Mr Prime Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Except it has, in quite a lot of detail over several reports. However, the conspiracy fan network don't like to acknowledge these reports, and will quickly declare them as whitewashes and completely fictional without reading them because they don't agree with the conclusions. This is also the other major problem with the collapse. Very few of the conspiracy sites include the full video of the collapse, which starts several seconds before the main collapse with one of the rooftop plantrooms disappearing. They all choose to show the shortened edited version which starts just at the main collapse and ends just after. If you try and question why they haven't used the long version of the video, they'll start talking about how the building was going to be "pulled", and the BBC reported the collapse early, and totally ignore their own misuse of evidence. WTC7 is a good example of how, when presented with limited evidence, and a predetermined theory, it's very easy to convince the man-on-the-street that something did/didn't happen. Something the same people accuse the mainstream media of doing every day... They also point to charlatans like 'Guido Fawkes' and daft undisciplined bloggers and tell us they are to be taken more seriously than Paxman, Marr, Robinson etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.