GazeboflossUK

Once Upon A Time by Air

Time Stamp Confirms BBC Reported WTC 7 Collapse 26 Minutes In Advance Debunkers' claims about blue screens, inconclusive time frame of Jane Standley footage eviscerated Paul Joseph Watson Wednesday, February 28, 2007 If there was any remaining doubt that the BBC reported the collapse of Building 7 over 20 minutes before it fell then it has now evaporated with the discovery of footage from the BBC's News 24 channel that shows the time stamp at 21:54 (4:54PM EST) when news of the Salomon Brothers Building is first broadcast, a full 26 minutes in advance of its collapse. Watch the clip below. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPxnS3PDqIg According to FEMA, WTC 7 collapsed at 5:20pm on the afternoon of 9/11. Since British Summer Time is five hours ahead of Eastern Standard Time, the BBC reported the collapse of Building 7 at 4:54PM EST, a full 26 minutes before it collapsed. "News is continuing to come in as you can imagine. We're now being told that another enormous building in New York has collapsed. It is the 47-story Salomon Brothers building [better known as WTC Building 7] which was situated very close to the World Trade Center, right there in this financial capitol," states the anchor Gavin Estler. Following the controversy created by Monday's footage in which BBC correspondent Jane Standley is seen live in New York reporting the collapse of Building 7 as it remains standing behind her, many debunkers tried to claim that the images were inconclusive because there was no time stamp on the footage. Others alleged that Standley was merely standing in front of a dated blue screen image and that the shot in her background was a recording from earlier in the day. Both these objections can now be easily dismissed by the addition of the News 24 footage confirming that the news that Building 7 had collapsed was prematurely reported by 26 minutes. Since the BBC obviously had a source for this information, though they refuse to acknowledge exactly what that source was, it can be surmised that the news took a few minutes to make its way to the on air anchor, therefore we can approximate that someone knew Building 7 was going to collapse at least half an hour before it fell. However, if we factor in CNN's Aaron Brown reporting that Building 7 "has collapsed or is collapsing" at 4:15PM EST, then that's over an hour before the building imploded into its own footprint. First responders, firefighters and police are all on the record as stating they were told Building 7 was to be "brought down" and many took that to mean that it was going to be intentionally demolished by means of explosives. Some even reported a 20 second countdown preceding the building's collapse, which can only mean one thing - that it was deliberately imploded according to a pre-determined schedule. Building 7 stood 355 feet away from the north tower. Structures closer to the twin towers that were bombarded with debris and essentially hollowed out remained standing for weeks after 9/11, until they were demolished by explosive crews, whereas Building 7 suffered relatively little damage and yet imploded hours after the towers fell. In their Conspiracy Files "documentary" the BBC said WTC 7 was a "raging inferno" when in fact fires were confined to just eight floors according to FEMA. World Trade Center Building 3 (pictured above), known publicly as the 22-story Marriott Hotel positioned between the twin towers, was heavily damaged during the collapse of WTC 2, yet it did not experience uniform collapse either vertically or horizontally. The BBC's pathetic excuse for not being able to confirm that they reported the collapse of WTC 7 in advance, that they lost the tapes of the BBC World 9/11 coverage, was nothing more than an attempt to make questions about this huge controversy go away. It remains to be seen if they'll issue another response now that it is 100% certified that they reported the collapse of a building 26 minutes before it happened. So far wider mainstream coverage of this mammoth story has been all but mute. We received an interesting e mail from a CNN archivist in Atlanta who stated their utter disbelief at the notion that BBC has lost any of their 9/11 archives."I'm an archivist with the CNN News Library in Atlanta, and I can tell you with absolute certainty, the mere idea that news agencies such as ours would "misplace" any airchecks from 9/11 is preposterous. CNN has these tapes locked away from all the others. People like myself, who normally would have access to any tapes in our library, must ask special permission in order to view airchecks from that day. Multiple tapes would have been recording their broadcast that day, and there are also private agencies that record all broadcasts from all channels - constantly - in the event that a news agency missed something or needs something. They don't just have one copy... they have several. It's standard procedure, and as soon as the second plane hit, they would start recording several copies on other tapes machines all day long." "The only information they need to give out is the source of the collapse claim. No one is saying the BBC is "part of the conspiracy," we're saying that someone gave that reporter the information ahead of time. The source of that information is the only thing they can reveal that would be meaningful." Just ten days after the airing of its bias, error ridden, propagandistic hit piece against the 9/11 truth movement, the BBC's program directors are probably wishing they had never gone near the subject. The response metered out against them, bolstered by the Building 7 fiasco, has tarnished the corporation's credibility and their sophistic attempt to rebut the accusations has only made matters worse. Suffice to say it would be a very stupid decision to re-air Guy Smith's farce of a documentary in any country ever again. Perhaps the BBC could do us all a favor and 'lose' the tapes just like they claim to have lost the tapes of their 9/11 coverage.

:) Busted! BBC Reported Building 7 Had Collapsed 20 Minutes Before It Fell Video shows reporter talking about collapse with WTC 7 still standing in background Monday, February 26, 2007 An astounding video uncovered from the archives today shows the BBC reporting on the collapse of WTC Building 7 over twenty minutes before it fell at 5:20pm on the afternoon of 9/11. The incredible footage shows a BBC reporter talking about the collapse of the Salomon Brothers Building while it remains standing in the live shot behind her head. Minutes before the actual collapse of the building is due, the feed to the reporter mysteriously dies. CLICK AND WATCH THE CLIP FOR YOURSELF This amazing clip is currently carried on Google Video and you can watch it above but many expect it to be removed shortly. We are attempting to download an original copy from the source. To be clear, the Salomon Brothers Building is just a different name for Building 7 or WTC 7. Although there is no clock on the footage, the source claims the report was given at 4:57pm EST, 23 minutes before Building 7 collapsed at 5:20pm. While the exact time of the report cannot be confirmed at present, it is clear from the footage that the reporter is describing the collapse of WTC 7 while it clearly remains standing behind her in the live shot. Here are some further screenshots from the video. The fact that the BBC reported on the collapse of Building 7 over twenty minutes in advance of its implosion obviously provokes a myriad of questions as to how they knew it was about to come down when the official story says its collapse happened accidentally as a result of fire damage and debris weakening the building's structure. As we have documented before, firefighters, police and first responders were all told to get back from the building because it was about to be brought down. It is widely acknowledged by those who were there on the scene that warnings were issued for people to evacuate the area in anticipation of the building's collapse, with some even stating that a 20 second countdown preceded the collapse of the 47-story skyscraper, again clearly suggesting that it was taken down by means of explosives as the video footage of its implosion illustrates. In a September 2002 PBS documentary, the owner of the WTC complex Larry Silverstein discusses Building 7 and states that in the late afternoon of September 11, the decision was made to "pull it." The term "pull it" is industry jargon for controlled demolition, but Silverstein denied charges that WTC 7 had been deliberately brought down. This newly uncovered video confirms what we all knew, that the collapse of WTC 7 was no surprise, because television news stations were reporting on it before it happened! This footage is absolutely amazing and should provoke a firestorm of new questions aimed both at Silverstein and the BBC. Who told the BBC that the building was going to collapse before it did and why were they reporting its fall in advance of the event actually taking place? Many have speculated that some kind of press release was leaked too soon and AP wires, radio stations and TV news outlets prematurely reported on WTC 7's collapse. The video also severely undermines the credibility of the BBC who recently caused controversy by airing a 9/11 hit piece that sought to debunk questions that bring the official story into doubt. That's amazing ^.....the BBC Studio Reporter even gives the official line, the 'official reason' why WTC7 has fallen before it actually has!! He's just reading what's being fed to him via a newswire service to BBC from official press releases. And then, when they go to New York live they even zoom in on the area, WTC7 clearly still standing, yet the reporters don't even know because Journalists are just the great repeaters of information. Oops. The truth is coming, day by day. :)

Hey, thank you very much for you kind words. I'm glad you like them. I've only been making some electronic music for the past 4 years....but before that I mostly wrote guitar based stuff. I do tend to create such a wide variety of different pieces in various styles - it's because I like a vast range of genres. Classical, Alternative Rock, Electronic.....you name it. I'm wanting to put some idea's together and play them live with a full band. I'm also looking to create a portfoilio of works as I'd like to write/score for computer games or short films etc....

^ haha, I often wonder how many people steal parts of songs they hear on the internet.

Ahhh, Fuck you!! Do I link to prisonplanet on this thread? no I don't. You act so absolutely dim at times. Imply whatever you want. Also - YOU: "I think they're ace" - Eh? that's not the issue!! You like how they work in Macdonalds? Are you completely stupid? I hate the way you ignore this problem in America and start talking about how good workers are in disgusting fast food chains in various parts of the UK. so..Foreign workers are pretty and hard working in London? While in the North they are terrible? Nice going....wow, you really are getting to the root of this. It's nothing like what's happening in the US!! Get a grip mate. (Also, I'm from near Newcastle - lived in London for 4 years and I can tell you that in London "all east european = edible food, pretty staff" is utter bullshit) But IF you were right what would it EVEN MATTER TO THIS THREAD! Nothing. Jesus.....is there nobody who can understand and actually care anymore? Aren't you supposed to be over in 'Lovely'. Get back there. And to address this thread..... There's nothing against mexicans wanting to move to America in my mind. I'm trying to say that they illegal immigration is being used to complete fuck your country up. I give up here...I really do.

Oh right, how long have you been playing? With recording and stuff, you can only get better the more you keep at it. You don't sound THAT much of a rookie on guitar when I think about it - sometimes I get sent stuff by bands and I have to turn my speakers volume up to 50 to make it out properly......and then I wish I hadn't because it sounds....well, shit. I found something else from my Boredom Archives....haha...It's just really pointless but quite funny. I cut a guitar sample from the beginning of NARC by Interpol, pitch shifted some of the seperate notes in the riff to make it sound alot more upbeat and then did some messing about with amplitude filter to create more of a staccato feel. Then from there it all went a bit Indian....haha.....for about a minute or so.....when I got sick and stopped. I did'nt really do much here.....just blended in a couple of other samples this time and quit. Once more this is really short and purely stupid but Interpol fans might find a giggle... http://www.sendspace.com/file/cn1ulk I hate myself sometimes...haha.

The rest was all my own parts.....only the guitar is from parachutes. Cool, I'll check yours out now.

Haha, well ok.. This is just something I did when bored one afternoon a couple of years ago. I didn't even think about what I was doing - there was no real thought into it and I don't even know way it still exists on my computer to be honest - it just happened. Anyway.....It's just short too. http://www.sendspace.com/file/a9fk8c Feel free to do as you like with it.......Recycle Bin (or 'Trash' if you're a Mac daddy)

Yeah, I passed this email around to a lot of people last week ;) I was a little pissed to say the least.

Great, thanks for the heads up on th youtube vids. Although I knew they would be there. I wanted to see No Cars Go, but it's SNL and it's probably to long.....coz you can't cut that track short.

The problem isn't going to go away. Look at what the North American Union actually is and what it will mean. And when the US dollar is worth shit everyone will ask themselves.....why didn't I know and see what was going on? Half the answer to that is: The process was originallly all signed over in secret. While the other half reflects directly on people living in a dreamland, where they think that Government is there to help. Stop the North American Union (or The Security and Prosperity Partnership - sounds nice that why huh? well it's not) Learn and Take action. http://www.stopspp.com http://www.stopthenorthamericanunion.com http://www.devvy.com/pdf/2006_December/karen_johnson_flyer_120306.pdf

Yes, there's an element of properganda about it when it's spun in the media......but if America is to fall and be taken apart by then the immigration problem will be expanded by the Globalists.

A quiet time? huh?

It's a big problem that's not being sorted out. In fact - lets give the illegals a credit card? Yes. Without showing any real I.D? Sure. Illegals are almost treated like first class citizens - while Americans are killed, taxed, lied to and have their county's reputation dragged even futher through the mud. :veryangry:

What is the piano track?

I wish I'd actually written some music for this - it would have been great. Oh well.

Sad isn't it? And don't say no.

haha, yeah....There's like back-ups of back-ups that are all tuned as required. You can see them all lined up at gigs and hoppy's normally is playing about with one. I laughed quite a bit when Chris' Vox Teardrop would just NOT tune up right. Hoppy (hate saying his name, really I do) was getting seriously pissed off. It was at the X&Y Album launch show. I got sick of hearing the first chords of Yellow played over and over again. I nearly chucked my camera at him. Imagine, never having to worry about stringing a guitar again. Although I wouldn't feel right letting someone set all my stuff up and just trust that it'll be alright.

Hmmm.

wow, this means that whoever "got it" has achieved something fully worthwhile and should be the envy of all. Oh, and that's sarcasm kids.....that's sarcasm.

BBC: "Conspiracy on conspiracy" The Laukev7 Report Friday, February 23, 2007 Isn't it funny how the more Rudin tries to deny there is a conspiracy, the guilter he appears. I suppose it had to happen. First we’re accused of being spies. Then we’re told we’re getting our orders from others. For someone who isn't a spy, he sure is giving a very good impression of one. But then came an even more outlandish conspiracy theory suggesting there were two versions of the 9/11 programme which was broadcast last Sunday. Conspiracy piles on conspiracy. Ian Crane, Chairman of the 9/11 Truth Campaign for the UK and Ireland, claimed last Friday that a source had told him that we were in a “in a quandary over which version of 9/11: The Conspiracy Files will be put out to air”. He alleged: ”One version is a well-balanced piece of investigative journalism, whereas the alternative version is a hit-piece, intent on portraying 9/11 Truth Campaigners as nothing more than a lunatic fringe group.” And the story was picked up on the Alex Jones’ website Prison Planet with the headline “BBC Pressured to Air 9/11 Hit Piece?” Only trouble is there weren’t two versions, no-one bothered to check with us and, what's more, we worked very hard to make sure the programme was fair and balanced. It's a shame it's just a conspiracy theory, Rudin. If you did have another version of the documentary, you could have released it to save your credibility. According to you and your ilk, conspiracy theorists love to engage in wishful thinking, and you just shattered their hopes that BBC might not be a totally inept propaganda mouthpiece as your documentary has revealed it to be. Behind it all there seems to be a concern that we wouldn’t run a story supporting a conspiracy theory if we found convincing evidence. That couldn’t be further from the truth. Gee, I wonder where people get such ideas? Maybe it has something to do with your 'documentary' trying to smear us by showing to the public theories that neither Alex Jones nor 9/11 Truth Campaign for the UK actually endorse, and that have been discredited inside the movement years ago. First, there was no editorial interference in the programme whatsoever. Second, if we had found convincing evidence of a conspiracy before 9/11 no one could have held us back from broadcasting such an important story. We didn’t find anything conclusive proving the conspiracy theories. Instead we found a lot of evidence which supported the official version and contradicted the various conspiracy theories. You missed another opportunity to save your arse, Rudin. Conspiracy mongers as we are, we had some hopes that maybe you're just being ordered to make up that bilge for public consumption, but you're telling us that you're just an incompetent on your own. Too bad for you, Rudin. Even we conspiracy theorists are coincidence theorists at heart, and we would love to believe that you're just so inept that you can't do enough research to find our real arguments. Where there was some evidence of a conspiracy after the event to cover-up intelligence failures, we included that in the programme, together with an interview with Senator Bob Graham, who co-chaired a Congressional Inquiry into 9/11.You're so full of shit. Your documentary didn't mention anything about the 'New Pearl Harbor' quote in the document of the Project for a New American Century, which you could at least have attempted to spin into meaning that the neocons didn't plan but just 'wanted' a New Pearl Harbor. It made no mention of Larry Silverstein's 'Pull it' quote, which you could have attempted to spin into meaning that he 'pulled the firefighters' out of the building. Your documentary repeated the assertions made by the NIST report, called Popular Mechanics a 'no-nonsense' magazine, despite having been repeatedly debunked and being owned owned by Hearst, and used an animation of the 'truss' theory that was long debunked. Anyone who does basic 9/11 research will find out about those essential facts. In addition to that, Alex Jones went on the record saying that he showed those documents to your colleague. Instead, you tried to link us to anti-Semitism by taking the Odigo story out of context and claiming that we still believe in the missing 4000 Jewish employees rumour. You pitted three 9/11 opponents against thirteen supporters of the official story, while showing Alex Jones for only five minutes and portraying him as a cult leader, and falsely calling Dylan Avery a 'college dropout'. And on top of that, you undermined their image with manipulative camera work. Naturally, we're expected to believe that you're doing all this by coincidence, and I bet you will answer that all just imagining those conspiracies on top of the other layer of conspiracies (oh yeah, and makes the conspiracy more complicated, even though it's supposed to simplify the world for us). I know the 9/11 Truth Campaign in the UK and Prison Planet in the USA, among others, are encouraging their supporters to write in. And it’s great to see so many comments on the blog. They make fascinating reading and contain a lot of interesting information.Hmm, let's see, you're smearing us as a bunch of people who believe in conspiracies because we like to make up fantasies, calling us cult members and college dropouts and implying that we're anti-Semites, all this on British public television reaching to the entire world. Maybe there's a reason why we might want to defend ourselves. However, our opinion poll carried out by GfK NOP did not find much support for the underlying conspiracy theory. In a telephone poll of a 1000 adults we asked: “Attacks were made on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon on September 11th 2001, commonly known as 9/11. It is generally accepted that these attacks were carried out by ’Al Qaeda’, however some people have suggested there was a wider conspiracy that included the American Government. Do you, yourself, believe that there was a wider conspiracy, or not?” Leaving aside your insinuation (or shall I call it a 'conspiracy theory'?) that we're part of a fake grassroots campaign, and the fact that our numbers have nothing to do with whether our theories are true or not, anyone who took a research methodology class in college can tell that this question is blatantly leading. The phrase 'it is generally accepted' adds a heavy bias to the question. This has an especially exacerbating effect when carried out on the phone, where the respondent will tend to vote with the majority for fear of judgement from the person taking the poll, and have little time to think about the question before answering. 16% people believed the American Government was involved in a wider conspiracy as against 64% of those questioned who did not believe that. The rest said they did not know.Gee, I wonder why? However, as we pointed out in Debunking BBC, other polls, scientific or online, consistently show high levels of support for the 9/11 Truth Movement: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/October2006/141006poll.htm "Do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying? Telling the truth 16% Hiding something 53% Mostly lying 28% Not sure 3%" http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2004/310804zogbypoll.htm Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and “Consciously Failed” To Act; 66% Call For New Probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New York’s Attorney General, New Zogby International Poll Reveals http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/230506Zogby.htm Although the Bush administration continues to exploit September 11 to justify domestic spying, unprecedented spending and a permanent state of war, a new Zogby poll reveals that less than half of the American public trusts the official 9/11 story or believes the attacks were adequately investigated.http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/240306supportsheen.htm Despite the best efforts of the now whimpering attack poodles of the mainstream media, an online CNN poll shows that over four-fifths, or 82 per cent, agree with actor Charlie Sheen that the U.S. government covered up the real events of the 9/11 attacks.http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/September2006/120906_b_Poll.htm http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2006/110906insidejob.htm Documentary film maker and radio host Alex Jones, coordinating today's 9/11 truth movement events in downtown New York City, says that the atmosphere around ground zero has dramatically changed, with the majority of firefighters and police officers now sympathetic to the claim that 9/11 was an inside job. http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/111104cnnpoll.htm Official BBC propagandist concludes: In fact our opinion poll found much more widespread doubts of the official accounts of the deaths of Princess Diana and the British Government scientist Dr David Kelly. Almost one in three (31%) people questioned believed the car crash that killed Princess Diana was not an accident, 43% agreed it was an accident, and the rest did not know. Almost one in four (23%) people questioned believed the government scientist Dr Kelly did not commit suicide as against 39% who believed he did commit suicide, with the rest unsure. And this Sunday, The Conspiracy Files series will examine the many questions that surround the death of Dr David Kelly and reveals new material that challenges the official account of his death.Aww, mister Rudin throws us a lolly to prove us that he's not a government agent. Nice try.

Cheney: Now is the Time to Attack “Apocalyptic” Iran Kurt Nimmo Friday, February 23, 2007 Dick Cheney “has endorsed Republican senator John McCain’s proposition that the only thing worse than a military confrontation with Iran would be a nuclear-armed Iran,” reports the Herald Sun. “The visiting Vice-President said that he had no doubt Iran was striving to enrich uranium to the point where they could make nuclear weapons.” Recall, back in 2002 and early 2003, there was nothing worse than an Iraq with weapons of mass destruction. Of course, no such weapons existed, nor do they in Iran, although it appears Cheney and McCain are careful to say a “nuclear-armed Iran” may exist in the future. Cheney “accused Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of espousing an ‘apocalyptic philosophy’ and making ‘threatening noises about Israel and the US and others,’” the Herald Sun continues. “He also said Iran was a sponsor of terrorism, especially through Hezbollah. However, the US did not believe Iran possessed any nuclear weapons as yet,” as there is, once again, no evidence of this, not that such has stopped the neocons in the past. As for Ahmadinejad’s supposed “apocalyptic philosophy,” recall last August a bevy of hysterical neocons, led by the grand daddy of Islamophobia, Bernard Lewis, warning that August 22 “might well be deemed an appropriate date for the apocalyptic ending of Israel and if necessary of the world,” based on the Shi’a religious belief in the return of the Mahdi, also known as the “Hidden Imam.” Bill Kristol, prominent neocon and Straussian Machiavellian, declared August 22 “an important symbolic day for jihadists. And I’m curious to see what happens… [Ahmadinejad] may just say no or he may do something a little more dramatic, launch a missile or something” (see Neoconservatives Predict The Apocalypse Starts Tomorrow). Of course, nothing of the sort happened, as it would be stupid to believe Ahmadinejad is akin to Jim Jones, prescribing mass suicide for a nation numbering around 70 million people. As for “threatening noises about Israel and the US and other,” this should be considered a natural reaction, as Israel has plotted against Iran for decades and Bush’s neocon handlers, in sync with Zionists in Israel, have assigned the country a leading position on the “axis of evil” roster and as such have repeatedly suggested imposing crippling sanctions, tantamount to a declaration of war, and fantasize about leaving “on the table” the prospect of nuclear war. Normally, faced with magnificent threats, the threatened will make a bit of noise in response. In Bushzarro world and Likudland, such talk of self-defense is considered evidence of maleficient intent. “You get various estimates of where the point of no return is,” said Cheney, citing Iran’s supposed desire to build nukes. “Is it when they possess weapons or does it come sooner, when they have mastered the technology but perhaps not yet produced fissile material for weapons?” Interestingly, this is an admission by Cheney that Iran does not possess nuclear weapons. Instead, Cheney suggests attacking Iran because, some day down the road, the country may have the capability to produce a nuke or two. As we know, of course, Israel and the neocons are anxious to attack Iran not because of any nuclear potential, now or in ten or fifteen years (as the CIA suggests), but because, for Israel, the Islamic nation is too big for its britches. “An effective approach, and one with which American can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hizballah, Syria, and Iran,” the neocons wrote in the Clean Break document, drafted for Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996. Dissolving Iran, Iraq, Syria, indeed the entire Arab and Muslim Middle East, into “ethnically or religiously unique areas,” as suggested earlier by Oded Yinon, is the objective. “In the long term when we look back on this period of time that will be a remarkable achievement,” said Cheney, reflecting, as Marquis de Sade, or rather Pol Pot might have, on the carnage and massive suffering and misery he has wrought. “We’re not there yet. We’ve still got a lot to do.” Indeed, there is a “lot to do,” especially in regard to Iran.

ok, stupid.

How's that exactly?