+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 46

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,369

    BBC caught lying about Building 7

    BBC Reported Building 7 Had Collapsed 20 Minutes Before It Fell
    Revealing, shocking video shows reporter talking about collapse with WTC 7 still standing in background, Google removes clip

    Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
    Prison Planet
    Tuesday, February 27, 2007 (UPDATED 5:36AM CST)
    http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...7building7.htm

    RELATED: After This Fiasco, How Can We Trust Anything They Told Us About 9/11?

    An astounding video uncovered from the archives today shows the BBC reporting on the collapse of WTC Building 7 over twenty minutes before it fell at 5:20pm on the afternoon of 9/11. The incredible footage shows BBC reporter Jane Standley talking about the collapse of the Salomon Brothers Building while it remains standing in the live shot behind her head.

    Minutes before the actual collapse of the building is due, the feed to the reporter mysteriously dies....
    This amazing clip was on Google Video (now back again here), but was removed within hours of the story breaking. However, hundreds of people had already managed to download the clip and it has gone viral on the Internet and the censors won't be able to shut the lid this time...
    23 minutes too early folks. 911 was and inside job, explosives were used, NORAD pilots were fooled, flight 93 was shot out of the sky, and nothing close to the size of a 757 hit the pentagon period.
    Lie after lie after lie etc...:mad: thats building 7 where the arrow is. She reported it had fallen at 4:57PM!

  2. #2
    Fizban "The Fabulous" Guest

    Re: BBC caught lying about Building 7

    Nice one bro, looks like we got those filthy bastards on the run...


    Here some pics for the dumb arses out there...Okay but ya have to take your head out of your arse first...
    CHECK MATE SUCKER !!!!!!!!!!!!!










    This has already been removed from Google-video and YouTube .
    You can get the entire clip here :
    http://www.conspiracycentral.net:696...21c558235331e8


    The bbc is the world distributor of the propaganda, and once the towers were successfully demolished, the go ahead command and news wire must have reached the news station early for wtc7

    notice how Palestinian terrorist were also to be blamed aside bin laden, wasnt there isreali men caught with exploitives (the very day) that were meant for a tunnel
    and they were disguised as Palestinians?
    blog
    http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat...mber=294820969

    video
    http://www.iamthewitness.com/Video-P...AndIsrael.html


    google, why arent you patriotic to seek the truth?
    ---

    video motive for building includes enron documents
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=0DoibU5nj...elated&search=

    Add Demonoid to the list of places it got removed from - but the uploader put
    it back on straight away and politely asked for it not to be deleted again.

    Ask yourself - why would Google Video, YouTube and Demonoid remove this video?

    All this video contains is actual news footage from September 11th 2001.

    What is the reason for it being removed? No pornography, no swearing,
    no disturbing images - it is just a BBC World News report, thats all it is!

    Instead of debating about the obvious "inside job" 9/11 was - all I am
    going to ask this time is why did Google Video and YouTube remove it?

    They might be able to suppress a few things here and there, hell they can
    even kill us, but they can't kill ALL of us, they can't suppress EVERY thing
    that comes out and gradually - we are getting closer all the time to people
    waking up in huge numbers.

    I dont need to argue... I just sit back watch the bombs fall...and wait for the big one.

    Only a deranged naive lunatic with a mental age of 5 would or could feasibly
    go along with the official story of 9/11. It has been taken apart, proven wrong
    up one side and down the other. As the video says, it is not patriotic to go along with your Government when the evidence shows that they are up to no good, the patriotic thing to do is question them, always question them, then when you have questioned them, question them some more, not just their integrity but their motives, who stood to gain from 9/11? The Arab world? No because now a rift has been created between east and west because of 9/11 and the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Arabs although I agree there might be extremists who would want a catastrophe like 9/11 to happen,
    certainly do not have the means to do it or the ability to pull it off, plus now you only need to look at who is gaining from the attack - the Government, which is bought and paid for and does not stand for the people in any way, shape or form, however you twist things around in your own head to try to make yourself feel comfortable.

    Its not a case of "they
    would never do that to their own people" but more like we are not "their" people and they are not representing us, it is a faux Government, USA and UK



    BBC have responded to this, their comments are underlined and my opinion is in bold..

    It comes from this page.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditor...onspiracy.html



    1. We're not part of a conspiracy.

    Ted Bundy said he never murdered anyone.

    Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th.

    Lies! The feed from New York told you WTC 7 had collapsed 23 minutes
    before it did, so then people were telling you what to say.


    We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down.

    Lies. You were told 23 minutes in advance. The video proves that.

    We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events hppening.

    Lies. You were told 23 minutes in advance. The video proves that. Theres a letter "a" missing there from the word "happening" Mr. Porter, were you rushing as you typed?


    2. In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out
    to be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had.


    Great sidestep there. "Information you had" was that WTC 7 had collapsed already
    when in fact it did not collapse for another 23 minutes after the BBC reported it.

    If you're going to lie ummmmm I think it helps if you do it convincingly.


    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.


    Doesn't matter if you said it in Chinese! Does not change the fact that you reported
    an event before it even happened. Whether it is apparent, definite, or whatever, it
    does not enter the equation, this is another blatant side step.


    3. Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I've spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn't remember minute-by-minute what she said or did - like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services.

    This doesn't change the facts. You reported an event that had not yet happened and no one envisaged happening.

    4. 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 hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another.

    Its difficult to get hold of the video because Google Video and YouTube keep removing it.

    5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that.

    An error? Tell you what then how about reporting tomorrows lottery numbers?
    Give me a break this is just out and out lies! How old does the BBC think people are?



    As one of the comments on You Tube says today "so the guy in the studio didn't quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy... "

    One of the comments on YouTube - is this the kind of "credible source" the BBC trusts?
    Which in itself is a diversion by me when the fact remains - unless the BBC had some sort of
    time machine that day then its not possible to report future events.


    Amazing how they even try to wriggle their way out of something like this.
    Last edited by Fizban "The Fabulous"; 02-28-2007 at 11:51 AM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    811

    Re: BBC caught lying about Building 7

    you guys are a hoot


    what's more believable:

    1) a british news organization who is trying to keep 'on top of thing' on a chaotic and confusing day where reports varied from 20 airplane hijackings that day (where only 4 were real), bombs reported in several buildings in new york (all false btw), and their faulty knowledge of Lower Manhattan layout (I've seen US news media misidentify WTC buildings in reports PRIOR to 9/11), and through bad communication that could have easily changed an off comment of "WTC 7 is going to collapse" to "WTC 7 just collapsed!", while the WORLD's cameras are focused in on the building in question?

    or

    2) that the "ebil" govment just idly handed out press releases to state that they were going to bring down WTC 7, and let the media (in this case BBC which has shown an anti-american view for a quite a long time) say this ALL ON LIVE TV on air, then say they didn't do it (to try and cover it up?)

    Great, you CT'ers can't have it both ways. FIRST you say that the media is never to be trusted (run by the Jews), and that they are in on the "cover up" or are "shills" of the governemtn, but ONE freaking mistake said on air, during a live coverage of an event that was so earth shattering, and CONFUSING, you take their word!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    811

    Re: BBC caught lying about Building 7

    Ever play the game of "telephone"

    Where someone whispers something to the next person after him, then after that whisper is passed on to the people after him, the last person in line has to say out loud what that whisper was. Then everyone realizes that its VASTLY different than what was said to them and the what hte original statement was. The game is also known as Chinese Whipsers:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_whispers


    This is the SAME exact situation, and its NOT UNCOMMON in the media

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,369

    End of game wiz!

    Wow wiz, ur writing like ur about to blow a gasket!!!
    Get use to it, you and ur little clan of illuminate gangsters got busted (again) for lying.
    End of game wiz!
    Fizban said it very well in three words. CHECK MATE SUCKER !!!!!!!!!!!!!
    You lost... :cool:

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    811

    Re: BBC caught lying about Building 7

    soul, no fizban didn't demonstrate any complicity on BBC part as far as that goes.

    remember, the simplest explanation usually is the truth.
    and the simplest explanation is that BBC recevied BAD information from a chaotic and confusing day. end of story.

  7. #7
    Fizban "The Fabulous" Guest

    Re: BBC caught lying about Building 7

    That sounds reasonable Wizywyg....NOT !

    You government agents are geting sloppy.
    cant even accept you have lost




    what ever comes out of the Governments/Media mouths is just a damn lie.
    and everyone knows it.

    Looks like the BBC will be losing rank in the NWO.


    you CT'ers can't have it both ways
    We are seekers of truth...


    The word conspiracy theorist is just a derogatory term that is used to basically margin aline and ridicule people with a open mind.

    Old Society has many ways of ridiculing people who are free thinkers and people who are able to connect seemly disaparrent realities.

    They say the heaviest human brains are the ones with the most synapses, and synapses are created when people do connect the dots in a non lyniar way, which means your brain is actually heavier so that you are smarter.

    But if you act upon that or speak openly about connecting the dots or disapparrent things then you are called a Conspiracy nut.

    Its basically people who read behind the lines, inter connecting - these are people who have developed pattern recognition.

    In society we honor people who can do this if say they are an art critic, editor, movie critic but this is what CT'ers do.

    its the same thing, what a CT'ers is just the same as what any ofter critic does in any other field, but we don't run around seeking money or fame.

    But the CT'ers are very threatening.
    Last edited by Fizban "The Fabulous"; 03-01-2007 at 05:39 AM.

  8. #8
    Fizban "The Fabulous" Guest

    Re: BBC caught lying about Building 7

    Lets have a look at what the British people (they are not 'CT'ers') have to say about the footage (taken from the BBC site )

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditor...onspiracy.html




    1. At 06:09 PM on 27 Feb 2007, gregor aitken wrote:
    explain that tragic piece of journalism on sunday then
    seriously what was that about
    it was a joke an absolute joke, when you do progs like that about such a serious issue it leaves us to wonder that either you are in on it or just bad journalists.

    Mr. Porter, put your house in order, the bbc is a public service and fourth estate not a propoganda machine for the state.


    2. At 06:13 PM on 27 Feb 2007, Tom wrote:
    Sorry but this is nowhere near an acceptable explanation. I suggest you look into this further and provide us with a more detailed explanation of hoq this has happened to stop incriminating yourselves. What a pathetic response.


    3. At 06:22 PM on 27 Feb 2007, Nick Hatton wrote:
    Sorry that doesn't wash, and I'm disgusted that you are publicly funded via a licence fee.

    SERVE THE PUBLIC !!!


    4. At 06:25 PM on 27 Feb 2007, Justin Ross wrote:
    If there was no conspiracy on your part, then tell the public who told BBC News that WTC7 fell down before it actually happened. The video you are looking for will show the building before collapse with your reporter telling the public it had already collapsed.


    5. At 06:25 PM on 27 Feb 2007, justin wrote:
    BBC have been BUSTED well & truely & this your lame attempt at trying to explain it?
    This is karma for the hit piece you done the other week & yes you are accomplices to this crime for the communist style propaganda piece you pulled! BBC has lost all credibility & MILLIONS know it :)
    Doubt your let this message through your "censorship" but know this BBC you have been exposed well & truely 911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB TELL THE TRUTH!


    6. At 06:25 PM on 27 Feb 2007, Eric wrote:
    I dont think anyone is accusing the bbc as part of this. Its whoever gave the report to the bbc. What wire service sent this out?


    7. At 06:26 PM on 27 Feb 2007, Simon wrote:
    "We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening."

    So why then, is the reporter reporting that the Saloman Building (WTC7) has come down when it is clearly visible behind her as she speaks?

    "If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error"

    An error? That does not explain how someone knew the building was coming down before it actually had done.

    WTC7 stood for hours, and for someone to put out information that it would come down within 20 minutes is a little suspicious, don't you think?

    Not to mention it is the 3rd building in history to collapse due to fire, the first two being WTC 1 and 2 *rolls eyes*


    8. At 06:30 PM on 27 Feb 2007, Steve Emsley wrote:
    So...

    1. You lost the tapes of one of the most important events in US history? REALLY? The citizens of the UK should all stop paying their TV tax as this is the most ridiculous and irresponsible thing I have ever heard. It is probably NOT TRUE as American broadcasters keep ALL FOOTAGE in controlled vaults/rooms.

    2. You anchor CLEARLY states that WTC 7 has collapsED while it is still in the shot. It is repeated. She even says that it WAS 47 stories.

    3. Your point "5" is a joke... just a mistake like:

    A. losing the tapes.
    B. The reporter NOT USING qualifiers such as "apparently" or "it's reported" or "we're hearing" as you imply above.
    C. The feed getting dropped.

    Shame on you.


    9. At 06:32 PM on 27 Feb 2007, Justin Ross wrote:
    If there was no conspiracy on your part, then tell us who told BBC News that WTC7 fell down before it actually happened. The video you're looking for will show the building before collape with your reporter telling the public it had already collaped.


    10. At 06:33 PM on 27 Feb 2007, William wrote:
    Sorry, I am not convinced by this blog. I fail to see how it is impartial and crucial to the issue at hand..claiming to loose your own footage over an event like this doesn't seem to fit.
    I am not labelling you as anything other than unconvincing as regards the comments you've posted here. Thank you for your time, sincerely William.


    11. At 06:34 PM on 27 Feb 2007, Justin Ross wrote:
    If there was no conspiracy on your part, then tell us who told BBC News that WTC7 fell down before it actually happened. The video you're looking for will show the building before collapse with your reporter telling the public it had already collapsed.


    12. At 06:34 PM on 27 Feb 2007, Steve Emsley wrote:
    Finally, I do not think you were WILLINGLY part of a conspiracy... you were just fed information off a wire and repeated it.

    Of course the lowly BBC would not be "let in" on such a plot. You were simply used as pawns... mouthpieces and the evidence of this is in the "lost footage".


    13. At 06:35 PM on 27 Feb 2007, justin wrote:
    BBC BUSTED AGAIN HAHAHA :D



    14. At 06:38 PM on 27 Feb 2007, Laz wrote:
    "We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy)."

    How convenient!!! So of course when you DO get hold of the footage, you can say "well this is not original footage so it's not reliable!" How utterly unpredictable. The very fact that you claim not to have the archive footage (which I'm sure you're required to keep for various legal reasons) is enough to prove that in fact the British Brainwashing Corporation IS in fact part of a conspiracy.

    Incidentally, as much as you'd like people to think otherwise, "conspiracy" is not a dirty word. The government conspired to convince us there were WMD in Iraq - which as you know there weren't. Conspiracy is an integral part of politics, and nothing would happen without it.

    But you're obviously missing the point. If you had reported the building as having collapsed before it did so, it in fact DOES prove you were part of a conspiracy - for there is NO EARTHLY WAY anyone, not least the BBC, could have known that WTC7 was going to collapse. It had been hit by nothing, and there was no significant damage. And yet you knew it was going to collapse, and even WHY it collapsed - before it even did!!! Sorry, but your quoting some naysayer from Youtube is as weak an explanation as it is possible to give.

    You are the weakest link. Goodbye!!
    Last edited by Fizban "The Fabulous"; 03-01-2007 at 06:18 AM.

  9. #9
    Fizban "The Fabulous" Guest

    Re: BBC caught lying about Building 7

    15. At 06:41 PM on 27 Feb 2007, Deep Fwoat wrote:
    I don't think anyone is trying to imply that the BBC is "in" on anything.

    It is remarkable, though, that the BBC believed a building was to collapse in an unprecedented way, and the idea that there was advance knowledge of the collapse doesn't fit well with the official story.




    16. At 06:42 PM on 27 Feb 2007, Tim Zeiders wrote:
    Pretty weak explanation Mr. Porter. Only 3 buildings in history have collapsed from "fire" (all on 9/11/01) and your reporter happened to predict one's collapse 15 minutes before it happened. And mysteriously her live feed was cut just before the actual collapse. It is as if you reported on the collapse of the World Trade Centers on 9/10/01. You are involved in the cover up Mr. Porter. ALso, maybe you could explain how she knew it would collapse when NIST still cant figure out how it happened. Your explanation is actually that she made a mistake? 3 buildings in history collapse like that and she makes a "mistake" predicting one right before it happens? I dont think so. The police (if they had the guts) would call that prior knowlege of a crime. If i went to the police and reported a crime before it happened i dont think they would take "oops it was a mistake" as an excuse. Not from me anyway. Maybe from you



    17. At 06:43 PM on 27 Feb 2007, Laz wrote:
    Still no comments, Richard? Still waiting for SOMEONE to write a hit piece supporting your view and "discrediting" the obvious - that the BBC cocked-up on 9/11 and reported on something that hadn't happened before it happened and before the BBC could have KNOWN it was going to happen!!!


    18. At 06:48 PM on 27 Feb 2007, Stewart Cowan wrote:
    Mr Richard Porter, were you there to see what information was being passed onto reporters? I would like to respond to your five points.

    1. The BBC does not have to be part of the conspiracy to have been given advance information that had been released too soon in error.
    2. They didn’t use words like “apparently”, they flashed up the following message on the screen,
    “The 47 story Salomon Brothers building close to the World Trade Centre has also collapsed.”
    That is pretty definite, and 20 minutes before it was brought down.
    3. Are you trying to say that after the pictures from New York started going all fuzzy (i.e. when someone realised that the building was still standing), that the reporter did not remember five minutes later a 47 storey building collapsing behind her?
    4. I believe you. You can view it here http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...7building7.htm
    5. The BBC gets its second opinions from YouTube now, does it?

    Serious answers are required from the BBC, not another whitewash. People are waking up all over the place that 9/11 was an inside job, yet the BBC still insists on trying to discredit conspiracy “theorists” left, right and centre.

    When the whole world has woken up to the truth about 9/11, will the Beeb still be denying it?



    19. At 06:59 PM on 27 Feb 2007, comeon wrote:
    Ok what credibility do you have? In 4 and 5 you imply you don't have the video to judge and then you admit to reading the comments about it on youtube?

    I guess those technical difficulties were just coincidence too? Whatever, go back to sleep.


    20. At 07:07 PM on 27 Feb 2007, tom wrote:
    so the footage has been lost ? how convenient !!

    how can you people call yourselves journalists.

    you make me sick


    21. At 07:14 PM on 27 Feb 2007, Michael wrote:
    Dear BBC World,

    Do you really expect the world to believe you when you say:

    "We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy)."

    Your credibility has been utterly annihilated!

    Time to come clean folks...


    22. At 07:14 PM on 27 Feb 2007, Chris wrote:
    To report that a building had collapsed before it had done so would be an odd sort of error, wouldn't it ? A bit like reporting that the Lord Mayor's trousers had fallen down before they did so.


    23. At 07:18 PM on 27 Feb 2007, Steve wrote:
    "We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down."

    Errrr clearly you did. The reporter said the building had collapsed 20 mins before it collapsed. What was it, a guess? A premonition?

    Please stop avoiding the question.

    Jane Standley has nothing to do with anything, she was told the building had collapsed so she repeated that. If you watch the video in question it is reported that the building has collapsed before the anchor goes to Jane Standley.

    So you cannot pass this off as her mistake.

    Now please explain to the people how the BBC knew the building was going to collapse.


    24. At 07:27 PM on 27 Feb 2007, De wrote:
    Hmm, you lost the footage. It was there yesterday
    Your move creep

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,215

    Re: BBC caught lying about Building 7

    Quote Originally Posted by Fizban "The Fabulous"
    But the CT'ers are very threatening.
    Threatening only to yourselves and those waiting in line for a room in the psyche ward.
    "Science is evidence without proof. Creationism is proof without evidence."

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,369

    No balls, NO credibility

    Quote Originally Posted by Leeguana
    Threatening only to yourselves and those waiting in line for a room in the psyche ward.
    what a lame post Leeguana pug! you got -0-, I repeat zero to add that is related to the thread. you are clueless and resort to posting sh!t. Fizban warned you, and I quote ...''ya have to take your head out of your arse first...
    But you didn't do that did you? You can't, you dont know how.
    NO balls, NO credibility, Nothing to add. Your a faithful follower of wiz who is now backed into a corner for lying.

    `````````````````````````````````````````````````` `````````````````

    GREAT POSTS FIZBAN, ALL OF THEM! KEEP IT UP
    Now its come out that CNN has blundered too, saying 7 came down over and hour before it really did!!!

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,324

    Re: BBC caught lying about Building 7

    WTF?!?!?!

    So after all this time with you telling us that the MSM is bad and shouldn't be believed, you think the US Government told them, of all people, that they were going to destroy the twin towers?

  13. #13
    Fizban "The Fabulous" Guest

    Re: BBC caught lying about Building 7

    Quote Originally Posted by kazza
    WTF?!?!?!

    So after all this time with you telling us that the MSM is bad and shouldn't be believed, you think the US Government told them, of all people, that they were going to destroy the twin towers?
    what ?? No the BBC are following orders

    read the thread again

    BBC foreknowledge of WTC7 collapse?
    http://www.conspiracycentral.net:696...21c558235331e8

    On September 11th 2001, BBC World reported at 4:57pm Eastern Time that the Salomon Brothers Building (more commonly known as
    WTC7 or World ... all » Trade Building 7) had collapsed.

    This even made the 5pm EST headlines, what is bizarre is that the building did not actually collapse until 5:20pm EST.

    9/11 was unusual enough, without BBC World being able to foretell the destiny of WTC 7.

    What is even stranger, is that the women reporter is telling the world that the building had collapsed when you can see it in
    the background over her left shoulder.

    Then at 5:15pm EST, just five minutes before the building did actually collapse, her live connection from New York to London
    mysteriously fails.

    So the question is, on 9/11 how did the BBC learn that WTC7 collapsed 23 minutes before it actually did.

    Building Seven was 47 storeys, modern in design with structural steel throughout, yet symmetrically collapsed in 6.5 seconds,
    was someone leaking information.

    No steel framed skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire, before or after 9/11, most people who find out about WTC7, believe
    it was brought down by a controlled demolition, even demolition experts agree.
    by drunkhorse at 911 blogger
    http://www.911blogger.com/node/6451?page=2

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?do......34824&hl=en

    Format : Google Video
    Format/Info : Hack of AVI
    Format/Family : RIFF
    File size : 183 MiB
    PlayTime : 25mn 43s
    Bit rate : 989 Kbps
    Last edited by Fizban "The Fabulous"; 03-01-2007 at 11:36 AM.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,215

    Re: No balls, NO credibility

    Quote Originally Posted by soulbro
    what a lame post Leeguana pug! you got -0-, I repeat zero to add that is related to the thread. you are clueless and resort to posting sh!t. Fizban warned you, and I quote ...''ya have to take your head out of your arse first...
    But you didn't do that did you? You can't, you dont know how.
    NO balls, NO credibility, Nothing to add. Your a faithful follower of wiz who is now backed into a corner for lying.
    Okay whackjob. In the last month or so, I've read many of you and your fellow CT'ers posts. I even sat through this:

    http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?...83512003&q=911 ("911 Mysteries")

    And you know what? I was somewhat intrigued by it. Then, being the skeptical but fair person that I am, I watched this:

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...24912447824934 ("Screw 911 Mysteries")

    I also checked out the written word from many sites on both sides of the issue. By the way, although I'm sure you didn't bother to look into anything that contradicts your nutball theory, everything in "911 Mysteries" was debunked in "Screw 911 Mysteries", including the Building 7 CT.

    I put time and energy into researching BOTH sides of this. I don't think you did. And if you did, and still feel that a bunch of bombs brought the towers down, well then you're just an idiot. Sorry for your lack of intellect.

    One more thing. For all the garbage that you spew about others on here, how can you get so freaked by me poking some fun at your little "theories"?

    Now go back to that cave you live in and sit in the corner for a while.
    "Science is evidence without proof. Creationism is proof without evidence."

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,215

    Re: BBC caught lying about Building 7

    Oh yeah, I almost forgot. If you think the BBC (or any news organization) has never fvcked up a story due to human error, you might as well stay in that cave forever.
    "Science is evidence without proof. Creationism is proof without evidence."

  16. #16
    Fizban "The Fabulous" Guest

    Re: BBC caught lying about Building 7

    fine arguing troll

    I need more info... prove you weren't behind 9/11. Until then, it is clear that the conspiracy is just beginning to unravel.

    all them other forums are just full with little fed agents such as yourself

    Serious discussion stopped once you started posting. You are set in your beliefs. I'm not sure ANYTHING would convince you, your mind is made up.

    So yeah, making fun of what people believe is the next best thing to do when serious discussion goes out the window. extremists like yourself have nothing better to get off on then ridiculing people with an open mind.

Similar Threads

  1. NBC Caught Lying For Dog-Eater AGAIN
    By pwrone in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-25-2012, 06:53 PM
  2. Climate Scum Caught Lying Yet AGAIN
    By pwrone in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 06-21-2011, 10:55 PM
  3. Better and Better: Climate Scum Caught Lying AGAIN
    By pwrone in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-29-2010, 06:23 PM
  4. Liberal Spector caught lying
    By Revydo in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-02-2010, 02:30 PM
  5. Democrat Caught Lying (Typical)
    By nomlms4me in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-23-2008, 03:42 PM

Tags for this Thread

Add / Edit Tags
2001, 9/11, ???, abc, abc news, accurate, action, admit, admitted, agree, ale, american, appears, ass, associate, attack, attempts, attitude, audio, authority, azi, based, bastard, bastards, be aware, beer, ben, big, biggest, bin, bio, black boxes, blatant, blood, bogus, bomb, boxes, british, broadcast, building, bunch, caught, chance, change, channel, chiefs, chinese, chris, class, clean, close, coffin, college, coming, comments, commissioner, communication, complex, continue, controlled demolition, corporation, cost, couch, countries, cover, credibility, credible, crisis, cuz, damn, dark, david, day, dead, dear, debating, deep, deleted, destroyed, devious, dick, disrespect, distributor, disturbing, dna, documentation, doesn, dont, drug, eme, emergency, ends, enter, epa, episode, equipment, error, ethical, experience, experts, explained, extra, extremists, factual, fail, fails, faithful, families, fatal, faulty, files, flat, focus, folks, front, funded, future, gee, generators, global, gonna, goodbye, green, greg, grove, gullible, guys, hahaha, handed, hats, headquarters, highly, hold, holds, hopeless, hore, html, huge, huma, human, ice, idiot, idiots, illness, imagine, impact, important, include, incredible, individuals, information, infowars, involved, iraq, issues, jim, job, joke, journalist, justify, karma, laden, large, latest, laugh, leaders, leak, leaked, letters, lexx, line, lis, listen, lol, long, lottery, lunatic, mad, mail, martial, martial law, mass, mea, members, mental, million, millions, mind, mode, monitoring, moon, motives, mp3, nail, nasty, nature, needed, news, nick, north, number, numbers, office, opposite, organizations, outlet, owned, owner, paid, palestinians, paper, part, pen, pentagon, person, pile, planes, planned, police state, poor, pos, post, posted, posts, power, predicted, presiden, profit, propaganda, proves, public, pull, questions, random, real, reality, reason, reasonable, reasons, receiving, recorded, reich, release, released, reliable, removes, reporter, reporters, representative, research, resident, response, rio, rolls, ron, rope, roy, screw, secrets, seekers, select, serve, service, services, ship, shop, shouldn, shows, shut, smith, son, soo, sort, specifically, spent, stand, states, stats, steven, stone, stranger, stream, subs, sum, supporting, taken, terrorist, test, testing, thinks, tim, times, told, top, total, totally, tower, towers, town, trade, truth, turkey, twin, united, unprecedented, version, view, vince, waiting, wanted, warehouse, watch, watching, watson, weak, west, win, wire, won, word, words, worker, working, world, wow, writing, york, youtube

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •