XPost: alt.conspiracy, alt.conspiracy.new-world-order, alt.curre   
   t-events.wtc.bush-knew   
   From: dchainsRUS@dc.net   
      
   "Phatty Boombatty"  wrote in message   
   news:rathu29dtdh0e2167t54g9d1esuqsedtmq@4ax.com...   
   > On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 22:42:15 -0500, Animal05   
   >  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.   
   >>>   
   >>> 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   
   >>   
   >>It wasn't a symmetrical collaspe.   
   >   
   > Obviously you have not seen the videos.   
      
   Oooopps, there it is. Obviously they all did but govenment brown on the nose   
   tips removes all   
   logic from their minds.   
      
   .   
      
      
   >   
   >>   
   >>>hardly seems the likely result of said damage.   
   >>   
   >>ONly if you have no knowledge of building structures   
   >>   
   >>>It would have   
   >>> required all structural integrity to fail simultaneously, ie.,   
   >>> controlled demolition.   
   >>   
   >>LMAO........nope   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> 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?   
   >>   
   >>Different structural system, different damage.   
   >>   
   >>>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).   
   >>   
   >>Your logic would conclude that driving a yugo and a sem truck into a   
   >>block wall would result in the same damage.   
   >   
   > Hardly. You're creating a straw man that is completely unrelated.   
      
   Thats what these morons do and will continue to do.   
      
      
      
   >   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> Nitpick and sidetrack all you want, but the obvious facts remain   
   >>> obvious.   
   >>   
   >>To konspiracy kooks.   
   >   
   > Expected response.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)