Maybe I do not understand the argument. I can't see any time on the
video. As a matter of fact I don't even know when it was broadcast other
then on 9/11. Hint: attacks this morning (he uses US Standard time
from his European based perspective. To us 9/11 occured around 3. p.m
+-whatever summer
The official response by the BBC to this story implicitly acknowledges that
they did in fact report the collapse of WTC7 before it actually collapsed --
this point is no longer in dispute; the BBC is making no effort to deny the
charge. The story contributes to a great deal of other evidence
The first thing that comes to mind: Is this blue screen technique?
That is: Is the interview shot in the study with no panoramic format
of the scenery at the precise time of the collapse used as a
background? I could add many, many or's none of them supporting any
ecstasy about a fat lady about to
It seems to me that the most critical point to watch is this: will the BBC
provide a reasonable and persuasive explanation for this footage within 48
hours of its appearance? Or will the BBC hem and haw and evade, grope
frantically for some line of semi-plausible bullshit, thus proving by its
Didn't Google hire an Israeli intelligence operative for one of their
top executive positions a few years ago? Don't remember the details.
--- In political-research@yahoogroups.com, Sean McBride
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is very important to ascertain whether this charge is true or
not.
Were you thinking of Dan Senor, or someone else?
http://www.google.com/search?q=google+dan+senor
There have been several incidents preceding the BBC/WTC7 video censorship (if
that report is true) which have raised red flags about the political agenda at
Google.
Since Google is
