XPost: alt.conspiracy, alt.conspiracy.new-world-order, alt.curre   
   t-events.wtc.bush-knew   
   From: vandar69@yahoo.com   
      
   agent86@justicespammail.com wrote:   
      
   > 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.   
      
   I concur with your statement. What I'm implying is that building six   
   didn't collapse as an intact structure. It was effectively destroyed in   
   the collapses and the remainder of it was intentionally brought down   
   during the clean up.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)