LoneGunman
Expert Member
http://www.freenewmexican.com/readerblogs/57738.html#
view original for all active links
March 1, 2007
As today is my last day setting the homepage for The Santa Fe New Mexican I thought I would bid you all farewell. I resigned two weeks ago to better pursue my personal interests. It is to my great amusement however that this day coincides with an astonishing story to share in this blog. There is an uproar rising across the Internet over what is being called yet another blatant, 9/11 smoking gun.
Early this week an independent researcher, reviewing video archives of the BBC's 9/11 coverage, divulged the discovery of an earth shaking incongruence. BBC reporters announced the collapse of the 47 story Salomon Brothers Building 23 minutes BEFORE the actual sudden collapse. This building, also known as WTC 7, is clearly visible, standing tall, as a reporter gestures to the live view through the window behind her.
Despite the fact the Google censored the initial internet premier of this archived video, removing it from their video service, many more "mirrors" of the video were then set up across the net. Watch the video here.
Some may find this simply bewildering or a coincidental mistake. For 9/11 researchers it is a further revealing piece of evidence confirming internal premeditation to demolish the WTC. In response to demands for an explanation the BBC released a statement denying confirmation and foreknowledge. I recommend everyone wanting a good laugh to read their response.
The BBC claim that they lost the tapes of their 9/11 coverage due to a, and I quote, "cock-up, not conspiracy."
They just happened to lose their coverage of the most critical and historic event in the 21st century? The BBC's general policy on media managment states:
The following components to be retained:-
· Two broadcast standard copies of all transmitted/published TV, Radio and BBCi output – one to be stored on a separate site as a master
· One browse-quality version for research purposes, to protect the broadcast material
· All supporting metadata to enable research and re-use
· A selection of original (i.e. unedited) material for re-use/re-versioning purposes
· Hardware/software/equipment to enable replay/transfer of the media
Obviously coverage like the 9/11 attacks would have merited many more copies than everyday broadcasts. And we are to believe the are all lost?
The BBC states that the events of 9/11 are "seared" in the memory of reporter Jane Standley, but that she can't remember what happened minute by minute. Personally I think watching a building collapse just minutes after saying it already had would be quite memorable.
The BBC tries to excuse possible mistakes due to the confusion of the day. But how many other 47 story buildings are near the WTC? No other buildings fell around the time or area of the Salomon Brothers Building (WTC 7.) No other steel-frame buildings in the history of the world have even collapsed "due to fire" beside WTC 1, 2 and 7. Building 7 wasn't hit by an airplane and wasn't even directly adjacent to the twin towers. Calling that shot is no coincidence.
The BBC states: "We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another." I'll say they don't clear it up, at least not how the BBC would like. Tapes of News 24 (wait, let me find a new link, Google Video has now censored the footage from News 24... here is one!) have other reporters claiming they "are being told" that WTC 7 has collapsed. The time-stamp on News 24 further confirms that the press release the BBC was apparently issued came out 23 minutes before the actual collapse.
"Are being told"? But the BBC now claims "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." And yet the BBC "rebuttal" goes on to say they always source their reports. I think we will have to follow the evidence on that one.
The BBC response finishes saying that an error is not evidence of conspiracy. (Lol. Is a random commenter on YouTube the best source they can get now?) You call it an error if it was committed once. But three times? It has now emerged that CNN reported that WTC 7 "has either collapsed or is collapsing" while the building was still standing. Watch it here.
So now it should be plain to see that there was foreknowledge of Building 7's demise. But how could anyone know? Let's listen to the man who admitted to demolishing the building explain. Ya gotta watch this video excerpted from a September 2002 PBS documentary. That man is Larry Silverstein, the man who leased the WTC buildings mere months before the attack and made billions of dollars on his unusual terrorism insurance plan. "Pull it" is controlled demolition industry jargon for imploding a building. Silverstein's spokesperson later denied the admission, saying he meant "pull the firemen out of the building." Just listen to his statement though and its obvious what he meant.
Might then WTC 7's collapse have been a controlled demolition? Watch the actual collapse again here and see what it looks like. That's Dan Rather's voice. Really tells it like it is there didn't he. The building wasn't in the process of collapsing minutes beforehand, but completely drops in the matter of a few seconds. It drops so fast actually that there is only one known scenario where such a free fall collapse is even physically possible. Controlled demolition.
Dr. Steven E. Jones, former physics professor of BYU University wrote a paper demonstrating this. It lead to his early retirement, but not before being published in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Dr. Jones later performed chemical analysis on melted WTC steel that suggests thermate may have been used in the demolition.
Eye witness testimonies also suggest controlled demolition. Over and over I have seen many different cases: warnings on the street going out before hand, explosions coinciding with the collapse, etc. For the sake of time I'll just mention one story here.
Why does Silverstein explain why they blew 7 up and later retract? I don't know, but in the beginning there were very few people questioning 9/11and he basically related how things went along that day. Nowadays, with Loose Change being the most popular video on Google, questions are going to be asked. Like, how could they take down the building without weeks of planning and placement?
So why the early news reports? The BBC anchor who provides an explanation for the collapse 23 minutes before it even happens may give us some idea. The demolition being planned, an explanation for a huge building disappearing in a matter of seconds might have seemed to be in order, and a press release was prepared ahead of time to start the cover up from the first moment. But perhaps the news wire went out early, or the demolition went off late. This matter, of course, remains to be properly investigated.
There are many more question to be considered, and WTC 7 is just a small part of 9/11. For a look at the bigger picture and to answer some of those questions check out the film Terrorstorm. Thats enough to get someone started anyway.
The BBC is quick to deny that they are "part of the conspiracy" (italics added) and yet ironically that statement itself almost implies that there is a conspiracy.
And thus I turn in my badge, err, parking permit, and say goodbye to The New Mexican. Perhaps I'm leaving you with a question though. Why aren't the big TV news programs and newspapers covering the BBC's remarkable gift for clairvoyance? If you want them to demand it of them.
Better yet, take matters of informing yourself into your own hands. As I hope this blog entry has demonstrated, we have the technology with the Internet to move from the old autocratic information paradigm into a democratic system. Instead of today's five media companies who own most of the news industry dictating self-serving knowledge to millions of Americans, information can be traded freely based on its inherent merits in a diverse and widespread self correcting network.
But to come to face the ground truth we must take the time to ween ourselves from the old pipeline and open up to a bigger picture. 911blogger is a useful site for 9/11 news in this process. Alex Jones is an excellent news source to start looking at to understand the forces of fascism, tyranny and corruption taking control of the highest levels of our government. If you like the videos I used to post occasionally in my blog there are many more in a new feature called Rense TV part way down rense.com. There are many others out there as well, but use your discernment to weed out disinformation. Check the sources for yourself and confirm.
Obviously I don't agree with everything presented at these sites. But that's the point. Think for yourself. Push your limits. Become your own Editor.
view original for all active links
March 1, 2007
As today is my last day setting the homepage for The Santa Fe New Mexican I thought I would bid you all farewell. I resigned two weeks ago to better pursue my personal interests. It is to my great amusement however that this day coincides with an astonishing story to share in this blog. There is an uproar rising across the Internet over what is being called yet another blatant, 9/11 smoking gun.
Early this week an independent researcher, reviewing video archives of the BBC's 9/11 coverage, divulged the discovery of an earth shaking incongruence. BBC reporters announced the collapse of the 47 story Salomon Brothers Building 23 minutes BEFORE the actual sudden collapse. This building, also known as WTC 7, is clearly visible, standing tall, as a reporter gestures to the live view through the window behind her.
Despite the fact the Google censored the initial internet premier of this archived video, removing it from their video service, many more "mirrors" of the video were then set up across the net. Watch the video here.
Some may find this simply bewildering or a coincidental mistake. For 9/11 researchers it is a further revealing piece of evidence confirming internal premeditation to demolish the WTC. In response to demands for an explanation the BBC released a statement denying confirmation and foreknowledge. I recommend everyone wanting a good laugh to read their response.
The BBC claim that they lost the tapes of their 9/11 coverage due to a, and I quote, "cock-up, not conspiracy."
They just happened to lose their coverage of the most critical and historic event in the 21st century? The BBC's general policy on media managment states:
The following components to be retained:-
· Two broadcast standard copies of all transmitted/published TV, Radio and BBCi output – one to be stored on a separate site as a master
· One browse-quality version for research purposes, to protect the broadcast material
· All supporting metadata to enable research and re-use
· A selection of original (i.e. unedited) material for re-use/re-versioning purposes
· Hardware/software/equipment to enable replay/transfer of the media
Obviously coverage like the 9/11 attacks would have merited many more copies than everyday broadcasts. And we are to believe the are all lost?
The BBC states that the events of 9/11 are "seared" in the memory of reporter Jane Standley, but that she can't remember what happened minute by minute. Personally I think watching a building collapse just minutes after saying it already had would be quite memorable.
The BBC tries to excuse possible mistakes due to the confusion of the day. But how many other 47 story buildings are near the WTC? No other buildings fell around the time or area of the Salomon Brothers Building (WTC 7.) No other steel-frame buildings in the history of the world have even collapsed "due to fire" beside WTC 1, 2 and 7. Building 7 wasn't hit by an airplane and wasn't even directly adjacent to the twin towers. Calling that shot is no coincidence.
The BBC states: "We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another." I'll say they don't clear it up, at least not how the BBC would like. Tapes of News 24 (wait, let me find a new link, Google Video has now censored the footage from News 24... here is one!) have other reporters claiming they "are being told" that WTC 7 has collapsed. The time-stamp on News 24 further confirms that the press release the BBC was apparently issued came out 23 minutes before the actual collapse.
"Are being told"? But the BBC now claims "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." And yet the BBC "rebuttal" goes on to say they always source their reports. I think we will have to follow the evidence on that one.
The BBC response finishes saying that an error is not evidence of conspiracy. (Lol. Is a random commenter on YouTube the best source they can get now?) You call it an error if it was committed once. But three times? It has now emerged that CNN reported that WTC 7 "has either collapsed or is collapsing" while the building was still standing. Watch it here.
So now it should be plain to see that there was foreknowledge of Building 7's demise. But how could anyone know? Let's listen to the man who admitted to demolishing the building explain. Ya gotta watch this video excerpted from a September 2002 PBS documentary. That man is Larry Silverstein, the man who leased the WTC buildings mere months before the attack and made billions of dollars on his unusual terrorism insurance plan. "Pull it" is controlled demolition industry jargon for imploding a building. Silverstein's spokesperson later denied the admission, saying he meant "pull the firemen out of the building." Just listen to his statement though and its obvious what he meant.
Might then WTC 7's collapse have been a controlled demolition? Watch the actual collapse again here and see what it looks like. That's Dan Rather's voice. Really tells it like it is there didn't he. The building wasn't in the process of collapsing minutes beforehand, but completely drops in the matter of a few seconds. It drops so fast actually that there is only one known scenario where such a free fall collapse is even physically possible. Controlled demolition.
Dr. Steven E. Jones, former physics professor of BYU University wrote a paper demonstrating this. It lead to his early retirement, but not before being published in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Dr. Jones later performed chemical analysis on melted WTC steel that suggests thermate may have been used in the demolition.
Eye witness testimonies also suggest controlled demolition. Over and over I have seen many different cases: warnings on the street going out before hand, explosions coinciding with the collapse, etc. For the sake of time I'll just mention one story here.
Why does Silverstein explain why they blew 7 up and later retract? I don't know, but in the beginning there were very few people questioning 9/11and he basically related how things went along that day. Nowadays, with Loose Change being the most popular video on Google, questions are going to be asked. Like, how could they take down the building without weeks of planning and placement?
So why the early news reports? The BBC anchor who provides an explanation for the collapse 23 minutes before it even happens may give us some idea. The demolition being planned, an explanation for a huge building disappearing in a matter of seconds might have seemed to be in order, and a press release was prepared ahead of time to start the cover up from the first moment. But perhaps the news wire went out early, or the demolition went off late. This matter, of course, remains to be properly investigated.
There are many more question to be considered, and WTC 7 is just a small part of 9/11. For a look at the bigger picture and to answer some of those questions check out the film Terrorstorm. Thats enough to get someone started anyway.
The BBC is quick to deny that they are "part of the conspiracy" (italics added) and yet ironically that statement itself almost implies that there is a conspiracy.
And thus I turn in my badge, err, parking permit, and say goodbye to The New Mexican. Perhaps I'm leaving you with a question though. Why aren't the big TV news programs and newspapers covering the BBC's remarkable gift for clairvoyance? If you want them to demand it of them.
Better yet, take matters of informing yourself into your own hands. As I hope this blog entry has demonstrated, we have the technology with the Internet to move from the old autocratic information paradigm into a democratic system. Instead of today's five media companies who own most of the news industry dictating self-serving knowledge to millions of Americans, information can be traded freely based on its inherent merits in a diverse and widespread self correcting network.
But to come to face the ground truth we must take the time to ween ourselves from the old pipeline and open up to a bigger picture. 911blogger is a useful site for 9/11 news in this process. Alex Jones is an excellent news source to start looking at to understand the forces of fascism, tyranny and corruption taking control of the highest levels of our government. If you like the videos I used to post occasionally in my blog there are many more in a new feature called Rense TV part way down rense.com. There are many others out there as well, but use your discernment to weed out disinformation. Check the sources for yourself and confirm.
Obviously I don't agree with everything presented at these sites. But that's the point. Think for yourself. Push your limits. Become your own Editor.
Last edited:
Ya, riiiight.
