Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Babe Ruth

BBC in hot water

50 posts in this topic

http://tinyurl.com/d2janxo

Like most of the mainstream media, BBC has played along nicely in suppressing evidence surrounding the events of 11 September. Depending on the hearing goes, that suppression and misrepresentation may become quite public.

Once again, it appears the British system is a bit more open to truth than is the american system.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Over the last 16 months, BBC has been challenged strongly by individuals in the UK over two documentaries

oh, I bet they're well used to being challenged strongly by obsessive- er, individuals with particular axes to grind. I'm sure this happens many times a year over some issue or other.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the key word here is 'impartiality'.

true impartiality is impossible, because subjectively, you can never appease two sets of opposing viewpoints.

I often wonder how members of the Flat Earth Society feel, for instance, when presented with a globe.....

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What truth? Terrorist slammed planes into buildings, film at eleven.

Lots of confusion, lots of panic and a lot of things getting reported before all the facts were in due to everyone trying to scoop everyone else. It's no mystery.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh, I bet they're well used to being challenged strongly by obsessive- er, individuals with particular axes to grind. I'm sure this happens many times a year over some issue or other.

nice photo of the Tor by the way.....

:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What truth? Terrorist slammed planes into buildings, film at eleven.

Lots of confusion, lots of panic and a lot of things getting reported before all the facts were in due to everyone trying to scoop everyone else. It's no mystery.

I agree.

the truth is, is that four groups of people, hijacked four aircraft, and flew them into three buildings and one field, in a meticulously planned, carefully orchestrated attack.

occam's razor and all that.....

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree.

the truth is, is that four groups of people, hijacked four aircraft, and flew them into three buildings and one field, in a meticulously planned, carefully orchestrated attack.

occam's razor and all that.....

Intresting... So....

15 of the 19 were citizens of Saudi Arabia

(from wikipedia)

So we attacked Iraq and Afghanistan....

Occam's razor and all that..... :whistle:

Edited by Coffey
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://tinyurl.com/d2janxo

Like most of the mainstream media, BBC has played along nicely in suppressing evidence surrounding the events of 11 September. Depending on the hearing goes, that suppression and misrepresentation may become quite public.

Once again, it appears the British system is a bit more open to truth than is the american system.

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I look forward to hearing the result.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree.

the truth is, is that four groups of people, hijacked four aircraft, and flew them into three buildings and one field, in a meticulously planned, carefully orchestrated attack.

occam's razor and all that.....

Ditto

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Intresting... So....

(from wikipedia)

So we attacked Iraq and Afghanistan....

Occam's razor and all that..... :whistle:

nowhere in my post said george 'dubya' bush was of sound mind.....

:-)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nowhere in my post said george 'dubya' bush was of sound mind.....

:-)

That's where the Occam's Razor comes into full effect.

Why can't this be just limited to UFO's,ghosts and any unexplained phenomena.

Anything that needs burden of proof fits nicely into this.

For the record the events of 9/11 are still unexpained to this day.

Edited by Medium Brown
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the key word here is 'impartiality'.

true impartiality is impossible, because subjectively, you can never appease two sets of opposing viewpoints.

I often wonder how members of the Flat Earth Society feel, for instance, when presented with a globe.....

What you say is correct by all means--true impariality is impossible.

But what we are talking about in this case is a particular style of impartiality, one that suppresses or hides certain facts.

They certainly did not do "due diligence" in checking facts before they broadcast them. Is that misfeasance or malfeasance? :w00t:

True journalism requires that ALL facts be considered. It requires that ALL facts be considered before a final conclusion is reached.

Fake journalism starts with a conclusion, and then works backward by cherry-picking evidence. :td:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nowhere in my post said george 'dubya' bush was of sound mind.....

:-)

Haha, fair enough. :tu:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True journalism requires that ALL facts be considered. It requires that ALL facts be considered before a final conclusion is reached.

Fake journalism starts with a conclusion, and then works backward by cherry-picking evidence. :td:

they did.

they studied all the facts and came to the conclusion that there was no conspiracy, which they then reported.

or are you saying that their conclusions are in some way less valid than yours?

you have the right to an opinion, as do they, and you both equally have the right to express those opinions without, so it's hoped, reprisal, or is there some part of 'freedom of speech' that i'm misunderstanding?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record the events of 9/11 are still unexpained to this day.

what's to explain?

you fly a fully loaded 747 into a building, and it WILL fall down, I don't see any other explanation being necessary?

For the record the events of 9/11 are still unexpained to this day.

what's to explain?

you fly a fully loaded 747 into a building, and it WILL fall down, I don't see any other explanation being necessary?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what's to explain?

you fly a fully loaded 747 into a building, and it WILL fall down, I don't see any other explanation being necessary?

According to some, that's not enough, and you'd need Thermite demolition charges/directed energy weapons, tactical nuclear weapons, and pretty much anything you like, you name it ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to some, that's not enough, and you'd need Thermite demolition charges/directed energy weapons, tactical nuclear weapons, and pretty much anything you like, you name it ..

Well, we don't have any other test cases do we? Btw, no other steel skyscrapers have ever collapsed due to fire, so it is an unusual case that three fell in one day.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to some, that's not enough, and you'd need Thermite demolition charges/directed energy weapons, tactical nuclear weapons, and pretty much anything you like, you name it ..

a Death Star?

pleeeaaase can we use a death star? pleasepleasepleasepleasetplease!

:-)

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, we don't have any other test cases do we? Btw, no other steel skyscrapers have ever collapsed due to fire, so it is an unusual case that three fell in one day.

probably because no-one else would use the same bolted, modular construction methods on so large a building, but until someone else slams 500t of burning jetplane into a building at 300mph we'll never know, and I for one could wait whole lifetimes for it to never happen again.....

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to some, that's not enough, and you'd need Thermite demolition charges/directed energy weapons, tactical nuclear weapons, and pretty much anything you like, you name it ..

what's to explain?

you fly a fully loaded 747 into a building, and it WILL fall down, I don't see any other explanation being necessary?

They where 767's....

The twin towers where engineered to withstand a 707 being flown into them. (Tests conducted backed up this) If you look up a 707 there isn't much difference between the 707 and 767..

Edited by Sky Scanner
Removed pic due to bad language.
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

probably because no-one else would use the same bolted, modular construction methods on so large a building, but until someone else slams 500t of burning jetplane into a building at 300mph we'll never know, and I for one could wait whole lifetimes for it to never happen again.....

And WTC7 which was not hit by any plane? The official explaination is that it was so poorly designed it collapsed under its own weight durring a fairly small fire compared to other fires in different buildings.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm what you would call a skeptic of 9/11. Until I'm given a valid reason for building 7 collapsing then I'll never accept the official explanation.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They where 767's....

The twin towers where engineered to withstand a 707 being flown into them. (Tests conducted backed up this) If you look up a 707 there isn't much difference between the 707 and 767..

Actually there'd be a pretty considerable difference in mass between a 707, low on fuel, and throttled back, on approach for landing (which was what they had in mind) and a 767, just after takeoff, with full fule load, barrelling in at full throttle, but I do hope this isn't going to become yet another interminable 9/11 Conspiracy thread ..... :unsure2:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm what you would call a skeptic of 9/11. Until I'm given a valid reason for building 7 collapsing then I'll never accept the official explanation.

Same here. :tu:

Actually there'd be a pretty considerable difference in mass between a 707, low on fuel, and throttled back, on approach for landing (which was what they had in mind) and a 767, just after takeoff, with full fule load, barrelling in at full throttle, but I do hope this isn't going to become yet another interminable 9/11 Conspiracy thread ..... :unsure2:

The calculations included a full fuel tank.

Also Flight 11, the first to hit was from Boston and was going to LA.... That's not far at all, so it certianly did not have a full tank. Would have been a huge waste to fill it's tank. It was also int he air for 45 minutes after take off, until it's impact.

So no it wasn't full of fuel.

Edited by Coffey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And WTC7 which was not hit by any plane? The official explaination is that it was so poorly designed it collapsed under its own weight durring a fairly small fire compared to other fires in different buildings.

a combination of heat weakening the steel, and the rubble damage from the other two towers led to the collapse of WTC7. do you not think the people who worked there would spot something as conspicuous as a controlled demolition team drilling away in their building? and then think it odd that the twin towers fall down a few days later?

the sad fact is, is that this was nothing more than an horrific crime against innocent people, which achieved exactly what it set out to achieve.

terror.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.