YouTube Censors 9-11 "Smoking Gun"
I first saw this "newsclip" here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1471985581749234824&q=9%2F11#04m37s
When I wanted to play it a second time:
"We're sorry, but this video may not be available. "
_
3/4/2007 10:14:24 AM
Overthrow Staff
Internet -- Google's You Tube service is refusing to rank a top ten video that 9-11 skeptics describe as a "smoking gun", after repeatedly taking the video down off of their free video service website.
The video, a clip from BBC television's coverage of the World Trade Center attacks, has a BBC announcer declaring and showing the collapse of World Trade Center Tower 7 twenty three minutes before its actual collapse.
9-11 critics believe the video shows that the attack was pre-planned by British and American elites. Given that a large segment of the elite in Britain and America are Jewish, Google appears to consider the video "hate" material.
9-11 skeptic websites say that the video was deleted by YouTube dozens of times before Google decided to simply remove its ranking, keeping it out of You Tube's top ten list.
The video is available (short version) here:
- http://www.overthrow.com/lsn/news.asp?articleID=10225
... and full version here:
- http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/88.html
I can accept that BBC may not have been - even that BBC was NOT - "part of the conspiracy" - not knowingly, not intentionally.
I do not see the BBC broadcast as pointing to BBC "complicity"
Fact is that someone, for whatever reason, *informed* BBC (across the Atlantic) that the "Salomon Brothers Building" (WTC7) *had collapsed* when in fact it had not
- not yet.
Whoever gave that information to BBC KNEW that the building would come down
(maybe wanted to finish a "day's work" prior to 5pm - a "clockwatcher" ?)
- maybe just had a brain cramp, confused over "transatlantic time zones"
(happens every day, does it not ?)
People on the scene knew the building would come down - before it came down - and I would say some of them knew WHEN WTC7 was "scheduled" to come down.
BBC simply did what BBC would do or would have done anyway, with or without any "special" knowledge - the "on scene" reporter (nor the camera operator) not even aware which building was which as all 47 stories of "Salomon Brothers Building" is clearly visible in the distant background.
People continue to ask how the charges could have been set in these buildings to bring them down, and we have repeatedly pointed to the closures of areas in each of these buildings in weeks prior to September 11, 2001, the power cut off so that computers in other areas were not functioning - businesses paying rent in those buildings temporarily "out of service" - adding that opportunity to the residues found in the remains of the steel which should have stood regardless of fire, it is easy to conclude not only that charges were set to bring those buildings down, but when the charges were set, how, and who set them.
We know that numerous criminal cases involving high-level officials and transnational corporate actions were ended with the destruction of WTC7 because the case files were contained in that building, and that should be a powerful argument against ever again having so much "oversight" concentrated in one small area.
Added to the demise of those prosecutions, the destruction of the "liabilities" which were the Twin Towers themselves (asbestos in need of removal, corroding exterior aluminum panels, declining occupancy), the financial motives for destruction of those three buildings and their contents is enourmous.
We know WHO had the motive, we know what the motives were, we know WHO had the opportunity, and we know WHO had the means.
We know that the WHO possessing the *motive* is the same WHO in possession of both the *opportunity* AND the *means*
The same WHO is capable of forestalling any investigation.
Now, the "news" from BBC:
_______
Part of the conspiracy?
* Richard Porter
* 27 Feb 07, 05:12 PM
" The 9/11 conspiracy theories are pretty well known by now. The BBC addressed them earlier this month with a documentary, The Conspiracy Files, shown within the UK.
Until now, I don't think we've been accused of being part of the conspiracy. But now some websites are using news footage from BBC World on September 11th 2001 to suggest we were actively participating in some sort of attempt to manipulate the audience. As a result, we're now getting lots of emails asking us to clarify our position. So here goes:
1. We're not part of a conspiracy. 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.
2. In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had. 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.
3. 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 - like everybody else that day 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.
4. 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. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another.
5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that. 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... " "
Richard Porter is head of news, BBC World
- http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html
.
Two more segments about the collapse:
CNN
- http://youtube.com/watch?v=N1LetB0z8_o
BBC 24
- http://youtube.com/watch?v=7lWQ5cJ5XYY
.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1471985581749234824&q=9%2F11#04m37s
When I wanted to play it a second time:
"We're sorry, but this video may not be available. "
_
3/4/2007 10:14:24 AM
Overthrow Staff
Internet -- Google's You Tube service is refusing to rank a top ten video that 9-11 skeptics describe as a "smoking gun", after repeatedly taking the video down off of their free video service website.
The video, a clip from BBC television's coverage of the World Trade Center attacks, has a BBC announcer declaring and showing the collapse of World Trade Center Tower 7 twenty three minutes before its actual collapse.
9-11 critics believe the video shows that the attack was pre-planned by British and American elites. Given that a large segment of the elite in Britain and America are Jewish, Google appears to consider the video "hate" material.
9-11 skeptic websites say that the video was deleted by YouTube dozens of times before Google decided to simply remove its ranking, keeping it out of You Tube's top ten list.
The video is available (short version) here:
- http://www.overthrow.com/lsn/news.asp?articleID=10225
... and full version here:
- http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/88.html
I can accept that BBC may not have been - even that BBC was NOT - "part of the conspiracy" - not knowingly, not intentionally.
I do not see the BBC broadcast as pointing to BBC "complicity"
Fact is that someone, for whatever reason, *informed* BBC (across the Atlantic) that the "Salomon Brothers Building" (WTC7) *had collapsed* when in fact it had not
- not yet.
Whoever gave that information to BBC KNEW that the building would come down
(maybe wanted to finish a "day's work" prior to 5pm - a "clockwatcher" ?)
- maybe just had a brain cramp, confused over "transatlantic time zones"
(happens every day, does it not ?)
People on the scene knew the building would come down - before it came down - and I would say some of them knew WHEN WTC7 was "scheduled" to come down.
BBC simply did what BBC would do or would have done anyway, with or without any "special" knowledge - the "on scene" reporter (nor the camera operator) not even aware which building was which as all 47 stories of "Salomon Brothers Building" is clearly visible in the distant background.
People continue to ask how the charges could have been set in these buildings to bring them down, and we have repeatedly pointed to the closures of areas in each of these buildings in weeks prior to September 11, 2001, the power cut off so that computers in other areas were not functioning - businesses paying rent in those buildings temporarily "out of service" - adding that opportunity to the residues found in the remains of the steel which should have stood regardless of fire, it is easy to conclude not only that charges were set to bring those buildings down, but when the charges were set, how, and who set them.
We know that numerous criminal cases involving high-level officials and transnational corporate actions were ended with the destruction of WTC7 because the case files were contained in that building, and that should be a powerful argument against ever again having so much "oversight" concentrated in one small area.
Added to the demise of those prosecutions, the destruction of the "liabilities" which were the Twin Towers themselves (asbestos in need of removal, corroding exterior aluminum panels, declining occupancy), the financial motives for destruction of those three buildings and their contents is enourmous.
We know WHO had the motive, we know what the motives were, we know WHO had the opportunity, and we know WHO had the means.
We know that the WHO possessing the *motive* is the same WHO in possession of both the *opportunity* AND the *means*
The same WHO is capable of forestalling any investigation.
Now, the "news" from BBC:
_______
Part of the conspiracy?
* Richard Porter
* 27 Feb 07, 05:12 PM
" The 9/11 conspiracy theories are pretty well known by now. The BBC addressed them earlier this month with a documentary, The Conspiracy Files, shown within the UK.
Until now, I don't think we've been accused of being part of the conspiracy. But now some websites are using news footage from BBC World on September 11th 2001 to suggest we were actively participating in some sort of attempt to manipulate the audience. As a result, we're now getting lots of emails asking us to clarify our position. So here goes:
1. We're not part of a conspiracy. 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.
2. In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had. 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.
3. 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 - like everybody else that day 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.
4. 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. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another.
5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that. 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... " "
Richard Porter is head of news, BBC World
- http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html
.
Two more segments about the collapse:
CNN
- http://youtube.com/watch?v=N1LetB0z8_o
BBC 24
- http://youtube.com/watch?v=7lWQ5cJ5XYY
.
posted by JamesB | 8:12 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home