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

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.

I think everyone agrees. But they differ on who conducted the actions.

3 people like this

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?

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?

But three of them on the same day?

The laws of probabilities won't allow it.

Fire might be a great leveller but not in this case.

The neo- cons just wanted to make it as dramatic as possible.

There might be a plane but who's to say it wasn't remote- controlled.

The towers could have succumbed to the thermite charges planted willy- nilly.

I'm not trying to sully people's memories but to show cold,hard facts.

Btw this kind of stuff leads to much tension so I'm bowing out.

I'll just leave you with the fact that I'm a truther.

I'll stick with this stance until I actually see the smoking gun.

Until then it's unexplained.

Edited by Medium Brown
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do hope this isn't going to become yet another interminable 9/11 Conspiracy thread ..... :unsure2:

I thought it was about a BBC court case, but., well.., y'know.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Btw this kind of stuff leads to much tension so I'm bowing out.

_

me too, i've never really been a one for beating my head against a wall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was about a BBC court case, but., well.., y'know.....

And the evidence they will present in court against the BBC and their "biased" programming will be pretty much what we are discussing here. Hopefully with more supporting evidence though.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the evidence they will present in court against the BBC and their "biased" programming will be pretty much what we are discussing here. Hopefully with more supporting evidence though.

_

sadly, I doubt it.

there's a very wide gap between 'conspiracy theory' and 'evidence', but it'll be interesting if nothing else!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same here. :tu:

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.

Boston to LA wasn't far at all? try driving it sometime. :unsure2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not to mention that bbc is being extremely baised in news on my country these days it makes me sick

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boston to LA wasn't far at all? try driving it sometime. :unsure2:

You should fly then! Or not... lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should fly then! Or not... lol

What I mean is, Boston is about 2,983 miles from LA. It's only about 3460 from London to NY. I'd call that pretty long haul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

_

me too, i've never really been a one for beating my head against a wall.

I just wanted to give my initial impressions.

It would be absolutely useless any contributions I make on my part without links and pictures.

Besides someone who's against war dosn't like getting antagonistic.

I've actually seen fisticuffs on other threads when it comes to this subject.

I'll have a watching brief but that dosn't mean to say I'm not in my fellow truther's corner.

Though I might occasionally pipe in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only people who would find the BBCs reporting of 9/11 biased are the truthers. And as has become abundantly obvious over the years, the truthers don't care about the truth, they just want sensational.

post-108648-0-36227500-1361179221_thumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I mean is, Boston is about 2,983 miles from LA. It's only about 3460 from London to NY. I'd call that pretty long haul.

Oh, my bad didn't think it was that far at all. lol That is a longer than I though. lol

Just checked it's about 4.5 to 5 hours flight time, damn i thought it would be like 1 or 2 hours. Still though if it was fuelled for 5 hours flight time and used up 45 mins, that's still not a full tank.

11,825 km which is 7347.7 miles.... So it wouldn't have had a full tank still. Then take away that 45 mins flight time.... Would ahve been half a tank or less.

The only people who would find the BBCs reporting of 9/11 biased are the truthers. And as has become abundantly obvious over the years, the truthers don't care about the truth, they just want sensational.

post-108648-0-36227500-1361179221_thumb.

Yeah Martin Sheen is so crazy.

Edited by Coffey

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 ..

The gash in building 7 was one of my favorites; it was caused by an orbital energy weapon from space. Or maybe space aliens (they're probably not exactly sure). It couldn't have been caused by the earth-quaking collapses of two of the most massive buildings ever constructed right across the street! That's just silly man! And none of this matters anymore anyway since January 2009, because "Bush knew" but Obama didn't care, and his voters proved beyond a reasonable doubt in 2012 that they don't care either.

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.

The motive for "imploding" building 7 has always fascinated me. As if, the twin towers collapsing wasn't enough? Bush made sure 7 got dropped too, just in case? Besides, hiding demolition teams doing hundreds of hours of work in every building was a simple matter that didn't carry a risk of getting caught? So by all means, rig building 7 too! It was doubtful whether simply collapsing the twin towers would get Bush his war, so they made absolutely sure by sacrificing Building 7 too? I cannot believe how people believe this stuff. What actually worries me is that the capacity to lie for political reasons is enormous in this country. I think this conspiratorial diversion to keep people away from the truth so the truth can survive is much worse than the sum of all 9/11 conspiracies because the truth is right under our noses and we don't even look (thanks to the conspiracies).

9/11 proved that jet airliners are extremely dangerous to our tallest buildings. And conspiracy theories are extremely dangerous to our collective ability to reassess our foreign policy.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Intresting... So....

So we attacked Iraq and Afghanistan....

Why does anyone need conspiracy theories to see how wrong that is? The foreign policy is the greatest conspiracy of all.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does anyone need conspiracy theories to see how wrong that is? The foreign policy is the greatest conspiracy of all.

I agree, was just making a point about Occams Razor. :tu:

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.

Precisely.

We have -

1. $2 trillion mysteriously missing from the US accounts.

2. Vatican Banks operating inside WTC-11.

3. The mysterious collapse of WTC-11 despite it only suffering fire damage.

4. Mossad Agents arrested in New York Police with a van full of explosives who were immediatly released.

5. The Bush family buying huge amounts of shares in defence companies 2 weeks before the attack.

6. Thermite residue in the rubble.

7. Video footage showing what appears to be demolition charges going off during the collapse.

8. The steel from 9/11 sold to North Korea preventing its retrieval for forensics.

9. Numerous reports of explosions in the basements of the Twin Towers before they collapsed.

10. Live video footage where you can hear the basement explosions.

11. US military forces put on exercise preventing them responding to 9/11 hi-jackings as they thought it was part of their training.

Dodgy, dodgy, dodgy.

3 people like this

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?

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?

Flying a fully loaded 747 into the top of the building should NOT cause total collapse (in my opinion), it may cause a few floors below the impact site to collapse, and above the impact site (obviously), but NOT the whole building down to the basement level

IF the fully loaded 747 was flown into the lower floors of the building (anywhere from floor 1 to floor 10, give or take), then it is possible that the building would collapse, like they did....

Dont forget that building 7 collapsed, WITHOUT receiving any direct impact from the airplanes, WTC 7 only received only damage from falling debris from one of the twin towers, should that building also collapse like it did ?

I disagree with there being no explanation necessary, there is every reason for the events of 9/11 to be explained, and properly....

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Precisely.

We have -

1. $2 trillion mysteriously missing from the US accounts.

2. Vatican Banks operating inside WTC-11.

3. The mysterious collapse of WTC-11 despite it only suffering fire damage.

4. Mossad Agents arrested in New York Police with a van full of explosives who were immediatly released.

5. The Bush family buying huge amounts of shares in defence companies 2 weeks before the attack.

6. Thermite residue in the rubble.

7. Video footage showing what appears to be demolition charges going off during the collapse.

8. The steel from 9/11 sold to North Korea preventing its retrieval for forensics.

9. Numerous reports of explosions in the basements of the Twin Towers before they collapsed.

10. Live video footage where you can hear the basement explosions.

11. US military forces put on exercise preventing them responding to 9/11 hi-jackings as they thought it was part of their training.

Dodgy, dodgy, dodgy.

What "Live" video footage? did they just happen to have cameras in place and rolling before the planes hit? Because surely "explosions" after that would hardly be much of a mystery, with all those fires and things collapsing all around. And these reports of explosions; did they come before the planes hit? Again, if they didn't, then frankly they're surely pretty obviously a red Herring. "what appears to be demolition charges going off during the collapse"? heavens above, surely an umpteen thousand tons of steel & glass collapsing would look like an explosion.And if they'd brought down the thing using this termite stuff, don't you think They would then have suppressed any evidence of it coming to light, if They were supposedly this incredibly efficient & ruthless?

Precisely.

We have -

1. $2 trillion mysteriously missing from the US accounts.

2. Vatican Banks operating inside WTC-11.

3. The mysterious collapse of WTC-11 despite it only suffering fire damage.

4. Mossad Agents arrested in New York Police with a van full of explosives who were immediatly released.

5. The Bush family buying huge amounts of shares in defence companies 2 weeks before the attack.

6. Thermite residue in the rubble.

7. Video footage showing what appears to be demolition charges going off during the collapse.

8. The steel from 9/11 sold to North Korea preventing its retrieval for forensics.

9. Numerous reports of explosions in the basements of the Twin Towers before they collapsed.

10. Live video footage where you can hear the basement explosions.

11. US military forces put on exercise preventing them responding to 9/11 hi-jackings as they thought it was part of their training.

Dodgy, dodgy, dodgy.

What "Live" video footage? did they just happen to have cameras in place and rolling before the planes hit? Because surely "explosions" after that would hardly be much of a mystery, with all those fires and things collapsing all around. And these reports of explosions; did they come before the planes hit? Again, if they didn't, then frankly they're surely pretty obviously a red Herring. "what appears to be demolition charges going off during the collapse"? heavens above, surely an umpteen thousand tons of steel & glass collapsing would look like an explosion.And if they'd brought down the thing using this termite stuff, don't you think They would then have suppressed any evidence of it coming to light, if They were supposedly this incredibly efficient & ruthless?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let us not forget that the BBC is and always has been a rebranded "Ministry of Information" who's first and foremost role is to propagandize to a captive domestic public.

When George Orwell wrote about the Ministry of Information in 1984 he was reporting his own personal experience of working for the BBC.

Almost every event of any significance of the last 6years has gone unreported by the BBC. I think particularly of the lead up to the overthrow of Gaddafi at the hands of foreign mercenaries in response to his threat to sell oil in gold. Just one significant example. The situation in Syria, as pointed out by Knight of Shadows, is another prime example.

Br Cornelius

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let us not forget that the BBC is and always has been a rebranded "Ministry of Information" who's first and foremost role is to propagandize to a captive domestic public.

When George Orwell wrote about the Ministry of Information in 1984 he was reporting his own personal experience of working for the BBC.

Almost every event of any significance of the last 6years has gone unreported by the BBC. I think particularly of the lead up to the overthrow of Gaddafi at the hands of foreign mercenaries in response to his threat to sell oil in gold. Just one significant example. The situation in Syria, as pointed out by Knight of Shadows, is another prime example.

Br Cornelius

Oh my God I cant believe it. I actually agree with you on something Cornelius!

I can see a problem coming because while our UK news and media outlets spout their usual rubbish our people are free to go onto other nations internet news sites to get a different perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The world will change in dramatic and unpredictable ways as a consequence of the new technological revolution.

The real issue for many is how complicit with their own government they will choose to be once they realize something of the truth. I suspect that many will choose to remain ignorant just so long as their comfort zone isn't to badly impinged on.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let us not forget that the BBC is and always has been a rebranded "Ministry of Information" who's first and foremost role is to propagandize to a captive domestic public.

When George Orwell wrote about the Ministry of Information in 1984 he was reporting his own personal experience of working for the BBC.

Almost every event of any significance of the last 6years has gone unreported by the BBC. I think particularly of the lead up to the overthrow of Gaddafi at the hands of foreign mercenaries in response to his threat to sell oil in gold. Just one significant example. The situation in Syria, as pointed out by Knight of Shadows, is another prime example.

Br Cornelius

:o:huh::hmm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only people who would find the BBCs reporting of 9/11 biased are the truthers. And as has become abundantly obvious over the years, the truthers don't care about the truth, they just want sensational.

post-108648-0-36227500-1361179221_thumb.

Not entirely true. There are many people, including many who have posted here, who actually seek the truth. They recognize numerous problems with the official story, and they recognize that many independent professionals and scientists, such as Architects & Engineers, offer theories that much more comport with the evidence, and they would simply like this all to be brought out into the open. Certainly BBC and others within the MSM have suppressed certain very obvious facts that contradict the official story. It seems such behavior is a violation of BBC's charter, and they must now defend their actions.

Would that the US media could be compelled! Sadly, our media is utterly and completely controlled by special interest groups who profit from the official story somehow or another.

I'm hoping honesty and scientific rigor will prevail there in England. :yes:

2 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.....

The fuel only burnt for 15 minutes. It would not have fallen straight down either, unless simultaneously every steel support gave way/melted away at the same time. The fires were more intense on one side of the construct, do logically thinking it would fall in the direction it gave way first instead of a characteristic demolition-like collapse?

Witnesses and survivors also report hearing explosions before the buildings went down also.

Given that it is basic physics what happened with the buildings is highly unlikely. How did the BBC announce such an oddity happening with Building 7?

I think we can also agree that George W. Bush wasn't the one calling the shots here. Unless of course he was playing the fool. But regardless, he is a fool.

3 people like this

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.