Too many people would have to keep it a secret...

But we've done this repeatedly.

It's explained to you again here: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117889067#Comment_117889067

It was a mistake on a busy, hectic newsday. You don't believe this explanation. That's fine.

We're asking you what your explanation is.

You agree that the BBC were told ahead of time for some reason you can't explain.

You also said that it can't be mistake that they let it slip early.

So you must believe that they reported it early on purpose. Right?

Ok. Fine. You don't believe that explanation.

Let's say for the sake of argument it's wrong.

What's your explanation?

Do you believe that it was announced early on purpose? Yes or no?

No. Why not just tell us what you believe?

Why run away.

We accept that you don't believe our explanation.

We've yet to hear yours. You keep ignoring our very simple questions about it and now you're trying to run away because you don't want to just state what you believe.

You're proving the point we're making.

So lets try one more time.

Do you believe that the collapse was reported early on purpose? Yes or no?

You're failing Logic 101 here, I don't need to prove it didn't happen - you need to prove it did. You're the one making the claim.

But I'm glad to see you admit, albeit behind a smokescreen, that you don't actually have any evidence. We're making progress.

Is not how it works.

I'd explain it, but it's been explained to you so many times and in so many ways, it's pointless.

Reporting mistakes happen all the time. I remember at one point they were reporting 8 planes had been hijacked, did that happen? No. It occurred because there was so much rumour and speculation flying about, this happens with live 24 hour news. Think of all the mass shootings in the US, early reports often contain errors about e.g. how many shooters there are.

On 9/11, WTC 7 had been burning for a long time, there was constant speculation it was going to collapse, I know this because I was glued to the TV that day. Obviously some of that speculation got misinterpreted by a news organisation and they made a mistake.

The BBC actually addressed this fully

The theory you are insinuating is that the plotters of this mass inside job to kill thousands of Americans decided to tell a news organisation in another country the time that a building would be destroyed. They have just revealed their entire existence and plan to a foreign media outlet, why would they do that? Outlets around the world would report anyway when the building fell, why would they need to "reach out" to tell one? That makes utterly no sense. Think. (and you have to support it with evidence, which you haven't done in any way)

If it was due to cases then no I wouldn't be happy, cases don't matter.

If it was due to high deaths and the NHS being under pressure due to high numbers being hospitalised then yes I would be fine if we had to go back into lockdown.

See! That's how easy it is to answer a question honestly, you should try it sometime.

"Why do you believe that the government won't kill people?"

"I don't believe that."

"Yes you do!"

Something to that effect I suspect.

Lol wut...?

We asked you questions. We spoonfed them to you several times. You ignored them all.

You're now pretending that you have "rational answers?" Ok then. What are they?

Also could you answer the latest question you're not answering? Debate what?

Again, if you guys just answered questions directly and honestly, you wouldn't be getting so wound up.

Seems to be a common tactic among new right wing grifters like Ben Shaprio et al.

Demand someone debate you. When they look at you like you're nuts, declare that they're obviously too afraid to. Claim victory.