XPost: alt.conspiracy, alt.conspiracy.new-world-order, alt.consp   
   racy.antichrist   
   XPost: alt.illuminati   
   From: dearhunter@home.net   
      
   "John P."  wrote in   
   news:trOdnfXdi9mYM0rYnZ2dnUVZ_qSrnZ2d@comcast.com:   
      
   > "Cluehunter"  wrote in a message   
   >   
   >> George, you seem to have all the answers, I have a question for you.   
   >> Please explain to me how building 7 fell. Please, don't say with   
   >> fires, better still, don't say with damage to the corner of the   
   >> building, because,   
   >> if you answer with one of the above your only going to add to your   
   >> ignorance. How did that structure fall so perfectly in 4.5 seconds   
   >> with one   
   >> simple decision like, pull it?   
   >   
   > Don't say it fell with fires or with damage to the corner of the   
   > building. Hmmm... there were fires in the building (that's why the   
   > firefighters were discussing whether or not they could or should try   
   > to go in and fight them), and, you seem to know that there was damage   
   > to the corner of the building... so, if it had these things, how would   
   > it have managed to collapse without them?   
   >   
   > Perhaps if you did a little bit of research, it might help you to   
   > grasp some things a bit better. Start by watching the entire 13+   
   > second collapse sequence of building 7, then explain why you think 13+   
   > seconds is equal to 4.5 seconds. Then, feel free to look into a bit   
   > about how WTC 7 was built. What were some of the unique   
   > characteristics of that building? What was unusual about the   
   > foundation? The design of the building? Why might we look specifically   
   > at the 5th floor?   
   >   
   > As for the exact mechanism of the collapse - the investigation is not   
   > yet completed, so a definitive answer is not known. Presently, based   
   > on all available evidence, facts and eyewitness testimony - including   
   > a significant amount from FDNY personnel, it appears that a   
   > combination of the damage caused to the building by the collapsing   
   > towers in addition to the out of control fires, and perhaps some of   
   > those unique design chracteristics your research uncovered, is what   
   > caused the collaps of WTC 7.   
   >   
   > The available evidence makes it pretty clear there were no explosives   
   > (none are seen or heard in any video evidence), thermite, thermate,   
   > super-thermite or even Prof. Jones secret blend of thermite with 11   
   > herbs and spices. More than anything, for anyone who has taken the   
   > time to understand how a building is pulled, it is 100% clear that WTC   
   > 7 was not pulled. The cables would have been obvious and the building   
   > would have fallen in a completely different manner.   
   >   
   > Fortunately, the same program in which we see Silverstein discussing   
   > pulling the firefighting efforts from WTC 7 with the NYPD fire chief,   
   > they also show the remnants of WTC 6 being pulled. The remaining   
   > structure of 6 was pulled because there was a concern that using   
   > explosives to bring down the remaining portion of WTC 6 might cause   
   > damage to the slurry wall. At that point, they had no idea what the   
   > current condition of the slurry wall might be and were unwilling to   
   > take any chances.   
   >   
   > Knowing that a good portion of WTC 6 collapsed, as well as every other   
   > WTC building, and that a total of 25 buildings (other than WTC 1, 2, &   
   > 6) were damaged or destroyed on 9/11, I have to wonder why you are   
   > confused as to why WTC 7 collapsed, but don't have a similar confusion   
   > over any of the 25 other buildings.   
   >   
   >   
   >> Time for Americans such as yourself to wake   
   >> up, because if my little 7 year old Grandson who saw the footage of   
   >> building 7 say too me, Poppa, I saw that on the Discovery Channel,   
   >> reffering to the controled demolitions they broadcast now & then. If   
   >> a 7 year old mind can relate to that, i'm sure you can also?   
   >   
   > You hit the nail on the head. It truly takes the mind of a 7 year old   
   > to believe WTC 7 was brought down by a controlled demolition. I   
   > appreciate you making that point.   
   >   
   >   
   >   
      
   "sequence of building 7, then explain why you think 13+ seconds is equal   
   to   
   4.5 seconds."   
      
   John, I apologize, it was 6.5 seconds, but, your including the Penthouse   
   on the roof, I'm talking about the main building itself. Heck, 13+   
   seconds, both towers fell in less time than that! Wasn't 6 pulled days   
   afterwards, 7 fell that day. How can anybody such as yourself watch that   
   footage from 4 different angles and actually state what you said above is   
   really mind boggling.   
      
    6) were damaged or destroyed on 9/11, I have to wonder why you are   
   > confused as to why WTC 7 collapsed,   
      
   How can you truely make that statement? Your the one that really hit the   
   nail on the head by saying:   
      
   "As for the exact mechanism of the collapse - the investigation is not   
   yet completed, so a definitive answer is not known.   
      
   It is now approaching 6 years, let me help you to come to a conclusion,   
   WATCH THE VIDEOS! Perhaps if you spoke to my Grandson, he could help you   
   to see and understand what really happened that day. You see, he plays   
   with his set of building blocks and he can explain to you what happens   
   when he is all done playing and wants to take it down, and just like   
   Silverstein he says his magic words, pulls the correct blocks out, and   
   guess what? You guessed it, it falls ever so nicly!   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)