Amazing video of planted 911 ground zero "witness"

[orz]

And what might that be?

You tell me, you're the one who didn't finish your sentence.

[Hammer of Los]

I am sure this video has been linked to before, and the information about jerome hauer.

I too, found the video quite compelling and revealing.

This has got to be the biggest, most daring psyops ever created.

I am certain you are right.

Here is where this interesting video was discussed before;

No flames please...a CD curiousity?

[11:11]

And what might that be?

You tell me, you're the one who didn't finish your sentence.

Yes, I did finish my sentence. Apparently you didn' like it. Tough shit.

[orz]

Now, couple this with the BBC jumping ahead in the script.

...and?

But no, forget it. The BBC did not have a "script" of 9/11.

[11:11]

Now, couple this with the BBC jumping ahead in the script.

...and?

But no, forget it. The BBC did not have a "script" of 9/11.

LOL, that is funny! Time for a review!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxFRigYD3s

[orz]

Am I missing something, or are you really suggesting that THE BBC were 'in on' 9/11?

What, all of them?

Some of them?

who? why?

IN WHAT WAY COULD THIS POSSIBLY MAKE SENSE!?

In what way is this not the LEAST likely explanation for the BBC wrongly reporting WTC's collapse?

Why would THEY even give anyone a script in advance? What sense would it make to deliberately leak it in advance? Accidentally? What would...

Do you mean LITERALLY a script... like a movie script?

Oh forget it. I don't even know how to argue against a 'talking point' that nobody is able to remotely explain what the point even is, why it's significant, or how it could coherently fit into any other theory about 9/11.

[Jeff]

FWIW, from here:

...I'm suspicious of how these narratives have acted like cancer cells to effectively ingest, mutate and bury the chance for a credible and effective 9/11 Movement. The most recent example may be the flap over BBC "foreknowledge" of building 7's collapse, which has wound up a lot of people for, I think, some pretty poor reasons.

To many, it's an unchallenged assumption that no one expected WTC 7, and so Aaron Brown's report that "we're getting information that one of the other buildings... Building 7... is on fire and has either collapsed or is collapsing" is received as confirmation that someone pre-released the "script," rather than as evidence that its fall may be yet unexplained but was not a surprise. That is why so many cameras were fixed on it to capture its fall, and yes, that is why the fire team was "pulled." The day was full of confused, false and conflicting news, and that's the nature of reporting an unprecedented catastrophic event in real time. Yet the medium is not the message here.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Seems the BBC is cleaning house on some itty-bitty scandals as reported by the Guardian.
I wonder if this is purity dance theater because of the premature WTC7 report.
Remember, BBC claims it lost all its 9/11 footage. hmph.

But we are being reassured that BBC is dealing with its credibility about-
>calls in to a music show quiz
>the name of a show's cat


found at Alex Constantine's blog first--



http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article2979885.ece

BBC producer is first to be sacked over fake phone-ins
By Ciar Byrne, Arts and Media Correspondent
Published: 20 September 2007

A radio producer is the first person to be fired over the faked phone-ins scandal which has rocked the BBC. Leona McCambridge was sacked for gross misconduct after an internal inquiry into claims that production staff on Liz Kershaw's show on BBC 6Music regularly posed as competition winners.
.....
The sacking of Ms McCambridge follows a BBC-wide inquiry into alleged fakery on its TV and radio shows. Richard Marson, a former Blue Peter editor, is understood to have been suspended after another instance of alleged viewer deception during his stewardship, relating to the naming of the show's cat.

It is understood that the name chosen for Socks, the cat which joined the show in 2006, was not the one which came top in an online poll. The BBC refused to comment on either case.

[11:11]

Look, I never said that Jane whatsherface was in on it. She's was reporting what was being fed to her (poor thing with WTC 7 right behind her). She didn't know shit from Shinola. And Aaron Brown? Who fed him that information? Somebody did. Because that was the plan. The script. you see Aaron Brown telling us that information? Or the BBC? NOT.

Also, why did the MSNBC president have to approve any re-plays of WTC 7 going down? Why did he refuse it? Why are we treated to the "pancaking" of the Twin Towers, over and over again, but no images of WTC 7? Yeah, and how does the BBC lose the most important news footage it's ever recorded - the whole day?!

Boy, Jeff, for someone who writes so many blogs on the most byzantine rabbt holes, you seem to think the 9/11 murderers not capable of the same? Weird.

[8bitagent]

Haven't read thread updates (here) yet, but just wanted to say that these bastads totally bamboozled me. I have been into conspiracy since 1981, and I bought the lie. I remember Bill Cooper from day one saying it was an inside job, and I didn't believe him! Their evil mind fuckery got me. It took me a few months before the fog lifted.

And notice even MOST LIBERALS who claim to hate Bush and question everything are STILL under the spell of 9/11. Hell, I was researching coverups and exposing globalization back in the 90's, and it wasnt until 2005 I "woke up".

But I don't believe the "secret" to 9/11 lies within any neocon office or the Pentagon or White House.

The secret to 9/11 I believe lies in the origin of the twin towers,
the funding of the 19 hijackers, and a criss crossing of at least five seemingly unrelated plots that converged on that ugly day six years ago.

To me the term "inside job" is laughable...as Mossad spies, 19 Saudi al Qaeda terrorists, Pakistani ISI, Dubai banks and officials, etc is anything but "inside". Maybe inside as far as NWO, but 9/11 is far more complex than BOTH OCT'er debunkers and truthers want to admit.

Perhaps the key lies with David Rockefeller...maybe it lies with who was controlling Khalid Mohammed...maybe John O'neil who what was up. Who knows

[11:11]

Inside in terms of people in this country, and government being part of the conspiracy.

[Hammer of Los]

To many, it's an unchallenged assumption that no one expected WTC 7, and so Aaron Brown's report that "we're getting information that one of the other buildings... Building 7... is on fire and has either collapsed or is collapsing" is received as confirmation that someone pre-released the "script," rather than as evidence that its fall may be yet unexplained but was not a surprise. That is why so many cameras were fixed on it to capture its fall, and yes, that is why the fire team was "pulled." The day was full of confused, false and conflicting news, and that's the nature of reporting an unprecedented catastrophic event in real time. Yet the medium is not the message here.

On the contrary Jeff. I believe the "many" you speak of (oh, so many!) are generally fully cognisant of the very great deal of evidence that the collapse of WTC7 was "not a surprise."

Funnily enough, it would even appear that the exact moment that WTC7 was to conduct its sudden, immediate, total, catastrophic and complete collapse was no surprise either;

9/11 First Responder Heard WTC 7 Demolition Countdown.

Alex Jones again there, oops sorry bout that.

You know, if you interviewed those first responders who were told to evacuate the site because the building was "about to be blown up," and those that gave those warnings, you might be able to find out exactly where (somewhere in the NYC OEM?) that information came from. Then that individual could be made to ask some interesting questions, such as "how did you come to know to the second when that building would come down in such an otherwise unanticipated, sudden, immediate, total, catastrophic and complete collapse?"

I think we already know the answer they (and Jeff?) would give: lucky guess.

Seriously, this would be a very promising avenue of enquiry for any genuine investigation of the events of that day.

[antiaristo]

..


It's a familiar script.

Have you all forgotten about Jean Charles de Menezes, the Brazillian electrician assassinated by Her Majesty's finest?

So called witnesses were planted to feed us a load of lies.

Faces of the suspects


· Police chase ends with man shot dead on tube
· Met chief says force faces greatest ever operational challenge

Ian Cobain, Rosie Cowan and Richard Norton-Taylor
Saturday July 23, 2005
The Guardian

....snip....

Sir Ian Blair, commissioner of the Metropolitan police, said that officers hunting the gang "are facing previously unknown threats and great danger". He appealed for calm around the capital, and said: "We need the understanding of all communities and the co-operation of all communities."

At Stockwell, bewildered eyewitnesses spilled out of the underground station and told how they had witnessed the moment, shortly after 10am, when the suspect was repeatedly shot.

All described the man as wearing a bulky, winter coat, despite the warm weather, and at least one said he thought he spotted a belt with wires running from it.

After leaping the ticket barriers, racing down an escalator and dashing on to a train, the man appears to have either fallen or been bundled to the ground by pursuing police, one of whom leaned over and shot him several times in the head.

Anthony Larkin, who was on the train, said: "I saw these police officers shouting 'get down, get down', and I saw this guy who appeared to have a bomb belt and wires coming out. People were panicking and I heard two shots being fired."

Mark Whitby, 47, who was sitting a few yards from the shooting, said: "I saw an Asian guy. He ran on to the train. He was hotly pursued by three plain clothes officers, one of them was wielding a black handgun.

"As he got on to the train I looked at his face, he looked sort of left and right, but he basically looked like a cornered rabbit, a cornered fox.

"He looked absolutely petrified. They couldn't have been any more than two or three feet behind him at this time and he half tripped and was half pushed to the floor, and the policeman nearest to me had a black automatic pistol in his left hand. He held it down to the guy and unloaded five shots into him.

"They pushed him to the floor and basically unloaded five shots into him.

"I was totally distraught. It was no less than five yards away from where I was sitting."

At one point, the train's driver was chased by police and had a gun pointed at his head after he leapt from his cab and ran down a tunnel on hearing the commotion.

The shot suspect was pronounced dead at the scene.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story ... 71,00.html

It was not until an employee of the Police Complaints Commission leaked a photograph of the prostrate dead man that we learned we had been lied to.

About a month later.

It's a script.

They plant seeds at exactly that time the mind is most impressionable - immediately after a disorientating shock.

Tavistock style.


Added on edit


Hugh, what you've described is known as "Pussygate"

Terence Blacker: 'Pussygate' proves we have lost our innocence

Published: 21 September 2007

It is now known that a major new crisis is about to engulf the BBC. A producer has been suspended. There are threats of sackings. Unions are involved. According to the chorus of critics of the Corporation, who are ever on hand to make things worse, the latest revelations reveal a profound moral and managerial crisis within the corporation.

The story that has caused the rumpus is undeniably shocking, but it must be told. There was this cat. It was to be part of the presentation team on the children's series Blue Peter. Some foolhardy idiot at the BBC came up with the reckless idea of inviting the programme's young viewers to select a name for it.

This is where it gets ugly. The name the children came up with is so utterly inappropriate that the production team were unable even to consider it. The BBC says that the name preferred by the young audience was "Cookie". The newspapers, however, have said that it was something more challenging, or as one broadsheet newspaper carefully referred to it, "a variant of 'Puss'". Or, to put it more frankly,the name the children chose for the cat was: "Pussy".

It was an impossible situation, clearly. As the crisis deepened, there must have been some kind of top-level cat-naming meeting because soon the Blue Peter team turned to a public figure who had nothing the slightest bit sleazy about him – Bill Clinton. The former president had a cat called Socks (as in "I did not have Socks with that woman") and that was the name that the BBC claimed, a touch implausibly, the majority of their viewers had selected.

(more)
http://comment.independent.co.uk/column ... 984737.ece

[OnoI812]

The Philadelphia Inquirer and USA Today prominently quoted "Smith."

Was it not also USA today that suppLied most of the witness to the Pentagon crash, establishing the "south of Citgo /hit lightpoles" flight path?

A story not much questioned until those guys from the "Pentacon" movie gum-shoed around for real witnesses, and let loose the fact that the bulk of those early "trapped in car on the way to work" witnesses were actually on their way to USA Today offices where they were employed.

The witnesses the movie makers found, including the Citgo clerk and 2 separate police officers, adamantly placed the plane to the north of the Citgo station.

[Attack Ships on Fire]

Look, I never said that Jane whatsherface was in on it. She's was reporting what was being fed to her (poor thing with WTC 7 right behind her). She didn't know shit from Shinola. And Aaron Brown? Who fed him that information? Somebody did. Because that was the plan. The script. you see Aaron Brown telling us that information? Or the BBC? NOT.

I remember watching 9/11 unfold on TV six years ago. I distinctly remember unconfirmed reports that there were a lot more *possibly* hijacked aircraft in the air. I also remember a TV newscaster telling a rumor that there were aircraft en route to the US from Europe that were not responding to the do not land instructions in the hours after the WTC and Pentagon crashes.

None of the pro-"WTC 7 was pulled" conspiracy pundits include any of the other mistakes, rumors and slip-ups that were aired that day in their "evidence" backing a 9/11 conspiracy. Instead we're hit over the head again and again about Larry Silverstein saying WTC 7 was to be pulled .

Jeff got it absolutely right: there *are* more important aspects of 9/11 that should be the focus of the pundits, not what Silverstein or the BBC said. You are wasting energy in pursuing these two shadows that could be better served on exposing more light on the bigger 9/11 irregularities.