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

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 16:08:40 -0700 (PDT), jpsmith123@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:

>On Apr 27, 8:45 am, ady...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Al Dykes) wrote:
>> In article
<b551b523-5cbc-4255-8852-ec3a11ab2...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>>
>>  <jpsmith...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >On Apr 26, 11:27=A0am, 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.  By 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?.

Name those multiple teams, s****t.  And remember NIST hasn't issued
their re****t yet at all.  It's due out shortly.

>> 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?

Gosh, I thought no one could be wrong to a conspiracy wacko.  So does
this mean that you believe Judy Wood's theory of the collapse?

>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.

Except that they did, s****t.

>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.

Clearly you've never read the re****t.