100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: 9/11 truthers... | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Enough evidence exists to raise questions without the shameless charge of "conspiracy theorists" Bologna is not evidence. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Enough evidence exists to raise questions without the shameless charge of "conspiracy theorists" Bologna is not evidence. Are CTs Adults? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is another explanation of why the picture (allegedly live) behind the woman reporter still showed building 7 standing while she was reporting that it had fallen.
Maybe that video was taken earlier and was not really live and she was standing in front of a video screen of the chaos taken earlier. News people fake stuff like that all the time while competing to be the best and fastest reporters on the scene. I did not see this alleged live broadcast personally and I did not look at my watch to see what time it was. Of course the time zones would have had to be considered in timing the event. Does anyone know if the BBC has ever responded to this anomaly? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is a breakdown. I have not read it yet:
BBC's Premature Announcement of WTC 7's Collapse http://www.wtc7.net/bbc.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Enough evidence exists to raise questions without the shameless charge of "conspiracy theorists" Bologna is not evidence. Are CTs Adults?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I guess you people are not adults if all you can do is post laughing heads.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Enough evidence exists to raise questions without the shameless charge of "conspiracy theorists" Some people just love using BUZZ WORDS . And others consider laughing heads to be a contribution. They are harmless really. They would be better suited to the games section. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is another explanation of why the picture (allegedly live) behind the woman reporter still showed building 7 standing while she was reporting that it had fallen. Maybe that video was taken earlier and was not really live and she was standing in front of a video screen of the chaos taken earlier. News people fake stuff like that all the time while competing to be the best and fastest reporters on the scene. I did not see this alleged live broadcast personally and I did not look at my watch to see what time it was. Of course the time zones would have had to be considered in timing the event. Does anyone know if the BBC has ever responded to this anomaly? i think it is just CT'er nonsense, as per par with the 9-11 CT'er rants... people keep talking about this, but i have yet to see anything to show it really happened... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Enough evidence exists to raise questions without the shameless charge of "conspiracy theorists" Some people just love using BUZZ WORDS . And others consider laughing heads to be a contribution. They are harmless really. They would be better suited to the games section. yea, along with this whole topic...better waste of time to count blades of grass in my front yard then to beleive these CT'er fantasies... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Mon 06/10/13 08:52 AM
|
|
Enough evidence exists to raise questions without the shameless charge of "conspiracy theorists" Some people just love using BUZZ WORDS . And others consider laughing heads to be a contribution. They are harmless really. They would be better suited to the games section. I also laugh at TDS! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I usually laugh at the absurd! It beats hell out of believing it! "Those who believe absurdities can be made to commit atrocities." -- Voltaire |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is another explanation of why the picture (allegedly live) behind the woman reporter still showed building 7 standing while she was reporting that it had fallen. Maybe that video was taken earlier and was not really live and she was standing in front of a video screen of the chaos taken earlier. News people fake stuff like that all the time while competing to be the best and fastest reporters on the scene. I did not see this alleged live broadcast personally and I did not look at my watch to see what time it was. Of course the time zones would have had to be considered in timing the event. Does anyone know if the BBC has ever responded to this anomaly? i think it is just CT'er nonsense, as per par with the 9-11 CT'er rants... people keep talking about this, but i have yet to see anything to show it really happened... I guess you didn't follow the link I Posted then. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is another explanation of why the picture (allegedly live) behind the woman reporter still showed building 7 standing while she was reporting that it had fallen. Maybe that video was taken earlier and was not really live and she was standing in front of a video screen of the chaos taken earlier. News people fake stuff like that all the time while competing to be the best and fastest reporters on the scene. I did not see this alleged live broadcast personally and I did not look at my watch to see what time it was. Of course the time zones would have had to be considered in timing the event. Does anyone know if the BBC has ever responded to this anomaly? i think it is just CT'er nonsense, as per par with the 9-11 CT'er rants... people keep talking about this, but i have yet to see anything to show it really happened... I guess you didn't follow the link I Posted then. i just saw it... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is a breakdown. I have not read it yet: BBC's Premature Announcement of WTC 7's Collapse http://www.wtc7.net/bbc.html i can't really determine what, if anything, is actually factual in that piece... the worst thing is it came from a ct'er website, so there may not be any truth in it... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Mon 06/10/13 01:34 PM
|
|
Here is a breakdown. I have not read it yet: BBC's Premature Announcement of WTC 7's Collapse http://www.wtc7.net/bbc.html i can't really determine what, if anything, is actually factual in that piece... the worst thing is it came from a ct'er website, so there may not be any truth in it... That is the only place you can find the truth. You have to know how to recognize it though. The information came from the BBC. I suppose you could double check with them if you are so untrusting of non-authority websites. And since when are you so pro-media whores and government propaganda websites? Don't you realize that truth is where you find it. It is not with some "authority" that we are told we should trust. But it looks like you have placed your faith in your government and in the corporations who control the media. good luck with that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is a breakdown. I have not read it yet: BBC's Premature Announcement of WTC 7's Collapse http://www.wtc7.net/bbc.html i can't really determine what, if anything, is actually factual in that piece... the worst thing is it came from a ct'er website, so there may not be any truth in it... That is the only place you can find the truth. You have to know how to recognize it though. The information came from the BBC. I suppose you could double check with them if you are so untrusting of non-authority websites. And since when are you so pro-media whores and government propaganda websites? Don't you realize that truth is where you find it. It is not with some "authority" that we are told we should trust. But it looks like you have placed your faith in your government and in the corporations who control the media. good luck with that. so, according to you, i'm just supposed to believe anything that you post on here? if everyone is lying, which i know for a fact that some CT'ers do, then what do you recommend? maybe i should devote my following to you and be happy with that... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is a breakdown. I have not read it yet: BBC's Premature Announcement of WTC 7's Collapse http://www.wtc7.net/bbc.html i can't really determine what, if anything, is actually factual in that piece... the worst thing is it came from a ct'er website, so there may not be any truth in it... That is the only place you can find the truth. You have to know how to recognize it though. The information came from the BBC. I suppose you could double check with them if you are so untrusting of non-authority websites. And since when are you so pro-media whores and government propaganda websites? Don't you realize that truth is where you find it. It is not with some "authority" that we are told we should trust. But it looks like you have placed your faith in your government and in the corporations who control the media. good luck with that. so, according to you, i'm just supposed to believe anything that you post on here? if everyone is lying, which i know for a fact that some CT'ers do, then what do you recommend? maybe i should devote my following to you and be happy with that... If you would read my post I suggested that you check with the BBC them self to verify what is on that website if you really want to check it out. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is a breakdown. I have not read it yet: BBC's Premature Announcement of WTC 7's Collapse http://www.wtc7.net/bbc.html i can't really determine what, if anything, is actually factual in that piece... the worst thing is it came from a ct'er website, so there may not be any truth in it... That is the only place you can find the truth. You have to know how to recognize it though. The information came from the BBC. I suppose you could double check with them if you are so untrusting of non-authority websites. And since when are you so pro-media whores and government propaganda websites? Don't you realize that truth is where you find it. It is not with some "authority" that we are told we should trust. But it looks like you have placed your faith in your government and in the corporations who control the media. good luck with that. so, according to you, i'm just supposed to believe anything that you post on here? if everyone is lying, which i know for a fact that some CT'ers do, then what do you recommend? maybe i should devote my following to you and be happy with that... If you would read my post I suggested that you check with the BBC them self to verify what is on that website if you really want to check it out. doesn't really matter if everyone is lying, does it? if it was real, it seems like it would have been edited by your buddy bush, since he was in league with Murdoch. but since there were no investigations on this, and it is still floating around, i have to see it as fake... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Mon 06/10/13 06:01 PM
|
|
Here is a breakdown. I have not read it yet: BBC's Premature Announcement of WTC 7's Collapse http://www.wtc7.net/bbc.html i can't really determine what, if anything, is actually factual in that piece... the worst thing is it came from a ct'er website, so there may not be any truth in it... That is the only place you can find the truth. You have to know how to recognize it though. The information came from the BBC. I suppose you could double check with them if you are so untrusting of non-authority websites. And since when are you so pro-media whores and government propaganda websites? Don't you realize that truth is where you find it. It is not with some "authority" that we are told we should trust. But it looks like you have placed your faith in your government and in the corporations who control the media. good luck with that. so, according to you, i'm just supposed to believe anything that you post on here? if everyone is lying, which i know for a fact that some CT'ers do, then what do you recommend? maybe i should devote my following to you and be happy with that... If you would read my post I suggested that you check with the BBC them self to verify what is on that website if you really want to check it out. doesn't really matter if everyone is lying, does it? if it was real, it seems like it would have been edited by your buddy bush, since he was in league with Murdoch. but since there were no investigations on this, and it is still floating around, i have to see it as fake... You sure have your panties in a twist about George Bush don't you? But if you don't spend any time to verify it with the BBC I don't care what your opinion is. You can believe what ever you want. What is with all the defending of George Bush anyway? I never even mentioned George Bush. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is a breakdown. I have not read it yet: BBC's Premature Announcement of WTC 7's Collapse http://www.wtc7.net/bbc.html i can't really determine what, if anything, is actually factual in that piece... the worst thing is it came from a ct'er website, so there may not be any truth in it... That is the only place you can find the truth. You have to know how to recognize it though. The information came from the BBC. I suppose you could double check with them if you are so untrusting of non-authority websites. And since when are you so pro-media whores and government propaganda websites? Don't you realize that truth is where you find it. It is not with some "authority" that we are told we should trust. But it looks like you have placed your faith in your government and in the corporations who control the media. good luck with that. so, according to you, i'm just supposed to believe anything that you post on here? if everyone is lying, which i know for a fact that some CT'ers do, then what do you recommend? maybe i should devote my following to you and be happy with that... If you would read my post I suggested that you check with the BBC them self to verify what is on that website if you really want to check it out. doesn't really matter if everyone is lying, does it? if it was real, it seems like it would have been edited by your buddy bush, since he was in league with Murdoch. but since there were no investigations on this, and it is still floating around, i have to see it as fake... You sure have your panties in a twist about George Bush don't you? But if you don't spend any time to verify it with the BBC I don't care what your opinion is. You can believe what ever you want. What is with all the defending of George Bush anyway? I never even mentioned George Bush. can you point out where i defended anyone? and anyway, besides that, when don't you CT'ers blame Bush, Cheney, or the Jews? so now you trust the mainstream media? BBC tells the "truth"? when did this start happening? |
|
|
|
|
