Re: 9/11 may be CONSPIRACY! - BBC anchor!!!!

On Apr 27, 8:45=A0am, ady...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Al Dykes) wrote:
> In article
<b551b523-5cbc-4255-8852-ec3a11ab2...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>
> =A0<jpsmith...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >On Apr 26, 11:27=3DA0am, ady...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Al Dykes) wrote:
> >> In article <48133f98$0$11625$607ed...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>
> >Yo, chumpy, if the "collapse" of WTC7 was due to a "legitimate" cause,
> >the FEMA study would've uncovered it. It didn't. Thus by disproving
> >the converse, the FEMA study confirms what any reasonable person can
> >plainly see: WTC7 was rigged for demolition beforehand. Accept it,
> >fool.
>
> There are no eyewitnesses that re****t man-made explosives during the
> WTC7 collapse. =A0By 5PM the place was swarming with steel workers,
> engineers, firemen and at least one demolition expert. None of them
> re****t anything but collapse due to fire and damage.

LOL! Really? Funny that several teams of engineers can't seem to
explain how the ****in' thing came down isn't it?.

>
> In the testimony below, are Chief Haydon, [1] Chief Nigro [9], Chief
> Scheuerman, [2] and more than 100 firemen [8] lying when they say that
> WTC7 was damaged and collapsed due to fire?
>
> Are they lying?

Probably just wrong. You know, W_R_O_N_G, like, mistaken? Do you
follow? Or is that concept just too far over your head, Goober?

The FEMA engineering team studied the building in detail, evaluating
such things as the robustness of the im****tant structral members, the
fuel loads available, etc., considered the "eyewitness" testimony,
considered any and all photographic and video evidence do***enting the
extent and duration of the fires, etc...and guess what, chump, after
all that, they failed to state a plausible collapse scenario.

All your hand-waving and reliance on the cherry-picked testimony of
stressed-out, hysterical "eye-witnesses" notwithstanding, the fact is
that the FEMA study clearly sup****ts "truther" claims.

<rest of Al's infantile nonsense snipped>