XPost: alt.conspiracy, alt.conspiracy.new-world-order, alt.curre
t-events.wtc.bush-knew
From: Phatty@Boombatty.com
On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 18:37:25 GMT, Vandar wrote:
>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.
If it wasn't inevitable, why would the story have gone out on the
wire? Hmm... maybe it was planned?
>
>> 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.
Exactly. And neither had 7.
>
>> 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)
|
