9/11 DEW / TV-Fakery Suppression Timeline

[gaby de wilde]

No-one is laughing at 3000 dead. We are simply ridiculing those who are trying to find a million convoluted reasons to try to convince others it was their own government who did it.

So there are 3000 people dead.

And you are getting a good laugh out of it.

No mistake here Hans.

You are having a laugh at the expense of the truth.

look at the way you are trained to silence those who want to talk about the truth.

And this would be funny right?

The reason they are talking about it is because the 3000 deaths.

So this will also be the reason you are laughing straight through it.

The world is changing into a corporate control state.

And it's all thanks to the ultra gullible like you.

Those who don't ever do sjhat what ever the hell happens are the perfect minions.

Slaves like that you just cant buy.

[Cap-Z-ro]

When its all said and done I do not want to be regretting my lack of effort to stop what is essentially the mass murder of innocent human beings - no matter what the justification.


Over here in north america over the decades I would hear read and see the negative condescending remarks made toward the german people for being so blind and gullible for allowing Hitler to do what he did.

To their credit though they did not have the luxury of an alternate news source like the internet at their disposal.

We in north america have absolutely no excuse for our ignorance - the truth is at our fingertips.

Unfortunately, so is the remote control for the TV - the great distractor.

End of rant.

Regards...

[shruggedatlas]

Here is one you have clearly ignored:

..not one official has-or will address the unexplained demolition style collapse of building 7 - or for that matter the BBC's detailed coverage of its collapse...a full 20 minutes before it actually happened - the building was even shown in the background as their own reporter described the event - the BBC refuses comment - along with a laundry list of other glaring indicators that do not bear raising again.

Oh no, the village idiot comes out to speak.  And he is mad at me.

So the BBC is in on it?  And no Brit has spilled the beans, despite surefire million-dollar interview deals that would follow?  Laughable.

[Cap-Z-ro]

To clarify a point, and advance the discussion...

As to whether the BBC were complicit in a cover up of 911 or not?

Somehow they were able to provide a 20 minute descriptive reporting of the collapse of building 7 for a full 20 minutes leading up to its actual collapse, at which point the feed faded out...ever so suspiciously.

It was the BBC themselves who have opened the matter up for speculation by virtue of their refusal to provide the source of their information - after their initial excuse that they lost the tape from that day was blown out of the water by someone who had worked in network news.

According to that gentleman...'when anything of major consequence occurs, automatically numerous masters  are made - in the event one or more of the recorders has a malfunction.

That makes sense to me - as does the position of guilt assumed by the BBC

Regards...

[shruggedatlas]

To clarify a point, and advance the discussion...

As to whether the BBC were complicit in a cover up of 911 or not?

Somehow they were able to provide a 20 minute descriptive reporting of the collapse of building 7 for a full 20 minutes leading up to its actual collapse, at which point the feed faded out...ever so suspiciously.

It was the BBC themselves who have opened the matter up for speculation by virtue of their refusal to provide the source of their information - after their initial excuse that they lost the tape from that day was blown out of the water by someone who had worked in network news.

According to that gentleman...'when anything of major consequence occurs, automatically numerous masters  are made - in the event one or more of the recorders has a malfunction.

That makes sense to me - as does the position of guilt assumed by the BBC

Regards...

OMG, use your brain!  Think it all the way though.

So, what you are saying happened is that despite all this perfect secrecy, the conspirators went ahead and leaked info that WTC 7 was going to come down.  They leaked it to the local media, who leaked it to BBC, or did they leak it straight to BBC?  And then, the BBC decided that instead of reporting on this wild prediction bombshell, they were instead going to get a reporter up and talk about how WTC7 went down before it actually went down.  Does any of this make any sense?

How about the following possibilities?

-  Time stamp was wrong.
-  Time zone calulation was wrong
-  The report was initially incorrect, as can be attributed to chaos at the time, but the BBC ended up getting it right because the building eventually did go down

Now do keep in mind that the BBC was half a world away and it is possible that during this international game of telephone, when news of this horrific event was streaming across at a million miles an hour, someone could have misinterpreted "WTC7 is on fire and may go down" as "WTC7 is on fire and going down".  Who knows?

Now I admit that I do not know and am guessing, but without further evidence of exactly what happened, the 20 minute gap is not worth much.  We are all guessing, and this is proof of nothing, really.