XPost: alt.conspiracy, alt.conspiracy.new-world-order, alt.curre   
   t-events.wtc.bush-knew   
   From: vandar69@yahoo.com   
      
   Phatty Boombatty wrote:   
      
   > 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.   
      
   They didnt say 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.   
      
   Those with relevant expertise disagree.   
      
   > 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?   
      
   Because it didn't fall.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   Right. An erroneous report was put on the wire and the BBC reported it.   
   It happens A LOT. Do you think the news media is flawless?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)