It's time to blow the big lie wide open. 'Operation Mockingbird' is of course in place and working overtime. Everybody needs to contact your local newspapers and media to this story. Lets give them hell.

again?

ok - now this smells bad.

talk about Karma. first they air a bullsh*t hit-piece on the movement - and now they get caught with their pants down.

This is insane. A total media blackout is occurring on this story. Only a few sites (and no mainstream outlets) are reporting that a 47-story building was said to be down when there were 20 minutes more to go before the building was detonated.

We cannot let this story die!

The governments are running for cover because the lies about 9/11 cannot be contained. We are seeing fascism in practice as states tell the mainstream media what it will and will not say. A free people WIILL NOT tolerate this.

Dont forget that the original 911 Air traffic controll tapes had been destroyed, but dont worry, they wrote down all the details before they destroyed the tapes.. I saw a tape about the JFK assination. Investigative reports. .A man claimed he filmed the motorcade and seen JFK shot, Dalls police and SS agemts seen him with 8mm Camera and took it from him.. Years later a photo from across the street clearlly shows this man hollding up a CAMERA .seconds before the Coup-de-tah. .The extreme weapons of Earth`s nations is a symbol of Human Failure

C'mon people this is a great site in search of the truth. We need articulate comments from around the world. Let's rock!

wtc 7 went down in a controlled demolition-----flat into it';s own footprint

the owner has stated it was "pulled"

it was announced that it collapsed live right in front of the building 30 minutes before it finally did---throughout the cfr infiltrated international media

no other steel building has ever fell flat into it';s own footprint from a natural fire

since there is more than enough evidence that proves it was a controlled demolition----then that means 911was an inside job

The interesting thing about 9/11 is it defines who you are as an American. For example:

Person A) I know it was an inside job but I'm willing to overlook it because my life if pretty good.

Person B) I don't know anything because I don't read or have any intellectual curiostiy.

Person C) I know what happened and I want to bring these motherfuckers down.

Person D) I'm old and don't care about these types of things anymore.

http://americanbuddhist.net/node/4750

www.northtexansfor911truth.com

Endgame

See http://www.webcameron.org.uk/blogs/2784-BBC-reports-on-WTC7-collapse-20-.... Let's help our friends in the UK and vote this thing into the top-3.

Sex Pistols - Anarchy in the UK (studio version)

This could be the most disgusting thing I have ever seen in my entire breathing life on planet Earth. My dog has a greater sense of decency when she's taking a shit.

http://digg.com/politics/Uncomfortable_Questions_Was_the_Death_Star_Dest...

I do not usually condone violence, but these little bastards need to be strung up by their balls and lit on fire. I emailed Digg about this blatant distaste and abuse, and would hope others who give a shit about what we are trying to accomplish here do the same.

abuse@digg.com, feedback@digg.com

Digg claims their system works on "karma", and those with "good karma" have a greater vote on burying stories than those with "low karma". Well if it does none of these bastards should ever be allowed to vote (up or down) or comment on stories ever again. Their karma just hit a bottomless pit of ignorance and distaste. I am literally speechless at the thought of what our society has degraded into.

relayed from nineeleven.co.uk

------------------------------------
In a related note which is of interest here, BBC World was (I’m reasonably sure) being run by a woman called Dame Pauline Neville-Jones in 2001. BBC World is also not funded by the British state, which many people won’t know, but is funded by corporate donations and other “sponsors.”

Anyhow, Dame Pauline once headed the Joint Intelligence Committee in the UK, a body which brings together the heads of the various British intelligence bodies with political leaders. She went from intelligence, to running the BBC World Service (radio) from which BBC World was spun off in 1995.

Since leaving the BBC World Service, she has taken up a role on the board of QinetiQ (a corporation spun off from the UK defense establishment, from the privatization of which the Carlyle Group recently made a killing). She is also on the advisory board of the Intelligence Summit – where she joins Richard Perle, Kenneth Timmerman, Alrezi Jafarzadeh (the source of the U.S. “intelligence” on Iranian nuclear weapons programs).

I thought that might be of interest, but as for any broader implications, I have nothing to add.
----------------------------
A bit more on that:

http://www.spinwatch.org/content/view/496/9/

(Dame Pauline Neville-Jones has quit the BBC board of governors a year early, after her links with defence firms supplying US forces in Iraq were exposed earlier this month.

Greg Dyke blamed Neville-Jones for helping to force him out as director-general following the Hutton Report. However, a spokeswoman for the BBC has denied that the departure of Neville-Jones is linked to her involvement with Qinetiq.

The calls for her to stand down came from backbench Labour MPs, including former defence minister Peter Kilfoyle and Llew Smith.

Smith said: "It is completely inappropriate that someone so senior in the BBC should be leading a firm making huge profits from the misery caused by the invasion of Iraq.")

Where is Guliani headed when he is suddenly warned offed it by mysterious unnamed aid? Was he with EMO? What did he know that guliani didn't?Why was he so cryptic?More foreknowledge on 911 Guliani BBC

Everyone please watch this clip http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=201... Could someone help me determine exactly what this mysterious bald guy is saying . I hear "seven" used twice.

News organizations have a system in place whereby news stories are vetted before they are covered, otherwise anyone could call in at any time and report anything and they'd go right to air with it as if it were a fact. Now sometimes they stretch the rules due to a number of factors, including "reliable sources", videotape evidence, etc.

In this case that process appears to be in place. They repeatedly cite "being informed" and confirm the event with tems like "indeed it has collapsed", not wishy washy equivocations, but solid statements of fact.

There is far more in the explanation than there is in the clip.

Here's my take from another forum post, I don't want to forget anything.

"Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening."

Then where did the information come from? Do they simply make up the news? How can you tell people that "indeed, the Salomon Brothers building has collapsed, the third building to do so today." if you didn't get it from somewhere? If this is their disclaimer, then it only proves that they failed in their task as journalists to report the truth. It makes it imperative that the entire event be re-examined thoroughly, honestly and without using such pathetic excuses as "we lost the tapes, do you have any of them we could borrow?" or "In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue", that's not good enough, in fact, it proves that they failed to do their job.

"We did what we always did - sourced our reports, used qualifying words like "apparently" or "it's reported" or "we're hearing" and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving."

That simply isn't true. They report DEFINITIVELY that the building collapsed, more than half a dozen times. If it was sourced, tell us where you got the information. Or is that lost as well?

"Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I've spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn't remember minute-by-minute what she said or did..."

Nice way to qualify the statement, but as you said at the top, it WAS SEARED IN OUR MINDS, now you say "she doesn't remember", again, a poor, poor pitiful excuse for not being able to explain why she was reporting as fact a fiction.

"..she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services."

"Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th."

How do you make those two contradictory statements jibe? Shouldn't you have at least proof read the statement before posting it? Nobody told the reporter what to say, she was told what to say and BOTH of those excuses are being used simultaneously. Simply incredible and yet that's the BBC's best defense.

"We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it."

The dog ate my homework? That's the best you have? Pray tell, how often does the BBC "lose" it's biggest stories from the archives? If this is the only time, maybe I'll buy the "cock-up" line, but I'd say this calls for an independent outside review going back ten years, a thorough investigation of where the information that makes up the historic record, and on the taxpayers dime I may add, actually is archived. What an atrocious mea culpa, just shameful.

"If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that."

Well, that settles the matter, forgive us for doubting you, what with the sterling reputation you've had on such news events as the Niger Documents, WMD's, The London Bombing, the murder of the Briazilian electrician by the anti-terror squads, and on and on ad nauseum. You're wrong as often as you're right, so using the disclaimer that it was "an error and nothing more than that" is at the very least suspect, and in the case of the people who've been clamoring for a thorough investigation of 911, a brazen lie. I think it's more than that and if the rest of the disclaimer they've made is any indication of their trustworthiness and impeachability, I'd say it is meaningless.

"As one of the comments on You Tube says today "so the guy in the studio didn't quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy... "

Are you fucking joking? An anonymous youtube poster's comment is the final disclaimer you've got? You should be fucking fired for trying to use that. Talk about anecdotal, talk about heresay, talk about unsourced, talk about dubious, immaterial, irrelevant and pointless, this takes the cake.

The BBC has only hurt itself by responding in this manner.

Utterly shameful.
----------------------------

Compliments "Mysterious Stranger" @ the Loose Change Forum - where I'm actually banned for a clash with the no planers! :-D