BBC 9/11 lies:

The BBC has always been a means of enforcing establishment propaganda, however they far exceeded their usual stupidity on the 29 August 2011, when they wrote an article attempting to discredit 9/11 conspiracy theories ten years after the dreadful event.  Their ludicrous, make believe facts completely rely on the possibility of so many coincidences as to make the American army, air force and establishment seem totally incompetent. What are the odds of such bad luck in the event of an actual attack from an outside source?  Slim to none.  

The BBC article, which you can view here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14665953 
Gives the impression that conspiracy theories are totally paranoid and unfounded.  Making the whole idea of questioning any official story seem an act of insanity.  As well as unpatriotic.  But in reality to question things is normal.  To accept without question is the true act of insanity.  Questioning leads to answers and truth.  Mindlessly believing everything the media tells us is not normal behaviour.  But we have been conditioned to never think or question anything by the indoctrinating education system.  And anyone who believes it wrong to question and research such things as 9/11, if a complete and utter moron.

The BBC post questions regarding 9/11 inconsistencies, then the conspiracy perspective, followed by the propaganda of lie of coincidences.

Here is what the BBC say:


*The question: Why did the world's most powerful air force fail to intercept any of the four hijacked planes?
*Conspiracy theorists say: The then US Vice President Dick Cheney ordered the military to stand down and not to intercept the planes.

 

*Official reports say: This was a highly unusual multiple hijacking with violence on board, and where the transponder, which identifies the plane, was turned off or changed.

What is more, a routine military training exercise happened to be taking place that day at US air defence command.

Air traffic controller Colin Scoggins was in constant contact with the military and did not see any lack of response. There was confusion and a lack of communication between the civilian air traffic control (FAA) and the military.

The military's equipment was also outdated and designed to look out over the ocean to deal with a Cold War threat.

 As you can see the very first response to the question is a coincidental training exercise.  Which was actually deliberately taking place so that the planes could not be intercepted when they were being flown in to buildings.  The planes were flown with military precision, by remote control in to the buildings.  For alleged hijackers to control the flight path towards, and in to a building so easily, is completely illogical.

*The question: Why did the Twin Towers collapse so quickly, within their own footprint, after fires on a few floors that lasted only for an hour or two?

*Conspiracy theorists say: The Twin Towers were destroyed by controlled demolitions. Theories relate to the rapid collapse (about 10 seconds), the relatively short-lived fires (56 minutes in World Trade Center 2 or 102 minutes in World Trade Center 1), reports of the sounds of explosions shortly before the collapse, and the violent ejections that could be seen at some windows many floors below the collapse.

*Official reports say: An extensive inquiry by the National Institute of Standards and Technology concluded that the planes severed and damaged support columns and dislodged fire-proofing.

Around 10,000 gallons of jet fuel were spewed over many floors starting widespread fires. Temperatures of up to 1,000C caused the floors to sag and the perimeter columns to bend, causing the sounds of "explosions".

The massive weight of the floors dropped, creating a dynamic load far in excess of what the columns were designed for. Debris was forced out of the windows as the floors above collapsed.

Controlled demolition is nearly always carried out from the bottom floors up, yet this collapse started at the top.

No evidence has ever been found of explosive charges despite the extensive hand searches and there is no evidence of any pre-cutting of columns or walls, which is routinely carried out in a controlled demolition.

 Explosions were heard in the basement - which was blasted out before the collapse to make way for the controlled demolition.

The damage from the planes was not severe enough to cause a complete collapse.  Had there not been explosives, a few floors surrounding the hit may or may not have collapsed on to lower floors.  But the building would have remained standing.

In my video 9/11 truth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziuSb7OCGes 

Images show a woman standing at the edge of the building where the plane hit - had the damage been severe enough to cause several floors to collapse she would not have been able to stand there and look over the edge.  Plus, had the fires been so hot and fierce she would not have stood there - she would either be burning alive or making her escape from the flames.  This suggests the fire was dying out.

In regards to the jet fuel spillage - there is no way 10,000 gallons were spewed over many floors.  Most of the jet fuel was consumed in the fireball that resulted from the initial impact.  About two thirds of the jet fuel was burnt up in about ten minutes.  The fireball burnt outside of the building.

The steel frame needed a much hotter temperature than the fires from the plane hit to buckle or melt.  (As molten steel was found in the debris upto six weeks after the event - which is the result of thermite explosives).

Much of the debris was removed amd destroyed before a full investigation could even start.

*The question: How could an amateur pilot fly a commercial plane in a complicated manoeuvre and crash it into the headquarters of the world's most powerful military, 78 minutes after the first report of a possible hijack and leave no trace?
*Conspiracy theorists say: A commercial Boeing 757 did not hit the building but instead a missile, a small aircraft or an unmanned drone was used. But since evidence has increasingly shown that the American Airlines Flight 77 did hit the building, the emphasis has shifted to questioning the difficult approach manoeuvre. It is argued it was not under the control of al-Qaeda but the Pentagon itself.

*Official reports say: Airplane wreckage, including the black boxes, were recovered from the scene and they were catalogued by the FBI.

Although some early video did not show much wreckage, there is a good deal of video and still photography which shows plane wreckage and evidence of the flight path, such as broken lamp posts.

The remains of crew and passengers on the plane were found and positively identified by DNA. Witnesses also saw the plane strike the Pentagon. 

 Very little plane wreckage was recovered at all.  The hijacker supposedly flew round in a circle to hit the pentagon from the other side - which wasn't designed to withstand it.  And flew downwards towards the pentagon - pulling upwards to make a direct hit - making a tiny hole, but leaving no trace of the more indestructible parts of the plane such as the engines.  Pilots for 9/11 truth have even stated that such a difficult manoeuvre, for an amateur pilot, capable of flying only very small planes, is impossible.  Even for a skilled pilot it would be extremely difficult.  The pentagon was hit by something much smaller - that was also remote controlled.  And the FAKE debris was planted afterwards.  The supporting collumns of the pentagon where the plane supposedly hit and vanished in to thin air - were undamaged.  Windows surrounding the hole were still intact.  Had the official story been true the collumns would be damaged or knocked out of place and the windows would have been smashed by the plane nose, tail and initial impact.

*The question: Why was the crash site at Shanksville, Pennsylvania, so small and why was the aircraft debris not visible?
*Conspiracy theorists argue: United Airlines flight 93 was shot down by a missile and disintegrated in mid air, scattering the wreckage over a large area.

 

*Official reports say: There are clear photographs showing aircraft wreckage and the cockpit voice recorder, which showed there had been a passenger revolt and the hijackers had deliberately crashed the plane.

Initial theories that heavy debris was scattered many miles from the main crash site turned out to be false. In fact the wind had blown light debris such as paper and insulation just over a mile.

Another theory was based on a misquote from the local coroner, Wally Miller, who said he stopped being a coroner after about 20 minutes because there were no bodies. What he also said was that he quickly realised it was a plane crash and there would have to be a large funeral service for the many victims.

In addition, the military never gave orders to the air force to shoot the commercial airliner down. 

 The official story claims that there was a passanger revolt and the proof of this is on the salavaged flight recorder, however that information was never made public.  And the wreckage on the ground in no matched what would be expected, if the plane had indeed crashed.  This particular flight has more questions than answers.  

*The question: How could a skyscraper, which was not hit by a plane, collapse so quickly and symmetrically, when no other steel-framed skyscraper has collapsed because of fire?

*Conspiracy theorists say: The World Trade Center Building 7 was destroyed by a controlled demolition using both explosives and incendiaries.

Initially the focus was on the phrase "pull it" used by the owner, Larry Silverstein, in a TV interview. But in fact he was talking about pulling firefighters back. (Demolition experts do not use the term "pull it" as slang for setting off explosives.)

Now the focus has shifted to the speed of the collapse which reached near free fall for 2.25 seconds. It is argued only explosives could make it collapse so quickly and symmetrically.

Some scientists, who are sceptical of the official account, have examined four dust samples from Ground Zero and claim to have found thermitic material which reacts violently when heated up. They claim tonnes of thermite and conventional explosives were rigged inside, not just WTC7, but also the Twin Towers.

*Official reports say: A three-year investigation by the National Institute of Standards and Technology concluded that the building collapsed because of uncontrolled fires, started by the collapse of the nearby North Tower, and which burnt for seven hours.

The mains water feeding the emergency sprinkler system was severed. No evidence has ever been found of explosive charges and there are no recordings of a series of very loud explosions that would have been expected with controlled demolition.

Furthermore, there is an alternative explanation for the "thermitic material" the sceptical scientists found in the dust - it is just a type of primer paint. It's calculated 1,200,000 tonnes of building materials were pulverised at the World Trade Center and most minerals are present in the dust (not necessarily in a large quantity). More extensive sampling of the dust has not found any evidence of thermite or explosives, says a report from the US Geological Survey and another from RJ Lee. 

WTC building 7 was barely damaged, and only suffered small isolated fires.  It collapsed in the style of a controlled demolition - just like the twin towers did.  

The sentence 'pull it' by Larry Silverstein - was directed towards the building itself and not as the BBC suggests the firemen - because one would never refer to men as 'it'.  If it had been a case of pulling the firemen out of the building he would have said it directly as in 'pull them out'.  Larry Silversteins interview can also be seen on my video 9/11 truth.  And you can see for yourself that he was referring to the building.

'Pull it' is a building term for controlled demolition.

Explosives were heard and blasts can be seen in the collapse footage for the twin towers - building seven fell in the exact same style and fell quickly, with no damage to the surrounding buildings.  

The BBC repeatedly claim that conspiracy theorists shift their argument, however what actually happens is questioning the official claim of such coincidences.  When one part of an argument is covered up by the BBC lies, conspiracy theorists question another inconsistency regarding the same issue.  It is known as 'debate'.  Not argument shifting as the media would have you believe.

The BBC carefully choose their words, making sure that their readers react a certain way, in this case the readers response is to believe conspiracy theories as far fetched, and theorists as unable to make and stick to a valid point.  The media often lead their viewers/readers to a set conclusion - and not many people see through it.

Do not listen to the official lies, think for yourself.  Do some research.  Always question the lies of the media.