Quote:
Originally Posted by helterskelter808
I'm still not sure what I think about the BBC report where they announced WTC7 had come down 20 minutes before it had actually done so. It's just weird to think how they could make a 'mistake' like that.
|
Apply Occam's Razor, which basically states "when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better.".
So one theory would be that in the confusion of the day's events, a newstation, or perhaps just the news anchor, made a mistake.
The other theory is that the building was wired for demolition by some nefarious group of people, a project that until this day 10 years later has never been exposed. This group of people then decides that it would be best to let a News station in the UK in on it so they could report it in a timely manner.
Now given that once it happened, it would be common knowledge, not something that was easily overlooked, why would you need or even want to send out information before it happened especially given that it creates a potential avenue to expose your actions later.
The answer is simple in this case. Even if the building were demolished in secret, there would be absolutely no compelling reason to notify a UK news station before the event. In this case, believing in the "conspiracy" to start with invalidates the proof you're using for a conspiracy existing. It doesn't make any sense.
