You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–] archvile7 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago  (edited ago)

An easy way to prove/disprove would be to find the exact time of that broadcast vs. when Building 7 actually fell.

Seeing as everything I’ve seen about this “mishap” says 27 minutes, I’m betting many people have already looked into this.

Edit, never mind, I misread your post. I’m a dumb

[–] Maroonsaint 2 points -2 points (+0|-2) ago 

:( ur not dum.i stil lik u

[–] SimonRothschild 8 points -8 points (+0|-8) ago 

@archvile7 @InyourfaceNancyGrace @bdmthrfkr It was proven already

known that the BBC reported the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 over 20 minutes before it occurred. WTC 7 was a 47-story skyscraper that was not hit by a plane on 9/11 but collapsed at free-fall speed later that day.

So Rooke said the BBC had to have had prior knowledge to a terror attack making them complicit in the attack. He presented the BBC footage to the judge along with a slew of other evidence, and the judge agreed that Rooke had a reasonable case to protest. Rooke was found not guilty and he was not fined for failure to pay the licence fee.

[–] brandon816 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Be warned, this user is a spambot:

[–] SimonRothschild 10 points -10 points (+0|-10) ago 

PS: Trump and Podesta are Satan

@archvile7 @InyourfaceNancyGrace @bdmthrfkr