Gone off track 9/11 General debate spinoff

[David Brent]

Remember the BBC reporter talking about the collapse of building 7 while it was still standing over her left shoulder? A full 20 minutes before it's collapse. What logical explanation does anyone have on reporting the collapsed of a building that is still visibly standing?

Erm, a simple mistake from a reporter trying to keep up with events in a constantly changing situation, the likes of which has never been seen before? Do you think she intimately knows every building within the WTC complex?

If you're asserting that someone blew up Building 7, and that there was some kind of "script", then...yeah, that makes sense.

The government could have just blown building 7 up (no idea why when both the WTC towers collapsed. Is that not enough?), and let reporters do their reporting without even having to involve them. But no, they thought they'd give the script to lots of foreign reporters too, and risk having the elaborate plot exposed.

Some of the stuff you're typing is absolutely batshit crazy. You're attributing coincidence to unrelated events and declaring them as proving some kind of conspiracy. A reporter made a simple mistake and a building collapsed due to multiple fires burning over several hours. They're facts. Any proof of a conspiracy is entirely in your own, over-imaginative mind.

 

[donkeykong]

Reporting the collapse of a building is of course a simple mistake! When you learn what building 7 housed then maybe you wouldn't pose those questions.
Like I've said many times now,you haven't looked into the matter deep enough,obviously. Reporting an event with added commentary before it even took place is sheer coincidence in whatever planet you exist in. How can it be a simple mistake when the building was still visibly standing over her shoulder? How can anyone watching that clip say it was a simple mistake? These insults are coming from a person citing snopes to make their case,I'm in tears as I type this.

 

[Matski]

The internet is a great invention, but it also has its downsides. Thirty years ago, people with these views would be laughed at as they ranted in Speaker's Corner in Hyde Park, London.

So, are you saying a Lancaster didn't crash land on the Moon?

 

[David Brent]

So, are you saying a Lancaster didn't crash land on the Moon?

How could it when the moon doesn't even exist? The moon was artificially created so NASA could fake the moon landings, and win the propaganda war against the Russkies.

 

[chonkoa]

So, are you saying a Lancaster didn't crash land on the Moon?

How could it when the moon doesn't even exist? The moon was artificially created so NASA could fake the moon landings, and win the propaganda war against the Russkies.

That is enough ribs-cracking for the morning. You guys are cracking me up.

 

[David Brent]

How can it be a simple mistake when the building was still visibly standing over her shoulder? How can anyone watching that clip say it was a simple mistake?

The naivety you show sometimes is astounding. Do you think the reporter would even have a clue which was Building 7? Reporters get fed info from various newswires, and there's obviously been some confusion in the source. That doesn't mean it's anything other than a simple misunderstanding in what was a highly chaotic situation.

Do you think if it was a conspiracy, they would be stupid enough to stand in front of a still standing Building 7?

 

[donkeykong]

No,naivety of you thinking that mainstream media,and snopes are providing you with objective facts. I can't even imagine walking through life so damn asleep while accusing others of being naive no less. Do you think they would report a building collapsing that is still visibly standing? Think they might of jump the gun there? Nah,of course not! All of your excuses doesn't detract from the fact the building was still visibly standing for her to and her crew to see! I'm sure snopes has fact check for that as well,LMAO!

 

[David Brent]

No,naivety of you thinking that mainstream media,and snopes are providing you with objective facts.

I wonder why you don't like Snopes. It couldn't be because they disprove all the nonsense you read on conspiracy websites is it?

Do you think they would report a building collapsing that is still visibly standing?

They would if they had no idea which building Number 7 was, and had been given erroneous information amidst a catastophe the likes of which has never been seen.

All of your excuses doesn't detract from the fact the building was still visibly standing for her to and her crew to see! I'm sure snopes has fact check for that as well,LMAO!

One thing I am sure of, if they were part of some big plan, they wouldn't stand in front of a camera reporting the building had collapsed with it still visible in the background.



Anyway. I'm starting to detect a pattern here.

"9/11 was faked".
"COVID-19 is fake".
"Mainstream media...blah...blah...blah".

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[donkeykong]

I wonder why you don't like Snopes. It couldn't be because they disprove all the nonsense you read on conspiracy websites is it?

Snopes disproving anything. hahahahahahaha! I'm dead

They would if they had no idea which building Number 7 was, and had been given erroneous information amidst a catastophe the likes of which has never been seen.

Why would a journalist and media company not look into the facts before reporting such a horrific event. The hardest part of journalism is of course peering over your shoulder to see the building still standing,and why the mix up with building 7 specifically? All the other building sustained far heavier damage by comparison,but of course they didn't know what building 7 was. FOH!

Anyway. I'm starting to detect a pattern here.

"9/11 was faked".
"COVID-19 is fake".
"Mainstream media...blah...blah...blah".

Where did I say Covid was fake?
Where did I say 9/11 was fake?

 

[Matski]

 

[donkeykong]

Karenski ,weighs in with a cereal box.

 

[LaArtist]

It wasn't travelling at 800km/h though. It was estimated to be travelling at 560km/h.




1) It DID hit the ground first.

2) It came in largely in level flight before banking right. It clipped several lamp posts, hit a helipad, which dissipated a lot of the energy, before bouncing up and hitting the side of the Pentagon between the 1st and 2nd floors.




But it wasn't descending. It was largely in level flight before it hit, and if you've ever been to the Pentagon, you'll know the location allows this.




But it WAS captured on camera. The footage from the security guard house caught the moment of impact, but due to the low quality of the camera and the frame rate not being high enough, the aircraft only appears as a white streak. This of course led to conspiracy theorists pushing the "missile" narrative. There was also a camera at the CITGO petrol station, but that was useless because the camera was pointing away from the crash site. A third camera was located at a nearby Doubletree hotel, but that also was of poor quality. You have to remember, this was nearly 20 years ago where cameras used in CCTV were not of particularly high quality, and also not as prevalent.

There were LOTS of eyewitness reports of the aircraft flying into the side of the Pentagon. Firefighters also confirmed an aircraft flew into the Pentagon.


For people who want to know facts rather than inaccuracies thatpeople are pushing, the link below debunks the myths about AA77 (I know the conspiracy theorists won't be interested):

The notion that the Pentagon was not damaged by terrorists who hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 (a Boeing 757) and crashed it into the military office complex, but that the whole affair was staged by the U.S. government, has been promulgated by French author Thierry Meyssan in his book, The Frightening Fraud. Meyssan offers no real explanation for what did cause the extensive damage to the Pentagon, asserting only that Flight 77 did not exist, no plane crashed into the Pentagon, and that “the American government is lying.”

FACT CHECK: Was the 9/11 Pentagon Attack Faked?

A Boeing 757, and not a cruise missile or anything else, caused damage to the Pentagon on 9/11.

www.snopes.com

Man i can’t convince you nor do I want to. All I said it’s no easy thing to pull off. I don’t have the energy, a shit load off people died in the aftermath of this bullshit. Discussions on a car forum regarding if it happened or didn’t, are futile to me.

anyway did you control the Maastricht sector from Basel to Bordeaux yesterday night ? Heard some British accent controller.

 

[David Brent]

anyway did you control the Maastricht sector from Basel to Bordeaux yesterday night ? Heard some British accent controller.

No, haven't worked a night shift for about a week, but Basel to Bordeoux wouldn't come through us anyway. Anything south of Luxembourg won't be us.

I'm working a night in a few weeks, but we need a secret phrase so we can identify ourselves. "Tig ol bitties" or "the Assmaster" ought to do it.

 

[LaArtist]

No, haven't worked a night shift for about a week, but Basel to Bordeoux wouldn't come through us anyway. Anything south of Luxembourg won't be us.

I'm working a night in a few weeks, but we need a secret phrase so we can identify ourselves. "Tig ol bitties" or "the Assmaster" ought to do it.

Sorry it was Brussels to Basel.
Haha yeah that sounds like a plan.
I was flying on the euro trans call sign.

 

[David Brent]

Sorry it was Brussels to Basel.
Haha yeah that sounds like a plan.
I was flying on the euro trans call sign.

Ah right, in which case you'll have entered the "Brussels" sectors of Maastricht UAC. Looking at the roster it appears to be a guy called Andrew. I know him, but not that well. A couple of my best mates are Brits working on those sectors. Used to live with one of them.

 

[LaArtist]

Ah right, in which case you'll have entered the "Brussels" sectors of Maastricht UAC. Looking at the roster it appears to be a guy called Andrew. I know him, but not that well. A couple of my best mates are Brits working on those sectors. Used to live with one of them.

Ah i thought it was only you out there being British.
Anyway good luck to us both with this f#ck Up called brexit! I’m employed in UK and you in Holland.
I hope you have a Dutch passport.

 

[David Brent]

Ah i thought it was only you out there being British.
Anyway good luck to us both with this f#ck Up called brexit! I’m employed in UK and you in Holland.
I hope you have a Dutch passport.

There are loads of Brits, Irish, Swedes, Spanish, even a few Aussies.

Yep, we're going to need it. I think your situation is more complicated than mine, what with you being employed by a British company. I'm ok in the short term as I'm employed by an International Organisation as recognised by the Vienna Convention, which means my family and I have a special diplomatic status, and therefore don't need a Dutch passport. In fact, it would cause all sorts of complications if I did apply for Dutch citizenship. We'll probably be affected by delays getting through the Channel Tunnel, though. When I retire things could get complicated for my son when he turns 18. He was born in the Netherlands so he has the right to choose his nationality when he's 18 (he's British at the moment), but if he decides to stay British, God knows what happens then. He may have to leave. My wife and I will have the right to stay indefinitely in the Netherlands when I retire because of where I worked, but he's only got the right to stay for as long as he's younger than 18, or he's the dependent of someone employed by an International Organisation.

I wouldn't have an issue if he became Dutch, or indeed if I applied for Dutch Citizenship when I retire. It's our home and we're very happy here. I'm ashamed to say I'm British, frankly. It's a country which has a lot to be embarrassed about, including Brexit. Just please remember, only 17 million people out of a population of 66 million voted for Brexit.

 

[martinbo]

F#ck Brexit.

 

[J.E]