XPost: alt.conspiracy, alt.conspiracy.new-world-order, alt.terro   
   ism.world-trade-center   
      
   On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:17:27 -0400, BR  wrote:   
      
   >BDK wrote:   
   >   
   >[most of his garbage snipped]   
   >   
   >  How   
   >> long should it have taken? How much of it should have been preserved? It   
   >> was a health hazard and it still took a long time to be removed anyway.   
   >> The "official story" is the only one that fits the physics, what was   
   >> seen, and what was heard. Nonsense claims on kookpages are only fit for   
   >> laughs, a lot of them aren't even possible, such as silent explosives,   
   >> and thermite use, etc.   
   >>   
   >   
   >   
   >The official story does NOT fit the physics, at least of building 7.   
      
   Which only proves that you know nothing of physics.   
      
   >I'm not one of those who think there were hidden bombs in WTC 1 and 2,   
   >if so, why even bother with the airplanes?  The first attempt was done   
   >with bombs in the basement.  Arabs could still be blamed for setting the   
   >bombs.   But I still have not seen any evidence from any camp that   
   >adequately explains the collapse of building 7.   
      
   The NIST report will be published soon.  But then you won't believe it   
   either.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)