vResistance Posted February 27, 2013 Author Share Posted February 27, 2013 So the BBC had to be complicit and were also innocent but duped by someone else. Make your mind up. Why should I? Because you say so? It might be a combination of those things going on, I don't know exactly how they do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 Why should I? Because you say so? It might be a combination of those things going on, I don't know exactly how they do it. That's the thing - to actually believe any of this crud you have to suspend all of your critical faculties and accept a whole shedload of thoroughly implausible mights and maybes. While simultaneously ignoring all the actual evidence and reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altus Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 Why should I? Because you say so? It might be a combination of those things going on, I don't know exactly how they do it. No, not because I say so. If you are so certain that the official version of events must be wrong you must have something even vaguely concrete to base that viewpoint on surely? But you can't say what it is because you haven't really got any idea - just some wild conjectures that you are willing to accept without any critical thought, as long as they don't fit in with the official version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vResistance Posted February 27, 2013 Author Share Posted February 27, 2013 A logical principle called Ockham's razor. Some people there would have had to know something. And if you're right then surely they didn't stop at the BBC, and must have fed news stories to other organisations right? Ah no sorry I did misunderstand you on that last part. What you said was not clear. Allow me to try again:No I don't think it's that strange at all that the building did in fact collapse half an hour later. The reason they made the mistake in the first place was because they misinterpreted a report saying it was badly damaged. The explanation does not rely on an unlikely coincidence, as you seem to imply. Anyways, if you do reply again I've just thought of another question that seems even more important. If, as you claim, it was a conspiracy, then why on earth would they have to script the news? How would that day have gone any differently? Can you imagine the meeting? "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!" ..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 ..... That says it all really. What you're guilty of - although that's a perjorative term (and it doesn't really matter that much since you're just one of a really rather insignificant group in terms of power and influence - i.e. conspiracy freaks) - is wooly thinking. It's lazy, hazy and really quite useless. You're lacking in intellectual rigour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vResistance Posted February 27, 2013 Author Share Posted February 27, 2013 That says it all really. What you're guilty of - although that's a perjorative term (and it doesn't really matter that much since you're just one of a really rather insignificant group in terms of power and influence - i.e. conspiracy freaks) - is wooly thinking. It's lazy, hazy and really quite useless. You're lacking in intellectual rigour. I was showing my appreciation for his sense of humour. What's your problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penistone999 Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 Would that be the same David Icke that was for years trying to expose Savile as a paedophile before it came to light? That would be the same David Ike who claimed the world is going to be taken over by Lizard People. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vResistance Posted February 27, 2013 Author Share Posted February 27, 2013 No, not because I say so. If you are so certain that the official version of events must be wrong you must have something even vaguely concrete to base that viewpoint on surely? But you can't say what it is because you haven't really got any idea - just some wild conjectures that you are willing to accept without any critical thought, as long as they don't fit in with the official version. I think the evidence to support controlled demolition is far stronger and more likely than it being caused by office fires and structural damage at one end. I'm certain of that. If in your heads you believe it would have to involve tens of thousands of people to pull off, then I understand why you can't accept the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 If in your heads you believe it would have to involve tens of thousands of people to pull off, then I understand why you can't accept the truth. How many people in your head do you think it would have needed to deliberately demolish the buildings at precisely the right time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 ous. It could turn out the BBC merely repeated what they were told by a source at Reuters and are innocent of any wrong doing. You're getting there at last Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.