|
Post by revolver on Feb 26, 2007 22:18:23 GMT -5
Found this at glp today: liveleak.com videoStart watching the above video at 14:50. On September 11th 2001, BBC World reported at 4:57pm Eastern Time that the Salomon Brothers Building (WTC7) had collapsed. Unfortunately for them, the building did not actually collapse until 5:20pm EST. Stranger still, the woman reporter is telling the world that the building had collapsed when you can see it in the background over her left shoulder. Then at 5:15pm EST, just five minutes before the building actually did collapse, her live connection from New York to London mysteriously fails.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Feb 26, 2007 22:27:58 GMT -5
You beat me to it Revolver, I was just going to post this.
Be interesting to see the debunkery around this, and it's advisable of course to find out more but..unless the timing is somehow wrong or falsified, this is rather damming.
|
|
|
Post by fourthousandholes on Feb 26, 2007 22:28:59 GMT -5
Great! I was looking for that!
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Feb 26, 2007 22:35:32 GMT -5
They can't blame it on a timezone mix-up since the building is clearly visible in the background. I hope this video gets archived somewhere fast. I doubt the BBC will be hosting it for long.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Feb 27, 2007 16:52:54 GMT -5
From Prison PlanetI think what the BBC is trying to say is.. there is a missing hour of tape which would show that the reporter was reporting the collapse after it happened, not before.. (but they have no idea where it went) mmmkay.. BBC Responds to Building 7 Controversy; Claim 9/11 Tapes LostPathetic five paragraph blog rebuttal does not answer questions as to source of report that Salomon Building was coming down, BBC claims tapes lost due to "cock-up" not conspiracy Paul Joseph Watson Prison Planet Tuesday, February 27, 2007 The BBC has been forced to respond to footage showing their correspondent reporting the collapse of WTC 7 before it fell on 9/11, claiming tapes from the day are somehow missing, and refusing to identify the source for their bizarre act of "clairvoyance" in accurately pre-empting the fall of Building 7. Here is the BBC's response to the questions about the footage that was unearthed yesterday, with my (note: Joseph Watson's) comments after each statement. 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. "We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down." If this is true, then how on earth did the BBC report the collapse of Building 7 before it happened? Psychic clairvoyance? Of course they were told that WTC 7 was coming down, just like the firefighters, police, first responders and CNN were told it was coming down. They had to have had a source for making such a claim. The BBC is acting like the naughty little boy who got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. No one here is claiming the BBC are "part of the conspiracy," but their hideous penchant to just repeat what authorities tell them without even a cursory investigation (and with the Building they are telling us has collapsed mockingly filling the background shot of the report), is a damning indictment of their yellow journalism when it comes to 9/11. 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. How do "chaos and confusion" explain how the BBC reported on the collapse of a building, a collapse that happened "unexpectedly" according to their Conspiracy Files hit piece documentary, before it happened? In one breath the BBC is claiming they were not told of the impending collapse of the Building and in the next they are telling us that all their information is sourced. Which is it to be? Did the BBC have a source telling them the building was about to collapse or not? If not, how on earth could they pre-empt its fall? Do BBC reporters have access to a time machine? What was the source of this information? 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. Trying to make sense of what she was being told? She obviously didn't make much sense of the fact that the Building she was reporting had collapsed was prominently standing behind her! Unfotunately, for a news organization that prides itself on accuracy and credibility, "she doesn't remember" just doesn't cut it as an excuse. 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. We are asked to believe that the world's premiere news organization has somehow lost all its tapes of perhaps the biggest news event of the past 60 years. This is a copout. Whether they have lost the tapes or not, the BBC simply doesn't want to verify one hundred per cent their monumental foul-up, because they know it would only increase the exposure of this issue and lead to further questions. What is there to clear up? The reporter is standing in front of the building while saying it has already collapsed! This is a blatant effort to try and placate people making complaints while refusing to admit a monumental faux pas that further undermines the BBC's credibility in the aftermath of the Conspiracy Files debacle. 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... " So now the BBC are so devoid of answers, they have to enlist the help of some moronic comment on a You Tube blog? Instead of issuing official statements and seeking the advice of legal professionals they produce a cobbled together five paragraph blog and include the testimony of some moron on a You Tube comment board. Pathetic! Answer the question BBC - what was your source for reporting on multiple occasions that Building 7 had collapsed before it had collapsed, and identify the source that enabled the anchorman to comment that the building had collapsed due to it being weakened, an explanation still unanswered by NIST five and a half years later.
If you had reported the collapse of the twin towers before it happened would that have been just an error too? This "error" translated as $800 million plus in insurance bounty for Larry Silverstein - I'm sure Industrial Risk Insurers would be interested to know the source of your "error." In addition, two seperate sources reported that Secret Service Agent Craig Miller died as a result of the collapse of Building 7. Do you think he would have been interested in the "error" that led to your correspondent reporting the building's downfall in advance?
|
|
|
Post by beatlies on Feb 28, 2007 3:01:12 GMT -5
New York City Victims of the CIA/NSA/Pentagon-committed 9/11 inside job slaughter/ toxic mass gassing speak out in public at the United Nations building. In Casablanca, Humpherey Bogart says, to a Nazi boasting that Hitler would soon conquer the U.S., something like "there are some neighborhoods in New York that the Germans would be wiser not to invade." That still holds true. www.youtube.com/watch?v=EymYwYc43iE
|
|
|
Post by Paul Bearer on Mar 5, 2007 2:44:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by beatlies on Mar 9, 2007 22:31:11 GMT -5
Lead article on: www.voxfux.comBBC "MISTAKE" REVEALS ANOTHER PIECE OF THE 911 "INSIDE JOB" PUZZLE BBC Reported the collapse of WTC Building 7... Twenty-three minutes before it happened... oooppps! by VOX As this gigantic news story spreads like wildfire across the Internet - the major controlled media are doing what they always do when startling factual truths emerge that reveal the criminality of their neo-conservative/neo fascist partners who control America - nothing - a total news blackout. As for the BBC, their top executive is scrambling to issue lie after lie to cover-up yet another in the now constant river of "anomalies" about the attacks of 9-11 - their first lie was that they seem to have "misplaced" the tapes of that day. Not likely says CNN (another neo fascist media outlet). Their video archivist said that never in a million years would they NOT have a copy of the most important day in news in decades - They would have hundreds of them. With mounting emails and telephone calls pouring in, the BBC issued a second volley of lies. This time, lush in detail, none of it credible in the slightest - just more insulting lies, coverups and obfuscations. Here's the story: Apparently on the day of the attacks of 9-11, the BBC prematurely reported the collapse of WTC7 some twenty-three minutes BEFORE IT ACTUALLY COLLAPSED! WTC Building 7, sometimes referred to as the Solomon Brothers Building, contained offices of the CIA, US Customs, FBI, Secret Service and the SEC. It was this 47 story building that became shrouded in controversy because although NO PLANE HIT IT, for some inexplicable reason, 8 hours later, it completely collapsed, neatly and into it's own footprint, just like the others - just like controlled demolitions. It's collapse has researchers viewing it as a sort of rosetta stone in proving that the attacks of September 11th were an "Inside Job." Leading scientists and researchers from around the world are coming forward, providing analysis, real explanations and demanding answers to the very suspicious collapse of Building 7. In the video you are about to see, the BBC has just reported that Building 7 has just collapsed. The funny thing is... building 7 doesn't collapse until a full TWENTY-THREE MINUTES LATER! In the anchorman's reading of his teleprompter we already hear the scripted language emerge, the language that the conspirators have scripted to explain how their building 7, which would not be hit that day by any planes, would collapse. Not only does the anchorman's teleprompter tell him that the building has collapsed, it tells him that the building collapsed because the fall of the other two buildings "weakened" it. Seemingly clairvoyantly peering into the future at what exactly waould be revealed to be the administration's "later released" "official version," of the collapse. This would be the story that would be replayed to anyone questioning the oddities of the building 7 collapse. This would be the word to use in the controlled media in the days, weeks and months that followed when and if the topic turned to building 7. That building 7 collapsed, not from being hit by a plane, but because it was "weakened" by the collapse of the other buildings. This was the prewritten "official story" that went out on all the TV networks and media outlets right after the collapse. But in the case of the little BBC "slip-up," this prewritten script went out... a little too early. What you are about to see is the prewritten script being released ahead of time - the question is: by accident or was it released... on purpose? With resentment high up in British circles of the American led NeoCon crusaders who were directing all these titanic global "clashes of civilization" as they like to call them, this might be a message, "We'll play ball for now, but here's a wrench in your American machine. Just remember we can scuttle the plan anytime." Either way, this startling new revelation is just one more piece of a puzzle that points to only one conclusion - INSIDE JOB... ON A MASSIVE TRANSCONTINENTAL SCALE. It reveals the dark mind control mechanisms that these illuminati scriptwriters use in their vain attempts to control the world. And so we witness the anchorman dutifully reading the words coming across his teleprompter, complete with the exact, soon to be "official explanation," that the building didn't collapse because it was hit by a plane but that it was "weakened." As he says the words you must understand that there is no where else these words could have been written but in the offices of the CIA and the many Think Tanks and private intelligence networks who were behind these attacks. And we're supposed to believe that he knows the details of this 23 minutes before it happens. The question becomes how did those words get on that teleprompter, find the channels of press releases emerging from the dark corners of cyberspace that morning with all these fake information on them and you have found the conspirators. The words the anchorman reads are the exact ones written many months prior, during the planning stages of the attacks that would shake the world. Here we catch a clear glimpse of the workings of those who are actually behind the attacks. Certainly BBC did not order the crimes, but the very highest levels they like all in the major controlled media, they are the ones driving the getaway car, for they are solely responsible of covering up the crimes in the aftermath and guaranteeing that at least those who still get their information from the TV will never get the truth about what's really happening. What does BBC say about this strange glimpse of the conspirators messing up and giving them their script too early. There answer is "They lost the tapes of that day." What!!!!! One can easily imagine that in order to control the flow of dialogue of the crime, in the direct aftermath of the crime, the timing of the many press releases (scripted lies) must be critical, and somewhere along the line mistakes are going to be made. Someone slipped up and sent out the script to the BBC twenty-three minutes before the conspirators actually blew up the building. OOoops BCC REPORTED THE COLLAPSE 23 MINUTES BEFORE IT HAPPENED. They received their script a little too early, "plane" and simple, and another clue and chapter in the biggest INSIDE JOB in the history of criminal acts gets revealed to us in clear sight. What is the major media saying about these startling FACTS which are sweeping the Internet like wildfire, nothing. Not a single mention of what is perhaps one of the most startling anomalies to date in the whole string of anomalies about that inside job.. Vox by voxfux
|
|
|
Post by beatlies on Mar 30, 2007 6:43:36 GMT -5
Lone British Female Sailor Interviewed Shortly Before Her Capture
By: thetruthseeker.co.uk on: 30.03.2007 [01:20 ] (151 reads) Coincidence or not, the fact that the BBC and the Independent were both able to interview her shortly before she was seized was a journalistic coup. So much so that some observers have commented on how it was reminiscent of the way the BBC announced the collapse of World Trade Center 7 before it actually fell.
(3682 bytes) [c]
March 28, 2007
As the diplomatic wrangling intensifies, its been revealed that not one but two British news outlets interviewed leading Seaman Specialist Faye Turney, the lone female among the fifteen British sailors and marines now held by Iran.
Her capture by Iran's Revolutionary Guards came only a few hours after she was interviewed.
In the interview with The Independent, she described how the crew of HMS Cornwall were well aware of the perils of operating in an area that had been targeted by suicide bombers.
"The atmosphere on the boat is really good”, she told reporters. “We were made aware that some things can be really dodgy. (But) we've not really had anything that bad at the moment - that's always a good sign.
"My parents made sure I was under no illusions that I could, and can, go to war at any time. Sometimes it can be like a cruise being in the Navy but sometimes you may be called upon. And if you are then you just have to get on with it, That's what you're paid for."
The BBC also recorded a brief interview with Faye Turney shortly before she left on a mission that would lead her into the clutches of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards.
Coincidence or not, the fact that the BBC and the Independent were both able to interview her shortly before she was seized was a journalistic coup. So much so that some observers have commented on how it was reminiscent of the way the BBC announced the collapse of World Trade Center 7 before it actually fell.
Despite indications that news reports on 9/11 were being scheduled to an unspoken agenda, the only explanation the BBC could offer for this coincidence was that it was simply a “cock-up”. No seriously, that is how it was explained by Richard Porter, Head of News, BBC World, who added, “we’re not part of a conspiracy”.
Maybe not but much of the BBC’s news coverage is really substandard nowadays or downright contrived. So maybe we should be asking if the British boarding party hadn’t deliberately strayed into Iranian waters, with the mainstream media laying the groundwork in anticipation of their encounter with Iran’s Revolutionary Guards?
It’s not as outlandish as it may sound. After all, we have only the official word that the boarding party was in Iraqi waters, and you only have to look back a few years to claims about Saddam’s WMD’s to realise how unreliable the official word can be.
At the time those claims about Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction helped propel Britain and America into the bloody nightmare that Iraq has become.
So perhaps we should be a little more circumspect when it comes to the official word and treat the pronouncements of their lackeys in the mainstream media with a little more scrutiny.
For even as video footage was broadcast of the captured British sailors and marines, its clear that a a battle is being fought for hearts and minds with both sides using the media as a weapon.
As if that wasn’t enough, Craig Murray, the former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan is now claiming that the maps used by the British Government to prove that naval contingent was captured inside Iraqi territorial waters are fakes.
However, as usual the mainstream media has barely touched upon this revelation.
Link
|
|
|
Post by beatlies on Apr 1, 2007 5:15:45 GMT -5
Updated:2007-03-31 03:21:38
Rosie Opens 9/11 Conspiracy 'View' Debate
Bill O'Reilly Implies ABC Should Fire O'Donnell After Remarks
AOL
(March 31) - Rosie O'Donnell has never been one to shy away from speaking her mind, but her latest controversial topic of conversation on 'The View' brought up a taboo that most daytime talk shows would never go near – the possibility of a conspiracy on 9/11.
Another 'View' Rant, Another Feud
Rosie's Rant
O'Reilly's Response
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sound Off at the Cooler: Did Rosie Cross the Line? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 'The View' is chock full of controversy:
On Thursday’s show, during a discussion on the war on terror and the prospect of war in Iran, O’Donnell veered into the theory that World Trade Center 7, which fell hours after the Twin Towers, was possibly destroyed purposely by explosives.
"I do believe that it was the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel," O'Donnell said when questioned on whether she thought the government was behind the collapse of WTC 7. "I do believe that it defies physics for the World Trade Center tower 7, which collapsed in on itself -- it is impossible for a building to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved. Miraculously, the first time in history steel was melted by fire," she said.
Later on Thursday, Bill O'Reilly said on his Fox News show that O'Donnell was "nutty" and "irresponsible," and that ABC should fire her for her remarks.
O'Donnell's 'View' co-host, Elizabeth Hasselbeck, who has been known to go head-to-head with a conservative counterpoint to Rosie's left-leaning opinions, listened as O'Donnell sold her case for a conspiracy theory. O'Donnell then asked: "to say that we don't know that it imploded ... is beyond ignorant. Look at the film, get a physics expert from Yale, from Harvard, pick the school. It defies reason. Imagine if somebody could convince you of that?"
Hasselbeck kept her cool, replying "If someone could sit here and prove that to me, I would open my mind to that."
O'Donnell's comments follow a recent blog post by O'Donnell dealing with the same subject.
|
|
|
Post by LOVELYRITA on Apr 2, 2007 20:47:30 GMT -5
Funny that it was reported to have fallen while the building was still intact....
Tells me that their media knew what was going to happen before it occurred...
Hmmmm......I bet the "Crown" will want that evidence destroyed....
|
|
|
Post by beatlies on Apr 12, 2007 17:39:25 GMT -5
The new McCarthyism and Hollywood blacklisting/purging. Operation Mockingbird FoxNews celebrity commentator, TV pundit and far-right Republican, pro-Bush, pro-war propagandist Michelle Malangang Malkin demands a product boycott of all advertisers of ABC's The View. Because Rosie O'Donnell has dared to mention anomalies that prove 9-11 was a false flag inside job: www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DX3Nw3ep-0
|
|
sadiewestbrooke
Hard Day's Night
The more lies, the more confusing it is.
Posts: 20
|
Post by sadiewestbrooke on Apr 22, 2007 6:59:30 GMT -5
I moved to the states a couple months before 9/11 and so i didn't see this on the news obviously. But this sure is making me see this attack in a new light, it's making me think something else was going on behind the "scenes" and we were all in the dark.
|
|
|
Post by beatlies on Apr 28, 2007 9:09:24 GMT -5
From www.bartcop.com on the "IX XI They Die" WTC Reichstag Fire: Subject: ghosts-of-9-11 Yeah. Right. Thanks. Good one. It's such a shame that the FDNY has failed to speak up more... How come FDNY did not know about the impending 'collapse' but NYPD did?!? 911blimp.net/vid_WTC1warning.shtml (ask Rudy about this?) Some FDNY folks spoke out about the big show, just not since: 911blimp.net/vid_FDNYman.shtml And, speaking of airplanes, if the airplane-shaped hole in the North Tower must have been made by a Boeing 767 and could not have been made by anything else, then explain this video, which aired on 9/11 but never since: 911blimp.net/vid_WTC1explosions.shtml Dave Send e-mail to Bart Discuss it on The Bartcop Forum Discuss it on the BartBlog This one is almost funny, in its own sick-fascist-way: From "Hunt the Boeing!" Pentagon --- Question n°6 When asked by a journalist: "Is there anything left of the aircraft at all?" "First of all, the question about the aircraft, there are some small pieces of aircraft visible from the interior during this fire-fighting operation I'm talking about, but not large sections. In other words, there's no fuselage sections and that sort of thing." " You know, I'd rather not comment on that. We have a lot of eyewitnesses that can give you better information about what actually happened with the aircraft as it approached. So we don't know. I don't know." When asked by a journalist: "Where is the jet fuel?" "We have what we believe is a puddle right there that the -- what we believe is to be the nose of the aircraft. So -" The quotations in Question 6 correspond to statements made by Arlington County Fire Chief, Ed Plaugher, at a press conference held by Assistant Defence Secretary, Victoria ("Victory!") Clarke, on 12 September 2001, at the Pentagon. Can you explain why the County Fire Chief could not tell reporters where the aircraft was?
|
|
|
Post by beatlies on May 3, 2007 16:09:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by beatlies on May 10, 2007 13:15:59 GMT -5
newswire article reporting united states 08.May.2007 16:23 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9.11 investigation | imperialism & war The Gray Plane, That No One Saw author: Daniel J Towsey e-mail: conspiraciesclub@yahoogroups.ca Red Hot Smoking 911 Gun This maybe the most important article you'll ever read. The Gray Plane, That No One Saw The Gray Plane,That No One Saw By Daniel J Towsey May 7th, 2007 ca.groups.yahoo.com/group/conspiraciesclub/message/365 It absolutely amazes me how people can not see the obvious. Yet it is right in front of their eyes. Everyone is looking for a smoking gun, when, all along it has been staring everyone right in the face. I realized this long ago. So therefore, I feel that it is time again for me to write another 'TRUTH Article'. We've all seen it probably hundreds of times. So now that I am going to point out the obvious. You well be able to see it for yourself for the first time. What I am talking about is the second plane to hit the world trade center. Have another look at it. What do you see? It's not my imagination. It is clearly a gray unmarked windowless airplane. Only the military has these. I dare you to show me an airplane with commercial markings and windows. Just the other day here in Canada I caught the end of a special on 911, on television. I do not know what the name of the show was. But that does not matter. What matters is that They played a zoomed in slow motion shot of the plane as it flew into the wtc, Where you can clearly see that it is a slightly dark gray, very shinny windowless plane. It was a shot from the sunny side, so the plane was very clear to see. What this proves, is that there are plenty of very clear videos of the second plane Available from the corporate media. And they have chosen not to show them. I watched a live video on that day of people's reaction on the ground. These people were saying that it did not look like any commercial aircraft they have ever seen. Some witnesses said that it had a military like emblem in the front. Remember this. In any just court of justice. When a person on the stand gives testimony. If during that testimony it is proven that just one thing they said is shown to be a lie. Then their whole testimony is erased from the record. And the person usually gets charged with perjury. And goes to jail. So this applies to the official story on 911 too. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I fear not evil doers; I fear those that do nothing about it. Telling the truth in times of deception is a revolutionary act. We need a truth revolution. Are you going to join it? First you need to start doing your own thinking and doing your own research. Do not trust anything you hear from the corporate media. Pick a topic. Pick a topic that you question. When you have done sufficient research. You can then contribute your knowledge of truth to the pot. Then tell your friends, neighbors or anyone you can. Just understand that this 'truth revolution' can not have a leader or a structure. For they well destroy it. If everyone starts spreading the truth their way. The wave of humanity will win. The only weapon against deceit and lies is 'truth'. If you value your freedoms, realize that there is no freedom without truth. Liars and deceivers are mentally ill. Only truth will make a person, country, or this planet will again. homepage: ca.groups.yahoo.com/group/conspiraciesclub/message/365contribute to this article Plenty of witnesses saw the plane and said it was not an airliner 09.May.2007 00:50 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fred Bauer link The problem isn't that we don't have enough evidence, the problem is that some people refuse to look at it. Invincible Ignorance. What do you want? 09.May.2007 07:02 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- . link So many 911 articles go up on this site day after day after day. The thing you need to ask yourself is, what do you want from them? Yes, we all KNOW 911 was an inside job. Yes, there should be prison cells and firing squads for those who caused this. But what purpose does it do to keep on posting this stuff? If everyone in the country KNOWS this, and still nothing happens, then clearly there is more to getting something done than just to keep on saying it over and over.
|
|
|
Post by fourthousandholes on May 10, 2007 15:00:42 GMT -5
NO VIDEO?
|
|
|
Post by mommybird on Jun 8, 2007 14:57:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by beatlies on Jun 9, 2007 0:25:44 GMT -5
' I really dislike this video. It's part of the "no planes at the WTC: it's all CGI" school of disinformation. It lies. For example, it says "we can all agree that it is impossible for a plane to pass through a building with its nose intact." No, we DON'T all agree with that: the nose, or whatever it is, coming out the 2nd WTC building is seen in other videos clearly and at much closer range as well as the dark one they show. It is DISHONEST of these "no-planers" (typical of them) not to mention or show those others. Also, the physics of high velocity impact are such that this is possible. See for example photos of tornado-blown solid objects through other solid object impacts. It's especially possible if it was a DU/titanium=coated military "drone" plane fake Boeing. See the forum threads at www.letsroll911.org, such as letsrollforums.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=13073&start=0 for more thorough debunkings of the "no-plane" disinformation such as they present in the "September Clues" video above (I think TotalInformation disagrees with me about this). By the way, I was near the WTC at the time and I heard the sound of the explosion that happened when the second plane it and I know people who personally saw through their windows/on the street the 2nd plane hit.
|
|
|
Post by beatlies on Jun 17, 2007 1:00:12 GMT -5
Former Bush Speechwriter Hints at 911 Inside Job! a must readBy: Bulov on: 17.06.2007 [03:26 ] (42 reads) (4474 bytes) [c] Former Bush Speechwriter Hints at 911 Inside Job Says Neo-Cons would have created a false flag to justify war had it not been for WTC attack, questions official story by Paul Joseph Watson Global Research, April 13, 2007 A GOP insider, former Bush 41 speechwriter and close friend of the Bush family writes in his new book that before 9/11, the Neo-Cons in control of the Bush administration were eager to seize upon a manufactured provocation to go to war - just as LBJ had done with the Gulf Of Tonkin in 1965, and questions the official 9/11 story. Victor Gold is a veteran GOP campaign operative who worked closely with George H.W. Bush on his presidential campaign and also co-wrote his autobiography. He was also tasked with writing the profiles for Dick and Lynn Cheney for the official Inauguration program in 2001. In his new book, Invasion of the Party Snatchers: How the Neo-Cons and Holy Rollers Destroyed the GOP, Gold slams the current administration and exposes their zeal for creating a pretext for a war that was planned many years in advance. Gold confirms that war in Iraq was decided upon from day one, and that a fake pretext was readied and anticipated before 9/11 happened. Though Gold still pins the blame on Al-Qaeda, in acknowledging the fact that the Bush administration would have staged a false flag attack anyway had it not been for 9/11, he is one small step away from intimating that the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon were an inside job. "There would be regime change in Iraq," writes Gold, "All that the Neo-Con war hawks, in the Bush administration and out, needed to bring it about was an excuse to invade. Looking back a half-decade and knowing what we now know, who could doubt that if al Qaeda hadn't obliged the Neo-Cons with 9/11, the Kristolites would have torn a page out of history and, with Rupert Murdoch playing the role of William Randolph Hearst, given us a reprise of the sinking of the Maine?" William Randolph Hearst was the founder of Hearst Publishing, which today owns Popular Mechanics, the government's foremost mouthpiece for selling the official 9/11 story. Look in the encyclopedia and Hearst is the very definition of yellow journalism. He colluded with the McKinley government to manufacture and propagate through his chain of newspapers, the hoax that the Spanish had sunk the USS Maine in 1898, an event that provided the catalyst for the Spanish-American war. "Had it not been for 9/11, the Bush White House, determined to go to war, would no doubt have seized on some synthetic provocation, on the order of the one LBJ used to push through the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1965," Gold writes. The Gulf of Tonkin incident, where US warships were apparently attacked by North Vietnamese PT Boats, an incident that kicked off US involvement in the Vietnam war, was a staged event that never actually took place. Declassified LBJ presidential tapes discuss how to spin the non-event to escalate it as justification for air strikes and the NSA faked intelligence data to make it appear as if two US ships had been lost. For Gold, a lifetime Bush family friend and a GOP darling, to go turncoat and detail how the Neo-Cons were feverishly preparing for a false flag event to justify their pre-planned war, while questioning the official 9/11 story, is a resounding slap in the face to those who claim that 9/11 couldn't have been an inside job because whistleblowers would foil the conspiracy. Hundreds of experts and professionals in all sectors of government, the military, science and industry have blown the whistle, but whenever they attempt to garner media attention, they are harangued as anti-American traitors by loudmouth TV shills who are on the payroll of the very criminals that carried out 9/11. It took insiders like E. Howard Hunt nearly 50 years to spill the beans on the fact that Kennedy was killed by the government, and yet we already have a plethora of respected individuals sounding the clarion call about 9/11 being an inside job, and in the very least - as in the case of Victor Gold, slamming the fairy tale that is upheld as the government's official story. www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=WAT20070413&articleId=5381
|
|
|
Post by mommybird on Jun 23, 2007 9:25:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mysteryboy on Jun 24, 2007 2:16:31 GMT -5
From 2004 : NO PUBLIC ACCESS, NO OATH, NO RECORD. There will be no record of the President and Vice President's joint appearance before the 9/11 commission, USA Today reports. Bush and Cheney are scheduled to appear together before the full commission tomorrow, privately and not under oath. Normally, the commission prefers to keep a record of testimony, but the White House has requested that no stenographer be present. Ya gotta luv these two
|
|
|
Post by beatlies on Jun 28, 2007 13:21:14 GMT -5
9/11 Quiz: Something the CIA/NSA/Pentagon Oil Billionaire perpetrators know very well: 1) "Don't worry about the American people ---they don't read." ---Allen Dulles, longtime CIA director fired by JFK, and dealmaker with top Nazis at the time of the Third Reich's surrender, and Warren Commission member. 2) "No one ever lost money underestimating the intelligence of the American public." (paraphrasing) ---H.L. Mencken www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnP0snh_1cU&mode=related&search=
|
|
|
Post by Paul Bearer on Jul 2, 2007 18:14:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by beatlies on Jul 2, 2007 18:17:48 GMT -5
That's false ---there was no Flight 93 (with only "37 or 38" passengers!) No Flight 93 debris or realistic crater, and no "shootdown." No hijackings of any passenger planes. A bomb(s) at the Pentagon, no plane. Two military drone planes hit the WTC. A good website for info on the above: www.letsroll911.org
|
|