What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Much Are You Over-Paying For Your Auto Insurance view!
howlifeworks.com - Car insurance rates have dropped leaving many people paying far more than they need to...
1323 Comments
- STONECRUSHER420, on 10/30/2007, -39/+114I listened live while the CIA operatives took this off google as alex mentioned it. I had the page up and it refreshed without my permission, and without the video. But not before my download had started!!! HAHAHAHA bastards!!!! The info-war is real folks!!!
- Ahnubisaki, on 10/25/2007, -35/+85Prior knowledge has just been proven.
- wuff, on 10/25/2007, -21/+66they can't stop it... for the record you can use http://www.erightsoft.com/KVk.html to capture video directly from sites and that'll make archiving things like this much easier in the future
- inactive, on 10/30/2007, -32/+73cant wait to see how the Ministry of Truth (newspeak for the BBC) tries to spin this one
- dogster, on 10/25/2007, -25/+64It would be nice to interview Jane Stanley to track down the source of her prior knowledge.
Also, the reaction of the defrauded insurance company would be of interest.
Score 1 for the good guys!!!! - rattstiak, on 10/12/2007, -2/+40NOT A BLUE OR GREEN SCREEN (in response to joeshlub and others...)
I'm a cameraman and editor. I can tell you from my professional expertise - they would not zoom into a blue screen. You would be able to tell. The timing would be almost impossible to replicate. The zoom would have to executed on the reporter's camera and the video being played on the blue screen at the same time in the exact same way. A blue screen is not like you are projecting it on a screen behind the reporter (like a movie theater) and when you zoom in with the camera, you zoom into the image on the blue screen. It is an image that is keyed in afterward. It is completely separate. If they zoomed in on a blue sceen, the background image would actually stay the same, with no zoom, unless the keyed in "blue screen" image was also running a zoomed in image at that exact time. Let me know if that explanation makes sense. I work with blue and green screens, so I know how they work, but it might not be the best explanation. Bottom line is - the zoom proves NO BLUE or GREEN SCREEN.
Also, in the wider shot, you can see a reflection of downtown off of some glass on the right side of the shot. This is after they zoom in, when the reporter steps aside, they cut to the anchor and then cut back out to her. It's pretty clear that she's in a building overlooking the scene. - 4Horsemen, on 10/30/2007, -31/+67BBC just got busted again. If it's BS, why did Google pull the video? They got so much other crap on the net. The tin foil hat comments don't work anymore, you come up with something better than that.
- dogster, on 10/12/2007, -7/+41Oops, google just pulled it.
Who at google is in charge of suppressing videos? - jackspace, on 10/12/2007, -9/+45Has anyone attempted to make a usable time-line in all this? Seems like a tool such as the TIMELINE feature on http://simile.mit.edu/ would be useful for keeping all this stuff straight in our heads.
Regardless of what actually happened on 9/11, I want to know why the Bush Administration ignored warnings of credible terror threats throughout the summer of 2001. I also want to know why he started snooping on our phone calls prior to 9/11 (and it didn't seem to thwart the attack did it?). - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+42You speak but you have not done your research.... have you?
Do you have any knowledge of phsyics?
Do you know how this operation was comprised? .... many people were unknowing accomplices to this crime and had absolutely no idea untill the deal was done. These people just realized that they participated in an operation which killed three thousand Americans.... and you think that they are going to speak?
Speak out against those who just did this.... where do you think their loyalty lies? I'll tell you. It lies in keeping themselves and their families out of harms way.
Speaking out would just put them in a very bad spot. So they choose to go with the flow and hope that the truth doesn't surface. Silence equals survival. While a whistleblower with intimate knowledge would be grand we do not require their testimony untill this goes to trial.
Are you aware of the many drills being run that day which mimiced these attacks. Many of these people who participated had no idea what was really happening and by the time they did it was far too late. The deal was done and they knew exactly where they stood on this matter.
If you did your research and had any common sense you would see right through their weak ass story.
Why did they implode WTC building 7? Just take a lookie look at what was stationed there. This building was home to several world banking leaders whom all greatly benefit from war.... but that wasn't the real reason that building had to fall..... It was home to the SEC.... the Securities and Exchange Commission... do you know what they do? The investigate Fraud, Insider Trading, and Illegal Wire Transfers.
What were they investigating that needed to be pushed under the rug? ..... ENRON... a company which many in the Bush administration had made big $$$$ off of... after ENRON went kaput many of the heads went to work directly for the Bush administration being paid with your tax dollars.... but you probably didn't know that either.
So we have $2.3 TRILLION missing from the Pentagon coffers.... and the office which was investigating that lost cash.... gets hit with something on 9/11?
And we have WTC 7 which is investigating many cases which involve Bush and all his buddies.... suddenly crashes down at near freefall speeds into it's own footprint from fire.... the first time in history.
Stop being foolish.... making excuses will not make any of this go away. - ownedpwned, on 10/30/2007, -22/+53Typical, looks like google took down this shocking video already.
- oddjobsbowler, on 10/12/2007, -9/+39But the reporter is talking about the collapse of the building even though you can clearly see building 7 standing behind her in the shot.
- inactive, on 10/25/2007, -1/+30As of today, Archive.org has also removed the video / does not let you download it. You get just this:
--19:12:46-- http://ia311517.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109111654-1736/V08591-16.mpg
=> `V08591-16.mpg'
Resolving ia311517.us.archive.org... 208.70.29.221
Connecting to ia311517.us.archive.org|208.70.29.221|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 403 Forbidden
19:12:47 ERROR 403: Forbidden.
Nice! They had it on their archives for years, and now suddenly, no more! - inactive, on 10/25/2007, -4/+32Here is a direct link to an archive hosting a 1 GB version of the whole BBC program:
http://ia311517.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109111654-1736/V08591-16.mpg
Downloaded it already and wathced it. Un-flippin believable. The reporter is standing there explaining how the building has collapsed, a big LIVE sign on the screen, and the building can clearly be seen still standing!
Good job...And good luck trying to bury the video after this. I bet thousands have it on their harddrives already. - spope, on 10/12/2007, -20/+47I was in the "bathroom" when I heard Alex and the gentleman from Canada speaking about this video..Immediately went to download the video and lo and behold IT WAS GONE! Another way to deny the TRUTH.........Plausable Deniability!
- stallion4, on 10/12/2007, -5/+33@ sonofdy
Have you looked in to these reports about Building #7?
-Guns & Butter Radio interview - April 27th 2005:
Hosted by Bonnie Falkner
Guest: Indira Singh (Ground Zero Emergency Worker)
Bonnie: How long did you work as an emergency medical technician and exactly what is it that you were doing (at ground zero)?
Indira: ...when I got there we were setting up triage sites (at ground zero), close, very close to the area. The triage site that I was setting up was behind, well, to the east of Building 7 where Building 7 came down...
...we were setting up triages as close to the pile as possible… so what we were doing was setting up different kinds of stations… IV stations, cardiac stations, wound stations, burn stations ...just trying to have an organized space. What happened with that particular triage site is that pretty soon afternoon, after mid-day on 9/11 we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down... I do believe that they brought Building 7 down... By noon or one o'clock they told us we had to move from that triage site up to Pace University a little further away because Building 7 was going to come down or being brought down.
Bonnie: Did they actually use the word "brought down" and who was it that was telling you this?
Indira: The fire department... the fire department and they did use the word "we're going to have to bring it down."
Excerpt from above is heard approximately ten minutes into the interview.
Audio: http://www.gunsandbutter.net/archives.php?si=78
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Former Air Force Special Operations for Search and Rescue, Kevin McPadden
Sep 20, 2006
Pacifica Radio's Guns & Butter
New York Stories: 9/11 First Responders
Audio stream:
http://www.gunsandbutter.net/archives.php?si=142
Show archive page is here:
http://www.gunsandbutter.net/archives.php?page=3
McPadden's speech begins at 46 minutes in
@ 48:14 he makes the following comments about what he witnessed while at Ground Zero on 9/11...
"They said you know you've got to stay behind this line because they're thinking about taking this building down, they're not sure if it's stable or not, so they were holding a line off because they had knowledge that something was gonna happen. Well, they pushed us back a little bit....a couple of minutes later they started coming down....people started coming back out to the street, I watched five New York City buses jam packed with people wanting to do search and rescue head down there towards Building 7 - people walk out into the middle of the street to see these people off, like bon voyage and right then Building 7 came down."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Former NYPD Officer & 9/11 First Responder Craig Bartmer:
"I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. I didn't see any reason for that building to fall down the way it did -- and a lot of guys should be saying the same thing. I don't know what the fear is coming out and talking about it? I don't know -- but it's the truth."
[...]
"I walked around it (Building 7). I saw a hole. I didn't see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though. Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn't hear any... I didn't hear any creaking, or... I didn't hear any indication that it was going to come down. And all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone started screaming 'get away, get away, get away from it!'... It was at that moment... I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. The thing started pealing in on itself... Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the *****'s hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... Yeah it had some damage to it, but nothing like what they're saying... Nothing to account for what we saw... I am shocked at the story we've heard about it to be quite honest."
Speaking Out: An interview with Craig Bartmer:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2283625397351664218&q
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Reporter Al Jones: "People started to run away from the scene [WTC7] and I turned in time to see what looked like a skyscraper implosion -- looked like it had been done by a demolition crew -- the whole thing just collapsing down on itself and another big huge plume of gray and white smoke shooting up into the air and then more of the smoke billowing up the street here... so that’s number one, number two, and now number seven that have come down from this explosion."
Live 9-11 Report from 1010 WINS NYC News Radio, presented in the documentary "911 Eyewitness" (Forward to 28:25)
Video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=65460757734339444&q
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Emergency worker: "We were watching the building [WTC7] actually ‘cause it was on fire… the bottom floors of the building were on fire and… we heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder… turned around -- we were shocked to see that the building was ah well it looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building and the windows all busted out… it was horrifying… about a second later the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that… we saw the building crash down all the way to the ground… we were in shock."
Live 9-11 Report from 1010 WINS NYC News Radio, presented in the documentary "911 Eyewitness" (Forward to 31:30)
Video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=65460757734339444&q - BillDouglas, on 10/12/2007, -6/+32The BBC's original hit piece on 9/11 truth seekers was hideous. Somehow they "avoided" speaking to the high level military and intelligence experts who believe 9/11 was an inside job. See:
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
They spent a God awful amount of time "psycho-analyzing" anyone who questioned the events of 9/11, using not one real psychologist . . . and the lay people they chose to speak all concluded that anyone seeking real answers to 9/11 was delusional.
Now, perhaps we know why. On 9/11/2001 the BBC SCREWED UP ROYALLY, when reporting WTC 7 had gone down 20 minutes plus BEFORE it actually fell, when no one else in the world except the BBC and whoever told them that it was going to happen. It is irrefutable, the time code, and the live shot of the WTC over the BBC reporters shoulder as she said it just collapsed (while it still stood) proves it.
It is also apparent that "someone" at the BBC knew they had screwed up BIG TIME, because they abruptly cut away from the reporter to avoid the odd visual of the WTC 7 collapsing behind the reporter who 15 minutes earlier had said it had already collapsed.
Someone at the BBC is practicing a pathetic case of CYA (Cover Your *SS), and their hit piece on 9/11 truth seekers was probably part of their CYA a week ago. THE TRUTH WILL COME OUT. IT HAS COME OUT. HOW LONG WILL CORPORATE MEDIA PARTICIPATE IN THIS CRIME OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE REGARDING 9/11?? - onedeaddj, on 10/12/2007, -6/+32Why were the BBC reporting on the collapse of a building before it had collapsed?
Amidst the anguished screeching of the debunkers here I haven't yet seen a logical answer to that question. - skyfire1, on 10/12/2007, -15/+40This isn't "news." The dude that owned the building wanted it pulled.
- shig, on 10/12/2007, -0/+24@Herkimer56
I know the Port Authority didn't get millions in insurance payouts.
Six months before the 9/11 attacks the World Trade Center was "privatized" by being leased to a private sector developer (Larry Silverstein). The lease was purchased by the Silverstein Group for $3.2 billion.
"A federal jury on Monday ruled that the assault on the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center was in fact two occurrences for insurance purposes. The finding in U.S. District Court in Manhattan means leaseholder Larry Silverstein may collect up to $4.6 billion, according to reports." - Forbes 12/06/04
So, that makes you to be the ignorant one. - TruthUpYourAss, on 10/12/2007, -24/+46isn't there an AMERICAN IDOL rerun on you could be watching? let the grown folks talk here, son.
- dukeeeey, on 10/12/2007, -4/+26So let me get this straight.
We have the BBC reporting 20 minutes before the building fell that it would.
We have a video of a CNN camera man, fireman and police man running away from building 7, because in their words the building was about to blow up.
Video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwjmqkjwnvQ&eurl=
And we have the building owner saying in a BPS documentary that they decided to have the building pulled, then they watched it collapse.
Video here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6455428412411043437&q=wtc+7+pulled&hl=en
Then the building does what no other steel framed building had ever done as a result of fire, it collapsed at free fall speeds, perfectly emulating controlled demolition.
Then we have the top dutch demolition expert saying, that building 7 was definitely controlled demolition.
Video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgoSOQ2xrbI
With all this evidence it should be clear that what the government is saying is false, and there needs to be a real independent investigation to find out what happened. - stallion4, on 10/12/2007, -9/+30@ foamcow
The anchor in the BBC studio looks at a clock -- while he's talking to the Reporter who has Building 7 over her shoulder -- and says "it's been some 8 hours after the attack".
The first plane hit at 8:46 a.m. NYC time. That would put the filming of this BBC report near 5 p.m. NYC time. Building 7 fell down at 5:20. - inactive, on 11/05/2007, -37/+58Oh this is just a coincidence!!!
Basically what happened was that the building was on fire, and it was damaged by falling debris from the twin towers, the word was put out that it was unstable.
So what happened then was that they knew it was going to fall - because there was a quick scientific structural survey of the 47 story sky scrapper and they knew it was coming down. You know it was soooooooooo obvious. So basically then the news media was told to tell the world that the building was going to fall. And then the building fell. You know, buildings like that just happen to fall in 6-7 seconds every other day man.
End of story, there is nothing else to report here. Go back to sleep people. Get read to bomb IRAN, that is the big story.
Now where is my psychotropic medicine, I need to finish putting up that rubber wall paper.
- Quite literally this isn't a smoking gun, IT'S A SMOKING BUILDING!!! - spartansblade, on 10/12/2007, -7/+26I cant believe the debunkers are so upset that they would bury this quote.
"they can't stop it... for the record you can use http://www.erightsoft.com/KVk.html to capture video directly from sites and they'll make archiving things like this much easier in the future"
Thanks for the info, everyone please help to undigg this comment - refugeechris, on 10/12/2007, -9/+28why would you bury a comment that merely mentions that the video has been removed.
- 4Horsemen, on 10/12/2007, -36/+55Buildings don't don't fall like that from fires unless it was on Sept. 11, 2001.
- stallion4, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22Here's the original BBC footage. It's 1G:
http://ia311517.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109111654-1736/V08591-16.mpg - "right click / save target as" - Graflok, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20Just look at the video in question. The only point being made here is that the fall of Building 7 was reported before it occurred. The video shows a reporter standing in front of Building 7 but saying that Building 7 has already collapsed. Look at the video. It is real news footage.
As for the rest of your conjecture above, that is for you to decide. Explain it any way you like. But, don't dismiss one piece of evidence simply because it opens a can of worms that you would rather not think about.
graflok - d3ejmz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18Fast Video Downloader works easier and better IMHO. Firefox plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/3590/ - stallion4, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21@ spartansblade
What part of my previous post don't you understand?
The news anchor in the BBC studio clearly says (live) that the report was going out "some 8 hours" after the attack while he's interviewing the female reporter who's in NYC and has Building 7 still standing over her shoulder. That would place the time of the broadcast very close to 5 p.m. New York time.
Here's a new link to the video that Google keeps censoring:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=49f_1172526096
Here's a pic of the reporter and Building 7:
http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/1557/bbcworld1710estwtc780pcbr4.jpg - benthere, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23Better copy
Google video DIVX AVI copy downloaded before it was taken down (183 MB):
http://conspiracycentral.net:6969/stats.html?info_hash=bd83725eb328a0f6e8a6ae0b9b21c558235331e8
Disclaimer: I have no affiliation with this clip and have not verified its contents. - ghstofbillhicks, on 10/12/2007, -30/+48anyone who spouts TIN FOIL HAT BS knows deep in their hearts they are LYING to themselves. Think about it...
the BBC, Google, etc are all BUSTED BIG TIME on this one.
what did i tell ya? LIARS & MURDERERS - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2150% of Americans still have not seen the collapse of WTC building 7... why do you think that they would have noticed this blunder?
especially being that they cut her feed before the building did actually collapse.... they covered their asses on that one. - tj256, on 10/12/2007, -10/+28I wonder how they'll explain this one away. To me, this is a smoking gun in it's own right. Add that to the few dozen other smoking guns.
When will people wake up? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -13/+32To all the people screaming tin hat, ask you selves 1 question.
"Why would google pull the video? Who told them to pull it?" - RackAttack, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22WTC 1 & 2 were full of asbestos. How much do you think it would have cost to properly take those buildings down, piece-by-piece? Because they wouldn't be able to "legally" 'implode' the buildings, because of all the asbestos, etc. ... And the sicknesses that would have come from it (AND DID, by the way). They were a lost cause of buildings. Money losers. Their time was up.
But instead of COSTING tons of money to "bring them down properly" they "killed many birds" with a few "stones."
> They brought the building down with less expense.
> MADE money in the process.
> Had an excuse to start wars.
> Had an excuse to set laws to take away liberties.
> And for WTC 7 ... Many damaging documents were in that building... So BOOM! ... They covered the evidence up for a myriad of crimes there also.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Go here for other good stuff:
http://www.infowars.com/sept11_archive.htm - 911isalie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19Fake?
Come on!
This is the world we live in now - when we question this. If it proved WTC7 collapsed as a result of "whatever" the current explanation is, then I guarantee you you would have seen it; and seen plenty of it. The fact that you haven't seen it is the interesting thing...I've never seen it, indeed, I would suspect that most people haven't.
To it's being fake - if it's fake then it's been put out by the Truth side. I was unaware that we had the resources to produce this type of content and then disseminate it, and to do so without the mass media and every blogger on the planet who hates the Truth movement, picking it up and running with it. It can't even be government operation to discredit the Truth movement, because it does not do that; it merely bolsters the argument(s).
To it being real - you know it's real. You know it' real by what you see with your own eyes; no one is out there denying it; the simple fact that you haven't seen it means it's either been suppressed or they and everyone else have been unaware of it's location, and it's just now been stumbled upon; consider the fact that the main stream media will not touch this story; and finally, consider how quickly it went off Google.
It's not fake...it's very, very, real.
Thank GOD for it coming out. - quakerorts, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22I downloaded a copy here:
http://www.torrentspy.com/download.asp?id=1069394
And uploaded it here:
http://www.esnips.com/web/Sep11
File name is: 911Building7collapse.flv
You'll need a Flash video player. - spartansblade, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22Never happened before? How about the burning of the Reichstag? How about the Gulf of Tonkin where declasified documents, generals and lots of other info show that the US faked oru reason to go to war?
Theres two instances alone. So who needs the lesson in history now? - spartansblade, on 10/12/2007, -7/+25Clasic. How about debating the facts instead of spamming. You show me two things and I will shut up.
1. How building 7 was able to catch fire in the first place given it position relative to the twin towers.
2. Any other steel structure, not owned by Larry Silverstein, especially one that was as over engineered as building 7 that collaped from fire in short time as building 7.
If you are unable to explain JUST these two things then keep your mouth shut and do some research first. AT THE LEAST reguardless of goverment involment or anything like that there SHOULD be an investigation to why that building fell. If it was brought down due to explosion, and only on fire for that short of a time then how did they have time durring the fire to go into the building and set up the explosives. It would take a week of prep for a small building to be brought down and a month to prep a larger building. If Silverstein knew about the attacks and bought purchased the buildings to cash in on this tradegy then first we have to send him to jail. Then we must find out how he discovered that the buildings were going to be attacked reguardless of any real involvment. - ISIfunded911, on 10/12/2007, -5/+22It is there:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1471985581749234824&hl=en
It reminds me of JFK. A newspaper reported about the assassination before it happened, as is shown in the movie by Oliver Stone. - MPrck, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19This is explosive, once again we are shown that the " Official" story is a LIE. The whole story, some dude in a cave with a cell and laptop defeats our mult trillion defense dept, hijackers with no flight training and no ground control and navigation, fly for hours and come down from altitude and fly into buildings like they were guided missiles. Buildings don't just fall down, they disintegrate with no explaination given. At least the JFK murder had some mystery to it, this "official" 9-11 hoax is just so weak. Of course it has not stopped the Government from killing in it's name. It has not stopped the Government from putting us under Martial Law with the Patriot Act's. The American people are going to have to put down their REMOTES and pick up their pen's and communicate with their CONGRESS people and just say NO to what is going on.
- philcozz, on 10/12/2007, -8/+25The anchor and reporter DON'T just "misinterpret the predictions that WTC 7 would fall.." The anchor repeats 3 "bullet points" in the course of the video a couple of times: 1) The building has collapsed, 2) The explanation [it had been weakened by the earlier collapses], and 3) no one was in the building.
That's not just a rumor being "jumped on;" that is reporting the event, the reason, and the result 23 minutes before it happened. - Buddogfree, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17Try all you want to debunk the truth of 911 you right and left gatekeepers.
You all can't handle the truth, well you know what
stop your crying and your keyboard commando techniques and go do your own
investigation.
I can't believe all you peasants would want to protect
the evil elitists and their evil agendas.
This BBC video just shows more complicity, it is completely undebunkable.
They knew building 7 was coming down so reported it in an untimely manner
there mistake is just more ammunition - HDHNTR77, on 10/12/2007, -5/+21This thing has checked out, and the time zone debunk is utter nonsense and disinfo intended to try to hide the fact that the BBC announced twenty minutes early, that an accidental happening was going to occur. Something obviously went out on the AP wire and got picked up early. Somebody ***** up big time HUGE, and now it's on the BBC - what on EARTH are they every going to do?
This story is HUGE! - fightnwo911, on 10/12/2007, -20/+35Tinfoil hats, moonbats?? Sounds like someone takes the words right out of the mouths of Quinn and Rose. It is really sad that people stick to catch phrases and personal attacks rather than science, evidence, and common sense. It really only shows that you folks criticizing those of us trying to expose the truth about 911 have absolutely no argument what-so-ever. The fact that you who blindly accept the "official" 911 conspiracy theory can not debate the truth movement on the facts makes clear that you have no intellect or reasoning behind what you say but only a clouded and deluded appeal to emotion. That will not hold up in court or in the realm of science.
- UNSCleric, on 10/12/2007, -15/+31Incredible job guys, this is very hard-hitting. WTC7 is their biggest weak spot.
- ISIfunded911, on 10/12/2007, -6/+21I am watching it now. It is really incredible. Watch it:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1471985581749234824&hl=en
It reminds me of JFK. A newspaper reported about the assassination before it happened, as is shown in the movie by Oliver Stone.
Of course, in the case of an inside job, controlling the information/disinformation is crucial. It has to be prepared before. The goal of state-sponsored terrorism is to control the minds of the people in a democracy to convince them of the validity of a violent course of action by the government that would not have been approved by the population without this act of terrorism.
It happened in Italy to break the huge strikes in 1969, and several other times for many years after that. Just research gladio and Bologna in google for example. NATO and the Italian secret services did kill hundreds of Italians to help right-wing politicians stay in power, by blaming the acts of terrorism on leftists. They later managed to manipulate some stupid leftists into becoming terrorists, but the secret services were pulling the threads, and paid some fascists to do the biggest killings. - R0cc0, on 10/12/2007, -9/+24i'd like to think that i am equally skeptical of both sides of an issue, so my question is this.
Why after six years am i just now reading this...? Either millions of people failed to notice this or it fake.
any thoughts people? -
Show 51 - 100 of 1325 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 