XPost: alt.conspiracy, alt.conspiracy.new-world-order, alt.curre   
   t-events.wtc.bush-knew   
   From: dchainsRUS@dc.net   
      
    wrote in message   
   news:nsnhu2tl227lte4k5181h64m3i3q5vdabr@4ax.com...   
   > 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.   
      
    Probably is the operative word here. Why is it easy for you to argue   
   this/any topic with no facts? It's easy because you do it all day everyday.   
      
      
   >   
   >>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".   
      
   The way WTC7 did certainly does. Prove me wrong!   
      
      
      
   >   
   >>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.   
      
   Its obvious you are exposed as a apologist.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)