No

we are dealing with your claim that the BBC reporting the WT 7 collapse is part of a conspiracy and evidence of controlled demolition

Remember my post - one claim at a time

Repeated here


"They are often so wide ranging and so full of rubbish, and the proponent of a conspiracy will often simply change the goalposts when confronted with counter evidence – it is like nailing jelly to a wall. So what you have to do is nail any specific claim when they are made, such as"

One claim at a time

 

One claim at a time Gary

You say The BBC report is evidence of a conspiracy

Lets deal with THAT claim

I have provided evidence it was misreported

 

That's the only explanation.

Gets them huge views, money made.

Byproduct.. Some numpties believe it.

 

We are dealing with that , but you origannaly asked me what question a and e have that needs answering ,

Why was controlled demolition not investigated , your answer , because there is no evidance ,

My question to you , which I've asked you twice now , is

Without an investigation how can evidence be gathered .


Now back to BBC reporting , what I said is , repeating myself for the third time , it is part of the reason I question if we have been told the truth , I accept it may be an innocent mistake but still it's because of the things I mentioned that I *QUESTION* it .

Do not confuse me with others who claim to know facts etc

 

Agreed because there is none, which is why it was never investigated

Why investigate something were there is no evidence

It why YOU weren't investigated for the Brussels bombings

 

No no no

You claimed the BBC report as evidence - one claim at a time

 

Are you taking the **** ?

When did I say it was evidance , and when are you going to answer my question about a and e , you know , from when this conversation started

 

Lol, like I said Gary

One claim at a time

You said in a post today regarding the reporting of the WTC 7 collapse by the BBC

Like I said it is like nailing jelly to a wall

 

The first question you missed is ,

Without an investigation how can evidence be gathered ,

In my opinion there was good reason to investigate that hypothosis

Then the BBC report , I mentioned that as an example of why I question what we have been told ,

You didn't need to prove it was misreported , the whole point is , that it was somehow misreported ,

 

This is what you said

 

No no no Gary


One claim at a time

 

Let's get this sorted then we can move on

One claim at a time

The BBC reporting is evidence of controlled demolition

Your claim

 

It's funny how you haven't answered my question about how evidence can be gathered without an investigation but keep wanting me to answerr something you asked later ,

 

It was investigated

Just not hypotheses that have no evidence

What is so difficult to understand

 

You produced the BBC as evidence

Your claim

Defend it

 

The first claim is that there is no evidence so no need to investigate

 

It is easy to post cR4p on the Internet

A lot harder to defend it

 

Gary

You are making yourself look stupid - please give up

 

You claimed nothing to investigate because no evidence , which is completely backwards ,

My claim is that it was never investagated , that's what a and e want , and there is evedence of explosives etc ,

An independent investigation is called for

 

It was investigated

They found the collapses mechanism - it matched the observations, it matched the physics

Potential energy plus gravity

What they did not find was any evidence of controlled demolition

None, nada, zilch, Fvck all

It really is that simple, Occam's razor

 

Hodgy post a quote from me claiming BBC reporting as evidance of a conspiracy

 

Thank you for finnaly getting back to where the conversation started

Maybe you are correct in saying it was legitimately investigated , I don't think it was ,

As I understand it , you believe the people I'm doubting ,

 

Like I said Gary right at the beginning of the this exchange

"Moving goal posts, nailing jelly to a wall"

You quite clearly posted the BBC reporting as evidence of a conspiracy

Please don't pretend you did not

Like I said give up you are just making yourself look like a tool

 

Repeating myself for the last time

This is what I said , and I ment exactly what I said


You might wonder why I question what caused there destruction ,

Facts like , the BBC reporting wtc 7 collapse , before it did , the speed they fell , how the concrete turned to dust and gravel as it collapsed , and the fact it looked controlled , as in symmetrical and complete , what happened to the top portion above where the planes impacted

Now hodgy , I may look stupid , I don't care , but I for certain think you are a complete arsehole and can **** right off now

 

Gary

One claim at a time

The BBC reporting of the collapse.......

Do we have to go through it all over again

 

Evidence of a conspiracy or simply misreporting in the heat of the biggest news story for a 100 years

 

One claim at a time

 

Read post 204 , and what claim have I jumped to ?

The evedence / investigation was the first then the BBC report ,

Dick head

 

Certainly not evidence , you are the only person confused by why I mentions the BBC report you ****

 

Lol,

You are the one who is confused


"Certainly not evidence"


Precisely, then why bring it up

Like I said in my original post you cannot refute a daft theory in its entirety (it contains a whole heap of ****) all you can do is refute a single claim - AKA the BBC report of WT 7 collapse