Monday, February 26, 2007

Anybody Know Which Countries Don't Have Extradition to US?

Sheesh, I'm getting out of Dodge! Our bosses in the New World Order screwed up yet again in a way that can be revealed on Google Video and YouTube. Turns out that the BBC Division of NWO Enterprises announced the collapse of WTC 7 over 23 minutes before the building actually collapsed! Yeah, yeah, everybody knew it was coming down beforehand, but we embargoed that press release until 5:20 PM Eastern Time.

Seriously, the CTers are convinced that this is the Smoking Blunt, I mean, Smoking Gun that will bring the Troof to the Masses.

Dylan starts out cautious:

There needs to be a time-stamp on here somewhere. Unless we can absolutely verify this was broadcast at or before 5 PM, it's going to be a straw man.


Of course, he doesn't have a clue what a strawman is (probably because he's listened to Alex Jones say Mark Roberts uses strawman arguments), but at least he's recognizing that more verification is needed.

But then he verifies it:

Date: 2001-09-11 20:54:47 UTC
Air Time: 2001-09-11 16:54:47 EDT
Length: 0:41:41
english
2001-09-11 20:54:47
2001-09-11 16:54:47 EDT

Television News; September 11 Terrorist Attacks; 911 Terrorist Attacks
[curator]renata@archive.org[/curator][date]20070218204203[/date][state]un-dark[/state]

So...it was broadcast at 4:57. There's no disputing that now.


Somebody reasonable shows up:

Many people at Ground Zero were aware that WTC7 was going to collapse almost three hours before it actually did. There are many quotes to support this.

It sounds like the BBC is guilty of sloppy reporting, not accidentally leaking the conspiracy plot. They didn't bother to verify which building actually was WTC7 and if it had collapsed yet or not.


Dylan shows his crack debunking the debunkers skills (no doubt learned from LCFC Script Editor David Ray Griffin):

Wow guys. Did I call it or what?


As you might imagine, this revelation is treated a bit more skeptically by the JREFers. Assuming that the time this was broadcast is correct, and that we were looking at a live shot of WTC 7 over Jane Standley's shoulder, both of which appear to be true, Firestone points out there are two possible alternative explanations:

1. Somehow the BBC misunderstood reports that WTC 7 was about to collapse, and reported that it had actually collapsed. Jane Standley and the anchor had no idea what WTC 7 was, so they didn't get it that they were looking at the supposedly collapsed building.
2. The conspirators who for some reason had to secretly destroy WTC 7 by CD also found it necessary to release a statement about its collapse to the press. This statement was released a little too soon.


Perry points out that this fits in perfectly with the Troofer view of reality:

Conspiracy people have a few strange ideas stuck in their brains. One of them is that the bad guys always confess.

In the Bizarro World of conspiracy theorists, the perps are forever spilling the beans and blurting out the truth.

But no one can perceive it except the conspiracy guys.

We've seen this mental glitch too many times to ignore it. The CTs think Silverstein admitted that he blew WTC7. They think Cheney confessed to shooting down one of the planes (or something). They think the bad guys had a TV movie made to give away the plot. It's all right there. It's all terribly obvious.

But only the conspiracy guys see it!

And here we go again. Once again, the bad guys have slipped up and given the game away. It's just so obvious...

...but only the conspiracy guys are smart enough to get it, natch. Do Truthers ever perceive this pattern in their own thinking?

Silly question.


Anyway, I'm sure I'll catch up with you folks again once I get settled in Havana.

Labels: ,

20 Comments:

At 26 February, 2007 14:58, Blogger CHF said...

Naturally, our two resident kooks took the bait, no questions asked.

As for Dylan's crew, notice how quickly their lone voice of sanity was drowned out in a sea of "hey man, this is it! How are they gonna explain that?"

Ummmm....a reporter screwed up.

What's your explanation?

 
At 26 February, 2007 15:23, Blogger BG said...

So it's just a
Chicago Tribune reports: "Dewey beats Truman" November 3 in History

 
At 26 February, 2007 15:25, Blogger CHF said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 26 February, 2007 15:27, Blogger CHF said...

Poor BG. It's been a bad week.

First the UK engineers and then a BBC conspiracy that doesn't even make sense.

Now stop and ask yourself why you're so sloppy with the research and bsaic logic, BG.

Might it be cuz you really, really WANT to believe?

 
At 26 February, 2007 15:32, Blogger Manny said...

Oh, the stupid, it hurts so bad. How can pain be transmitted over the internet like that?

Boy, just wait till they get the bit with 1010WINS reporting that 1 Liberty Plaza had fallen. That was such a big booboo that the NWO put the damn building back up. Same with Foggy Bottom and the Capitol lawn. Cost a fortune to get all that sod on such short notice.

 
At 26 February, 2007 15:53, Blogger zippychippy said...

Well since Dylan was probably popping his junior high zits on 9/11 he could never understand the absolute confusion that went on that day.

Many telephones didn't work until about 11am so it was hard to get accurate information as to what was going on. The first report I heard was that a helicopter had hit the first tower.

Why, btw, would our NWO overlords need a press release anyway? Everyone knew WTC 7 was going to collapse, it was broadcast on TV all day.

 
At 26 February, 2007 16:10, Blogger James B. said...

Actually, in all fairness to Dylan, he stated in an interview that on 9/11 he was in his high school economics class, which he had to retake because he flunked it the first time.

This helps explain why he thought there was $167 billion of gold stolen from the WTC.

 
At 26 February, 2007 18:54, Blogger texasjack said...

The loose change kid actually showed some restraint there for a few minutes, then fell back on what he and his Brooklyn Bridge buying minions are so comfortable with: speculation and contradiction.

 
At 26 February, 2007 19:14, Blogger BG said...

You guys are touting this slipup as being an example of the human fallibility of the usually reliable BBC, are ya?

Strength of the evidence:

There is no direct evidence in the public domain linking Osama Bin Laden to the 11 September attacks.

At best the evidence is circumstantial.

Of this, perhaps the strongest leads are the alleged financial transfers between an al-Qaeda operative and the man alleged to have led the hijackers.

Other evidence - the intercepts, Mohammed Atta's link to Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the ties of other hijackers to al-Qaeda - is even less firm.

The evidence is not being judged in a court of law. It only needs to persuade governments around the world to back the US-led war on terrorism and to a lesser extent to carry public opinion.

US and British officials have indicated that they are unable to reveal all the evidence for security reasons.

When asserting that Bin Laden is behind the attacks, US and UK officials lean heavily on what they believe to be Bin Laden's record and his connection to other terrorist attacks.

They are in effect arguing that the attacks are part of a clearly discernable pattern linked to previous attacks - notably the bombings of the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000, and two US embassies in East Africa in August 1998.

 
At 26 February, 2007 19:30, Blogger CHF said...

GIve it up BG.

You fucked up - again.

Deal with it.

 
At 26 February, 2007 19:36, Blogger Sword of Truth said...

The time and date stamp from the article BG linked to above:

Friday, 5 October, 2001, 15:10 GMT 16:10 UK

Nice try, BG.

Still no cigar though.

 
At 26 February, 2007 22:24, Blogger BG said...

Sword of Truth said...

The time and date stamp from the article BG linked to above:

Friday, 5 October, 2001, 15:10 GMT 16:10 UK

Nice try, BG.

Still no cigar though.


Are you saying the BBC has provided more recent articles that materially update the story. I think they would have updated the story at this link if they had more to say about the subject. Show me where I'm wrong.

 
At 26 February, 2007 23:16, Blogger Richard said...

Show me where I'm wrong.



Everywhere that falls within this boundary.

 
At 26 February, 2007 23:39, Blogger Sword of Truth said...

Hey retard, since October 2001, Osama and his lieutenant Ayman Al-Zawahiri have both confessed and claimed responsibility on several occaisions.

There's even been video of Osama Bin Laden and the hijackers together at some undisclosed location.

Stop living in the past, this is 2007 now. I know you're kinda slow compared to other children your age, but the world can't stop and wait for you to catch up.

 
At 27 February, 2007 01:04, Blogger Der Bruno Stroszek said...

Don't CTers think those tapes are fakes because Osama had put on a bit of weight? Evidently, no-one ever has a hearty meal in CTer land.

This is one of the most annoying things about the Truthers - they demand a ridiculously high standard of evidence from things that contradict their ideas, while at the same time accepting silly shit like the BBC's WTC7 report as a sacred, inviolate text.

 
At 27 February, 2007 01:06, Blogger Der Bruno Stroszek said...

I'll put it this way; they're going to have a ball when they find the "Corrections and Clarifications" section of their local paper. Finally, proof that everything in the entire world is a cover-up!

 
At 27 February, 2007 06:44, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

The CTs think Silverstein admitted that he blew WTC7.

1. That is not necessarily a 'bad' thing of course.

2. Dowjenko even stated it would be
the likely thing to do because of the damage, the cost of the repairs, replacement of the core structure, etc.

3. Not only that, if he does have the building CD'ed, but then the media reports it was fire, the insurance company I'm sure would still have to pay out the coverage.

So CD is not a big deal right? Just another case of fraud that is common with power brokers.

 
At 27 February, 2007 08:02, Blogger Alex said...

Except it'd be impossible to blow it on such short notice.

Other buildings really WERE brought down afterwards because of excessive damage, but this took months to accomplish. WTC5 wasn't brought down until January of 2002. Only a moron would think that WTC7 would have been assessed, wired, and demolished, all within a few hours, while still engrossed in fire.

 
At 27 February, 2007 10:16, Blogger CHF said...

Swing,

is Jowenko right about the WTC towers or just WTC7?

 
At 27 February, 2007 21:10, Blogger 911review.org said...

we decided to "pull it" and we watched the building come down.

oh yea right,
he wasnt talking about wtc7 ?

911review.org

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home