BBC Building 7 Video #1 MOST Discussed on You Tube This Week

[Breukelen advocaat]

Silenceâ?¦

Defeat?

No, there is no victory or defeat in an internet conversation of this sort. I just have nothing more to say. I do not have the time, resources, or ability to disprove your contention that the collapse of WTC Building 7 was pre-planned. But, the NIST report on building 7 will be out in the spring of 2007 and this may shed more light on the subject. Nothing can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt simply because of the massive destruction of property and evidence on 9/11. The fact that bin laden ADMITTED* to being responsible for it is a pretty good indicaton of where the blame lies.

Nobody wins or loses in an exchange like this, which is not a traditional debate by any stretch of the imagination.

*Full transcript of bin ladenâ??s speech on al jazeera
Al Jazeera English - Archive

[eg420ne]

Ummmm Usama deny any involvement in the attacks....that fat USAma is a CIA fake....hooked line sinker

[harris7]

YEs it is interesting that Bin (as i call him) denies the attacks 3 times then releases a tape admitting it.

hmm, It is possible the tape was fake? yes possible
Is it possible that the tape was not interpreted properly? also possible

trusting that tape takes a lot of faith

[Breukelen advocaat]

I highly doubt that Al Jazeera would interpret the tape incorrectly.

9/11 was not bin laden's first terrorist attack, and I don't see why it is unlikely that he did it - especially with the tape that Al Jazeera has.

More binladen video, from Dec. 2001:
NPR: America Responds - Osama bin Laden Videotape

[harris7]

9/11 was not bin laden's first terrorist attack, and I don't see why it is unlikely that he did it

If you do something, then we can blame all future events similar to it on you. Hmm, strong line of reasoning.



I shall no longer post on this thread,

I will leave saying that I am disappointed that you form such strong opinions about the events, the possible theories and the people who believe them, with such little knowledge of the issue.

This is clear because you were unable to rebut any point I made and tried desperately to change topics when pressed. And you said your self that you know little of the event in question.

Thanks for reconfirming my beliefs,

[Breukelen advocaat]

The asshole admitted it, and Al Jazeera published the speech where he takes credit! What more do you want?

[Delta9 UK]

The asshole admitted it, and Al Jazeera published the speech where he takes credit! What more do you want?

are you kidding?

If Santa Claus said he did it would that mean its all OK?

So what if he says he did it, that proves nothing - other than he says he did it.

A lot of us are not looking for whacked-out theories just the truth and we are NOT buying your governments story that 19 men with boxcutters defeated the greatest nation on Earth. Or maybe that's the real terror right there?

However, I digress....

The key issue here for me is NOT the fact that the BBC reported WTC7 it is how they behaved afterwards:

1. Denied it and claimed they "lost the tape" - Utter BS
2. Video was removed from You-Tube and Google Video - several times
3. BBC denies the report is real
4. BBC back-tracks
5. BBC will not give News Source
6. BBC Whine about being labelled conspirators (lol WTF?)

This type of behaviour is piss-poor and certainly not what I expect for my Licence fee (We pay for the BBC each year!) but it just goes to show how the media really behaves and what they are actually used for.

[harris7]

The asshole admitted it, and Al Jazeera published the speech where he takes credit! What more do you want?

One last thing.

I never said I didn’t believe he did it.
I acutely believe that Middle eastern terrorists flew the planes into the buildings. I don’t really care who “masterminded” it.

I believe the use of Osama by the government and the media is to give the public someone to direct their anger from the events at. It is necessary to give the public an object to hate and “war” against, being at war with terrorism is too intangible to sustain a war effort.

Blind the public with their emotions then attack an unrelated country...
Smart government, dumb public

[Breukelen advocaat]

are you kidding?

If Santa Claus said he did it would that mean its all OK?

We knew it was bin laden before he admitted it - he'd threatened, and attacked, us before.

So what if he says he did it, that proves nothing - other than he says he did it.

He's the number one suspect - and all of the cards show that his guys did it.

A lot of us are not looking for whacked-out theories just the truth and we are NOT buying your governments story that 19 men with boxcutters defeated the greatest nation on Earth. Or maybe that's the real terror right there?

The U.S., in case you have not heard was not "defeated" - it was attacked by lunatics.

However, I digress....

The key issue here for me is NOT the fact that the BBC reported WTC7 it is how they behaved afterwards:

1. Denied it and claimed they "lost the tape" - Utter BS
2. Video was removed from You-Tube and Google Video - several times
3. BBC denies the report is real
4. BBC back-tracks
5. BBC will not give News Source
6. BBC Whine about being labelled conspirators (lol WTF?)

This type of behaviour is piss-poor and certainly not what I expect for my Licence fee (We pay for the BBC each year!) but it just goes to show how the media really behaves and what they are actually used for.

I don't mind complaints about the government of the United States, when they have some basis in fact - but you're going off in the wrong direction if you think that a bunch of menatlly-ill religous fanatics with sharp objects are incapable of hijacking planes. It had been done before. The crew, captain, and passengers probably thought, and were told by the terrorists, that the plane was being hijacked and taken somewhere to land. Planes were never before used as missiles. They didn't get away with it on the plane that crashed in PA, Flight 93. The passengers knew that the other hijacked planes were crashed into buildings.

These hijackings were partially the fault of the airlines and the FAA because the captain's cabin was not locked.

The aftermath of 9/11, and how the U.S. reacted, elicits different views and opinions. I would have tracked down and killed as many Taliban and Al Quada people as possible, right after 9/11 - including mass bombings in the mountains near the Pakistan/Afghanistan border. These people are crazy, and need to out-crazed. It was a huge mistake to arm them against the Russians in the first place, and they paid us back with attacks. We should have let the U.S.S.R. have that place, and not interfered. So much for dealing with religous fanatics.

[Breukelen advocaat]

One last thing.

I never said I didnâ??t believe he did it.
I acutely believe that Middle eastern terrorists flew the planes into the buildings. I donâ??t really care who â??mastermindedâ?� it.

I believe the use of Osama by the government and the media is to give the public someone to direct their anger from the events at. It is necessary to give the public an object to hate and â??warâ?� against, being at war with terrorism is too intangible to sustain a war effort.

Blind the public with their emotions then attack an unrelated country...
Smart government, dumb public

Now you're making some sense. It was our fault for arming the people that became Taliban and Al Quada, but the government wanted to stop Communist expansion in Afghanistan. I would have let the Russians have the place. The people that we helped set up one of the worst regimes in the world - the Taliban, who repaid us by harboring bin laden and his ilk. One of the main resentments that bin laden had toward the U.S., besides the fact that we're not Islamic, was the fact that we provided military advisors and weapons, but not enough military support! After the way the idiotic Carter administration fucked-up in the Iran hostage crisis, I guess they figured we would back down after 9/11, also.