Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Len Colby]

As previously noted a common “truther” tactic is when the facts don’t go their way is to change the subject!

The notion that supporting or opposing 9-11 inside job theories is a left-right issue is a strawman promoted both by many truthers and conservatives. The truth is of course that many prominent leftists have stated their opposition to or a least doubts about such theories and that many ultra-rightwing groups and people like the American Free Press, Klu Klux Klan, JBS, AFPN and Alex Jones support them all except the latter are associated with theories (now apparently supported by some leftists like Sid) that the “Zionists” have a master plan for world domination. In the 1960 a number of high ranking military types including Gen. Edwin Walker were tied to groups supporting such theories. So it is not at all surprising that a number of right-wingers including those in the military would back “inside job” theories. 16% of the American public do so why not a handful of (mostly) former government officials?

Another strawman is that these people in anyway constitute “insiders”. The closest they come are:

- A USAF officer who claims she was on duty at the Pentagon, just like tens of thousands of other people. Her views of 9-11 seem more shaped by reading “truth movement” sites than her personal experience thought she claims didn’t see very much airplane wreckage and the hole was too small, claims that have been long since debunked. She even believes that Payne Stewart’s plane was quickly intercepted!

- Sibel Edmonds who was briefly worked for the FBI AFTER 9-11 as a low level civilian translator of Turkish, Persian (Farsi) and gAzeri languages that would not have been used by any of the people blamed for the attack by the “official theory” after long backing the idea OBL was behind the attacks she agreed after coaxing from Alex Jones that the evidence indicates an “inside job”

[Derek McMillan]

The BBC have lost their coverage of 9/11

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

The head of BBC news claims on the BBC website that is a cock-up not a conspiracy. If it is a cock-up it is a monumental one. The phrase "heads will roll" springs to mind. When they refer to Richard Porter as the head of news...it is still attached to his body is it?

[Sid Walker]

As previously noted a common “truther” tactic is when the facts don’t go their way is to change the subject!

The notion that supporting or opposing 9-11 inside job theories is a left-right issue is a strawman promoted both by many truthers and conservatives. The truth is of course that many prominent leftists have stated their opposition to or a least doubts about such theories and that many ultra-rightwing groups and people like the American Free Press, Klu Klux Klan, JBS, AFPN and Alex Jones support them all except the latter are associated with theories (now apparently supported by some leftists like Sid) that the “Zionists” have a master plan for world domination. In the 1960 a number of high ranking military types including Gen. Edwin Walker were tied to groups supporting such theories. So it is not at all surprising that a number of right-wingers including those in the military would back “inside job” theories. 16% of the American public do so why not a handful of (mostly) former government officials?

Another strawman is that these people in anyway constitute “insiders”. The closest they come are:

- A USAF officer who claims she was on duty at the Pentagon, just like tens of thousands of other people. Her views of 9-11 seem more shaped by reading “truth movement” sites than her personal experience thought she claims didn’t see very much airplane wreckage and the hole was too small, claims that have been long since debunked. She even believes that Payne Stewart’s plane was quickly intercepted!

- Sibel Edmonds who was briefly worked for the FBI AFTER 9-11 as a low level civilian translator of Turkish, Persian (Farsi) and gAzeri languages that would not have been used by any of the people blamed for the attack by the “official theory” after long backing the idea OBL was behind the attacks she agreed after coaxing from Alex Jones that the evidence indicates an “inside job”

The subjectof this thread, Len, is 9/11.

Please show me where my posts have been "off-topic".

It's true that I don't pursue every point with you, back and forth, until my beard grows down to the floor.

There are some sub-plots that. IMO, cannot be taken further, without boring all concerned. We have to agree to differ. I - and other readers have noted that you have argued against every possible objection to the official story. No doubt you shall continue to do so.

As for your attempt to portray doubts about the official story as an "ultra-rightwing" deviation... well, you would say that, wouldn't you, Len? It's a line that worked well for a while. But it's not as efficacious as it used to be, because it is untrue and has been groslly over-used.

In reality, the so called 'ultra-right wing' - like any other sector - is not a unified block.

I notice for instance that Netenyahu is a keen exponent of the official story. Indeed, he was one of the first to articulate it - on CNN, as I recall, in the first hours after the 9-11 mass murders.

In Britain, the BNPs Nick Griffin is apparently on your side.

In the USA, the number of ultra-right wing loonies who claim to believe in the official story is extensive, from the President and V-P downwards...

[Len Colby]

The subjectof this thread, Len, is 9/11.

Please show me where my posts have been "off-topic".

I said your post had changed the subject not that it was off-topic, for the last few days we’d been discussing your belief that the BBC’ s mistaken report that 7 WTC had collapsed a few minutes before it did constituted a smoking gun.

It's true that I don't pursue every point with you, back and forth, until my beard grows down to the floor.

There are some sub-plots that. IMO, cannot be taken further, without boring all concerned. We have to agree to differ. I - and other readers have noted that you have argued against every possible objection to the official story.

Wonderful attempt at rationalization, you theory lies in tatters but rather than admit defeat or try fruitlessly to continue defending it you feign disinterest. The “theory” was predicated on the belief the collapse was unforeseeable which has been falsified. Even Ron and John Gillespie who like you believe 7 was demoed seem to agree the report was a simple mistake. I doubt that even Mark the only person to voice support for your “theory” still thinks there is anything to it. You also objected that they hadn’t expained where they got the info from and they did.

No doubt you shall continue to do so. No doubt you shall continue to do so.

Since you seem to have acquiesced, there is no reason for me to discuss the topic any further.

As for your attempt to portray doubts about the official story as an "ultra-rightwing" deviation... well, you would say that, wouldn't you, Len? It's a line that worked well for a while. But it's not as efficacious as it used to be, because it is untrue and has been groslly over-used.

In reality, the so called 'ultra-right wing' - like any other sector - is not a unified block.

Exactly, the right is divided which is why “George Washington’s” contention that it is some how surprising that some conservatives back “inside job” theories is a strawman. I also pointed out that numerous rightwing zealots back such theories and this seems in large part tied to “Zionist” conspiracy theories. As stated previously since about 16 percent of the population believes 9-11 was an “inside job” it’s not surprising to find a handful of conservative former office holders among them. Further adding to the fallaciousness of the blog entry we have no indication of the political leanings of about half the people he cited.

I notice for instance that Netenyahu is a keen exponent of the official story. Indeed, he was one of the first to articulate it - on CNN, as I recall, in the first hours after the 9-11 mass murders.

If you are referring to his remark that the attacks were “very good” Israeli-American relations though insensitive was accurate. I believe long before he said that OBL had been named as the most likely culprit, if you have any evidence to the contrary don’t be shy about sharing it with us.

In Britain, the BNPs Nick Griffin is apparently on your side.

In the USA, the number of ultra-right wing loonies who claim to believe in the official story is extensive, from the President and V-P downwards...

Well bully for them, there is an old saying in rural parts of the US “even a blind pig finds an acorn sometimes” heck even you are right once in a while too! The Klan, neo-Nazi’s and most White supremacists are on your side BTW.

[Sid Walker]

The subjectof this thread, Len, is 9/11.

Please show me where my posts have been "off-topic".

I said your post had changed the subject not that it was off-topic, for the last few days we’d been discussing your belief that the BBC’ s mistaken report that 7 WTC had collapsed a few minutes before it did constituted a smoking gun.

It's true that I don't pursue every point with you, back and forth, until my beard grows down to the floor.

There are some sub-plots that. IMO, cannot be taken further, without boring all concerned. We have to agree to differ. I - and other readers have noted that you have argued against every possible objection to the official story.

Wonderful attempt at rationalization, you theory lies in tatters but rather than admit defeat or try fruitlessly to continue defending it you feign disinterest. The “theory” was predicated on the belief the collapse was unforeseeable which has been falsified. Even Ron and John Gillespie who like you believe 7 was demoed seem to agree the report was a simple mistake. I doubt that even Mark the only person to voice support for your “theory” still thinks there is anything to it. You also objected that they hadn’t expained where they got the info from and they did.

Oh humbug Len

You are like one of those guys at parties who keeps arguing his point after most of the attendees have gone home or fallen asleep.

If you want to think you've scored a victory, be my guest. "Winning aruments" is obviously of great importance to you. It's probably in your performance criteria.

Outside of your fantasy world, Len, here are a few FACTS, now accepted, that were not widely known a couple of weeks ago.

1/ The unprecedented total collpase of WTC-7 WAS announced some 20 minutes in advance by the BBC

2/ The BCC reluctantly admitted this 'error' only when forced to do so by viewers

3/ The BBC claims to have lost large amounts of footage from 9/11

4/ Person/s unknown tried - but failed - to erase the crucial video material from Google and the internet archive

5/ Aaron Brown of CNN read the same premature newsfeed - but was able to adapt his story (in mid-sentence) to take account of the actual NYC skyline; he could see WTC-7 still standing at the moment he announced its collapse

6/ LIke the BBC, CNN did not admit its 'mistake'

7/ The BBC will not tell the rest of us the source of its over-enthusiastic story about the collapse of WTC-7.

8/ The BBC is much more widely perceived than before as an institution controlled by liars

Did I miss anything significant?

Now, what's in tatters?

[Sid Walker]

- duplicate post -

Edited March 13, 2007 by Sid Walker

[Sid Walker]

Click the link to Sign the online petition:

No more Stonewalling from the BBC re WTC 7?

To: The British Broadcasting Corporation

So Mr. Richard Porter of the BBC wants the whole 'BBC Reported Building 7 Collapse 20 Minutes Before It Fell' scandal (and believe me, it IS a scandal even if you don't see it on the evening news) to just go away. The BBC is under the impression that knocking down a couple of straw-men and proclaiming 'nothing to see here folks' is going make us all just forget the monumental 'cock up' which is the BBCs attempt at damage control. The BBC is also under the impression that it is only a few 'lone nuts' out there hammering the YouTube and Google Video counts and that this story is going to lose all it's steam by next week.

Well Mr. Richard Porter. This is where you are so very wrong...

We the Undersigned formally demand the following information from the BBC.

1. Who was the source who told your station that the Salomon Building had collapsed?

2. Who from the BBC ordered YouTube and GoogleVideo to immediately start pulling the videos from their sites the day this story broke?

3. Who from the BBC ordered Archive.Org to block and then remove their copies of the footage which (until this story broke) were freely available online?

4. Who is responsible for and what were the circumstances surrounding the 'cock-up' which led to the loss of BBC World News' 9/11 footage?

5. Who cut reporter Jane Standley's live feed from NYC at 5:18pm (EST) on 11/09/01?

Until you answer these 5 questions IN FULL, you can expect the BBC's phones to be ringing daily with people asking these 5 questions over and over until they are answered.

Take a good look at the number of signatures here Mr Porter. These are the people who are demanding these answers and these are the people who WON'T go away.

Welcome to the Digital Age Mr. Richard Porter. You're either a news outlet or a supermarket tabloid. Which is it?

Sincerely,

The Undersigned

My comment is listed as no. 2428:

Sid Walker Why pay license fees to fund an organization that apparently covers for mass murderers - while bloggers are forced to do real journalism on a shoestring?

[Len Colby]

“You are like one of those guys at parties who keeps arguing his point after most of the attendees have gone home or fallen asleep.”

And what does that make you who continues to argue with me? I see that when changing the subject doesn’t work resorting to insults is a back-up tactic.

“Outside of your fantasy world, Len, here are a few FACTS, now accepted, that were not widely known a couple of weeks ago.

1/ The unprecedented total collpase of WTC-7 WAS announced some 20 minutes in advance by the BBC”

Not quite unprecedented, since two close by buildings with similar construction had collapsed only a few hours earlier. True it unlike them it had not been hit by a plane but it had been hit by rubble from a building 5000x heavier and had been burning about 7x longer than the South Tower.

Not unprecedented and certainly not unexpected since there are numerous reports that the FD had expected the building to collapse all afternoon and had even set up a collapse zone around it. It’s not hard to imagine confusion. The woman did begin her report saying “details are sketchy”

The collapse was also expected by other media outlets, how else do you explain CBS having a camera trained on the building? CNBC said the collapse had been expected “all afternoon”. Were they “in on it” too?

Imagine a political leader is injured in an accident and is rushed to a hospital:

-Two other people in the accident died,

- Numerous doctors and nurses report he was seriously wounded and has severe bleeding and hemorrhaging

- Numerous doctors and nurses say they don’t expect him to live much longer.

Two TV stations report his death before it happens one beings its report by saying “details are sketchy” the other by they were “getting reports” he “had died or was dying”. Another TV station reports that his death “had been expected all afternoon” after it is announced. Is the most logical assumption a) he was murdered and the plotters gave the media a script or an error was made.

“2/ The BCC reluctantly admitted this 'error' only when forced to do so by viewers”

Do you expect them to have admitted ‘error’ before it was pointed out to them? How long did it take for them to comment? Failure or reluctance to admit an error is not evidence of something more sinister.

“3/ The BBC claims to have lost large amounts of footage from 9/11”

Already replied to, what was to be gained by falsely claiming this since copies were in circulation on the Net? When did they say they had “lost large amounts of footage from 9/11”?

“4/ Person/s unknown tried - but failed - to erase the crucial video material from Google and the internet archive.”

I already asked for evidence to support this claim, now you are claiming the same about Youtube without citation.

“5/ Aaron Brown of CNN read the same premature newsfeed - but was able to adapt his story (in mid-sentence) to take account of the actual NYC skyline; he could see WTC-7 still standing at the moment he announced its collapse.”

He said they were “getting reports [7 WTC] was on fire and had collapsed or was collapsing”. He never said it “had collapsed” so he/they didn’t make a mistake.

“6/ LIke the BBC, CNN did not admit its 'mistake'.”

1 -They didn’t really make a mistake

2 - Failure or reluctance to admit an error is not evidence of something more sinister.

“7/ The BBC will not tell the rest of us the source of its over-enthusiastic story about the collapse of WTC-7.”

Actually they did as already pointed out but you continue to ignore this

“8/ The BBC is much more widely perceived than before as an institution controlled by liars”

Evidence? I imagine most of the people who like you are making a big deal about this like you didn’t trust them before either.

[Len Colby]

“You are like one of those guys at parties who keeps arguing his point after most of the attendees have gone home or fallen asleep.”

And what does that make you who continues to argue with me? I see that when changing the subject doesn’t work resorting to insults is a back-up tactic.

“Outside of your fantasy world, Len, here are a few FACTS, now accepted, that were not widely known a couple of weeks ago.

1/ The unprecedented total collpase of WTC-7 WAS announced some 20 minutes in advance by the BBC”

Not quite unprecedented, since two close by buildings with similar construction had collapsed only a few hours earlier. True it unlike them it had not been hit by a plane but it had been hit by rubble from a building 5000x heavier and had been burning about 7x longer than the South Tower.

Not unprecedented and certainly not unexpected since there are numerous reports that the FD had expected the building to collapse all afternoon and had even set up a collapse zone around it. It’s not hard to imagine confusion. The woman did begin her report saying “details are sketchy”

The collapse was also expected by other media outlets, how else do you explain CBS having a camera trained on the building? CNBC said the collapse had been expected “all afternoon”. Were they “in on it” too?

Imagine a political leader is injured in an accident and is rushed to a hospital:

-Two other people in the accident died,

- Numerous doctors and nurses report he was seriously wounded and has severe bleeding and hemorrhaging

- Numerous doctors and nurses say they don’t expect him to live much longer.

Two TV stations report his death before it happens one beings its report by saying “details are sketchy” the other by they were “getting reports” he “had died or was dying”. Another TV station reports that his death “had been expected all afternoon” after it is announced. Is the most logical assumption A) he was murdered and the plotters gave the media a script or an error was made.

You have yet to explain what was to be gained by giving the media "a script" ahead of time to report an event they would have reported shortly any way. Until you do your "theory" makes no sense.

“2/ The BCC reluctantly admitted this 'error' only when forced to do so by viewers”

Do you expect them to have admitted ‘error’ before it was pointed out to them? How long did it take for them to comment? Failure or reluctance to admit an error is not evidence of something more sinister.

“3/ The BBC claims to have lost large amounts of footage from 9/11”

Already replied to, what was to be gained by falsely claiming this since copies were in circulation on the Net? When did they say they had “lost large amounts of footage from 9/11”?

“4/ Person/s unknown tried - but failed - to erase the crucial video material from Google and the internet archive.”

I already asked for evidence to support this claim, now you are claiming the same about Youtube without citation.

“5/ Aaron Brown of CNN read the same premature newsfeed - but was able to adapt his story (in mid-sentence) to take account of the actual NYC skyline; he could see WTC-7 still standing at the moment he announced its collapse.”

He said they were “getting reports [7 WTC] was on fire and had collapsed or was collapsing”. He never said it “had collapsed” so he/they didn’t make a mistake.

“6/ LIke the BBC, CNN did not admit its 'mistake'.”

1 -They didn’t really make a mistake

2 - Failure or reluctance to admit an error is not evidence of something more sinister.

“7/ The BBC will not tell the rest of us the source of its over-enthusiastic story about the collapse of WTC-7.”

Actually they did as already pointed out but you continue to ignore this See post #200 on the previous page.

“8/ The BBC is much more widely perceived than before as an institution controlled by liars”

Evidence? I imagine most of the people who like you are making a big deal about this like you didn’t trust them before either.

Edited March 13, 2007 by Len Colby

[Paul Rigby]

1/ The unprecedented total collpase of WTC-7 WAS announced some 20 minutes in advance by the BBC”

Not quite unprecedented, since two close by buildings with similar construction had collapsed only a few hours earlier. True it unlike them it had not been hit by a plane but it had been hit by rubble from a building 5000x heavier ....

Pure, unadulterated bathos!

Sid Walker:“8/ The BBC is much more widely perceived than before as an institution controlled by liars”

Evidence? I imagine most of the people who like you are making a big deal about this like you didn’t trust them before either.

Len,

What exactly is it that made you trust the BBC in the first place? Is it that MI5 vetting office which the grapevine has it still sits in Broadcasting House? Is it the rich history of careers destroyed, stymied, or merely re-routed harmlessly by the far-rightists who people British Intelligence, and who sit in unaccountable judgement on who gets to go where in, and make what for, this fine, thoroughly democratic institution? Is it the foreign correspondents who whitewash British and American crimes across the globe? And where is your commitment to freedom and choice? Do you think it right that the British people are compelled under threat of fine and/or imprisonment by the state to pay for a service a growing minority do not use, like or want?

Paul

[Len Colby]

1/ The unprecedented total collpase of WTC-7 WAS announced some 20 minutes in advance by the BBC”

Not quite unprecedented, since two close by buildings with similar construction had collapsed only a few hours earlier. True it unlike them it had not been hit by a plane but it had been hit by rubble from a building 5000x heavier ....

Pure, unadulterated bathos!

Are you sure you meant bathos Paul? Or did you mean bull uuuuh bull you know what? (the administaors of this board have objected to the use of "foul" language) In either case justify your remark

Sid Walker:“8/ The BBC is much more widely perceived than before as an institution controlled by liars”

Evidence? I imagine most of the people who like you are making a big deal about this like you didn’t trust them before either.

Len,

What exactly is it that made you trust the BBC in the first place? Is it that MI5 vetting office which the grapevine has it still sits in Broadcasting House? Is it the rich history of careers destroyed, stymied, or merely re-routed harmlessly by the far-rightists who people British Intelligence, and who sit in unaccountable judgement on who gets to go where in, and make what for, this fine, thoroughly democratic institution? Is it the foreign correspondents who whitewash British and American crimes across the globe? And where is your commitment to freedom and choice? Do you think it right that the British people are compelled under threat of fine and/or imprisonment by the state to pay for a service a growing minority do not use, like or want?

Paul

I don't put my unquestioning trust in the Beeb though they seem to be one of the more reliable and balanced sources out there. In this case the case for “complicity” and foreknowledge is risible.

As for the licensing fee issue as an American living in Brazil who has never spent more than a few weeks in the UK I don’t think my opinion would be especially relevant even if I knew enough about the subject to come to an informed opinion, and I don’t.

Do you have any evidence for the various charges you make against them? If so perhaps you should start a thread on the topic.

PS Sid –

Forgot to ask you in my last post, what would the motive have been for providing a “script” to the BBC and CNN (and probably MSNBC and CBS as well) since according to “inside jobbers” the PTB/PNAC/MIC/MIBH/Illuminati wanted to keep the collapse of 7 as ‘hush hush’ as possible?

[Sid Walker]

PS Sid –

Forgot to ask you in my last post, what would the motive have been for providing a “script” to the BBC and CNN (and probably MSNBC and CBS as well) since according to “inside jobbers” the PTB/PNAC/MIC/MIBH/Illuminati wanted to keep the collapse of 7 as ‘hush hush’ as possible?

???

Let's see of I can paraphrase that to make some sense out of a poorly phrased question.

Do I believe there was at least one 'central scripting' office from which the media was kept appraised of the 'Government' response to 9/11 in NYC operating on the day?

Yes. I think that likely. And not of itself improper, I should add. One would expect a central clearing house for issuing media reports in the event of a major national crisis.

I'd like to know who worked in that office/s. Who made what statements and when? What records have been kept of statements released on the day - including bulletins such as announcements of the collapse of WTC-7? Are any records 'missing'.

To paraphrase Betrand Russell's comment on the Warren Commission, if the official story is true, why the need for secrecy?

Just release the records and let the people look.

Who said what on 9/11 has necessarily become an issue because of curious 'mistakes' such as the BBCs premature annoucement.

If Government and the media have nothing to hide, it would be sensible they release all records promptly to clear the air.

Edited March 14, 2007 by Sid Walker

[Len Colby]

My question wasn’t so poorly worded as much as it asks a question you don’t want to answer. You didn’t rephrase it, you changed it. I know you (now) think there was some central scripting office feeding news to the media. There are a few problems with that silly theory:

1) What exactly was the motive for doing this? What was to be gained? Doing so vastly complicates the conspiracy and mightily increases the number of people “in on it” not only would you have the people who worked in this secret office but you would have all the people at the media outlets who passed the reports on to the public, an Operation Mockingbird on a massive scale; dozens if not hundreds of journalists “in on” the murder of thousands of their fellow citizens and it’s use as a pretext for a war or two. How much differently would how the media reported the collapse of 7 for instance without a script have been from the scripted version?

2) Specifically regarding 7 WTC, why focus attention on its collapse when until a week or so ago “inside jobbers” were howling that the MSM was doing all it could to keep it “hush-hush” because it was such a “smoking gun”? Why have several TV cameras trained on the building? Why have some of the commentators like Dan Rather say the collapse looked like “controlled demolition” was that in the script?

3) News reports that morning spoke of the collapse of the towers resembling implosions and the police and fire departments suspecting the presence of “secondary devices” in them. The next day People posted an interview with a firefighter saying he thought bombs had been set off (he has twice said he was misquoted), was all that in the script too?

If you really want the (bending the) ‘truth’ movement to look foolish make a big push to get the records of a government agency you have no evidence exists released! LOL and you think I live in my (own) “fantasy world”? And what other records do think should be released?

Edited March 14, 2007 by Len Colby

[Sid Walker]

My question wasn’t so poorly worded as it asks a question you don’t want to answer. You didn’t rephrase it, you changed it. I know you (now) think there was some central scripting office feeding news to the media. There are a few problems with that silly theory:

1) What exactly was the motive for doing this? What was to be gained? Doing so vastly complicates the conspiracy and mightily increases the number of people “in on it” not only would you have the people who worked in this secret office but you would have all the people at the media outlets who passed the reports on to the public, an Operation Mockingbird on a massive scale; dozens if not hundreds of journalists “in on” the murder of thousands of their fellow citizens and it’s use as a pretext for a war or two. How much differently would how the media reported the collapse of 7 for instance without a script have been from the scripted version?

2) Specifically regarding 7 WTC, why focus attention on its collapse when until a week or so ago “inside jobbers” were howling that the MSM was doing all it could to keep it “hush-hush” because it was such a “smoking gun”? Why have several TV cameras trained on the building? Why have some of the commentators like Dan Rather say the collapse looked like “controlled demolition” was that in the script?

3) News reports that morning spoke of the collapse of the towers resembling implosions and the police and fire departments suspecting the presence of “secondary devices” in them. The next day People posted an interview with a firefighter saying he thought bombs had been set off (he has twice said he was misquoted), was all that in the script too?

If you really want the (bending the) ‘truth’ movement to look foolish make a big push to get the records of a government agency you have no evidence exists released! LOL and you think I live in my (own) “fantasy world”? And what other records do think should be released?

Len,

It's simple, although you prefer to make it complicated.

The BBC/CNN report of the collapse of WTC-7, like every other media report, came from somewhere. There was a source for the report. What was it? Who provided that 'information'? That's the kind of thing we need to know.

I imagaine in NYC the mayor's office was crucial. Perhaps that was the central clearing house for media reports that I posited earier? Perhaps there wasn't one? I don't care. It's not a guessing game. Just let's have the facts. Who reported what, when, from where?

The public has a right to facts about activities carried out in the name of the public that made use of public resources. Not too much to ask, is it? In the case of private media institutions such as CNN, there is no equivalent public 'right to know'. However, what type of corporate citizen would deliberately withold crucial information about the 9/11 mass murders - and for what valid reason?

[Len Colby]

No Sid, you are the one making of making a mountain out of what was probably a simple screw up, somewhere along the line the news that 7 was on fire and about to collapse became it was on fire and had collapsed. The collapse was expected by the fire department and other news outlets, news media have gotten breaking stories wrong before and since and I’m sure will continue to do so in the future. Major truthers like Alex Jones and Jim Fetzer still routinely report false facts about events that day. Conspiracy? No, it just goes to show people are fallible.

You still haven’t explained why the plotters would supply advanced scripts to the media. Especially regarding an event they were trying to keep quite

As to where they got the information the BBC explained though I’m sure you’ll say you’re not satisfied by it. Do you really expect people to remember in minute detail every thing they did that day? Do you remember everything you did on 9/11?

“…what type of corporate citizen would deliberately withold crucial information about the 9/11 mass murders - and for what valid reason?”

Your reasoning is a bit circular what information do you think is being withheld and what makes you think it can shed any light on who was responsible for 9/11?