BBC reported WTC7 collapse 30 minutes before it happened

nacho libre

jessop1 wrote:

As Diogenes might sarcastically say: "News tapes never go missing. ever.



Well, leaks happen. or perhaps eventual revelation of the conspiracy is all part of the plan? or perhaps the whole thing is a psyop whose purpose is not yet known.

leaks? if that's the case why hasn't the leaker revealed more? I am assuming there reason for doing so would be a moral issue. However, surely those who were part of the conspiracy would be screened to ensure they were reliable?
Also, what would be their gain in revealing what was going to happen then or now? A bluff- as in no-one will believe we'd be stupid enough to reveal this therefore augmenting the offical story. Is this what you mean???

Diogenes

jessop1 wrote:

zzzz.. I'm getting bored with this silly tactic of yours. Its clear that the scope and potential for unchecked corruption is there, that was the point I made earlier

You're just interested in making claims of corruption not in naming who is corrupt. Rightttt....

The onus is not on me to name all of these criminals, what a ridiculous request and indicative of your shambolic argument on this point.

So if I have your logic utterly clear it's acceptable to accuse a massive media organisation consistenting of thousands of people, of being complicit in a massive media cover up just as long as you decline to name who in this organisation is complicit in this coverup.

And you really think you've got evidence that said media organisation is complicit in the cover up? Jessop1 have you gotten used to people laughing at you dismissably?

strange that you dont find the circumstances and timing strage. hmmm...

Even stranger than you've yet to prove it strange.


'

so the story goes

So the straw clutching goes.

Diogenes

jessop1 wrote:

story goes

why shouldn't these tapes go missing?
Are you claiming the BBC is infallible?

jessop1

Diogenes wrote:

So if I have your logic utterly clear it's acceptable to accuse a massive media organisation consistenting of thousands of people, of being complicit in a massive media cover up just as long as you decline to name who in this organisation is complicit in this coverup.
And you really think you've got evidence that said media organisation is complicit in the cover up?

Ah yes, I see your tactic here is to attack the very idea that any conspiracy could possibly exist by implying or suggesting that I am also accusing the thousands of workers of being complicit, when I have done no such thing. Your silly tactics are so easy to expose.

Diogenes wrote:

Jessop1 have you gotten used to people laughing at you dismissably?

=

Tactic from the debunkers guide posted on my other thread wrote:

Ridicule, ridicule, ridicule. It is far and away the single most chillingly effective weapon in the war against discovery and innovation. Ridicule has the unique power to make people of virtually any persuasion go completely unconscious in a twinkling. It fails to sway only those few who are of sufficiently independent mind not to buy into the kind of emotional consensus that ridicule provides.

In practice

Diogenes wrote:

Even stranger than you've yet to prove it strange.

shambolic stuff

Diogenes

jessop1 wrote:

Ah yes, I see your tactic here is to attack the very idea that any conspiracy could possibly exist by implying or suggesting that I am also accusing the thousands of workers of being complicit, when I have done no such thing. Your silly tactics are so easy to expose.




=


In practice


shambolic stuff

Jessop for several months now you've claimed that the NWO control the media at some level. Now put simply;

A) At which level do these NWO operatives work?

Can you name names?

C) What are you basing this assumption on?

D) Why has no working in these organsation, under them ever challenged their control of the media?

Those are four questions. Could you please answer them.

So Glad

Diogenes wrote:

Jessop for several months now you've claimed that the NWO control the media at some level. Now put simply;

A) At which level do these NWO operatives work?

Can you name names?

C) What are you basing this assumption on?

D) Why has no working in these organsation, under them ever challenged their control of the media?

Those are four questions. Could you please answer them.

I can answer all 4 questions: With This Video

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

jessop1 wrote:

Any attempts to debunk this can only be clutching at very thin straws.

oh well, that's it then. argument over.

great post, and point very well made. case closed.:rolleyes:

bonkey

So Glad wrote:

I can answer all 4 questions: With This Video

Just as a matter of interest...

Are you even aware of irony of a video distributed over the most mainstream internet media-distribution available being offered as proof that mainstream media-distribution is controlled by some secret organisation

Its one small step less than, say, CNN running a news article alleging how it is itself secretly controlled by some similar org.

Mitch Connor

Diogenes wrote:

Again jessop1 who exactly in media organisations is in on the conspiracy. You've spouted on that "certain indviduals" have control and can dictate media so please name them, and their positions. Since you speak with such authority.



Yeah because live feeds never breaj down. Ever.

To suggest anything at all other than the official story of 9/11, to question its credibility in any way at all here is to invite ridicule from the incessant debunkers.



You know bin laden attacked the WTC before and wanted its collaspe|?

They are called the "Patriots", and they use something called a "Gear" (which comes in various sizes, and versions) to control the media.

See here for a little info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_Gear_Solid_2:_Sons_of_Liberty#Arsenal_Gear

oscarBravo

jessop1 wrote:

...and you dont think its even slightly strange that this feed died 2 minutes before the building collapse...

I may have missed something, but how do you know when the building collapsed in relation to this video clip? There's no timestamp on it.

oscarBravo

Interestingly, the CNN clip on the same prisonplanet page gives credence to the view that this was simply a mistaken report based on confused information: the anchor says that they've received information that WTC7 has collapsed, or is about to collapse. The marquee displays the caption "Building 7 at World Trade Ctr. on fire, may collapse".

It seems logical to me that it became obvious to the firefighters that the building was on the verge of collapse, and they pulled everyone away from it. The news channels would have been informed of the situation - CNN stated the ambiguity of what they'd heard, but BBC misreported it.

This, incidentally, is consistent with Silverstein's version of events, in his gleefully misinterpreted "pull" statement.

Diogenes

So Glad wrote:

I can answer all 4 questions: With This Video

Oh look another video.

So Glad. I understand media isn't perfect and occasionally works off an agenda.

However you cannot prove that this means that members of the BBC were lied or made report on material that was feed to them by their NWO handlers.

Nick_oliveri

About the whole media thing. We choose what to watch and we should draw our own conclusions but sometimes we choose to believe everything they tell us.

Now i dont believe the media is manipulated over absolutley (no spell check on IE7!!) every single story, obviously some stations have a certain amount of bias.

This NWO thing is getting a bit out of hand, like, those who choose to look at independant news sources are not sheep. If there was a large amount of control i doubt it would involve some guy controlling every story in every agency.

You must realise how those words "New World Order" are paranoia in themselves.

And yes, i do think that skys aquision of (shares?) or part of UTV isn't in the interest of everyone. Massive media buyouts are teh ghey. And people with certain ideologys, ie Murdoch shouldnt vomit their political bias all over every thing that they are in control of.

And i like the BBC, RTE and especially Channel 4 news. They do a deadly job.

The whole web2.0 thing, with sites like google video, digg and youtube being selective about whatever videos they keep, is more than likey in the interest of keeping their servers up and running without people insulting each other in the comments section on whatever 9/11 conspirasaw video.

i dont condone googles use of the remove button, but fúck them, you can always catch the latest written word or even, video, somewhere else.

I read information liberation all the time, around twice a day. And i do not believe everything they tell me and i think (know) that most stories are sprinkled with a dash of paranoia.

You cant let preachers like alex jones and rupert murdoch tell you what to think. Make up your own mind. And dont use thier overused paranoia words like NWO, impending terror threat and muslim extremists!

Diogenes

Nick, I find it ironic that So Glad will link to a documentary like Outfoxed as proof the NWO control the media.

If anyone had as much control over the media as jessop and So Glad think it is, could a documentary like Outfoxed be made, never mind released.

Furthermore the problem is that too many media companies are controlled by too few people, is a real concern. However to take this and make the leap that individuals could control specific media stories. Plant information, suppress information, stop journalists from talking to each other.

Nick_oliveri

I was under the impression that the film was shown through independant channels. I only came across the film on shoutcast video (streaming through me xbox). I could be wrong though.

Heres a quote in relation to the film lol.

Eric Shawn, FOX News Reporter wrote:

"It's unfair, it's slanted and it's a hit job. And I haven't even seen it yet."

An example of US ignorance is the casualty and death list from iraq. We know how many soldiers, they wont tell us how many civilians. One could only conclude that soldiers>Iraqi people. BUT, an independant report on the civilian deaths made it onto the mainstream media, and was immediatly denied.

This is a small example of US control/manipulation. Obviously, this paranoia about the NWO uber control, is unfounded.

Diogenes

Nick_oliveri wrote:

I was under the impression that the film was shown through independant channels. I only came across the film on shoutcast video (streaming through me xbox). I could be wrong though.

It's been shown on channel 4 as well. Hell my local videostore has a copy of it on its shelves. At one point it was the top seller on Amazon.com

Heres a quote in relation to the film lol.



An example of US ignorance is the casualty and death list from iraq. We know how many soldiers, they wont tell us how many civilians. One could only conclude that soldiers>Iraqi people. BUT, an independant report on the civilian deaths made it onto the mainstream media, and was immediatly denied.

This is a small example of US control/manipulation. Obviously, this paranoia about the NWO uber control, is unfounded.

The problem is the film is focused entirely on fox news, who's bias and slant is obvious to anyone who has a pair of eyes and a remote control. The flaw in So Glad's logic is to apply the model of fox news to any and all media stations. Secondly, as bonkey pointed out, if whistle blowers came forward, it clearly demostrations that jessop1's claims that the NWO could get away with it. Fox's slant, bias and abuse are exposed in Outfoxed, so how do the NWO pull off their media manipulation?

nacho libre

Diogenes wrote:

It's been shown on channel 4 as well. Hell my local videostore has a copy of it on its shelves. At one point it was the top seller on Amazon.com




The problem is the film is focused entirely on fox news, who's bias and slant is obvious to anyone who has a pair of eyes and a remote control. The flaw in So Glad's logic is to apply the model of fox news to any and all media stations. Secondly, as bonkey pointed out, if whistle blowers came forward, it clearly demostrations that jessop1's claims that the NWO could get away with it. Fox's slant, bias and abuse are exposed in Outfoxed, so how do the NWO pull off their media manipulation?

They screen people before recruiting them and only pick only those who are deemed reliable and patriotic as well as competent to perform the critical role they are assigned to.

Like the retired senior MI5 officer who was interviewed for a BBC programme about MI5 action against trade unionists in the the 1970's.
He said he didn't regret anything he did as it was his job and for the good of the state.
So, with this mind if you recruit such people and plant them in various professions they are unlikely to leak information...

Diogenes

nacho libre wrote:

They screen people before recruiting them and only pick only those who are deemed reliable and patriotic as well as competent to perform the critical role they are assigned to.

Like the retired senior MI5 officer who was interviewed for a BBC programme about MI5 action against trade unionists in the the 1970's.
He said he didn't regret anything he did as it was his job and for the good of the state.
So, with this mind if you recruit such people and plant them in various professions they are unlikely to leak information...

The flaw with that claim is well, I freelance working in news. I work for CNN, Al Jazeera, Sky, BBC, ITN, Bloomberg, and Reuteurs. The recruiting process is less than rigourous, and on any given month I can work in anything up to four agencies.

Now heres the thing, my position is minor, yet I am privy to half a dozen stories that no news agency in their right mind would publish or transmit. Hell in fact I've been in situations where I am a primary source of stories that involve the resignation of a senior member of the British Cabinet. And another which involves the death of a foreign national in the UK, in suspicious circumstances, and a claim he made before he died, involving a serving head of state, and football club owner who's team just won some silverware.

My point is, when I moved from news agency to news agency these stories were already ahead of me. Journalists and people in the media are by nature gossipmongers. Involving the media in 911 and expecting them to keep quiet about a massive news story is impossible.

News making is a colaberative effort, particularly tv news. The number of people involved makes such a conspiracy implausible. Consider the handful of people involved in Watergate. And how easy that conspiracy fell apart. Now look at 911. The media? The controlled demolition teams. The FAA staff. The security at the WTC. Theres thousands of people needed to be involved in such a conspiracy. How do you keep them all quiet?

Danuogma

Diogenes wrote:

The flaw with that claim is well, I freelance working in news. I work for CNN, Al Jazeera, Sky, BBC, ITN, Bloomberg, and Reuteurs. QUOTE]


You sure spread yourself around.:rolleyes:

Nick_oliveri

BBC Respond again.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/03/part_of_the_conspiracy_2.html

There is no story

I would also point out that the image's rollover on the blog says "An image of the Website hosting the alleged BBC World footage" (emphasis added)

Do they think its faked? Alleged is a funny word to be using.

Edit: Screenshot

jessop1

Diogenes wrote:

The flaw with that claim is well, I freelance working in news. I work for CNN, Al Jazeera, Sky, BBC, ITN, Bloomberg, and Reuteurs. The recruiting process is less than rigourous, and on any given month I can work in anything up to four agencies.

Now heres the thing, my position is minor, yet I am privy to half a dozen stories that no news agency in their right mind would publish or transmit. Hell in fact I've been in situations where I am a primary source of stories that involve the resignation of a senior member of the British Cabinet. And another which involves the death of a foreign national in the UK, in suspicious circumstances, and a claim he made before he died, involving a serving head of state, and football club owner who's team just won some silverware.

My point is, when I moved from news agency to news agency these stories were already ahead of me. Journalists and people in the media are by nature gossipmongers. Involving the media in 911 and expecting them to keep quiet about a massive news story is impossible.

News making is a colaberative effort, particularly tv news. The number of people involved makes such a conspiracy implausible. Consider the handful of people involved in Watergate. And how easy that conspiracy fell apart. Now look at 911. The media? The controlled demolition teams. The FAA staff. The security at the WTC. Theres thousands of people needed to be involved in such a conspiracy. How do you keep them all quiet?

LOL Diogenes, I could have saved myself a rake of typing if I'd known I could let you just talk on and expose the fallacy and contradiction of your own argument! On the one hand a conspiracy is implausible because too many people would know about it, yet a minor media worker like you (and presumably there are thousands or tens of thousands of minor workers like you in the media) is privvy to stories and information that you are not telling us and no news agency would transmit.

And I dont doubt there are many media workers who wont spill info, its hard to blame them.. would you piss tony soprano or his ilk off? now transpose that up to literally the most powerful criminal organisation in the world and its easy to see why no news agency would publish certain stories and why so many media workers would remain silent.

Ever wonder why you see the exact same few news stories being parrotted on all the news stations on any given day? with so much going on in the world and such indepence you'd think we might have some variation across the various news agencies... why dont we hear about depleted uranium babies in iraq or the true extent and horror of whats going on in lebanon and gaza for example? .. you can find these stories and the supporting evidence through alternative media sources mainly online, but theres no way your employers in their right minds would transmit any of those stories to the mainstream audience is there?..as someone so au fait with how the media works dont you find any of this even a little bit strange?

oleras

jessop1 wrote:

tony soprano......

You do realise he is a fictional character ? Hmmmmmm fiction/reality.....all coming together now.......... :rolleyes:

Nick_oliveri

oleras wrote:

You do realise he is a fictional character ? Hmmmmmm fiction/reality.....all coming together now.......... :rolleyes:

Wow, nice contribution. LOL

oleras

Nick_oliveri wrote:

Wow, nice contribution. LOL

Why thank you kind sir......*takes a bow*

dgosul

ole back to work

Diogenes

jessop1 wrote:

LOL Diogenes, I could have saved myself a rake of typing if I'd known I could let you just talk on and expose the fallacy and contradiction of your own argument! On the one hand a conspiracy is implausible because too many people would know about it, yet a minor media worker like you (and presumably there are thousands or tens of thousands of minor workers like you in the media) is privvy to stories and information that you are not telling us and no news agency would transmit.

Actually jessop1 I was being disgenious. Both stories have despite the restrictions and reporting of them made it into the mainstream media, in a manner of speaking.

The first story has to do with Litvinenko, and Putin. The Observer got around the potential libel issues by quoting a third hand source;

Some of his emails were confidential documents from the FSB, the successor to the KGB; others were his own writings for the Chechen press. Many of his 'political' texts were too obviously rants to take seriously: one of his wildest claims was that Putin was a paedophile.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1962762,00.html

The second one has to do with the resignation of a British Minister. And an ongoing trial. Quite rightly there are restrictions on reporting on the previous convictions of someone while they are on trial, or awaiting trial. However once the trial is over, this information will be in the public domain.

Furthermore you don't think we share these stories with our friends? Our family? Christ I've been entertaining people over pints with that Litvinenko story for months.(I've steered well clear of sushi bars though.)

Do you really think a massive criminal conspiracy that included the media would work?

And I dont doubt there are many media workers who wont spill info, its hard to blame them.. would you piss tony soprano or his ilk off? now transpose that up to literally the most powerful criminal organisation in the world and its easy to see why no news agency would publish certain stories and why so many media workers would remain silent.

Any evidence to back that up? Or are you going to get around to telling us whom in the media work for the NWO. And at what level?

Ever wonder why you see the exact same few news stories being parrotted on all the news stations on any given day? with so much going on in the world and such indepence you'd think we might have some variation across the various news agencies...

Gosh and here was me thinking it was that BBC, ITN, CNN, and well all news stations use Reuters and APTN pictures, and print media use their wire feeds. Hence you'll see the same stories popping up.

or the true extent and horror of whats going on in lebanon and gaza for example? .. you can find these stories and the supporting evidence through alternative media sources mainly online, but theres no way your employers in their right minds would transmit any of those stories to the mainstream audience is there?..as someone so au fait with how the media works dont you find any of this even a little bit strange?

I'm genuinely staggered by this. Do you want me to go dig out all Robert Fisk's Lebannon and Gaza material that regularly gets printed up in our most right wing paper the Independent? Or the death of James Millar the ITN camerman killed in Gaza and the exceptional documentary they made about his death?

As to the depleted uranium, surely you can show me a article from the Lancet or another repuitable medical journal to support the claim. I'm actually interested in this.

nacho libre

Diogenes wrote:

The flaw with that claim is well, I freelance working in news. I work for CNN, Al Jazeera, Sky, BBC, ITN, Bloomberg, and Reuteurs. The recruiting process is less than rigourous, and on any given month I can work in anything up to four agencies.

Now heres the thing, my position is minor, yet I am privy to half a dozen stories that no news agency in their right mind would publish or transmit. Hell in fact I've been in situations where I am a primary source of stories that involve the resignation of a senior member of the British Cabinet. And another which involves the death of a foreign national in the UK, in suspicious circumstances, and a claim he made before he died, involving a serving head of state, and football club owner who's team just won some silverware.

My point is, when I moved from news agency to news agency these stories were already ahead of me. Journalists and people in the media are by nature gossipmongers. Involving the media in 911 and expecting them to keep quiet about a massive news story is impossible.

News making is a colaberative effort, particularly tv news. The number of people involved makes such a conspiracy implausible. Consider the handful of people involved in Watergate. And how easy that conspiracy fell apart. Now look at 911. The media? The controlled demolition teams. The FAA staff. The security at the WTC. Theres thousands of people needed to be involved in such a conspiracy. How do you keep them all quiet?

I was trying to get across that intelligence agencies employ people in various professions as a front and these people often carry out covert operations sucessfully.
For every scandal that is exposed i'd wager there is plenty of surreptitious incidents- be they minor or major- that never enter into the public domain. If you accept this to be true, why do you think that is?
As for 9/11, I actually agree with you about it not being orchestrated by the U.S Goverment. It would be too hard to pull off as the numbers involved would be far too big. How could you ensure everyones loyalty and secrecy? So, with that in mind a stronger argument can be made for a small cabal of people getting word in advance what was going to happen.
This way it would be easier to maintain secrecy if only a trusted select few knew. The beauty of this is it is impossible to prove thus easy to discredit anyone who posits this view.
My reasoning for thinking it was possibly allowed to happen are twofold: if a Government has no compunction about lying over Weapons of Mass destruction in Iraq which has led to many U.S. deaths. I don't see how they would have any qualms over thousands of its own citizens dying to advance the foreign policy goals of the neo-cons. I don't think the dead notice the difference role they ocupied in life. This is assuming you accept they willfully conspired to lie over WMD as a pretext to invading that country for another reason. Also bear in mind Operation Northwood.
This shows govermental agencies have contemplated flagitious deeds in the past.
Also, didn't the PNAC document call for a "cataclysmic event to occur to unite American Citizens behind their government."
A further questions is: Have any of the aims epoused in this document been realised in the last six years?
Secondly, with the warnings the FBI and CIA got before hand, and bearing in mind the sheer scale of this plot, i find it hard to believe the way friendly intelligence agencies, throughout the world, share information this plot wasn't uncovered.
Also the warnings came too late and were vague. They had seven years to learn after the car bombing of the WTC in 1993. Also, they were told Al- Qaeda were planning something in America a few months before hand. Shouldn't that have set off alarm bells?
I know the likely rebuttal will be intelligence agencies make mistakes and that in particular U.S agencies had poor lines of communication between each
other prior to 2001.
Yours and Oscar Bravo's task on this board is easy. As i can't prove any of this. My aim in this post is to convey Governments conspire and sometimes sanction nefarious deeds with a view to blaming others.
I thnk you will accept that the "Lavon affair" is an example of this.
Had the Israeli intelligence service being successful you might be on here debunking my claims over this incident being a black op. So, to conclude the absence of concrete proof does not always mean a conspiracy never took place, it just means the conspirators were efficient- they left no paper trail.

Diogenes

nacho libre wrote:

I was trying to get across that intelligence agencies employ people in various professions as a front and these people often carry out covert operations sucessfully.

If they are so covert how do you know they were successful?

Put simply what evidence do you have that intelligence agencies are running around carrying out loads of successful covert operations?

Most often when we hear about covert operations its because they've botched or bungled them, and gives insight into the incompetence, and bureaucracy of these intelligence agencies.

For every scandal that is exposed i'd wager there is plenty of surreptitious incidents- be they minor or major- that never enter into the public domain. If you accept this to be true, why do you think that is?

Why do I think what is?

I'm not arrogant enough to assume that I know whats going on all over the world. However seeing as you're betting I suggest that you don't really have any evidence that these incidents are taking place, be the minor or major, you're guessing.

So, with that in mind a stronger argument can be made for a small cabal of people getting word in advance what was going to happen.

LIHOP theory. It's certainly a more plausible theory than MIHOP. And crucially more difficult to disprove.

This way it would be easier to maintain secrecy if only a trusted select few knew. The beauty of this is it is impossible to prove thus easy to discredit anyone who posits this view.

The most basic answer to that is, if they knew it was going to happen, do you not think they'd have reacted better on the day? Bush sitting reading my pet goat, and then running and hiding. With no coherent words? No one thought anyone would ask the President, so maybe they'd prepare a few words? Better than "We're going to git these folks?" Or how about some evidence linking Saddam to Afghanistan being planted before it

My reasoning for thinking it was possibly allowed to happen are twofold: if a Government has no compunction about lying over Weapons of Mass destruction in Iraq which has led to many U.S. deaths. I don't see how they would have any qualms over thousands of its own citizens dying to advance the foreign policy goals of the neo-cons. I don't think the dead notice the difference role they occupied in life. This is assuming you accept they willfully conspired to lie over WMD as a pretext to invading that country for another reason.

Theres a world of difference between sitting back allowing thousands of your countrymen to be murdered, and fudging the reason for going to war.

Also bear in mind Operation Northwood.
This shows govermental agencies have contemplated flagitious deeds in the past.

I'm sorry what does a forty year old plan, have to do with the motivation and actions of the current administration? A plan that didn't involve killing anyone. A plan that was rejected out of hand, and the person who came up with fired.

And yet this is often brought up as the smoking gun for the conspiracy theorists.

I cannot understand the rationality of the logic that Northwoods proves the Bush administration was willing to commit false flags. The Kennedy Administration isn't the Bush administration. By this rational I could happily take any other piece of legislation or government policy from this era claim its the policy of the current administration! Is Condeliza Rice pro segregation? Does the current administration favour the investigation of it's citizens for communist sympathisers?

Also, didn't the PNAC document call for a "cataclysmic event to occur to unite American Citizens behind their government."

NO. IT. DID. NOT.

PNAC wrote:

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor".

Lets look at the head of the chapter this is taken from.

PNAC wrote:

"To preserve American military preeminence in the coming decades, the Department of Defense must move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in military affairs. Information technologies,in particular, are becoming more prevalent and significant components of modern military systems. These information technologies are having the same kind of transforming effects on military affairs as they are having in the larger world. The effects of this military transformation will have profound implications for how wars are fought, what kinds of weapons will dominate the battlefield and, inevitably, which nations enjoy military preeminence".

They're discussing the potential to transform the way the army use information technology, hard line a blueprint for a new pearl harbour. All they are saying is this process is taking too long and unless the problems are made apparent by attack which somehow exposes their technical failings.

Now would using box cutters to crash planes into buildings be described as a highly technical attack? If anything it was remarkable primitive.

A further questions is: Have any of the aims epoused in this document been realised in the last six years?

I don't know but I would suggest you read it, before you consider it the blueprint for the LIHOP theory.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/publicationsreports.htm

Secondly, with the warnings the FBI and CIA got before hand, and bearing in mind the sheer scale of this plot, i find it hard to believe the way friendly intelligence agencies, throughout the world, share information this plot wasn't uncovered.

I think you're exaggerating the effectivness of inter agency communication.

Also the warnings came too late and were vague. They had seven years to learn after the car bombing of the WTC in 1993. Also, they were told Al- Qaeda were planning something in America a few months before hand. Shouldn't that have set off alarm bells?

They did learn. They did beef up security. They stopped other plots. But as the IRA were fond of saying "You need to be lucky all the time, we need to be lucky once". There were reports of biological attacks, attacks on water supplies.

It's very easy to sit here in 2007 and say "They should have seen it coming". You have the benefit of hindsight.

I know the likely rebuttal will be intelligence agencies make mistakes and that in particular U.S agencies had poor lines of communication between each other prior to 2001.

I'm confused a few posts ago you were pointing out how effect international intelligence agencies are at communicating together, now you're admitting that even inter agency communications between US intelligence was poor. Which is it?

Yours and Oscar Bravo's task on this board is easy. As i can't prove any of this. My aim in this post is to convey Governments conspire and sometimes sanction nefarious deeds with a view to blaming others.
I thnk you will accept that the "Lavon affair" is an example of this.

Again how can you consider an event from 50 years ago, from an entirely different government in part of the world with radically different problems that the US face, as proof "All Governments commit nefarious deeds". It's a bit like claiming because Pinochet had death squads all governments have death squads. The logic is absurd.

Had the Israeli intelligence service being successful you might be on here debunking my claims over this incident being a black op. So, to conclude the absence of concrete proof does not always mean a conspiracy never took place, it just means the conspirators were efficient- they left no paper trail.

Absence of proof is not proof. Again I sincerely hope you have little to do with our legal system

jessop1

=

Quote from the debunkers bible wrote:

Use "smoke and mirrors," i.e., obfuscation and illusion. Never forget that a slippery mixture of fact, opinion, innuendo, out-of-context information and outright lies will fool most of the people most of the time. As little as one part fact to ten parts B.S. will usually do the trick. (Some veteran debunkers use homeopathic dilutions of fact with remarkable success!) Cultivate the art of slipping back and forth between fact and fiction so undetectably that the flimsiest foundation of truth will always appear to firmly support your entire edifice of opinion.

in practice.

see:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055060048

Definately one of the more stealthy debunker tactics...

jessop1

Diogenes wrote:

Actually jessop1 I was being disgenious.

No need to tell me that, it shines through in everything you write on this forum.

Diogenes wrote:

Furthermore you don't think we share these stories with our friends? Our family? Christ I've been entertaining people over pints with that Litvinenko story for months.(I've steered well clear of sushi bars though.)

Are you willing to publish these stories and details online with your name against them? If not, why not? Fear of reproach legal or otherwise? And you expect us to believe journalists aren’t afraid to expose the most powerful and barbaric criminals in the world???

Diogenes wrote:

Do you really think a massive criminal conspiracy that included the media would work?

Absolutely. Through a combination of outright power at the top of the pyramid, compartmentalised knowledge and control through fear, of course its feasible.

Diogenes wrote:

Any evidence to back that up? Or are you going to get around to telling us whom in the media work for the NWO. And at what level?

You are being disingenuous again. (you never stopped actually). You are using a number of dirty debunker tactics here. Ridiculing the very idea for a start. Plus these:

tactic from the debunkers bible (see my thread on this) wrote:

> If sufficient evidence has been presented to warrant further investigation of an unusual phenomenon, argue that "evidence alone proves nothing!" Ignore the fact that preliminary evidence is not supposed to prove *any*thing.
<> In any case, imply that proof precedes evidence. This will eliminate the possibility of initiating any meaningful process of investigation--particularly if no criteria of proof have yet been established for the phenomenon in question.

Folks, this is exactly what Diogenes is doing here. There is plenty that warrants further investigation but Diogenes is disingenuously trying to ridicule the who topic into silence by implying that if I don’t have enough proof to prosecute the perpetrators in a court of law then the whole thing is ridiculous BS not worth discussing. I see what you are at Diogenes, very dirty tactics as usual.

Diogenes wrote:

Gosh and here was me thinking it was that BBC, ITN, CNN, and well all news stations use Reuters and APTN pictures, and print media use their wire feeds. Hence you'll see the same stories popping up.

Smoke and mirrors, disingenuous again. So who is responsible for what goes on the wire feeds and how come all the major stations all pick the same stories from the wire feeds??? I’m presuming there are more than 6 – 8 stories on a wire feed on any given day…

Diogenes wrote:

I'm genuinely staggered by this. Do you want me to go dig out all Robert Fisk's Lebannon and Gaza material that regularly gets printed up in our most right wing paper the Independent? Or the death of James Millar the ITN camerman killed in Gaza and the exceptional documentary they made about his death?
As to the depleted uranium, surely you can show me a article from the Lancet or another repuitable medical journal to support the claim. I'm actually interested in this.

Why hasn’t any of this info been splashed all over the evening news? Why isn’t everyone and sudry as aware of this as they are of the name litvinenko or abramovich or whatever? Even if some of this gets published in some mainstream journals or high brow papers, unless its shown repeatedly on the evening news, most people remain unaware of the true extent of whats going on. Those who control the media know this. You know this. This is how I know you are being terribly disingenuous.

Lebanon:
http://www.uruknet.info/?s1=55&p=24885&s2=21
http://fromisraeltolebanon.info/ (site down at the moment)
Look at these if you want to see the real horror of what the N.W.O. does. Be warned These are not for the faint hearted.

Also, here are some links showing the real Lebanon. The n.w.o. don’t want people to have this perception of the country… much easier to get away with mass murder if people think it’s a barbaric and backward terrorist hell hole. Isnt this the impression most people have of Lebanon?:
http://www.kahlil.org/lebanonpics.html
[link to www.kahlil.org]
[link to www.lgic.org]
[link to www.lgic.org]
[link to www.lgic.org]
[link to www.lgic.org]
[link to www.lgic.org]
[link to www.lgic.org]

They don’t look too much different to us do they? That’s not what the n.w.o. and its shills want us to think though…




Depleted Uranium:
<link removed>
(warning, very very graphic, honest truth seekers, this will break your heart.)

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=8218

Oh, and its on its way here as we speak.

http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2006/DU-Europe-Moret26feb06.htm

Diogenes I await your sick attempts to explain this away by saying some poxy establishment medical journal hasn’t researched it or some such vile derision.

The reality of d.u. and the true extent of its horror is being kept from the western world population. We have the n.w.o and all of its repugnant shills in the media to thank for that.