Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Sid Walker]

An update on the story of the BBCs (now admitted) reporting of the collapse of WTC-7 more than 20 minutes before the event actually took place.

The BBC is now hunkered down, sticking to its story that this was merely a case of inaccurate reporting in the confusion of the occasion.

It doubtless hopes the bemused public will lose interest in the story - especially if it remains out of the mainstream media.

If anyone doubted that the western mass media serves as a biased trumpet for evil forces, it's failure to take up this story mut constitute the ultimate proof.

Where are the reports about this remarkable story in The New Tork Times? The Washington Post? The Times... or The Guardian, for that matter?

Prison Planet's latest summary is HERE

I notice that, among the 40 or so comments, there's a post by that ole teeerroooowwweest OBL himself, who appears to have resurfaced to have a chuckle at the Beeb's expense.

Meanwhile, a related storm has broken out at www.archive.org, where TV footage from 9/11 has been deleted over the last few days...

Debate about this latest apparent attempt to stifle independent investigation is raging HERE

More good questions... more feeble excuses.

It might be worth downloading that webpage - just in case it disappears down the memory hole too!

[Sid Walker]

A brief but useful summary of the current state of play in the strange case of the WTC-7 / BBC 'miracle' report...

BBC Responds To WTC 7 Video By Calling It A Conspiracy Theory

March 5th, 2007 — socalster

Yep, the BBC has responded, and just as expected, their explanation doesn’t even begin to explain what happened on that day.

First of all, let us not forget the most important bit of information that the BBC has given us. They have LOST the tapes! This is the key information that they want you to gloss over as you read their explanation.

Let’s use logic to take out their explanation point by point……

BBC Says: “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 the buildings were going to fall down. We didn’t receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening.”

Logic Says: You received information from somewhere that WTC 7 had fallen otherwise you wouldn’t have reported it. You obviously believed that the information was reliable and from a very good source.

BBC Says: ”In the chaos and confusion of the day, I’m quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or innacurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had. We did what we always did - sourced our reports, used qualifying words like ‘apparently’ or ‘it’s reported’ or ‘we’re hearing’ and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving.”

Logic Says: You didn’t source your report. You didn’t tell us where or how you received word of WTC 7 collapsing, and to check that report all you would have had to do was take a peek at the NY skyline to see if the building was still there. You’re claiming chaos was the result of untrue information, but it wasn’t untrue…It just hadn’t happened yet. You didn’t get it wrong, you got it right…Nearly 30 minutes too early! Are we to assume that was just “luck?”

BBC Says: 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 a hold of it.”

Logic Says: A major media like the BBC does not lose their tapes of one of the most eventful days in the history of the United States….And if someone reading this does have a tape of the BBC output, don’t send it to them, they’ll just “lose” it.

You can read BBC’s explanation yourself here:

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

Take note of the comments that follow. Nobody is satisfied with the BBC response. Why? Because they didn’t answer any of the “unanswered questions.”

Edited March 6, 2007 by Sid Walker

[Scott Deitche]

Lance shows how the Colombo cases could have been compromised if the feds went ahead with the TWA 800 investigation.

Well this makes my blood boil and I didn't even know anyone on TWA Flight 800. I can't imagine how I'd feel if I were a family member. I don't know how I could tolerate being told that justice could not be sought in the Flight 800 bombing, we couldn't even be told who did it, because it might compromise cases against the Mafia, the same organization that has helped U.S. intelligence operatives assassinate or attempt to assassinate people including a U.S. president. Are we to believe that the CIA does no business with the Mafia today, as in the international drug trade etc.? But that's different, I guess. The CIA and the U.S. government are two entirely different things. So let's not go after terrorists because it could jeopardize government cases against the CIA's friends the Mafia. Let's wait and force the terrorists to do something really big like 9/11 so that the government simply can't ignore them any more.

If I can get this upset just reading about Lance's book, I don't know how I could possibly sit down and read the book itself. Actually I probably need to find something else to do than study this kind of stuff.

Excuse my rant. I just had to get it off my chest.

Well first the CIA doesn't use the Mafia anymore, because quite frankly the mafia's power has greatly diminished. The CIA probably graduated to international OC groups.

The FBI's war on the Mafia was drawing internal criticism back in the early 1980's. During congressional hearings on the OC strike forces in major cities, there was a lot of agents complaining that the FBI were so focused on the Mafia as the sole organized crime entity that they ignored emerging groups, allowing them to flourish.

For example, the FBI listed the Mafia in Denver as their #1 organized crime priority in the mid 1980's. By then, the Denver Mafia was made up of five guys, all over 65. Russian organized crime was establishing a presence in the city, but they were not even on the list. In fact the FBI did not even establish a Russian task force until 1993 (in New York City).

I know a lot of ex-FBI guys who worked organized crime and I'm not trying to disparage their work- they were dedicated agents. But the Justice Department's Mafia obsession caused a lot of problems down the line, as Triple Cross illustrates so well.

On the flip side I also know state and local police who worked organized crime, and are definitely NOT as fond of the FBI. But that's another thread.

[Len Colby]

Logic Says: You didn’t source your report. You didn’t tell us where or how you received word of WTC 7 collapsing, and to check that report all you would have had to do was take a peek at the NY skyline to see if the building was still there.

Before 9-11 CTs made a big fuss about its collapse few people had ever heard of the building. I grew up in NYC and never heard of it before let alone knew what it looked like. I doubt the BBC correspondant did.

You’re claiming chaos was the result of untrue information, but it wasn’t untrue…It just hadn’t happened yet. You didn’t get it wrong, you got it right…Nearly 30 minutes too early! Are we to assume that was just “luck?”

As already pointed out ad infinium the FD had feared collapses was imminent for several hours. Not luck jumping the gun. It would not be the first time media made incorrect reports during a “breaking story” I remember being told that James Brady died after the attempt on Reagan, the guy who was killed at MIA had been shot on the plane (it happened on the jetway), the miners in West Virginia were rescued and that dozens of survivors from and the wreckage from a recent plane crash in Indonesia had been found etc etc.

Take note of the comments that follow. Nobody is satisfied with the BBC response. Why? Because they didn’t answer any of the “unanswered questions.”

Nobody? Or just none of the people who bothered to write?

[Matthew Lewis]

It would not be the first time media made incorrect reports during a “breaking story” I remember being told that James Brady died after the attempt on Reagan, the guy who was killed at MIA had been shot on the plane (it happened on the jetway), the miners in West Virginia were rescued and that dozens of survivors from and the wreckage from a recent plane crash in Indonesia had been found etc etc.

I've got a story even better than those. Last week when the news stations were reporting on the students dead from a tornado in Alabama they reported different numbers of dead in the same sentence. Even worse, they did this same thing several times over the course of a few hours.

[Sid Walker]

It would not be the first time media made incorrect reports during a “breaking story” I remember being told that James Brady died after the attempt on Reagan, the guy who was killed at MIA had been shot on the plane (it happened on the jetway), the miners in West Virginia were rescued and that dozens of survivors from and the wreckage from a recent plane crash in Indonesia had been found etc etc.

I've got a story even better than those. Last week when the news stations were reporting on the students dead from a tornado in Alabama they reported different numbers of dead in the same sentence. Even worse, they did this same thing several times over the course of a few hours.

Thanks for "dropping by on the bike" once again Matthew, to honour us all with most erudite and convincing explanations for the BBC's "20-minutes-before-before-it-took-place" reporting of the unprecedented collapse of a 47-storey building.

You correctly surmised that even The Great Colby might need a hand with this one.

There must be jobs for guys like you in the overworked BBC PR Department.

No news from Evan Burton, I notice. He was going to research real precedents for this type of precognitive reporting. Evan's standards are, I trust, rather higher. He clearly needs time to accomplish the feat he has set himself.

Evan probably appreciates the difference in kind between confusion over casuality numbers and precognition of an unprecedented catastrophic event.

Edited March 6, 2007 by Sid Walker

[Matthew Lewis]

It would not be the first time media made incorrect reports during a “breaking story” I remember being told that James Brady died after the attempt on Reagan, the guy who was killed at MIA had been shot on the plane (it happened on the jetway), the miners in West Virginia were rescued and that dozens of survivors from and the wreckage from a recent plane crash in Indonesia had been found etc etc.

I've got a story even better than those. Last week when the news stations were reporting on the students dead from a tornado in Alabama they reported different numbers of dead in the same sentence. Even worse, they did this same thing several times over the course of a few hours.

Thanks for "dropping by on the bike" once again Matthew, to honour us all with most erudite and convincing explanations for the BBC's "20-minutes-before-before-it-took-place" reporting of the unprecedented collapse of a 47-storey building.

You correctly surmised that even The Great Colby might need a hand with this one.

There must be jobs for guys like you in the overworked BBC PR Department.

No news from Evan Burton, I notice. He was going to research real precedents for this type of precognitive reporting. Evan's standards are, I trust, rather higher. He clearly needs time to accomplish the feat he has set himself.

Evan probably appreciates the difference in kind between confusion over casuality numbers and precognition of an unprecedented catastrophic event.

Um, yeah, whatever. I thought it was pretty obvious that I was not responding to the BBC thing persay but rather commenting on a funny thing I noticed on the news last week which was why I edited out most of his post when I quoted it. What's with the attitude?

Edited March 6, 2007 by Matthew Lewis

[Matthew Lewis]

double post

Edited March 6, 2007 by Matthew Lewis

[Dave Greer]

Well, it's quite a simple explanation that's being put forward. To me, it's the simplest explanation that seems to fit the facts, and make sense.

I've yet to hear a convincing argument against the one scenario I've put forward - i.e. the news report that firefighters had been pulled from WTC7 as it was unstable and was going to collapse (or even that the building was just in danger of collapsing), at some point in the reporting chain became misconstrued as WTC7 had collapsed, rather than WTC7 was going to collapse. Given the fact that they were already dealing with the aftermath of the two collapses and the deaths of many emergency service personnel, there was bound to be a lot of confusion.

The alternative hypothesis being offered makes no sense to me. If it was a planned demolition, why would anyone release a statement to news agencies saying it had already been destroyed prior to the fact? They must have known it would get reported by the various reporters and news agencies anyway.

Given the two competing scenarios, I don't see how the "incorrect news feed" theory can just be dismissed.

You can insist on it being a case of predictive reporting if you like, but I see it as most likely being a case of an incorrect news feed, probably caused by the immense confusion in the aftermath of the WTC1 and WTC2 collapses.

I think it's a logical fallacy to infer it is some kind of "predictive" reporting. Example: Let's assume event A implies event B must follow. Event A happens - and is wrongly reported as Event B happening. Event B subsequently happens. That is not a prediction - once A occurred, B was bound to follow.

Makes sense to my brain, anyway.

[Sid Walker]

It would not be the first time media made incorrect reports during a “breaking story” I remember being told that James Brady died after the attempt on Reagan, the guy who was killed at MIA had been shot on the plane (it happened on the jetway), the miners in West Virginia were rescued and that dozens of survivors from and the wreckage from a recent plane crash in Indonesia had been found etc etc.

I've got a story even better than those. Last week when the news stations were reporting on the students dead from a tornado in Alabama they reported different numbers of dead in the same sentence. Even worse, they did this same thing several times over the course of a few hours.

Thanks for "dropping by on the bike" once again Matthew, to honour us all with most erudite and convincing explanations for the BBC's "20-minutes-before-before-it-took-place" reporting of the unprecedented collapse of a 47-storey building.

You correctly surmised that even The Great Colby might need a hand with this one.

There must be jobs for guys like you in the overworked BBC PR Department.

No news from Evan Burton, I notice. He was going to research real precedents for this type of precognitive reporting. Evan's standards are, I trust, rather higher. He clearly needs time to accomplish the feat he has set himself.

Evan probably appreciates the difference in kind between confusion over casuality numbers and precognition of an unprecedented catastrophic event.

Um, yeah, whatever. I thought it was pretty obvious that I was not responding to the BBC thing persay but rather commenting on a funny thing I noticed on the news last week which was why I edited out most of his post when I quoted it. What's with the attitude?

Attitude?

Not sure what you mean Matthew.

I post here because I'm interested in learning - and sharing - what I understand to be the truth about important events.

I get rather tired of people who only seem to want to argue a point - however irrational.

It seems to be a common trait among posters who, for what ever reasons, invest time supporting the official line on 9/11.

[Matthew Lewis]

Now if you really want my opinion, which I doubt from the perceived attitude of your post, I find it unlikely there was any need for precognition. Seeing as how there are firefighters on record from hours before the event as saying they were worried the building might collapse, how much of a stretch is it that the BBC or other news networks may have heard that? Of course I know that won't be good enough for you but frankly, so what? This is yet another thing that won't be proven one way or the other but will instead be argued back and forth for multiple pages. What's the point?

[Matthew Lewis]

It would not be the first time media made incorrect reports during a “breaking story” I remember being told that James Brady died after the attempt on Reagan, the guy who was killed at MIA had been shot on the plane (it happened on the jetway), the miners in West Virginia were rescued and that dozens of survivors from and the wreckage from a recent plane crash in Indonesia had been found etc etc.

I've got a story even better than those. Last week when the news stations were reporting on the students dead from a tornado in Alabama they reported different numbers of dead in the same sentence. Even worse, they did this same thing several times over the course of a few hours.

Thanks for "dropping by on the bike" once again Matthew, to honour us all with most erudite and convincing explanations for the BBC's "20-minutes-before-before-it-took-place" reporting of the unprecedented collapse of a 47-storey building.

You correctly surmised that even The Great Colby might need a hand with this one.

There must be jobs for guys like you in the overworked BBC PR Department.

No news from Evan Burton, I notice. He was going to research real precedents for this type of precognitive reporting. Evan's standards are, I trust, rather higher. He clearly needs time to accomplish the feat he has set himself.

Evan probably appreciates the difference in kind between confusion over casuality numbers and precognition of an unprecedented catastrophic event.

Um, yeah, whatever. I thought it was pretty obvious that I was not responding to the BBC thing persay but rather commenting on a funny thing I noticed on the news last week which was why I edited out most of his post when I quoted it. What's with the attitude?

Attitude?

Not sure what you mean Matthew.

I post here because I'm interested in learning - and sharing - what I understand to be the truth about important events.

I get rather tired of people who only seem to want to argue a point - however irrational.

It seems to be a common trait among posters who, for what ever reasons, invest time supporting the official line on 9/11.

Gee, sorry, there must not have been any attitude there. I guess the phrases

dropping by on the bike

honour us all with most erudite and convincing

There must be jobs for guys like you in the overworked BBC PR Department

and

probably appreciates the difference in kind between confusion over casuality numbers and precognition of an unprecedented catastrophic event.

really weren't in your post and wouldn't have looked to most like you were annoyed that I even bothered to post something even somewhat in supoort of an opposing viewpoint to yours. I must have been mistaken.

[Sid Walker]

It would not be the first time media made incorrect reports during a “breaking story” I remember being told that James Brady died after the attempt on Reagan, the guy who was killed at MIA had been shot on the plane (it happened on the jetway), the miners in West Virginia were rescued and that dozens of survivors from and the wreckage from a recent plane crash in Indonesia had been found etc etc.

I've got a story even better than those. Last week when the news stations were reporting on the students dead from a tornado in Alabama they reported different numbers of dead in the same sentence. Even worse, they did this same thing several times over the course of a few hours.

Thanks for "dropping by on the bike" once again Matthew, to honour us all with most erudite and convincing explanations for the BBC's "20-minutes-before-before-it-took-place" reporting of the unprecedented collapse of a 47-storey building.

You correctly surmised that even The Great Colby might need a hand with this one.

There must be jobs for guys like you in the overworked BBC PR Department.

No news from Evan Burton, I notice. He was going to research real precedents for this type of precognitive reporting. Evan's standards are, I trust, rather higher. He clearly needs time to accomplish the feat he has set himself.

Evan probably appreciates the difference in kind between confusion over casuality numbers and precognition of an unprecedented catastrophic event.

Um, yeah, whatever. I thought it was pretty obvious that I was not responding to the BBC thing persay but rather commenting on a funny thing I noticed on the news last week which was why I edited out most of his post when I quoted it. What's with the attitude?

Attitude?

Not sure what you mean Matthew.

I post here because I'm interested in learning - and sharing - what I understand to be the truth about important events.

I get rather tired of people who only seem to want to argue a point - however irrational.

It seems to be a common trait among posters who, for what ever reasons, invest time supporting the official line on 9/11.

Gee, sorry, there must not have been any attitude there. I guess the phrases

dropping by on the bike

honour us all with most erudite and convincing

There must be jobs for guys like you in the overworked BBC PR Department

and

probably appreciates the difference in kind between confusion over casuality numbers and precognition of an unprecedented catastrophic event.

really weren't in your post and wouldn't have looked to most like you were annoyed that I even bothered to post something even somewhat in supoort of an opposing viewpoint to yours. I must have been mistaken.

Matthew,

I had no idea that today's bikers are such delicate souls.

My deepest apologies if I gave offence.

But seriously, how about keeping to the topic of the thread?

For wit and cynicism about 9-11, I'll stick with the Wonkette.

She writes with a keyboard, not a dashboard.

Edited March 7, 2007 by Sid Walker

[Len Colby]

OBL had a very obvious reason for denying participation in the attacks. The Taliban said they would turn him over if presented with conclusive evidence of his involvement.

Well, the Taliban's word is good enough for me!

One doesn’t have to trust them, but if he had admitted responsibility after they said they’d turn him over if proof of his guilt was presented they’d have little choice. I doubt they knew about the attacks in advance because they must have known what the result would be unless they were convinced Allah would protect them. I imagine OBL knew this too but figured the “cost to benefit ratio” for him and his cause would be positive and wished to bide his time for as long as possible.

Edited March 7, 2007 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

The smug sarcasm continues.