bbc.co.uk — Richard Porter, head of news for BBC World, continues to explain away the "9/11 foreknowledge of WTC7 collapse" broadcast, the missing BBC tapes, and all in all, how reasonable and easy to explain the whole thing is, after all. He ends his blurb with, "There's no story here." I don't think he understands that he doesn't get to decide that.
Mar 2, 2007 View in Crawl 4
ennealogicMar 2, 2007Submitter
The permalink for the article is <a class="user" href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/03/part_of_the_conspiracy_2.html.">http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/03/part_of_the_conspiracy_2.html.</a>
Closed AccountMar 2, 2007
<a class="user" href="http://www.debunking911.com/">http://www.debunking911.com/</a>
dukeeeeyMar 2, 2007
try thinking for yourself and asking real questions
Closed AccountMar 3, 2007
The Ministry of Truth, always ahead of time^^I just made my first Ministry of Truth Wallpaper (Art can be resistance too)<a class="user" href="http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/50010514/">http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/50010514/</a>The Truth will set you free!.... but you won't get it from The Ministry of Truth
grabercMar 4, 2007
#dukeeeeyThat is why debunking911 is so great - for people who ask real questions, it answers them.Any conspiracy theorist will attack on 3-4 fronts1) I believe what I saw, rather then what credible sources tell me. I.e. it doesn't make sense to me, it has to be fake2) I believe the "whatever" was involved so therefore anyone who argues different is either a) stupid b) in on it3) I cherry pick, take out of context, in order to prove my point4) I steadfastly ignore ALL evidence otherwise.A friggen JET liner ON VIDEO hit the World Trade Center.
grabercMar 4, 2007
#bakunxl whateververy creative use of 1984 -but 1984 and the ministry of truth (well the idea of such an organization) proves the non-conspiracy theorist point. . .The Ministry's in the book 1984 set out to force ably re-write history, kill, and terrorize those who disagreed. That is a far way from "losing" a couple tapes - especially since by law they normally only keep them 90days anyway - especially since losing the orginals does nothing due to the amount of people with the ability to RECORD the broadcast.if this was a conspiracy of such power as noted. . .1) they would, uh, kill/detain/get rid of those who are 'onto it"2) they would seek out and destroy all evidencenot go to their other stations to get the tapes back - It is like you think there is a conspiracy out there of nice people who don't kill/hurt/maim unless in the course of their big terrorist plans
ennealogicMar 6, 2007Submitter
You know, calling people names because they do not share your beliefs is unproductive.As for airplanes hitting WTC1 and 2, I agree there are videos that tend to support this part of the story. However, it is very unclear how the resulting damage and fires pulverized thousands of tons of concrete half an hour to an hour later. And remember, no airplane (jetliner, whatever) hit WTC7. And what is wrong with believing what I see? Or at least asking questions about it? If we don't, aren't we susceptible to mind control?I've scoured many many "information sources" over the last four years, including those on the official story side and those on the other side. I don't have answers yet, so I ask questions. I do not believe that "truthers" in general cherry pick anything. They take the molten metal, the almost free-fall collapse time, the word of credible sources who say the airplane damage alone could not have initiated collapse, the pre-announcement of collapse... and thousands of other facts... into consideration. I welcome more evidence concerning the WTC collapses. Please provide some, other than Popular Mechanics and official reports by the same four people who wrote the official story on Oklahoma City. I've read those already. And the 911 Commission Report, I read that too but they started with the theory that Muslim extremists did it all and left out anything that might suggest otherwise. Just show me one steel-framed highrise building that collapsed from fire, other than WTC1, 2 and 7. That would be a start. Or show me a peer-reviewed paper that explains the circumstances under which Newton's Three Laws are suspended.If you do not question like I do, that doesn't make you stupid and you are most certainly entitled to post your opinions. If I don't believe as you do, that doesn't make me a kook or a nutcase either. Let me add I'd rather hear the results of your research that support your theories or opinions. Leave the name-calling for the 3rd grade playground.