board77

Errr Pip, Dr Who is not documentory evidence.

Although in this thread......

You know what I mean though. They've got so much random crap to look after, and there must be so many people inside their over-inflated system that I really wouldn't be surprised if they'd genuinely lost the tapes. I mean, the guy at the first site did say he'd like to see any recorded footage that viewers might have.

*~Pips~*

From "BBC MEDIA MANAGEMENT POLICY: OVERVIEW"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/foi/docs/historica ... ew.htm#top

Quote:

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.

So it sounds like this could have involved atleast two separate "cockups" in order for them to lose all their archive footage.


Also:

"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."

from http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11 ... veling.htm

Let's step back a minute.

What part of what plot would necessitate feeding the BBC *anything* ahead of time, rather than let events and reporting thereon take their natural course?

Nothing stands up to reason here.

One theory is that it was known on the ground amongst the emergency workers that WTC7 was going to be brought down, and this found its way out to some of the news networks (CNN also reported that WTC7 was "collapsing or already collapsed" while it was still standing in the background).

Another is that those responsible for pulling WTC7 were conditioning the millions of viewers ahead of time for WTC7s sudden freefall collapse into its footprint, so that it would not jump out as unusual or suspicious.

Notice that Humphreys is reporting the story as fact - not "We're getting unconfirmed reports..." etc

Why would they do that?

People around the world were expecting more buildings to fall.

Like a house of cards.....oddly symbolic don't cha think

So what is your explanation? Look at the BBC page again:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2 ... iracy.html

Usually on 9/11 related stories there is a mix of positive and negative comments. But here there is almost noone standing up for the BBC at all. There are so many loons in the world I know...

Iavas, I'm thrilled to tell you that the whole thing is solved.

Right now, out in my kitchen, a man named Herb is telling my husband that the whole 9/11 "thing" was a drug deal gone bad. Upon my gentle remark of "you don't say!" he responded "Yes, and I have proof".

So I says, "Jeez, then, you better write it down and have yourself a best selling book!"

"Oh, Christ, no," he says, shocked. "I can't do that! I'd get shot."

Upon which I retired, leaving my husband to the wolf. I can hear this guy's voice as I type and I am wondering how long I should wait before going out to rescue my poor husband.

(The guy works for our electric utility and is here to scope out what will be involved in us switching from "single phase" power to "three phase power". Imagine!!!! Imagine him starting this conversation because, lying on my place mat at the kitchen table is a book called "Collapse" by Jared Diamond!!! This guy is a LUNATIC and I swear to god I feel like calling BC Hydro and checking his credentials . . . . .)

Anyway, everyone can quit worrying about this now.

This is the kind of guy that gives intelligent/reasonable skeptics a bad name...

Iavas_Saar wrote:

This is the kind of guy that gives intelligent/reasonable skeptics a bad name...

Um, no. He sounded just like almost all the stuff you post here or link to. You aren't objective, Iavas. Not on this issue.

Thank you, God, for setting me straight.

I know you would love to, but please do not waste your important time pointing out the glaring errors in any of what I post or link to - it would be too easy. You have nothing to prove to us mere mortals!



Here is the blacklist of those who will happily insult anyone who questions 9/11, but who will not, or cannot, back up their opinions:

Dindraug
Democritus
Vison
Lidless (most of the time)

I think everyone else participates fairly, unless I've forgotten anyone?

I think you need to add yourself to that list Iavas.

Perhaps you did not understand the criteria for being on the list. I thought it was pretty clear myself:

1. Insults/mocks 9/11 skeptics
2. Does not back up their opinion

I could probably add another:

3. Has his/her own "conspiracy theory" about the purpose/origin of the conspiracy theories. Usually along the lines of it being a government disinformation campaign.

BBC forced to respond a second time after their first attempt just dug the hole deeper:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2 ... acy_2.html

Apparantly they spent a week looking into this. But they're still using the strawman that they're being accused of being part of the conspiracy.

We now have atleast 3 news stations that reported WTC7 collapsed before it did - so this was not just a mistake by a single station.

I do accept the fact that there may have been an honestly mistaken news wire that was being picked up on by multiple stations.

Iavas_Saar wrote:

1. Insults/mocks 9/11 skeptics

Well you do mock/insult those who are skeptical of 9/11 as a conspiracy.

Quote:

2. Does not back up their opinion

Well you bombard us with web links, without actually giveing an opinion except to say 'have you seen this'

Quote:

3. Has his/her own "conspiracy theory" about the purpose/origin of the conspiracy theories. Usually along the lines of it being a government disinformation campaign.

It would be very hard to say you did not have you own conspiracy throry regarding 9/11. It is all we hear fom you now, which is sad.



I have to say Iavas, it is very hard to take you seriously because of the way you are approaching it. I know you believe very strongly in what you believe. But you do have to understand that an awful lot of people out there in the world do not.

You need to take a step back, take a good hard look at the way you approach it.

You are way to defensive of this, and that is why people poke. And Blacklisting people is really not a nice thing to do.

Quote:

Well you do mock/insult those who are skeptical of 9/11 as a conspiracy.

I don't agree. If you think I use this tactic, give just one example, where I am not directing it at someone who has already mocked me.

Quote:

Well you bombard us with web links, without actually giveing an opinion except to say 'have you seen this'

How funny, even the very post before yours proves you wrong. I have constantly defended my position in my own words.

Quote:

Quote:

3. Has his/her own "conspiracy theory" about the purpose/origin of the conspiracy theories. Usually along the lines of it being a government disinformation campaign.

It would be very hard to say you did not have you own conspiracy throry regarding 9/11.

You seem to be making a habit of not understanding simple concepts. Please spot the difference between what I said and what you replied.

Quote:

You are way to defensive of this, and that is why people poke.

If people come in here and pass judgement on the issues raised without addressing them, or if they come in here just to laugh, then it is understandable that I would want to 'defend' myself against that. I am quite capable of a respectful debate, if treated with respect.

Quote:

And Blacklisting people is really not a nice thing to do.

Then take a look at the way you come across. Don't come in here with words like "loons", and then not be prepared to show why such a slur is justified.

For those of you new to this thread, there's a lot of stuff to cover.

I would like to help you by summing up the last 72 pages:



*sigh*

Iavas, thought you might find this interesting.

Update: The US Government’s Usage of Atomic Bombs - Domestic - WTC

When I read it I thought of you.

Iavas_Saar wrote:

Thank you, God, for setting me straight.

I know you would love to, but please do not waste your important time pointing out the glaring errors in any of what I post or link to - it would be too easy. You have nothing to prove to us mere mortals!



Here is the blacklist of those who will happily insult anyone who questions 9/11, but who will not, or cannot, back up their opinions:

Dindraug
Democritus
Vison
Lidless (most of the time)

I think everyone else participates fairly, unless I've forgotten anyone?

LOL, I am more than happy to be on your blacklist Iavas considering you have brought nothing to the table in all the verbiage you have released on us over all of these pages. I don't suffer fools easily and that is sadly what you have become.

But let me humour your nonsense for a moment and ask you (again) to answer the three things that no 9/11 conspiracy nut has ever been able to answer.

(1) What is the motive for the US government to murder 3000 of it's own citizens. If you are silly enough to site the Iraq war I might point out that the case for war was built on WMD's not 9/11.

(2) How on earth did an adminstration as incompetent as this manage to pull off the biggest conspiracy in human history without any of it being leaked or discovered, when the maxim that the bigger the conspiracy the harder it is to keep it secret still holds true? The likelihood that if it had been true it would have been discovered by now, five and a bit years after the event is overwhelming.

(3) How do they explain all of those completely unrelated everyday eyewitnesses who saw nothing but planes and explosions caused by planes with not even one testimony backing up the conspiracists? Are you really going to insinuate that they are all government stooges?

Frankly the moon landing being fake is a more credible conspiracy than 9/11 and that is saying something.

P.S. I haven't appreciated some of the personal attacks aimed at witnesses whose testimonials back up the government report. The intimidation and ridiculous accusations thrown at these very ordinary people says a lot about the mindset and unbalanced character of many of those leading the conspiracy movement.

Cenedril_Gildinaur wrote:

Iavas, thought you might find this interesting.

Update: The US Government’s Usage of Atomic Bombs - Domestic - WTC

When I read it I thought of you.

I was open to this as a possibility a while back, but Steven Jones has shown that any sort of nuclear blast is inconsistent with analysis of WTC dust samples.