On the 7/7 bombings did you ever find the BBC special that I was talking about that went after the conspiracy theorists and absolutely shredded them.
Quote:
|
Also, can you perhaps explain the news report where they report the collapse of building 7 and it is still seen standing over the left shoulder of the reporter? That one sure had me confused. Anyways, this is by far my favourite thread and I really enjoy everybody bickering over things that nobody is going to be able to prove anyways.
|
What did the reporter say before they mentioned that building 7 collapsed, something along the lines that their information was very very sketchy.
also remember the time line, fire fighters were already stating that building 7 was going to collapse that was at 2:00 pm, they reached that conclusion due to both the massive hole in the building and the creaking noises that the building was making. Most likely in a chaotic situation like that the report got changed from going to collapse to has collapsed.
I don't see why the government would feed the news agencies a report about a building collapsing instead of blowing up the building and having the reporters report the news . . . scripting makes no logical sense whatsoever.
It wouldn't be the first time reporters got something so completely wrong. They said it was a small plane at first, remember? They said Kerry choose Gephardt for VP, remember? They told the family members of trapped mine workers that their 13 loved ones were alive, all but one, when it was the other way around. Those are just a few glaring examples. I could go on... Reporters rush to be the first one with the news and often do a poor job of getting the facts straight. History is littered with examples of this.
Again this goes back to the whole collapse of the conspiracy theory. If the government did this, why would they involve an additional body (ie the reporter) if they didn't need to, they don't need to script the collapse if the building was going to collapse anyways.