Re: Oops! The building just collapsed!

From: Harry Conover (hhc314_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 09/12/04 

Date: 12 Sep 2004 15:06:50 -0700

Dan Bloomquist <EXTRApublic21@lakeweb.com> wrote in message news:<413F6CB4.50602@lakeweb.com>...
> Harry Conover wrote:
> > "C-Fresh" <master@mason.snuh> wrote in message news:<Xns955D708169A14spamspamsnuhspam33@207.14.113.17>...
> >
> >>No, that is another invention on your part. Obviously, charges would have had
> >>to be placed before 9/11. That was sort of the point.
> >
> >
> > Nonsense.
> >
> > The engineering design of the building invited the type disaster that
> > was experienced, and any serious fire on an upper floor of the
> > building would have had the identical effect.
>
> Errr, Harry,
> You are not paying attention. This thread is about building number 7.
>
> http://wtc7.net/videos.html
>
> You can clearly see that this building failed at the ground.
>
> Best, Dan.

Whoops, Dan you're correct. I had assumed falsely that the discussion
was about the twin towers.

I really don't understand why there would be much discussion about
Building 7 or several others in the WTC complex, because most of these
had suffered sufficient structural damage to either fall on their own
or be deliberately razed as a safety precaution. Seem to me that
whether or not explosives were employed in razing them is a moot
point.

Am I missing something?

                                                  Harry C.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast