Lloyd England exposed was involved in 9/11 false flag event

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Rumours spread by conspiracy theorists

To get this straight, they prepped and rigged a building, secretly, with "silent" explosives

Why not just, you know, destroy these "files" while they are in there for the weeks/months it would have taken to prep the building for demolition?

I thought all this was to start a war - was "destroying secret files" like a bonus side mission or something?

It, not a rumour SEC was investigating Enron.

So you think it less risky destroying stuff when the building full of employees and security?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I read the part about the kids prophesizing the attacks and I said nah

Fantastical books aside, the US didn't trust Pakistan much, especially the ISI in relation to AQ. They knew there were sympathies going on there. It's one of the reasons why they didn't reveal the Bin Laden raid to them - they felt he would be tipped off

I doubt Pakistan had knowledge 9/11 was coming I think Jim Marrs is wrong on that.

There definitely a Saudi Arabia connection to 9/11. Saudi Arabian government officials had meetings with the 9/11 hijackers prior to the attacks. What unknown is how involved they were in the planning and why they did not inform the US government of the coming attack? The fact nobody stepped in to stop the hijackers boarding the planes is highly suspect.

I don't buy for a second this was an intelligence failure.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It, not a rumour SEC was investigating Enron.

So you think it less risky destroying stuff when the building full of employees and security?

Obviously then it's safer to sneak in every day for months to plant explosives in the building, then also in the twin towers, then use holographic planes or whatever and draw everyone's attention to the building, then blow it up randomly at a later stage and hope that you got all that paperwork.

Oh and also for some reason you tell the BBC and other news agencies exactly when you'll be taking down the building, for no reason, and hope that none of them **** up and report it early for no reason.

:rolleyes:

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Obviously then it's safer to sneak in every day for months to plant explosives in the building, then also in the twin towers, then use holographic planes or whatever and draw everyone's attention to the building, then blow it up randomly at a later stage and hope that you got all that paperwork.

Oh and also for some reason you tell the BBC and other news agencies exactly when you'll be taking down the building, for no reason, and hope that none of them **** up and report it early for no reason.

:rolleyes:

I don't buy for a second they used dynamite or rigged the building for months. We don't know what they used exactly to bring down the building. If there was a deep state involvement there likely going to use a military grade explosive. Traces of nano-thermites were found in the dust. That stuff only the military has access to and highly secretive.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I don't buy for a second they used dynamite or rigged the building for months. We don't know what they used exactly to bring down the building. If there was a deep state involvement there likely going to use a military grade explosive. Traces of nano-thermites were found in the dust. That stuff only the military has access to and highly secretive.

Yup, that explains it alright.:rolleyes:

So then they go in every day to plant the secret high tech explosives that makes it super obvious it was them, then blow up the whole building for no reason... tell the news for no reason... announce it early for no reason...

All cause they couldn't shred some paper work and delete some files....
Or just tell the SEC to stop...

That's just silly.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Yup, that explains it alright.:rolleyes:

So then they go in every day to plant the secret high tech explosives that makes it super obvious it was them, then blow up the whole building for no reason... tell the news for no reason... announce it early for no reason...

All cause they couldn't shred some paper work and delete some files....
Or just tell the SEC to stop...

That's just silly.

The lab work has been done and all this got found in the debris. Doesn't matter if you don't believe this it's the reality of the situation. The problem is the cover-up, not the evidence. It should tell you something when the Bush Administration stepped in and told the FBI to stop following up and investigating Saudi Arabia involvement with 9/11. If they wanted transparency and real investigation all leads and sources will be followed up on. This is the world we live in, unfortunate the truth is not the goal here for the US government. Protecting the integrity of government institutions is all that matters.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The lab work has been done and all this got found in the debris. Doesn't matter if you don't believe this it's the reality of the situation. The problem is the cover-up, not the evidence. It should tell you something when the Bush Administration stepped in and told the FBI to stop following up and investigating Saudi Arabia involvement with 9/11. If they wanted transparency and real investigation all leads and sources will be followed up on. This is the world we live in, unfortunate the truth is not the goal here for the US government. Protecting the integrity of government institutions is all that matters.

Ya see, you're just ranting on, but ignoring the actual point.

There's no reason why the conspirators would tell the BBC before hand.
Claiming that they did just makes your conspiracy look as silly as it is.


No one believes your claims about lab work and evidence. You've very solidly shown that you have no credibility there.

And if they could just tell the FBI to stop, why couldn't they just tell the SEC to stop? I don't think you've bothered to think this through at all...

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Ya see, you're just ranting on, but ignoring the actual point.

There's no reason why the conspirators would tell the BBC before hand.
Claiming that they did just makes your conspiracy look as silly as it is.

No one believes your claims about lab work and evidence. You've very solidly shown that you have no credibility there.

Who told the BBC the building collapsed 40 minutes before it did? I would not have a problem if the report was building 7 was likely to collapse soon. The claim was it had collapsed 40 minutes before it did! What gave them the impression the building was going to experience catastrophic failure before it did? There never a building in history that collapsed when only a few offices fires are still blazing. The collapse does even make sense when the rest of the building was untouched by fires. Support columns and girders are not damaged. If the entire building was on fire and steel was weakening on all sides of the building the collapse would not look that suspicious then.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Who told the BBC the building collapsed 40 minutes before it did?

You tell us. You're the one who said that the conspirators did. It's your silly conspiracy theory.
You can go blue talking about all the evidence you've got all you want, but without explaining this, it just shows how silly it is.

Why did they tell them? Why did the BBC report it early?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

You tell us. You're the one who said that the conspirators did. It's your silly conspiracy theory.
You can go blue talking about all the evidence you've got all you want, but without explaining this, it just shows how silly it is.

Why did they tell them? Why did the BBC report it early?

I not blaming the BBC but there has to be a source for this information in the first place. Who told them is what people would like to know. Someone on the ground must have said this building had collapsed because only firemen and security people were allowed access to this area after the twin towers came down. People on the street don't have access to this building on 9/11

It, not my conspiracy theory it's a fact they report WTC7 collapsed before it did.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I not blaming the BBC but there has to be a source for this information in the first place. Who told them is what people would like to know. Someone on the ground must have said this building had collapsed because only firemen and security people were allowed access to this area after the twin towers came down. People on the street don't have access to this building on 9/11

It, not my conspiracy theory it's a fact they report WTC7 collapsed before it did.

So how, in your silly fantasy conspiracy theory, did they know, then why did they report it early?

Are you having trouble understanding the question perhaps?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

So how, in your silly fantasy conspiracy theory, did they know, then why did they report it early?

Are you having trouble understanding the question perhaps?

How can we know if nobody is telling us who gave the BBC the information? If they got this information from another network, ok, but still there has to be a source that how news works. How hard can be to know who your source was on 9/11, of all days? You're a guy who believes in accepted things we just different people, that's all.

We are spoon feed a narrative about 9/11. There too many unanswered questions.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

So you think it less risky destroying stuff when the building full of employees and security?

They were secretly prepping the building for demolition with silent explosives while the employees were there?

Is there some reason they can't just destroy the files?

Remember, all of this exists in your imagination. We've left the real world far behind. Putting that to one side, I'm asking you to explain the reasoning behind this imaginary plot

They are prepping a building in the center of New York for demolition.. secretly.. do you have any idea how hard that is? how long it takes? how noisy and difficult to hide it is?.. watch any demolition show on TV - they take weeks/months to prep buildings. They have to gut the place, runs miles of cables, cut beams.. ignoring for a second how on earth they pulled that off.. why didn't they just destroy the "secrat" files?

They're in there cutting beams, why can't they just, you know, destroy files? they are already destroying **** in the building to rig it up

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

They were secretly prepping the building for demolition with silent explosives while the employees were there?

Is there some reason they can't just destroy the files?

Remember, all of this exists in your imagination. We've left the real world far behind. Putting that to one side, I'm asking you to explain the reasoning behind this imaginary plot

They are prepping a building in the center of New York for demolition.. secretly.. do you have any idea how hard that is, how long it takes, how noisy and complex it is.. watch any demolition show on TV - they take weeks/months to prep buildings. They have to gut the place, runs miles of cables, cut beams.. ignoring for a second how they pulled that off.. why didn't they just destroy the "secrat" files?

They're in there cutting beams, why can't they just, you know, destroy files? they are already destroying **** in the building to rig it up

Demolition does make sense to me personally because of the time it would take to rig up a building unnoticed. It makes sense the job would be done overnight 24 hours before 9/11.

Nano-thermite explosives ( it more like a chemical agent) was placed at specific locations to cause a chain reaction with the fires ( it made fires hotter) to weaken and melt the steel support columns leading to the collapse.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Demolition does make sense to me personally because of the time it would take to rig up a building unnoticed. It makes sense the job would be done overnight 24 hours before 9/11.

Ignored my question

Any buildings of close to that size that has been prepped for demolition 24 hours? or do they have special secret technology to do that?

Nano-thermite explosives ( it more like a chemical agent) was placed at specific locations to cause a chain reaction with the fires ( it made fires hotter) to weaken and melt the steel support columns leading to the collapse.

Imagination land

Using my imagination - they set up lasers to cut the beams and ignite a special burning compound that was able to weaken the structure. They did this in.. *spins wheel*.. 12 hours.

My made-up theory is as valid as your made-up theory

Dr. Bre

Google Barry Jennings. Another interesting character from 9/11. He worked in WTC7 and said explosions were heard going off. He couldn’t believe the carnage when he got down to the lobby. Died in suspicious circumstances in 2008. The conspiracy theories maybe debunked but the official story sucks.

Dohnjoe

Dr. Bre wrote: »

Google Barry Jennings. Another interesting character from 9/11. He worked in WTC7 and said explosions were heard going off. He couldn’t believe the carnage when he got down to the lobby. Died in suspicious circumstances in 2008.

Plenty of witnesses in WTC 7 said they heard explosions. When the planes hit, when the debris hit, etc. Jennings died of cancer. Nothing mysterious.

Dr. Bre

He said explosions went off in this building even before either tower came down. It’s either ya believe him who actually worked in that building or believe 9/11 commission. Google dancing Israelis - another strange incident

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I don't buy for a second they used dynamite or rigged the building for months. We don't know what they used exactly to bring down the building. If there was a deep state involvement there allegedly going to use a military grade explosive.allegedly Traces of nano-thermites were found in the dust. That stuff only the military has access to and highly secretive.

FYP

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Demolition does make sense to me personally because of the time it would take to rig up a building unnoticed. It makes sense the job would be done overnight 24 hours before 9/11.

Nano-thermite explosives ( it more like a chemical agent) was placed at specific locations to cause a chain reaction with the fires ( it made fires hotter) to weaken and melt the steel support columns leading to the collapse.

Have you ever worked in the demolition industry?

Dohnjoe

Dr. Bre wrote: »

He said explosions went off in this building even before either tower came down.

Lots of people heard loud bangs and explosions. Because that's what was happening. Debris falling hundreds of metres, transformers exploding, lifts falling down shafts. Firefighter testimony details all of this. Lift doors were blown out from the force of the lifts slamming down. The guy that was with Jennings did not hear anything like demolition charges.

The NIST interviewed hundreds of witnesses and recorded their testimony. Truthers only select those who heard "explosions" and carefully cut out any context.

King Mob

Dr. Bre wrote: »

Google Barry Jennings. Another interesting character from 9/11. He worked in WTC7 and said explosions were heard going off. He couldn’t believe the carnage when he got down to the lobby. Died in suspicious circumstances in 2008. The conspiracy theories maybe debunked but the official story sucks.

Which is weird cause no one died in WTC7.

Also, if you read his testimony, it is not consistent with how controlled demolitions work.
He reports single explosions going off at various times in random places.
Explosions in a controlled demolition go off all at once in rapid succession right before the building collapses.

So if we are to believe his testimony, it can't be a controlled demolition.

King Mob

Dr. Bre wrote: »

Google dancing Israelis - another strange incident

Again, another silly claim by conspiracy theorists that is never questioned.

So just to clarify, you believe that the conspirators sent out a bunch of people to Jersey to film the attacks, but then these guys got so excited they started dancing and jumping around cause they were the worst spies ever.
And they did this for... what reason?

We have googled your factoids before. They aren't convincing.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

How can we know if nobody is telling us who gave the BBC the information? If they got this information from another network, ok, but still there has to be a source that how news works. How hard can be to know who your source was on 9/11, of all days? You're a guy who believes in accepted things we just different people, that's all.

We are spoon feed a narrative about 9/11. There too many unanswered questions.

No, you ignored the question again.
I think you're having problems understanding it.

You are claiming that the BBC was told by the conspirators that the building would collapse before it did.
Why do you think, in your personal opinion, did they do that?

The question is very very simple cheerful. I don't understand why you can't answer it honestly...

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Nano-thermite explosives ( it more like a chemical agent) was placed at specific locations to cause a chain reaction with the fires ( it made fires hotter) to weaken and melt the steel support columns leading to the collapse.

That is not how thermite works. Nano or otherwise.
Cheerful, I think you are telling fibs and you are making this up.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Ignored my question

Any buildings of close to that size that has been prepped for demolition 24 hours? or do they have special secret technology to do that?



Imagination land

Using my imagination - they set up lasers to cut the beams and ignite a special burning compound that was able to weaken the structure. They did this in.. *spins wheel*.. 12 hours.

My made-up theory is as valid as your made-up theory

NIST denied the building experienced free fall. People you respect changed their minds later when confronted with the evidence admitted the truthers got it right the building did experience free fall. So the people you call lunatics and quacks spotted this first and so call experts fixed their report.

NIST theory how the building came down is wrong. Their entire theory rests on there being no shear studs connected to the girders and floor slabs. If the shear studs are attached column 79 and 44 the building can not cascade down.

In 2008 the NIST final report they removed shear studs from the girders where they claim the collapsed started. We know now today this was a fraud. NIST still refuses to release their drawings showing shear studs missing on Column 79 and 44. Fortunately, the truther camp got lucky and found the original Frankel construction plans for WTC7 and shown on diagrams were shear studs attached to column 79 and 44. NIST theory doesn't hold up to scrutiny the only way they could debunk this by releasing their drawings that have shear studs connected to the girders but they will not do that.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Again, another silly claim by conspiracy theorists that is never questioned.

So just to clarify, you believe that the conspirators sent out a bunch of people to Jersey to film the attacks, but then these guys got so excited they started dancing and jumping around cause they were the worst spies ever.
And they did this for... what reason?

We have googled your factoids before. They aren't convincing.

They were Mossad agents this is established fact now. They were working for Urban Moving Systems ( a front company for Israelis spying in America) the owner of the company escaped the next day to Israel and never returned. Did these guys know about the attacks before they happened who can say?

Cheerful Spring

Dr. Bre wrote: »

Google Barry Jennings. Another interesting character from 9/11. He worked in WTC7 and said explosions were heard going off. He couldn’t believe the carnage when he got down to the lobby. Died in suspicious circumstances in 2008. The conspiracy theories maybe debunked but the official story sucks.

Barry Jenning testimony is backed up by the sound of a big bang heard blocks away just before the Penthouse of WTC7 collapsed.

We can't identify the source of what the big bang was. Two options though for the loud bang, explanations are floors collapsing or an explosion going off?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

That is not how thermite works. Nano or otherwise.
Cheerful, I think you are telling fibs and you are making this up.

Sure :rolleyes:

Thermite is a pyrotechnic composition of metal powder fuel and metal oxide. When ignited by heat, thermite undergoes an exothermic oxidation-reduction reaction. Most varieties are not explosive but can create brief bursts of high temperature in a small area

Thermate-TH3 (in military use)
The composition by weight of Thermate-TH3 (in military use) is 68.7% thermite, 29.0% barium nitrate, 2.0% sulfur and 0.3% binder (such as PBAN). .Because thermate burns at higher temperatures than ordinary thermite it has useful military applications in cutting through tank armor or other hardened military vehicles or bunkers.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

No, you ignored the question again.
I think you're having problems understanding it.

You are claiming that the BBC was told by the conspirators that the building would collapse before it did.
Why do you think, in your personal opinion, did they do that?

The question is very very simple cheerful. I don't understand why you can't answer it honestly...

BBC no I doubt conspirators would telephone or fax them. The only thing BBC did was report the collapse early. I more interested in the person who claimed the building collapsed before it did. Who was it exactly a fireman, police officer, who?

My belief is the building was going to be taken down and this report was given out too earlier to the media and spread then to other networks on the day.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

My belief is the building was going to be taken down and this report was given out too earlier to the media and spread then to other networks on the day.

Why would they need to give out this report to the media? Why would the media report it early if it wasn't true?

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

They were Mossad agents this is established fact now. They were working for Urban Moving Systems ( a front company for Israelis spying in America) the owner of the company escaped the next day to Israel and never returned. Did these guys know about the attacks before they happened who can say?

Nope, lies.
And you've dodged the question. Why would they send these really ****ty spies out to Jersey?

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Barry Jenning testimony is backed up by the sound of a big bang heard blocks away just before the Penthouse of WTC7 collapsed.

We can't identify the source of what the big bang was. Two options though for the loud bang, explanations are floors collapsing or an explosion going off?

Barry Jennings testimony does not cover the actual time when WTC7 collapsed. He was out of there long before then. So again you are lying.
Secondly, a single loud bang is not consistent with either a controlled demolition, as that's not how they sound, nor is it consistent with the idea of thermite as thermite does not explode.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Sure :rolleyes:

Thermite is a pyrotechnic composition of metal powder fuel and metal oxide. When ignited by heat, thermite undergoes an exothermic oxidation-reduction reaction. Most varieties are not explosive but can create brief bursts of high temperature in a small area

Thermate-TH3 (in military use)
The composition by weight of Thermate-TH3 (in military use) is 68.7% thermite, 29.0% barium nitrate, 2.0% sulfur and 0.3% binder (such as PBAN). .Because thermate burns at higher temperatures than ordinary thermite it has useful military applications in cutting through tank armor or other hardened military vehicles or bunkers.

Yes, and that description is not "makes the fire hotter so it can melt steel".
That was a lie you made up cause you don't know how thermite works and I'm not sure you even know what it is.

mickdw

.......Because thermate burns at higher temperatures than ordinary thermite it has useful military applications in cutting through tank armor or other hardened military vehicles or bunkers.

Yes, and that description is not "makes the fire hotter so it can melt steel".
That was a lie you made up cause you don't know how thermite works and I'm not sure you even know what it is.

To be fair it pretty much does say makes fire hotter to melt steel

King Mob

mickdw wrote: »

To be fair it pretty much does say makes fire hotter to melt steel

Not really.
Nor is is ever used in the manner Cheerful and other conspiracy theorists suggest, ie in the middle of a fire.
Nor has it been used to take down a skyscraper.

So no, it's not an accurate description.

Any chance you'll be answering the questions put to you?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Why would they need to give out this report to the media? Why would the media report it early if it wasn't true?


Nope, lies.
And you've dodged the question. Why would they send these really ****ty spies out to Jersey?


Barry Jennings testimony does not cover the actual time when WTC7 collapsed. He was out of there long before then. So again you are lying.
Secondly, a single loud bang is not consistent with either a controlled demolition, as that's not how they sound, nor is it consistent with the idea of thermite as thermite does not explode.


Yes, and that description is not "makes the fire hotter so it can melt steel".
That was a lie you made up cause you don't know how thermite works and I'm not sure you even know what it is.

Why you think to let people know another building collapsed, they just reported on it early. I know you not interesting in finding out the truth you prefer to believe in accepted truths and leave at that. Some people prefer to know the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Lies nope but shows how shoddy your research is. It's an established fact they were worked for Mossad Front company in Jersey New York. They were even held for 70 days in a cell till the Israel government got them out and they went home. I not saying they had pre-knowledge about 9/11 they were caught celebrating the attacks and got pulled over by the New York Police and arrested. Why they were there with a video camera and recording who can say.

Barry Jennings experienced an explosion he said the force of it threw him back before he jumped out of the Window. What was that explosion caused by I don't know? I never said was a controlled demolition at least, not the controlled explosion where different points of the buildings are blown out and building crashes down. Thermite is used to accelerate heat you don't need to melt steel you just need to weaken it this is a false claim by some truthers. However The The molten steel and iron found in the wreckage would require higher temperatures only a nano-thermite compound will melt steel.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Why you think to let people know another building collapsed, they just reported on it early.

Why would they need to let people know? Would people not notice?
Why would the news agency report it early if it hadn't happened yet? Earlier you said that this was impossible for them to do.

You keep dodging the question, and I don't want you to be distracted by other points.

Cheerful Spring

mickdw wrote: »

To be fair it pretty much does say makes fire hotter to melt steel

Nano-thermites will ignite that can lead to an energetic explosion.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Why would they need to let people know? Would people not notice?
Why would the news agency report it early if it hadn't happened yet? Earlier you said that this was impossible for them to do.

You keep dodging the question, and I don't want you to be distracted by other points.

I not dodging the question since we don't who reported the building collapsed 40 minutes before it did we can only guess as to why this happened. I told you already the got a report and they broadcasted that. Either way, this BBC report does change anything the NIST report is flawed even fraudulent.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I not dodging the question since we don't who reported the building collapsed 40 minutes before it did we can only guess as to why this happened. I told you already the got a report and they broadcasted that.

Yes, you keep dodging the question.
Why would the conspirators tell people they were going to collapse the building early?

I am asking you to guess.
But you can't because it makes no sense and you know it, so you are avoiding it to pretend the conspiracy theory makes sense.


If you can't provide an answer, be honest and say so.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Yes, you keep dodging the question.
Why would the conspirators tell people they were going to collapse the building early?

I am asking you to guess.
But you can't because it makes no sense and you know it, so you are avoiding it to pretend the conspiracy theory makes sense.


If you can't provide an answer, be honest and say so.

I could be wrong on who reported this I just want to who the source was for this information. It, not a small claim to make another building came down 40 minutes before it did. So that knowledge could only come from someone on the ground, that just the reality.

Would you like to know who the source was for this claim, or just happy to ignore that?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I could be wrong on who reported this I just want to who the source was for this information. It, not a small claim to make another building came down 40 minutes before it did. So that knowledge could only come from someone on the ground, that just the reality.

Would you like to know who the source was for this claim, or just happy to ignore that?

You have dodged the question again.

Why would the conspirators tell the BBC the building was going to collapse?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

You have dodged the question again.

Why would the conspirators tell the BBC the building was going to collapse?

Did you read my posts I said the BBC got this report from someone else, likely another America network and their source is unknown?

If you can find out who the source was then I can answer your question.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Did you read my posts I said the BBC got this report from someone else, likely another America network and their source is unknown?

If you can find out who the source was then I can answer your question.

Nope, you claimed it was the conspirators. You keep dodging the question.
You cannot provide an answer and you are not honest enough to admit that.

There is no reason the conspirators would say that the building collapsed before it did. It makes no sense for them to tell any news agencies anything.
So they didn't.

So this incident cannot be used to support your increasingly silly conspiracy theory.
You tried to only because you never bothered to think about it critically, honestly or at all.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Nope, you claimed it was the conspirators. You keep dodging the question.
You cannot provide an answer and you are not honest enough to admit that.

There is no reason the conspirators would say that the building collapsed before it did. It makes no sense for them to tell any news agencies anything.
So they didn't.

So this incident cannot be used to support your increasingly silly conspiracy theory.
You tried to only because you never bothered to think about it critically, honestly or at all.

It doesn't make sense to you. Since you don't who the source was for this information nobody can say it was not a conspirator mess up. What we know is someone predicted a collapse 40 minutes before it happened. Could it be an error by the source of course, but that still doesn't answer the question why they claimed the building had collapsed before it did? Why was the report something like this building 7 is likely to come down soon?

King Mob

Nor does it make sense to you it seems as you cannot answer my question.

If you are now going to claim it's a mess up, which would be a hilarious shift, then the explanation that it was just a news mess up is also possible, and therefore way more likely as it's not silly.

Again, until you provide such an explanation, you cannot honestly use this incident to prove your conspiracy theory.
But that's not going to stop you...

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Nor does it make sense to you it seems as you cannot answer my question.

If you are now going to claim it's a mess up, which would be a hilarious shift, then the explanation that it was just a news mess up is also possible, and therefore way more likely as it's not silly.

Again, until you provide such an explanation, you cannot honestly use this incident to prove your conspiracy theory.
But that's not going to stop you...

Sure I said that could be a possibility but still can't rule out this was a mess up too. It obviously a mess up because the building did come down for another 40 minutes.

What troubling are you don't care about who the source was for this information? Some of us do care.

King Mob

No, we can rule out it being a mess up on the conspirators part.
It makes no sense for them to tell the BBC anything at all at any point.
There's no reason why they would need to tell them, especially if there's the possibility that they would cock up and release information early.

So again, you can't use this incident for you silly conspiracy.
If you did care about truth and all that like you're claiming, you'd admit that.
You'd also stop dodging questions and spreading lies...
And you wouldn't be a holocaust denier either...

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

No, we can rule out it being a mess up on the conspirators part.
It makes no sense for them to tell the BBC anything at all at any point.
There's no reason why they would need to tell them, especially if there's the possibility that they would cock up and release information early.

So again, you can't use this incident for you silly conspiracy.
If you did care about truth and all that like you're claiming, you'd admit that.
You'd also stop dodging questions and spreading lies...
And you wouldn't be a holocaust denier either...

That's your belief system. I rather move on because this can't be solved till we know who the source was for this information.

King Mob

Nope, we can solve it.

There is zero reason why the conspirators would ever tell the BBC anything at any point, nevermind early.
Therefore, that can't be the explanation, thus it doesn't indicate a conspiracy.

There is no reason to reject that it was a simple reporting mistake like ones that happen all the time.
And since that's the only explanation, it's probably true.

Issue solved.
Would have been solved way quicker if you were honest and answered direct questions.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Nope, we can solve it.

There is zero reason why the conspirators would ever tell the BBC anything at any point, nevermind early.
Therefore, that can't be the explanation, thus it doesn't indicate a conspiracy.

There is no reason to reject that it was a simple reporting mistake like ones that happen all the time.
And since that's the only explanation, it's probably true.

Issue solved.
Would have been solved way quicker if you were honest and answered direct questions.

No, we can't solve it we don't who the source was for this information. If you believe it was reporting mistake fine can we now move on or do you want to talk about this till we both end up with a headache?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

No, we can't solve it we don't who the source was for this information. If you believe it was reporting mistake fine can we now move on or do you want to talk about this till we both end up with a headache?

Nope, you can provide a single sensible reason for why the BBC would be told anything by the conspirators.

Otherwise, the only explanation is my one.

Be honest and admit this, then maybe we can move on.
But given your track record...