the captions at the bottom of the screen. The actual content is the same.
Apparently that live report only went out on BBC World. In any case, you seem to be suggesting that the live report was preserved in some shape or form.
And my question is really why, if all incoming live feeds would have been preserved as pk seemed to be indicating, they would have said they've lost that live report.
Unless ...
... the blogger did not want to get into a lengthy 'yes we could find it but we can't be bothered to find it' discussion, which would be fair enough even if slightly dishonest.
or
... the blogger wrongly stated that the loss was a cock-up and the loss was in fact standard procedure.
And my question is really why, if all incoming live feeds would have been preserved as pk seemed to be indicating, they would have said they've lost that live report.
Unless ...
... the blogger did not want to get into a lengthy 'yes we could find it but we can't be bothered to find it' discussion, which would be fair enough even if slightly dishonest.
or
... the blogger wrongly stated that the loss was a cock-up and the loss was in fact standard procedure.
pk
drink flounce rinse repeat
*sigh*
If there was a live report sent down the fixed NYC/London line, it would be recorded along with everything else.
I would not be surprised if this had not occurred to people at the BBC, given the lack of communications and Brazil-esque triplicate form-filling required to even fart.
Richard Porter was Breakfast editor in 2001 anyway, so might not be quite as au fait with operations back then as I was.
Maybe I'll send him an email to remind him the recording might still be on tape with the feed archives.
If there was a live report sent down the fixed NYC/London line, it would be recorded along with everything else.
I would not be surprised if this had not occurred to people at the BBC, given the lack of communications and Brazil-esque triplicate form-filling required to even fart.
Richard Porter was Breakfast editor in 2001 anyway, so might not be quite as au fait with operations back then as I was.
Maybe I'll send him an email to remind him the recording might still be on tape with the feed archives.
Augie March
blahem
Augie March said:
No answer then?
Is this the point where the prosecution team gets laughed out of court for failing to establish the most simplest, most vital of points in their case?
8den
No I'm pretty sure that was 8ball...
Jazzz said:
Jesus fucking christ Jazzz do you need me to link to another couple of dozen firefighters and EMT workers, talking about the collapse and how people on the ground saying they knew the building was coming down. No one is covering up foreknowledge of WTC7s collapse.
Well no one with a fucking brain and reading skills.
Similar threads
