BBC Blog Network

User Profile

ynda20

Listed below are comments made by ynda20 between Thursday, 12th November 2009 and Sunday, 15th November 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Website problems 10:00pm on 15 Nov 2009 Thanks, bolierplated, for the useful information. I, of course, agree with you that the failure of that one web page is nothing to do with a network failure.
Website problems 5:34pm on 15 Nov 2009 Boilerplated wrote: "...finding a conspiracy around every twist in the road..."

But isn't this you arguing from a specific and making a generalization? Why are you so determined to "put me in my place"? Is is perfectly natural to ask questions - apparently my Doublethink isn't as finely tuned as yours!

So you claim better technical understanding than me, what is your technical explanation why the website below is not displaying the content it contained last Wednesday?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/suffolk/hi/people_and_places/history/newsid_8331000/8331966.stm
Website problems 1:26pm on 15 Nov 2009 Hey, I thought you were going to let me have the last word on this subject? :-)

The blog concludes by saying "...we're not aware of any remaining issues"

I have pointed out an issue and now you too are admitting it is an "editorial decision" - rather than a server script problem?
Reporting in Kabul 10:12am on 15 Nov 2009 A great discussion why we should not be in Afghanistan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWBRyzPzKbY

Torture provided the extorted excuses to go to and justify war. It is not legal.
Website problems 10:10am on 15 Nov 2009 45,46

Great. I complain about censorship and I get censored. It is not off-topic!
Website problems 11:23pm on 13 Nov 2009 42. Boilerplated wrote:

"Who knows, after all people like you are claiming that it was possible to fake 9/11, to do the above would be a snitch, perhaps not a couple of people but certainly less than all those who would have needed to be 'in on it' whilst faking 9/11. Life, who needs one when you have a conspiracy theory or two?..."

Hmmm, so I point you to to thousands of named people that have expressed concern about 9/11 (at ae911truth.org) and you just say "forget it" - who cares about Illegal Wars, Wars of Terror, Torture - just as long as the BBC and government tells me that everything is ok and that my "life" doesn't need to worry about such details. Ho hum...

Tell me more about the official conspiracy story that you trust so much...
Website problems 4:04pm on 13 Nov 2009 @39. Boilerplated wrote:

"In reply to comments made @ #38:

[nothing worthy of quotation]

I guess that it's easier to shoot the messenger than find a clue, easier to find a conspiracy than face the unconformable facts, if you can't be bothered to find a clue about missing web-page content how can you seriously have a clue about something like attacks on 9/11 (and indeed 7/7 no doubt)...

Sorry but the [WTC attack] facts DO hold up, it's the conspiracy and the multiple posting accounts boosting the conspiracy theories that do not stack up, prove that multiple accounts were not used in that blog - now there's a conspiracy for you!"

Well the web page has not re-appeared. Emails have been sent to the BBC. I agree it would have been easier to delete the whole page but I image that the workflow to alter content may have been quicker and easier. I presume you agree, at least, that the page put up on Wednesday (and available on google-cache) has at least been deliberately altered since then?

Which facts about 9/11 hold up? Because I have seen nothing presented in a court of law or anything that would be legally admissible in a court of law. If you know of anything then please let me know.

Er, so you are you suggesting that there was only one (or two) people posting and the same people replying to their own post in this thread:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/10/caught_up_in_a_conspiracy_theo.html?page=12

Even though, for example, there are hundreds of named architects and engineers asking similar questions at www.ae911truth.org or hundreds of other professionals asking questions at http://patriotsquestion911.com/ - yet somehow questions in that blog thread are just a paranoid delusion?

I guess you have heard that Charlie Sheen (highest paid actor on US TV) has asked to debate 9/11 with anyone that can defend the official story and yet no network has taken him up on the challenge? Now you would have thought that they must be somebody, somewhere that could could take on a mere actor and defend the official story? Apparently not.

Hence my worries...
iPM: Your News 00:12am on 13 Nov 2009 @16,

961 named professional architects and engineers asking for a new investigation of 9/11.

Check out www.ae911truth.org

Check out Sibel Edmonds' sworn testimony "OBL worked for CIA up until 9/11" - at least, BBC you should be debunking this...

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7449
Website problems 00:06am on 13 Nov 2009 @37, Hi Boilerplated,

I'm not really too sure what you mean about a server-side script error. One day it was there, the next day it is not. I guess I could be being paranoid but on the otherhand I do have evidence of the suppression of 9/11 news and discussion.

Within the 5500 comments within

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/10/caught_up_in_a_conspiracy_theo.html?page=12

it has identified countless times where the BBC has been economical with the truth. Pushing, for instance, one side of the argument and ignoring evidence within published science papers and other evidence that casts doubts on the official 9/11 story. I'll mention just three:

a) The collapse of WTC7, which was pre-announced and fell at freefall acceleration (indicating that it was a man-made and not a natural collapse). There are books written about this event and its cover-up but have you heard about it?
b) Molten metal - seen pouring from the side of the WTC1 and found underneath WTC 1, 2 and 7 - Ground Zero was boot-meltingly hot for months. This has never been explained by the official story and cannot be explained by natural collapses.
c) Prof N Harrit, a reputable Danish scientist, has identified an exotic explosive, nano-thermite in the Ground Zero dust and published his peer-reviewed paper in a scientific journal. (This is easy to google). While official story scientists cannot agree on the collapse mechanism or even the temperatures inside the buildings, Harrit proves conclusively that the tower collapses were not natural.

5500 comments were enough to prove... we are being lied to. Not one credible piece of evidence to support the official story...

Sorry if this sounds conspiratorial, I'll be happy to be proven wrong. But hey, even the official story is a conspiracy, right? Have you heard of Sibel Edmonds?
Website problems 7:34pm on 12 Nov 2009 A bbc website that has suddenly disappeared!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/suffolk/hi/people_and_places/history/newsid_8331000/8331966.stm

Yet you can read the full text of it if you google it and look through its cache.

Can it be that the BBC is censoring itself?! A claim made frequently in my favorite bbc blog thread (and proved yet again):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/10/caught_up_in_a_conspiracy_theo.html?page=12

Why can't we discuss this subject? There is more discussion on more heretical subjects... but not the science within...

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

ynda20