How did the bbc find out about 9/11 23 minutes before it happened?

Updated on : December 8, 2021 by Charlie Newman



How did the bbc find out about 9/11 23 minutes before it happened?

So people make up a reason why the BBC reported early.

Like they made up all the other stories, where we lack proof. You just have to believe him as a good patriot.

Kidnappers, no evidence on camera.

Plane at the Pentagon, no evidence.

Plane in Shanksville, a crash site with no plane, no evidence.

(unless the idiots say wreckage was found, up to 15 miles from the crash site, in that case the plane didn't crash, but was shot down, no evidence for a consistent story)

Reporters hear big explosions and say bombs are exploding, but we will just ignore that.

Firefighters and witnesses at the Pentagon, we will ignore them too.

Melting

Keep reading

So people make up a reason why the BBC reported early.

Like they made up all the other stories, where we lack proof. You just have to believe him as a good patriot.

Kidnappers, no evidence on camera.

Plane at the Pentagon, no evidence.

Plane in Shanksville, a crash site with no plane, no evidence.

(unless the idiots say wreckage was found, up to 15 miles from the crash site, in that case the plane didn't crash, but was shot down, no evidence for a consistent story)

Reporters hear big explosions and say bombs are exploding, but we will just ignore that.

Firefighters and witnesses at the Pentagon, we will ignore them too.

Melting steel dripping from the building, we will ignore it.

The whistleblowers who in history have opened many cases, we will ignore them.

The chain of command failed on September 11, that too we will ignore. etc.

Most likely, because they communicated poorly. The FDNY knew that the building would collapse starting at 2pm and had made it known to reporters. When it came to the BBC reporter, she said the information at the time was "very, very incomplete" and erroneously reported that the building collapsed rather than collapsed.

To believe in a conspiracy related to this, you would have to believe that the conspirators gave the BBC (why no one else?) The information before the event rather than just letting the event happen and letting the press report it.

The BBC has a long history of involvement in intelligence services and undercover missions. In the 1953 American coup in Iran, the code for the beginning of the coup was something announced by the BBC. So only history can judge the role of the BBC in 9/11.

They did not know about 9/11 before it happened. Regarding WTC 7, everyone on the scene knew that it was as doomed as the other 6 WTC buildings that had already collapsed, not to mention several other buildings that were destroyed outside of the WTC complex. Those on the scene were able to see the massive structural damage to the building caused by the collapse of Tower 1 and knew all about the fires. Predicting that it was going to collapse was as difficult as predicting that the sun would rise the next morning.

They didn't "know" it. Some of your commenters discussed a legitimate concern that the collapse might occur, in the minutes leading up to the collapse. The same happened with some commentators on CBS, NBC and CNN. Probably other sources as well. It was a legitimate fear, for anyone who was watching jet fuel fire burning for so long, if they had a basic understanding of the laws of physics.

PS: Your source is, to put it mildly, utter stupidity.

They did not. They made an incorrect report that happened many times on 9/11 due to the confusion of the day.

That turned out to be a reality later, so it became food for conspiracy theorists, desperate for any supporting evidence for their baseless theories.

The collapse was talked about all day according to this video:

However, the way it collapsed is another story, a building will never collapse like this. For more information, see the Toronto hearings.

Another reason I don't believe in this internal theory is because I don't see any reason why the conspirators would involve some BCC journalists, if I were a conspirator I would keep the circle small.

Oh please no.

Now all the idiot idiots of the conspiracy are going to come out again and tell us how the government was, the Jews, the aliens, it never happened, it was CGI, etc., etc., ad nauseam.

Why oh why has this come up again?

British filmmaker Tony Rooke was so dissatisfied with the BBC's explanation of his prior knowledge that he made a documentary about it that can now be viewed on YouTube:

Part of the conspiracy?

The BBC responded to this. It says IF this happened, then it was a 'heat of the moment' error: but there are no tapes of the broadcast in question.

God no.

The United States did not benefit in the slightest from 9/11, although some Americans, like Dick Cheney, made tens of millions of dollars by benefiting from the deaths of many Americans as a result.

America is much worse off because of 9/11 and will never recover as a result. The Pentagon calls the attack on the WTC the most successful military action in the history of the war because 11 men changed the course of the entire world.

The United States lost enormous freedoms. Now it is possible for the government to spy on Americans, torture Americans. The right of habeus corpus no longer exists, the first t

Keep reading

God no.

The United States did not benefit in the slightest from 9/11, although some Americans, like Dick Cheney, made tens of millions of dollars by benefiting from the deaths of many Americans as a result.

America is much worse off because of 9/11 and will never recover as a result. The Pentagon calls the attack on the WTC the most successful military action in the history of the war because 11 men changed the course of the entire world.

The United States lost enormous freedoms. Now it is possible for the government to spy on Americans, torture Americans. The right of habeus corpus no longer exists, the first time this has happened since the Magna Carta was written in 1215 (except during the Civil War when Lincoln suspended it). Hearsay tests are allowed; evidence of torture is allowed; the government can spy on lawyers and defendants planning their legal defense; defendants are not allowed access to legal materials that can help their defense. The United States engages in extrajudicial renditions in which people can be removed from their homes without a warrant and taken without charge or given a reason to a foreign country for torture, without access to lawyers, and without having their families explained to them. the reason.

As a result of September 11, John Woo, George W. Bush's attorney argued that the United States could crush the genitals of young children if they had the full view of their parents if the parents had information that could be useful to the United States. Consider the sheer beauty of the power that 9/11 gave Republicans like Bush: We can crush the genitals of young children who are guilty of NOTHING and who know NOTHING just because their parents MIGHT have useful information for America. We used to execute people who subjected prisoners to water practice and now Trump wants to bring back all kinds of torture, just like his teacher Putin does.

Bush and Cheney always denied having tortured people. And yet everyone knew they were. We electrocute the genitals of innocent people in Iraq. Bush and Cheney said this was very "effective." If it was so effective, how come they didn't boast about it loudly and proudly from the rooftops? It's because they were ashamed of what it would do to the American image. We hand over innocent people to foreign countries and torture them. How do you apologize to a man you've accidentally tortured? What have we become?

September 11 took us on an odyssey to the longest and most disastrous war in American history, a war we lost that cost us 40,000 casualties and $ 3 trillion or more. We went from running a budget surplus to a trillion dollar deficit. We went to Afghanistan to kill the Taliban (who really had nothing to do with 9/11) and not only did they lose that war, they got the US military to protect and defend their opium crops because it was the only income the government could trust. .

Then we took all the people who were killing the "bad guys" in Afghanistan and sent them to Iraq for no real reason and then WE LOST THE WAR. On top of all that, we ended up fighting the war for Iran, our supposed enemy, and turned it into a regional superpower. They should put a picture of George W. Bush on a postage stamp as a national hero. He knocked out their biggest enemy for them and it cost them absolutely nothing. Furthermore, the entire world watched as the mighty US Army fought to a standstill by a group of men in T-shirts and tennis shoes and armed only with AK-47s, men who had not a single tank or helicopter, not a single one. logistics chain, no R&R, and when we get frustrated we rape their daughters and shoot their wives.

The United States completely lost. We crippled our military, wasted billions of dollars, put the nation in huge debt, damaged our reputation and credibility in the world, and got next to nothing for it. The only ones who benefited were people like Prince of Blackwater and Dick Cheney and Halliburton, all evil people, worse than the people we were fighting.

The United States lost a lot to 9/11. We lost freedom, respect, pride, money, and the whole concept of America as the "good boy." America used to export hope. Now our greatest export is hatred and fear.

Belief in conspiracy theories falls into two categories:

  1. It's true. It really is an undercover government operation. When proven to be true with evidence, it is no longer called a conspiracy theory and given a name like Watergate, Iran-Contra, COINTELPRO. The name makes people forget that it was originally a conspiracy theory, sometimes during years before the truth was revealed. In a reverse form of survivor bias, people think that all conspiracy theories are unprovable.
  2. Various psychological reasons involving projection (envy), unfair world hypothesis, powerlessness, and the human fallacy of seeing the pattern.
Keep reading

Belief in conspiracy theories falls into two categories:

  1. It's true. It really is an undercover government operation. When proven to be true with evidence, it is no longer called a conspiracy theory and given a name like Watergate, Iran-Contra, COINTELPRO. The name makes people forget that it was originally a conspiracy theory, sometimes during years before the truth was revealed. In a reverse form of survivor bias, people think that all conspiracy theories are unprovable.
  2. Various psychological reasons involving projection (envy), unfair world hypothesis, powerlessness, and the human fallacy of seeing patterns in coincidence. People who believe in the conspiracy for psychological reasons tend to believe that many events are explained by the conspiracy.
    Paranoia is a symptom of mental illness on the axis of anxiety. I do not think it is valid to label a large segment of the population as mentally ill.


It is relatively easy to differentiate between government conspiracies and criminal acts. Terrorist conspiracies are like government conspiracies, except they select victims at random. However, terrorism is easy to identify because the perpetrators are required to take credit in order to link the act to their cause. The difficulty arises when the government makes the act look like an act of terrorism rather than a criminal act.

Here's how you can tell the difference between conspiracy and criminal:

  • The number of actors is the easiest thing to say. Criminals use a small, self-sufficient team of 1 to 6 actors. The conspiracies use dozens of actors whose movements are orchestrated by a detailed plan and an outside leader. Bureaucratic minds love to manage complexity. They dare not make it simple. When the government tries to make an act look criminal, it makes only one scapegoat. It's usually easy to tell if that guy could have done it alone.
  • Choice of objective. The government is targeting a significant or government-owned building, an individual politician, or an individual enemy of the government. Criminals target money. Terrorists target random people. Bureaucrats have disdain for the public. They believe that killing an average citizen is a waste of time.
  • Cover. Criminals and terrorists do not have a cover-up plan. The game ends when they get caught. The tell-tale sign of a government operation is the appointment of a blue ribbon commission to investigate, a euphemism for cover-up. Gag orders on innocent parties are also revealing. Bureaucrats have a predilection for secrecy.
  • The empirical evidence that the government's history is incomplete means that it was a government operation. The government's penchant for complexity creates many opportunities to find evidence in seemingly inconsequential details.


The 9/11 event was obviously planned and orchestrated, it targeted the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, it was covered up by a blue ribbon commission, gag orders were applied to the families of the victims as a condition for restitution ( although families do not know anything). secrets), and there are inexplicable technical holes in the government's history, including the termite in the rubble and an original explanation of the cell phone calls that I featured in Why The 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists Don't Believe The Story official?

A better question is why intelligent people trained in critical thinking are so eager to suspend disbelief and embrace orthodoxy. They act like they are watching a movie instead of reality.

1- The Twin Towers would continue to dominate the Manhattan skyline and, most importantly, all the people who died that day would have lived.

2- No major revision in airport security measures (unless there was another attack with an aircraft at a slightly later date, which, judging by the lack of airport security before September 11, would have been a very realistic possibility)

3- The Patriot Act would never have been approved in Congress.

4- There is no department of national security.

5- There is no detention center in Guantanamo Bay.

6- Bush Jr probably would have only been a one-term president without 9/11 and

Keep reading

1- The Twin Towers would continue to dominate the Manhattan skyline and, most importantly, all the people who died that day would have lived.

2- No major revision in airport security measures (unless there was another attack with an aircraft at a slightly later date, which, judging by the lack of airport security before September 11, would have been a very realistic possibility)

3- The Patriot Act would never have been approved in Congress.

4- There is no department of national security.

5- There is no detention center in Guantanamo Bay.

6- Bush Jr would have probably only been a one-term president, since without September 11 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, he would have been almost a full internal affairs president and the Clinton-era economic recession would have been. badly damaged. chances of winning a second term.

7- Obama would never have become president in 2008 (although, as the undisputed golden child of the Democrats, I think there is a good chance that he would have won the next election in 2012). No rise of Trump in 2016.

8- China, more than the Middle East, would have been the main concern of US foreign policy in the first decade of the 21st century.

9- Less anti-Muslim prejudices in the Western world in general.

10- Osama bin laden would have remained a relatively unknown fugitive to the American people, rather than the familiar name of the infamy he became as a result of September 11.

11- No declaration of war against terrorism, that is, no invasion of Afghanistan. The Taliban would continue to control large areas of the country, and the UN likely would eventually have recognized the Taliban government, in a similar way to how it accepted recognition from post-revolutionary Iran. The civil war would have continued for several years, but the US involvement would have been limited to providing military and financial aid to the Northern Alliance, with the occasional drone strikes against Al-Qaeda targets.

12- There was no invasion of Iraq in 2003, which means that Saddam Hussein remains in power, albeit under heavy sanctions. However, it was a well-known fact that Bush Jr. wanted to overthrow the Iraqi dictator and finish the job his father started in the first Gulf War but without 9/11 (even though Iraq had nothing to do with the attack ) and the alleged ADM threat being proposed at the time, it seems highly unlikely that Bush would have been able to get the backing of Congress to support an invasion of a foreign nation, even if that nation was a sworn enemy of the United States. ISIS would never have become a prominent force in the region. Iran today would have much less influence in the Middle East.

13- No bomb attack on the Madrid train and no 7/7 attack in London, as these atrocities were both revenge attacks against countries whose governments had supported the invasion of Iraq.

14- The Arab Spring would still have broken out in early 2011. Iraq would almost certainly have fallen into a civil war just as Syria did, only with a much more brutal tyrant in power. The neocons in the US government would have seen this as their big chance to finally get rid of Saddam and would certainly have intervened in the conflict, but it would not have been the large-scale ground invasion that occurred in 2003. In my opinion, it would have been more like the NATO intervention in Kosovo in the late 1990s.

15- The 2008 global financial crisis would still have happened as its long-term causes were completely independent of the war on terror and was just part of the natural boom-and-bust business cycle.

Other Guides:


GET SPECIAL OFFER FROM OUR PARTNER.