Alex Jones disinformation

Originally posted by Sauron
Regardless of time stamps, Explain why Jane Standley standing in front of the Salomon Building,(WTC7) had said it collapsed when anyone with eyes could see it hadn't. More of the media doing as it's told, yellow journalisms

[edit on 2/3/2007 by Sauron]

Or proof that the BBC were reporting unsubstantiated rumours / hearsay- just as they'd done on numerous other occasions during the day

I don't think we will see Petronius around here again. Another possible government agent trying to crack ATS ( I don't think so). They can't hide this one, it is too big and the video is is very clear.

Originally posted by mel1962

Is it funny, how Alex Jones detractors are always new members?

I said the same thing. As soon as I read his post I saw 100 points and laughed.

I've listened to AJ for well over a year now almost everyday (via the podcast) and have heard nothing to tell me he is part of the master plan or making $$ from the goverment to push disinformation.

Originally posted by corsig

Originally posted by mel1962

Is it funny, how Alex Jones detractors are always new members?

I said the same thing. As soon as I read his post I saw 100 points and laughed.

I've listened to AJ for well over a year now almost everyday (via the podcast) and have heard nothing to tell me he is part of the master plan or making $$ from the goverment to push disinformation.

Yes, I have listened to Alex, I don't always agree with him, but I believe him to be honest.

Petronius seems to have disappeared like a spring tulip! Hit and run and on to a new ID!


[edit on 3/3/07 by mel1962]

Originally posted by shindigger
1. This has been done. Youre wrong.
2. The building is still in sight behind the reporter, regardless of timestamp.
3.CNN also clearly had it reported before it happened.
4. The "professionals" were out in their droves on here very soon after this BBC footage (and CNN) appeared on ATS and other sites.
5.Rumbled.

Can you provide more information on this? Specifically, when did CNN report it? Furthermore, who are the alleged professionals?

I saw that WTC 7 was in the background, when she said it had already fallen. This is un-de-bunkable, sorry, 9/11 was an inside job.

Whether it was live or not...

Whether or not it even had a time stamp...

Regardless of any time zone difference...

A reporter stood in front of a building and claimed that it wasn't there.
How can anyone possibly defend this glaring error?

WTC7 was supposed to have been collapsed earlier but its destruction was delayed.
In the meanwhile, news reporters went ahead and read the statements they had been given.
Finally, WTC7 was collapsed. Our leaders hoped no one would notice the inconsistancy in all the chaos of the day.

I know people on crack that make more sense than you.

Why are you posting disinformation?

Originally posted by Petronius
This article below appeared on prisonplanet.com
The Alex Jones website claims that WTC bldg 7 as reported by the BBC collapsed at 21:54 (9:54) London time or 4:54PM EST NYC time, 26 minutes before the collapse. Alex has never heard of daylight savings time because it was reported by the BBC at 21:54 or 5:54PM EDT, 34 minutes after the collapse. Alex obviously doesn't realize that the 5 hr time difference during standard time is only a 4 hr time difference during daylight savings time, which is what NYC and the USA were on in Sept 11th, 2001. Too bad Alex never learned to tell time, but then disinformation agents are not supposed to tell the truth, are they! Maybe this will help people realize the disinformation Alex Jones has been spreading since 9/11 and all the $$$$ he has been taking people for. PT Barnum said it best, there's a sucker born every minute, and Alex has found plenty of them!

Time Stamp Confirms BBC Reported WTC 7 Collapse 26 Minutes In Advance
Debunkers' claims about blue screens, inconclusive time frame of Jane Standley footage eviscerated
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
If there was any remaining doubt that the BBC reported the collapse of Building 7 over 20 minutes before it fell then it has now evaporated with the discovery of footage from the BBC's News 24 channel that shows the time stamp at 21:54 (4:54PM EST) when news of the Salomon Brothers Building is first broadcast, a full 26 minutes in advance of its collapse.

Source Link

Mod edit: quote source, and provide link.

[edit on 2-3-2007 by UM_Gazz]

Originally posted by Petronius
Oh so you are omniscient! to know that something was live because they tell you it was live - my you have been well indoctrinated haven't you!

Unless you were there you don't know whether it was live or whether it was Memorex. You need to update yourself on what digital video is capable of doing and it was just as much as part of the scene then as it is now.

umm think about it dude....look I give you respect for having free thought and questioning things....thats the basis for the freedom we all believe in regardless of if we agree on some things or not....BUT...in this case....tell me..if its a hoax or if it were not live, why oh why would BBC bother going all defensive mode and putting up a blog explaining how the footage was "lost" and that nobody remembers clearly what happened that day....If indeed the footage in question was shot on a screen or it was in some other way NOT a live backdrop they would have just said so. But the BBC themselves know they screwed up hence the excuses....besides the slipup from CNN just about doing the same thing at approx the same time is a little much for coincidence dont you think? anyway....good to see you questioning things but don't be overly skeptical or cynical or you'll miss the truth along with the lies.

[edit on 3-3-2007 by Or_Die_Trying]

Originally posted by mojoberg
If 9/11 was a conspiracy by the US government or parts of the US government to blow up the towers and kill its own citizens why on earth would they tell media organizations in advance that a building will collapse? Do you not think the media might find this slightly suspicious? I thought the whole point about a conspiracy was to keep it secret.
The only conspiracy on 9/11 was al qaeda flying planes into building. Ive always thought Alex Jones to be a right wing idiot who cannot stop shouting

you do realize that the press in north america isn't free at all right?? International rankings for freedom of the press and censorship have the United States and Im sure Canada as well (maybe a little less) as among the more tightly controlled. You do realize that almost all the major newspapers and news are owned and controlled by a very small few.....

Originally posted by mojoberg
If 9/11 was a conspiracy by the US government or parts of the US government to blow up the towers and kill its own citizens why on earth would they tell media organizations in advance that a building will collapse? Do you not think the media might find this slightly suspicious? I thought the whole point about a conspiracy was to keep it secret.
The only conspiracy on 9/11 was al qaeda flying planes into building. Ive always thought Alex Jones to be a right wing idiot who cannot stop shouting

oh and alex jones may have his views but anyone who's actually listened to him knows that he's at least smart enough not to fall for any right/left paradigm garbage...I dont know how anyone can fall for that crap...but parties are liars...they achieve the same ends under different covers...and nothing ever changes no matter who's in power. Its not about left or right...its about right and wrong. and Alex Jones shouts cuz he actually cares about the situation we're in....you know when you hear that people are getting tortured for no reason, that your rights are being taken away, that the borders are undefended, and other such things...you SHOULD get mad...if you don't, then theres something seriously wrong with you.

-Building 7 was visible in the background as the reporter was announcing the collapse had already taken place.Alex Jones probably can not tell time,but hey,more than half of all Americans can not find the USA on a map of the world.Alex is no genious nor is he a hero,but the guy has a good heart,then again the human heart is a deceitfull thing.
Concerning 9-11,has anyone bothered to explain why Bin Laden supposedly made a tape in which he admitted to ordering the 9-11 attacks,but did not release the admission,and initialy denied being behind the attacks? Terrorisam is a form of warfare,terrorists hope to gain leverage from their deeds.They generaly want the enemy to know that they are responsible for their acts of terror,and that more acts will follow untill their demands,or objective is met.It really does not make sense that if islamic extreamists were responcible for 9-11 that they would have ever denied involvement.The islamic jihadists want us to be afraid of them,and their deeds,in hopes of policy changes on behalf of our goverment.Suppose for a moment that we lived in a world without police,and we handled disputes with neighbors on our own.Now imagine that your neighbor has erected a fence well within your property boundry.Of course you are upset about this so you tell the neighbor to move the fence willingly or you will tear the fence down your self,and if he puts it back up you will burn his house down.Now remember,there are no police,so how this matter is handled is strictly up to you.Now suppose the neighbor refuses to take down the fence,so you procede to take the fence down yourself just as you threatend.Afterwards the neighbor reerects the fence on your property just as before.At this point you tell the neighbor he has a certain period of time to remove the fence or you will burn his house down.Imagine the given period of time passes,but you decide not to burn his house down.However on the day you had planed to burn his house lightning stikes the house and destroys it while the neighbor is away.Upon arriving home the neighbor sees his smouldering house and out of fear for his and his family's life immediatly begins taking the fence down.Now let me ask you this,would it make sense to tell the neighbor that you were not responcible for his house being destroyed seeing that he was giving into your demands because he was afraid of the extreams you might go to in order to make him move the fence?Again this is how terrorisam works,simply by the terrorist comiting acts of terror and having us know that if we do not comply with their demands, there will be worse to come.Why would a terrorist making demands or trying to cause political change by acts of terror deny those acts?It seems to me that Bin Laden,would have claimed responcibility for 9-11 immediatly after the event or possibly even hours before.I am no expert on terrorisam but I do know what we have been told by the experts,and I also remember attacks of the past and how the perpertrators always were eager to take responsibility.Anyway this is just something for folks to ponder on for themselves,and come to their own conclusion.

Originally posted by Or_Die_Trying
You do realize that almost all the major newspapers and news are owned and controlled by a very small few.....

...who have a vested interests in maintaining the system as it is. Well said ODT

Most people don't realise how the press is ran these days. Almost everything you hear about the government, or their interests (war etc...) comes from government press releases. The press just prints what the government gives them, because they're more interested in maintaining the status quo than printing truth.

It once again boils down to capitalism, money becomes more important than truth, or life itself. We are now seeing the inevitable symptoms of an incurable disease, we are in the latter stages of chronic capitalism.
It's spreads easily and quickly through a population, it's symptoms are varied and difficult to control. It effects individual patients as well as the population as a whole, and it's symptoms vary according to patients social class. As the disease increases it's devastating effects the patient becomes confused and angry, and can lead to suicide. In later stages of the disease the patience loses the ability to secure the resources for survival, and dies from the lack of imagination and creativity...

[edit on 17/7/2008 by ANOK]

In Todays world you have to check everything out. and Alex seems to be able to keep all of this stuff str8 - and he has released more stuff to terrorize us citizens with than any other Freedom Loving American. However, I respect him and as long as he keeps pointing to things that I can verify - I will support him in his Patriotic Mission.

Originally posted by shindigger
1. This has been done. Youre wrong.
2. The building is still in sight behind the reporter, regardless of timestamp.
3.CNN also clearly had it reported before it happened.
4. The "professionals" were out in their droves on here very soon after this BBC footage (and CNN) appeared on ATS and other sites.
5.Rumbled.

I would even go as far as to say 'owned'. Star for you sir. If you watch the BBC video they clearly have a live shot of WTC7 and report it as collapsed while it is still standing. Check the internet news archive and watch for yourself.

reply to post by mojoberg




simple to answer this, let me doit dude, 9/11 was done by the owners of media
CFR,,,,

make a litle bit of research of what cfr is, and what they own, and who is behind,

Originally posted by jprophet420
I would even go as far as to say 'owned'. Star for you sir. If you watch the BBC video they clearly have a live shot of WTC7 and report it as collapsed while it is still standing. Check the internet news archive and watch for yourself.

Yes they do, and in fact this has been thoroughly explained by the BBC and by others. It was an incorrect news report picked up by three networks. It was later retracted. Firefighters were aware the building could collapse for well over 2 hours before that point, so "evidence of foreknowledge" becomes "evidence firefighters can talk".

Why would any NWO master conspirator tell the BBC what to report? Considering most conspiracy claims seem to indicate that the NWO wants to hide the details of WTC7 it would be absolutely stupid to announce it on TV rather than just leaving it up to individual stations to show it or not show it.

This entire claim is not logical in any manner.

edit: Hmm I seem to have bumped this thread as the last post was 2 months ago, but this was linked from the front page!? I guess maybe ATSs indexing breaks sometimes. I've noticed threads with a blank last page and replies sometimes not showing up so I guess there are a few problems.

[edit on 26-9-2008 by exponent]

Nothing I stated is inaccurate. If you infered anything from what I posted it is just that, an inference.

When I saw this thread bumped yesterday the last poster was 'Annonymous". I think I have that guy on ignore, hes always posting some jibberish.

Originally posted by jprophet420
Nothing I stated is inaccurate. If you infered anything from what I posted it is just that, an inference.

When I saw this thread bumped yesterday the last poster was 'Annonymous". I think I have that guy on ignore, hes always posting some jibberish.

I guess maybe an anonymous ATS poster posted, but it was denied? I don't know much about the technical aspects behind this board.

Still, if you believe that the BBC reporting WTC7s collapse is somehow proof that the BBC was in on the conspiracy in any manner, you are grossly misinformed or taking a less than balanced position.

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by jprophet420
Nothing I stated is inaccurate. If you infered anything from what I posted it is just that, an inference.

When I saw this thread bumped yesterday the last poster was 'Annonymous". I think I have that guy on ignore, hes always posting some jibberish.

I guess maybe an anonymous ATS poster posted, but it was denied? I don't know much about the technical aspects behind this board.

Still, if you believe that the BBC reporting WTC7s collapse is somehow proof that the BBC was in on the conspiracy in any manner, you are grossly misinformed or taking a less than balanced position.

I tend to look at things mathmaticly. If it had been a stand alone anomaly of the day it would hold much less weight.

To say that the reporting of the building falling before it actually happened if proof that 911 was an inside job orchestrated by the US government is ludacris.

However to say that it is not suspicious or an anomaly is equally ludacris.