XPost: alt.conspiracy, alt.conspiracy.new-world-order, alt.curre   
   t-events.wtc.bush-knew   
   From: vandar69@yahoo.com   
      
   Phatty Boombatty wrote:   
   > 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?   
      
   Because humans make mistakes.   
      
   >>>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.   
      
   Yes it did. Six never fell.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)