XPost: alt.conspiracy, alt.conspiracy.new-world-order, alt.curre   
   t-events.wtc.bush-knew   
   From: AdmiralPee@neveragainvolunteeryourself.com   
      
   "Phatty Boombatty"  wrote in a message   
      
   > "THEY MADE THE DECISION TO PULL IT,   
   > AND THEN WE WATCHED THE BUILDING   
   > COLLAPSE."   
      
   > Does having it in all caps help? The logical (I know I'm talking to   
   > someone who can't deal with logic) assumption is that IT refers to the   
   > building, considering nowhere in the quote does Larry-boy say anything   
   > about a "firefighting contingent" or the "search and rescue effort."   
   > To say anything else is a stretch beyond reason. I know, "reason" is   
   > another concept that escapes you. Fuck, you people are thick.   
      
   So, in a conversation about the firefighting effort, you believe the subject   
   was secretly understood by both to somehow change to the building. You think   
   'they' (which would have to refer to FDNY), somehow were in a position to   
   decide to demolish a building. You then think FDNY had the explosives and   
   the ability to plant them in a building where fires where raging out of   
   control. Yes, out of control - remember your own words - the firefighters   
   were not fighting the fires. If no one is fighting them, they are out of   
   control. You then manage to believe that in spite of this comment being made   
   very publicly, none of the insurance companies involved made any attempt to   
   deny the claims on the building on the basis of insurance fraud (which is   
   what it would be if the building were deliberately demolished).   
      
   You continently ignore the fact that there is zero evidence of explosives in   
   any of the WTC buildings. You watch the videos where no explosions are seen   
   or heard, especially nothing like what would be seen and heard in a   
   controlled demolition, and imagine there were magic silent and invisible   
   explosives used.   
      
   You repeat the moronic claim that no steel framed building has ever   
   collapsed due to fire, ignoring the reality that many have. How can you   
   ignore McCormick place, the Madrid Tower, the Sight & Sound theater (among   
   the better know steel structures to collapse due to fire) as well as untold   
   numbers of warehouses and other steel structures in which firefighters are   
   hurt or injured when they collapse due to fire?   
      
   You somehow never wonder why there are building codes requiring fireproofing   
   on the steel structure of buildings. Try wrapping your head around that one   
   simple idea - if steel is not affected by fire, why would they attempt to   
   fireproof it?   
      
   You conveniently try to claim the damage to the building and fires were   
   minimal and insignificant, ignoring the overwhelming body of evidence that   
   proves quite the opposite.   
      
   Willful ignorance is all the 'proof' you have, yet, you are somehow   
   satisfied with this 'proof'.   
      
   Freakin' amazing.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)