Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: 240 is Back on March 01, 2007, 07:06:19 AM
-
It has come to light this week that the most pre-eminent broadcasting company in the world has lost the original recordings of its output for the entire day on September 11th 2001, just over five years on, yet no major news agency has even bothered to report the fact.
Despite being currently the biggest story on the internet and in the alternative media, the only place in the mainstream the story has appeared is on a small German news website.
This highlights the fact that the mainstream media is not free to report events. The information it disseminates is strictly controlled and regulated.
The BBC was forced into claiming that the recordings covering the 9/11 attacks have mysteriously vanished in response to fierce criticism over the fact that on the day the news agency reported that World Trade Center Building 7 had collapsed almost 30 minutes before it actually came down.
Conspiracy or no conspiracy, surely the fact that the BBC has made this announcement should be reported.
In the eyes of the mainstream media the September 11th attacks in 2001, it seems, are not as important an event as the moon landing, which happened last century, 38 years ago to be precise.
Therefore it is purely as a result of the persistence of the alternative media, and its audience, that regular BBC employees are now being deluged by e mails and calls asking them to divulge what their source was for reporting the collapse of Building 7 a full 26 minutes before it happened.
The BBC editor's blog is currently carrying the following statement from Richard Porter, editor of BBC news:
"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."
-
CNN'S REPORT IN-FOCUS
AARON BROWN QUESTIONS SCRIPT ON-AIR, UNLIKE BBC
It is interesting to note that Aaron Brown seems to realize the incongruity of his reporting as he looks over his shoulder at Building 7-- still standing and emitting massive trails of smoke.
Just after announcing that WTC 7 "has collapsed or is collapsing," he lets onto his confusion, stating:
"And I—I—You, to be honest, can see these pictures more clearly than I, but building number 7, one of the buildings in this very large complex of buildings that is that is the trade center."
Clearly, Brown, slicker than the BBC reporter, caught the errors in the script during live coverage and revised his words, saying instead-- as he looked at the standing structure:
"And now we are told that there’s a fire there and that building may collapse as well as you can see."
-
BBC Claims 9/11 Tapes Lost; CNN Archivist Contradicts This, Citing Multiple Copies Recorded
BBC responded to news of the early report on Building 7's collapse, claiming, amongst other excuses, that their 9/11 tapes have been lost.
A CNN archivist in Atlanta, and Infowars reader, corrected this erroneous notion:
"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.
The only information they need to give out is the source of the collapse claim. No one is saying the BBC is "part of the conspiracy," we're saying that someone gave that reporter the information ahead of time. The source of that information is the only thing they can reveal that would be meaningful."
-
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.
-
Amazing stuff. It's sad some people still won't even question the events of 9/11
Who the hell wouldn't want to believe Middle Eastern Terrorists were responsible for it?
-
The official story is unraveling before our eyes.
Greed caused the downfall. Silverstein had to have all 7 of his buildings leveled by two planes. If only WTC1/2 had fallen, they might have gotten away with it.
This is history of an epic nature, right before our eyes. Fascinating. They will speak of the 9/11 self attacks for global aggression for hundreds of years. It's that big.
Hilarious that the CNN anchor reported the building had collapsed, turned and saw it still standing, said "it's in the process of collapsing", which it did 1 hour later.
And all we want is a complete, fair investigation. That's it. Ask those reporters under oath who gave them the info WTC7 had fallen.
-
somehow i\'m not entirely shocked.
-
Here's a question.
Does anyone believe that the BBC has LOST all their tapes from Sept 11 2001?
-
Here's a question.
Does anyone believe that the BBC has LOST all their tapes from Sept 11 2001?
no, but for what reason they "lost" it is what we should be talking about.
crap i did it. got involved again! :)
-
no, but for what reason they "lost" it is what we should be talking about.
crap i did it. got involved again! :)
A CNN Archivist laughed at this - said news archieves are some of the most complete and safe in the world. And a day like 911 would have additional backups for historical importance.
To believe they just lost the tapes is silly.
Now, what motive would they have for losing these tapes, right after this video comes out which shows foreknowledge of WTC7 falling when the official story said no one had any idea.
-
Now, what motive would they have for losing these tapes, right after this video comes out which shows foreknowledge of WTC7 falling when the official story said no one had any idea.
Possible Motives:
1. Massive mistake of reporting news: This the most likely scenario as in addition to it being a mistake it is compounded by 9/11 CT'ers, therefore "losing it" helps stave off accusations of both credibility and involvement. News gets mis-reported all the time especially in the middle of an event.
2. Foreknowledge of events: This is hardly likely as it would mean news reporters, editors, writers, cameramen in studio, directors etc... were all in on the conspiracy which for it's alleged culprit's would gain nothing by giving the BBC advance info on a building that was purposely demolished.
-
Can't turn to any news organization anymore for the truth :-[
-
1. Massive mistake of reporting news: This the most likely scenario as in addition to it being a mistake it is compounded by 9/11 CT'ers, therefore "losing it" helps stave off accusations of both credibility and involvement. News gets mis-reported all the time especially in the middle of an event.
CNN made an IDENTICAL mistake at the same time that day. Their reporter turned around after saying it, SAW the building still intact, and changed "has collapsed" to "is collapsing".
*Something* fed them that information in such a convincing manner than they didn't even turn around to look.
What else that day was fed to them so convincingly that they reported the story WITHOUT EVEN LOOKING AT THE 47 STORY SKYSCRAPER.
It's a dark day for the media. They are outright lying.
-
It's a dark day for the media. They are outright lying.
Certainly lazy.
But I'm still not getting it. How do the conspirators advance their cause by spreading the fire collapse lie ahead of schedule?
-
Certainly lazy.
But I'm still not getting it. How do the conspirators advance their cause by spreading the fire collapse lie ahead of schedule?
exactly
-
The consensus among CTs is that much of the days' events was scripted. True or false, I do not know. They contend that some error or snafu occurred with the World Trade 7 takedown. Instead of falling at 4:00 pm (or whatever time) technical issues made them delay it until 5:20.
Whatever the cause, it cannot be denied that they were supplied with information they shared over the air without even turning around to check. Something is weird there.
400,000 views in two days now. This is the biggest story so far in the 911 saga. If there was no conspiracy on your part, then tell us who told BBC News that WTC7 fell down before it actually happened.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html
-
I doubt there are any serious 9/11 investigators that think the BBC is actually part of the 9/11 conspiracy. The only thing you're guilty of is reporting the rubbish that's fed to you by the authorities and not doing any real investigative journalism.
It's clear that something is very wrong with this footage. You are clearly reporting that an event has happened before it actually happened, and as far as I'm aware the BBC doesn't have psychic powers. You reported accurate information about 20 minutes too early. It looks like somebody, somewhere messed up here, although not really the BBC, which I'm sure was just reporting on information that it was given and believed to be factual.
The real question is - who gave you this information?
WTC7 was not hit by a plane, it suffered very little damage, and fires in the building were minimal (those statements are backed up by a ton of photographic evidence). Before 9/11 no steel framed building in history has ever collapsed because of fire damage. In fact all steel framed buildings that have been completely gutted by fire have remained standing.
So, it's absolutelely inconceivable that anyone could have predicted that WTC7 was going to collapse that day...unless they already knew it was going to collapse. And nobody could have known it was going to collapse unless the building was rigged to collapse. And nobody can argue against the fact that the collapse of WTC7 looks EXACTLY like a controlled demolition.
So this footage is strong evidence that someone knew that WTC7 was about to collapse by a controlled demolition.
-
If you were talking about a building that never did collapse, well then you'd just look imcompitent. But as we all know, building 7 did, in a feat that suspended all laws of physics and logic, collapse spontaneously due to fires on floors 7 & 12.
You can't possibly expect us to believe this. Let's look at all the pieces here.
1. BBC reports for 20 solid minutes that WTC7 has collapsed when even in the live shot it stands as sturdy as the day it was built.
2. The idea that WTC7 would collapse spontaneously due to minor fires and minimal damage to the north face is laughable and an insult to intelligence. But it did, approximately 5 minutes AFTER BBC's report....or at least 5 minutes after Jane Standley's live shot was disconnected.
3. BBC loses all of it's 9/11 footage so this cannot be reviewed or explained. My nephew still has all his VHS tapes from that day. He recorded almost every news station for 24 hours straight. He's 19 now. He was 13 when it happened.
So, a 13 year old can be more responsible with his VHS tapes than one of the largest news organizations?
4. The archive footage is mysteriously pulled off of youtube and google video repeatedly and without provocation or explanation.
5. BBC's response is, 'there is no conspiracy. it was a mistake.'
Grant us logical thinkers at least one thing. This is highly suspicious. The BBC needs to reveal what source they drew the conclusion that WTC7 had collapsed.
Oh, and the ez-out phrases like 'it appears' and 'we're receiving reports that..' were not used throughout this footage.
Especially when the anchor starts talking about the (lack of) body count since there was so much time to evacuate since the collapse of WTC1-2.
The BBC needs to reveal what source they drew the conclusion that WTC7 had collapsed. I do not necessarily think the BBC is a witting participant in some 9/11 conspiracy, but it's definitely looking like you were a pawn. Revealing who/where the BBC received the information that WTC7 had collapsed would be a good start in clearing your name.
-
"If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that."
Uh, it WASN'T an error... That's the point. You keep harping on about what a chaotic day it was. Then why didn't the anchor say something like, "We're getting some unconfirmed reports of some other building apparently collapsing... We'll have to check up on this... etc." No, he had (23 minutes before hand) the name of the building, the correct # of floors in the building (47), the explanation of the collapse (weakened by other collapses), and he was reporting that the building was apparently empty. You even had graphics made up for the scrolling info at the bottom of the screen. That is some pretty precise reporting for a day of chaos when everyone was "...trying to make sense of what they were seeing... and what was being told by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services."
And there lies the key (perhaps). No doubt the info was just being fed to the anchor and reporter off the wires as the news would cross... So, which agency fed that bit about WTC7 collapsing? AP? Reuters? VOA? We'll probably never know, but you got the information from some source more than 23 minutes before it happened (had to be longer than 23 minutes, because there must have been some delay from the time the story came over the wires and the time the anchor actually got the news out on the air).
Do I think the BBC is "...part of a conspiracy"? No... but you were played perfectly by some entity, IMO.
-
lol. 240 you talking to yourself again? You and Allied Powers are obviously the same person. Either that or he is your twin. But I think you're both the same person.
-
lol. 240 you talking to yourself again? You and Allied Powers are obviously the same person. Either that or he is your twin. But I think you're both the same person.
Perhaps the only real conspiracies 240 knows of are the ones he makes himself?
-
Perhaps the only real conspiracies 240 knows of are the ones he makes himself?
Maybe. :) I bet 240 and Allied Powers talk to each other all the time.
-
classic of you guys to open this thread and focus on anything but the facts.
The official story is crumbling. Let the other neocon parrots know.
-
classic of you guys to open this thread and focus on anything but the facts.
The official story is crumbling. Let the other neocon parrots know.
And so it shall be echoed across the ages, that a man - a web-page designing man - was the sole bearer of truth in this era of frenzied manipulation and deception by the powers that be.
Behold, CIA!
Behold, Pentagon!
Behold, White House!
Yes, you were magnificently precise with your pulling of the sheet over our collective eyes, but one man remained defiant against your maniacal regime to soar mechanical birds majestically into our civilian nests. Able to annihilate the lives of thousands at the blink of an eye, seemingly without so much as a witness to testify to your downfall - you have now become astonishingly disrobed in your attempts to fool a people by a single Floridian. Shame on you all.
240, you are a God amongst men.
-
ahhh more insults.
Run from the facts, little rabbit!
The biggest story of our lifetimes is quickly unraveling before our eyes.
You don't want to talk about this, I gather. I don't blame you.
-
ahhh more insults.
Run from the facts, little rabbit!
The biggest story of our lifetimes is quickly unraveling before our eyes.
You don't want to talk about this, I gather. I don't blame you.
Actually, that was (attempted) satire. We've argued this 9/11 issue ad nauseum, and I'd like to think everyone has made their mind up on it. Some 6 years later, it's no more a conspiracy today than it was one week after. If you haven't proven a thing yet, I think it's safe for us to assume you never will.
Thus the mockery, old chap.
-
This will be the one that cracks the official story.
Watch and see.
-
This will be the one that cracks the official story.
Watch and see.
Oh, yes - absolutely. Your reputation against mine.
-
And so it shall be echoed across the ages, that a man - a web-page designing man - was the sole bearer of truth in this era of frenzied manipulation and deception by the powers that be.
Behold, CIA!
Behold, Pentagon!
Behold, White House!
Yes, you were magnificently precise with your pulling of the sheet over our collective eyes, but one man remained defiant against your maniacal regime to soar mechanical birds majestically into our civilian nests. Able to annihilate the lives of thousands at the blink of an eye, seemingly without so much as a witness to testify to your downfall - you have now become astonishingly disrobed in your attempts to fool a people by a single Floridian. Shame on you all.
240, you are a God amongst men.
Haaaaa! ;D
Don't forget Allied Powers. He and 240 will blow the whistle on 911, the faked moon landing, Oklahoma City, the 93 WTC, etc., etc. . . .
-
Haaaaa! ;D
Don't forget Allied Powers. He and 240 will blow the whistle on 911, the faked moon landing, Oklahoma City, the 93 WTC, etc., etc. . . .
Oh yes, such magical acts of deception are no match for regular internet blokes.
-
I like how 240 is sensationalising this like everything else regarding 911 CT.
It's impossible for the BBC to lose archive footage. It's impossible because some dude at CNN said so. If so archival expert at NASA said it's very possible to lose archival footage how would your stance change 240?
Problem is, the only facts in 240's eyes are the ones that line up with his fabricated beliefs.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20060814-124925-9491r.htm
-
It's impossible for the BBC to lose archive footage.
Nordic,
Do you believe the BBC's claim that it actually lost it's Sept 11 footage?
yes or no?
-
Nordic,
Do you believe the BBC's claim that it actually lost it's Sept 11 footage?
yes or no?
What is it with YOU asking boolean questions to make you feel better about yourself?
It's not always as simple as a yes/no. I haven't researched it, nor am I interested enough to do so, so I will refrain from answering your stupid questions.
-
What is it with YOU asking boolean questions to make you feel better about yourself?
It's not always as simple as a yes/no. I haven't researched it, nor am I interested enough to do so, so I will refrain from answering your stupid questions.
hahahahahahaah~~~~~
No, it IS a simple yes or no.
Did the media giant BBC actually lose all footage of the day? THe most importatnt day in modern history and they just "lost" all the tapes.
Or did they lie?
It's one of the two, Nordic. There is no middle. Common sense tells you they're lying. Their own backup policy says they have redundant copies in multiple countries to ensure historical recording in any event. And even you won't tell us if you believe them.
THey lied. Period.
-
hahahahahahaah~~~~~
No, it IS a simple yes or no.
Did the media giant BBC actually lose all footage of the day? THe most importatnt day in modern history and they just "lost" all the tapes.
Or did they lie?
It's one of the two, Nordic. There is no middle. Common sense tells you they're lying. Their own backup policy says they have redundant copies in multiple countries to ensure historical recording in any event. And even you won't tell us if you believe them.
THey lied. Period.
Is that day more "important" in modern history than say the space landings?
Oh right you know for a FACT that they lied do you? ???
Where's your evidence to PROVE this FACT? Let me guess... you don't have it?
The psychology in your yes/no answers is to feed your superiority complex - and you know it.
-
Is that day more "important" in modern history than say the space landings?
Oh right you know for a FACT that they lied do you? ???
Where's your evidence to PROVE this FACT? Let me guess... you don't have it?
The psychology in your yes/no answers is to feed your superiority complex - and you know it.
I know for a fact that the BBC's own backup policy dictates they have multiple copies of broadcasts in various locations.
I know for a fact that it is absolutely rediculous to believe they "lost" all their footage, especially because of the fact they broadcasted news of an unprecedented event BEFORE it happened.
I know for a fact that you're talking about my superiority complex and not the evidence here, because the evidence is pretty strong. They reported a future event along with CNN, without even turning around to look. Then they insulted our intelligence with a story about losing the tapes. And even YOU won't defend them.
-
I know for a fact that the BBC's own backup policy dictates they have multiple copies of broadcasts in various locations.
Let's see this policy please.
I know for a fact that it is absolutely rediculous to believe they "lost" all their footage, especially because of the fact they broadcasted news of an unprecedented event BEFORE it happened.
Null point, the possability is there, and you're making something with chance a fact. Did they lose ALL their footage of 911?
I know for a fact that you're talking about my superiority complex and not the evidence here, because the evidence is pretty strong. They reported a future event along with CNN, without even turning around to look. Then they insulted our intelligence with a story about losing the tapes. And even YOU won't defend them.
You made the boolean question, I had to tell you why it wasn't that simple. If you can't handle being judge from your behaviour and personality traits on here I suggest you guy post.
Evidence isn't "pretty strong" where facts are concerned - the evidance must be daming.
Nice isults too, keep adding fuel to that superiority complex fire of yours!
-
Let's see this policy please.
Even more remarkable is the fact that if the BBC maintains that its footage is indeed lost, this means that at least THREE copies have been lost from DIFFERENT LOCATIONS.
The BBC's policy on retaining recordings of all television and radio broadcast outputs, last reviewed: 18/02/03 - which you can view online at the BBC's own website, clearly states:
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
Furthermore:
"A retention schedule for each set of records kept /archived must be created as defined in the Core Records Policy. Retention periods are set according to the status and value of the record."
This means that the safe retention of archived recordings is checked at regular intervals, and the more valuable they are deemed to be, the more frequently they are checked.
And yet more:
"All transmitted/published media content will be kept for at least five years to fulfil legal requirements and to enable re-versioning and re-use."
This means that if the footage was "lost" prior to September 11th 2006 then the BBC has broken British broadcasting law.
So all in all we have a situation here whereby the BBC is either lying when it says all records of its World output on 9/11 are gone, or the BBC has categorically failed to uphold its own policy, and UK law, and is dismissing this as merely a "cock up".
-
Null point, the possability is there, and you're making something with chance a fact. Did they lose ALL their footage of 911?
They said they did, yes. The BBC editor's blog is currently carrying the following statement from Richard Porter, editor of BBC news:
"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."
Evidence isn't "pretty strong" where facts are concerned - the evidance must be daming.
THe pic of the woman reporting WTC7 fell, 26 min before it does, with the bulding standing behind her head - would you consider that to be "pretty strong" indicator of foreknowledge? ;)
-
All seems frivolous to me.
By the sound of the editor of BBC news the footage still exists somewhere. So they weren't trying to destroy the footage as part of this grand conspiracy you nut jobs believe.
Mountain out of a mole hill. Plus typical clutching at straws from the CT mad house.
-
By the sound of the editor of BBC news the footage still exists somewhere. So they weren't trying to destroy the footage as part of this grand conspiracy you nut jobs believe.
Why would they lie to the world about owning that tape? And the bigger Qs of course are how could they forecast the collapse when no one else could, and just why did they report without even looking?
Mountain out of a mole hill. Plus typical clutching at straws from the CT mad house.
No offense, but the "CT mad house" isn't the one trying to sell an obvious lie. The BBC is :)
All seems frivolous to me.
A secret service agent died in WTC7.
-
Obvious lie huh?
Still isn't that obvious to everyone.
Prove to me it's a lie.
-
Obvious lie huh?
Still isn't that obvious to everyone.
Prove to me it's a lie.
Do you believe it? I noticed you never answered.
-
Do you believe it? I noticed you never answered.
I get nothing from answering and I am still not sure what my opinion is on the matter so i ain't feeding your superiority complex.
-
I get nothing from answering and I am still not sure what my opinion is on the matter so i ain't feeding your superiority complex.
If you believed the BBC, you'd damn sure be defending them here.
You won't even saw you believe them. But you don't have the spine to take any position.
You "Official story" folks won't debate the evidence like you used to because there is so much that points to an inside job now. You folks won't even deny the BBC is lying to the world, an obvious lie at that.
instead, you make it all about my "superiority complex" - you attack the messenger and not the message. You know the evidence now points to foreknowledge and media complicity. And, since iinnocent people have nothing to hide...
-
If you believed the BBC, you'd damn sure be defending them here.
You won't even saw you believe them. But you don't have the spine to take any position.
You "Official story" folks won't debate the evidence like you used to because there is so much that points to an inside job now. You folks won't even deny the BBC is lying to the world, an obvious lie at that.
instead, you make it all about my "superiority complex" - you attack the messenger and not the message. You know the evidence now points to foreknowledge and media complicity. And, since iinnocent people have nothing to hide...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superiority_complex
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_complex
-
attack me all you want nordic.
all you do is show getbig that you can't argue this growing pile of evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.
-
attack me all you want nordic.
all you do is show getbig that you can't argue this growing pile of evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.
Right, what are you talking about? Because you I don't agree with all your nonsense you jump to ridiculous conclusions.
You've been ousted in the past, time and time again.
-
Right, what are you talking about? Because you I don't agree with all your nonsense you jump to ridiculous conclusions.
You've been ousted in the past, time and time again.
ousted?
Dude, this week the BBC outright lied about losing tapes showing foreknowledge of events of 9/11.
The official story is kaput.
Now, you can oust strangers on a message board all day if that is what makes your jimmy hard, i could give a shit. I'm here to talk about politics, and as 911 is the catalyst for the US' entire foreign and domestic policy, and 911 is turning out to be a lie, i think thats a tad more important to your getbig feelings.
-
ousted?
Dude, this week the BBC outright lied about losing tapes showing foreknowledge of events of 9/11.
The official story is kaput.
Now, you can oust strangers on a message board all day if that is what makes your jimmy hard, i could give a shit. I'm here to talk about politics, and as 911 is the catalyst for the US' entire foreign and domestic policy, and 911 is turning out to be a lie, i think thats a tad more important to your getbig feelings.
Haha, you're a member of getbig to fuel your god complex you fool.
The psychology behind your name "240 or bust". You consistent crediting things as fact in your favour.
Typical superiority complex nut.
-
Haha, you're a member of getbig to fuel your god complex you fool.
The psychology behind your name "240 or bust". You consistent crediting things as fact in your favour.
Typical superiority complex nut.
The number of times you've attacked 240?
27 times.
Number of your attacks on the evidence debunking the official 9/11 story?
Zero.
Nordic Superman realizing those nasty muslims had help from white guys here pulling off the 9/11 attacks?
Priceless.
-
Yawn :-\