|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 27, 2007 19:34:44 GMT -4
That is of course the ONLY explanation that even remotely makes sense.
It is also the only one that isn't circular in reasoning. We know that people screw up, that they misread things and get things wrong. We don't have to presuppose that people are failable, we can prove that independantly. Because we can prove that independantly we can use it for a premise of what happened.
It is not possible to prove that the BBC were in on it though. Claims that they were "following a script" or that this informations was "leaked to them" are total speculation based on the incident itself and the prior belief that it was an inside job. Thus this system uses a belief to prove itself.
- It was an inside job. - The BBC reported it early. - The only way they could have known was that someone in the know told them. - This proves it was an inside job.
Totally circular.
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Feb 27, 2007 19:56:02 GMT -4
Nah, we shouldn't let that small detail get in the way of a good conspiracy
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 27, 2007 20:21:10 GMT -4
Oh, one other thing--how many people knew what WTC 7 looked like at the time? I certainly didn't. I didn't until a few months ago. Since there were several buildings on fire in the vicinity, as I recall, would the reporter have even known which of those was WTC 7?
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Feb 27, 2007 21:14:47 GMT -4
Oh, one other thing--how many people knew what WTC 7 looked like at the time? I certainly didn't. I didn't until a few months ago. Since there were several buildings on fire in the vicinity, as I recall, would the reporter have even known which of those was WTC 7? Well, I'm sure there had to be a snapshot paperclipped to the NWO conspiracy script the reporter was briefed with before hand, silly.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 27, 2007 22:01:13 GMT -4
Nah, we shouldn't let that small detail get in the way of a good conspiracy
That's the problem, CT's don't let anything get in the way of a good CT. If it does, they simply close their eyes and pretend it's not there, or claim it was planted.
|
|
|
Post by 911: Inside Job on Feb 28, 2007 0:46:07 GMT -4
the BBC is damned if they do, damned if they don't. It appears that ANY mistake made in the heat of the moment during a crises can come back to haunt you once the crack YouTube investigators find out about it. Poor mainstream media...so misunderstood. They never tell lies or half-truths, just honest mistakes. Untrue or flushed down the memory hole? There are numerous eye witness, first-hand reports of bombs going off in the basement of the towers well before the collapses began. Shattered glass in the lobby, a man with his skin burned off etc. All completely ignored by the 9-11 Whitewash Omission. Why?
|
|
|
Post by 911: Inside Job on Feb 28, 2007 0:50:53 GMT -4
Actually, I'd like to note that a lot of news is done in front of screens. Not quite the way The Daily Show does it, true, but your local news team is sitting in an enclosed studio, too. That's not really a window looking out on your hometown's cityscape. The BBC's response doesn't mention any green screens, which are never used by a field reporter anyway. They still claim it was a live report from NYC.
|
|
|
Post by 911: Inside Job on Feb 28, 2007 1:02:05 GMT -4
I still think that they received a report that it looked like it was going to collapse and they misreported it as already had collapsed. Of course that won't satisfy the conspiracy believers. Assuming the BBC can speak and read English, how exactly would they misinterpret a warning of a collapse as a fait accompli? You guys bend over backwards to give the mainstream media a free pass as long as it avoids the appearance of a conspiracy. You'd jump all over a CT web site if it made a glaring error like that. Unbelievable. Do I smell double standard?
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Feb 28, 2007 1:17:47 GMT -4
There is no point discussing anything on this forum that may contradict or make any official fairytale look ridiculous. It is fun to read the answers from the all knowing now and then but after a while it becomes offensive. This latest screw up by the BBC has one important question that needs answering. Who told the BBC that the world trade center building had collapsed before it happened. The BBC report was correct, it was restated many times, it contained a reason and some detail. It was Early. The BBC response is a joke, missing video? sound familiar, can't remember? sound familiar. The people responding on this blog sum it up, someone pinched my weakest link line. www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 28, 2007 1:29:03 GMT -4
Untrue or flushed down the memory hole?
Well unless someone somehow managed to hide an massive hole and scorch mark at the US Capitol Building.....
Assuming the BBC can speak and read English, how exactly would they misinterpret a warning of a collapse as a fait accompli?
Actually I find this statement incrediblely ironic after your previous one, after all I assume you can read English too, so explain how you:
1) Incorrectly attributed a quote to me that I didn't say.
Today at 10:34am, PhantomWolf wrote: the BBC is damned if they do, damned if they don't. It appears that ANY mistake made in the heat of the moment during a crises can come back to haunt you once the crack YouTube investigators find out about it. and 2) Mixed up the Capitol Building and the WTC Towers?
Untrue or flushed down the memory hole? There are numerous eye witness, first-hand reports of bombs going off in the basement of the towers well before the collapses began.
I'm guessing you didn't read it carefully, and so you made a mistake. You were sitting at a computer in a calm situation where you have no excuses for not reading the posts correctly, and yet you are essentially seem to be saying that a person reading stuff that is rapidly coming off the wire on what was an extremely hectic news day, and when it was late into the day, which is when people were getting tired and strung out, couldn't make a similar mistake?
What makes them have to be so perfect when you can't do it while sitting calmly at your computer?
|
|
|
Post by 911: Inside Job on Feb 28, 2007 1:39:53 GMT -4
Phantom, maybe if you read more carefully, you'd notice I was giving an example of something else that has been officially ignored despite the eye witnesses. I wasn't confusing the two as you assume.
Nit pick all you want while not addressing the main arguments. That the SOP around here.
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on Feb 28, 2007 1:44:06 GMT -4
the BBC is damned if they do, damned if they don't. Yes, I'm sure they're having ulcers and panic attacks now that 911: Inside Job is onto them.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Feb 28, 2007 1:45:57 GMT -4
Liars claim to be making honest mistakes because honest mistake are made all the time by honest people.
When someone claims to have made an honest mistake, they could be a liar, trying to look honest, or they could be an honest person, actually being honest.
How can you tell which it is? The claim itself can't tell you, because the claim itself supports either interpretation.
Now, since we know that sometimes the media lies, and sometimes the media makes honest mistakes, and sometimes the media both lies and makes honest mistakes, and sometimes the media neither lies nor makes honest mistakes, the media's past behavior also can't tell you whether or not it's a lie or an honest mistake in this case. Again, the evidence supports either interpretation.
Now, all the expert testimony supports the mainstream interpretation. All the physical evidence supports the mainstream interpretation. Much of what we consider to be true about "human nature"--that clever conspiracists would not involve more people than necessary, that with as many people involved as the CT requires would very likely lead to whistleblowing on a grand scale, that honest mistakes do in fact happen in times of stress and confusion--supports the mainstream interpretation.
Against this mainstream interpretation, what have we seen? Anything even remotely realistic or convincing, on any level?
Don't get me wrong: human nature being what it is, I'm sure that there are people in positions of power in the world today, who would have done exactly what the CTs claim happened on 9/11--if such a thing were physically possible, technically feasible, and practially useful. Indeed, history is full of people who have done precisely this sort of thing whenever they could. Nixon, for example, arranged for the burglary of the Watergate hotel. That, and the Iran-Contra scandal I consider the state of the conspiratorial art in American governance.
The CTs in this thread are talking about epic-level alien space ray mind control hologram invasions.
And even that doesn't explain why they'd bring the BBC in on it.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Feb 28, 2007 1:52:09 GMT -4
What is it with you people? How big does this conspiracy get? BBC handed a script by the ninja demolition squad, and they read it at the wrong time? Good thing we've got you "truth seekers" out here looking for these mistakes.
I remember the confusion of that day - I was home the whole time, and watched all the coverage I could stand. There was massive confusion, as journalists were engaging in circular reporting - news people were watching CNN and reporting on it, and CNN was watching the local and network news, and the emergency agencies were watching both. There weren't exactly press conferences going on.
Remeber the 1989 San Francisco earthquake? The death toll was very confused. The sheriff's department went on air with a quote of casualties that they got from the media, and the media in some cases added that number to the numbers they already had, doubling the error.
I remember when WTC 7 fell. I was watching still. The media was reporting on it being about to go, some were saying it had gone already, and then correcting themselves and nobody knew anything, and everything was very confused. Remember, the journalists were out of the immediate area by that time. They didn't know what the hell was going on, they were just flapping their lips on autopilot to fill air time after a while.
I think you guys have some real issues. You need to examine the real sources of your fear, and figure out why you attach so much "knowing" to the 9/11 stories.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Feb 28, 2007 1:55:47 GMT -4
Well said, Apollo Gnomon. I said something similar on the BBC blog.
Let's see what sort of a feeding frenzy it provokes...
|
|