The best 9/11 video that you are ever likely to see.

[goslow]

You obviously didn't watch the video 'cos it's jam-packed with facts. What it didn't say is there's now over 2,000 architects and engineers who say those three buildings must have been brought down by controlled explosions. They have all risked their reputations and lives. Do you think they are barmy too?

So 2000 architects and engineers,none of whom have risked their lives btw,of unknown quality and experience have said the buildings were demolished leaving how many hundreds of thousands who disagree?

[Organ Morgan.]

So 2000 architects and engineers,none of whom have risked their lives btw,of unknown quality and experience have said the buildings were demolished leaving how many hundreds of thousands who disagree?

Unknown quality? Check-out their quality for yourself. The natural laws of physics are on their side. Building 7, which wasn't hit by anything, also collapsed into its own footprint. It would be absurd if it wasn't so serious. The enquiry into that concluded burning office furniture was the cause. That's the one the BBC said had fallen when it was still clearly standing in the background.

[TruBlue]

Unknown quality? Check-out their quality for yourself. The natural laws of physics are on their side. Building 7, which wasn't hit by anything, also collapsed into its own footprint. It would be absurd if it wasn't so serious. The enquiry into that concluded burning office furniture was the cause. That's the one the BBC said had fallen when it was still clearly standing in the background.

If you are going to have a conspiracy of blowing up a building, why would you bother to tell a news agency before it had blown up(adding another group of people into the conspiracy)?

[Organ Morgan.]

If you are going to have a conspiracy of blowing up a building, why would you bother to tell a news agency before it had blown up(adding another group of people into the conspiracy)?

I presume they were reading the false info on a news feed or hearing it relayed through a earphone.

[TruBlue]

I presume they were reading the false info on a news feed or hearing it relayed through a earphone.

So more people having to put out false information.

You aren't a stupid bloke, so please explain why they would bother risking more people finding out, if the building is about to blow up, why not just let normal news channels filter the news through without releasing it early?

[Splott Dave]

If you are going to have a conspiracy of blowing up a building, why would you bother to tell a news agency before it had blown up(adding another group of people into the conspiracy)?

Instead of spending years on here disputing every item that comes up, why don't you get off your arse and do some proper research for yourself?

[TruBlue]

Instead of spending years on here disputing every item that comes up, why don't you get off your arse and do some proper research for yourself?

I've never ever found an answer to the question that doesn't fall apart. Hence why I'm asking.

Feel free to tell me what benefit you think there could be to have a whole load of additional people in on it?

[Splott Dave]

I've never ever found an answer to the question that doesn't fall apart. Hence why I'm asking.

Feel free to tell me what benefit you think there could be to have a whole load of additional people in on it?

Why does there have to be a 'whole lot of additional people in on it'? Ugandan government was overthrown by just twelve people. The Russian aristocracy was done away with by a small group of people who were financed from New York.

You claim to have not 'found an answer to the question that doesn't fall apart'. How hard do you look? Because this seems to be a repeating theme and pattern with you for the last five years to my certain knowledge, on one event or incident after another.

The independent investigative journalist Christopher Bollyn has written extensively on the subject of 9/11, his finding were featured on here some years ago. I seem to remember you expressing the same doubts then, without any form of explanation as to why you had those doubts. Some three years later, are you able to explain now where his investigation falls apart?

[TruBlue]

Why does there have to be a 'whole lot of additional people in on it'? Ugandan government was overthrown by just twelve people. The Russian aristocracy was done away with by a small group of people who were financed from New York.

You claim to have not 'found an answer to the question that doesn't fall apart'. How hard do you look? Because this seems to be a repeating theme and pattern with you for the last five years to my certain knowledge, on one event or incident after another.

The independent investigative journalist Christopher Bollyn has written extensively on the subject of 9/11, his finding were featured on here some years ago. I seem to remember you expressing the same doubts then, without any form of explanation as to why you had those doubts. Some three years later, are you able to explain now where his investigation falls apart?

For every website you present me with I can find you one that refutes the evidence. Even if investigative anti Semites likes Bollyn did write them.

For that reason I was asking Organ personally, why he thought there would be any benefit in releasing a script that all of a sudden by default implicates a whole load more people into the conspiracy?

It's a simple question that appears to have got you all defensive, despite me not actually asking you originally. Feel free to answer though (your own thoughts, not those of any Ugandans, if you don't mind).

[Wales-Bales]

If you are going to have a conspiracy of blowing up a building, why would you bother to tell a news agency before it had blown up(adding another group of people into the conspiracy)?

If you want to keep a secret, it's not the number of people you share it with that matters, it's the quality of those people, so I would imagine a rigorous vetting process is in place

[TruBlue]

If you want to keep a secret, it's not the number of people you share it with that matters, it's the quality of those people, so I would imagine a rigorous vetting process is in place

You were probably off shagging Cindy Crawford that week mate, but did you miss the fact that one of these "vetted" people must've told the BBC early (apparently).

[Wales-Bales]

You were probably off shagging Cindy Crawford that week mate, but did you miss the fact that one of these "vetted" people must've told the BBC early (apparently).

If it was a setup, I don't think they would include anybody who wasn't on their team If it was just a coincidence, then their equipment was probably faulty

[TruBlue]

If it was a setup, I don't think they would include anybody who wasn't on their team If it was just a coincidence, then their equipment was probably faulty

I expect as days go things weren't running like clockwork that day.....

[goslow]

Unknown quality? Check-out their quality for yourself. The natural laws of physics are on their side. Building 7, which wasn't hit by anything, also collapsed into its own footprint. It would be absurd if it wasn't so serious. The enquiry into that concluded burning office furniture was the cause. That's the one the BBC said had fallen when it was still clearly standing in the background.

Why did the towers have to collapse,why wasn't flying planes into them enough?