XPost: alt.conspiracy, alt.conspiracy.new-world-order, alt.curre
t-events.wtc.bush-knew
On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 10:27:45 -0800, 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.
And no one has ever said that was what was ever announced. What
probably happened is that the message got garbled in transmission
between the fire department and the media.
>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.
A collapse of a building doesn't require that "all strucural integrity
to fail simultaneously".
>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.
It was pointed out in response to a question.
>Why didn't they announce that building 6 had fallen?
Because it didn't happen 6 hours later.
>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).
By the time in question, WTC6 was already a smouldering heap.
>Nitpick and sidetrack all you want, but the obvious facts remain
>obvious.
Except to people like you.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
