Re: what to make of "conspiracy theories"?

[Adam Levenstein <cleon42@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- Martin Schreader <mschreader@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Such a pattern seems more consistent with a flash fire, not one that
> had
> been burning for -- at that point -- 108 minutes. And this guy was
> standing
> on the ground next to the building, not inside.

First of all, this stuff is way off-topic.

Second, your "question" is self-answering. If he was standing next to
the building, he wasn't standing by one of the jet-fuel fires, which
were burning higher up, where the planes hit. So those wouldn't have
affected him.

Assuming the story as related is accurate, he probably got hit with a
flash fire as the building collapsed. There was a whole lot of chaos
going on; these things aren't neat and orderly.

Third, the jet fuel fires probably weren't the only fires. A COMMERCIAL
JET AIRPLANE hit the building! If the impact alone - not to mention the
resulting explosion - didn't create some non-fuel fires, THAT would be
a matter for suspicion. As it is, the WTC rubble didn't stop smoldering
for several months. And I *know* that wasn't all from jet fuel.

Now I anxiously wait for someone to demand an explanation of Satan's
face in the cloud of smoke....

Adam


=====
Adam Levenstein                          cleon42@xxxxxxxxx
ICQ: 17125158

"Microsoft has a new version out, Windows XP, which according to everybody is 
the 'most reliable Windows ever.' To me, this is like saying that asparagus is 
'the most articulate vegetable ever.' "
                             -- Dave Barry

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
http://greetings.yahoo.com

~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.