Display posts from previous
Sort by

The 9-11 Cover Up Ends: July 9, 2008

42 by Earwicker_Archive
Wood Goblin wrote:
Earwicker wrote:I also did not know (if it be true) about the fraud case files of Worldcom and Enron disappearing in WT7

Another happy coincidence for fucking scum. How come the buildings collapse couldn't have somehow cancelled third world debt or something?


You mean the fraud cases that ended in convictions and significant jail time? If the cases disappeared, it doesn't seem to have mattered.


As far as I understand it, although it's good that they got some of the bastards, the trail in these fraud cases went up to the white house.

http://www.gregpalast.com/enrons-skilli ... ush-walks/

I don't see any of them being convicted or doing any jail time so it might have mattered.

Notice I say 'might'.

The 9-11 Cover Up Ends: July 9, 2008

43 by Wood Goblin_Archive
Earwicker wrote:As far as I understand it, although it's good that they got some of the bastards, the trail in these fraud cases went up to the white house.

http://www.gregpalast.com/enrons-skilli ... ush-walks/

I don't see any of them being convicted or doing any jail time so it might have mattered.

Notice I say 'might'.


Palast doesn't understand the case very well if he thinks that the defrauding of the California and Texas consumers was the biggest crime that Enron committed. Let me be clear: that was an enormous crime. But Andy Fastow's elaborate shell game with the off-the-books partnerships was a crime of 10 times the magnitude. Palast is also disingenuous when he claims that only "owners" were affected by the fraud crimes, being that the "owners" include anybody how had Enron stock in their pension fund. The biggest mistake the feds made was accepting a plea from Fastow in return for testimony against Skilling and Lay.

And Palast also neglects to note that the traders who bore the most responsibility for gaming the California market did, in fact, get slapped with criminal charges.
My grunge/northwest rock blog

The 9-11 Cover Up Ends: July 9, 2008

45 by Wood Goblin_Archive
newberry wrote:Clocker Bob:

Please explain the logic of sending out a script. If the building is going to blow up, why do they need to tell the media ahead of time? What purpose does that serve for the conspirators? Why take such a huge risk of handing evidence to the media?


I'd also like to know how this even rises to the level of being a "smoking gun," let alone a "blockbuster smoking gun."
My grunge/northwest rock blog

The 9-11 Cover Up Ends: July 9, 2008

46 by clocker bob_Archive
emmanuelle cunt wrote:everyone was expecting this building to collapse, there is a footage somwhere of fire fighter explaining that a big cloud of dust will go "that way" so people need to get further back. the idea that this video prooves conspiracy is nuts - so bbc and all the other news channels were a part of conspiracy too?


Emmanuelle, why is your reflex reaction to throw up a strawman argument in front of every anomaly of that day? Take it slowly here. This video clip does not prove that the BBC was in on it, so your tactic of saying "The BBC wasn't in on it! It's impossible! So therefore, the clip means nothing!" is classic strawman argument. Don't immediately exaggerate the implications of the clip, then state your opinion that the implications ( that you alone are bringing to the discussion ) are implausible, so the clip then becomes worthless. See it for what it is:

Here's a checklist-

What is shown over Stanley's left shoulder? WTC7. Agree or disagree?

When did this clip air? Beginning at 4:57 EDT. Here is the metadata from the the Internet Archive where the BBC coverage was downloaded:
From the Internet Archive metadata...

bbc200109111654-1736
BBC Sept. 11, 2001 4:54 pm - 5:36 pm

News from BBC TV was recorded by the Television Archive, a non-profit archive. Video available as a loan (stream) only.

Date: 2001-09-11 20:54:47 UTC
Air Time: 2001-09-11 16:54:47 EDT
Length: 0:41:41
english
2001-09-11 20:54:47
2001-09-11 16:54:47 EDT

Television News; September 11 Terrorist Attacks; 911 Terrorist Attacks
[curator]renata@archive.org[/curator][date]20070218204203[/date][state]un-dark[/state]


So...it was broadcast at 4:57. There's no disputing that now.

When was WTC7 reported to have collapsed in the US media? 5:20pm. Agree or disagree?

Okay, now stop there. Answer those three questions. If you agree that it was WTC7, and the news report was reporting a collapse of that building as if it had already happened, then start asking yourself how this happened. To jump to the "BBC couldn't have been in on it so I don't have to explain it" answer is lazy and reckless.

Three possibilities have been presented. Newberry said that he thinks that the media may have received warnings about the WTC7 collapse before 5pm on 9/11, and he has suggested that the reporter for the BBC screwed up and reported it in the past tense. That is possible, but it seems more likely that the reporter received a press release or a phone call about WTC7 that described it in the past tense, and she didn't understand the instructions to hold that story until they actually demolished the building ( or it fell, as alleged by the myth ).

Just answer that front end of the question, emmanuelle, before you start ringing the fire alarm and going "No, that means that the cover up and the conspiracy were TOO HUGE, stop asking questions, stop asking questions!"

EC wrote:the people responsible for setting the explosives off suddenly decided to go public and announced that wtc7 is planted too? it doesn't make any sense at all. the guy in london was misinformed or he missheard something, so he thought that the building has already collapsed.


Yes, it doesn't make any sense at all. Am I allowed to think of other reasons for things not making any sense at all, other than the innocuous reasons that you suggest? If you want to state your opinion that there is never a conspiratorial reason for any anomaly, please state that, because your posting history indicates that. Let me know if you are even capable of seeing a conspiracy anywhere. It would be helpful.

EC wrote:ha, i just recalled another footage: policeman, or someone from the emergency crew saying that it has been observed the top of the towers has tilted to the side a bit, minutes before the collapse. explain that with the explosives theory.


What??? I can bring evidence of hundreds of witnesses ( including firemen and cops and EMT's and other first responders ) who reported hearing and feeling explosions, but I get told, "Oh no, Bob, they were just confused or stressed or in error", but you can tell me that some other eyewitness testimony that agrees with the official myth is solid gold evidence??? Give me a fucking break. If you can't give me the same rules as you want for yourself, then go to hell.

Bring your testimony if you want to get into a real argument on WTC7.

The 9-11 Cover Up Ends: July 9, 2008

47 by tommydski_Archive
Bob, if a bloody great chunk was missing from the building and it was listing, as those pictures suggest it was, couldn't anyone be forgiven for either assuming it was going to collapse or saying that the damage was sufficient that enough of the building had already collapsed to justify the use of the word?

Not having a go at you, this one just seems really tenuous.
run joe run wrote:Kerble your enthusiasm.

The 9-11 Cover Up Ends: July 9, 2008

50 by clocker bob_Archive
jongoodwin wrote:I've read somewhere today that the entire BBC coverage from that day is archived somewhere ... does anyone know where? I've lost it.


If you scroll down to mid page of this link, you will see links for five different 1GB .mpeg files that contain over three hours of the BBC live feed from the afternoon of 9/11:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/6458

This originally came from archive.org, where it had been stored in their Independent News section after archive.org took it over from a different news archive site. I bring you bad news, though- this is the message that comes up now when you go to that BBC page on archive.org:
The item is not available due to issues with the item's content.
If you would like to report this problem as an error report, you may do so here.


jongoodwin wrote:I suppose what would be useful (I'm at work - don't have the time to search for it) would be a piece of reportage from the same balcony (or wherever she is) that Ms Standley reported from, perhaps about an hour later...?

If the building to the right of her head isn't there anymore, that's proof that that building is the third and final one to collapse that day, and thus proof that the collapse was reported prematurely. I don't know enough about the NYC skyline to know for sure what it is, and the pictures haven't yet convinced me.


That's a good question. I know that the building over her shoulder is WTC7, since I'm seeing it in my sleep at this point, but I'm going to watch the videos from the 5:30 point onward when I get a chance, just to see how the footage evolves, but right now, I'm at work and barely able to make time for answering the posts.
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest