Re: Oops! The building just collapsed!

From: MC Bob (master_at_mason.snuh)
Date: 09/12/04 

Date: 12 Sep 2004 23:33:39 GMT

hhc314@yahoo.com (Harry Conover) wrote in
news:7ce4e226.0409121406.7afc2b49@posting.google.com:

> 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.
 
I'd say you're missing a lot.

1) The cause of the collapse is claimed to be a fire.
2) Explosives would have had to be set before 9/11. 

-- 
http://BeDoper.com - BeOS and a hell of a lot more
Virgin Message Board
http://bedoper.com/cgi-bin/plugins/BBS/bedoper_ubb/Ultimate.cgi?action=intro
Gortician's Not Dead, Punk
http://www.metal-archives.com/release.php?id=15537

Relevant Pages
Quantcast