BBC accused of terrorist activity in UK court by conspiracy theorist

[Lockjaw]

Which is relevant to this discussion because...?

 

You rendered it relevant to the discussion when you attempted to raise Icke's credibility by referring to his actions regarding Jimmy Saville. Once you'd done that it became perfectly relevant to produce some evidence supporting the opposing point of view. You haven't quite got the hang of this debating lark, have you?

 

---------- Post added 28-02-2013 at 11:34 ----------

 

"Lizard-person no.1

"Hey, you know what? We should write up some reports about how all the buildings we're gonna blow up are gonna collapse and then give them to the media so they know what to say" "

 

....well yes, a conversation along those lines would have taken place.

 

 

"Lizard-person no.2

"Yeah that's a great idea, that way we can involve loads more people from news organisations across the world in our conspiracy, and have even more people who know about it, for pretty much no reason"

 

.....very few organisations reported the collapse of building 7 so I doubt anything like that was said.

 

Lizard-person no.3

"all glory to the hypnotoad!"

 

 

.....

 

Come on fella, you're proving me right here by avoiding the question.

 

I know Doneticus has referred to it above but here goes again:

 

Why, if the the plan was for building 7 to collapse for everyone to see, did they need to forewarn the news agencies? Why didn't they just let them see it & report it?

[vResistance]

You rendered it relevant to the discussion when you attempted to raise Icke's credibility by referring to his actions regarding Jimmy Saville. Once you'd done that it became perfectly relevant to produce some evidence supporting the opposing point of view. You haven't quite got the hang of this debating lark, have you?

 

---------- Post added 28-02-2013 at 11:34 ----------

 

 

Come on fella, you're proving me right here by avoiding the question.

 

I know Doneticus has referred to it above but here goes again:

 

Why, if the the plan was for building 7 to collapse for everyone to see, did they need to forewarn the news agencies? Why didn't they just let them see it & report it?

 

They were not forewarning the news channels, they (Reuters?) obviously released the pre planned report too early. An error.

 

The BBC on receiving the information, repeats it.

They had to careful how it was reported as not to raise suspicion.

What if the BBC or other had sent a crew down to report live from the scene? It might have, and probably would expose why it really collapsed.

 

---------- Post added 28-02-2013 at 13:56 ----------

 

The fact that anyone can call a fully fuelled 767 crashing into a building at a few hundred mph an "office fire" just shows how removed from reality they are...

 

We are talking about 'Building 7'

[esme]

Mod Note

 

As this discussion has veered off topic and is now attempting to rehash the 9/11 discussions which were done to death, it has been closed.

 

If you have any relevant comments to add to the thread please contact the Helpdesk and ask them to reopen the thread.