XPost: alt.conspiracy, alt.conspiracy.new-world-order, alt.curre   
   t-events.wtc.bush-knew   
   From: Phatty@Boombatty.com   
      
   All this discussion and re-hashing has (successfully) steered the   
   conversation away from the point:   
      
   BBC and CNN both reported prematurely on 9/11 that building 7 had   
   collapsed. Just because they "expected" or "thought" it might collapse   
   didn't mean that it was inevitable.   
      
   And, argue as you might, any rational person can look at the fall of   
   building 7 and surmise that, regardless of even "heavy damage" to a   
   portion of the building, the crimp in the center and then symmetrical   
   collapse hardly seems the likely result of said damage. It would have   
   required all structural integrity to fail simultaneously, ie.,   
   controlled demolition.   
      
   One of you (can't remember which, you're all starting to sound the   
   same) recently even pointed to the heavy damage of building 6. Why   
   didn't they announce that building 6 had fallen? It had sustained   
   heavy damage from debris as well, right? But they knew 6 wasn't going   
   to fall, because it wasn't part of the script (which BBC & CNN just   
   happened to read a little prematurely).   
      
   Nitpick and sidetrack all you want, but the obvious facts remain   
   obvious.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)