Well done. Over the years, as in almost since the moment of exposure, I have used the footage of that slip up more times than I can count when discussing 911. Along with a few other things, it was glaring from the very beginning, before the scientific wars began.
Now we must not let this article and what this man accomplished go unnoticed. It is right there in points with Larry's famous "pull it" comment regarding culpability.
Yes, this is good. However, I have a pretty good memory of that day. It was reported here in the US that the building was weakened and was going to come down. I don't remember the specific amount of time, but it may have been anywhere from 20 minutes to an hour before it occurred.
Camera shots were lined up and there was frequent cutting to that location during the continuing coverage. When it came tumbling down, it was captured.
Therefore it is really not that big a deal that the BBC would report it had fallen. I think it is a nonstarter to believe all the "talent" or reporters covering the story were in on it. Of course there were CIA elements that are installed in media. Always was and always will be. But this nice English lady isn't one of them IMO. She was just reporting on half-baked information at the time.
Don't put all your eggs in this basket, because it will eventually come back to haunt you when, and if, all the tapes have to come out to prove that it was an honest mistake on the part of the woman and the BBC.
I do have another nagging question about WTC 7. Why did it not pulverize into dust, and why did we not see flashes of light on some of the floors that occurred in Bldgs 1 & 2?
This demolition does indeed look different. It is more of a free fall than a pulverization. Also, seemed a lot quieter. Of course, some will say they were much larger. True enough. However, the collapse was still very different even taking into account the mass of the structure. I would have thought it would look like a smaller version of the first two collapses.
Tony Rooke was summonsed to court for refusing to pay his BBC TV license. The judge took in to consideration his case for not having a license and only awarded against him costs and no conviction. So yes it was sort of a win.
So good on yer Tony Rooke!
I thought the article that Micheal Aydinian was longer than this, perhaps not.
I was fortunate enough to be sitting directly behind TONY ROOKE in court. I just hope I make such a decent fist of it when they decide to take me to court for non-payment of the BBC TV licence. I will not pay & NOR SHOULD YOU! If only I could say a media news channel that deliberately refuses to report the truth is one nobody will take seriously. Of course it doesn't work like that! People will be fooled. The problem is we're talking about the most gravest of issues here. Our political parties have suddenly, mysteriously adopted identical foreign policies. There's never any talk of a major party declaring - WE ARE AGAINST WAR..... EVEN THOUGH SINGLE-HANDEDLY IT WOULD PROVIDE AN ELECTION VICTORY! So no surprise the BBC follow suit - foreign policy is never debated on BBC's political show Question Time. This in itself is a gross violation for it shows the BBC is not impartial. Only a blithering idiot doesn't realize our national TV is controlled by people who care more for Israel than our country! It's absolutely scandalous. Bending the truth is bad enough but to blatantly lie about obvious descrepencies in the official account of 9/11 & then to reiterate these lies when mountains of evidence exists to refute these ludicrous claims is simply beyond the pale. The law stipulates non-payment of the TV licence is a crime. However when the payment of the fee results in one funding an organisation that is inherently corrupt, indeed one that lies about war, A TREASONABLE OFFENCE, then one inadvertently is committing a greater crime by paying the fee. In this case the law is not worth a bar of soap. The only way we can get our media back is if enough of us follow Tony Rooke's example - refuse to pay - it should be your duty!
Sadly, this news is half a year old (Court case was back in April). It has changed nothing in so far as how the great unwashed see the world in the UK. People are still paying their BBC Tax to be brainwashed. No one seems to care one jot about the lies this Corporation tells on a daily basis - so long as they get their fixes of social conditioning. This country is finished - no true democracy. No freedom. No quality of life for the majority. And now that the Jews in the EU have succeeded in initiating the break up of the United Kingdom through the Scotland Independence issue - soon there won't even *be* a country. Just another "Region" amongst many within the EU Superstate to come.
innocent smith , ridiculous just watch all those team coco video clips you can see how it works one central script they just read it the reporter at BBC would not have to be "in on it"
Yes, this is good. However, I have a pretty good memory of that day. It was reported here in the US that the building was weakened and was going to come down. I don't remember the specific amount of time, but it may have been anywhere from 20 minutes to an hour before it occurred.
Camera shots were lined up and there was frequent cutting to that location during the continuing coverage. When it came tumbling down, it was captured.
Therefore it is really not that big a deal that the BBC would report it had fallen.
how 'innocent'are you mr smith? lol not abig deal that a reinforced bunker building collapses? lol how many sheckles do you get payed?
Well done. Over the years, as in almost since the moment of exposure, I have used the footage of that slip up more times than I can count when discussing 911. Along with a few other things, it was glaring from the very beginning, before the scientific wars began.
ReplyDeleteNow we must not let this article and what this man accomplished go unnoticed. It is right there in points with Larry's famous "pull it" comment regarding culpability.
http://www.sott.net/article/266268-UK-man-wins-court-case-against-BBC-for-911-cover-up
ReplyDeleteSigh.
What accomplishment. More white bread with no nutrients....
Yes, this is good. However, I have a pretty good memory of that day. It was reported here in the US that the building was weakened and was going to come down. I don't remember the specific amount of time, but it may have been anywhere from 20 minutes to an hour before it occurred.
ReplyDeleteCamera shots were lined up and there was frequent cutting to that location during the continuing coverage. When it came tumbling down, it was captured.
Therefore it is really not that big a deal that the BBC would report it had fallen. I think it is a nonstarter to believe all the "talent" or reporters covering the story were in on it. Of course there were CIA elements that are installed in media. Always was and always will be. But this nice English lady isn't one of them IMO. She was just reporting on half-baked information at the time.
Don't put all your eggs in this basket, because it will eventually come back to haunt you when, and if, all the tapes have to come out to prove that it was an honest mistake on the part of the woman and the BBC.
I do have another nagging question about WTC 7. Why did it not pulverize into dust, and why did we not see flashes of light on some of the floors that occurred in Bldgs 1 & 2?
This demolition does indeed look different. It is more of a free fall than a pulverization. Also, seemed a lot quieter. Of course, some will say they were much larger. True enough. However, the collapse was still very different even taking into account the mass of the structure. I would have thought it would look like a smaller version of the first two collapses.
Tony Rooke was summonsed to court for refusing to pay his BBC TV license. The judge took in to consideration his case for not having a license and only awarded against him costs and no conviction. So yes it was sort of a win.
ReplyDeleteSo good on yer Tony Rooke!
I thought the article that Micheal Aydinian was longer than this, perhaps not.
I was fortunate enough to be sitting directly behind TONY ROOKE in court. I just hope I make such a decent fist of it when they decide to take me to court for non-payment of the BBC TV licence. I will not pay & NOR SHOULD YOU!
If only I could say a media news channel that deliberately refuses to report the truth is one nobody will take seriously. Of course it doesn't work like that! People will be fooled. The problem is we're talking about the most gravest of issues here. Our political parties have suddenly, mysteriously adopted identical foreign policies. There's never any talk of a major party declaring - WE ARE AGAINST WAR..... EVEN THOUGH SINGLE-HANDEDLY IT WOULD PROVIDE AN ELECTION VICTORY! So no surprise the BBC follow suit - foreign policy is never debated on BBC's political show Question Time. This in itself is a gross violation for it shows the BBC is not impartial. Only a blithering idiot doesn't realize our national TV is controlled by people who care more for Israel than our country! It's absolutely scandalous. Bending the truth is bad enough but to blatantly lie about obvious descrepencies in the official account of 9/11 & then to reiterate these lies when mountains of evidence exists to refute these ludicrous claims is simply beyond the pale.
The law stipulates non-payment of the TV licence is a crime. However when the payment of the fee results in one funding an organisation that is inherently corrupt, indeed one that lies about war, A TREASONABLE OFFENCE, then one inadvertently is committing a greater crime by paying the fee. In this case the law is not worth a bar of soap. The only way we can get our media back is if enough of us follow Tony Rooke's example - refuse to pay - it should be your duty!
Sadly, this news is half a year old (Court case was back in April).
ReplyDeleteIt has changed nothing in so far as how the great unwashed see the world in the UK. People are still paying their BBC Tax to be brainwashed. No one seems to care one jot about the lies this Corporation tells on a daily basis - so long as they get their fixes of social conditioning.
This country is finished - no true democracy. No freedom. No quality of life for the majority.
And now that the Jews in the EU have succeeded in initiating the break up of the United Kingdom through the Scotland Independence issue - soon there won't even *be* a country. Just another "Region" amongst many within the EU Superstate to come.
innocent smith , ridiculous
ReplyDeletejust watch all those team coco video clips
you can see how it works one central script they just read it the reporter at BBC would not have to be "in on it"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TM8L7bdwVaA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAkxR9T01pw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bi8dFmcPGpU
Innocent Smith said...
ReplyDeleteYes, this is good. However, I have a pretty good memory of that day. It was reported here in the US that the building was weakened and was going to come down. I don't remember the specific amount of time, but it may have been anywhere from 20 minutes to an hour before it occurred.
Camera shots were lined up and there was frequent cutting to that location during the continuing coverage. When it came tumbling down, it was captured.
Therefore it is really not that big a deal that the BBC would report it had fallen.
how 'innocent'are you mr smith? lol not abig deal that a reinforced bunker building collapses? lol how many sheckles do you get payed?