Re: 9/11 may be CONSPIRACY! - BBC anchor!!!!

"L Alpert" <alpertl@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:mBOQj.3431$I55.73@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Freedom Fighter wrote:
>> "Al Dykes" <adykes@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:fuvhk5$14e$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> In article <48133f98$0$11625$607ed4bc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>>> Reggie  <Reggie501@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>
http://tvnewslies.org/tvnl/index.php/latest-news-at-a-glance/911-news-at-a-glanceB
>>>>
>>>> BC Anchor Who Re****ted on WTC7 Collapse Early Agrees There May Be a
>>>> 'Conspiracy'
>>>>
>>>> Hayton failed to recollect even being in the studio on the day of
>>>> 9/11-- at first-- but then recalls the situation when it is
>>>> described in detail, including the actions of Jane Standley, who
>>>> re****ted the collapse some 26 minutes in advance with WTC Building
>>>> 7 still visible in the background.
>>>>
>>>> "A lot of eyebrows were raised," We Are Change re****ters point out
>>>> in summary, because many saw it as a clear controlled demolition,
>>>> including a number of engineers.
>>
>>> The whole world knew that WTC7 was about to collapse.  The poor BBC
>>> news reader made a mistake and said it "had collapsed" instead of
>>> "about to collapse".  Jeesh.
>>
>> CNN made the same "mistake." Looks like they read the script too soon
>> -
>>> The inevitable collapse of WTC7 was in local TV news on the afternoon
>>> of 9/11. I saw it, myself. See [7], below.
>>
>> Inevitable? Then how come several buildings with far worse damage
>> remained standing, including the Deutchbank building, which recently
>> survived yet ANOTHER extensive fire without any collapse?
>
> Obviously these other buildings did not sustain this far worse damage
that 
> you claim.
>
>> I SAW building 7 collapse on live TV. Controlled demolition by
>> explosives, no doubt about it!
>
> That's it.  I'm sold on it.  You saw it on TV, it has to be so clear (to

> you).
>
>>
>>> k00ks love to - -
>>
>> Ah, yes, when all else fails, the desperate deniers and coverup ****lls
>> always resort to adolescent name-calling. Poor frustrated childish
>> minds!
>
> And yet, it is highly probable that he is correct.
>
>>
>>> Nobody that was an eyewitness to the WTC7 collapse can say there was
>>> anything unusual about the way it collapsed.
>>
>> I saw it on live TV, and I am an engineer. And I say CONTROLLED
>> DEMOLITION BY EXPLOSIVES!
>
> So, you're the one engineer in the world that is infallible. Never made
a 
> mistake, never had to go from numeric to alpha revision.
>
>> And more im****tant than my personal opinion, the inviolate LAWS OF
>> PHYSICS say the same:
>
> And there are studies that show the opposite. There is no indisputable 
> proof either way.  You're an engineer, so you should know better.  You 
> give the rest of us a bad name.  Shame on you.

YOU are an engineer?
Then you know that "certainty" is not 100%, but a matter of probabilities.
Given the preponderance of credible evidence, and the destruction of hard 
evidence among other incriminating acts, I'd say the probability if 9/11 
being an INSIDE JOB are around 95%.