I've seen stuff from 9/11 conspiracy theorists before, and, while I don't necessarily believe it, I could see how it would appeal to those so inclined. However, I am completely baffled by the way they seem to be rallying around the recent discovery that a BBC reporter apparently said that building 7 of the World Trade Center had fallen about 20 minutes beforehand. For them, it apparently is proof that the building was intentionally demolished using explosives, because someone apparently sent out a press release of some kind too early, or a reporter read from a script too soon.
Laying aside everything else a person may or may not believe about 9/11, there is only one word needed to poke a huge hole in this latest piece of "evidence": Why? Why would a press release be necessary, much less a script? Every camera that any news agency could find was being pointed in that direction by then, so why would it be necessary to script what is completely obvious to all? There was plenty of speculation for a large period of time beforehand regarding the expected fall of WTC 7, so everyone was already watching for it to happen. A press release or script would put the conspiracists in the delicate position of trusting that none of the large number of people involved in the media would expose them. Why would people supposedly smart enough to pull off such a massive attack under false pretenses do something so stupid?
I find it particularly bizarre the number of times I've seen this referred to as a "smoking gun" or some other reference to how conclusive this discovery is. Even if there is some kind of conspiracy, this has to be some of the worst evidence for it I've heard yet.
read more | digg story
- ▼ 2007 (9)