Monday, February 26, 2007

The News of My Death Has Been Greatly Exaggerated

The truther frenzy over the BBC's premature announcement of the collapse of WTC7 got me thinking of other press errors. It is ironic that truthers regularly condemn the mainstream media, except in those rare occasions when it benefits them, then they are suddenly convinced of their infallibility. Anyway, one of the most famous errors was when CNN incorrectly posted a webpage announcing the death of President Reagan, among others. Looking this up I found that this was such a common event that Wikipedia has an entire entry dedicated to the subject of "Premature Obituaries". Did you know that, for example, Pope John Paul II was declared dead on 4 separate occasions, the first 3 obviously being incorrect. There has to be a conspiracy in there somewhere...

Labels:

43 Comments:

At 26 February, 2007 16:10, Blogger CHF said...

Funny how that works, isn't it?

They can trust the media only when they want to!

The rest of the time it's a NWO front spouting 100% lies all the time.

Yet this time the BBC told the truth.... Weird.

 
At 26 February, 2007 16:18, Blogger BG said...

You gents are so good at mindless obfuscation that you deserve to be paid for this.

 
At 26 February, 2007 16:21, Blogger Alex said...

Seriously Bill, you need to stop projecting. It's time you learned to accept your shortcomings.

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

BG, we are getting paid, but mostly in stuffed animals. Want a nice Moloch Owl for the grandkids?

 
At 26 February, 2007 16:25, Blogger CHF said...

It's not our fault that you continuously fall for stupid shit, BG.

 
At 26 February, 2007 17:19, Blogger James B. said...

Why won't you answer my questions BG? You were the first to post on this subject, I figured you were some kind of authority.

 
At 26 February, 2007 17:30, Blogger Sword of Truth said...

You confuse our skill with your complete and utter inability to back your sh*t up.

 
At 26 February, 2007 19:23, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Like I said over at JREF, this entire error can be explained with one sentence...

"Al Gore has won the state of Florida!"

lol

TAM:)

 
At 26 February, 2007 19:24, Blogger Billythekid said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 26 February, 2007 19:47, Blogger Cl1mh4224rd said...

Beeb did 9/11!

 
At 26 February, 2007 20:10, Blogger Manny said...

Like I said over at JREF, this entire error can be explained with one sentence...

"Al Gore has won the state of Florida!"



Shhhh! Ixnay on the oridaflay!

 
At 26 February, 2007 20:48, Blogger BG said...

Why won't you answer my questions BG?

What questions are those?

 
At 26 February, 2007 20:57, Blogger James B. said...

I posted them twice already.

What reason do you have to assume that a press release was issued for the collapse of WTC7?

and...

When were press releases issued for the collapses of WTC 1 and 2, and who issued them?

 
At 26 February, 2007 21:12, Blogger Chad said...

Someone should check if this reporter is still alive. I'm sure the higher-ups at Bohemian Grove would've been pretty steamed that she blew their cover. Especially after getting all the execs at BBC a round of BJ's and cases of goat's blood for Christmas.

At the very least they should've scaled back her dental coverage.

... Just can't find good help these days.

 
At 26 February, 2007 22:21, Blogger BG said...

James,

As you might assume, I've not worked in a TV, Radio, or Newspaper organization.

However, my general understanding with respect to radio and TV is that there is a newswire feed (one or more). Depending on the size of the organization, there are copy editors who receive the newswire feed: they review it, and type up a broadcast story, or pass it along as received. The decision as to what is read on air (meaning not the ad lib) is made by a producer or perhaps in some cases the anchor person (during a break or preshow).

The BBC had reporters "on the ground" in NYC, as we could see. However, normally the BBC would name themselves, or a specific reports as the source of the news that WTC 7 had collapsed if they had an internal source. Given the handling of the broadcast, based on the video available, it appears that the BBC news organization was supplied with the news about the supposed collapse by there news feed. The specific way this happened would indeed be very interesting to determine.

I don't rule out that the information could have been "called in", part of a regular news wire, a press release, or injected into the news stream by a BBC employee.

I would, in the right forum, feel free to speculate further about what set of circumstances might have caused the foul up.

For the purpose of this blog, I stand by my characterization that this "foul up" is a huge find (because of the implications of foreknowledge as well as media manipulation).

I find your comparison of the circumstances around WTC 7 as mirroring WTC 1, WTC 2 (where were the press release for those collapses) just silly.

 
At 26 February, 2007 22:29, Blogger James B. said...

So otherwise, you refuse to answer any of the questions.

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

"For the purpose of this blog, I stand by my characterization that this "foul up" is a huge find (because of the implications of foreknowledge as well as media manipulation)."

You're a moron, Bill. You're a frakking idiot. You're a dimwitted, inbred, mental midget. You have the mental agility of a moldy sponge.

Allow me to explain; I'm an assistant cub scout leader. My charges are a group of 9 to 12 year old boys. If I say to my cubs; "Special scientists called "engineers" looked at the world trade center and using the things they learned in university, they discovered the buildings were about to fall apart.", they will remember that information. That is to say, they will LEARN.

We have explained to you time and time again that yes there was foreknowledge of the collapses. Engineers and firefighters could tell just by looking at WTC7 that it wasn't going to stay up for long.

Yet the next day, you come right back here and claim that foreknowledge of the collapses proves the jews blew up the towers.

How does it feel, Billy... can I call you "Billy"? To know that you are outsmarted by a 9 year old boy? How does it feel to know that you don't have the brainpower to handle the stresses of the 5th grade?

Go to your room Billy and think about that for a while. We'll let you know when you can come out.

 
At 27 February, 2007 06:01, Blogger BG said...

Sword of Truth said...

Your idea that a collapse of WTC 7 was a reasonable expectation simply won't stand up to scrutiny.

Prior to the collapse, anyone who had that expectation was part of the plot, or was told by someone was in on the Controlled Demo.

Feel free to continue to be a condescending *##$%(!!. Regardless, my opinion is that you are wrong if you think what happened could be reasonably expected based on the damage to the building and fire.

By the way, this blog has brought the idea of falsifyability before (and the idea that the Loose Change guys don't seem to respect the concept): I would modify my assessment here if the videos showing a perfect Controlled Demo collapse of 7 were found to be fakes.

 
At 27 February, 2007 06:07, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

James....So otherwise, you refuse to answer any of the questions.

Yeah, your one to talk! LOL

How about posting those concrete questions regarding issues with FAA and NORAAD on 9/11, James?
You know, the ones I've asked for over and over but you refuse post them.

What color is the pot?

 
At 27 February, 2007 06:52, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Of course writing an article is a tad different that reporting live and on scene.

 
At 27 February, 2007 07:06, Blogger Manny said...

Prior to the collapse, anyone who had that expectation was part of the plot, or was told by someone was in on the Controlled Demo.

The dozens and dozens of firefighters who personally witnessed the transit they put on the building, heard the thing creaking or otherwise had direct evidence were all in on it? You are a terrorist scumbag and should be stripped of your citizenship and airdropped into northern Pakistan.

Feel free to continue to be a condescending *##$%

You desparately, desparately need to be condescended to.

 
At 27 February, 2007 07:47, Blogger James B. said...

How about posting those concrete questions regarding issues with FAA and NORAAD on 9/11, James?


I answered that a long time ago. I was wondering as to the exact actions and times that they took the actions by NORAD and the FAA. Essentially the questions raised by Vanity Fair a couple of months ago.

 
At 27 February, 2007 07:52, Blogger James B. said...

Prior to the collapse, anyone who had that expectation was part of the plot, or was told by someone was in on the Controlled Demo.


BG, you yourself are violating the concept of falsifiability. Since people expected it to fall, you use that as evidence that there was a conspiracy. If people did NOT that think it would fall, then you would use THAT as evidence that there was a conspiracy. No matter which way it goes you draw the same conclusion. Your believes cannot be falsified.

 
At 27 February, 2007 07:56, Blogger Alex said...

Prior to the collapse, anyone who had that expectation was part of the plot, or was told by someone was in on the Controlled Demo.

So I suppose that all of the engineers who predicted the collapse of the Madrid building were in on THAT plot? Let me guess...the CIA set fire to that building with super-thermite matches in order to prepare for 9/11, right? But how does that tie in with the engineers telling the firefighters to pull out because the building was in danger of collapse?

I thing SoT summed it up best: you have the mental agility of a mouldy sponge.

I would modify my assessment here if the videos showing a perfect Controlled Demo collapse of 7 were found to be fakes.

That has nothing to do with falsifiability you idiot, because you're starting off with the assumption that a building cannot collapse in such a manner without human intervention. This is the same as saying "I will admit there is no good if you can prove that humans don't exist". In THAT case you'd be starting off with the assumption that humans can only exist if God created us. It's utter nonsense. You obviously don't understand the first thing about critical thinking.

 
At 27 February, 2007 08:40, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

I answered that a long time ago. I was wondering as to the exact actions and times that they took the actions by NORAD and the FAA. Essentially the questions raised by Vanity Fair a couple of months ago.

Have you found answers to those questions yet?

 
At 27 February, 2007 08:44, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

James, thanks man now we are getting somewhere.

One other question, what actions or inactionsby the FAA and NORAD led you to formulate these questions?

I mean why do you have questions regarding the time issue?

 
At 27 February, 2007 08:46, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

So I suppose that all of the engineers who predicted the collapse of the Madrid building were in on THAT plot?

I wasn't aware engineers expected that building to fall.

Can you link to that?
Thanks!

 
At 27 February, 2007 08:46, Blogger Avery Dylan said...

Never bothered me!

I just call for a DO OVER.

Just wait until you see the FINAL CUT!

Loose Change! Ha ha ha ha ha !

Boxcutters! Ha ha ha ha!

Oh, like hey I never said that. Let me make that disappear from the blog!

Hey! Jason! Un research that would you?

 
At 27 February, 2007 08:47, Blogger BG said...

James B. said...

Prior to the collapse, anyone who had that expectation was part of the plot, or was told by someone was in on the Controlled Demo.


BG, you yourself are violating the concept of falsifiability. Since people expected it to fall, you use that as evidence that there was a conspiracy. If people did NOT that think it would fall, then you would use THAT as evidence that there was a conspiracy. No matter which way it goes you draw the same conclusion. Your believes cannot be falsified.


James,

You are making my claim more complicated than it is.

That may be fair, as it can be argued that I have made a complex claim in my comments here.

To be clear, I need to break down my argument into it's components. This is necessary, because my reference to falsifyability was intended only in reference to whether the destruction of WTC 7 is explainable from "the fallout" from the other Towers destruction such as shocks / damage from the other towers, and fire and fire related damage.

I think we can all agree that the major issue is what caused the destruction of WTC 7 (and two related deaths), not what people did or didn't know, and when they knew it.

What the BBC did or did not do, what Silverstein did or did not say is not directly related to the science of what caused WTC 7 to fall.

Just to be clear, I stand by my comments about the BBC foreknowledge.

However, for the sake of a scientific treatment of WTC 7 (hypotheses, falsifyability, etc.) I intend to stay away from social science involving evidence (such as who said, knew, or thought what and when).

The areas of criminal investigation and forensics involve issues of evidence and responsibility that apply to scientific method in a way which differs from hard science.

The foreknowledge discussion only points to trails for investigation, not toward proving any hypothesis.

 
At 27 February, 2007 09:10, Blogger Alex said...

I wasn't aware engineers expected that building to fall.

Can you link to that? Thanks!


I've linked to it before, but, surprise surprise, you've "forgotten" about it. Well, here it is again.

Earlier in the day, several top floors collapsed onto lower ones, the AP reported. Firefighter official Fernando Munilla said the entire building -- which at about 106 meters (350 feet) high is among the 10 tallest in Madrid -- could collapse.

"If the partial collapses keep happening, it would be lying to say it's impossible that the whole building couldn't fall down," he said.

Emergency crews at the scene said firefighters were waiting for the temperature inside the building to drop, which they said would lessen the danger of collapse.



Bill:

Just to be clear, I stand by my comments about the BBC foreknowledge.

So how many conspirators are on your list now? 100,000? 150,000?

 
At 27 February, 2007 09:28, Blogger Gypsy said...

this is all you have, eh? obfuscation and ridicule? errors in news stories? no one is "trusting" the media. quite the contrary. quite the contrary. methinks someone is getting desparate here. as are the news organizations desparately pulling all references to and film on this. tsk tsk. but as usual the people looking for the truth, those you ridiculously call the deniers, are a step ahead. one day this house of cards will fall and with luck, you with it. you are the deniers and you are complicit.

 
At 27 February, 2007 10:33, Blogger shawn said...

this is all you have, eh? obfuscation and ridicule?

...someone hasn't read the whole blog.

those you ridiculously call the deniers, are a step ahead.

What are you twelve? "I know you are, but what I am."

9/11 was an attack by 19 members of al-Qaeda, anyone who says it was something different is denying (!) what happened, ergo they are "deniers".

 
At 27 February, 2007 10:34, Blogger shawn said...

Gypsy, next time come up with something better than strawmen and the name-calling you deride, hypocrite.

 
At 27 February, 2007 10:47, Blogger Avery Dylan said...

Gypsy did you trim that thing yet?

Even Jason said he would go in there without a flashlight, a road map, a machete and Winnebago with a winch on the front.

 
At 27 February, 2007 10:55, Blogger Sword of Truth said...

"Your idea that a collapse of WTC 7 was a reasonable expectation simply won't stand up to scrutiny."

Hey retard, we've explained to you dozens of times before that there was massive damage to WTC7. We've even backed our case up with volumes of firefighter and eyewitness accounts. Something that you've never done.

You just aren't a bright boy, Billy.

 
At 27 February, 2007 13:14, Blogger tempestuous said...

This comparison with Mark twain does not work here Meigs.

 
At 27 February, 2007 13:36, Blogger Yatesey said...

I love it. I worked in news and if any of you guys(truthers) had a clue how many times things like this happen, this would be a totally moot point.

Another little interesting tidbit? Directors HATE when reporters/anchors point out mistakes on-air and more often than not, they just move ahead without calling attention to it.

How do I know? Because I ruined an entirre 5:30pm newscast by screwing up the tape order, and that's how it was handled.

Face it kids, you have no legs left to stand on. Even if I were to say, HYPOTHETICALLY, the evidence for WTC 7 MIGHT point toward CD, the motive and plot is so ridiculous, if Hollywood went with the story, it'd be a spoof movie.

 
At 27 February, 2007 16:11, Blogger Stevew said...

gypsy
It happens WTC7 was built over two electrical substations owned by the old electrical utility Coned. It's an unusual design. It has a series of cross truss steel girders that are literally holding it up and after it was built, they were the main support of the building. When the steel cross trusses weakened the building was doomed, the center had the greatest load and the heat from the 45000 gallons of fuel was concintrated in the middle of the structure and not around the perimeter. WTC #7 had a lot of damage from the colapse of the towers as well, some 20 stories tall.

The building suffered severe structural damage from the debris from north tower collapse. Firemen described a gaping hole in the south We will see glimpses of south face damage through the smoke in photos below and will see clear images of the massive damage to the southwest corner.
No one reports having seen work that might involve the planting of demolitions charges. I’m not aware of anyone who has provided a rational explanation of how this work might have been done and remained unobserved, before, during, and after the building’s collapse. An employee of Solomon Smith Barney who worked in WTC 7 says,
I actually worked at WTC7 and was there on 9-11. From the minute the first plane hit the towers, WTC7 was getting hit with debris. In fact, when I finally got down to the lobby 45 minutes later, we were all forced to leave through the back since so much debris had hit the building and blocked the entrance. I also would love to have someone tell me how the 28-44th floors were wired for demolition, when we packed like sardines after the merger with Smith Barney and most floors had people on them 7 days a week. ( A few floors were trading floors so it was 24x7 and many worked 6-7 days a week), and I never saw one construction crew in my time there doing anything significant.
Why won't CT's talk to people who worked at WTC7? My friends and I who worked with at Salomon are eager to talk but I'm guessing you won't like the answers. http://tinyurl.com/n5x Fires

 
At 28 February, 2007 05:47, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Firefighter official Fernando Munilla said the entire building -- which at about 106 meters (350 feet) high is among the 10 tallest in Madrid -- could collapse.
"If the partial collapses keep happening, it would be lying to say it's impossible that the whole building couldn't fall down," he said.


Thanks, Alex, but your claim says engineers, not firefighters.
So I suppose that all of the engineers who predicted the collapse of the Madrid building were in on THAT plot?

Two, they didn't expect it to collapse they decided it could possibly completely collapse if partial collapses kept happening.

That is a far cry from saying, "Well this building is completely in flames. We expect it to collapse at any time due to fire so we are moving away our fire fighting operations due to safety issues and we are going to let it burn completely."

So to put it in kinder words, you are wrong or you are lying to support the official story yet again. I believe it is the latter.

 
At 28 February, 2007 08:41, Blogger Alex said...

That is a far cry from saying, "Well this building is completely in flames. We expect it to collapse at any time due to fire so we are moving away our fire fighting operations due to safety issues and we are going to let it burn completely."

That's because engineers are smarter than you, and understand the difference between a concrete core and a steel structure. Even so, the madrid building efforts were stopped once the danger of collapse became clear, and the firefighters were pulled out. I'm not sure what you fail to understand about this.

 
At 28 February, 2007 12:37, Blogger Fred said...

There is a big difference between predicting a common occurance (Reagan's death) and an uncommon occurance (a steel frame building collapse). The former occurs everday and is expected. The latter had never occured (without explosives). This type of dim witted logic is what doom the sheep to a life of servitude.

 
At 28 February, 2007 12:53, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Bahhhh!!!

now go home wingnut.

TAM

 
At 28 February, 2007 13:42, Blogger Der Bruno Stroszek said...

Yes, fred, skyscraper collapse is tremendously rare. Of course, on 9/11, two skyscrapers had already collapsed before WTC7 went, but that's not relevant because... er... look! A Jew! A Jew under your bed!

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home