Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

BBC announced collapse of WT7 before it happened!

8den said:
Wow it took you around 117 posts before you started with the snide as homiens.
Click to expand...

As opposed to how many from my detractors, exactly? Do you want to do the counting? :rolleyes:

I don't see why I need repeat myself for your or editor's benefit.
 
Jazzz said:
As opposed to how many from my detractors, exactly? Do you want to do the counting? :rolleyes:

I don't see why I need repeat myself for your or editor's benefit.
Click to expand...

Oh look and Jazzz avoids the thrust of the points. Hey Jazzz if you want to try to give off the pretense of the moral highground don't engage in the same habits of those you sneer at.

Oh and Jazzz? Missed a bit.

So Jazzz I'll ask again, are you claiming the BBC were actively involved or reading off a script? And if the latter how many BBC employees where involved? And Can I ask do you think the same number of employee's were hired by the NWO in most western media companies?
Click to expand...
 
Jazzz said:
I don't see why I need repeat myself for your or editor's benefit.
Click to expand...
Where have you answered these questions, please?

editor said:
So what's your point and why should "conspiracy denialists" be concerned about "trying to wave this one away"?

What conspiracy concerning the BBC are you referring to?
Click to expand...
I've been polite. I've only asked you questions in direct response to the title and the content you've posted up in this thread.

So why can't you have the courtesy to give the sort of straight answers you're always demanding of others?
 
You're one of the rudest going 8den. How dare you bemoan a gentle insult like I gave editor! I take all kinds of crap around here and complain about little of it. You utter hypocrite.

You can find the answer to your question earlier in the thread
 
editor said:
So why can't you have the courtesy to give the sort of straight answers you're always demanding of others?
Click to expand...
I very rarely demand answers of others; I just make my points.

But on the few occasions I do, you can bet they're questions which they haven't already answered. And even if I do that, I'll only repeat the question a few times before simply pointing out that it has remained unanswered.
 
Jazzz said:
I very rarely demand answers of others. I just make my points.

But on the few occasions I do, you can bet they're questions which they haven't already answered. And even if I do that, I'll only repeat the question a few times before simply pointing out that it has remained unanswered.
Click to expand...
Could you just answer my questions please?

Thanks.
 
Why can't you just read the thread and find it yourself? Are you really that dumb?

e2a: i have better things to do that engage in editor/8den shenanigans. Like sleeping. G'night all.

I shall refer them to posts #105 and #110.
 
Jazzz said:
Why can't you just read the thread and find it yourself? Are you really that dumb?
Click to expand...
No need to get rude, but I really can't find an answer to this question:

"So what's your point and why should "conspiracy denialists" be concerned about "trying to wave this one away"?

Or this one:

"What conspiracy concerning the BBC are you referring to?"

I haven't got all night to keep asking and listen to you post up weird wriggles every time, so please answer now otherwise I may as well close this thread. This site isn't here for you to post up your conspiraloon propaganda unchallenged, you see.
 
editor said:
I haven't got all night to keep asking and listen to you post up weird wriggles every time, so please answer now otherwise I may as well close this thread. This site isn't here for you to post up your conspiraloon propaganda unchallenged, you see.
Click to expand...

Good, go to bed. I fancy there is no productive discourse I can have with you. If you want to throw toys out of the pram, I can't stop you.
 
Jazzz said:
You're one of the rudest going 8den. How dare you bemoan a gentle insult like I gave editor! I take all kinds of crap around here and complain about little of it. You utter hypocrite.

You can find the answer to your question earlier in the thread
Click to expand...

Really dear Jazzz prithy tell where I might find these answers? This does vex me so. Mayhaps you might be so kind as to venture forth to provide these answers once more, as it is beyond my ken to grasp where you have you have illumainated us with your errudite and insightful prose and rapier like wit.
 
Jazzz said:
Good, go to bed. I fancy there is no productive discourse I can have with you. If you want to throw toys out of the pram, I can't stop you.
Click to expand...
It's not me skulking off like a big kid just because you're finding the questions too difficult to answer.

You brought up the subject and made the claims, so why are you refusing to discuss the matter? It seems that you'd rather fill up these boards with excuses why you won't answer a question rather than debating the issue.

You've a long, long history of this kind of childish behaviour whenever a tricky question comes your way, so I guess it's part of the strange denial of reality that makes up your fantasy world.

I'm pretty sure your evasive tactics aren't fooling anyone though.
 
paimei01 said:
BBC answers :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html

They say they lost the tapes of the biggest story ever. It's strange how someone found those tapes , they were on the net at BBC archives yesterday :
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread269695/pg1

The video can still be found here, google removed it :
http://shoestringcentury.blogspot.com/2007/02/astonishing-wtc7-evidence.html
Click to expand...

is all this talk of google removing the tapes etc evidence of a conspiracy involving google, or of google removing copyrighted material from it's site?

hmm let me think;)
 
FridgeMagnet said:
There is no such thing as "too simple" with these things.
Click to expand...
But I thought you'd sussed Jazzz ...

As someone who has:

(a) at least once appeared on TV discussing something "Live", against a background of earlier footage and
(b) several times appeared on TV captioned "Live" when, in fact, it was a prerecorded bit from earlier being recycled

has anyone considered exactly which bits of the broadcast were actually live?
 
(Giles has posted the best comment on this thread, and which was worthy of being the final say on the matter.)

If there was a conspiracy, why would you involved more people than you have to? You wouldn't. Even you know that Jazzz. So why involve the BBC to inform them of an event like a building collapsing when it's such an obvious one that no news program could fail to notice it. There simply is no need to tell anyone, nor any news organization, about a conspiracy to collapse a 47 story building.

Jazzz, in your opinion, why did the conspirators include this unnecessary weakness in their plan?
 
FridgeMagnet said:
But I want to check this time thing first. I want to know how the loon video pins the time down to what it claims it is.
Click to expand...
* Awards FridgeMagnet commendation for sound investigative practice *

1. Establish the actual facts
2. Now work out what they mean ...
 
Ah. So here we are again.

Jazzz posts a load of paranoid shit obtained from an anti-semitic website, and his chaotic brain riddled with the chemical imbalances believes it unquestioningly.

Everyone else laughs at him and tells him to stop talking shit.

Then he says "oh well I have better things to do than argue with you".

When is this fucking jizztalking dipshit going to have these bullshit posts deleted?

If I was constantly posting threads suggesting the holocaust was a myth I'd expect them to be deleted - why is this cockrot any different?

And can the thread title be changed please - to "Jazzz alleges BBC 9/11 mistake" or something a little more accurate to reflect the fact that once again he has fucked up even the most basic cursory research.
 
So lets get this straight. No-one denies that they reported a fallen building prior to it falling as it was on the screen behind the reporter (i assume it is the building, if anyone knows the NY skyline better maybe they could refute that). The point now seems to be that the BBC were in on it. So i think it's important to work out where these news reports come from, because surely it only takes one person to report it, or give them a call and then it just gets repeated.

And just one point, i realise there was confusion on the day, but has there ever, in the history of the world, been a story of a building falling down half an hour before it did. It just strikes me as utterly bizarre.
 
The BBC were in on what?

The Saudi terrorist plot?

Are you actually believing this load of bollocks???
 
Are you talking to me? No, i was just making the point that they probably weren't 'in on it', just that they believe things too easilly when told by their 'sources', and maybe that one of their sources was in on it, assuming there was something to be in on. Of course it was most likely one of Gods jokes.
 
Just thought i'd better make it absolutely clear. My little throwaway comment at the end of my last post was just refering to a building standing when it shouldn't have been and wasn't meant to belittle the horrendous loss of life.
 
The Jazzzzzzzzz guide to starting conspirashite threads:

1 - start thread full of shite
2 - get laughed at, have your "evidence" torn to bits, be made to look like a fool
3 - stop answering reasonable questions coz the hole you're in couldn't get any deeper
4 - start new thread and hope nobody notices
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

taffboy gwyrdd
BBC "Conspiracy Files" on 911 was clearly biased
2
Replies
34
Views
5K
editor
editor
Jazzz
Collapse of the World Trade Centre (cont.)
Replies
8
Views
1K
editor
editor
friedaweed
  • Poll
So 9-11. Who really did it?
2
Replies
42
Views
7K
Crispy
Crispy
Jazzz
More witness testimonies on the collapse of the World Trade Centre
Replies
1
Views
1K
editor
editor
Jazzz
  • Locked
9/11 media happenings
131 132 133 134 135
Replies
4K
Views
127K
editor
editor
Back
Top Bottom