The BBC is in Court in the UK on 25 February 2013 for manipulating evidence and providing biased coverage of the September 11, 2001 Attacks . . .
http://www.globalresearch.ca/historic-c … ks/5323881
Famously, the BBC annouced that building 7 had collapsed, whilst all the time it was untouched, still standing, and still visible, in shot behind the announcer . . . later, it did indeed collapse
What do you think?
Don't trust any media. Reporters aren't experts, and they might be biased.
Trust primary sources as far as the quality of their data justifies it.
I think the claims that the BBC were directly involved in the attacks is frankly barking!
And why are they in court in West Sussex, why not London where there head office is?
There is no suggestion of the BBC being involved in the attacks. They are being accused of falsifying information and making biased reports . . did you watch the youtube video of the BBC report?
you can clearly see building 7 in the background after she has just told that it had collapsed...
No, there are claims out there that the BBC was directly involved!
BTW, you are aware that reporters are not always standing in front of what they appear to be standing in front of? In other words, when she said that Building 7 had collapsed it may well have done with her against a background of an earlier view before Building 7 had collapsed.
I was unaware of the claims that the BBC were involved - that seems a bit far fetched . .
As fas as the BBC "LIVE" report on youtube, there is smoke rising from the site, and the BBC themselves have not answered the questions in that manner (blue screen, previous footage etc)
However, regarding reports talking against green screens/backgrounds, there is footage on youtube of Anderson interviewing one of the Sandy Hook actors for CNN, with an appropriate "background" behind him, when something goes wrong and half of his nose disappears . . he also denied talking in front of a green screen . . .
I similarly have never heard the theory that the BBC were directly involved. If it's part of the 'TV fakery' theory (theorising that there were no planes, and what we saw was actually a computer graphic), I wouldn't pay much heed. This does not represent the sane view of those who wish to see a proper investigation of 9/11.
But then if we are implying prior knowledge we have to imply a cover-up, which is technically being part of the conspiracy.
Yes, it certainly seems that the BBC were party to the knowledge (scripted or otherwise) that building 7 would be brought down, well before it actually collapsed .
The real question is, how could they have known this in advance - and more to the point, who provided them with this information?
If you don't believe what the media says...why believe what they show? The same people who will obsinantly state that building 7 was still there (being ignorant of green screen technology) are the people who will raise other conspiracy theories involving the *use* of said technology.
Conspiracy theorists are so self defeating. Without a doubt...there are conspiracies out there. But as long as you stand on your soapbox shouting out stupid garbage like this....you will never be taken seriously by anybody that matters...and the real conspiracies (the ones involving smart people that are actually well covered up) have nothing to fear.
I hear BBC has be co-opted by the usual suspects, who can't be rounded up.
The BBC was also involved in a massive cover-up of institutional pedophilia that is FINALLY being looked at. They admit to abandoning neutrality in certain sectors, harass those who do not wish to watch television at all through their TV licensing goons, and fail to report on the blinding injustices across the world.
It's pretty widely accepted that this was live footage. As far as I'm aware, and I might be wrong, the BBC has never claimed that it was a green/blue screen. They did hide the footage afterwards though.
Building 7 was a demolition, so never thought it mattered much.
Um.................The magistrates court are NOT hearing a charge against the BBC.
A man is being prosecuted for not paying his TV licence fee( this is mandatory in the UK)
His defence is the issue of the 9/11 and the BBC coverage- this defence may or may not be heard- the magistrates may deem it as inadmissible. There would be no grounds for the BBC to be called as witnesses.
Whatever one thinks about our somewhat tarnished national broadcaster it is rather annoying that others pick up on a fact and then twist that fact to fit their agenda.
. . and here is the outcome of the court hearing
http://www.reinvestigate911.org/content … -protestor
I recently responded to a remarkably similar discussion, and will basically re-iterate what I told the conspiracy people about the American news stations. The original link is deeply lacking in legitimation, as that website is not only 1. subject to the opinions of the writers 2. very obviously edited with the goal of fostering a palpable anti-American and anti-capitalist agenda. The second link doesn't necessarily support the claim with starkly apparent or even sufficient premises, and leaves the viewer to decide whether they were watching something along the lines of a technical difficulty (fairly common in news reporting, even more likely with every single phone line in New York frantically operating) or a piece in a puzzle that would constitute the most elaborate mass deception of humanity ever, which would require the assistance of the news (which turned on the supposed conspirators during the housing crisis). As agitating as the ill-informed conspiracy theorists in America are, this claim strikes me as even more absurd. What would the BBC have to gain by reporting a news story based on American corporate interests, as the theories suggest? Exactly how far is the influence of the "1%" supposed to go? I suppose I should have been more polite, but I have found myself flustered at the willingness of people to buy into these theories and therefore dishonor the memory of the innocents that lost their lives. I beg believers in these absurd and unfounded theories to use reason and logic to arrive at what is clearly the most obvious conclusion: the attacks were performed by terrorists. Your charges that the BBC "manipulated evidence and provided biased coverage" themselves come from sources that do EXACTLY THAT.
I also don't believe the conspiracy theory that some guy with a beard, holed up in a cave in the mountains, could mastermind such a complex operation. There are so many holes in this story that it is like tryting to hold water in a sieve. And, many, many people think the same.
I know it is hard to accept, and it challenges the very foundation of peoples beliefs, but more and more people now able to open their minds and ask real questions ....
These people include architects, pilots, engineers and more who know what they are talking about, and all want the truth ....
Start here ...
I guess you missed all the videos he made over the years. But of course, they were probably faked too, right?
If you say they were faked, why should I doubt you? And . . .if you provide the links to the videos, I will watch them.
Did you read the information that I provided? I suspect that you did not, but then hope springs eternal, so here it is again . It is called "Hiding Polio" and many medical professionals describe how polio has not been eradicated at all, but has been disguised as other illnesses with different names, so as to preserve the polio "clean sheet" as it were. These are MD's Phds etc. Legitimate enough for you?
Here is a quote just to wet your appetite . .
"...while India has been polio-free for a year, there has been a huge increase in non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP). In 2011, there were an extra 47,500 new cases of NPAFP. Clinically indistinguishable from polio paralysis but twice as deadly, the incidence of NPAFP was directly proportional to doses of oral polio received. Though this data was collected within the polio surveillance system, it was not investigated."
I wait to see your opinion on this information, after you have read it.
Of course, if one site says it is so it must be so. I had trouble reading that site since it looks so much like a tabloid.
"Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.” - Gandhi
One site you say? There are now thousands of "legitimate" professionals all over the world who don't believe the official story and want to know the truth..
Architects and Engineers
and there are many more . . .
PS. Have you read ANY of these sites yet?
What exactly are the holes? I respectfully ask that you provide hard evidence here, I'm afraid a website with the obvious goal of proving a conspiracy carries inherent journalistic bias and is therefore rendered insufficient. Additionally, you neglected to address any of the issues I raised in my previous statement which currently are outstanding. Can you provide any reason why I should make the incredible leap of faith required in order to even mentally entertain these theories? Of course you're entitled to your belief and I do not hold you in the slightest of contempt for choosing to have this worldview, I am simply requesting that you offer sufficient evidence to support the claim, given the profound magnitude it's implications. As a final point, are the professionals who don't believe in the more logical conclusion "legitimate" or are they legitimate?
The website, in particular the presentation I cite 'Blueprint for truth', presents the scientific evidence that at least puts the official story into question, if not destroys it altogether. This includes: observations of building 7 that it fell at free-fall acceleration, contradicting the 'collapse due to fires' theory, records of explosions being heard and evidence of thermite plasma at the scene. Most significantly: the impact of the aircraft and the burning of jet fuel could not have been enough force to produce the collapse observed on WTC1 and 2.
When the science is considered, arguments to the nature of the conspiracy, for example "how could so many people keep it quiet?" fade into insignificance. These are not substitutes for scientific analysis.
by Camaron Elliott 9 years ago
Do you trust the mainstream media?(9/11 Question) What is your take on the fact that four (yes 4) separate major news networks announced the fall of building #7 BEFORE the building fell?
by sannyasinman 8 years ago
It's OK to disagree with the governments version of what caused the twin towers and building 7 to collapse on 9/11. A new campaign for truth, and a recent poll shows that 1 in 2 Americans have doubts about the official version of 9/11 as well . . . When you watch the video, your own eyes tell...
by Wesman Todd Shaw 9 years ago
Dumbest 911 theory??Obviously, the US Government's official explanation is the dumbest theory imaginable, and obviously outright lies, but besides what the wealthiest persons on the planet want you to believe, what is the dumbest 911 story you've heard??
by SparklingJewel 12 years ago
how do I keep getting this stuff in my e-mails...?This is BIGGGGG !http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases … 68402.html
by Stacie L 8 years ago
Sandy Hook truthers: Conspiracy theorists out in full forceSandy Hook truthers have been out in full force over the past couple of weeks. Ever since a professor came forward and made claims about the media covering up what really happened on that tragic day in Newtown, Conn., groups of people have...
by Rod Martin Jr 9 years ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbFldtLnmc8One expert after another goes on record, laying their career on the line, to state, categorically that WTC7 could not have come down except for controlled demolition. Since it takes months to prepare a building of that size, someone would've known long...
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|