Posts
Here are the crazy things, Ted Cruz, candidate for President really believes.
Having noticed the festival of movies embracing "Goodfellas," "Scarface" and "Once Upon a Time in Brooklyn" running over and over again on Spike TV at this time, I'm starting to worry that our country has adopted these movie scripts as instruction manuals.
WTF is going on here?
Questions Swirl Around the Death of "Wall Street Journal" Reporter, David Bird,
A Rash of Deaths and a Missing Reporter – With Ties to Wall Street Investigations
The Scene of the Crime - By Seymour M. Hersh, The New Yorker - 23 March 2015
America’s Global Dominance (Since WW II) Has Just Ended
Washington Misses Bigger Picture of New Chinese Investment Bank
Watch "Chris Hedges" Tuesday at 2:00 PM (and 6:00 AM Wednesday), and "Capitalism: Earth at Risk" at 11:00 PM on LINK TV. You won't regret it. These people are starting the new anti-fascist movement.
BBC Foreknowledge of 9/11 Collapse of WTC Building Seven: British Man Won Law Suit against BBC for 9/11 Cover Up
By Global Research News
March 22, 2015
We Are Anonymous
Horsham, UK, 2013 – Tony Rooke, in an act of civil disobedience, refused to pay the mandatory £130 TV license fee claiming it violates Section 15 of the Terrorism Act. Rooke’s accusation was aimed at the BBC who reported the collapse of WTC 7 over 20 minutes before it actually fell, and the judge accepted Rooke’s argument. While it was not a public inquiry into 9/11, the recognition of the BBC’s actions on September 11th are considered a small victory, one that was never reported in the US.
“Today was an historic day for the 9/11 truth movement,” Peter Drew of AE911Truth UK told "Digital Journal," with over 100 members of the public attending, including numerous journalists from around the UK as well as from across other parts of Europe.”
Under Section 363 of the Communications Act, citizens of the UK are required to purchase an annual license in order to use a television receiver. Rooke refused to pay the license fee due to a section of the Terrorism Act that states: It is an offence for someone to invite another to provide money, intending that it should be used, or having reasonable cause to suspect that it may be used, for terrorism purposes.
The fact that the BBC reported the collapse of WTC 7 twenty-three minutes before it actually fell indicates that the UK was aware of the attacks on 9/11 before they actually happened. The direct implication is that they were working with the “terrorists”, all arguments as to who the terrorists actually were aside.
Here is a broadcast of the BBC’s announcement that WTC 7 (Salomon Brothers Building) collapsed when it was still standing behind the reporter:
In Rooke’s statement to the court:
“I believe the BBC, who are directly funded by the licence fee, are furthering the purposes of terrorism and I have incontrovertible evidence to this effect. I do not use this word lightly given where I am.”Although he was not allowed to show his video evidence in court due to the District Judge deeming it irrelevant to the trial, the fact that the BBC reported WTC 7’s collapse over 20 minutes beforehand proved to be evidence enough.
He also made reference to the theories behind the collapse of WTC 7 being a controlled demolition, as the evidence suggests. In an additional statement:
“The BBC reported it 20 minutes before it fell. They knew about it beforehand. Last time I was here I asked you (the judge):
‘Were you aware of World Trade Centre 7?’ You said you had heard of it. Ten years later you should have more than heard of it. It’s the BBC’s job to inform the public. Especially of miracles of science and when laws of physics become suspended."
“They have made programmes making fools of and ridiculing those of us who believe in the laws of gravity. American reports have shown that the fall was nothing but a controlled demolition.
“I am not looking at who demolished it — that is impossible — but the BBC actively tried to hide this from the public.”
Leadership by psychopathological individuals who lead the world by making it safe for their acquisition of more and more control?
How else would you describe so many world-class civilizations being led by those who think the lethal rule of the weak by the uncontrolled powerful few is something to be aggrandized? Worshipped?
Televised?
Emulated.
A detailed study of the FDNY accounts by 9/11 researcher Graeme MacQueen shows that more than half of those who received warnings of WTC 7’s collapse (where a degree of certainty can be determined from the reports) were certain or were told with certainty that Building 7 was coming down.
Yes, it's a lot more fun talking about all the current (and eagerly awaited future - great for money-making journalism screaming) corruption, isn't it MSM and cohorts, who can't wait for the next election, but what about real physical events that don't need theories of corruption for excited explanation?
How about events explainable through physics and chemistry?
Not to mention simple math?
Click on the image above to play the video clip…
In this BBC video, correspondent Jane Standley reports that Building 7 has collapsed; meanwhile (at the 1:17 mark), a fully intact Building 7 can actually be seen — still standing — behind her. Who fed this information to Standley? Apparently, someone who had inside information about, and/or control over, the event itself, released that information to the media prematurely.
CNN’s Aaron Brown searches for WTC 7 in the New York skyline after reporting that it had collapsed an hour early. The arrow points to WTC 7 – Click on the image above to play the video clip…
In another news clip, while Building 7 is seen standing fully erect and showing no signs of impending trauma, CNN’s Aaron Brown gives the following report: “We are getting information now that one of the other buildings, Building 7, in the World Trade Center complex, is on fire and has either collapsed or is collapsing…” Who is he “getting information” from? Again, it appears to be from someone who had inside information about, and/or control over, the event itself, and who released that information to the media prematurely. Only such an individual could have expected Building 7 to come down.
In sum, both CNN and BBC did not merely report that WTC 7 was damaged or that it might collapse. Instead, they prematurely announced the actual collapse of Building 7. No satisfactory explanation has been given about these premature announcements, which were obviously based on data fed to the announcers, apparently by an unknown person or persons who had inside information about, and/or control over, the event itself, and who bungled matters by releasing that information to the media prematurely.
Click on the image above to play the video clip…
More evidence of foreknowledge of the collapse of Building 7 is preserved in this video where an eyewitnesses can be heard saying: “Keep your eye on that building. It’ll be coming down soon.” And “The building is about to blow up. Move it back.” And also, “We are walking back. The building is about to blow up.”
These reports were later corroborated by first responder Indira Singh, who, in a radio interview about Building 7, revealed that the FDNY had stated that “We’re going to have to bring it down.“
Countdown …
Pretty exciting stuff, huh?
And, unlike so much of the rest of made-up-on-the-spot TV coverage, this is not fiction.
It's brought to us for our viewing/comprehending pleasure by scientists.
You know, those folks whom the right wing doesn't trust.
Because they are smart (and over-educated).
They know stuff.
Definitely untrustworthy.
How Did They Know? Examining 9/11 Foreknowledge of WTC Building 7’s Destruction
By Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Global Research
March 22, 2015
by Dennis McMahon, J.D., L.L.M.
Theme: 9/11 & 'War on Terrorism', Media Disinformation
WTC Building 7, also known as the Salomon Brothers Building or WTC 7, was a 47–story skyscraper that was part of the World Trade Center complex. Built in 1984, Building 7 would have been the tallest high-rise in thirty-three of our United States. Building 7 housed several intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and the NYC Office of Emergency Management’s Emergency Operations Center, more commonly known as “Giuliani’s Bunker,” along with several major financial institutions.
BBC correspondent Jane Standley reported the destruction of WTC 7 before it collapsed – even though the building was still standing behind her.
Building 7, which was 100 yards from the Twin Towers, was not hit by an airplane on September 11, 2001, and suffered only minimal damage from debris falling from the North Tower. Several fires began burning on a few floors, and the entire building completely collapsed – almost into its own footprint – at 5:20 p.m. Numerous eyewitnesses, including members of the Fire Department of New York (FDNY) and other first responders, and multiple news sources, made statements that indicate that there was foreknowledge that WTC 7 was going to come down, despite the fact that no skyscraper in history had ever completely collapsed due to fire. (Much of this evidence of foreknowledge is detailed on the website of the Remember Building 7 campaign and other related sites.)
Where foreknowledge of an extremely unusual event is demonstrated, the possibility must be considered that the foreknowledge derived directly or indirectly from those who had inside information about, and/or control over, the event itself. Thus, if foreknowledge of the collapse of Building 7 can be shown, this would be a strong indication that Building 7 was subjected to controlled demolition, and that advance warning of Building 7’s demise derived ultimately from those who intended to bring the building down. Thus, foreknowledge of the collapse of Building 7 is not only consistent with, but supportive of, the controlled demolition hypothesis.
Certainty of impending collapse
To worry that a damaged building might collapse in some fashion is one thing. But to be certain that it will collapse is another.
A detailed study of the FDNY accounts by 9/11 researcher Graeme MacQueen shows that more than half of those who received warnings of WTC 7’s collapse (where a degree of certainty can be determined from the reports) were certain or were told with certainty that Building 7 was coming down. (The figures calculate to 31 out of 58. See MacQueen’s report “Waiting for Seven…” at page 4.)
Early FDNY announcements of collapse
If someone were observing the fires in WTC 7 and able to determine, in the last few moments of the building’s existence, that a peculiar set of circumstances was beginning to threaten the building, that would be one thing. But to receive warnings of the building’s collapse well before this set of circumstances arose raises suspicion.
Yet, a detailed study of the FDNY reports shows that of the thirty-three cases where the time of warning can be determined, in ten cases warnings were received two or more hours in advance, and in six cases warnings were apparently received four or more hours in advance. (See MacQueen’s “Waiting for Seven…” at page 4.) In other words, the warnings came long before the unique set of circumstances had allegedly come together to cause the building’s collapse.
Precise warnings of collapse
If the collapse warnings were derived from vague worries and concerns, as claimed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the warnings would not have been precise. A complete collapse, such as happened to WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 on 9/11, was unknown – unless the building was being brought down by controlled demolition.
That is why FDNY member James McGlynn could say on 9/11, in reference to one of the Towers, “Any time I’ve heard of a collapse, it was never an entire building like this turned out to be.” (See MacQueen’s“Waiting for Seven‚” at page 21.) Nevertheless, somehow, many people knew in advance that WTC 7 would suffer an unprecedented collapse. Which begs the question, “How did they know?” Consider the following exchange from the FDNY oral histories:
- Q. “Were you there when building 7 came down in the afternoon?”
- A: “Yes”
- Q. “You were still there?”
- A. “Yes, so basically they measured out how far the building was going to come, so we knew exactly where we could stand.”
- Q. “So they just put you in a safe area, safe enough for when that building came down?“
- A. “Five blocks. Five blocks away. We still could see. Exactly right on point, the cloud stopped right there.”(See MacQueen’s “Waiting for Seven…” at page 8.)
How did construction workers and police on the scene of WTC 7 that afternoon know that “The building is about to blow up”?
It is quite remarkable that a debris cloud estimate could be so precise for a collapse that was supposedly caused by unforeseen and unplanned events. Had Building 7 “tipped over,” which would have been more realistic, given the structural damage that was supposed to be the reason for its collapse, the building could actually have ended up crushing several other tall buildings, creating a destruction zone much farther away from the building.
Building 7’s collapse reported in advance by CNN and the BBC
. . . Countdown . . .
First responder Kevin McPadden has provided key eyewitness evidence regarding the foreknowledge of WTC 7’s destruction. – Click on the image above to play the video clip …
The testimony of Kevin McPadden, an emergency medical technician and 9/11 first responder, is even more shocking. In a taped interview, McPadden indicated that there was an actual countdown preceding Building 7’s collapse:
“The Red Cross rep was like, he goes over and he says [to us], ‘You gotta stay behind this line because they’re thinking about bringing the building down.’…
He goes over and he asks one of the … firefighters what was going on … He came back over with his hand over the radio and [you could hear] what sounded like a countdown.And, at the last few seconds, he took his hand off [the radio] and you heard ‘three-two-one,’ and he was just saying, ‘Just run for your life! Just run for your life!’ And then it was like another two, three seconds, you heard explosions.Like, BA-BOOOOOM! And it’s like a distinct sound…BA-BOOOOOM!And you felt a rumble in the ground, like, almost like you wanted to grab onto something.That, to me, I knew that was an explosion. There was no doubt in my mind…”
NIST’s Response to WTC 7 foreknowledge
NIST has tried to evade the issue of foreknowledge of WTC 7’s collapse in its report on the building’s destruction by implying:
It is true that damage to WTC 7 was directly witnessed by some firefighters and, apparently, led a few (about seven) of them to worry that the building might collapse. However, the great majority (approximately fifty) who were worried about collapse did not base this worry on the physical damage but on what they were told. (See MacQueen’s “Waiting for Seven…” at page 5.)
- (a) that the FDNY, on the scene, saw the damage to the building caused by the collapse of WTC 1 and rationally concluded that WTC 7 might collapse; and
- (b) that an engineer, early in the day, saw the damage to the building and concluded it might collapse passing on this assessment to others (as per NIST Lead Investigator Shyam Sunder, in a discussion with Graeme MacQueen on CKNX Radio, Wingham, Ontario, on Aug. 25, 2008).
Moreover, while an engineer may have communicated his opinion, early in the day, that the building might collapse, neither this communication nor communications from the FDNY is sufficient to explain all of the collective evidence indicating foreknowledge of Building 7’s collapse.
Individually, each of the factors discussed above indicates the possibility of foreknowledge of Building 7’s collapse: the certainty of Building 7’s impending collapse as expressed and memorialized in the FDNY oral histories, the early announcements made by the FDNY, the precise nature of the early announcements, CNN’s and the BBC’s premature reporting of Building 7’s collapse, and the actual countdown to Building 7’s demise.Collectively, these factors provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that this foreknowledge is most readily explained by the fact that Building 7 was brought down in an explosive controlled demolition carefully planned months in advance.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
The BBC’s Response:
Part of the conspiracy?
[There was foreknowledge of the attack. The BBC to this date has failed to provide an explanation. How is it that they knew that building 7 would collapse prior to the actual event. Read carefully their response.]
Richard Porter | 17:12 UK time, Tuesday, 27 February 2007
The 9/11 conspiracy theories are pretty well known by now. The BBC addressed them earlier this month with a documentary, The Conspiracy Files, shown within the UK.http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/legacy/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html
Until now, I don’t think we’ve been accused of being part of the conspiracy. But now some websites are using news footage from BBC World on September 11th 2001 to suggest we were actively participating in some sort of attempt to manipulate the audience. As a result, we’re now getting lots of emails asking us to clarify our position. So here goes:
1. We’re not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. 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.
[if the did not have advanced knoweldge, how come they announced the collapse 20 minutes before its occurrence]
2. In the chaos and confusion of the day, I’m quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate – but at the time were based on the best information we had. We did what we always did – sourced our reports, used qualifying words like “apparently” or “it’s reported” or “we’re hearing” and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving.
3. Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I’ve spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn’t remember minute-by-minute what she said or did – like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services.
4. We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I’d love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don’t help clear up the issue one way or another. [the video of the BBC report is available on the internet, the BBC says it no longer has it, how absurd]
5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error – no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today “so the guy in the studio didn’t quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy… ”
Washington’s War on Russia
Attorney Demolishes Pro-Vaccine Talking Points, Lays Bare The Shocking Facts About Vaccination Risks And Dangers
A Family Business of Perpetual War
Why the Western Alliance Is Ending
No comments:
Post a Comment