Inside 9/11

[240 is Back]

240, I'm definitely with you on # 7. Controlled Dem. No question about it. Men on the ground who I know very well, have told me there is NO OTHER EXPLAINATION.....or conclusion.

Shankville is a different story. The ground where the jet crashed was "Mined" for many, many yrs. When that occurs, the filled used to cover the Mined area is extremely soft, relative to normal dirt in an un-mined area. With this in mind, it no different than the Value Jet Crash in the Fla. Everglades...........The Jet DISAPPEARED. No one disputes that Value Jet didn't crash.....yet the Jet's remains were never recovered.

A passenger Jet crashed in Shankville (no doubt) and was "consumed" by the weak, soft earth. Human remains were also located at the crash site.

240......I'm on your side for the most part. It's only when you head out into "left field" that I disagree.

Discuss the obvious............never the obscure. 

Good points!

I grow bored with WTC7.  It's controlled demolition is a very obvious sign of foreknowledge, complicity, etc, and proof that there were more than 19 terrorists at work that morning.   Also, the fact that it wasn't investigated, shows compliance on the investigatory level.   WTC7 will be history's smoking gun of an inside job.

The other topics - who knows, maybe 10% of them I'm right on, maybe 90%, I dunno.  Fun to think about though.  Example on the WTC6 missile: If that *object* hadn't clipped the north tower, it would have barrelled directly into the base of WTC7, which would have created a big ugly gash, and would have made the WTC7 collapse quite believable.  Or, maybe it was intentional to destroy #6- what was removed from those US customs safes which were claimed on insurance?  The safes were obliderated and contents were insured.  If one were going to do an inside job for money and power, removing goods then claiming them on insurance is a nice little sub-ploy.  Fun to think about.  Not very consequential.  But - we gotta remember that the WTC7 talk also started as an outlandish silly theory.  Now, most people will look at it and agree on controlled demo

[The Enigma]

Good points!

I grow bored with WTC7.  It's controlled demolition is a very obvious sign of foreknowledge, complicity, etc, and proof that there were more than 19 terrorists at work that morning.   Also, the fact that it wasn't investigated, shows compliance on the investigatory level.   WTC7 will be history's smoking gun of an inside job.

The other topics - who knows, maybe 10% of them I'm right on, maybe 90%, I dunno.  Fun to think about though.  Example on the WTC6 missile: If that *object* hadn't clipped the north tower, it would have barrelled directly into the base of WTC7, which would have created a big ugly gash, and would have made the WTC7 collapse quite believable.  Or, maybe it was intentional to destroy #6- what was removed from those US customs safes which were claimed on insurance?  The safes were obliderated and contents were insured.  If one were going to do an inside job for money and power, removing goods then claiming them on insurance is a nice little sub-ploy.  Fun to think about.  Not very consequential.  But - we gotta remember that the WTC7 talk also started as an outlandish silly theory.  Now, most people will look at it and agree on controlled demo

240, it's clear your a well read and knowlegable guy. I would use the intellect to hammer the obvious......the other stuff is very, very questionable and subsequently makes your SOLID arguements appear........weaker.

Let the detractors refute the OBVIOUS.............they can't IMO. 

 

[240 is Back]

Good idea.

[youandme]

240, back in the day I thought you were talking of setting up a website with information?

[The Enigma]

Good idea.

I believe so. Work on the STRONG points........the rest will take care of itself. 

[GreatFinn]

GreatFinn,

Do you believe the BBC has really lost every recording, tape, and archive from 9/11?

Do you believe they have no copy of their broadcast on 9/11/2001?

thanks.

And again, you have just questions, no answers...Dear Little Motherhumper, try to understand: in situation like that, every kind of shit happens, and again, you don't have any prove that it isn't true. You just assume it isn't true, and just about everyone sane adult assume by that, that you are an  idiot. This is how it goes. Just deliver some hard evidence, not just stupid internet lies and rumors like you have done whole time. When 9/11 was just happened, there were live news feed all over the world, and I watch just about every minute of it. After that, I have been watching hours and hours different documents about it, including some classified stuff, and nothing indicates that there were something else going on than you see with your own eyes. Whole theory of yours is based on overwhelming ignorance, you don't understand what you see, you simply don't have the intelligence to understand this matter, so please please pretty please, why don't you stop this nonsense?

[240 is Back]

And again, you have just questions, no answers...Dear Little Motherhumper, try to understand: in situation like that, every kind of shit happens, and again, you don't have any prove that it isn't true. You just assume it isn't true, and just about everyone sane adult assume by that, that you are an  idiot. This is how it goes. Just deliver some hard evidence, not just stupid internet lies and rumors like you have done whole time. When 9/11 was just happened, there were live news feed all over the world, and I watch just about every minute of it. After that, I have been watching hours and hours different documents about it, including some classified stuff, and nothing indicates that there were something else going on than you see with your own eyes. Whole theory of yours is based on overwhelming ignorance, you don't understand what you see, you simply don't have the intelligence to understand this matter, so please please pretty please, why don't you stop this nonsense?

You're trying to paint the whole day with one broad brush.  "In situations like this, every kind of shit happens".

I disagree.

BBC predicted that a standing 47-story skyscraper with moderate fires was going to collapse.   THey reported it had collapsed, even as it stood in the background.

You can blame poor info/timing for many things, but not the reporting of FUTURE EVENTS.

Then, to lie and say the media giant BBC "lost" all its copies of the footage it aired on 9/11... well, you don't lie unless you have something to hide.  And it's a horrible, insulting lie at that. 

[The Enigma]

You're trying to paint the whole day with one broad brush.  "In situations like this, every kind of shit happens".

I disagree.

BBC predicted that a standing 47-story skyscraper with moderate fires was going to collapse.   THey reported it had collapsed, even as it stood in the background.

You can blame poor info/timing for many things, but not the reporting of FUTURE EVENTS.

Then, to lie and say the media giant BBC "lost" all its copies of the footage it aired on 9/11... well, you don't lie unless you have something to hide.  And it's a horrible, insulting lie at that. 

240, doesn't everyone read TODAY'S news, to find out what's happening TOMMORROW?   

The BBC did. 

[240 is Back]

I wish people here would take a position on this, instead of getting quiet.

All the folks who call me a crazy CTer, step up.

Tell us whether you believe the BBC lost every recorded backup from 9/11/01.

And if not, why did they lie?

[The Enigma]

I wish people here would take a position on this, instead of getting quiet.

All the folks who call me a crazy CTer, step up.

Tell us whether you believe the BBC lost every recorded backup from 9/11/01.

And if not, why did they lie?

240, when confronted with facts............they leave.

[OzmO]

I wish people here would take a position on this, instead of getting quiet.

All the folks who call me a crazy CTer, step up.

Tell us whether you believe the BBC lost every recorded backup from 9/11/01.

And if not, why did they lie?

How about you list all the possible explanations besides the one you are trying to lead people to.

[240 is Back]

How about you list all the possible explanations besides the one you are trying to lead people to.

The editor of the BBC said that they had no footage from 9/11.

This simply isn't believable.

He said this only after it was revealed their reporter reported the building fell 26 minutes before it did.



I cannot think of any explanation for this obvious lie.  Can you?

[kh300]

The editor of the BBC said that they had no footage from 9/11.

This simply isn't believable.

He said this only after it was revealed their reporter reported the building fell 26 minutes before it did.



I cannot think of any explanation for this obvious lie.  Can you?

one Senior fire officer reported to them there was a bulge and it might collapse.. local media was reporting it may collapse..looks like they got "might collapse" confused with collapse

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/03/part_of_the_conspiracy_2.html

[240 is Back]

one Senior fire officer reported to them there was a bulge and it might collapse.. local media was reporting it may collapse..looks like they got "might collapse" confused with collapse

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/03/part_of_the_conspiracy_2.html

Before I address this redirect you're attempting -

kh300, do you honestly believe the BBC lost every tape from 911?  Yes or no?

[kh300]

Before I address this redirect you're attempting -

kh300, do you honestly believe the BBC lost every tape from 911?  Yes or no?

they completely fucked up the biggest news story in decades.. so im sure they have the ability to fuck up their recording or whatever.. or how about the fact that they were just trying to cover up their own asses.
do you really think some guys in black trenchcoats came in there and held up the studio and stole them. and then on their way out they said "o ya, if you tell anybody well hunt you all down and kill you"

[240 is Back]

they completely fucked up the biggest news story in decades.. so im sure they have the ability to fuck up their recording or whatever.. or how about the fact that they were just trying to cover up their own asses.

You think they "have the ability to fck up their own recording or whatever"?

Wow. 


You're a gullible bastard who believes what feels right.  Good luck with that. 

[kh300]

You think they "have the ability to fck up their own recording or whatever"?

Wow. 


You're a gullible bastard who believes what feels right.  Good luck with that. 

this is comming from a guy who thinks alex jones and conspericy sites are gospel. you have 0 scientific or direct evidence to your theories.. only circumstantial and you call me gullible? its much more believable to think they were covering their asses for fear of loosing their credibility.. so explain to me what you think happend to the tapes. did the trench coat guys come in and threaten everyone?

[240 is Back]

this is comming from a guy who thinks alex jones and conspericy sites are gospel. you have 0 scientific or direct evidence to your theories.. only circumstantial and you call me gullible? its much more believable to think they were covering their asses for fear of loosing their credibility.. so explain to me what you think happend to the tapes. did the trench coat guys come in and threaten everyone?

I believe the tapes exist, obviously.  I believe the editor lied.

Look, local TV stations keep their shit in a basement, offsite, and in digital archives on the other side of the country.  It's standard practice for legal purposes and for general operations.

The BBC is the largest broadcasting corporation in the world.
911 was the biggest day in the history of the modern world.

Do you have the spine to answer - do you believe they lost every recording and backup from that day?

[OzmO]

The editor of the BBC said that they had no footage from 9/11.

This simply isn't believable.

He said this only after it was revealed their reporter reported the building fell 26 minutes before it did.



I cannot think of any explanation for this obvious lie.  Can you?

no kidding. 

But what are the possible explanations to as to why they are saying that?

[240 is Back]

no kidding. 

But what are the possible explanations to as to why they are saying that?

Their way of avoiding answering "Why did your reporter say a 47-story building had collapsed when it was in plain view?" was "we can't comment, cause we don't have a copy"!

They lied about having the recording so they didn't have to answer the Q. 

They played the incompetence card to avoid the complicity/foreknowledge issue, just like every other group who let 911 happen.

[OzmO]

Their way of avoiding answering "Why did your reporter say a 47-story building had collapsed when it was in plain view?" was "we can't comment, cause we don't have a copy"!

They lied about having the recording so they didn't have to answer the Q. 

They played the incompetence card to avoid the complicity/foreknowledge issue, just like every other group who let 911 happen.

OK, so we have as possible reasons:

1.  They lied about having the recording so they didn't have to answer that the Q.
2.  They played the incompetence card


Was it possible that the reporter or who ever was feeding the reporter made as mistake?......WTC "3-4-5-6-7-8-9"

Is it possible that "losing" the tape that shows this error is attempt to not to open a can of warms that include 9/11 CT's and incompetency?

[240 is Back]

nah, reporter said 'building 7, soloman brothers building, a 47 story building"
since it was almost 7 hours since towers fell, there was no mixup.

BBC is the largest media organization in the world.

Why would they lie about something as insanely stupid and obvious as not having any copies of 9/11?  My own belief - they were fed info on that day from someone who knew WTC7 was to be brought down in a controlled demolition. 

This person or persons knew there were explosives and the building was wired.  Can I stop there?  Already, this means the BBC is getting info from a person(s) who wired a federal building for demoiltion.  The fact they reported it WITHOUT EVEN LOOKING UP is scary too.  They repeated it without checking. 

And, instead of naming the source of this info, they deny the snafu by saying there is no proof it even exists.   

[The Enigma]

nah, reporter said 'building 7, soloman brothers building, a 47 story building"
since it was almost 7 hours since towers fell, there was no mixup.

BBC is the largest media organization in the world.

Why would they lie about something as insanely stupid and obvious as not having any copies of 9/11?  My own belief - they were fed info on that day from someone who knew WTC7 was to be brought down in a controlled demolition. 

This person or persons knew there were explosives and the building was wired.  Can I stop there?  Already, this means the BBC is getting info from a person(s) who wired a federal building for demoiltion.  The fact they reported it WITHOUT EVEN LOOKING UP is scary too.  They repeated it without checking. 

And, instead of naming the source of this info, they deny the snafu by saying there is no proof it even exists.   

240.....you must remember, people lie, leaders lie, countries lie. Unless forced to be truthful................ ..they won't.

If your truth searching, I doubt you'll find it.

[240 is Back]

nah, i'm not truth searching.

i just want the little bitches here to take a position, and say they believe the BBC, or the BBC is lying.  They're scared to say either.

[EL Mariachi]

I dont understand these people. Bush doesnt want a good investigation about the incident. That my friend is enough reason for bright minds to know he's involved. Grandpa bush, dad bush and child bush. 3 fucking presidents in one family, thats absurd.