To Inside Job Cultists, the BBC story must be part of the conspiracy because

[greyl]

otherwise, they'd have to deal with the evidence that WTC7 was expected to fall due to damage and 7 hours of fire.

"just answering questions"

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[greyl]

2. I see you have nothing to say about the hypothesis. nt

[StrictlyRockers]

6. Go ahead, call me a cultist again. See what it gets you. n/t

[greyl]

19. I see you have nothing to say about the hypothesis. nt

[Anarcho-Socialist]

4. Your attitude is foul

[Grateful for Hope]

26. The OP is foul

use of the word "cultist" is derogatory and insulting.

[truthpowertruth]

3. Please provide evidence

that says 7 hours of fire and outside damage can cause a steel structered building to fall symmetrically and at near free fall speed.

Thank you.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[greyl]

7. No, it wouldn't.

Your "Government Shill" last resort is pathetic. I'm a self-employed artist, fyi.

[truthpowertruth]

8. Please provide evidence

that says 7 hours of fire and outside damage can cause a steel structered building to fall symmetrically and at near free fall speed.

Thank you.

[greyl]

9. Provide evidence that what you say happened, actually happened.

Then, provide evidence that you can follow a conversation and won't post dumb shit like "you're a waste of time" whenever you're caught on the losing side of an argument.

[truthpowertruth]

10. What I believe happened is irrelevent.

So I ask again, nicely, for the third time.

Please provide evidence that says 7 hours of fire and outside damage can cause a steel structered building to fall symmetrically and at near free fall speed.

Thank you.

[greyl]

11. You said it, not me. nt

[truthpowertruth]

12. Please provide evidence

that says 7 hours of fire and outside damage can cause a steel structered building to fall symmetrically and at near free fall speed.

Thank you.

[greyl]

13. Read post #9 for comprehension. nt

[truthpowertruth]

15. Tell me where I need to provide evidence.

- The tower didn't burn for 7 hours?
- The tower is not steel structured?
- The tower did not fall symmetrically?
- The tower did not fall with barely any resistance?

So I ask again.

Please provide evidence that says 7 hours of fire and outside damage can cause a steel structered building to fall symmetrically and at near free fall speed.

Thank you.

[greyl]

17. If you don't want to deal with the OP, try post #9 at least. nt

[StrictlyRockers]

14. And? Your point?

So we'd probably get along as famous friends in another medium. Right now it's en garde time. Put up your dukes and show me a single steel construction sky-rise which has collapsed due to fire alone ANY TIME IN HISTORY.

SR

[greyl]

16. My point was that this wasn't a unique event in the history of steel construction architecture and

that your cry of "Government Shill" is a pathetic last resort.

The argument you're depending on is so intrinsically/genetically weak that we don't even have to consult the facts to spot its fallaciousness.

Say WTC7 was the first steel structure to collapse due to fire. (which it wasn't)
It still collapsed due to fire. Your measure of falsifiability is way off.

[truthpowertruth]

18. Please provide evidence

-That shows WTC7 is not the first steel structured building to collapsed due to fire.
-That shows WTC7 collapsed due to fire.

Thank you.

[greyl]

20. Attend to the OP and post #9.

Contrary to popular belief, nobody is hiding the evidence you're asking for, some just aren't taking an active role in discovering it.

[truthpowertruth]

21. If it's not hidden

Provide it. According to you, it's not hidden. Give me a push.

I answered post #9 (post 15).

[quickesst]

22. Balance...

"that your cry of "Government Shill" is a pathetic last resort."

As compared to "cultists"? Come on. Thanks.
quickesst

[Devon77]

23. I don't think that is what they say

Let's quote BBC's own conspiracy files

Cameraman (BBC): But it does look exactly like a controlled demolition
Davin Coburn (PM): I understand why people might think that and I see what they saying, but when you learn the facts about the way the building was built
and about the way that it supported itself and the damage that was done from the collapsing towers that preceded it.
The idea that it was a demolition just holds no water.

............
............

Female narrator(BBC):
In it's provisional report on building 7, the official investigator suggested the collapse was caused by intense fire
as that fatally weakened the buildings steal frame.

But they said this had a low probability and more research was needed.

Five years on their final report is still being prepared.
It's thought investigators will conclude that the evidence supports their initial theory, the building collapsed it wasn't demolished.

[MervinFerd]

24. Was the BBC reporter sitting in a White Plastic Chair?

Just asking questions.

But as to the OP. I think you give them too much credit for rationality.

Still, the result of this will likely be weakening of the WTC7 theories. Once the actual progession of collapse is understood, the bombs are obvious nonsense.

[CJCRANE]

25. No.

The BBC were just repeating something they were told. And in their response they did not say that they were expecting it to collapse. They simply said the announcement was a "mistake" without any further explanation.

[Lithos]

27. Locking per I/P guidelines

Thread is proving a series of inflammatory comments and ad-hominems.

Lithos
DU Moderator