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

Freedom Fighter wrote:
> "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%.

And I'd say that you pulled that number out of your ass just to sup****t a 
null hypothesis.