On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 00:54:58 GMT, "Amanda Angelika"
<manic_mandy@hotmail.com> wrote:

In news:170620061833595423%erfc@netcabal.com,
Art Deco <erfc@netcabal.com> typed:

Amanda Angelika <manic_mandy@hotmail.com> wrote:

The only thing I can think of that might have been capable of
disintegrating solid high tensile fire resistant steel that the WTCs
were constructed of would have been anti-matter devices. IMO it's
the only explanation that makes any sense.

Just give up thinking, it isn't working out for you.

I used to think 

You certainly do not do so now, that's certain.  

the conspiracy theories were simply Islamic propaganda and
basically treacherous anti-American/Us government lies and simply concocted
to spread doubt, disinformation and division.

Problem is though there are dozens of videos of the events of 911 showing
exactly what happened which leave many unanswered questions. Even structural
engineers are unable to satisfactorily explain why all those towers fell as
they did. After all they were not made of plastic wood and cardboard like
some Hollywood set but a very strong high tensile steel framework.

So, since you don't understand the technical explanations, you dove
headfirst into conspiracy theories.  Figures.  I guess you believe
that "high tensile steel" doesn't weaken when heated, either.  

There are no other examples apart from in controlled explosions for tall
building totally collapsing as a result of fire and yet on 9/11 there were
three buildings that collapsed in that way and one of them wasn't even hit
by an aeroplane.

How many examples of buildings getting hit by loaded 767s are in your
database?  

As for the Pentagon: if it "wasn't even hit by an aeroplane", why
lighting poles knocked down in a pattern which matches the wingspan of
a Boeing 757?  What knocked them over?  Why do you ignore the majority
of the eyewitnesses who saw a jetliner?  What happened to Flight 77 -
or is there another "conspracy" out there to cover up your lack of
answers?  

It's also notable that both the main towers collapsed from the top down and
yet WTC 2 which was hit second and fell first was hit about half way up. If
fire had caused the collapse of the buildings surely one would expect both
towers to have keeled over at the point of impact and not evenly from the
top down as if in a controlled explosion.

"Pancaking" and geometric progression are obviously too esoteric for
you.  

Incidentally It's also interesting to note that the Empire State building
was hit by a B25 bomber on July 28th 1945
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92525&page=1 and although it suffered some
damage is still structurally sound to this day.

The B-25 Mitchell was 67 ft 6 in. long, and carried a nominal fuel
load of 694 US gallons of fuel.  The Boeing 767 is 159 ft 2 in. long,
with a normal fuel load of 23,980 U.S. gal.  What you are saying is
that if a building survives a hit by a motorcycle, a similar building
should be able to survive a hit by a Mack truck.  

The B-25 was small enough that, with special training and
modifications, they were launched off the deck of an aircraft carrier.
When was the last time you saw a jetliner take off from a 'carrier?  

Your comparison is utterly silly.  

Having seen the events of 9/11 live on TV in the UK IMO the official
explanation is sheer nonsense, a total impossibility. It simply doesn't add
up at all. those towers come down like a pack of cards as if they were made
of match sticks and no one commentating on the event expected it, it was
shocking and surreal, still doesn't make sense and has never really been
satisfactorily explained.

So, you watch two planes crash into the WTC, starting huge, raging
fires, then collapse.  From this you draw the conclusion that this was
just a "cover" for a "controlled demolition", because it looks kinda
like other controlled demolitions you have seen on T.V.  

Have you ever noticed that with "implosions", they start at the
bottom, and have charges all the way up, progressing from bottom to
top, so that it collapses from the bottom up?  Where's your video of
that at the WTC?  Loads and loads of cameras were going that day.

There isn't any, of course, because it wasn't a "controlled
demolition".  


Not that you'll believe any of this, because you've committed yourself
to a ko0kspiracy theory.  

ESL! 

-- 
Bookman -The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in AFA-B 
Kazoo Konspirator #668 (The Neighbor of the Beast) 
Clue-Bat Wrangler 
Keeper of the Nickname Lists 
Despotic Kookologist of the New World Order 
Hammer of Thor award, October 2005

"I'd love to kill you in a ring"  - Bartmo gets all touchy-feely 

"****SPV.......  So yes I am an idiot." 

"ASK THE NWS,  YOUR TAX DOLLAR GOES TO THEM NOT TO DR.TURI."
- Mr. Turi explains how to accurately predict hurricanes

Bookman is yet another Usenet fignuten, meaning naysayer and/or
rusemaster of their incest cloned Third Reich.  In other words, you're
communicating with an intellectual if not a biological clone of
Hitler.
- Brad Guth tries to wax "scientific", but invokes Godwin, instead.

WWFSMD?