Jump to content
The Dark Mod Forums

Let The BBC Pick Your Lotto Numbers


SneaksieDave

Recommended Posts

A friend linked this at work; I thought this was a very interesting read. :wub:

 

Basically what it seems to strongly suggest is that WTC7 was brought down with explosives as part of insurance fraud (no, this isn't a "the government flew planes into WTC!" conspiracy; just a bit of fraud and sloppy communication), probably with government support (just local, or maybe national?), and the whole thing was apparently leaked by the BBC twenty minutes early. Whoops!

 

Sure, it's not really anyone's business if law enforcement or safety and rescue or the owner or whoever the hell else could wanted to bring the building down, nor if our dumbass reporters don't know the real story (e.g, "WTC7 was brought down on purpose, despite only light damage") and thus can't tell the population the true story; the silly thing is that the BBC leaked it too early, and how they did it (standing right in front of it, apparently).

 

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/febru...07building7.htm

 

Anyway, who knows how legit it all is, but it's entertaining for sure. As far as I know, no one was killed in connection with WTC7, right? I mean, they had all friggin' day to clear it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

20 minutes before? That's a very short time to jump on the initial attack as an excuse to blow up a whole 'nother building. Demolishing it would have to be planned long before that, which suggests the whole scenario was probably intentional, like the plot from the movie Vendetta.

 

And why would someone try to claim insurance? I thought insurance couldn't be claimed on terrorist attacks or acts of war or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I highly doubt that 9-11 was an "inside job." However, it made for an amazing excuse for Bush to try and beat out his daddy with Iraq. In fact, after hearing the address to the nation on that fateful day, I actually predicted the Iraq war.

 

And we will pursue nations that [would] provide aid or safe haven to terrorism.[sic] Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

Would was not originally there, but added by our fearless leader at speech time. From that statement alone, I knew that he would use it to leverage our nation into a pointless war that had nothing to do with actually fighting terrorism. While no, I didn't predict which country we would invade, I knew we would be lead like lambs into the next Vietnam.

 

That night, I predicted that 9-11 would be used as leverage to pass a bill severely restricting our freedoms. As Ben Franklin said, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." I also predicted that this bill invariably would be used to restrict our freedoms, no matter the protests to the contrary. Our country's insecurity was soon rewarded with the Patriot Act.

 

When we were gunning for war with Iraq, I predicted that one, there were no nukes, two, this would be a long drawn out war and occupation, and three, the entire thing would be a fiasco to rival Vietnam or the Bay of Pigs invasion.

 

When Bush was running for reelection, I predicted that if we reelected him, things could only get much worse.

 

When the Patriot Act was passed, I said, "Freedom has a gun pointed to its head." When Bush was pushing to invade Iraq, I knew we had wandered off the path and were now entering the darkest thickets of the woods. When the Iraq people viewed us as liberators, I could only wonder, "How long?" When Bush declared that all major combat operations were over, my only response was, "The hell it is!" When reporters published the abuses of the Patriot Act, I could only shake my head. When conditions in Iraq degraded exponentially, I didn't feel vindicated; I felt bitter, drained. Damn, I hate it when I'm right.

 

But for all that, it was only when I saw the execution of Saddam Hussein that I looked back and saw the tyrants we had truly become. We had systematically destroyed our alliances, demolished our hope to stop bin Laden and al Qaeda, stripped ourselves of the protections of our freedom, and all because we were too foolish to see it.

 

Don't blame me, I was rooting for Al Gore. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welp Al Gore would of definately been many times the man George W could ever be. He still is our president though and these last 6 years have shown to be wearing on him. By the time he leaves office he will have a heavy price to pay with his own mental and physical health.

 

Right now the country is in a hole and the only way to get it out is to keep moving forward. May god help us all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes before? That's a very short time to jump on the initial attack as an excuse to blow up a whole 'nother building. Demolishing it would have to be planned long before that, which suggests the whole scenario was probably intentional, like the plot from the movie Vendetta.

 

And why would someone try to claim insurance? I thought insurance couldn't be claimed on terrorist attacks or acts of war or something.

No, ya gotta read the link. The BBC reported the collapse 20 minutes before it happened. They were saying it had fell while the reporter is standing in front of it in downtown NYC. Station-wide mistake? Perhaps, but one heck of a coincidence if so. Hours were spent evacuating WTC7. It didn't fall until 5-something PM EST. That's 7 hours or so after WTC1 and 2 fell. The owner of the building admits that he told them to "pull it" [demolish it] right on video, as linked. He made a $200million investment to buy the building, and had $3.5bn insurance on it - which he received post 9/11. That's why he'd claim insurance. There's not even anything 'fishy' about it all though - he admits it (watch the video). The twist (other than insurance fraud) is that the BBC reported it before it happened. Other than that, it's not about it being an inside job or any of that nonsense; that's about it.

 

Ya really gotta read the link. ;) I don't think anyone here did, from the responses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Nyarlathotep: You're not the only one with such predictions... As soon as Bush was elected, I predicted that he'd find some reason to go to war with Iraq. On 9/11, I predicted he'd abuse the tragedy as an excuse to declare war against Iraq. When he was talking about WMDs, I predicted there would be none, and furthermore I predicted that when we didn't find any, Bush would try to sweep the issue under the rug and claim that his goal was to "liberate" Iraq all along.

 

It drives me bonkers that Bush is squandering the lives of those sworn to defend our country. Furthermore, rather than admit it, he keeps trying to put more and more of our troops in harm's way... To me, it has an ominous parallel to the fable about the lady who swallowed a fly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like the usual conspiracy bullshit to me.

 

How do we know the video is genuine, and not doctored by 911 conspiracy nuts?

 

Has there been any independent corroboration that the story was actually broadcast before the building collapsed, or is it just the the clips/image background are wrong?

 

Dave -- I'm not sure if that "pull it" quote is the same one that is used by all the conspiracy theorists, because there is one case where "pull it" was used to mean "withdraw the firefighting operation" but all the nutjobs chosoe to believe it means "demolish the building".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like the usual conspiracy bullshit to me. How do we know the video is genuine, and not doctored by 911 conspiracy nuts?

Indeed, we don't. So until there's some actual concrete evidence, I'm calling bullshit on this one as well.

 

Has there been any independent corroboration that the story was actually broadcast before the building collapsed

Not that I can see.

My games | Public Service Announcement: TDM is not set in the Thief universe. The city in which it takes place is not the City from Thief. The player character is not called Garrett. Any person who contradicts these facts will be subjected to disapproving stares.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every 9/11 conspiracy has been completely debunked. Plus the Bush administration is far too incompetent to have been behind it. The reason the BBC reported the collapse 'before it happened' is that the majority of the building had collapsed, and only the slim veneer facing away from ground zero still stood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I felt the evidence was pretty compelling for a conspiracy theory at first...until I read one article:

 

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

 

The point? We wouldn't even hear about a conspiracy if there was one!

 

Now we're expected to believe that the same government that was able to commit the largest terrorist operation in history--with military precision no less--is suddenly too incompetent to sniff out and shut down a little website set up by some college losers within days, if not minutes of its creation? The US government has the capability to monitor every electronic communication made anywhere in the world, yet we're expected to believe that they wouldn't be able to nix this kid long before his video ever became popular?
Edited by Ombrenuit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like the usual conspiracy bullshit to me.

That's the thing though - the building owner admits it, so my best figuring on it all is:

1. an executive decision to take the building down, and disguise it with the current circumstances; maybe he didn't want to pay the asbestos renovation bills, or the government or some contractor was willing to pay a nice bill to have a new building for all of those agencies, but they either didn't get to negotiate the deal yet or there was a bunch of red tape in the way - and hey, he doesn't have to tell anyone (certainly not the public) besides the local authorities, the insurance companies, and the demolitions people. There's a big payoff in it. And another bonus - if it's cleaned up as part of the rest, I assume he doesn't have to pay for that either (very expensive, probably on the order of millions).

2. it was probably told to the BBC so that they'd know how to report it when it did happen ("the building has collapsed" as opposed to "building owner Silverman decided the risk to the building integrity was great enough that they went with a controlled demolition"), but BBC people got the signals crossed and broadcast too early.

 

How do we know the video is genuine, and not doctored by 911 conspiracy nuts?

I just consider the fact that the BBC hasn't denied the video. Plus there are multiple sources from what I understand. The BBC's answer (another link on that site) is basically, 'okay, we did say it before it happened, but it was misunderstanding, and nothing more.' As if they got confused about which building was which, I guess. If it was fraudulent, surely that'd be the first thing they'd say.

 

Has there been any independent corroboration that the story was actually broadcast before the building collapsed, or is it just the the clips/image background are wrong?

From the site info, just times that no one (including the BBC) is refuting.

 

Dave -- I'm not sure if that "pull it" quote is the same one that is used by all the conspiracy theorists, because there is one case where "pull it" was used to mean "withdraw the firefighting operation" but all the nutjobs chosoe to believe it means "demolish the building".

Dunno, I'd never heard that definition of the phrase before. That decrepit old white business owner in the video - from his context - was clearly saying bring it down, though.

 

The point? We wouldn't even hear about a conspiracy if there was one!

It's impossible to discover dirty dealings?

 

The reason the BBC reported the collapse 'before it happened' is that the majority of the building had collapsed, and only the slim veneer facing away from ground zero still stood.

Where is that evidence? I'd like to see. I don't personally remember anything of the sort from all of the 9/11 footage I saw - in fact I remember the opposite, that things had "calmed down" well into the afternoon with nothing new going on, until yet another building fell - but if that's true, it at least clears up the BBC's role in this. On the contrary, they were saying that building would easily have withstood fire collapse.

 

Plus the Bush administration is far too incompetent to have been behind it.

Hrm, we're still discussing the wrong topic here. This post isn't about 9/11 being an inside job by the US gov't. It's about an American businessman pulling a fraud deal, publicly, and the BBC reporting it. In other words, a tiny little dirty side activity going on while 9/11 carried out on the larger stage. It's not about some far reaching conspiracy, folks. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the thing though - the building owner admits it,

 

If he admits it, then where's the conspiracy? Maybe he was advised to demolish the building because of structural/engineering concerns regarding its safety.

 

I haven't watched the clip because I'm at work, but I'm not seeing much evidence of a smoking gun so far.

 

I just consider the fact that the BBC hasn't denied the video. Plus there are multiple sources from what I understand. The BBC's answer (another link on that site) is basically, 'okay, we did say it before it happened, but it was misunderstanding, and nothing more.' As if they got confused about which building was which, I guess. If it was fraudulent, surely that'd be the first thing they'd say.

 

It's also the first thing would say if it was true. Given the general lack of historical precedent regarding dishonesty on the part of the BBC, combined with the fact that exposing and investigating scandals is something they are generally pretty fond of, I would tend to consider them trustworthy until compelling evidence to the contrary is provided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If he admits it, then where's the conspiracy?

He admits saying "pull it" - as he has said many times since, not that facts would bother the conspiracy theorists, he was asked if he wanted to pull out firefighters who were trying to save the building from collapse.

 

Regarding the BBC's reporting of the incident - when you're a reporter in such a position and have to provide a stream of information for 24/7 news, it is very probably that some facts would be dependent on hearsay and chinese whispers - most of which the reporter would accept because before 12pm that day she hadn't even realised there were more than two WTC buildings. The reporter wasn't informed enough to realise WTC7 was still standing behind her - if she had been part of an evil and ridiculously complex conspiracy she would probably have realised this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that what you are saying?

I'm not really saying anything other than it was an amusing and tantalizing link and notion.

 

Other people (on the page and comments) did have theories on that, including having such a building pre-wired in case of attack ( :rolleyes: ) or that only an hour or two would be necessary to rig up an effective collapse (they had 7 hours).

 

If he admits it, then where's the conspiracy?

Exactly! :) That's what I'm trying to say:

It's not about some far reaching conspiracy, folks.

Not conspiracy, just a dirty businessman seizing opportunity to commit some fraud. And word of it leaking too early. I'm far from conspiracy theorist; I generally hate that shit. Many a night you can see me watching a Roswell conspiracy documentary as I fume and froth at the morons on the television.

 

Also, it's not that they would be un-trustworthy; just that they may have goofed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not really saying anything other than it was an amusing and tantalizing link and notion... Not conspiracy, just a dirty businessman seizing opportunity to commit some fraud.

You are most defineatly saying something, then. You are accusing this man of capitalising on a terrorist attack for person greed, and to the detriment of others health and safety, even though all the evidence (would you care to consider it) points 180 degrees in the other direction. You're also accusing a public service media company of being complicit in it, just because one journalist got confused in extremely confusing circumstances.

 

or that only an hour or two would be necessary to rig up an effective collapse (they had 7 hours).

They rigged a building up with explosives while it was on fire? Tell me, which superhero with fire resistant skin, and a handy supply of bombs and wires, as well as the speed to rig up every floor in a few hours, and the invisibility not to be noticed by any of the firefighters, did this?

 

Sorry if I sound patronizing, but the only notable wires in this instance are those missing in your brain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, there were plenty of conspiracies around 911. Just not one that sought to actually bring about 911. It would be next to impossible to pull of the intentional demolition of those buildings without someone, somewhere either spilling the beans or getting caught. But consider:

 

One, the architects of the towers conspired with the contracters and owners to build sub-standard structures, I read somewhere that the steel used in the support girders was of a lower grade than it should have been for such a tall building. It wasn't strong enough because it was cheap shit.

 

Two, the Bush administration has been conspiring with Osama and Al Quaida and all those good folks for decades. Remember, we gave ObL money and intelligence to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. The Bush family and the Bin Ladens are old, old pals, Bush Sr. still stays at the Bin Laden mansion in Saudi Arabia when he travels around as an oil company consultant. Chickens coming home to roost and all.

 

Three the EPA and the Bush admin conspired when they opened up Manhattan for "business as usual" even though there were plenty of medical experts screaming that the toxicity of the area was at incredibly high levels. The real casualties from 911 have yet to hit us, in ten years or so there will be an enormous cancer cluster in the area.

 

 

The granddaddy of them all: the conspiracy to turn 911 into an excuse to invade Iraq. Of course this has all been proven to be utter rubbish, and now a lot of folks I know are staring at their shoes when the topic of weapons of mass destruction comes up or when Saddams ficitional links to Al Quaida are recalled.

 

Oh, and heres a happy bit of news. It seems that the U.S., in its efforts to control the various groups in Iraq, has been supplying Sunni insurgents in some areas with money to fight off the Iran supported Shia. Oh, and some of that cash has gone to Sunni groups that are members of................

 

>>>>>>>> AL QUAIDA<<<<<<<<<<

 

 

Yes, the US is indirectly supporting Al Quaida groups in Iraq with money and intelligence. Yes, the same Al Quaida we are accusing of being in on 911. Seymour Hersh has broken the story. Heres the show:

 

http://www.archive.org/download/dn2007-022...0228-1_64kb.mp3

Edited by Maximius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are most defineatly saying something, then. You are accusing this man of capitalising on a terrorist attack for person greed, and to the detriment of others health and safety, even though all the evidence (would you care to consider it) points 180 degrees in the other direction. You're also accusing a public service media company of being complicit in it, just because one journalist got confused in extremely confusing circumstances.

They rigged a building up with explosives while it was on fire? Tell me, which superhero with fire resistant skin, and a handy supply of bombs and wires, as well as the speed to rig up every floor in a few hours, and the invisibility not to be noticed by any of the firefighters, did this?

 

Sorry if I sound patronizing, but the only notable wires in this instance are those missing in your brain.

Wow! Did you get angry at me for asking about the "slim veneer?" It was just a question, and a legitimate one at that. If that was shown around, readers could surely re-evaluate the scenario portrayed here.

 

Also, I think you're having trouble comprehending the difference between reading a site, and writing a site. Odd, considering your supposed background. You see, I read it and found it interesting, little more. From your vehemence, I'm guessing you think I wrote it. No, no. And apparently you didn't read it, or you might see some possible answers to your questions above. I think you're taking this far too close to heart for some reason, as if you were a BBC reporter or nephew of the building owner. I suggest stepping back and relaxing a bit, gaining a new perspective on the thread and website, and not letting it get you unwound. If that fails, just get drunk like you apparently always do; that should do the trick!

 

Sorry if I sound condescending, but if you feel such a need to get personal about it, you'll have to do better than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two, the Bush administration has been conspiring with Osama and Al Quaida and all those good folks for decades. Remember, we gave ObL money and intelligence to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. The Bush family and the Bin Ladens are old, old pals, Bush Sr. still stays at the Bin Laden mansion in Saudi Arabia when he travels around as an oil company consultant. Chickens coming home to roost and all.

 

 

The Bin Ladens are a respected Saudi Family. Osama is exiled and is not supported by them. Although the American government did fund Al Quaida theres nothing odd about the close ties really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Bin Ladens are a respected Saudi Family. Osama is exiled and is not supported by them. Although the American government did fund Al Quaida theres nothing odd about the close ties really.

 

 

My point wasn't made well. The influence of Westerners in Saudi Arabia and the Mid East in general, especially Bush Sr., as a long time family advisor, was a part of the anger of Osama towards the United States. The story of the Bushes and Bin Ladens is about the aggressive and remorseless acquisition of wealth and power, at all costs. I think their ties were odd, seeking ways to manipulate markets and governments, >conspiring<, using money and violence to achieve their ends. I don't respect those kinds of people, I hate and fear them.

Edited by Maximius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recent Status Updates

    • Petike the Taffer  »  DeTeEff

      I've updated the articles for your FMs and your author category at the wiki. Your newer nickname (DeTeEff) now comes first, and the one in parentheses is your older nickname (Fieldmedic). Just to avoid confusing people who played your FMs years ago and remember your older nickname. I've added a wiki article for your latest FM, Who Watches the Watcher?, as part of my current updating efforts. Unless I overlooked something, you have five different FMs so far.
      · 0 replies
    • Petike the Taffer

      I've finally managed to log in to The Dark Mod Wiki. I'm back in the saddle and before the holidays start in full, I'll be adding a few new FM articles and doing other updates. Written in Stone is already done.
      · 4 replies
    • nbohr1more

      TDM 15th Anniversary Contest is now active! Please declare your participation: https://forums.thedarkmod.com/index.php?/topic/22413-the-dark-mod-15th-anniversary-contest-entry-thread/
       
      · 0 replies
    • JackFarmer

      @TheUnbeholden
      You cannot receive PMs. Could you please be so kind and check your mailbox if it is full (or maybe you switched off the function)?
      · 1 reply
    • OrbWeaver

      I like the new frob highlight but it would nice if it was less "flickery" while moving over objects (especially barred metal doors).
      · 4 replies
×
×
  • Create New...