rigorousintuition.ca

Didn't hear it on a street corner. Just confused what happened in the early part of 2007 with what happened in the latter part of 2001.

My recollective powers are wonderfully imperfect, as I will occasionally reveal. As are all of my other attributes.

I understand, being in similar straits. But just to clarify, I can't find any source on the BBC having requested removal of that video from Google Videos. And, as Google Videos purchased YouTube in 2006, it may have not been a secret which was ever very closely held. There are currently over 660 versions of the BBC Building 7 report footage available according to a search on Google Videos.

I'll see if I can find where I plucked that from tomorrow. When I'll have a lot more wind in my sails. I'm running on empty now.

BTW, here was the BBC's response to the hoopla in question, in the early part of 2007.

The bolds are mine, of course. Only because it raised my left eyebrow a bit.

*****

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2 ... iracy.html

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.

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.

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.

An image of the website hosting the alleged BBC World footage3. 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.

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... "

5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that.

Uh, yeah, sure! Like, if I were to know the winning lottery numbers before they were drawn, that would have been just ..... an error.

If I'd have been mysteriously and spectacularly clairvoyant about something, that would have been just .... an error.

RIGHT.

As I get ready to go to bed I thought about how many times in this thread I apologized for things I didn't say, but other people gave me credit for saying, or misinterpreted what I said. I have been civil in this thread and quick to apologize for any transgression I was given credit for regardless of the fact that I made no intentional transgression. I want to apologize for one more "thing" named nathan28. "Things" have no empathy, humans do. So i'll apologize for a "thing" that showed up in this thread.

nathan28 wrote:
I don't expect anyone with an idee fixe over collapsing towers to change their minds, and it's frustrating to see them shut off their fucking brains over something I already grant as possible and even probable. It reminds me about that metaphorical guy looking for his keys in one place when he dropped them down a stormdrain because "the light is better over here."

nathan28 you are as big a jerk as I have ever encountered on an internet forum. I sincerely hope I never meet you or anyone like you in real life. This forum is full of kind and passive humans. You are a stand out in the realm of crass and rude behavior. A human being precious to me is not a set of keys, although she may well be running through the storm drains of the world, as she was used as a gutter trash disposable item by gutless fuck wits that no doubt speak in ways similar to you. I lost something, but not my mind. The light is fine where I am because I know exactly who did this shit. Obviously you enjoy your ring side seat beside the storm drain as you "jeer" at those of us who lost big time. You are after all, "the jeer leader".



I let the above slide until you called me a dumpster diver later in the thread.

nathan28 wrote:
It also doesn't look like you plan on wearing this thread out with nuance or commitment to understanding, either, because they might get in the way of kneejerk reactions like uncritical acceptance of any PrisonPlanet dumpster-diving tablescrap as a delicacy.

So now i'm looking for her in the dumpster huh? Which is it the drain or the dumpster? Maybe she is in the metal yard in China getting melted into an ingot of metal to be used in the new tower? Regardless of which of the three places she may be, its damn humorous isn't it nathan28? Obviously prisonplanet wasn't the focus, it was the spokesman of Silverstein, Mr. Shapiro's comments. That is where the "leg of logic down your throat" comment that I gave you came from. And jackriddler was allowed to call me a troll? Your pattern is consistent. Consistently rude, abusive, and intentionally misleading. Why you are allowed to speak as you do is a mystery, or maybe not. I'm a bit confused by some of the tolerances in some areas and lack of tolerance in others. The archives are so full of your abusive horse shit that I finally just stopped trying to read them all. Although I did see where barracuda said that he finds you "endless amusing", which I didn't find amusing at all, considering the fact that he is a moderator. I had no problem at all with jackriddler, but you sir, are a true dumpster diver. jackriddler's comments never offended me.

I apologize on your behalf to anybody else that lost someone and had to read your horse shit. I'm damn tired of apologizing too. She isn't a "delicacy in a dumpster". You get my drift asshole?

This nick can get banned if need be. I'm not sure I care after this thread. I think I do deep down because this place has been a great comfort of like minds. There are a lot of really cool people here that obviously understand and have compassion for their fellow humans. But if I get banned, then I don't belong here anyway. I don't have the stomach for this anymore right now anyway.





good night, and a sincere thanks to people like chump...i love you for that chump. I don't know if i'll be back but thank you chump. You are a very kind human being.

chump wrote:

In the meantime, the viewer is reminded again and again of the vision of the perpetrators' handiwork. The myth is reinforced in the minds of those who don't know any better or don't care, and the frustration is deepened in those who do.

apologydue wrote: This nick can get banned if need be.

Till next time, then.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilant.

Right on, Isacar.

Jeff Wells' position on 9/11 makes about as much sense as Noam Chomsky's position on JFK's assassination. None.
Why? Who knows? There are both benign and malevalent possibilities.
Sorry, Jeff. You are not an idiot. That's an easy way out.
And board admin's are NEVER exempt from criticism. EVER.

Controlled demolition is proven a multitude of undeniable ways and so is the cover-up.
Just like the 'Magic Bullet' of Dealey Plaza and the disappeared brain.
Or the Too Many Bullets of the Ambassador Hotel and the coroner who was prevented from testifying.

It's that simple and certain.
I talked to a junior high school physics teacher today about the Conservation of Momentum and 9/11.
He agreed that his students could understand the truth of 9/11.

Ooh la, the arc of the shark appears.

Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:Right on, Isacar..

Yep. Right on out the door.

Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:Right on, Isacar.

Jeff Wells' position on 9/11 makes about as much sense as Noam Chomsky's position on JFK's assassination. None.
Why? Who knows? There are both benign and malevalent possibilities.
Sorry, Jeff. You are not an idiot. That's an easy way out.
And board admin's are NEVER exempt from criticism. EVER.

Controlled demolition is proven a multitude of undeniable ways and so is the cover-up.
Just like the 'Magic Bullet' of Dealey Plaza and the disappeared brain.
Or the Too Many Bullets of the Ambassador Hotel and the coroner who was prevented from testifying.

It's that simple and certain.
I talked to a junior high school physics teacher today about the Conservation of Momentum and 9/11.
He agreed that his students could understand the truth of 9/11.

Hopefully his students will look at and understand the video and photographic evidence showing debris and indeed the debris cloud itself free falling faster than the collapse itself and then conclude their teacher is an idiot.

Hmmm. My opinion is not set in stone. But, I haven't seen anything here that would indicate CD wasn't utilized on 9/11. If the sw? corner was bulging, and then blew out, wouldn't the building tip over that way? Instead, the building fell straight down, through concrete, steel, pillars, trusses, walls, furniture, computers, government records, people, collapsing into it's cellar in about as much time as it would take to splatter on the street had you swan dived from the roof.

We have treated to a media show on, before and since that day. To me, that is one of the more illucidating aspects of the whole shabang.

I spent some time, this AM, looking for a source that supports the impression that I had (re. the BBC requested the removal of the videos from Google)... and wasn't able to find any.

So I'll retract that specific, earlier contention of mine. Until and if I find a source later.

norton ash wrote:I think it was CD. I think 9-11 was a planned spectacle pulled off by many branches of international organized crime to usher in the fucked-up new times.

It makes no difference, because the general public doesn't want to know. Do you really think 'proving' CD is going to change anything? Various 'proofs' are there, but they don't add up to the extraordinary proof required by people like Jeff, and I'm cool with that.

It makes no difference.

In that vein, I have intelligent friends who counter 9-11 crime revelations with "Why bother studying this? What difference can it make to your life?"

So I tell 'em they're frogs in warming water, and they tell me "whatever" and we talk about baseball. And I look at the sky, and there's no fucking way those clouds and contrails are natural, and we just keep walking.

Edit: more cross-post synchronicity above!

Yep. But it's lonely. And I guess what I want out of the 'truth' is for us all to believe in it at once, which is never going to happen, because we're never going to know (let alone agree on) what "truth" is.

Canadian_watcher wrote:

norton ash wrote:I think it was CD. I think 9-11 was a planned spectacle pulled off by many branches of international organized crime to usher in the fucked-up new times.

It makes no difference, because the general public doesn't want to know. Do you really think 'proving' CD is going to change anything? Various 'proofs' are there, but they don't add up to the extraordinary proof required by people like Jeff, and I'm cool with that.

It makes no difference.

In that vein, I have intelligent friends who counter 9-11 crime revelations with "Why bother studying this? What difference can it make to your life?"

So I tell 'em they're frogs in warming water, and they tell me "whatever" and we talk about baseball. And I look at the sky, and there's no fucking way those clouds and contrails are natural, and we just keep walking.

Edit: more cross-post synchronicity above!

Yep. But it's lonely. And I guess what I want out of the 'truth' is for us all to believe in it at once, which is never going to happen, because we're never going to know (let alone agree on) what "truth" is.

I don't want extraordinary standards of proof. I just think it's fucking retarded to insist that without documentary evidence or witnesses that CD is proven. I can look at things with my eyes all day long and come up with perfectly rational explanations that will upon examination prove to be wrong. But at some point, probably sooner than later, though, I'll grant that the mountainheap of confabulations denying CD--which is what the OP story was, and so off-the-cuff and sloppy that I have little trouble calling it a confabulation--are going to create a preponderance leaning towards proof.

I mean, look, I also believe that Flight 93 was shot down--and so do a lot of people I talk to. I have no proof, and neither do they, and it kind of doesn't matter except to show you that "sheeple" aren't uncritical in their consumption of the party line.

The point is--Iran-Contra-BCCI is pretty much proven beyond a doubt. Riggs-BCCI is obvious and at best marginally covered-up, and then only b/c the Wash. Post is Saudi-owned: they covered everything except the Saudi funding flows, which other papers covered. The Iran-Contra Crack connection is also incontrovertible, and frankly, that's destroyed so many lives and ruined so many of America's cities it makes 9/11 look like a fairy tale. And guess what? Either no one cares, or they don't feel compelled to act, or they don't think they can, or something else or any combination of those things prevents any of that from changing things. Barring disruptions in everyday life, most people will neither care nor act. That's been shown time and time again.

So to be fair, my opposition to CD is largely theoretical. I just don't think that watching videos "proves" it--after all, it looks like CD to me WHICH I WRITE EVERY TIME I GET CAUGHT IN A CD THREAD--and I don't think it's the skeleton key it's made out to be. There isn't one. Today it's largely conventional wisdom that Hearst bombed the Maine for the sake of a headline--and no one really cares. I suspect fifty or a hundred years from now that will be the case with 9/11/01.


And it's really not that relevant, because see Iraqighaniipakiran and protofascist Tea Party rumblings. Two nights ago I overheard someone who voted for Obama mention that she was upset he was "socializing" health care. Medicaid is going to go bankrupt, the university system is crumbling, and transnat'l corps. have started running out of low-paid workers to ship jobs overseas to. It's a world-crisis, yo.

apologydue wrote:nathan28 ... Obviously you enjoy your ring side seat beside the storm drain as you "jeer" at those of us who lost big time. You are after all, "the jeer leader".

To nathan's credit, and to mine, that wasn't a self-appointed title.

Canadian_watcher wrote:And I guess what I want out of the 'truth' is for us all to believe in it at once, which is never going to happen, because we're never going to know (let alone agree on) what "truth" is.

Try telling that to Mac (the Knife). Paging Mr. Knife...?