Email address for the BBC in case you want to drop them an email about any stories.

[StrictlyRockers]

Take action on recent stories and request that the BBC explain themselves. How are they able to make magic premonitions about future events?

You can email them here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/help/3281777.stm

SR

[meegbear]

1. Pssst ...

what are you talking about?

[greyl]

2. He's talking about the latest 9/11 conspiracy lunacy.

He believes all live news broadcasts are error free, I guess.

[razors edge]

4. Think maybe they could

error me the lotto numbers like that?

[jberryhill]

9. Sure... as long as...

I'll tell you what.

If several news organizations report for several hours "the lotto numbers today are in danger of being NNNNNNN", and if CNN reports "there are reports that the lotto numbers are going to be NNNNN", then by the time the BBC gets around to mis-reporting the same story, go bet those numbers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1LetB0z8_o

[razors edge]

43. What?

Then just explain how they "Pulled" it with only hours to set the demo.

If you don't believe they "Pulled it then explain how they new that it would come down, and don't forget to address the fact that steel reinforced buildings had only fallen from fire twice before, that same day.

I guess NORAD was too busy crunching data on collapse time of #7 IF it were to be hit by another building to stop the planes in the first place.:sarcasm:

#7 was of a completely different design and there would be no precedent to base the idea of collapse on to begin with.

[Twist_U_Up]

61. Everybody knows that "pull it" is a super secret code

for let's get those people that are screaming 'it's about to blow up' away from the building because my psychic intuition informs me that the building's supports may just spontaneously collapse in a completely unexplainable freak accident that denies the laws of physics and has nothing whatsoever to do with the explosions the people inside are yelling about

[razors edge]

64. Now it all makes sense. n/t

[The Lone Groover]

36. The BBC are quite deceitful when it comes to live TV.

They've been in trouble for it this week.
Big news in the UK.
Programs transmitted as "Live" with phone-ins and they were actually recorded a week earlier.

Who said you can trust the Beeb?

They are lying bar-stewards.

[JohnyCanuck]

3. Go here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=125 and follow the threads on the WTC 7 building collapse as reported on by the BBC on 9/11.

[WiseButAngrySara]

5. Please let's not get this locked again !!!11!!!11 ....n/t

[WiseButAngrySara]

6. Thanks for the addie. Any more info on the possibility that

the video was photoshopped?

[StrictlyRockers]

7. It wasn't photoshopped. It is legitimate. You can download an archive copy of the original.

Check it for yourself.

Sr

[WiseButAngrySara]

12. I viewed it last night. ....n/t

[jberryhill]

8. No, it's the actual live video

CNN had been reporting since 4:15 that WTC 7 was in danger of collapse.

The BBC reporter apparently wasn't familiar with the buildings, and reported WTC 7 as having collapsed.

The area had been evacuated for hours in anticipation of collapse.

Here's CNN at 4:15 Eastern, according to Aaron Brown, on the expectation that WTC 7 was going to collapse:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1LetB0z8_o

[Bolo Boffin]

10. It really is the biggest tempest in a teapot that the CTers have come up with...

...in a while, isn't it?

Well, since they released that "smoking gun" video that shot itself in the foot, I mean.

[BuyingThyme]

17. What is the "smoking gun" video?

[Bolo Boffin]

22. I imagine you have access to Google.

You even have a star, so you can search DU.

The incredible, self-debunking video is the Pentacon. One of the most precisely filmed cases of incestuous amplification I've ever seen.

[BuyingThyme]

25. I suspect there are lots of videos called "smoking gun" videos.

And wasn't this "smoking gun" video released by the government?

And didn't the government and media promote this video as proof that a plane hit the Pentagon?

And didn't the release of the video do just the opposite?

And, if so, what does that suggest to you?

Does it suggest that somebody wanted to take attention from more important (real) issues, clouding the debate with nonsense, perhaps to belittle all legitimate debate about the official story?

[Bolo Boffin]

31. My goodness, how you do rattle on. n/t

[BuyingThyme]

42. You brought it up. I guess that was inconvenient for you.

Sorry I made you do it. Sorry you had to explain that stuff about a commonly known '"smoking gun" video' that is not commonly known at all.

[Contrite]

45. Interesting that you would use a DOD term

"incestuous amplification"

[Bolo Boffin]

46. I got it from here:

http://www.prwatch.org/tbwe/index.html

They must have gotten it from the Pentagon.

[Contrite]

48. Doesn't the book explain the origin? n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

49. In rewatching the YouTube embedded in that site, I saw that they got it from the military.

So?

[Contrite]

50. "Just asking questions".

Sorry if you saw "sinister implications".

[Bolo Boffin]

52. You were making a sinister implication by noting that term I used had a DOD origin.

What was it? Stop the implications and state what you think openly.

[Contrite]

53. As I said, I was wondering why you used a DOD term.

Apparently you came across it in the book you cited, found it interesting and decided to introduce it into your lexicon. My husband does that a lot. I can always tell when he's been reading "The New Yorker" because he starts using some rather obscure term or word that he is sometimes even unable to pronounce. He uses it to improve his vocabulary. I have an ear for it because I used to be a journalist. Edited to add: sometimes the phrases or words he adopts sound terrifically out of context because he is unaware of their origins. I merely wondered if you had come across the term because of having been in the military or having read it somewhere.

[Bolo Boffin]

54. But WHY do you think my using a DOD is worth wondering about?

Hm?

[Contrite]

55. Go back up and read my last sentence. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

56. I've not been in the military. Ever.

Do you find I'm using the term in a way that does violence to its meaning?

[Contrite]

57. No, I don't think you did violence to its meaning at all.

My only problem with it is that it is a term describing a technique used in "propaganda" or "group polarization". I don't think the people who put together the video are necessarily engaging in "incestuous amplification" because they have a premise they are trying to prove. I don't think it is fair to imply that they are not able to accept other data that doesn't fit that premise or that they haven't considered all the facts as we know them in presenting it. I think some people in the 9/11 truth community do try to "fit the facts to the policy" (as it were) but not all. I also think it is perfectly acceptable that many of them reject official explanations in light of the fact that we have been provably lied to about many vital issues--and that the "administration" and its puppet media have demonstrably engaged in "incestuous amplification" repeatedly.

[WiseButAngrySara]

11. So it was just a big mistake? ....n/t

[jberryhill]

13. It looks that way to me

Every news organization was running wall-to-wall that day, and there were all sorts of reports of things that happened, didn't happen, were believed to have happened, etc.

Over at the State Deparatment, people were looking out of the windows for the car bomb that was reported to have gone off.

Reports of instability at WTC 7 were widely spread by mid-afternoon. Watching the BBC video, you'll notice that it's the guy in London, thousands of miles away, who states it "has collapsed". Presumably if he got one of the "is collapsing" reports, then there doesn't seem to be much of a mystery here.

But some people treat news reports as if it were holy scripture of some kind, rather than ordinary people doing their jobs.

[truthpowertruth]

14. I'm glad you guys have your spin together today.

You guys were all disoriented yesterday, lol.

[Bolo Boffin]

16. Provide your evidence that we were "all disoriented" yesterday.

Now would be good.

[truthpowertruth]

18. I would, but you're a waste of time.

[Bolo Boffin]

21. I'll consider that a retraction. n/t

[truthpowertruth]

23. You're right. You win. I lose. HAHA FUN GAME.

Why are you here again?

[Bolo Boffin]

33. Game? Is somebody keeping score?

I am here because I'm a lifelong Democrat, and I don't want to see a strong organizing tool for Democrats get dragged off into the crazy lala land of 9/11 CT. I'd prefer this place be used to help elect Democratic candidates to offices around the country.

Why are you here?

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

24. total waste of time

obviously, some of these ppl have no life; there is no other way to explain the 24/7 obsession w/ "debunking" conspiracy theories..

just point and laugh
:toast:

[Twist_U_Up]

29. It didnt take you long to figure that out

now did it ?
He is the Master of

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jberryhill]

26. Who is "you guys"?

I was feeling fine yesterday, and feel fine today.

I take it that I am part of some conspiracy in your mind? I'm a member of some secret cabal suppressing the truth about 9/11?

Sorry pal, just an individual here. I post under my real name, so it's not as if I'm here masquerading under some false identity.

[LARED]

19. It really is amazing

I am involved with a organization that occasionally makes the local newspaper. I am astounded at how many times simple information from say a Borough Council meeting is misrepresented in the paper. It's a small community and I sit within ten feet of the local reporter, so he is getting the same info I am. He just screws it up on a regular basis.

To expect that this BBC issue is anything more than a simple miscommunication is idiotic. Someone during that video was watching a monitor that showed WTC 7 while broadcasting that it had collapsed.

[truthpowertruth]

20. Nothing to see here folks...

GO AWAY!! STOP LOOKING!!

[LARED]

27. Look til your eyes bleed

nothing will come of this story, because nothing is there.

[truthpowertruth]

28. Yea, just a nothing story..

So nothing that the BBC felt the need to explain themselves just one day after CRAZY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS make CRAZY CONSPIRACY THEORIES on the internets!

That sort of behavior from the BBC seems to go against your theory here...

Nothing to see here, folks. Just go away. We'll take care of you. Go watch Britney's shaved head you little rascal you.

[Twist_U_Up]

30. Just another of those Coinkydinks ay Lared ?

My personal favorite part is where the solemn studio anchor in London states that WTC 7 "was apparently weakened by the fire", and then goes on to ask whether there have been "calls in America for revenge....yet."

[LARED]

35. Tell you what,

Enjoy yourself basting in the glow of an apparent victory for truth, while I'll sit back and wait for something other than normal mis-communications on a confusing day to be shown as false.

I suspect your victory lap will be short and frustrating, while I know this story will never bear fruit.

Enjoy your day.

[razors edge]

65. I prefer a butter and

cinnamon baste, makes for a better glow, similar to the glowing inconsistencies in the official conspiracy theory. (TM Copyright 2001 * admin)

Or the glow of the molten steel excavated from ground zero weeks afterwards.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html

I'll leave the driving in circles to the people who think debunking a single piece of evidence is accomplished with simple, could have been the tooth fair explanations, and consider that proof all the mountains of evidence that go hand in glove with the new evidence must now be thrown out as well.

The only fruit this little piece of evidence would produce to begin with is a mere cherry on top of a pile of cherries, on top of a mountain of cherries that top the lie of the century. But do be sure to try to kick this one away from the pile, it is drawing way to much attention away from the others.

[RedSock]

15. local stations in new york were saying that too

I was watching NY1 all afternoon and there were many discussions about two or three additional building in danger of collapse.

[Bryan Sacks]

32. Any that said that WTC 7 had collapsed before it did? n/t

[jberryhill]

40. Yes

If you take a look at the link to the CNN video upstream in the thread to which you are replying, you'll see that the reports of the condition of WTC 7 varied, and Aaron Brown looks out of the window to check.

[Bryan Sacks]

41. Thanks. I will n/t

[greyl]

51. Will Bryan Sacks distinguish himself from the rest of the herd by being

the first so-called CTist to speak up about how stupid CTists are being about this story?

Stay tuned.

[Twist_U_Up]

34. Moon bats ate the original tapes.

[The Lone Groover]

37. No one could have imagined...

...that the BBC would lose the tapes.

[CJCRANE]

38. Comment/complain/question here -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/make_complaint_step1.shtml

Preferably about the "Conspiracy Files 9/11" documentary.

[vincent_vega_lives]

44. I thanked them for contributing to another conspiracy theory

With out the BBC you guys would be stuck chasing after dustificaiton of steel and conducting online crater analysis.

[StrictlyRockers]

47. ROFL

:rofl:

The internets are hilarious. I am not referring to anyone here.

The BONKERS DEBUNKERS on the internets sure are in a tizzy about how the truth is catching up with them. This time they have to start getting REAL creative with their excuses. I like all this creativity.

This is how we reach the truth, by debating these wack job theories they come up with, like the blue/green screen theory, the GMT EST ESD IST MET time theory, or the theory that it happened after the fact before it really happened. What other theories are they supporting? The "it was bound to fall sooner or later due to the severe fires on the south side" theory and the BBC had to get the scoop from CNN theory and the eight hours after the towers fell, how could anyone be expected to report a story accurately excuse.

YAYYY!!! Finally, some creative, open-minded thinking.

Let's hear it for the
BONKERS DEBUNKERS!

[vincent_vega_lives]

59. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad

I mean these are supposed to be the future leaders of the Democratic party?

What do you do for a living?

[The Lone Groover]

58. Why do you bother Vincent?

It's obvious what you're doing.

Instead of dustification and craters why not mention Bush foreknowledge, CIA/Hijacker connections, 9/11 Commission obstruction or any of the other subjects you habitually steer clear of?

[vincent_vega_lives]

60. Because they aren't ridiculous beyond comprehension

They are grey enough to offer some merit. People, unfortunately, are more interested in speculating on more 'concrete' if less understood phenomena leading to the crap we see here.

[Bryan Sacks]

62. That may be, but I think most find it far more interesting. . .

that when they do, a group of clearly intelligent (though snarky, overly credulous and apparently underemployed) debunkers follow them around like Lorenz' ducklings, hanging on their every word. Either you think you are doing God's work or, much more likely, the Democrats work.

You must understand by know that you cannot convince certain people of the foolishness of their actions, no matter how hard you try. Self-refuting theories, if that's what they are, don't need your constant debunking. I see as many comments from newcomers here wondering about the debunking posse as I do wondering about this or that bizarre theory.

[The Lone Groover]

63. "the debunking posse "

I like it.

They hunt in packs.