XPost: alt.conspiracy, alt.conspiracy.new-world-order, alt.curre
t-events.wtc.bush-knew
On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 11:58:06 -0800, 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?
Your first problem is that you don't know what story "went out on the
wire".
>>> 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.
I have to take issue with Vandar. There is a very large crater that
covers most of what was WTC6, visible in aerial photographs. Enough
of WTC6 collapsed that the demolition companies used cables to pull
down what was remaining.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
