What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Follow the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Twitter view!
twitter.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
289 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -51/+102Having worked in the news room of a radio station for many years I can tell you that the BBC explanation makes one hell of a lot more sense that your interpretation of the events. On that day we received hundreds of reports from multiple sources and a lot of them turned out to be either wrong or just speculation. In the huge rush to be first with a story the networks, including the BBC, went on-air with whatever information they could find if it was accurate or not. I see this as poor journalism but you people seem to think that it's proof of some huge conspiracy. You couldn't be more wrong.
- art567, on 10/12/2007, -6/+50the building was behind the reporter while she was reporting that it had come down.
this video got pulled twice off Google Videos within the first 5 minutes it was mentioned on air on the Alex Jones show (of www.prisonplanet.com)
the tape is "lost" by the BBC.
I'm sure this is all just coincidence. - understudy, on 10/12/2007, -13/+48
The weakest link in the official fire theory of WTC7 is Larry Silverstein.
I've never heard a satisfactory response to Larry Silverstein who, while speaking of WTC7, was quoted as saying, ". . . maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it, uh, and they made that decision to pull . . . then we watched the building collapse."
Even if someone says that Larry didn't mean pull it in the demolition sense, his quote still clearly says that the decision to cause the collapse of WTC7 was "theirs".
_ - PFS1, on 10/12/2007, -9/+40I like that a big corporation like the BBC can drop the corporate formality and political correctness long enough to say "*****-up" in an editorial.
- pbaehr, on 10/12/2007, -9/+35"As one of the comments on You Tube says..."
Hey, I think this conspiracy theory is as ridiculous as hell, but I ABSOLUTELY refuse to accept an explanation from anyone who would quote a YouTube comment. - shug7272, on 10/12/2007, -8/+31LMAO yea news orgs. falsely report buildings collapsing all the time. Oh and they do it minutes before they collapse all the time. No building had collapsed for HOURS before building 7 so WTF? They offered no answers just said "Uhhhh, we dont know what happened."
- wingnut21, on 10/12/2007, -1/+24How the hell do lose footage of 9/11?! (I'm not asking as a conspirator, I'm asking someone who probably wouldn't lose footage of 9/11, ie - I walk on two legs and breathe.)
- hode, on 10/12/2007, -12/+31You're right. Guys in a cave in Afghanistan executed the most advanced simultaneous attack on the world's most powerful nation without the world's best spy agencies seeing it coming. Simple. /sarc
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -15/+32Nobody ever suggested that the BBC was knowingly involved in a conspiracy. Stupid little sheep just felt like repeating that because disproving something that was never said makes them feel like they've won something. BBC reported the collapse of the building before it happened. CNN reported the collapse of the same building before it happened. Honestly, what else was BBC going to say? What else COULD BBC have said? They don't even offer an explanation, they just throw around buzzwords and blame chaos. They say no one told them the building was going to collapse, but then they said they got and reported "inaccurate information". Someone obviously told them the building was going to collapse if they reported it and it obviously wasn't inaccurate if it happened. The BBC official response is that their reporter, and a CNN reporter, both just happened to coincidentally fabricate the exact same story up to an hour before it happened. Do with that what you will.
- nomad9, on 10/12/2007, -5/+24The Head of News for BBC World relies on quoting some sarcastic remark from YouTube in an effort to dispel any doubts people may have over the accuracy of the BBC's reporting around 9/11.
Some how I don't think that'll cut it. - azurechaos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19@footballdude191
Do you seriously think that it's a blue screen behind her? Have you never heard of reporters positioning themselves with the story of interest in the background? There is sunlight coming in through the window and they've made it clear during the report that she is live in new york. So are you saying that the BBC is lying? - cornfry182, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22obviously you haven't bothered to look it up for yourself. just go read the 9/11 commission report, that'll be enough to show how much b.s. it all is.
- cornfry182, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21 Ahh, so you noticed them disappearing that story yesterday, eh.... right before our eyes
http://www.digg.com/world_news/9_11_BBC_Reports_WTC_Building_7_Collapse_23_Minutes_in_Advance
even disappeared from my profile where I'd dugg it - VhaidraU, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21Since I am not a Brit, could someone explain what the following means please? "We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage for reasons of *****-up"
I am especially interested in what the British phrase of "coverage for reasons of *****-up" means. - thebaron2, on 10/12/2007, -24/+40And what does not having the tape even have to do with anything? They're not denying that their reporter made the comment - they're just saying that it was inaccurate and made it on the air because everything was so hectic at the time.
The absence of the tape has no effect whatsoever on their explanation, _they're not denying that it happened_. - art567, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18@football dude
There were at least 2 other buildings that received more damage from debris than #7.
Controlled demolitions take at least a week or two of setting up be executed.
Larry Silverstein did not own the other 2 buildings that were more greatly damaged by debris.
He did own buildings 1,2, and 7, and got 3.5 Billion dollars from insurance after 9/11.
After recieving this money, he attempted to take his insurance company to court to get another 3.5 Billion off of this tragedy, using a legal loophole.
He clearly said in a PBS documentary "I remember that morning, I got a call from the fire department asking me if I wanted to pull it. I said YES. PULL IT" Pull is a common word used in demolition which clearly means to demolish a building. The same word was used in the same PBS documentary about demolishing a much smaller building a week or so later. - strictly, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17The original story has 1700 diggs so far:
http://digg.com/politics/BBC_Reported_Building_7_Had_Collapsed_20_Minutes_Before_It_Fell - Bronevaya, on 10/12/2007, -6/+22great comments on the bbc site for those too sure of their facts to even bother
* 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?
-----------------
* 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.
----------------------------------------------
* 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 *****-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.
-----------------------------------------------------
* 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/february2007/260207building7.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. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17There was no hole in the side of it. A plane didn't hit it. Rudy Guliani said on ABC news that he was warned to evacuate because building 7 was "going to blow up". Firefighters and a CNN reporter were videotaped running out of building 7 clearly yelling "it's going to blow up!" CNN also reported building 7's implosion before it happened. There is no conspiracy theory there because there is no theory. Those are all facts, you can make up your own damn mind what to do with them. Either all those people that were actually there, including a current presidential candidate, lied on camera and the BBC and CNN reporters happened to completely fabricate the exact same story that ended up actually happening purely by coincidence, or BBC is attempting to protect it's image by cleverly downplaying the video that it can't explain. Again, there is no conspiracy theory because there is no theory. No one is claiming to know what happened. What we do know, is that the Bush administration has lied about matters of national security before, and it would be foolish to accept his official story, when parts of it are clearly inaccurate, simply because you're afraid that considering anything else will make you a "conspiracy theorist". What does an official investigation hurt? Conspiracy or not, the American people deserve to know what happened. The story that Mr. Bush gave the public is provably false.
- ne0shell, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20Nice try but the people asking questions are writing very reasonable requests for answers. Those who want everyone to shut up and believe the lies have to throw insults and half truths.
As someone who witnessed things first hand let me clue you in. WTC 7 had one very small fire which was no threat to the structure and some damage to a corner with no load bearing function. At the same time the building across the street had most of one side taken off and other WTC buildings were nearly cut in half by debris falling on top of them. WTC 7 was barely touched. None of the other buildings fell down. Even if I take the fire and corner damage story neither of those brings a building straight down into it's own footprint at free-fall speed. None of the given facts enable the BBC, fire dept and police to predict the future and give a 10 second count down to a "sudden collapse" either.
The best the govt and people like you can do is try to insult others and use marginalization tactics to try to "embarrass us" or something. Sorry but the 9-11 truth movement is full of very reasonable, very intelligent people and yes a few unstable people and people who act unstable to damage our credibility are involved. Every major poll shows our numbers are growing and that people who have questions about 9-11, believe we've been lied to etc make up the majority. 80% of the USA believe there's a cover up and half of that believes criminal elements of the govt either insured it would happen or participated. Sorry if that offends or upsets you but you really do have bigger problems you should be worried about than controlling other peoples thoughts.
So which is it? Are you a paid mouthpiece, living in denial or just un-informed? Every "debunking" attempt I've seen to date has to rely on lies or leaving out great parts of things, that doesn't sound very reasonable to me. Calling people names and "yelling at them" for asking questions is also pretty damn unreasonable. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+21It's ok guys, just keep yelling "tinfoil!" and it'll all go away, your president would never do that to you, it's all just a coincidence. Have ***** fun when that nutjob bombs Iran and China's nuking you to hell.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+23dk911
Hello..... here is your post.... because we all wanted to read it again.
"Okay, Larry Silverstein... Larry Silverstein... Yeah, so, here's as good an explanation as you're gonna hear. And I know you want to twist this to mean what YOU want to hear. But, I'm just gonna copy this from the research that Popular Mechanics did. Now, as a previous Digg.com submission points out, answers come from theories which are then scientifically tested to prove (as best as they can without all possible evidence) that they are accurate. Of course, someone who changes there statement must have been "gotten to", so Mr. Silverstein is a co-conspirator with the government, as is everyone who participated in these investigations. I know there will be those that try to debunk this, but its only because they want to come to a conclusion that fits their view -- not actually analyze the evidence and do any real research. So, without further ado"...
//// ah yes.... the Investigators.... should we start with FEMA or NIST? Lets see... lets just start with the fact that they commissioned the same exact engineers.... all the engineers in the US and they managed to find the same ones for both studies.... wait... they also investigated Oklahoma City.... thats weird? perhaps people should go to www.prisonplanet.com and chack out all the recent releases about Oklahoma City..... very peculiar?
Fits our view? Very impressive.... what is our view and how does our view benefit us? What do you suspect is our agenda? You think this is some political wrangling and we just want to get Bush?
These are serious allegations. This is not a subject that you just shoot from the cuff.... We are accusing elements within our own government of committing genocide and treason! Do we really need an agenda? Do you tink this is some Left propoganda? Get real!
As far as Silverstein goes.... you are naive to believe that this man would not be involved in this. You think someone set him up to make billions of dollars off a money pit.... the WTC complex. Silverstein slipped up. We have plenty of questions to ask that guy.////
"So, without further ado"...
Four demolition and engineering experts tell Popular Mechanics that "pull it" is not slang for controlled demolition. "I've never heard of it," says Jon Magnusson of Magnusson Klemencic Associates.
Ron Dokell, retired president of Olshan Demolishing Company says the same thing. Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition, Inc. adds that the only way he can imagine the term being used is in reference to a process where the legs of a structure are precut and attached to cables, and then large machines are used to literally pull the building to the gorund. But he adds that this is only done with radio towers and relatively small buildings. "There is no way you could pull over structures like the [WTC7],"
///// Spin on demolition terminology...jargon. Listen to what Silverstein says. It's pretty self explanitory if you have any concept of the English language. The man had certainly heard that terminology somewhere and it wasn't from the fire cheif./////
Loizeaux writes in an e-mail to Popular Mechanics. "The contractors removing the debris tried on several occasions to pull over sections of [World Trade Center buildings 5 and 6, both less than 10 stories tall] that were damaged by the fire and collapse. They couldn't even pull those over."
//// Controlled Demolition Inc has several questions to answer as well. They are one of the only companies in the world capable of a job this large. There was a plan to demolish the structure and they were the ones to do it. It was very expensive but there were several reasons that the building had to come down. There are questions which need to be answered/////
"Silverstein subsequently released a statement on September 5, 2005, saying his comments were misinterpreted. He says he was referring to his desire to pull a squadron of firefighters from the building. The statement read in part: "Mr. Siverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building." Firefighters contacted by Popular Mechanics confirm that "pull" is a common firefighting term for removing personnel from a dangerous structure."
//// That explanation only took four years and a high paid publicist to produce?/////
////Smoke from a diesel fire is pitch black?////
"In addition, the NIST report is definitive on this count. The preliminary report states flatly: "NIST has seen no evidence that the collapse of WTC 7 was caused by bombs, missiles, or controlled demolition." A final report is expected in the fall of 2006.""
///// Fall of 2006.... where's that final report? If you read their repotr on the Twin Towers you will find that the only describe the possible failure of the structure at the point of initial collapse. They in no way explored how the falling debris defied all logic and phsyics. Falling to the ground with virtually no resistance from the undamaged structure at near free fall speeds.
Their test fires could not and did not dameage the structure in their mock up office test.... even after hours of fire...and fed by oxygen... nor did it meet required temperatures to melt or weaken the steel substantially..
There is much much more.... should I go on?
There is one reason that you write a 10,000 page report.... SO NOBODY WILL READ IT!!! /////// - gab00n, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Since when is it possible to accidentally predict an event? If i started reporting that the moon blew up 20 minutes before the event, how could that be an accident, i must have know something was going to happen. Steel buildings don't just demolish themselves because they have small fires on two floors, the fact remains that they reported the info they were given. So someone knew that building was coming down, they don't just draw random ***** out of a hat and begin talking about it. They need to come up with a better rebuttal than "Oops our bad", who gave them that false info which turned out to be true and why did they start reporting it so casually without even looking at CNN or some other channel to validate the claim. The reason i think they didn't hesitate or check because they knew all along that Tower 7 was supposed to be brought down as planned so they thought everything was going along as planned. BBC you have been busted you ***** *****.
- smokecheck, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15 I smell censorship-- Why are the 2 related stories, one having more than 1000 diggs not posted on front page but yet this one is? Well here are the 2 titles.have a look:
BBC Reported Building 7 Had Collapsed 20 Minutes Before It Fell
After This Fiasco, How Can We Trust Anything They Told Us About 9/11? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14The BBC didn't explain anything, they swept the issue aside. They contradict themselves. First they say "no one told us the building was going to collapse" then later say "the information we got was inaccurate". Obviously if they "got" "inaccurate" information, someone had to give it to them. The reporter didn't just make it up for the hell of it. The CNN reporter that reported the exact same thing before it happened didn't just make something up for the hell of it either. It obviously didn't turn out to be inaccurate. They first say that no one told them it would collapse, then later say that they were given inaccurate information, which wasn't so inaccurate after all, that the building was going to collapse. BBC did this to protect their image. They know they can't explain it and ignoring it makes them look guilty. What else would you expect a news company that cares about money to do?
- foxmuldr, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19Looking for the original video as it aired? Try here for an annotated version which explains the significance of what's happening at various points. This link also contains an original link near the start to the original video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqqhX8gkhE0 - evil-doer, on 10/12/2007, -8/+22why are people in here en masse digging down anyone who believes there is a conspiracy? and the only comments they seem to make is "i dont care". well you seem to care a whole lot. why is there an army of people burying peoples thoughts? so you dont believe what they do, why bury it? so many of you say you dont care about it then why did you even click on this story? move on to the next story if you arent interested.
- Mageant, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14What we would like to know is:
Who is this mysterious SOURCE what authority did it have so it that made both BBC and CNN report in advance, informed Giuliani and caused policemen and firefighters to clear the area around WTC 7 beforehand.
Clearly this SOURCE had some very special knowledge about WTC 7 so that it could accurately predict the collapse of WTC 7, while NIST with all its scientist and engineers have not been able to figure it out yet after 5 years of scientific examination!
All we are asking is to name this SOURCE! - Siroro, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18British, for "***** Up"
- robbclark, on 10/12/2007, -12/+24What makes you really think that anyone cares about your blocklist or if they are on it, you obviously have the mentality of a cockroach.
- kageki, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14You don't have to involve every single person for a conspiracy. You do realize that by controlling the top person at say BBC is enough to "control" that agency?
- ne0shell, on 10/12/2007, -7/+21My God you really are a stupid little man. So what if people have questions about 9-11 or any other event, do you and your buddies need everyone to think the way you do in order to function? It just seems to drive you people nuts that people might have points of view that differ from your own. For all the accusations of mental instability you guys throw around you sure seem to be missing your own obvious need for attention, insecurity and inability to think independently. "Oh I gotta block all the people who don't worship the govt and do what the TV tells them to do or think the way MTV tells them to think". AFAIK only high school kids and people who can't grow up have such a driving need to be part of the "crowd". You make fun of people who look at all the unexplained events around them, at the lies that keep being exposed and the best you can do is make juvenile insults, I have yet to see any of you offer anything resembling reason to counter them, you rely on Bill O Reilly debate tactics instead. Your completely missing the fact that the counters given by people like the BBC ask you to believe in something without proof, trading one conspiracy for another.
On tape, with the building behind them they reported WTC 7 had collapsed before the fact. Please tell me how you report something before it happens? None of the other WTC buildings had collapsed other than tower 1 and 2 so where's the confusion? What about the other news tapes showing police herding people away from wtc 7 telling them "it's going to come down"? What about the tapes of police telling camera-men to aim at wtc 7 because "it's going to blow up"? Any reasonable person would watch all of these and the dozens of other examples I won't list and start to ask questions. If you don't then obviously you DONT WANT to even think that things may have been other than what you were told. Maybe your too afraid to face it, I don't know. Whatever the reason motivating you to bury your head in the sand I really don't see what you hope to gain by yelling at everyone else to bury thier heads as well. You all come off as desperate to maintain the status quo. - mindlikeagog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Remember this?
It started the day after the attacks on the twin towers, with the discovery of a flight manual in Arabic and a copy of the Koran in a car hired by Mohammed Atta and abandoned at Boston airport. In the immediate shocked aftermath of the attacks, these findings were somehow reassuring: American intelligence was on the case, the perpetrators were no longer faceless.
In less than a week came another find, two blocks away from the twin towers, in the shape of Atta's passport. We had all seen the blizzard of paper rain down from the towers, but the idea that Atta's passport had escaped from that inferno unsinged would have tested the credulity of the staunchest supporter of the FBI's crackdown on terrorism.
Yet we were still in the infancy of coincidence. On September 24 the belongings of alleged terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui threw up a cropdusting manual, while four days later came Atta's suicide note, the one with the counsel to shine your shoes before you meet your maker - a piece of advice which seemed suspiciously Norman Rockwellesque. It was here, too, that the stuff about 72 virgins awaiting him in heaven first started to circulate.
In December the laughing, boasting video of Osama bin Laden was unearthed in a house in Jalalabad. The new year saw no let-up in this serendipitous trove - January turned up an email sent by "shoe bomber" Richard Reid from a Paris cybercafe (and found on its hard disk) shortly before boarding the Paris-Miami flight in which he claimed responsibility in advance for downing the plane. (Luckily or carelessly, depending on your perspective, Reid had pocketed a business card from the cybercafe.)
And then, last Friday, Major General Frank Hagenbeck revealed that Americans had found a whole shelf of field manuals on undertaking terrorist activity, to put beside the instruction manual on how to use light automatic weapons left in a training camp in January.
Apart from the fact that the al-Qaida network seem to have a catastrophic way with lost property, isn't it strange that these most demonised and potent of terrorists seem unable to operate any weapons without a manual?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,669961,00.html
We know we have been lead into 2 wars (possibly 3 soon) on a pile of bull don't we! - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13This is unreal, how can anyone not say that something suspicious is going on. Who are you going to believe the "official story" or "your lying eyes".
How could the BBC have made a mistake on this scale, it's impossible to have known in advance that this 47 storey building was going to collapse unless it was a pre-planned event. The BBC simply read the newswire, police chatter -ok that's fine. The point is who the hell was putting the stories out there, who was saying that this building was going to fall. This was supposed to be a random and unpredicatable event. Here we have people talking about the collapse of a 47 storey building 20 minutes before the event, as if this kind og thing happens every day.
When these people are then confronted about it, they make excuses about the "confusion of the day" and "chatter". What "chatter", what "confusion", you have just reported the collapse of a 47 storey skyskrapper one of the biggest buildings remaining in the WTC complex a full 20 minutes before the actual event!!!!!!!!
This whole thing stinks to high heaven, something odd is going on, and then when you look at all the other conincidences that happen in the day, and you are simply told that it's all "circumstantial".
It all reminds me of SOUTHPARK and officer Barbradi "OK NOTHING TO SEE HERE MOVE ALONG", yeah right.... - jonnyeh, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13They lost footage of the moon landing, it seems like conspiracy prone events (i.e. major events) attract *****-ups. Or maybe, *****-ups happen all the time, but people only notice them when it revolves around a big event.
- HDHNTR77, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12For those who have not seen it, and are sick of listening to the shills telling you what to think and believe, here it is. Decide for yourself. If they are to be believed, then the BBC must have been accidentially and spontaneously, clairvoyant.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=49f_1172526096 - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16Here the response to the BBC Denial!
http://digg.com/political_opinion/BBC_s_Response_to_WTC_7_Video_Controversy_Is_Unacceptable#c5463646
We won't buy your filthy lies anymore! - njpublius, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13You've got THAT right! Just WHO relayed the information to the BBC that WTC7 collapsed??
The SCARY THING is that ANYONE with an INTERNET CONNECTION could have called up a MAP of downtown NY City and IDENTIFIED the buildings BEFORE the reporters went on the air! They had ALL DAY to do that...and let's not forget that the NEWS ORGANIZATIONS have their OWN libraries of reference material.
Do you THINK someone at the BBC checked out the claims??
That's JOURNALISM 101: CHECK FACTS - reach4thelasers, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15They no longer have the tapes due to a "***** up, not a conspiracy".... How convenient! ooops i accidentally deleted all our 9/11 footage, oh dear!
- kag9000, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14Maybe you were right Mr Porter, you were not involved in the conspiracy to murder.
The fact remains your organisation's journalistic credentials are suspect. Why? Well, obviously you were fed the material from somewhere, you didn't even bother to check it out. You had a camera crew and a reporter at the scene whom, if they were proper journalists, would have been able to deny such a report conclusively, being on the scene 'and-all-that'. To top it all you state you have lost the video.
What the hell are we paying our licence fee for? A bunch of amateur hacks no less.
The question still remains though, despite your protestations, how did you have prior knowledge - i want to know? - bigbchew, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11I agree with you on many of those points. But digg's system is based on majority rules with no editorial input; and while the majority of users continue to buy into the OFFICIAL conspiracy, 9/11-related stories will likely not be promoted.
In the last couple of weeks, however, it seems 9/11 items has been picked up more and more on the site. And this can only mean a changing of the tides from what I see. Just give it time, as fewer and fewer seem to be modded down, it appears more and more minds may be changing. - ThetaDot, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18http://maddox.xmission.com/keyboard4.jpg
- erasmocbc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12The problem is not an error in reporting, the problem is the nature of the error. Where did that information came from? How did it get in the news? When they realized they had messed up? Why no clarification of the 'unusual' coincidence of their prophetic powers to wrongly report events before they had actually happened?
If you are not suspicious, you better start. There is no official explanation for the collapse of building 7. The building was demolished, and there are various reports of anticipated knowledge that it would be demolished. Demolition takes time and planning. The truth about 9/11 is that we do not yet know the truth about who was behind it. - erasmocbc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Why is this story on the front page with less diggs, while the original one with more than double is not?
Here is the original:
http://digg.com/politics/BBC_Reported_Building_7_Had_Collapsed_20_Minutes_Before_It_Fell - Run4ny, on 10/12/2007, -3/+119/11 was an inside job. There's more holes to the official conspiracy theory than there are ***** on this planet.
- dukeeeey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Why did CNN also report that building 7 had fallen, except over 1 hour early ?
Who was feeding the media stories that day. That is what we need to find out.
http://stage6.divx.com/members/245557/videos/1134882 - strictly, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10The original story got 1700 diggs so far:
http://digg.com/politics/BBC_Reported_Building_7_Had_Collapsed_20_Minutes_Before_It_Fell - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Bush is partly jew himself! He's a direct decendant of the jewish first World War arms dealer Samuel Walker! That's why is full name is Goerge Walker Bush! His Grandfather Prescott Walker Bush was one of the Rothschild Agents who - more or less - secretly financed Hitler! He was even sentenced for dealing with the enemy in the US back then. Most of the other founding member of the Zio-cons are also jews or at least party "jew" (read: crypto-jews).
These Kazars are direct decandants of Atilla the Hunn btw.
The History of the House of Rothschild
http://www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmith_Rothschild.htm - BruceDeuce, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Why is it the people the believe the official story have no problem believing that osama and the highjackers planned the attack, (about 20 people) but bring up the idea that if anyone else had planned it 1000's of people would need to be involved?
- D0ct0rN0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10The issue is: Who gave the BBC info to report on before it happened?
Who benefits? -
Show 51 - 100 of 291 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 