The BBC is a shadowy entity indeed. A company that refuses to face facts and refuses to acknowledge that they seem to be able to predict the future.
Alex Jones and Prison Planet’s Paul Joseph Watson were not implying that the BBC were “part of the conspiracy” as you so patronisingly put it, but were making it clear that somebody gave the BBC information about the collapse of building 7 before it happened, lending not just heavily but COMPLETELY towards the fact that the press releases on 9/11 were 100% staged and this one just got put through slightly too early.
Until the BBC reveals just who the hell gave them this information then I will continue to be disgusted with their attitude towards the blatant evidence of the 9/11 cover-up.
Your Conspiracy Files programme was an absolute farce, an absolute travesty and an insult to television itself.
Given what we’ve seen from the BBC recently and given this pathetic comment from “The Editors” it’s almost believable that if you saw someone murdered right in front of you you’d most likely make a programme about it implying that it didn’t really happen and that the people who say otherwise are part of a “conspiracy theorist cult”.
At least the BBC are being consistent. Consistently wrong and blind to the facts. Blind to the truth. Blind to the real culprits of September 11th 2001.
The BBC Building 7 farce lends about as much credibility to the official story of 9/11 as weapons of mass destruction do for justifying the invasion of Iraq
Paul Joseph Watson Prison Planet
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
The fiasco of a BBC journalist reporting in advance that Building 7 had collapsed as it loomed large behind her strikes at the very root of how the media were complicit in acting as facilitators for the official myth that was manufactured on 9/11. After this debacle, how can we trust anything we were told about September 11?
Though the video was almost immediately purged by the crowned kings of censorship - Google - it has since been re-uploaded to You Tube and feverishly copied everywhere. Watch the clip below. For an extended clip where the Building 7 farce is clearly annotated, click here, and skip forward to 14 minutes.
A central facet of the debate raging amongst 9/11 truthers and a charge leveled by moronic debunkers is that there is no time code or clock on the video, so how can we verify the BBC reported Building 7’s collapse 20 minutes before it fell?
Does it matter? Does it matter if the BBC reported the collapse 23 minutes before it happened or 30 seconds before it happened? The fact remains that the building is there in the background behind the reporter’s head as she is telling us that it has already collapsed! Don’t get tangled up in this minutia, the building is still standing after she has reported its collapse! Debates about time stamps and time zones are irrelevant.
Others charge that Building 7 was expected to collapse before it did, which is true, and the BBC merely jumped the gun - but that begs the question - how did officials know the building was going to collapse when no modern steel building in history had collapsed from fire damage alone and why were the BBC reporting its collapse in advance with the added knowledge of why it collapsed - a question that is still being investigated by NIST five and a half years later? Whoever the BBC’s source was for reporting the collapse of Building 7 were ahead of NIST by five and a half years and had already determined why the building had collapsed before it had collapsed. Is this not in the least bit suspicious?
What seems obvious is that Silverstein was getting the cover story out as quickly as possible before the building was intentionally demolished, and that’s how they were so sure it was going to collapse before it eventually did. In addition, NYPD officer Craig Bartmer reported hearing bombs tear down the building as he ran away from it.
Debunkers have scoffed at our suggestion that some kind of press release had to have been issued for the BBC to report this ahead of time. Well how else do you suggest the BBC learned of the building’s demise before it happened? A psychic premonition?
This goes to the very heart of why the mainstream media is stuttering and the alternative is burgeoning - the establishment press have become nothing more than ditto heads of the official version of events to the point where they don’t even perform a cursory investigation of what they are being told by official sources. Their role is simply to repeat what the authorities tell them with no scrutiny whatsoever.
Nowhere was this more evident than on 9/11 when the corporate media mechanically relayed the ‘Osama did it’ fraud within hours of the attack, and afforded copious air time to highly suspicious individuals who just happened to know the intricate details of how each building collapsed within minutes of it occurring. This was key to solidifying the dogma of the official story, because anyone who saw the collapse of WTC 7 without having had the official propaganda drilled into them could see plain as day that it was a controlled demolition.
Indeed, controlled demolitions expert Danny Jowenko, unaware that the structure had collapsed on 9/11, immediately concluded that Building 7 had been deliberately demolished when he was shown the footage by a Dutch television crew, and maintains that position to this day.
The BBC Building 7 fiasco lends about as much credibility to the official story of 9/11 as weapons of mass destruction do for the justification of invading Iraq.
Besides the advance reporting of just the collapse itself, how could the news anchor tell us the reason for the collapse before it happened?
“This was not the result of a new attack,” states the anchor, “It was because the building had been weakened during this morning’s attacks.”
How else could the BBC have relayed this information unless by way of some kind of press release or official statement by Silverstein, Giuliani or the NYFD? Who told them that the building had been weakened? In effect, the BBC were working to a 9/11 script and made the error of orating their lines too early.
This damning video is also a commentary on the credibility and impartiality of the BBC as a whole, especially in light of their ludicrously bias, slanted and error ridden Conspiracy Files hit piece that aired last Sunday. Perhaps debunker-in-chief Guy Smith can explain to us how his colleague prophesied the downfall of a building that, almost mockingly, appears in full view behind her head before the live feed is conveniently interrupted.
24 hours after the video first surfaced and was then unceremoniously “pulled” from Google Video (but not before it went viral everywhere else), there is still no response from the BBC and no mainstream coverage whatsoever, not even a ‘look what the silly conspiracy theorists are saying’ puff piece.
It seems our noble press whores are more concerned today about Helen Mirren eating a beef burger and James Cameron’s fictional Jesus tomb.
What if we had unearthed footage of a CNN anchor reporting the collapse of the twin towers as he stood below them? Would that be enough to provoke any interest? How about Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld announcing a joint press conference in which they admit they ran the attack? No doubt the noisy negativists would find some harebrained reason to dismiss that also.
Where is the BBC’s clarification on this? How about Industrial Risk Insurers, surely they would be interested to find out that Silverstein was rapaciously anticipating their $861 million payout before Building 7 “accidentally” collapsed?
Our sense of outrage on this matter should not be quelled by time and the stubbornness of official channels, namely the BBC and whoever their source for reporting the collapse was, to answer for, in the case of the BBC, their hideous “mistake,” and the source for exactly how they were able to predict that a modern steel building that had suffered limited fire damage would suddenly collapse in its own footprint without the aid of explosive demolition.
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)
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. A You Tube upload is available here but we fully expect this to be removed soon. You can watch it for the time being at this link and also here . A WMV link is here (on our server) and a Quicktime here . Bit torrent versions of the file can be found here . An avi version can be found here .
To be clear, the Salomon Brothers Building is just a different name for Building 7 or WTC 7. Skip forward to around the 14:30 minute mark.
Although there is no clock or time stamp on the footage, the source claims the report was given at 4:57pm EST, 23 minutes before Building 7 collapsed at 5:20pm. While the exact time of the report cannot be confirmed at present, it is clear from the footage that the reporter is describing the collapse of WTC 7 while it clearly remains standing behind her in the live shot.
Here are some further screenshots from the video.
The fact that the BBC reported on the collapse of Building 7 over twenty minutes in advance of its implosion obviously provokes a myriad of questions as to how they knew it was about to come down when the official story says its collapse happened accidentally as a result of fire damage and debris weakening the building’s structure.
As we have documented before, firefighters, police and first responders were all told to get back from the building because it was about to be brought down. It is widely acknowledged by those who were there on the scene that warnings were issued for people to evacuate the area in anticipation of the building’s collapse, with some even stating that a 20 second countdown preceded the collapse of the 47-story skyscraper, again clearly suggesting that it was taken down by means of explosives as the video footage of its implosion illustrates.
Alex Jones’ film Terror Storm documents how Thermate was the likely culprit for the implosion of the twin towers and also explores the collapse of WTC 7.
In a September 2002 PBS documentary, the owner of the WTC complex Larry Silverstein discusses Building 7 and states that in the late afternoon of September 11, the decision was made to “pull it.” The term “pull it” is industry jargon for controlled demolition, but Silverstein denied charges that WTC 7 had been deliberately brought down.
This newly uncovered video confirms that the collapse of WTC 7 was no surprise, because television news stations were reporting on it before it happened!
This footage is absolutely amazing and should provoke a firestorm of new questions aimed both at Silverstein and the BBC. Who told the BBC that the building was going to collapse before it did and why were they reporting its fall in advance of the event actually taking place?
Many have speculated that some kind of press release was leaked too soon and AP wires, radio stations and TV news outlets prematurely reported on WTC 7’s collapse.
The video also severely undermines the credibility of the BBC who recently caused controversy by airing a 9/11 hit piece that sought to debunk questions that bring the official story into doubt.
Calls have already been put through to the BBC reporting the “mistake,” click here to listen to an MP3. The BBC have promised to “look into it.”
Moronic commenters on Digg are already trying to bury the story, yet none of them have an answer as to why the BBC reported the building’s collapse before it happened. Click here to add your own comment and counter the debunkers.
ACTION: E Mail the BBC and ask them to clarify exactly why their reporter is announcing the collapse of Building 7 before it has collapsed.
Teachers are being told to search children suspected of carrying knives and guns in a new move against teenage violence.
Staff will be trained in how to “pat down” pupils’ clothing and check the pockets of those suspected of smuggling weapons. Teachers will also be able to use “reasonable force” to search unco-operative individuals. Schools are also advised to randomly screen entire classes or year groups using airport-style security scanners.
Jim Knight, the schools minister, has warned of gangs infiltrating schools in major cities, including London, Manchester and Birmingham and there was widespread concern after three teenage boys were shot dead in a wave of violence in south London.
From May, head teachers in England will be able to search pupils without parents’ consent under the Violent Crime Reduction Act.
Draft guidance, published yesterday by the Department for Education, reveals how the powers should be exercised.
Teachers will be able to search any pupil merely on the suspicion that they are armed. Many innocent children are likely to be caught up in spot-checks which may prompt legal challenges from civil liberty groups.
Suspected gang members should be targeted. “Where there is reliable information that members of a group or gang habitually carry knives or other weapons unlawfully and wear a distinctive item of clothing or other means of identification . . . [that] may provide reasonable grounds to search the pupil,” the guidance says.
Ministers recommend that two members of staff – the same sex as the child – are present and that searches take place away from other pupils. Teachers can “pat down a person’s clothing without directly touching the body” and can search pockets if pupils refuse to hand over suspected weapons. If the pupil refuses to remove a coat, teachers can “use reasonable force”, although they cannot ask pupils to remove trousers, skirts, shirts or blouses.
Staff should be given training, costing around £50 per teacher, on how to search and use techniques to calm pupils and reduce the risk of violence escalating.
Head teachers are also given advice on how to use walk-through or hand-held metal detectors, which can be bought for as little as £30.
VIENNA, Austria (AP) — Negotiations between Serbia and Kosovo’s ethnic Albanian majority on a U.N. plan that would put Kosovo under internationally supervised self-rule remained deadlocked Wednesday, a U.N. envoy said.
Martti Ahtisaari, the diplomat who drafted the proposal on the province’s future status, said a final round of talks in Vienna began in conciliatory mood but the two sides remained far apart.
“The parties have not moved closer together - we are still facing the same realities,” Ahtisaari said.
“Both parties know perfectly well where they stand. We will see in what areas they can see eye-to-eye,” he told reporters.
Reflecting the deadlock, Ahtisaari appeared without the leaders of either delegation.
Serbia wants Kosovo to remain part of its territory, but the province’s ethnic Albanian majority demands independence. Kosovo has been a U.N. protectorate since 1999, when NATO airstrikes ended a brutal Serbian crackdown on separatists. About 16,000 NATO-led peacekeepers still patrol the province.
Serbia’s delegation issued a statement saying it “rejected all provisions of the Ahtisaari proposal which are inconsistent with the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Serbia.” Serb negotiator Leon Kojen said an alternative offer included a promise of “very broad, extensive autonomy” while keeping Kosovo within Serbia.
Kosovo’s delegation renewed its demand for full independence.
“For us, this chapter has ended and this book has been closed,” said Veton Surroi, the ethnic Albanian leader heading Kosovo’s delegation.
Surroi accused Belgrade of trying to restart the entire process - something Ahtisaari made clear would not happen after a year of exhaustive talks.
The final round of negotiations are focusing mainly on technical aspects of Ahtisaari’s 58-page draft.
The proposal would give Kosovo internationally supervised self-rule and the trappings of statehood, including a flag, anthem, army and constitution. It must be approved by the U.N. Security Council.
Many ethnic Albanians say the plan grants the province’s minority Serbs too many concessions while not going far enough toward establishing Kosovo as a fully independent state. Serbia, meanwhile, considers it an illegal attempt to pry away the heart of its historic homeland.
With both sides still so far apart, the chances of an imposed solution appeared to increase, along with the likelihood of a showdown at the Security Council between the United States, which backs Kosovo independence, and Russia, a longtime Serbian ally with veto power.
In Russia, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov sidestepped the issue of whether Moscow would veto Ahtisaari’s plan, but he told reporters that “a decision on Kosovo must be negotiated and must be the subject of agreement by both sides.”
Slovakia’s Foreign Minister Jan Kubis, whose country holds the Security Council presidency, said at U.N. headquarters in New York that he received a phone call about the discussion in Vienna and “unfortunately both sides are uncompromising on the status question.” But he said there was a possibility of movement on the technical issues.
“There is just a hope - just a hope - that on the technical issues … it would be possible to have some progress, some real negotiations, some exchanges, and to move the portfolio forward in agreeing on certain matters,” Kubis said.
The talks are scheduled to end by March 10, and Ahtisaari plans to submit the package to the Security Council by the end of next month.
WEATHERFORD, Texas (AP) — Some people in Weatherford got billion-dollar scares this week after they opened their electric bills. Richard Redden’s bill said he owed more than $24 billion.
Pam Pearson, of Weatherford Electric, said a printing company made a mistake and nearly 1,400 customers received erroneous late notices.
Pearson said customers who received the inaccurate bills will get the correct ones later this month and won’t face any late fees.
Meanwhile, Redden said he guesses his family shouldn’t have run the heater quite so much.
North Korea can make a nuclear warhead that can be mounted on missiles capable of hitting all of South Korea and most of Japan, U.S. nuclear experts said in a report obtained on Wednesday.
Two U.S. nuclear experts who recently visited North Korea’s atomic facilities north of Pyongyang said the secretive and impoverished state had separated enough plutonium for five to 12 nuclear weapons.
“Little is known about North Korea’s ability to make a nuclear weapon, although it is assessed as likely able to build a crude nuclear warhead for its Nodong (Rodong) missile,” te Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security said in a report released on Tuesday in the United States.
The non-governmental group’s report added: “the warhead may not be reliable, and it may have a relatively low yield.”
Many proliferation experts doubt whether North Korea has the ability to miniaturize a nuclear warhead to fit on a missile.
The ISIS report said North Korea had probably obtained technology from overseas that would help it make a crude nuclear warhead.
Experts do not doubt that North Korea has hundreds of missiles, including its modified Scud-type missile called the Rodong, that are capable of hitting all of South Korea and large parts of Japan.
North Korea conducted its first nuclear test in October. Seoul government officials and nuclear experts said the exploded device had a relatively low yield.
North Korea agreed earlier this month to shut its sole reactor and main source of plutonium in return for aid as a step toward scrapping its nuclear arms program.
Add Christine Ebersole to the list of kooks who say the 9/11 terror attacks were an inside job.
The “Grey Gardens” star went on writer John Conner’s radio show the other night to say she agrees with him that a corrupt faction within the U.S. government is to blame.
“I think we want to look at our government as sort of like a benevolent father that’s going to take care of us and be kind to us and treat us well, and I think it’s too much for our people to conceptualize, and I’m sure that’s what happened to people in Nazi Germany,” Ebersole said.
Lloyds TSB is forcing thousands of its most prudent credit card customers to pay an annual fee of £35.
The fee will apply to around 50,000 account-holders who do not use their cards much, and pay off their balance in full each month.
Credit card companies and banks regard customers who do not make much use of their cards as a drain on the business.
They have to be provided with statements and other material, but do not generate any income for the banks with purchases, interest on balances, and charges.
Banks are redrawing the rules for credit cards after they were forced to slash illegal and unfair penalty charges for those who miss payments.
The Office of Fair Trading told the industry last year to cut charges of around £25 to a maximum of £12 or face legal action.
The finance firms are retaliating £35 charge for not using a credit card by introducing fees and other methods, such as reducing the length of the interest-free period for card purchases.
The news comes 24 hours after the Daily Mail revealed the likely introduction of annual fees on current accounts later this year, when the OFT is expected to order banks to slash what it considers are illegal penalty charges on overdrafts.
The new chief executive of the Nationwide said a system of annual fees on bank accounts was the best way forward.
Graham Beale, who takes over on April 1, believes monthly fees on current accounts is the ‘fairest’ way to charge.
Lloyds TSB is the first of the ‘big five’ high street banks to impose an annual fee on customers. But the finance industry believes others will follow suit. Sandra Quinn, communications chief at APACS, the trade body for institutions delivering payment services, said other banks would not be far behind.
‘This - the introduction of annual fees - is a natural outcome to the work the OFT did last year on default charges,’ she said.
‘If you have lost one area of income, all credit card issuers will be looking at other ways to get income.
‘They are not charitable organisations. The message is either use your card or cut it up.’
The letter sent by Lloyds TSB to customers this week dresses up the introduction of the £35 fee as positive.
It states: ‘So that we can offer you an attractive product now and in the future, we will be charging you an annual fee of £35.’
The circular gives customers ten days notice of the introduction of the charge on March 1.
One customer said he has cut up his card and closed his account.
Brian Harley, 48, an accountant from Boston, Lincolnshire, said: ‘It was extremely irritating that they only gave ten days notice of the change. It was very much a case of like it or lump it.
‘I’ve had the card for almost 25 years. I decided to use it less when they reduced the interest-free period last summer.’
Mr Harley said: ‘The introduction of the charge will alienate customers, but I got the impression that Lloyds TSB doesn’t much care about that.’
A Lloyds TSB spokesman said: ‘This fee applies to just one per cent of our card base. It is predominantly targeted at people who don’t use their cards. We want to encourage people to start using their cards.’
Asked if this was responsible, she said: ‘Plenty of customers use their cards responsibly and responsibly manage their balance. This is not about encouraging customers to get into debt.’
Comments(0)
