Say What?

This just fuels the conspiracy fire more.

It is very interesting that Miss Standley lost5 her feed just before the collapse of the building that she claimed fell 26 minutes earlier.

If that was a lie, then it is very interesting that the 'terrorist attack' happended on the same day as the controlled demolition on WT7.

If indeed the report was almost 30 minutes before the event, one has to wonder about the reports of controlled demolition in the two towers as well.

Then, we must wonder about the hijack planes and the possibility that they were, in fact, empty of passengers and remotely controlled. I have seen remote control take-offs and landings before.

Then, we must question where are all the passengers who supposedly died that tragic day if they were not on those planes?

Oh... my head!!!

 

Elvis, JFK, UFOs, and black helocopters are alive and well. (sorry, forgot the loch ness monstor and sasquatch) Oh and dont forget, we never landed on the moon.

 

now saturnneptune, you have to admit there is something very suspicious when a news agency reports a catastrophic event before it even happens.

 

Quote:

"The fiasco of a BBC journalist reporting in advance that Building 7 had collapsed as it loomed large behind her strikes at the very root of how the media were complicit in acting as facilitators for the official myth that was manufactured on 9/11. After this debacle, how can we trust anything we were told about September 11?​

Though the video was almost immediately purged by the crowned kings of censorship - Google - it has since been re-uploaded to You Tube and feverishly copied everywhere. Watch the clip below. For an extended clip where the Building 7 farce is clearly annotated, click here, and skip forward to 14 minutes."

Absolutely the only possible answer is that the British were active in planning and carrying out the 911 attacks.


And
The British blew up building 7.:tonofbricks:
​

 

Please, stop mocking for but a few minutes and ponder how a major news corporation can report a building collapse 20+ minutes before the building actually collapses. How too can they report in front of a camera and tell us that a building has collapsed while the building is visibly standing within that shot? Reasonably, explain these things away and most of the black helicopter, tin-foil hat types will fade away. This should be a non-issue anyway because common sense would suggest that 47-story steel framed buildings do not collapse at the rate of gravity because a couple floors are on fire.

""I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." - Larry Silverstein
Video​

 

Anybody ever think that this could have been a rumor that happened to come true...or that it was assumed that building would collapse as the others did?

 

Last year we had some forest fires here in Montana. (big suprise)

CNN reported that the small town of Alberton had been completely burned up. ("the town was lost")

Later, the fire did pass throught Alberton, but most of the town escaped any fire damage whatsoever.

If the town of Alberton really had been burned up, would we have to assume it was some conspiracy?

 

Yeah, I remember that. Lots of hippies didn't come out to float the Alberton Gorge, and the town suffered loss of revenue due to shoddy reporting.

 

All it takes is one "source" to start a rumor that spreads like wildfire. The "source" could have had inside contacts at all three.

 

And who does reveal their secret "sources"?

 

Who believes that the BBC is in cahoots with the Bush administration?

Could it just be that somebody told the news agencies that the building WOULD PROBABLY come down. And they got it wrong and thought it did come down. That is possable since after that morning it is realistic to believe that buildings could come down.

Could it just be that sometimes the news media gets the wrong information.

 

If the CNN reporter was saying a hotel like the one below burnt down while giving the report in front of this building, it would be suspicious.



If you found out later that just after the reporter left, the hotel collapsed in 7 seconds, then you would have an equivalent to the BBC scenario and it would be obvious that the reporter had knowledge of the event prior to the event.

 

Yea, nobody attempts to figure out motive. I know in a court of law you try to show a motive or lack of motive and the judge just says "Red herring".

I seem to remember alot of smoke and evacuation. I doubt anybody close enough to just look out the window was sitting at the window drinking coffee taking in the sights. And I dont think the view was that clear for a couple of days.

[/quote]