PDF Richard Porters Project 47

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Richard Porters Project 47 file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Richard Porters Project 47 book. Happy reading Richard Porters Project 47 Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Richard Porters Project 47 at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Richard Porters Project 47 Pocket Guide.

Do you not care about the nearly 3, victims of that day?

  1. Redheaded Trouble.
  2. "Horse Heaven Hills" Poetry Chapbook?
  3. Past Exhibitions;
  4. Römische Tagebücher 1852-1889 (German Edition)!
  5. Weeping May Endure For A Night.

I read Richard Porter's response hoping he'd be able to clarify the events in that confusing and frankly worrying video that everyone and his dog has shown me. I have always thought the conspiracy theorists to be largely attention-seeking paranoid Michael Moore wannabes, but this one just seems too difficult to adequately explain away. What is with this rediculous straw man fallacy you keep making Richard? No ones suggesting the BBC was part of any conspiracy. We just want to know who your source was. Because the only 3 steel skyscrapers that have collapsed from "fire," all happened on the same day, how was it that you immediately concluded building seven was going to completely collapse?

That doesn't make sense.

Diddy's ex-girlfriend Kim Porter is found dead

Is it the result of terrible journalism? Can you provide us his name and where he is quoted as saying that? Also if that quote was from a subsequent interview that still leaves the question unanswered. Who was the source that told you building 7 was going to collapse, which led to the first of your premature reports, which then led to Jane Standley reporting it? I'm sure that this week has been eye-opening for you Richard. What can you take away from this experience?

Well perhaps at the very least I can suggest that it indicates how poorly regarded your industry has become if so many are eager to accept that the BBC are involved in a cover-up. So much doubt and mistrust, how has it come to this? Also you might have come to the conclusion that there are a hell of a lot of passionate people in this world, ready to go to quite extraordinary lengths to get their point across. You should take heart on this however. Someone once said that people have become apathetic towards politics, I think they were wrong, don't you?

Has anyone reading this thread actually watched the building fall? If not, please do so now. I'll wait. Now, can you possibly say that a building with a "bulge" or other structural damage can fall uniformly straight down? Have you ever played Jenga? What happens when you lose?


Please stop invoking the "BBC is not part of any conspiracy" line in response to reader complaints. Nobody is suggesting for a moment that you are part of some larger conspiracy and to imply such a thing is at best disingenuous and at worst deliberately misleading. While you seem to have provided sufficient evidence that BBC World's premature report of WTC7's collapse was a simple matter of gross incompetence and nothing more, you have yet to provide answers to some very important questions:.

Porter, You wrote: "But we do know quite a bit more than we did on Tuesday, as a result of checking the BBC archives and what other media were doing at the time. So do you, or do NOT, have the entire video archives from that time segment?

Facebook Messenger

Which is it? The video with the time stamp of Jane standing there with the WTC-7 in the backgroundyou have that? Is THAT what you checked? Either way, it doesnt look too good. We are just asking you for the source and the original materials. Stop whining about being "part of a conspiracy". If it was just a one-off cock-up which would be no big thing with the amount of stress on that day we don't need to worry. Many other news stations had reported the same, as Richard says. Basically, the BBC found themselves on the end of a Chinese whisper. Several buildings were on fire that day, however, only one of them which did not get hit by a plane collapsed -- WTC 7.

The statistical probability of this is astronomically low. Occam's Razor tells us that the simplest explanation is that the person s who got the rumor going an hour beforehand had foreknowledge of the event.

The BBC needs to find out who planted this information with the press! Come on Richard. No story here? I take it you are a bright fellow, so obviously you can't possibly be serious. First you publish severely biased 'conspiracy files hit piece' that is bloody far from decent journalism. It was that bad that it alone counts as some level of conspiring against general public. Event was that improbable that it has taken more than 5 years for several organizations to come out with even a semi-plausible explanation for.

Now, if there indeed is no conspiracy, prove it.

Here's Why Billy Porter Sees His New Album As An Act Of Resistance | HuffPost

Provide as much hard evidence as you can and present it in a unbiased quality documentary. Would be really nice if you could start off from the criminal investigation conducted by US government and end it with a proper explanation on why the towers fell all of them that takes into account basic newtonian laws of physics. Ask Steven Jones to contribute.

He would probably love to. We already have enough of that crap with strictly political agendas. You explanation is right out of Mr. Orwell's book. WTC 7 had fire damage to a single corner of its structure. This infers the building should have collapsed into that corner in a terribly asymmetric way. However, the building collapsed in a perfectly symmetric way by falling directly onto its footprint.

This cannot be.

Richard Porter

I think the final report due out later this year will blow the door open on this, and we'll finally know the full story. How arrogant. You are supposed to represent your viewers, us. We'll decide when to end the story thanks. You can choose not to engage if you wish, you haven't for the last 5 years. As Mr. Chavez said: Smell the sulphur folks.

BBC is no longer a source we can look to for the truth.

Montel Vontavious Porter - Wikipedia

The Fox News virus has infected a once trusted resource. As an architect I can only tell others that buildings don't normally explode like volcanos, unless helped. These conspiracy theories are for idiots. Let them troll the internet and fantasise about the BIG conspiracy, which would have involved thousands of people, imaginary people, robots, time machines, remote control airplanes and on and on.

Why bother trying to debunk them? How can you possibly loose at least three copies from this historic day? It's even stored at two separate sites! If the case that it wasn't archived at all; what about the Broadcasting Act? Has this been done in this case, and if not, why? If has been done, how come you made a 'cock-up'?

  • Navigation menu.
  • US Army, Technical Manual, TM 9-2520-246-34P, DIRECT SUPPORT AND GENERAL SUPPORT MAINTENANCE REPAIR PARTS AND SPECIAL TOOLS LIST FOR TRANSMISSIONS, (NSN ... manuals on dvd, military manuals on cd,.
  • Olho a Rosa... Na janela... (Portuguese Edition);
  • Richard Porter – Page 47 – Beatles in London Blog!
  • Other posts from this blog?
  • How Verizon Media and our partners bring you better ad experiences.
  • What can be learned from this incident to prevent this from happening again in the future? You say that "the BBC policy is to keep every minute of news channel output for 90 days" Why doesn't apply to this? Even though you may not want to answear this questions, I hope you will publish my comment at least for others to see. Thank you for posting again and thank you for you explanation thus far.

    I do not believe the BBC was part of any conspiracy but I do believe there is very much still a story here, although the BBC's part in it is very nearly complete. You said that you "believe that one or more of the news agencies was reporting this, or at least reporting someone saying this". Which news agency reported this or at least someone saying it? If possible exactly what was reported by the agency and when? There's a few things I notice in all the damage control blather.

    I hope you don't mind if mention some of it. You keep denying the BBC is part of the conspiracy. I'm happy you realize there was a conspiracy in play on If I were you, though, I'd stop shouting quite so loudly that you weren't part of it. Nobody was thinking that before.