"Tim Smith" <reply_in_group@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:reply_in_group-48EB8A.15015916072008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> In article <d71b8$487e3df2$5519@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Ezekiel" <y@xxxxx>
> wrote:
>> > Yeah factor in the insurance issues, the asbestos issues, and the way
>> > the
>> > two towers came down and it doesn't take a genius to realise there's
>> > summat rotten going on.
>>
>> What a bunch of lunatic retards you guys are. For the sake of argument
>> let's
>> just "pretend" that Salomon building was blown up. (Ridiculous in every
>> way
>> but let's just pretend.) So what you're saying is that the US Government
>> decided to email or call the BBC in advance and let the BBC know that
>> they
>> were doing this... and for what reason exactly? Wouldn't it be logical
>> that
>> they would simply keep this a secret and not tell anyone.
>
> You are expecting the conspiracy nuts to apply logic?
I don't like big intrusive government very much but this nonsense of how
some hyper-competent government pulls off some elaborate plot is simply
ridiculous.
> Their theories simultaneously require a widespread conspiracy among the
> government and media that has succeeded in pretty much taking over, and
> yet, for some reason, does not bother to silence the conspiracy
> theorists. If the government and the press were working together on
> such a vast and total scale, all of the conspiracy nuts would silently
> disappear. Their very existence proves they are wrong.
>
>>
>> As far as the time difference... it's way more likely that [R]etard has
>> his
>> times screwed up or then the chance that the BBC actually reported a
>> "news
>> event" before it actually happened. Until I see *proof* that the BBC
>> reported this before it happened, I sure as hell won't believe some
>> raving
>> lunatic.
>
> No, they reported it early, but the most likely explanation is that they
> simply made a mistake. Two hours before the collapse, firefighters and
> other rescue personnel were pulled from WTC 7, because they had noticed
> signs of impending structural failure. Thus, what probably happened is
> that a report that WTC 7 was in danger of collapsing reached the BBC as
> a report that it *had* collapsed.
>
> That kind of mistake is not exactly rare in a crisis situation.
I don't follow this stuff since it's pretty obvious what happened. But I
did Google this and found the references. I was around during 9-11 and
remember seeing reports of how a jet crashed into Camp David and another
report of how a jet was about to crash into LA. There was some other major
landmark that was supposedly hit by a jet airliner but fortunately these
were all erroneous.
Yes... it was chaos that morning and mistakes were made. But I don't
believe that a mistaken report means there's some huge conspiracy behind
it.
> --
> --Tim Smith
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
|
|
