BBC Has Lost Tapes Of 21st Century's Defining Moment

[BRUCE]

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.

[240 is Back]

This will be the one that cracks the official story. 

Watch and see.

[BRUCE]

This will be the one that cracks the official story. 

Watch and see.

Oh, yes - absolutely.  Your reputation against mine.

[Dos Equis]

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!   
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. . . . 

[BRUCE]

Haaaaa!   
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.

[Nordic Superman]

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

[240 is Back]

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 Superman]

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.

[240 is Back]

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.

[Nordic Superman]

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.

[240 is Back]

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.

[Nordic Superman]

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!

[240 is Back]

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".

[240 is Back]

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?

[Nordic Superman]

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.

[240 is Back]

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. 

[Nordic Superman]

Obvious lie huh?

Still isn't that obvious to everyone.

Prove to me it's a lie.

[240 is Back]

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. 

[Nordic Superman]

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.

[240 is Back]

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...

[Nordic Superman]

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

[240 is Back]

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.

[Nordic Superman]

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.

[240 is Back]

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.

[Nordic Superman]

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.