Comprehensive coverage of BBC / WTC 7 at 911Truth.org - new mini video

[JackRiddler]

AN OVERVIEW OF WTC 7 HISTORY, COLLAPSE CONTROVERSY AND ALL ABOUT THE CLAIRVOYANT VIDEO / BBC RESPONSE

"CLAIRVOYANT COLLAPSE"

"How to Exacerbate Your Public Relations Crisis"

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20070228173157804

(...)

For information purposes under fair-use provisions we are making available a three-minute, 10-megabyte WMV video showing the key excerpts from the segment, with inserted time labels based on a start time of 4:54pm EDT.

(...)

The collapse is noted again in the top-of-the-hour headlines, and Hayton gives a longer report at 5:10pm. <13:30 on the archive.org video> Significantly, the details are now revised, indicating Hayton has been given new information in the meantime: "Now more on the latest building collapse," he says. "You might have heard a few minutes ago I was talking about the Salomon Brothers Building collapsing, and indeed it has… It seems that this was not the result of a new attack, it was because the building had been weakened in this morning's attacks." Thus Hayton is not only reporting on an event still 10 minutes into the future, but also accurately conveying how the authorities would explain that event, both then and for the next five years. He then introduces a live report from the network's New York correspondant, Jane Standley.

(...)

We presume the BBC was innocent and unwitting in presenting this report in advance of the actual event, believing the collapse had indeed already happened.

(...)

And that is the question here: Who was the original source of the information? Did the source also phrase the event in the past tense? How was the source certain the building would collapse?

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20070228173157804

[Bolo Boffin]

1. Does this clip include anything from after the video feed is lost?

When the building actually collapses, say, and any correction might have been made by the announcer and/or BBC?

Because maybe it's just me, but I'd think that would qualify as a "key excerpt."

[JackRiddler]

2. You found anything along those lines?

Before archive.org made all those large files unavailable? Or from another source of BBC broadcast footage on 9/11? Afraid I haven't. But if you did, I think you should bring it on out.

[Bolo Boffin]

3. You said you had downloaded that entire BBC file.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=143825&mesg_id=143883

Took a few hours, right?

Because according to THIS account:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=143584&mesg_id=143990

The one you had to have downloaded from archive.org is this one: BBC World 9/11 Footage - 16:54 to 17:36

And since the building fell at 17:20, you possess a copy (according to you) of the BBC World coverage that includes the 20 or so minutes AFTER the feed was lost from New York and goes on at least 16 minutes after WTC 7 actually falls.

And would include any correction made by the anchor, if such a correction was made.

So Jack, are you going to be part of the problem or part of the solution?

[JackRiddler]

4. Took a few hours...

To get the 1-gig file of 41 minutes starting at 4:54. Sadly I couldn't download the next one before it was made unavailable. I'm sure others have downloaded other files and will make these available. I will be most happy for whatever you could provide to all of us!

Great idea, boloboffin!

:bounce: :thumbsup: :bounce: :thumbsup: :bounce:

[Bolo Boffin]

5. So you do have it.

4:54 plus 41 minutes is 5:35. You've got 15 minutes of BBC World footage after the building actually fell.

[JackRiddler]

6. Perhaps I missed whatever you're suggesting...

Do YOU have this file?

From my notes: After Standley comes some Pentagon/Bush/93 stuff (I noticed Bush was out of the school and on AF1 "minutes later," in this version!). Then some earnest guy who's supposed to speak for Americans and is sort of boring. Then Peres, whom I mentioned elsewhere, urging war on everything that might be harboring something double-hard and double-fast. Then the semi-great Simpson from J-bad (saying genuinely interesting things). Then Hayton mentions Salomon Bros. collapsing again at 36 from the desk (this would be after 5:30pm). No correction, no difference. Then a full re-cap of the day. Pretty fucking depressing to see it again, even today. No more Salomon in that. And that's it.

If I missed something, you can tell us all.

Otherwise, now it's time to stop wasting mine. (Have you even read the article linked from the OP?)

[Grateful for Hope]

7. Thanks, Jack. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

35. That's what I was asking for.

If that's the case, then perhaps no correction was made by the BBC that day.

[JackRiddler]

40. you're welcome

:eyes:

[JackRiddler]

8. ha ha

[greyl]

9. That's not funny, it's stupid.

Many people were expecting WTC7 to collapse, and many more feared that it would. It was no surprise at all.
Even Indira Singh is on record saying that by midday, firemen were expecting WTC7 to be a total loss and that it was unstable due to collateral damage.

[The Lone Groover]

11. "Many people were expecting WTC7 to collapse,"

How many were expecting Pearl Harbor to be attacked?

FDR for one.

Go read "Day of Deceit" by Robert Stinnett.

American Presidents sacrificing American lives as an excuse to go to war?

Surely not.

[greyl]

12. Red herring. You're trying to avoid the point.

The hype surrounding this whole stupid episode is based on the fallacious logic that the BBC couldn't possibly have gotten wind of rumors that WTC7 had collapsed, or that they couldn't have confused "will collapse" with "has collapsed."

This morsel makes zero sense in any kind of a conspiracy theory. The only reason CTists are jumping on this is that it calls attention to the fact that the collapse of WTC7 was expected, due to structural damage and fires.

[JackRiddler]

30. duuuh...

The collapse of WTC 7 may have also been expected due to someone pulling a plunger.

It's still obvious now that advance information was issued to the media, including a rationale of the collapse. This did not cause CNN to make the same error as BBC, since Aaron Brown recognize WTC 7 and improvised his way out of it. Neither need be "in on it" (neither was in on it and that's a red herring). Except of course that both are almost always in on it, in the general sense that the broadcast media, corporate or in this case a state corporation, are a faithful transmission belt for official statements, both usually and *especially* on a day of crisis.

I think 9/11 skeptics for the most part are happy to take up your challenge and push this example anyway. For some reason, they think the more attention there is a) on WTC 7 itself, the more people will compare your explanation (damage to building - true! - caused the particular collapse you can still see on video) to theirs (the particular manner of collapse seen, regardless of damage, could only be accomplished with explosives). I am happy to focus attention on this too, even if I don't know 100 percent that 7 was brought down with explosives, because the question deserves an answer and two years of postponement by NIST (who could write 10,000 pages on the Towers in far less time) is ipso facto suspicious. Tough.

For some reason 9/11 skeptics also think b) the way the media parrots official information is neatly exemplified, in fact caricaturized, by this visually stunning example. Picture = x words and all that. You can rationalize all you like about the fog of disaster. The image speaks overwhelms that.

And then the BBC comes out and makes the following statement, which I shall now translate into CAPS dialect:

FUCK YOU, CONSPIRACY THEORISTS. HOW DARE YOU SAY WE KILL LITTLE BABIES?!

WE FORGOT EVERYTHING FROM THAT DAY. AND WE LOST OUR ARCHIVES FROM THAT DAY. OOPS.

HA HA. FUCK YOOOOU!!!

--Archives gone. That's really too bad. Well shit happens.

Well, that just becomes too delicious. They could have defused it (like you might have by citing FDNY and Indira Singh's predicitions) but they come up with we forgot, we lost our homework, haven't seen it, can't see it, doesn't exist and fuck you. Now they'll act further insulted that the matter didn't just die with Porter's pronouncement. And you will sympathize with them. And so it goes.

[JackRiddler]

29. So, stupid can't be funny?

It's both. The comparability of the two cases (WTC 7, Pearl Harbor) is not at issue. The details you give are true, and yet one can still think the graphic is funny. It's satire. Tough. Thank you for the kick.

[mhatrw]

41. Why were "many" expecting WTC7 to collapse?

Exactly WHO was pushing the idea its collapse was imminent? Based on what?

There is no video or photographic evidence of the building shaking or swaying or even being engulfed in flames. What we see instead are minor disparate fires burning on a few floors here and there along with minor facade damage.

Concerning "knowing in advance" that a building is going to collapse, if the BBC had reported the first tower's collapse 23 minutes early, what would you have thought then? Why didn't anybody see that one coming?

Furthermore, not a single steel-framed high rise had ever collapsed in the history of the world before 9/11 -- including buildings that were basically engulfed in flames for over 18 hours like this one:



How could anyone have known how to determine when a steel frame building's collapse was imminent when not one had ever collapsed before in the history of the world?

[HCE SuiGeneris]

43. All these people calling for a collapse. Hmmm --because the

initial demolition failed when collateral damage from 1 and 2 damaged the pre-wired blasts already in place. Took some hours to repair the initial configuration.

[Bolo Boffin]

10. More sour grapes on display.

How sad.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[salvorhardin]

14. What is it with the 9-11 Truthers using and supporting racist and bigoted sources?

Oh very nice. The Charles Martel Society and The Occidental Quarterly! You do realize you're getting your information from white supremacists right? Because the only conclusion I can draw by someone posting excerpts from a white supremacist organization is that they advocate white supremacy.

The Occidental Quarterly describes itself as "a journal of Western thought and opinion." The journal's name derives from its "devotion to discussing the ethnic, racial and cultural heritage that forms the foundation of Western Civilization the contemporary political, social and demographic trends that affect this tradition." It has been described as a white nationalist journal that seeks to direct American conservatism in the direction of an Anglo-Saxon cultural and racialist ideology.<1>

The journal is published by the Charles Martel Society (not to be confused with France's anti-Algerian Charles Martel Group), named in honor of Charles Martel, who halted a Muslim invasion of Europe at the Battle of Tours in 732. They explicitly reject neoconservatism and call for a "third school" to emerge from paleoconservatism in the from of an ideology of White European identity politics, and holds that the American political order of freedom and liberty is under ethnic and ideological threat. Its foreign policy positions, broadly, are anti-immigration and isolationism, including the rejection of influence from Israel and Mexico on U.S. politics.

The current editor of Occidental Quarterly is Kevin Lamb. Its publisher is William Regnery II. Editorial advisory board members include Virginia Abernethy, Richard Lynn, Kevin B. MacDonald, Wayne Lutton, and Brent Nelson <2>. Jared Taylor, of the American Renaissance magazine, is a past member <3>. Sam Francis was an associate editor until his death.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_occidental_quarterly

And who is William Regnery II?

William Regnery II founded the Charles Martel Society in 1991, which publishes a quarterly journal called The Occidental Quarterly. He is described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as famously reclusive. While he is related to some of the founders of Regnery Publishing, as he is the nephew of Henry Regnery and a cousin of Alfred Regnery, he does not currently control any of the stock in Regnery Publishing, nor does he sit on the Board of Directors of the publishing company (which has since been sold by the Regnery family to Phillips Publishing's subsidiary, Eagle Publishing). He is chairman of the National Policy Institute, a Washington D.C.-based think tank.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Regnery_II

The National Policy Institute is a Washington D.C.-based think tank, which "speaks for White Americans."

In November or December, 2006, the Institute is due to publish its report, The State of White America (SOWA). NPI plans on publishing a new version of SOWA on an annual basis.

Personnel
* William Regnery II, Chairman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Policy_Institute

Why not just directly link to Stormfront while you're at it?

[Devon77]

15. I didn't have the original and I'm not going to pay hundreds of $ on ebay for it nt

[salvorhardin]

17. So it's OK to use racist and bigoted sources in your book

As long as it's convenient right?

Did you ever stop and think that maybe, just maybe, the information you get from people who have a racist and bigoted agenda might possibly be... oh, I don't know... racist and bigoted crap without a shred of historical authenticity?!

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[salvorhardin]

19. So now you're quoting from the same company that swiftboated Kerry!? Unbelievable!?

Admiral Kimmel's Story published by the Henry Regnery Company, 1955. Sure, it's from the dawn of far right wing propaganda, but far right wing propaganda nonetheless.

Regnery has become noteworthy, apart from authors of its books, because of its penchant for political controversy with a high profile on the national stage. It recently launched a series of books titled "The Politically Incorrect Guide to" (multiple subjects), confronting what it conceives to be the assumptions of the nation's elites, sometimes negatively described as political correctness. Former Regnery officials have described its marketing strategy as getting its conservative books condemned by the New York Times, generating very large sales to conservatives as a result.

In June 2004, Regnery agreed to publish Unfit for Command by former Swift Boat Veteran John O'Neill and veteran author Dr. Jerome Corsi. Television advertisements about Presidential candidate John Kerry's criticisms of U.S. soldiers and his own military record in Vietnam were unveiled nationwide at about the same time as Unfit for Command was released, creating shortages of the book in bookstores nationwide. The book exceeded 1 million copies in print.

The Kerry campaign demanded that Regnery cease publication and distribution of Unfit for Command, saying that there were inaccuracies in the book about John Kerry's war record and anti-war activities at home. Regnery responded by offering to print and distribute a reply book by John Kerry, suggesting "Winter Soldier" on the same subject matter which Kerry authored in the 1970's.

In describing Regnery's position in the publishing world, Nicholas Confessore, then writer for the liberal American Prospect, said,

Welcome to the world of Regnery Publishing—lifestyle press for conservatives, preferred printer of presidential hopefuls, and venerable publisher of books for the culture wars. Call it—gracelessly but more accurately—a medium-sized, loosely linked network of conservative types, with few degrees of separation and similar political aims. Just don't call it a conspiracy.<2>

Regnery has published books by authors such as Newt Gingrich, former Republican Party Chairman Haley Barbour, Barbara Olson, and Ann Coulter.

Carl Ernst, an academic scholar of Islamic studies, says that the Regnery Publishing is 'promoted and supported by right-wing organizations, who are perpetuating a type of bigotry similar to anti-Semitism and racial prejudice.' As an example, Ernst notes that Robert Spencer, whom Ernst views as a Islamophobe, publishes some of his books through Regnery. <3>

Regnery Publishing has put out many controversial books. For example, in The Secret Life of Bill Clinton (1997), British journalist Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, "manages to connect the president to everything from 1997's Oklahoma City bombing to Arkansas's drug underworld to the mysterious death of White House aide and longtime Clinton friend Vince Foster, and, of course, to Paula Jones."<4>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regnery_Publishing

[Devon77]

20. Kerry was in Vietnam in 1955?

[JackRiddler]

31. snooze...

You had a point going after Charles Martell, I agree with you.

But if one cites Adm. Kimmel's story on a set of facts (and obviously his is one of the relevant perspectives), it's completely irrelevant who published him in 1955, or what said publisher would do 49 years later. Please!

[Bryan Sacks]

34. might need to brush up on your causation analysis there, salvor

How can a far-right publishing company 'swiftboat' anyone by itself? It can't, of course. It takes a great deal of complicity on the part of the media to get that done (complicity not in the "CONSPIRACY" sense, mind you, but rather the de-facto media complicity that came from abdicating its 'watchdog' role).

[Devon77]

18. The story came from the Hustler magazine a good source for 911 truther

"Explosive Truth About Pearl Harbor: The Story the Rest of the Media Won't Tell" by Joseph Leib.

http://usedmagazines.com/titles/Hustler/1984/

[salvorhardin]

21. You don't seem to get it

The crap about Roosevelt and pre-knowledge of the attack on Pearl Harbor is nothing more than far right wing propaganda.

In order to believe that Roosevelt knew about the coming Pearl Harbor attack but kept mum, you have to believe he had better information than any of his subordinates in the government or the military--information that since has been destroyed, since no one has been able to find it. Moreover, you have to believe that Roosevelt was willing to sacrifice most of the Pacific fleet, and possibly one of the most important American naval bases in the Pacific, probably crippling American operations against Japan for the next two years (by which time the Japanese would likely have taken over the Pacific and begun operations against the American West Coast) in order to gain public support for a measure the public already supported by a two-to-one margin. You also have to believe that Roosevelt--who had been Assistant Secretary of the Navy, who always claimed that if he hadn't gotten into politics he would have liked to have been an admiral, whose first campaign song for President was "Anchors Aweigh" (before being replaced by the more appropriate and upbeat "Happy Days Are Here Again")--would countenance the deaths of thousands of U.S. sailors for a few extra votes in Congress--again, for a measure that many observers felt would pass easily.

If you're willing to believe that, I've got some great information on the Vince Foster murder I'm willing to sell you.
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mpearlharbor.html

But then you probably do believe Vince Foster was murdered by the Clintons since you seem to enjoy racist, bigoted websites and far right wing propaganda.

[Devon77]

22. Lets quote Roosevelt himself

In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.
Franklin D. Roosevelt

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/f/franklind164126.html

[salvorhardin]

23. Nothing's an accident

So I can assume that it's no accident you're on DU spreading crap from bigoted and racist sources?

[Devon77]

25. A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities

differing from his or her own. hmm?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigoted

[Anarcho-Socialist]

27. Hence The Charles Martel Society and The Occidental Quarterly

It's against the messageboard rules to link to hate sites.

[Bryan Sacks]

33. Nice catch, Devon. n/t

[The Lone Groover]

26. Salvorhardin, its not propaganda, its the truth.

...go away and read "Day of Deceit" there's a good chap.

American Presidents sacrificing American lives - for the greater good obviously.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

28. I consider World War Two a war that was worth fighting

Do you?

[The Lone Groover]

48. You missed the point (or did you)...

The American people DIDN'T want to get involved in World War II until Pearl Harbor.

Roosevelt had to sacrifice the lives of a lot of Americans to change their minds.

Why can't you acknowledge the parallels with 9/11 and previous manufactured paradigm shifts?

It's the way corrupt Governments work. It's the way they've always worked. Problem - reaction - solution.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

51. You are incorrect

Polls in early 1941 already showed majorities in favour of aiding the Allies against the Axis Powers. Earlier in the War, some historians argue that FDR himself was reluctant to be involved indicating that the better strategy would be to aid Great Britain via capital and supplies so she be able to defeat Nazi Germany. FDR was distrustful of British imperialism and held a particular dislike for the British Empire and gave no sentiment to Britain. He did what he thought were in the US' best interests at the time.

Congress however was very divided, there were staunch isolationists in both Parties. This certainly restricted the ability of hawks in the FDR administration to convince the President of openly supporting Great Britain as a belligerent.

To attribute a L/MIHOP to FDR is to take huge leaps of logic, a distortion of the contemporary world and the discounting of a lot of evidence to the contrary. No matter what some bunk dodgy pop-pseudo-history shows on the History Channel say, serious historians have rejected Pearl Harbor as a L/MIHOP.

Reducing the function of government, the actions of many, the complex machinery to the prism of a short-sighted narrow dialectic makes the lack of coherent, broad and complex analyses. Such things are fatally-flawed.

[The Lone Groover]

52. Twish and shout...

"Aiding the Allies" isn't the same as going to war.

Is it!

To attribute a L/MIHOP to FDR is to take huge leaps of logic,

No it isn't. Japan was goaded into attacking the USA as laid out in the 8 point ONI memo, and FDR knew when the Japanese fleet was coming, the Japanese code was cracked and the attack messages were intercepted.

It's a fact.

Reducing the function of government, the actions of many, the complex machinery to the prism of a short-sighted narrow dialectic makes the lack of coherent, broad and complex analyses.

Ugh! You heap big word man.

WTF!

[Bolo Boffin]

36. Day of Deceit has long been discredited.

http://www.usncva.org/books/book-10.html

[Anarcho-Socialist]

47. Here is an extract from another peer-review source

Journal of American History (Vol 89 (1) June 2002) p.281

Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor. By Robert B. Stinnett. (New York: Free Press, 2000. xiv, 386 pp. $26.00, ISBN 0-684-85339-6.)

(snip)

Space does not permit a detailed refutation. Other scholars, among them Philip H. Jacobsen, Edward Drea, Stephen Budiansky, and David Kahn, have offered thorough critiques, Jacobsen being particularly detailed in Cryptologia (April 2000). Stinnett's fallacies include (1) assuming Germany was bound to declare war on the United States once Japan did; (2) exaggerating the impact of McCollum's memo; (3) assuming that messages that were decrypted in 1945–1946 and translated in 1946–1947 were translated before the attack; (4) confusing Japanese shore station transmissions with high-frequency radio transmissions; (5) ignoring the fact that the Japanese navy changed its major fleet code book on December 1, 1940, thereby stymieing the efforts of American code breakers; (6) confusing intercepts, codes, and decryptions; (7) incorrectly claiming that Hitokappu Bay, the Japanese staging base in the Kurile Islands, was spelled out in plain text in a Japanese radio message; (8) misinterpreting George C. Marshall's off-the-record press conference of November 15, 1941. 3

Parties conspiring to withhold information include not only the president but Chief of Staff George Marshall, Chief of Naval Operations Harold Stark, Admiral Anderson, who became battleship commander at Pearl Harbor, the intelligence officers Edwin Layton and Irving Mayfield, and the cryptographer Joseph John Rochefort. The vastness of such a conspiracy falls of its own weight. 4

Justus D. Doenecke
New College of Florida
Sarasota, Florida

Source: http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jah/89.1/br_102.html

I used my university campus to get access to the article. I am not reproducing it in full here due to copyright reasons.

[The Lone Groover]

49. Of course it has... just like all the 9/11 conspiracy therories.

Roosevelt followed the 8 point plan outlined in the Office of Navel Intelligence memo.

Japan were goaded into attacking USA.

That's the way corrupt Goverment works.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

50. That is most incorrect

The myth of Roosevelt deliberately causing war with Japan arose from palaeoconservatives in the Republican Party. Thomas Dewey tried to use the myth unsuccessfully against FDR in the 1944 election. The myth has survived in palaeoconservative circles with Pat Buchanan being a latter-day proponent. This myth is part of wider Republican myths attributing weakness and moral ineptitude to FDR in face of the Communist enemy (as well as the ‘growth of socialism’ under the New Deal). Traditional orthodox conservative commentators on the Cold War attributed Stalin's domination of Eastern Europe to be due to FDR's failings. However this assumption has been discredited by the second-wave of Cold War historians of the 1960s (of which Chomsky was a part). The third wave of Cold War historians (Levering, Yergin, Lynn E Davis et al) also reject the conservative view.

The concept of Pearl Harbor 'MIHOP' remains on the fringes of historiography due to lack of evidence, and the use of logical fallacies by their academic proponents.

[The Lone Groover]

53. Do you deny the existence of the ONI memo?

Do you deny that American intelligence agencies thought it was a good idea to goad Japan into attacking America first?

Do you deny that each of the 8 points in the ONI memo was carried out?

War is money. Big money. Humongous amounts of money. Screw the people.

[JackRiddler]

32. Here we go...

Calling Vince Foster? Vince? You're due to be abused as a non-sequitir in a frothed-up Internet ad hom attack ... Come on down!

[Ian David]

38. "Why not just directly link to Stormfront while you're at it?"

Lithos Lead Moderator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Fri May-06-05 09:39 AM
Response to Original message
15. Answer

Which I posted before.

I removed several threads due to their sources which included:

www.americanfreepress.com
www.libertyforum.org
www.whatreallyhappened.com
www.rense.com

The first is a hate website associated (founded) by Willis Carto, a noted anti-Semite and historical revisionist.

The second is a Libertarian website whose forums indicate a focus on hate. (White supremacy, several forums devoted to anti-Semitic and Anti-Muslim hate topics). This website seems to be either directly or indirectly associated with several other hate sites such as Stormfront.

The last two are portals and rebranders of material in that they either create indirect links to material off site, or they take a website's material and then encapsulate it so it comes from their website. I've seen material from not only AFP and Liberty Forum, but also StormFront, The Barnes Review, and the International Historical Review - all noted hate sites. As such they are legitimizing known hate sites.

Sites such as these above either have shown an agenda for which "facts" and stories are crafted to follow, or they lack the editorial sense to review the source of material for whatever reason. In any event, they are not considered credible for usage here on DU.

If you have any further questions, then contact Skinner.

Lithos
Sept 11 Forum Moderator
Democratic Underground
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=38532#38947



seatnineb (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sat Mar-26-05 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #29
35. NIST= Not Interested (in) Seeing Truth

I Snowman10-25-2001, 11:54 AM
heard a woman the morning of the incident on a live radio interview. She said right before the building collapsed she heard another loud explosion like a bomb. I am not sure exactly where she was in proximity to the building, but obviously it seems she would had to be outside of the building to survive.

If she was close enough to hear a bomb noise then how did she survive the collapsing of the building? This I do not know nor can remember what was said in the interview about her location.

It also seems I heard few other people reporting to hear similar sounds but I cannot specicially remember the cases now.

Regardless, it seems all such reports have now been swept under the table and I doubt we will ever know the real truth.
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-419...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=35758#36014


A message post from a screen name "JEWSDIDWTC" got deleted:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=122151#122164






Brainster (77 posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Fri Jan-19-07 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. According to Hopsicker

Edited on Fri Jan-19-07 02:25 PM by Brainster
He has these corroborating witnesses. And the notion that Amanda has recanted her story for personal protection is a little far-fetched, don't you think? I mean, the story that she was Atta's girlfriend was out there for years and somehow she survived.

BTW, I found out that Hopsicker was a featured guest at a lecture hosted by Holocaust Revisionist Supreme, David Irving. I suspect I'd get tombstoned if I linked the program guide because it's at Stormfront, but if you Google Real History USA 2002, it's the first result. It's not dispositive of his credibility, but it's certainly indicative that everything he claims needs to be scrutinized with a skeptical eye.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=135136#135782



Here's one to The Liberty Forum:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=26700

[reprehensor]

24. Gore Vidal, The "Winds Message", etc...

Getting a little off topic here, but;

"I always delight in Ian Buruma's analyses of the ongoing political and cultural shortcomings of the Japanese <"The Emperor's Secrets," NYR, March 25>. But then how could I not? As a member of The Greatest American Generation, I served in the Pacific Theater of Operations in World War II where one was marinated in propaganda about the essential subhuman bestiality of the Japanese, a savage race who for no reason whatsoever took time off from their reasonably successful conquest of mainland Asia to sink, almost idly one Sunday morning, the American fleet based at Pearl Harbor. Why? No reason was ever given us, the innocent victims, other than we were ever so good and they were ever so bad. Although Charles A. Beard, our leading historian in those far-off days, wrote President Roosevelt and the Coming of War, 1941 (1948), in which he made the case that the Japanese attack was the result of a series of deliberate provocations by FDR, he promptly underwent erasure at the hands of the court historians in place, as always, to demonstrate that what ought not to be true is not true.

Recently, I touched on this delicate matter in The Golden Age and, currently, R.B. Stinnett, in Day of Deceit, has analyzed FDR's policy of provocation based on new material, much of it only released in 1995 under the Freedom of Information Act. But as Mr. Stinnett is currently making his case in these pages , I shall only respond to one of Mr. Buruma's blithe footnotes to the effect that the Japanese war party's "plans for the attack on Pearl Harbor had been presented to Hirohito already in early November, after he was convinced that war with the US was inevitable. This would suggest that those who continue to believe that Pearl Harbor was really Roosevelt's doing are barking up the wrong tree." As this bold non sequitur suggests, Mr. Buruma himself is firmly lodged in the wrong tree. But then many Western journalists who move about the Far East are permanently dazzled if not blinded by the Rising Sun.

I particularly like the notion that Hirohito (for reasons not mentioned) was, somehow, in November 1941, convinced that war with the US was inevitable. Why? Lady Murasaki has, apparently, pledged Mr. Buruma to secrecy. So let's try to work out what was going on in November that might have convinced the marine biologist atop the Chrysanthemum throne that an "inevitable" war was coming his way not, as Mr. Buruma would have it, from the savage war party in Tokyo but from Freedom's alabaster home itself. If Hirohito had been studying his in-box, as "a divine priest-king" ought, he might have suspected that the US had been trying to get a rise out of him for many years. On July 16, 1941, Prince Konoye, a would-be peacemaker, became prime minister. On July 26 (as a vote of confidence?) the US froze all Japanese funds in the US and stopped the export of oil. When Undersecretary of State Sumner Welles was asked by the Japanese if some compromise might be worked out, Welles said there was not the "slightest ground for any compromise solution."

Our first provocation against Japan began with FDR's famous Chicago address (October 5, 1937), asking for a quarantine against aggressor nations. Certainly, Japan in Manchuria and north China qualified as an aggressor just as we had been one when we conquered the Philippines and moved into the Japanese neighborhood at the start of the twentieth century. In December 1937, the Japanese sank the Panay, an American gunboat in Chinese waters, on duty so far from home as the Monroe Doctrine sternly requires. Japan promptly, humbly paid for the damage mistakenly done our ship. Meanwhile, FDR—something of a Sinophile—was aiding and abetting the Chinese warlord Chiang Kai-shek...

Continued...
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/14238

STATEMENT REGARDING WINDS MESSAGE

by Captain L.F. Safford, USN - 25 January 1946

There was a Winds Message. It meant War--and we knew it meant War. By the best estimate that can be made from my recollection and the circumstantial evidence now available, the "Winds Message" was part of a Japanese Overseas "News" Broadcast from Station JAP (Tokyo) on 11980 kilocycles beginning at 1330 Greenwich Civil Time on Thursday, December 4, 1941. This time corresponded to 10:30 p.m. Tokyo time and 8:30 a.m. Washington time, December 4, 1941. The broadcast was probably in Japanese Morse code, and was originally written in the Kata-Kana form of written, plain-language Japanese. It was intercepted by the U.S. Navy at the big radio receiving station at Cheltenham, Maryland, which serves the Navy Department. It was recorded on a special typewriter, developed by the Navy, which types the Roman-letter equivalents of the Japanese characters. The Winds Message broadcast was forwarded to the Navy Department by TWX (teletypewriter exchange) from the teletype-transmitter in the "Intercept" receiving room at Cheltenham to "WA91," the page-printer located beside the GY Watch Officer's desk, in the Navy Department Communication Intelligence Unit under my command. I saw the Winds Message typed in page form on yellow teletype paper, with the translation written below. I immediately forwarded this message to my Commanding Officer (Rear Admiral Leigh Noyes, USN), thus fully discharging my responsibility in the matter...

Continued...
http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/winds.htm

There is no record of the 'Winds Message' beyond Safford's recollection. From the decryption typewriter to the Memory Hole, courtesy of Admiral Noyes. Oh well.

[jberryhill]

37. Actually, that's an interesting analogy to think about

Especially concerning the flaw in that analogy. The attacks here had already happened.

But suppose at some point in the day, a report that the "USS Arizona severly damaged and is in danger of sinking" had been broadcast as "USS Arizona sunk".

Because that's what we're talking about here.

[JackRiddler]

39. heh...

The analogy is basically useless, yes. It's still a funny graphic.

[mhatrw]

42. It IS a very interesting analogy.

Right down to the fact that the CFR hired the same guy to keep the lid on both LIHOPs:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20000301fabook630/robert-b-stinnett/day-of-deceit-the-truth-about-f-d-r-and-pearl-harbor.html

[JackRiddler]

44. Great catch! Thanks n/t

[Grateful for Hope]

45. Philip Zelikow

Also mentioned in this excellent article by Paul Craig Roberts:

http://www.creators.com/opinion/paul-craig-roberts/americans-have-lost-their-country.html

This extraordinary aggressiveness toward the U.S. Constitution, international law and the Islamic world is the work not of a vast movement, but of a handful of ideologues — principally Vice President Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Lewis Libby, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Elliott Abrams, Zalmay Khalilzad, John Bolton, Philip Zelikow and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

<snip>

The Bush-Cheney regime came to power with the plans drawn to attack the remaining independent countries in the Middle East and with neoconservatives in office to implement the plans. However, an excuse was required. Neoconservatives had called for "a new Pearl Harbor," and 9-11 provided the propaganda event needed in order to stampede the public and Congress into war. Neoconservative Philip Zelikow was put in charge of the 9-11 commission report to make certain no uncomfortable facts emerged.

Edited to add that this article is on the Greatest Page as number one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x315518

[Grateful for Hope]

46. kick n/t