Justin Case wrote:

"Bookman" <thebookman@kc.rr.comNULL> wrote in message
news:p6ija2lslev5avqni4p243ur31j378l2bp@4ax.com...

On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 21:21:52 GMT, "Justin Case"
<NoFuckin'Way@UgottaBkidding.net> wrote:

"Bookman" <thebookman@kc.rr.comNULL> wrote in message
news:ektia2pvg2k2k595c6jdmc4f60ioa0vg7b@4ax.com...

Truth: Controlled demolitions are performed from the bottom up.

Most of the time they are, like in WTC7

Non sequitur.

You wish it was, run away from the fact that squibs are plainly visable
going off up the side
of wtc7.

It is also clear that those "squibs" appear after the initiation of the
collapse when the top of the building has begun to sag considerably.
When floors fall on one another, must not the compressed air between
then exit somewhere?

http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/Flashes/squibs_along_southwest_corner.h
tm

this combined with Silverstein's statement is one of the many 'smoking
guns'.

Building 7's owner and insurance payout recipient Larry Silverstein said in
the PBS documentary America Rebuilds aired on September 11th 2002:

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling
me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and
I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to
do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the
building collapse. "

Why must "it" refer to the building?

Is he calmly and proudly announcing in a public interview
his leading role in the biggest murder in American history or is
he rather talking about pulling off the firefighting operation that
is the topic under discusion in that very sentence?

How would pulling the building adress the issue of "such a
terrible loss of life" they've already had?