"Amanda Angelika" <manic_mandy@hotmail.com> wrote:

In news:gg5j92tq64l2ri7c0c3s9agfg879qtk6n1@4ax.com,
Never anonymous Bud <newskat@katxyzkave.net> typed:

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 12:48:49 GMT, "Amanda Angelika"
<manic_mandy@hotmail.com> wrote:

OTOH though you actually have Larry Silverstein openly
admitting in a televised interview that WTC7 was "pulled"

He DID NOT say it WAS 'pulled', he said it would HAVE TO BE
pulled. 

And 'pull it' is NOT USED by crews in controlled demolition
as the trigger phrase, it IS used to indicate that something
will HAVE TO be demolished because it can't be saved.

JUST the fact that you keep using that STUPID point means you
don't care about the truth.

If you DID, you'd already KNOW that your info is wrong,
COMPLETELY wrong.

It's clearly not a misquote since the guy is filmed saying it.

How do you set up explosives in
a building supposedly burning out of control?

You wait til the fires are out, then you use the 'big
swinging ball' and other equipment OUTSIDE the building.

Surely this would seem to indicate it was rigged prior to
the fire. 

Once again, you jump to the most illogical conclusion.

Building don't usually collapse as a result of fire. Hell
there are still shells of buildings standing in Munich that
were bombed by the RAF and USAF in WWII that are still
standing as a War Memorial, I've seen them. There is still at
least one building in Japan that survived at the epicentre on
an Atom bomb detonation. And before you say towers are
different the Germans used to use towers as air-raid shelters,
mind the NAZIs were never much for public safety. Never the
less WTC7 was never hit by a plane and if explosives weren't
used then apparently it's the first tall building in history
to completely collapse simply as a result of fire. 

In order to believe that the fire was the only factor, at least 
one of these two things are necessary: 1) You adamantly refuse to 
learn what happened; or 2) You try, but you can't.

Going by past examples and there are thousands it's not
logical to assume buildings collapse as a consequence of fire
alone, hell some buildings in London were hit by German V2
Rockets in WWII and didn't totally collapse. 

There were some that collapsed because the building next door was 
hit by a bomb.  Anyway, if you can find where someone said the 
building collapsed as a consequence of fire alone, please post 
the name here so we can use the turkey as a temporary 
laughingstock.

But who knows maybe American buildings are vastly inferior in
design and construction to our superior British and European
buildings ;) 

What would happen if you dropped a thousands tons of huge chunks 
of steel and concrete on top of a building?

Tell me you have no idea.  Oh, wait...you just did.