You're a reporter for the BBC in New York on 9/11..

The place to be for all Conspiracy Theories, photoshopping of pictures, IVF and Multiplie Babies, and many more other theories

Re: You're a reporter for the BBC in New York on 9/11..

Postby Tripz » Mon Feb 18, 2008 1:51 am

The firefighters were pawns like the civilians. You can't get around the fact -that to pull such a "false flag op" doesn't consist of many thousands or even a hundred, if the levers are in place from the top it could be accomplished with only a handful knowing the operation. Bomais are you checking out the FACTS here. The words came from the WTC owner not some firefighter in or near the WTC7 building. So again did the words he state slip out unintentionally I would certain say YES! PULL IT is said in the context any knowledgeable person would use them and that would be to "Pull it" down the demolition terminology. Please refrain from ad hominem snipes I have noticed them creeping into your posts. Good chap :lol:
TRUTH & JUSTICE
"IL FAUT MENTIR POUR ETRE VRAI"
User avatar
Tripz
Lifer
 
Posts: 5311
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 12:47 pm
Location: MAGIK ROUNDABOUT

Re: You're a reporter for the BBC in New York on 9/11..

Postby azrael72 » Mon Feb 18, 2008 8:24 am

Silverstein's quote......

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse"

Silverstein bought the least from metlife for Chicago's Sear's Tower in March 2004......!!!???!!!

for me placing the word "IT" after pull, changes the whole quote.....and this is why its always going to be questioned.....depending what you believe.....he's never really explained it either......

how many of Silverstein's building actually fell on 9/11?.....didnt the pull 6 as well....later though......
User avatar
azrael72
Been Cautioned
 
Posts: 335
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 3:48 pm

Re: You're a reporter for the BBC in New York on 9/11..

Postby Luz » Tue Feb 19, 2008 3:15 am

Arbiter wrote:..your name is Jane Standley... you report live on air that the World Trade Centre 7 building has collapsed.... unfortunately the building is clearly visible in the distance right over your shoulder as you are reporting this... someone possibly at the BBC realises the error.. the link to New York breaks up...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc

...how embarrassing for you that the building doesn't actually collapse until 30 minutes later.

Even more embarrassing is that you never discuss this publically ever again... your boss at the BBC won't discuss it other than to say it was 'an error'...

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

What is the public to make of all this?

IF YOU DIDN'T ALREADY KNOW ABOUT THIS THEN TELL ALL YOUR FRIENDS!


Thank you. Finally this is going to be discussed.
______________________
Luz_catz on another roof.
Luz
On Parole
 
Posts: 1462
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 6:01 pm
Location: Lisboa

Re: You're a reporter for the BBC in New York on 9/11..

Postby Luz » Tue Feb 19, 2008 3:23 am

bomaris wrote:Arbiter.

Yes. I think the official story is basically true.

If your version is to be believed the whole of the BBC News staff were in on a vast conspiracy which has stayed watertight for 6 years. To which I say, "bull :lol: "!

It's probably easily explained by the fact that someone had said the block was in danger of collapsing which in the confusion became "has collapsed". There's no reason why shoudl shoudl not the loction and identity of every skyscraper in the vicinity. Suggest you take a reality check.



Not having read all the thread, my entering here may be considered abbusive and non accounting for other contributions already made.

But I can't be quiet before this sort of "establishment" assumption.
It's obvious that there was a conspiracy. If the BBC was on it or simply transmitting what the official sources allowed them to, only they can answer.

We know that scientifically there are too many incongruencies on that/those event/s...I'll reserve myself for further comments.
______________________
Luz_catz on another roof.
Luz
On Parole
 
Posts: 1462
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 6:01 pm
Location: Lisboa

Re: You're a reporter for the BBC in New York on 9/11..

Postby Luz » Tue Feb 19, 2008 3:29 am

Maybe it was already referred here, but if not, I recomend an incredible source of info about this

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/


But you've better forget the political message.
______________________
Luz_catz on another roof.
Luz
On Parole
 
Posts: 1462
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 6:01 pm
Location: Lisboa

Re: You're a reporter for the BBC in New York on 9/11..

Postby Luz » Tue Feb 19, 2008 3:42 am

______________________
Luz_catz on another roof.
Luz
On Parole
 
Posts: 1462
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 6:01 pm
Location: Lisboa

Re: You're a reporter for the BBC in New York on 9/11..

Postby bomaris » Wed Feb 20, 2008 2:04 am

Luz -

Ever heard of bogus science?

This conspiracy stuff is bogus science. We know there was a huge hole, huge fires and a bulge in the building. We know that such buildings CAN collapse given sufficient stress - and this building was subject to tremendous stress.

If we DON'T know those things, then that means the ORDINARY FIREFIGHTERS who were risking their lives on the day have all been lying. This is what Tripz won't face. He seems to think that a few senior fire officers can order ordinary firefighters to see huge holes, huge fires and a bulge! Why not go the whole conspiracy hog and claim they were hypnotised by Derren Brown who is in on the plot as well.

As for the meaning of "pull it", it is clear from the context that it does not refer to controlled demolition:

"we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to is pull it."

It's clear from the coupling of "terrible loss of life" with "smartest thing" and "to pull it" that
this is referring to a decision to evacuate. The final reference to the collapse is clearly meant as vindication of the decision to evacuate rather than continue to fight the huge fires eating away at the weakened structure. What possible purpose could be served by a controlled demolition in these circumstances where the man is clearly referring to the need to avoid loss of life? And if there was a conspiracy all along to have a controlled demolition, why would a decision be needed and why would the decision reference the "huge loss of life". That makes no sense at all.

This "conspiracy" is about as convincing as one of Clarrie's press statements.

Tripz - do not confuse ridicule for an ad hominem attack. I have examined the evidence for a government led conspiracy (as opposed to an Al Queda led conspiracy which of course is the true source of the mass murder) and found it absurdly thin - indeed literally non-existent.
In those circumstances I am at liberty to ridicule those who believe in it, just as I am at liberty to ridicule anyone who believes Clarrie's spin.
bomaris
Hardened Criminal
 
Posts: 1626
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 3:41 am

Previous

Return to Conspiracy Theories - The Outer Limits - 911 (Day the World Changed)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests
cron