| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ted_bloody_maul Great Old One Joined: 23 May 2003 Total posts: 4877 Location: Quester's Psykick Dancehall Gender: Unknown |
 Posted: 05-03-2007 13:35 Post subject: |
 |
|
|
| tilly50 wrote: | I'm confused.
The news report did pre-empt the event,that much is certain. Why the info. was given before an event is less so.
I find it hard to believe that someone with the events "seared into their minds" would forget what they said, when it is their job to state news events.
However, all this does not mean that the BBC were "in" on any conspiracy but mearly being used. Whoever gave the information could have sent it out deliberately to discredit the authority of the BBC, or to obscure the record of events or to create just such debates as this.
Black ops do give out spurious info and to give out accurate info before the event is probably right up their street.
We cannot really know what happens in any event except by reading and listening to witness accounts and hoping that they are as close to truth as possible. That there are people whose job/mission it is to obscure facts is more than probable and the more they jiggle the facts the harder it is to know what version of the truth is the likeliest.
Please what happened to the cake? (Lemon drizzle is my favourite) |
Why on earth would black ops want to create this kind of debate? That would run counter to common sense if you were attempting to carry out a conspiracy. I have to say I can't see any basis for this kind of speculation at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Jerry_B Great Old One Joined: 15 Apr 2002 Total posts: 8265 |
| Posted: 05-03-2007 16:30 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| tilly50 wrote: | | Black ops do give out spurious info and to give out accurate info before the event is probably right up their street. |
So, let me guess - on 9/11, the covert team supposedly behind the scenes said to themselves 'Okay guys, we've taken out both of the towers with demolition charges, and no-one suspects anything. Howabout we let some people know beforehand that we're also going to demolish WTC7...?' Somehow they decided to reveal that, despite keeping the rest of the operation completely watertight and secret? Yet again it seems we have to believe that these super-secret cabals for some reason are either inept or leave clues around to their existence that are easy enough for some people off of the internet to spot without too much brainwork.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Pietro_Mercurios Heuristically Challenged
Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 05-03-2007 16:50 Post subject: |
|
|
|
Hopping off on the wrong foot again, I see.
If a blacks op campaign was involved, then it would have been likely that the media would have been briefed, to ensure that the 'official' story, of the building collapsing due to fire damage, had been circulated in good time for the 'pulling' of the building to appear as if it was the result of the fire.
Thus leaving less room for awkward questions. All part of a horrendous days events. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| ted_bloody_maul Great Old One Joined: 23 May 2003 Total posts: 4877 Location: Quester's Psykick Dancehall Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 05-03-2007 17:09 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Pietro_Mercurios wrote: | Hopping off on the wrong foot again, I see.
If a blacks op campaign was involved, then it would have been likely that the media would have been briefed, to ensure that the 'official' story, of the building collapsing due to fire damage, had been circulated in good time for the 'pulling' of the building to appear as if it was the result of the fire.
Thus leaving less room for awkward questions. All part of a horrendous days events. |
This would mean, I take it, that the BBC no longer reported something before it happened as has been claimed? This is quite different from the extraordinary claims being made just a few days ago.
Again, the notion of the building being "pulled" - is that quote still being used to support a conspiracy? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Pietro_Mercurios Heuristically Challenged
Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 05-03-2007 17:39 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| ted_bloody_maul wrote: | ...
This would mean, I take it, that the BBC no longer reported something before it happened as has been claimed? This is quite different from the extraordinary claims being made just a few days ago.
Again, the notion of the building being "pulled" - is that quote still being used to support a conspiracy? |
But, quite clearly, they did report it before it happened. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| ted_bloody_maul Great Old One Joined: 23 May 2003 Total posts: 4877 Location: Quester's Psykick Dancehall Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 05-03-2007 17:43 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Pietro_Mercurios wrote: | | ted_bloody_maul wrote: | ...
This would mean, I take it, that the BBC no longer reported something before it happened as has been claimed? This is quite different from the extraordinary claims being made just a few days ago.
Again, the notion of the building being "pulled" - is that quote still being used to support a conspiracy? |
But, quite clearly, they did report it before it happened. |
No, if this scenario were valid then they'd have mistakenly reported something which would later happen. If the information that was being put out was from black ops and was suggesting why the building would be in danger then the BBC report is of no significance since it's made a mistake on the information it's received. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Pietro_Mercurios Heuristically Challenged
Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 05-03-2007 17:56 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| ted_bloody_maul wrote: | ...
No, if this scenario were valid then they'd have mistakenly reported something which would later happen. If the information that was being put out was from black ops and was suggesting why the building would be in danger then the BBC report is of no significance since it's made a mistake on the information it's received. |
In theory the information was being put out that the building was collapsing, or had collapsed, because of the fire, so that when it collapsed, the official explanation was already being propagated.
It's still possible that someone was sitting in their office and just a little ahead of schedule with their script.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| ted_bloody_maul Great Old One Joined: 23 May 2003 Total posts: 4877 Location: Quester's Psykick Dancehall Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 05-03-2007 18:09 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Pietro_Mercurios wrote: |
In theory the information was being put out that the building was collapsing, or had collapsed, because of the fire, so that when it collapsed, the official explanation was already being propagated.
It's still possible that someone was sitting in their office and just a little ahead of schedule with their script. |
If that were the case then we'd expect other news agencies to have made the same reports at the BBC. As far as i can make out there's no evidence of this. In any case why would they need to leak the collapse of the building if they'd already being briefing why it was liable to collapse. That simply doesn't add up. I really can't see what significance the BBC report has now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Jerry_B Great Old One Joined: 15 Apr 2002 Total posts: 8265 |
| Posted: 05-03-2007 18:38 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Pietro_Mercurios wrote: | | Hopping off on the wrong foot again, I see. |
No - it's just one scenario the black ops theory suggests. Either the black ops made a mistake, or one of the media did and didn't stick to the script, as you yourself has suggested.
| Quote: | | If a blacks op campaign was involved, then it would have been likely that the media would have been briefed, to ensure that the 'official' story, of the building collapsing due to fire damage, had been circulated in good time for the 'pulling' of the building to appear as if it was the result of the fire. |
So in essence you still have to have an extrmely leakproof conspiracy in order for this to work. Talk of black ops is absolutely bogus if it can't be shown that one was actually in place. There's no point going on about how 'likely' something is when you have no proof whatsoever. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| wowsah156 |
| Posted: 05-03-2007 19:43 Post subject: |
|
|
|
Off the top of my head the only group of people who could have given a press release were Rudy Giuliani's OEM who were having an "emergency exercise drill" on the day of 9/11. (total "coincidence" of course.). And were strangely based in building 7.
Going back to the BBC issue , they have developed a seige mentality and refuse to even acknowledge the question of how they came to have this info on building 7. Until they give some sort of reasonable response this is a cloud that will hang over their heads for years to come. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Jerry_B Great Old One Joined: 15 Apr 2002 Total posts: 8265 |
| Posted: 05-03-2007 21:17 Post subject: |
|
|
|
Unless, of course, conspiracy sites actually use their brains and try to consider the possibility that journalists make mistakes  There's only a cloud there in the first place because they seem unable to think outside of the box and consider the mundane world. Therefore, there has to be a conspiracy, even if more likely scenarios are staring them in the face. In this sense conspiracy theories are more like a religious belief - they rely on faith and imagination more than anything else. So subsititute 'Satan' for 'Black Ops' |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jimv1 Great Old One Joined: 10 Aug 2005 Total posts: 2645 Gender: Male |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Rrose_Selavy Exquisite Elemental
Joined: 07 Jan 2003 Total posts: 1940 Location: Stranded in Sub-Atomica Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 05-03-2007 21:39 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| wowsah156 wrote: |
Going back to the BBC issue , they have developed a seige mentality and refuse to even acknowledge the question of how they came to have this info on building 7. Until they give some sort of reasonable response this is a cloud that will hang over their heads for years to come. |
Yeah right  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Jerry_B Great Old One Joined: 15 Apr 2002 Total posts: 8265 |
| Posted: 05-03-2007 22:55 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| jimv1 wrote: | Hmmm. Evidence.
Well maybe we should start by taking a look at the provenance of the woman herself. |
And how is any of that evidence that she was steered by a behind-the-scenes black op...? And are you saying that she's never made a mistake? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jimv1 Great Old One Joined: 10 Aug 2005 Total posts: 2645 Gender: Male |
| Posted: 05-03-2007 23:08 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Jerry_B wrote: | | jimv1 wrote: | Hmmm. Evidence.
Well maybe we should start by taking a look at the provenance of the woman herself. |
And how is any of that evidence that she was steered by a behind-the-scenes black op...? And are you saying that she's never made a mistake? |
You seem to be weirdly caught up in your own argument there. This thread concerns the report of Jane Standley. I have never mentioned anything about black ops. I was merely trying to look at the provenance and expertise of the source. And I am not saying that she's never made a mistake. She's probably human and therefore will have made several.
It does seem that she is an extremely competent reporter and comfortable in dealing with major events that have had an effect on the world stage you will note. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
