Your article doesn't mention the context in which the BBC is accused of being part of the cover-up. Is this the issue of the BBC reporting that building 7 had been destroyed due to fire damage before the building had actually collapsed? Then claiming that the tapes from this time 'were missing', refusing to reveal the source of this information or explain how they knew the building was going to collapse before it did? I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I haven't written my own solution to unanswered questions. I (like many others) just want to know the truth.
That's a comment on the following BBC article:
Page last updated at 10:09 GMT, Friday, 4 July 2008 11:09
The evolution of a conspiracy theory
A large number of Americans question what happened that day
It wasn't only the Twin Towers that collapsed on September 11. A third World Trade Center tower that wasn't hit by the planes also fell. As a report into Tower 7 prepares to publish its findings, Mike Rudin considers how this conspiracy theory got to be so big.
Richard's point is right on, or as they would say over there, "spot on."
Why did the article fail to mention "the context in which the BBC is accused of being part of the cover-up"? The BBC did report that building 7 had collapsed before it had. The BBC did claim the tapes are missing. The BBC did refuse to reveal the source.
Now, if you have studied the 9/11 Truth Movement in any depth, you will also understand that there are many parallels with 7/7 (the London underground attacks or what Americans also call the subway).
On both days, there were war games or intelligence games going on that exactly parallel what actually happened. The odds of those things being unplanned, coinciding events is beyond time.
The two major attacks that sent much of the United States public and British public into a security and vengeance frenzy both just happen to have war games those days that were exactly about what exactly happened in each country. If that doesn't tell you that both attacks were way beyond merely allowed to happen, you are so hypnotized that there may not be any hope for you.
If you don't know about these things, you aren't trying hard enough to get to the bottom of things, to learn the root cause. Jesus knew the root cause.
Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. Matthew 7:17
Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. Matthew 15:13
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)