# BBC reports WTC 7 collapses 20 min before it did



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

looks like the fascists made a boo boo....

note how the original video has been pulled from google

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/260207building7.htm



> Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
> Prison Planet
> Monday, February 26, 2007 (UPDATED 6:28PM CST)
> 
> ...


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

tptptptp


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

Never attribute to conspiracy what you can to human error. 

Lord I'm sick of the 9/11 truthers out there.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> note how the original video has been pulled from google


Yes, and it couldn't be due to any copyright issues, now, could it?


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Anyone with a brain who actually watches that video will notice there is NO time reference by the BBC.

The poster of the video assumes certain time marks, and overlays them, but there is no proof of accuracy.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Reminds me of the old Spike Milligan film, _The Bed Sitting Room_. The world has been destroyed by nuclear weapons and only 30-odd people have survived. One of them is a conspiracy nut who wants to prove that the Russkies used biological warfare as well.


Hey!! How can a flag wave in the breeze on the moon?


----------



## comprehab (May 28, 2005)

A friend sent this to me earlier today Michael, I found the video interesting. Although there is no time displayed in the video, I am sure a lot of work went into working out the time line by the people who posted the video. 

Was the reporter green screening or was she there? If she was on location then who cares about the time... WTC7 is standing while she is reporting that it has collapsed in the same frame...


----------



## Sun Dog (Jan 4, 2004)

All one has to do is look into the well documented false flag operations of Gladio, and then judge the credibility of governments. Another interesting event is the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty... and don't forget Gulf of Tonkin.... MK Ultra... the list goes on.

I don't understand why conspiracy theorists are dismissed so easily given the sheer number of conspiracies in human history. Governments and powerful interests have conspired and killed to get their selfish way throughout time. What variable has eliminated this trend in our modern time? I sure don't know of any.

I'm not saying I wholeheartedly believe the WTC 7 conspiracy, but history gives credence to many conspiracy theories in general, IMO. Seems to me that given enough time, people speak, documents get 'leaked', and 50-100 years later we have more of a full story on what actually happened than government reports would have lead us to believe.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Sun Dog said:


> I don't understand why conspiracy theorists are dismissed so easily given the sheer number of conspiracies in human history.


Please, enlighten us. Show us any conspiracy on a level anywhere near as large as the supposed "9/11 conspiracy".


----------



## capitalK (Oct 21, 2003)

guytoronto said:


> Please, enlighten us. Show us any conspiracy on a level anywhere near as large as the supposed "9/11 conspiracy".


JFK?

Man Landing on the Moon? (already mentioned)

Roswell?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

capitalK said:


> JFK?
> 
> Man Landing on the Moon? (already mentioned)
> 
> Roswell?



but none as evil as 9/11
going on 1/2 trillion dollars to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and over 3,000 u.s. military and tens of thousands of iraqi lives

all to make money for those involved in the u.s. war machine

actually JFK was probably killed for the same reason
making money for the war machine


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

capitalK said:


> JFK?


Would have required only a handful of men. A couple with rifles to take out JFK, and a couple more to frame Oswald.



capitalK said:


> Man Landing on the Moon? (already mentioned)


The conspiracy theories have been proven wrong again and again.



capitalK said:


> Roswell?


Again, only a handful of men would be required to "cover up" the evidence (if there actually was any).

The JFK and Roswell conspiracies are nowhere on the level of what people claim the 9/11 conspiracies are.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I'd tell you what I know about the 911 conspiracy but if I did 'you know who' would disappear me.


----------



## An Old Soul (Apr 24, 2006)

"Anyone with a brain who actually watches that video will notice there is NO time reference by the BBC."

You must be without one, for failing to notice that the time count is irrelevant given the fact that they HAD already announced it's collapse while the female reporter later stands there talking about it while it's visible that the building is still standing.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

http://debunking911.com/pull.htm

Link to other links:
http://debunking911.com/links.htm


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

The killer question for me is: 

"Do you really think that the US Authorities have the ability, the competence, to plan and carry out any part of the happenings of the 9th September 2001?"

They have shown their true levels of ability and competence in Iraq and Afghanistan subsequently. Demolition and destruction are certainly their forte, but ability and planning? 

No conspiracy. It's very simple. The events of 9th September 2001 were planned and carried out by 19 young men, organised by a man hiding in a cave in Afghanistan. Official.

Edit: Anyone who doubts that hates America and is a terrorist sympathiser.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Snapple Quaffer said:


> "Do you really think that the US Authorities have the ability, the competence, to plan and carry out any part of the happenings of the 9th September 2001?"


The amount of planning, the number of people involved, everything required to cover of a "conspiracy" of this level would be enormous. Totally impossible to hide all evidence of it.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

guytoronto said:


> Totally impossible to hide all evidence of it.


Absolutely. And the beauty of it is that even in the extreme case where evidence is found ... why ... it's just a conspiracy!


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

looks like someone had the "kohones" to post the video back online

fast forward to the 15 minute mark of the video to see the onsite BBC reporter talk of the collapse of WTC 7, yet it is still standing in the background behind her
after a few minutes of her reporting her feed is "lost"

don't need no timelines if you talk about a building having collapsed when it is still standing behind you

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=100195


----------



## joltguy (Apr 15, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> don't need no timelines if you talk about a building having collapsed when it is still standing behind you


That's interesting... anyone care to explain away that little detail? I tend to agree that a conspiracy of this scale would be damn near impossible to conceal, but I'm just wondering what gives here.


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

Snapple Quaffer said:


> ...
> No conspiracy. It's very simple. The events of 9th September 2001 were planned and carried out by 19 young men, organised by a man hiding in a cave in Afghanistan. Official. ...*Anyone who doubts that hates America and is a terrorist sympathiser*.


Hermann Goering:
"Naturally the common people don't want war; ... and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, ... the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

Theodore Roosevelt:
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." (1918)

Senator Robert M. La Follette:
"Before the war is ended, the war party assumes the divine right to denounce and silence all opposition to war as unpatriotic and cowardly."

Edward R. Murrow:
"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it."

William Ellery Channing:
"The cry has been that when war is declared, all opposition should be hushed. A sentiment more unworthy of a free country could hardly be propagated."

Charles Eliot Norton:
"The voice of protest...is never more needed than when the clamor of fife and drum...is bidding all men...obey in silence the tyrannous word of command."

Albert Einstein:
"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."

Dwight D. Eisenhower:
"May we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion."


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

All very wise words, SoyMac, but they won't have any effect on the bombasts that are wedded to their 'vision' of what needs to be done and how to do it.

Our own Dear Leader, the Poodle Blair, justifies everything in the final analysis, and in that simpering whiney way of his, by simply stating that he "believes it's the right thing to do." Our lords and masters are canny enough to know that there is sufficient of a blood lust among the admass that can be drawn on for some support. And to hell with any gainsayers.

But enough, lest I be chivvied for hi-jacking this thread.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

> "Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels - men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, may we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion."


Dwight D. Eisenhower

I'm sure that Eisenhower would never have allowed such a statement to apply to Global Warming Deniers because we all know that GHGS are more important than dissent.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

> fast forward to the 15 minute mark of the video to see the onsite BBC reporter talk of the collapse of WTC 7, yet it is still standing in the background behind her after a few minutes of her reporting her feed is "lost"





joltguy said:


> That's interesting... anyone care to explain away that little detail? I tend to agree that a conspiracy of this scale would be damn near impossible to conceal, but I'm just wondering what gives here.


Sure.

WTC 7 was seriously damaged during the attack. Officials on site knew that most likely it would collapse. Remember a few things:

a) The BBC reporter is not "on location". She is miles away, with her back to downtown.

b) Her producers are probably being fed info through the chaotic channels.

c) Your average news reporter probably couldn't pick out WTC 7 from a lineup before 9/11

So info comes out that it looks like WTC 7 is about to collapse. Play broken telephone, and soon you have the BBC reporting it HAS collapsed.

What is more plausible? Massive government conspiracy, or broken telephone in the hours after the attacks?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> What is more plausible?


Plausible is not relevant. It's not interesting enough.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Guy: What is amazing about these so-called conspiracies is that we not only have stupid government officials--thousands of them--all maintaining quiet about the conspiracy. Now it comes to light that they also decided to let the BBC in on their secret--and the Beeb screwed up!! Only the cleverest people among us can realize this. If you don't agree, you're merely a fool, a useful idiot, a puppet...or a conspiracy DENIER!

Has enyone called you a "Bush-Toady" today? Because they should.


----------



## joltguy (Apr 15, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> So info comes out that it looks like WTC 7 is about to collapse. Play broken telephone, and soon you have the BBC reporting it HAS collapsed.
> 
> What is more plausible? Massive government conspiracy, or broken telephone in the hours after the attacks?


Broken telephone is definitely a possibility. I wonder if the BBC ever issued a correction for this report. Given the commotion it seems to have caused, some sort of statement would be appropriate.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Joltguy: a statement would only convince people that the BBC found the presentation important enough to go into "official denial" mode.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Hey. The lines are open. Why doesn't someone with their knickers in a state over this give the Beeb a bell?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Snapple Quaffer said:


> Hey. The lines are open. Why doesn't someone with their knickers in a state over this give the Beeb a bell?


Quaffer: It's a long distance call for us. Hey, you're in the neighbourhood....!


----------



## Sun Dog (Jan 4, 2004)

Guytoronto, do you really want the ancient examples of conspiracies against a nation's own citizens?

Here are some books and journals on Gladio that you can probably get from the library, and definitely Robarts. Or just look it up online.

NATO's top secret stay-behind armies and terrorism in Western Europe 
Ganser, Daniele.
Frank Cass, 2005. p. cm.

Title Nato's secret armies: Operation Gladio and terrorism in western Europe
Author Davies, PHJ	
Source JOURNAL OF STRATEGIC STUDIES,vol.28,no.6,pp.1064-1068,2005
Full Citation Record | Cited References | Citing Articles | Related Records
ISSN 0140-2390	
Publication Type Journal Article	
Publication Year 2005


----------



## Sun Dog (Jan 4, 2004)

The Japanese military conspired to and stagged false Chinese attacks on its railways in Manchuria to drag the civilian government, and mobilize the people, into extended war with China. It worked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukden_Incident



Title The causes of the Manchurian Incident: A non-Marxist interpretation (Japan).	
Author Kitamura, Jun	
Affiliation The University of British Columbia (Canada)
Source Dissertation Abstracts International, vol. 63-12A, pp. 4480.	



Abstract History repeats itself and war invariably brings tragedy to the world. In contemporary society where powerful weapons are developed one after another and world peace is a matter of ongoing concern, it is important for sociologists to carry out thorough investigation of the causes of war in order to help prevent future armed conflicts.

I selected the Manchurian Incident as a subject of my investigation of the causes of war because there is some doubt as to the existing explanation of its causes. After the end of World War II, the economic determinist explanation---that the nature of capitalism caused this imperialistic aggressive war---has predominated in Japanese academic circles. The economic determinists deduce the causes of war from the consequences of war and also disregard military factors, in particular the motives of actors. Consequently, their anti-Weberian explanations are not considered to be accounts of war as such.

I believe that war should be understood, not from a socioeconomic viewpoint alone, but also from a military viewpoint. Thus, I constructed my own approach as suggested by Clausewitz's theory of war. My starting point follows Causewitz in asserting that no one starts a war without a war plan in which the objectives of the war must be clear. I then reconstruct the war plans for the Manchurian Incident through examining the primary sources. I infer the motives of the actors from the war plans, and thereby determine the central causes of the war.

My analysis reveals that an important feature of the Manchurian Incident was an ongoing ideological battle between commercial pacifism and militaristic realism. In addition, my study shows that the Tokyo leaders thoroughly opposed the war in order to protect Japanese capitalist interests; but the Kanto Army's leaders decided to go to war exclusively for Japan's national defense. The Manchurian Incident suggests, therefore, that the expansion of capitalist interests does not always precipitate war; rather, ideological factors can be central in making war; in this case, the military defense ideology of Japan.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Quaffer: It's a long distance call for us. Hey, you're in the neighbourhood....!


Assuming I actually give a sh*t? 

Edit: Er ... email them then. That doesn't cost.


----------



## Sun Dog (Jan 4, 2004)

Hope I don't disappear or get into copyright trouble for this.

The British secret service in neutral Switzerland: An unfinished debate on NATO's cold war stay-behind armies

Author: Daniele Ganser
DOI: 10.1080/02684520500425083
Publication Frequency: 6 issues per year
Published in: Intelligence & National Security, Volume 20, Issue 4 December 2005, pages 553 - 580
Abstract
In 1990, the existence of a secret anti-Communist stay-behind army in Italy, codenamed 'Gladio' and linked to NATO, was revealed. Subsequently, similar stay-behind armies were discovered in all NATO countries in Western Europe. Based on parliamentary and governmental reports, oral history, and investigative journalism, the essay argues that neutral Switzerland also operated a stay-behind army. It explores the role of the British secret service and the reactions of the British and the Swiss governments to the discovery of the network and investigates whether the Swiss stay-behind army, despite Swiss neutrality, was integrated into the International NATO stay-behind network.

Introduction

During the Cold War, secret anti-Communist stay-behind armies existed in all countries in Western Europe. Set up after World War II by the US foreign intelligence service CIA and the British foreign intelligence service MI6, the stay-behind network was coordinated by two unorthodox warfare centres of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), the 'Clandestine Planning Committee' (CPC) and the 'Allied Clandestine Committee' (ACC). Hidden within the national military secret services, the stay-behind armies operated under numerous codenames such as 'Gladio' in Italy, 'SDRA8' in Belgium, 'Counter-Guerrilla' in Turkey, 'Absalon' in Denmark, and 'P-26' in Switzerland. These secret soldiers had orders to operate behind enemy lines in case of a Soviet invasion; in some countries, in the absence of a Soviet invasion, they linked up with extreme right-wing groups and fought the Communist and Socialist parties with terrorism. 1

Ever since the discovery of the network in Italy in 1990, crucial documents across Western Europe have disappeared or have been classified 'top secret', while witnesses have refused to testify to investigating senators and judges. Due to this difficult research situation, investigations into NATO secret warfare have only progressed very slowly during the last decade, and numerous questions remain open. Therefore, the research discourse on the stay-behind armies is still continuing and remains controversial. Although this essay can not deal with the issue exhaustively, it attempts to contribute to that discourse by offering an international perspective on the secret stay-behind army of neutral Switzerland during the Cold War, with particular reference to the role of the British secret service in that operation.

The discovery of NATO's secret stay-behind armies

The existence of the NATO stay-behind armies were revealed in Italy during the summer of 1990. Italian judge Felice Casson, who had been working in Rome in the archives of the Italian military secret service SISMI (Servizio Informazioni Sicurezza Militare, previously known as SID: Servizio Informazione Difesa) to investigate mysterious right-wing massacres, stumbled across documents proving the existence of an international stay-behind network linked to NATO. Casson found out that the stay-behind army in Italy was codenamed 'Gladio', or 'Sword'. 'From July until October 1990, I was the only one who knew something', Casson later recalled, 'this could have been unfortunate for me'. 2 Casson survived and informed the Italian Senate of his far-reaching discovery. A special investigative Senate committee under Senator Libero Gualtieri ordered Italian Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti of the Christian Democratic Party (DCI) to take a stand, whereupon the latter handed a ten-page report to the Senate commission on 24 October 1990, entitled 'The so called "Parallel SID"-The Gladio Case'.

This report officially confirmed for the first time that secret, so-called 'stay-behind armies' linked to NATO existed across Western Europe. Andreotti revealed that after the war, the Italian military secret service and the CIA had set up a so-called 'stay-behind army', which, together with the secret armies of other nations, was supervised and coordinated by two hitherto unknown secret unconventional warfare centres at NATO's Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE), known as the Clandestine Planning Committee and the Allied Clandestine Committee: 'Once the clandestine resistance organisation was constituted, Italy was called upon to participate in the works of the CCP (Clandestine Planning Committee) as of 1959, operating within the ambit of SHAPE'. Thereafter, 'in 1964 the Italian secret service also entered the ACC (Allied Clandestine Committee)'. 3 General Vito Miceli, a former senior member of the NATO Security Office that oversaw operations and a former director of the Italian military secret service, could hardly believe that the prime minister had publicly revealed the Gladio secret, and shortly before his death in October 1990 protested: 'I have gone to prison because I did not want to reveal the existence of this top-secret organisation. And now Andreotti comes along and tells it to Parliament!'4

As the Italian press raised strong criticism against the anti-Communist conspiracy, the prime minister, in an attempt to defend himself, highlighted the fact that similar secret stay-behind armies existed across Western Europe. Subsequent investigations revealed the existence of secret anti-Communist stay-behind armies in the NATO countries Germany, Turkey, Greece, Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg, Denmark, and Norway. When France tried to deny its involvement in the international stay-behind network, Andreotti mercilessly declared in public that officers of the French military secret service had also clandestinely participated in the most recent ACC meeting, which had taken place in Brussels on 23 and 24 October 1990 under the chairmanship of General Raymond Van Calster, chief of the Belgian military secret service SGR (Service Général de Renseignement).

Alarmed, the Belgian Senate, like the Senate in Italy, decided to investigate the matter in detail and formed a special committee under Senator Roger Lallemand. After a year of research, the committee presented a detailed 250-page public report. 5 According to the findings of the Belgian senators, from 1948 onwards, the so-called 'Clandestine Committee of the Western Union' (CCWU) had coordinated preparations for unconventional warfare in Western Europe. Senior officers of the European military secret services met regularly within the CCWU to discuss anti-Communist warfare. When the North Atlantic Treaty was signed in 1949, the CCWU was secretly integrated into NATO and, from 1951 on, operated under the label 'Clandestine Planning Committee' (CPC). As the European headquarters of the military alliance moved from France to Belgium, the chair of the CPC also moved to Brussels in 1968. Furthermore, the Belgian senators found that in 1957, on the orders of NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), a second secret command centre, labelled the Allied Clandestine Committee (ACC), had been set up whose duties 'included elaborating the directives for the network, developing its clandestine capability and organising bases in Britain and the United States. In wartime, it was to plan stay-behind operations in conjunction with SHAPE; organisers were to activate clandestine bases and organise operations from there'.6

NATO reacted with confusion when these delicate secrets were exposed, and initially categorically denied Andreotti's allegation on 5 November 1990. Senior spokesman Jean Marcotta said at SHAPE headquarters in Mons, Belgium, that 'NATO has never contemplated guerrilla war or clandestine operations; it has always concerned itself with military affairs and the defence of Allied frontiers'. The next day, a NATO spokesman conceded that NATO's denial on the previous day had been false. The spokesman left journalists with a short communiqué only, which said that NATO never commented on matters of military secrecy, and that Marcotta should not have said anything at all. 7

According to Spanish press reports, NATO's highest military official in Europe, SACEUR US General John Galvin, and NATO's highest civilian official in Europe, Secretary-General Manfred Wörner, held a closed-door meeting with the ambassadors of the 16 allied NATO nations immediately after the public relations debacle. Behind closed doors they confirmed that SHAPE had coordinated the stay-behind armies, but added that for security reasons, NATO's public position had to be that they would not comment on official secrets. 8 As the international press protested about the 'no-comment' policy, a NATO diplomat, who insisted on remaining anonymous, reasoned:

Since this is a secret organisation, I wouldn't expect too many questions to be answered, even though the Cold War is over. If there were any links to terrorist organisations, that sort of information would be buried very deep indeed. If not, then what is wrong with taking precautions to organise resistance if you think the Soviets might attack? 9

The secret stay-behind army of Switzerland

To many Swiss people, until today even the thought of a secret army linked to NATO existing in their officially neutral country seems an incredible suggestion. However, following the discovery of the stay-behind armies across Western Europe in late 1990, Swiss and international security researchers found themselves confronted with two clear-cut questions: Did Switzerland also operate a secret stay-behind army? And if yes, was it part of NATO's stay-behind network? The answer to the first question is clearly yes, as will be shown in detail in this section. The answer to the second question remains disputed and will be addressed in the next section.

Switzerland was the only country in Western Europe where the existence of a secret stay-behind army had, by coincidence, already been discovered and confirmed months before Italian Prime Minister Andreotti revealed the secret. The discovery in Switzerland was made by parliamentarians investigating the Defence Department in the summer of 1990. This investigation had been launched in the wake of the so-called 'secret files scandal' ('Fichenaffäre') that had shocked both the Swiss population and the Swiss Justice and Police Department (EJPD, Eidgenössisches Justiz- und Polizeidepartement) in the previous year. Without the secret files scandal and the turmoil it created, the Swiss secret army might have never been discovered, and therefore it is important to look back upon that scandal.

At its eruption at the end of the Cold War, the secret files scandal caught the Swiss population by surprise. Within the EJPD, the Swiss Federal Police (BUPO, Bundespolizei), similar to the US FBI, had the task to operate domestically as a police and counter-intelligence service fighting organised crime, sabotage, high treason, terrorism, and forgery in order to protect the security of the state. At the end of the Cold War, it was alleged that the BUPO had overstepped its authority and was secretly and illegally keeping personal files on both Swiss citizens and foreigners. As the media pressed for answers, the parliament decided to set up a special parliamentary commission (PUK EJPD) to investigate the Justice and Police Department. The commission presented its final report in November 1989 and found that although BUPO had generally worked well, it had also massively transgressed its powers in the field of state security by keeping more than 900,000 files in secret archives-thus keeping tabs on every seventh citizen in a population of 7 million. Many files focused on male foreigners from Eastern European countries, but others also targeted Swiss citizens, organisations, firms, and political groups of all colours, mainly on the left. 10

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladio_in_Italy


Prime minister Giulio Andreotti (DC) publicly recognized the existence of Gladio, a NATO stay-behind anti-communist organisation, on October 24, 1990. He gave to the Commissione Stragi, the parliamentary commission led by senator Giovanni Pellegrino in charge of investigations on bombings committed during the years of lead in Italy, a list of 622 civilians who according to him were part of Gladio. Andreotti also assured that 127 weapons caches had been dismantled, and pretended that Gladio had not been involved in any of the bombings committed from the 1960s to the 1980s (further evidence implicated neofascists linked to Gladio, in particular concerning the 1969 Piazza Fontana bombing, the 1972 Peteano attack by Vincenzo Vinciguerra, the 1980 Bologna massacre in which SISMI officers were condemned for investigation diversion, along with Licio Gelli, head of Propaganda Due masonic lodge

Vincenzo Vinciguerra, a far-right terrorist, had already revealed Gladio's existence during his 1984 trial. Gladio was involved in "la strategia della tensione" during the "lead years", which started with Piazza Fontana bombing in December, 1969. Thirty years later, during a trial of right-wing extremists, General Giandelio Maletti, former head of Italian counter-intelligence, claimed that the massacre had been carried out by the Italian stay-behind army and right wing terrorists on orders of the CIA in order to discredit the Italian Communist Party (PCI).


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-V1bXs_5Io


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Come on, are you serious about these examples?

Those are pre-Internet incidents. Pre-15 minutes of television fame conspiracies. There is a huge difference between then and now.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The other day, the Weather Network was talking about snow falling...it didn't happen until 20 minutes later.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Vandave said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-V1bXs_5Io


Although I've yet to see a convincing alternative to the official version,* this video contains essentially no debunking of the whacko theories. It consists mostly of ridicule, which is OK I guess, but I'd say there's basically zero hope of someone who believes in controlled demolition, unmanned planes/missiles and other such nonsense being convinced by this video.

A few clicks away I found this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOSZ5nVfc8Q&mode=related&search=

IMO it provides not a shred of evidence for _any_ particular explanation of what happened that day, and yet all the comments so far are from people who see it as "more proof" that the towers were brought down on purpose via controlled demolition, that there's a MSM conspiracy of silence, yadda yadda. Speaks volumes about the mindset.

* I mean in terms of the basic facts, sequence of events, physics of collapse, etc. Despite my acceptance of those things, I think it's also true that an incompetent, arguably illegitimate US administration crassly used these events as an opportunity to pursue a repulsive agenda. There is also a disturbing tendency to spin the failures of American intelligence operations (under both the Bush and Clinton administrations) as unavoidable ones.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

It's only two years later, but here's another example: the Chinese Olympics from last summer. From photoshopped fireworks displays to synthetic people in the stands, there were many things during these Olympic games that were not real. If one can lie about some things, why can't they lie about everything? Credibility goes out the window.

I believe there was no good reason for WTC Building No. 7 to come down, and the collapse of the Twin Towers defies logic as well. I believe the collapse of WTC7 is evidence that all three buildings were taken down with explosives at least partly. If this is true, then a huge conspiracy existed and likely still exists today, even after Obama has become the new president. If the supposed hijackers (15 of the 19 were from Saudi Arabia, btw) could conspire to attack the TWC with planes, why couldn't there be a homegrown conspiracy as well?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The Chinese Olympics were immediately exposed as featuring faked imagery. They couldn't keep it secret. You can lie about anything, but you can't keept it a secret for long.

The collapse of these buidings does not defy logic. The hijackers conspired to attack the WTC and were exposed. A homegrown conspiracy couldn't survive because it, too, would be exposed.


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

The reference given from the 1930's before the "information era" is weak at best.... sending a telegram faking an incident is easy. Faking an incident with 100s? 1000s of satellites in orbit and such would be alot more difficult. I don't consider that a fair comparison by any means.

Fake fireworks versus a collapse of a building killing millions = BIG difference.

I can't believe I just debated a 2 year old thread.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

The notion that, somehow, a crack team of demolitions experts prepping multiple buildings for implosion in extremely short time just to pull off the biggest scam in the world is psychotic. Even when given ample time, demolitionists have been known to screw up relatively simple jobs... yet somehow the US could wrangle enough men to collapse several buildings in a controlled manner without raising any suspicion?

Why would they bother with such a risky and idiotic plan of such grand scale to justify invading another country? I mean, come on, all it took for the USA to justify attacking Iraq was a PowerPoint presentation.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

MannyP Design said:


> ... all it took for the USA to justify attacking Iraq was a PowerPoint presentation.


Notch up another one there for M$. (Sorry, couldn't resist - I know, I'll go to Hell.)


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

MannyP Design said:


> The notion that, somehow, a crack team of demolitions experts prepping multiple buildings for implosion in extremely short time just to pull off the biggest scam in the world is psychotic. Even when given ample time, demolitionists have been known to screw up relatively simple jobs... yet somehow the US could wrangle enough men to collapse several buildings in a controlled manner without raising any suspicion?
> 
> Why would they bother with such a risky and idiotic plan of such grand scale to justify invading another country? I mean, come on, all it took for the USA to justify attacking Iraq was a PowerPoint presentation.


BINGO! Couldn't agree more!


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

RunTheWorldOnMac said:


> The reference given from the 1930's before the "information era" is weak at best.... sending a telegram faking an incident is easy. Faking an incident with 100s? 1000s of satellites in orbit and such would be alot more difficult. I don't consider that a fair comparison by any means.
> 
> Fake fireworks versus a collapse of a building killing millions = BIG difference.
> 
> I can't believe I just debated a 2 year old thread.


Except the collapse of the building didn't kill millions. It killed about 3000. It could have killed way more than that had it been later in the day. Do a little research and see if you can find out how many steel frame buildings in history have collapsed due to fire, especially when the building had not been hit by an aircraft, as was the case with WTC No. 7. There is no plausible explanation for why that building came down the way it did, apart from explosives. And do you know what perished along with WTC7?


----------



## eggman (Jun 24, 2006)

Snapple Quaffer said:


> Notch up another one there for M$. (Sorry, couldn't resist - I know, I'll go to Hell.)


Oh yes, and once you're there - there will be more PowerPoint... oh, yes, for Hell is made of PowerPoint.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

fjnmusic said:


> And do you know what perished along with WTC7?


Common sense?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Fact sheet from National Institute of Standards and Tehcnology regarding collapse of WTC 7, updated April 21, 2009:

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation


----------



## Niteshooter (Aug 8, 2008)

Disregard


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

Just realized I put "millions"... wow! Must be the dislexia.... maybe 
i meant to say cost millions and yes killed thousands.


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

fjnmusic said:


> There is no plausible explanation for why that building came down the way it did, apart from explosives.


I would think the impact from a large airplane filled with fuel would also be a plausible explanation.

The ONLY way to definitively test your theory would be to build a handful of WTC, and fly a plane into them to test it out.

I saw the planes hit; I know how the buildings went down.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Some previous steel frame building collpases due to fire:

911 Links - Kader Toy Factory Fire: Structural Steel Quickly Failed

Fire Protection Engineering Archives - Historical Survey of Multistory Building Collapses Due to Fire


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

This BBC's response re WC7 and the early report of it's collapse.
BBC - The Editors: Part of the conspiracy?

If you read through the comments, you will get to a link of the complete BBC news report in wmv, QT and .avi; I just watched the .avi video (I assume the others are identical) but what struck me is that the male BBC news reporter came on and reported several times on the 5pm news that the WC7 had collapsed - absolutely no qualifiers like "apparently", it's reported", "we're hearing" as the BBC response stated.
So the BBC 5pm news reporter obviously read a very definitive statement.

The lady BBC reporter in NY city came on later and she obviously doesn't know what the WC7 building is because at one point she looks right at it and doesn't realize she is claiming it has collapsed even though it's still standing there in plain sight of her.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Some previous steel frame building collpases due to fire:
> 
> 911 Links - Kader Toy Factory Fire: Structural Steel Quickly Failed
> 
> Fire Protection Engineering Archives - Historical Survey of Multistory Building Collapses Due to Fire


Did you actually read the information in the links you posted?
They pretty much prove what was posted earlier that no modern steel frame building had ever collapsed due to fire.

The first link is about a factory in Thailand with extremely flimsy steel beams, nothing comparable to the WTC and in the second link, there are only six occurrences of steel frame buildings collapsing due to fire and four of those are buildings that collapsed on 9-11. No mention what the other two were and if they could be counted as legitimate events of steel frame buildings that collapsed due to fire.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Yes I did read them. I honestly don't know how close they were inconstruction to WTC-7, but as the report points out, WTC-7 is as unique as other major building collapses.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

So the BBC was privvy to the nefarious plan to demolish WTC7?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MannyP Design said:


> So the BBC was privvy to the nefarious plan to demolish WTC7?


The thrust of this appears to be the idea that either:

a) the BBC was fed a script of the event in advance
b) the BBC reported information from another source that was fed the news too early by mistake.

The question, of course: why feed anyone information at all, since the building is going down anyway? Why not just let them report on it as it happens?

The complexity of the so-called conspiracy eventually becomes so great as to defy plausibility. News sources fall all over each other to be the first to report anything. In most cases, they're simply wrong but they'll risk anything to get the message out first. Look at election reports. Are they being fed the outcome of the election in advance, or just tripping over themselves to blurt out the winner before the others?


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

RunTheWorldOnMac said:


> I would think the impact from a large airplane filled with fuel would also be a plausible explanation.
> 
> The ONLY way to definitively test your theory would be to build a handful of WTC, and fly a plane into them to test it out.
> 
> I saw the planes hit; I know how the buildings went down.


Yes, but World Trade Center No. 7 is not the building you're thinking of. It was a 47-storey building a ways away from the Twin Towers. It was not struck by an airplane and is the first incident in history to collapse due to an uncontrolled fire. You can see the footage for yourself on YouTube. Everyone talks about the twin towers, but there is not a lot of discussion about WTC 7.

YouTube - wtc 7 collapse


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Please. It's the internet. There's a _ton_ of discussions on what happened to Building 7. Relative to the twin towers there's a paucity, sure - but let's not pretend the conspiracy theorists haven't been feasting lustily on the scraps of Building 7 for years now.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Max said:


> Please. It's the internet. There's a _ton_ of discussions on what happened to Building 7. Relative to the twin towers there's a paucity, sure - but let's not pretend the conspiracy theorists haven't been feasting lustily on the scraps of Building 7 for years now.


Since this building suffered only light structural damage and there was little or no fire the only plausible explanations are:

Planned explosives or God did it.

The second is a succinct summary of the conclusion of the pathetic 9/11 inquiry into that days events. Personally I find it extremely unlikely. However accepting the first means that in all likelihood all of the WTC collapses were an inside job. Not at all what any one wants to believe!

In any event Google "WTC 7 collapse", follow the various threads for a few weeks and try to figure out for yourself what really happened. Lots of opinions offered up by qualified architects and engineers.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

^^^
WTC-7 was probably built to the same standards as American cars - and thus, gave up the bun because someone gobbed on the sidewalk...


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

fjnmusic said:


> You can see the footage for yourself on YouTube. Everyone talks about the twin towers, but there is not a lot of discussion about WTC 7.
> 
> YouTube - wtc 7 collapse


If you're interested in this whole 9-11 scenario, also take a look at the some other related YouTube videos. I had forgotten about many really strange incidents that day.
The whole NORAD story involving Cheney, the obvious lies told by Bush and the administration, Bush's reaction and bumbling comments at various events...


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

eMacMan said:


> Since this building suffered only light structural damage and there was little or no fire the only plausible explanations are:
> 
> Planned explosives or God did it.
> 
> ...


I merely pointed out that, contrary to fjn's claims, the net is in fact lousy with rumours, factoids, speculation and novel theories as to what happened to Building 7. I'm not here to debate what happened to that specific building on the day in question. A lot of remarkable things happened on that day. Some aspects of it have been withheld from public consumption - that much I believe. Coming to the conclusion that the buildings were all deliberately blown and that a massive, hydra-headed coverup exists? That I don't believe. I'm of the opinion that, the more massive and unwieldy the alleged conspiracy, the more fervently its adherents will cling to it. I have a good friend who believes it was all staged... he tries to convince me from time to time. I suspect he each of us have the same response - _I can't believe he doesn't believe it. It's just so, so... obvious._

The net is a most fertile ground for wholesale speculation, innuendo, contrarianism, paranoia, racism, intrigue and petulant, raging, irrational infantilism. There's room for all sorts of... stuff. It's a quintessentially human reservoir, this stew we've fashioned for ourselves. You can drink from it for as long as you wish.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Max said:


> I merely pointed out that, contrary to fjn's claims, the net is in fact lousy with rumours, factoids, speculation and novel theories as to what happened to Building 7. I'm not here to debate what happened to that specific building on the day in question. A lot of remarkable things happened on that day. Some aspects of it have been withheld from public consumption - that much I believe. Coming to the conclusion that the buildings were all deliberately blown and that a massive, hydra-headed coverup exists? That I don't believe. I'm of the opinion that, the more massive and unwieldy the alleged conspiracy, the more fervently its adherents will cling to it. I have a good friend who believes it was all staged... he tries to convince me from time to time. I suspect he each of us have the same response - _I can't believe he doesn't believe it. It's just so, so... obvious._
> 
> The net is a most fertile ground for wholesale speculation, innuendo, contrarianism, paranoia, racism, intrigue and petulant, raging, irrational infantilism. There's room for all sorts of... stuff. It's a quintessentially human reservoir, this stew we've fashioned for ourselves. You can drink from it for as long as you wish.


So you prefer the God or Satan induced spontaneous collapse of WTC-7?


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

eMacMan said:


> So you prefer the God or Satan induced spontaneous collapse of WTC-7?


How can you question that?
It's right there in the picture - clear as day:


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

eMacMan said:


> So you prefer the God or Satan induced spontaneous collapse of WTC-7?


Silly! Everyone knows t'was the grey aliens.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Max said:


> I merely pointed out that, contrary to fjn's claims, the net is in fact lousy with rumours, factoids, speculation and novel theories as to what happened to Building 7. I'm not here to debate what happened to that specific building on the day in question. A lot of remarkable things happened on that day. Some aspects of it have been withheld from public consumption - that much I believe. Coming to the conclusion that the buildings were all deliberately blown and that a massive, hydra-headed coverup exists? That I don't believe. I'm of the opinion that, the more massive and unwieldy the alleged conspiracy, the more fervently its adherents will cling to it. I have a good friend who believes it was all staged... he tries to convince me from time to time. I suspect he each of us have the same response - _I can't believe he doesn't believe it. It's just so, so... obvious._
> 
> The net is a most fertile ground for wholesale speculation, innuendo, contrarianism, paranoia, racism, intrigue and petulant, raging, irrational infantilism. There's room for all sorts of... stuff. It's a quintessentially human reservoir, this stew we've fashioned for ourselves. You can drink from it for as long as you wish.


Innuendo…isn't that a word for an Italian suppository?


----------

