3000+ architects and engineers say evidence shows 9/11 was controlled demolition

Albion said:

an incorrect report was received by the BBC which conveyed it to the public, unverified.

It happens on other networks, especially when it is "breaking news" of some catastrophe, so it could have happened here too.

Click to expand...

Except, it turned out to be a correct report. But released pre-event.

SeventyOne said:

Except, it turned out to be a correct report. But released pre-event.

Click to expand...

Well, that doesn't change anything, does it? It is possible that the reporter reported on news that was incorrect. I see it happen often on other networks.

Albion said:

Well, that doesn't change anything, does it? It is possible that the reporter reported on news that was incorrect. I see it happen often on other networks.

Click to expand...

Just as possible they reported on a news event immediately prior to that event actually taking place. This wasn't fake news, this was pre-news.

SeventyOne said:

This wasn't fake news, this was pre-news.

Click to expand...

But it could easily have been neither fake news nor what you've called pre-news. If any conspiracy theory concerning the twin towers is to have credibility, it is necessary for it to provide unassailable answers, not just "could have been this although it also could have been something else."

Albion said:

But it could easily have been neither fake news nor what you've called pre-news. If any conspiracy theory concerning the twin towers is to have credibility, it is necessary for it to provide unassailable answers, not just "could have been this although it also could have been something else."

Click to expand...

The "could have been" part is the important part. Otherwise, we are all just sheep accepting what others choose to feed us. It's the "could have been" that forces a deeper look and accountability for those involved. Ask someone wrongly accused of a crime exactly how valuable the "could have been" inquiry by their attorney was to their life. You can label it a conspiracy all you want, but some people don't like being docile sheep.

SeventyOne said:

The "could have been" part is the important part. Otherwise, we are all just sheep accepting what others choose to feed us. It's the "could have been" that forces a deeper look and accountability for those involved.

Click to expand...

Very well, but since, after taking that look, we find that the conspiracy theory's explanation is not provable, it ought not to be presented as if it were provable.

If it is one among a number of possibilities, it remains speculation at best.

SeventyOne said:

Just because a question is answered doesn't automatically make the answer accurate.

Click to expand...

However common sense does - none of this passes the smell test

Albion said:

Very well, but since, after taking that look, we find that the conspiracy theory's explanation is not provable, it ought not to be presented as if it were provable.

If it is one among a number of possibilities, it remains speculation at best.

Click to expand...

Of course it's speculation, but speculation fueled by the inadequacies of the current narrative. It's the remaining speculative nature of the incident that is prompting the request for further investigation.

John 1720 said:

However common sense does - none of this passes the smell test

Click to expand...

Others see different aspects of this event as not passing the 'small test'. If the 'smell test' is your subjective standard of measurement in this area, then you really have no grounds objecting the results of the 'smell test' of other people.

SeventyOne said:

Of course it's speculation...

Click to expand...

Then we are agreed on that. Now, it would be appropriate, would it not, to have the conspiracy theory be presented as speculation?

Albion said:

Then we are agreed on that. Now, it would be appropriate, would it not, to have the conspiracy theory be presented as speculation?

Click to expand...

Only to the extent that the current narrative is presented as speculation. The more it's presented as fact, the more others are justified in presenting alternative narratives as fact.

SeventyOne said:

Others see different aspects of this event as not passing the 'small test'. If the 'smell test' is your subjective standard of measurement in this area, then you really have no grounds objecting the results of the 'smell test' of other people.

Click to expand...

Well, I'll defer to the smell test over the small test any day of the week.

Albion said:

Any conspiracy would certainly not have allowed the reporter to announce that something had happened which every viewer could see on his own screen was not correct.

Click to expand...

So you’re saying that any conspiracy theory can not possibly mess up? And if a conspiracy theory actually messes up it’s proof against it’s existence?

When a BBC reporter clearly reports Building 7's destruction when Building 7 is sitting right there on TV, and even THAT is not provable to the Mainstream Conspiracy Theorists, nothing ever will be. You could show them pictures of the sky being blue, and they would insist the sky is purple.

And good to know so many people on the internet are smarter than the 3000 professional architects and engineers.

Dirk1540 said:

So you’re saying that any conspiracy theory can not possibly mess up?

Click to expand...

What I said, in effect, is that a conspiracy theory is...a theory. You know why it is called a theory, I assume.

Pythagorean theorem. That thing has no credibility.

Good non-conspiracy article on this:
9/11 "Truth": How believers in the 9/11 conspiracy theory respond to refutations.

From the article:
"At a certain point, though, debating science and theory and ideas is an exercise in futility, because the hypotheses of conspiracy theorists are not grounded in any kind of a larger understanding of the real world. 'This sounds really mean,' says Erik Sofge, a reporter on the original Popular Mechanics piece and an occasional contributor to Slate. 'But really, it's like arguing over the marching speed of hobbits.'"

Excellent point.

And another from the American Institute of Architects:
https://www.architectmagazine.com/design/architects-shy-from-trutherism_o?o=2

From the article:
“There is absolutely zero relationship … [between our groups (Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and the American Institute of Architects)], nor will there ever be in the future.”

Good non-conspiracy article on this:

Click to expand...

Sorry to break it to you, but if you believe 18 arabs were able to simultaneously hijack 4 planes on the same morning with box cutters and down 3 skyscrapers with just 2 planes, YOU are a conspiracy theorist.

Dirk1540 said:

So you’re saying that any conspiracy theory can not possibly mess up? And if a conspiracy theory actually messes up it’s proof against it’s existence?

Click to expand...

You just have to think about it for a minute. If you are trying to trick everyone into thinking a building fell on its own when in actuality you demo'd it, why would you bother even telling the news about the destruction of the building? Just blow it up and let the news report on it naturally. It's a ludicrous concept that these ingenious people perpetuating an insanely complicated false flag would be telling the media what is supposed to be going on. What's the point? You can SEE the building collapse. There's no reason to tell them that it collapsed.

So what is a more likely situation:
- For no reason whatsoever, the people performing a false flag are telling the media what is supposed to be going on when there's nothing to be gained from doing so, and accidentally tells them something happened before it did. Or....
- In one of the most chaotic days in living memory with rumors and new information flying left and right, a bad bit of information bubbles to the top that eventually happens anyways - possibly a bit of information misunderstood from real factual reports, i.e. reporters on the ground hear that the structural integrity of the building is compromised and is expected to collapse, but that gets sent up the line as the building HAS collapsed.

Albion said:

What I said, in effect, is that a conspiracy theory is...a theory. You know why it is called a theory, I assume.

Click to expand...

I’m asking for one specific question to be addressed, your giving a general reply to a specific question. Sorry but claiming that conspiracy theories are air tight perfection doesn’t do it for me.

I’m playing Devil’s advocate, this objection is an interesting one