Bbc Was Half An Hour Too Early Reporting On Wtc7 Collapse

[The Power Hour]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=49f_1172526096



VIDEO: BBC WAS HALF AN HOUR TOO EARLY REPORTING ON WTC7 COLLAPSE
On September 11th 2001, BBC World reported at 4:57pm Eastern Time that the Salomon Brothers Building (more commonly known as WTC7 or World Trade Building 7) had collapsed.

This even made the 5pm EST headlines, what is bizarre is that the building did not actually collapse until 5:20pm EST.

9/11 was unusual enough, without BBC World being able to foretell the destiny of WTC 7.

What is even stranger, is that the women reporter is telling the world that the building had collapsed when you can see it in the background over her left shoulder.

Then at 5:15pm EST, just five minutes before the building did actually collapse, her live connection from New York to London mysteriously fails.

So the question is, on 9/11 how did the BBC learn that WTC7 collapsed 23 minutes before it actually did.

Building Seven was 47 storeys, modern in design with structural steel throughout, yet symmetrically collapsed in 6.5 seconds, was someone leaking information.

No steel framed skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire, before or after 9/11, most people who find out about WTC7, believe it was brought down by a controlled demolition, even demolition experts agree.

http://www.thepowerhour.com/video.htm

[01Snake]

Thats it. I'm a believer.

[smeagol]

Here we gooooooo agaaaaiiiiinnnnnnnnn . . .

[whottt]

The BBC is pro-terrorist...it wouldn't surprise that Al-Qaeda gave them a heads up....

[The Power Hour]

You two assahts have a problem with freedom of speech? take it up with our troops dying every day.

[boutons_]

WTC/Pentagon conspiracies will be going on for decades, just like the JFK assassination.

[=RTM=]

I notice a pattern in this forum, You have people who bring up good topics and post things they are curious about that could lead to really good debates and conversations and then you have the other group of people who do nothing but take cheap shots at them and bring nothing intelligent to the table, why is that?

[clambake]

How did the bbc know, and how did they find out?

[BacktoBasics]

I don't believe in the conspiracy but it really is a good point that is met with nothing but insults.

If you aren't buying it then why not give at least some reasoning behind it rather than bitching and moaning.

[smeagol]

I don't believe in the conspiracy but it really is a good point that is met with nothing but insults.

If you aren't buying it then why not give at least some reasoning behind it rather than bitching and moaning.
Your act is old.

[FromWayDowntown]

Curiously, American news outlets were reporting throughout the afternoon of 9/11 that Building 7 was on the verge of collapse and that it had been evacuated because it appeared that it was going to collapse at any minute.

Either someone in on the conspiracy tipped off the American media that 7 WTC was about to be demolished -- since those outlets were reporting its imminent failure -- or there was fairly significant evidence throughout that day to suggest that the structural damage that the building sustained that morning was going to eventually cause its collapse.

[BacktoBasics]

Your act is old.What act? Are you going to ban me?

[smeagol]

What act? Are you going to ban me?
:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

Old but sometimes it's still funny

[BacktoBasics]

Curiously, American news outlets were reporting throughout the afternoon of 9/11 that Building 7 was on the verge of collapse and that it had been evacuated because it appeared that it was going to collapse at any minute.

Either someone in on the conspiracy tipped off the American media that 7 WTC was about to be demolished -- since those outlets were reporting its imminent failure -- or there was fairly significant evidence throughout that day to suggest that the structural damage that the building sustained that morning was going to eventually cause its collapse.interesting point but should we expect this obvious failure to inaccurately report the right info normal and excused and/or just reasoning for what happened.

[BacktoBasics]

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

Old but sometimes it's still funnyWhat in the hell are you talking about. I don't think you know who I am. I'm not your little buddy mouse. You got the wrong porn star buddy.

[Lebowski Brickowski]

Man when I saw that footage a couple of months ago, it gave me chills.

BBC's response was that they LOST the archive of the 9-11 footage. LOST THE FOOTAGE of the most significant event since Pearl Harbor. Nice work BBC.

[smeagol]

What in the hell are you talking about. I don't think you know who I am. I'm not your little buddy mouse. You got the wrong porn star buddy.
Sure . . .

[Mr. Peabody]

Either someone in on the conspiracy tipped off the American media that 7 WTC was about to be demolished -- since those outlets were reporting its imminent failure -- or there was fairly significant evidence throughout that day to suggest that the structural damage that the building sustained that morning was going to eventually cause its collapse.

Whenever I have to make a choice between two explanations for an event, I usually go with the explanation that is the simplest and most compatible with my life experience. In this case, it is obvious that someone from inside the conspiracy tipped off the American and British media. The Brits screwed up and reported too soon because they had trouble converting the time of collapse from American time to British time. This is why we need to formally adopt Universal Time for all future conspiracy planning.

[RandomGuy]

WTC/Pentagon conspiracies will be going on for decades, just like the JFK assassination.


Yuppers.

That was my second thought when this whole thing happened.

Up until now, all we really had was the JFK assassination.

Add 9-11 and the internet where anyone can make shit up and not have to be called on it, and BAM!

The nutters come out of the woodwork drooling over the prospect of a juicy new tragedy to take advantage of and make their paranoia seem mainstream and rational.

[BacktoBasics]

Sure . . .I'm not mouse buddy. Previous screen names I've gone by are

Dirties Robbed Me
Bishopryan
Messican Lover
GiG's Doctor
and so on.....

I'm sorry you got it wrong.

I don't think missing originals is even close to a respectable answer. I mean come on thats worse than "the dog ate my homework".

[RandomGuy]

I notice a pattern in this forum, You have people who bring up good topics and post things they are curious about that could lead to really good debates and conversations and then you have the other group of people who do nothing but take cheap shots at them and bring nothing intelligent to the table, why is that?


NBAdan wrote:
you sheeple


RIP City said:
I wonder what cum dunker has to say now?
I hate to be the one to uncork your head from your ass
were did you get your education?



Power Hour said:
Please do me a favor and uncork your head before you reply

Did you fall off the crib in your trailer when you was reaching for that 1/2 empty can of Bush beer your pappy left after falling asleep while watching re runs of Dukes of Hazard?
Are you acting stupid

ask your MENSA Buddies when you golf with them this weekend



Deadbeat Dad wrote:
Why do you asshats keep telling everyone else
you dick puppets


RTM wrote:
From the #1 physic
If this man chowder drinking homo
You two assahts


:dramaquee :dramaquee :dramaquee :dramaquee :dramaquee


(hint: anybody notice a theme in the language usage here?)

(Other than the fact that almost all of the statements were really written by one person that is)

[RandomGuy]

I notice a pattern in this forum, You have people who bring up good topics and post things they are curious about that could lead to really good debates and conversations and then you have the other group of people who do nothing but take cheap shots at them and bring nothing intelligent to the table, why is that?

I'm curious:

A moving body acclerated at 7 meters per second per second for 11 meters will have how much kinetic energy in relation to its mass?

[smeagol]

I'm not mouse buddy. Previous screen names I've gone by are

Dirties Robbed Me
Bishopryan
Messican Lover
GiG's Doctor
and so on.....

I'm sorry you got it wrong.


:rolleyes

[Extra Stout]

interesting point but should we expect this obvious failure to inaccurately report the right info normal and excused and/or just reasoning for what happened.
Inaccuracy in breaking news during a crisis is not unusual.

[RandomGuy]

Inaccuracy in breaking news during a crisis is not unusual.


No way, wake up sheeple.

A giant conspiracy is MUCH more plausible than some reporter f***ing up in the middle of a massive news event.

If you really want to cover things up, then be sure to tell a news organization what you are doing, so that they can report it the way you want to, because no one in news organizations EVER has spilled the beans about something. :rolleyes

[Extra Stout]

No way, wake up sheeple.

A giant conspiracy is MUCH more plausible than some reporter f***ing up in the middle of a massive news event.

If you really want to cover things up, then be sure to tell a news organization what you are doing, so that they can report it the way you want to, because no one in news organizations EVER has spilled the beans about something. :rolleyes
But who controls the media? JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOZ

[BacktoBasics]

:rolleyes
Sorry you aren't buying it. Feel free to check with Kori she knows who I am.

[smeagol]

Sorry you aren't buying it. Feel free to check with Kori she knows who I am.
Ok, I'll buy it.

Question: What's the need for having so many nicks?

[BacktoBasics]

Ok, I'll buy it.

Question: What's the need for having so many nicks?actually I had stayed with DRM for along time since I never even bothered with the troll forum anymore. I recently started this account for personal reasons and dropped DRM.

[smeagol]

actually I had stayed with DRM for along time since I never even bothered with the troll forum anymore. I recently started this account for personal reasons and dropped DRM.
Personal reasons?

Did DRM get in trouble with the law? :lol

[Yonivore]

"and so on....."
Doesn't exactly exclude "mouse."

Oh yeah, Who freakin' cares?

[BacktoBasics]

DRM is not in trouble with the law.

Yonivore no one fucking cares. I was just pointing out that I am not mouse. Didn't want the confusion. That is all. If I was mouse I'd have made some kind of production about it.

[=RTM=]

Yuppers.

That was my second thought when this whole thing happened.

Up until now, all we really had was the JFK assassination.

Add 9-11 and the internet where anyone can make shit up and not have to be called on it, and BAM!

The nutters come out of the woodwork drooling over the prospect of a juicy new tragedy to take advantage of and make their paranoia seem mainstream and rational.


Nice way to avoid the topic, seems like you and Chump dodge answering questions also.

[=RTM=]

there was fairly significant evidence throughout that day to suggest that the structural damage that the building sustained that morning was going to eventually cause its collapse.

WTC didn't have any damage since it feel before any of the towers. What damage are you talking about?

[=RTM=]

http://911research.wtc7.net/re911/welcome.html




A friend of mine, an engineer, had always listened patiently to my rants about the truth of 9/11. He prides himself on his cynicism, and he was always skeptical of the official line on 9/11, but he was never 100% convinced that I wasn't at least partly nutty. Then I showed him a video of WTC7 collapsing. He was astounded. He said "Play it again" about 5 times. He said, (I'm paraphrasing), "Look how perfectly vertically it fell down. That building was demolished by experts! You can't wire up the charges necessary to do that in only a few hours - in a building on fire!" Then it hit him. It seems to me that at some point in the very near future a critical mass of people will experience what my friend experienced. This gives one hope for the future of our country. The credit will go to you and sites like yours.



just read Jim Hoffman's article regarding the Popular Mechanics 911 article and I had to comment, not on the subject matter so much as regarding Popular Mechanics magazine. I bought the Sept. 2003 issue off the shelf at a store and thought it really odd that every entry in the table of contents was listed in black except for one: the one entitled "Beyond Superpower". The referenced article on page 76 looks like a military recruitment brochure and reads like it came straight out of Bush's white house. This, in a magazine supposedly about workshop tools cars, etc. that targets lots of young men whose future prospects for work look bleak at best!

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/index.html




Thank you for having the guts to bring this story to light. It is so painfully obvious that no cause has been identified regarding the implosion of WTC 7. It is only appropriate that I choose to no longer sing the last verse of our National Anthem. That phrase no longer applies to this society, save for few people like your group that can think outside of the CNN box.

[ChumpDumper]

The BBC reporter stated the building collapsed while it was clearly visible behind her.

Aaron Brown did the exact same thing on American tv. He just had a producer that was well-enough informed or familiar with the building that Brown was able to correct himself within a minute or so.

So now the as yet to be released SpursTalk Omnibus 9/11 Conspiracy Theory includes the BBC and CNN organizations and more than likely the wire services that fed the networks the initial reports. Does this mean there will be another delay in its release? You could always release the second edition in a year or so.

[Extra Stout]

A friend of mine, an engineer, had always listened patiently to my rants about the truth of 9/11. He prides himself on his cynicism, and he was always skeptical of the official line on 9/11, but he was never 100% convinced that I wasn't at least partly nutty. Then I showed him a video of WTC7 collapsing. He was astounded. He said "Play it again" about 5 times. He said, (I'm paraphrasing), "Look how perfectly vertically it fell down. That building was demolished by experts! You can't wire up the charges necessary to do that in only a few hours - in a building on fire!" Then it hit him. It seems to me that at some point in the very near future a critical mass of people will experience what my friend experienced. This gives one hope for the future of our country. The credit will go to you and sites like yours.
Oh, you got us there. He talked to an engineer once. Impressive. Anecdotal conversations with engineers trump actual engineering calculations every time. I guess you win.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Son of a bitch, how many of these stupid ass threads are you going to start? You're worse than Dan.

[Extra Stout]

Son of a bitch, how many of these stupid ass threads are you going to start? You're worse than Dan.
The difference is that mouse is just screwing around with people, while dan is desperately lying as an ideological crusade.

[FromWayDowntown]

WTC didn't have any damage since it feel before any of the towers. What damage are you talking about?

Huh? Are you suggesting that 7 WTC fell before either 1 WTC or 2 WTC?

[=RTM=]

Son of a bitch, how many of these stupid ass threads are you going to start? You're worse than Dan.

Fired Mods do little for Kori's site. Maybe you wish you could delete them.:lmao

[mookie2001]

Fired Mods do little for Kori's site. Maybe you wish you could delete them.:lmaoROFL


chump says nobody cares about building 7, and it happened 5 years ago

[ChumpDumper]

I said that there haven't been any real news to justify a new program dedicated to building 7. There certainly could be a conspiracy channel coming to digital cable at some point. Sounds like something you could get involved with.

[mookie2001]

Add 9-11 and the internet where anyone can make shit up and not have to be called on it, and BAM!

The nutters come out of the woodwork drooling over the prospect of a juicy new tragedy to take advantage of and make their paranoia seem mainstream and rational.Add 9-11 and the internet where anyone can make shit up and not have to be called on it, and BAM!

The nutters come out of the woodwork drooling over the prospect of a juicy new tragedy to take advantage of and make their paranoia seem mainstream and rational. whats funny is in the other thread these guys were posting like 40 youtube links, freds911debunker.com links

[mookie2001]

you said nobody cares because no one died

[mookie2001]

and several times that this happened 5 years ago

[ChumpDumper]

That is correct. There won't be a show about St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church either.

[RandomGuy]

whats funny is in the other thread these guys were posting like 40 youtube links, freds911debunker.com links
If other conspiracy theorists make claims that are later widely disbelieved even in the conspiracy theory community, then it's not that fellow conspiracy theorists are wrong, it's that it was sinister counter-intelligence trying to undermine the "9/11 truth movement" with claims so absurd that it compromises the efficacy of the whole. Seriously.

[nacho]

Any updates on this?

[RandomGuy]

Nice way to avoid the topic, seems like you and Chump dodge answering questions also.


When NIST initiated the WTC investigation, it made a decision not to hire new staff to support the investigation. After the June 2004 progress report on the WTC investigation was issued, the NIST investigation team stopped working on WTC 7 and was assigned full-time through the fall of 2005 to complete the investigation of the WTC towers. With the release and dissemination of the report on the WTC towers in October 2005, the investigation of the WTC 7 collapse resumed. Considerable progress has been made since that time, including the review of nearly 80 boxes of new documents related to WTC 7, the development of detailed technical approaches for modeling and analyzing various collapse hypotheses, and the selection of a contractor to assist NIST staff in carrying out the analyses. It is anticipated that a draft report will be released by early 2007.

The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 is described in the June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (Volume 1, page 17, as well as Appendix L), as follows:

An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;

Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, and as the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and

Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors) resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.

This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.

[Nbadan]

How's that modified NIST report on WTC 7 coming along? :lmao

Who's the real conspiracy theorists again?

Six years later and no-one can tell us for certain how WTC7 fell. The 911 faith-movement has this sub-report from NIST that makes a lot of generalizations, but offers little to no technicle data to support their working-hypothesis. WTC7 could have collapsed from a catastrophic sequence of events, but that hasn't been proven, or it could have been brought down in a controlled demolition, but this hasn't been proven either.

However, the 911 faith movement was reduced to making up all kinds of excuses, oh the building fell because of fire below the 10th floor that no-one has any pictures of, the building didn't fall on it's own footprint, despite pics that prove other-wise, the building suffered catastrophic failure, despite other buildings that suffured worse damage that managed to stay up.

Meanwhile, we have the squib lines in towers 1,2, and 7 on tape, the total and complete collapse of all three buildings, a near statistical impossiblity, all the molten metel, despite jet fuel only heating to 800 degrees. the whole story about how 4 terraists who couldn't even fly simple cessna's a few weeks before all of the sudden became experienced pilots able to hit targets at 400-500 MPH with some of the most sophisticated aircraft in the world, and also turn off complex transponders that signal when a plane is being hijacked.

Would someone tell me, who's the conspiracy theorists again?

[ChumpDumper]

we have the squib lines:lmao We do?
all the molten metel, despite jet fuel only heating to 800 degreesAluminum melts at 600.
the whole story about how 4 terraists who couldn't even fly simple cessna's a few weeks before all of the sudden became experienced pilots able to hit targets at 400-500 MPH with some of the most sophisticated aircraft in the worldReal pilots said it could be done without much of a problem, and the real pilots said the terra-ists were shitty pilots.
and also turn off complex transponders that signal when a plane is being hijacked.How complex? Is it impossible to do? Or could someone who planned and studied for months and perhaps years could actually do?
Would someone tell me, who's the conspiracy theorists again?I'd say you, except you have no theory at all.

[Wild Cobra]

There are some very simple things I would like to point out about building sevens collapse.

1) several windows on several photos are seen as breaking out. More windows broken with more time. The fires were not the cause, known because these windows were far away from the heat. The building structure was slowly giving away due to heat. The steel didn't melt, but lost strength.

2) Like towers 1 and 2, there was severe structural damage. Parts of a tower destroyed much of building side that was not seen in photos.

3) The argument many like to say is that steel framed buildings never fell because of fire. These buildings had structural damage too. The remaining weakened steel from the heat simply gave way.

[johnsmith]

My favorite part of these kind of threads is that it brings libs and conservatives together in order to bash idiots.

[Nbadan]

We do?

This whole idea that it was pressurized air is bogus. No one has ever addressed this.

[Nbadan]

several windows on several photos are seen as breaking out. More windows broken with more time. The fires were not the cause, known because these windows were far away from the heat. The building structure was slowly giving away due to heat. The steel didn't melt, but lost strength.

So it was a localized collapse? Or did your magic heat source somehow spread to the rest of the building?

[Nbadan]

Like towers 1 and 2, there was severe structural damage. Parts of a tower destroyed much of building side that was not seen in photos.

But yet the building stood for several hours after, and neither the FEMA report nor the NIST report blamed the collapse on structural damage by Tower 1 debris, although, admittedly, while looking for a one-size-fits-all hypothesis for the collapse they did write that flying debris could have 'contributed' to the collapse.

[Nbadan]

Real pilots said it could be done without much of a problem, and the real pilots said the terra-ists were shitty pilots.

I bet you couldn't do it, even with a few hundred hours of pilot training. As I've said before, hitting the Pentagon at 400MPH without having to come back for several tries was a amazing feat, and turning off transponders is not something they teach at pilot school.

[Wild Cobra]

So it was a localized collapse? Or did your magic heat source somehow spread to the rest of the building?
I'm sorry. Concepts like this are so simple to me, I forget it should be explained better.

The heat in the lower levels of the building rose such that the steel lost it's full strength. Think of butter. It is a solid when refrigerated and soft at room temperature then melts when it gets hotter. Steel is like this. It gets soft without melting. It slowly changes shape. Horizontal beams will sag, pulling vertical beams away from perpendicular. Buildings do not fall from this alone. However, if you have a single missing supporting beam, the structure can shift enough to completely lose integrity and fall apart.

As for the windows. The sagging of the steel beams would only have to be maybe an inch or two interrupting the 'squareness' of the building. With the widow frames no longer being square, the windows shatter from the stress because they are a relatively brittle solid.

[Wild Cobra]

But yet the building stood for several hours after, and neither the FEMA report nor the NIST report blamed the collapse on structural damage by Tower 1 debris, although, admittedly, while looking for a one-size-fits-all hypothesis for the collapse they did write that flying debris could have 'contributed' to the collapse.
Has the new report been released yet? I don't recall, but the previous reports I downloaded hadn't yet fully investigated building seven. Respectable investigators already knew it was somehow collateral damage from the tower, just didn't know the fine details. I thought this was all settled long ago.

Was it several hours? I don't remember. I do remember it was aflame the entire time before it fell. It had a long running fire because of fuel stored in the building for the back-up generator.

Wow.... That was an incredibly stupid engineering design...

[Yonivore]

I'm sorry. Concepts like this are so simple to me, I forget it should be explained better.
Don't bother, Dan still won't get it. The World Trade Center collapse was the result of a Darth Cheney conspiracy and that's all there is to it. To hell with your scientific facts and debunked myths.

He's a truther and he knows what happened that day.

[xrayzebra]

How long do we have to re-hash, rehash, rehash.....they fell and
that is the fact of the whole argument. Consensus says they
were brought down by aircraft. Now that is good enough for
the "global warming" folks it ought to be good enough for the
the other folks.

[u2sarajevo]

It amazes me that people truly believe any of the building collapses were controlled demolitions.

Have any of you guys been to Dealey Plaza? Are your future plans to setup at Camp Ground Zero with your photos plastered on plywood proclaiming your wild theories? Hoping that you sell enough of your marketed propaganda that day to buy dinner?

Hatred is really an ugly thing.

[Spurminator]

Don't bother, Dan still won't get it. The World Trade Center collapse was the result of a Darth Cheney conspiracy and that's all there is to it. To hell with your scientific facts and debunked myths.

He's a truther and he knows what happened that day.


Dan knows exactly what happened.

His motivation is to create distrust.

[Yonivore]

Dan knows exactly what happened.

His motivation is to create distrust.
Of him? Done.

[smeagol]

My favorite part of these kind of threads is that it brings libs and conservatives together in order to bash idiots.
What he said ^

[Nbadan]

I'm sorry. Concepts like this are so simple to me, I forget it should be explained better.

The heat in the lower levels of the building rose such that the steel lost it's full strength. Think of butter. It is a solid when refrigerated and soft at room temperature then melts when it gets hotter. Steel is like this. It gets soft without melting. It slowly changes shape. Horizontal beams will sag, pulling vertical beams away from perpendicular. Buildings do not fall from this alone. However, if you have a single missing supporting beam, the structure can shift enough to completely lose integrity and fall apart.

As for the windows. The sagging of the steel beams would only have to be maybe an inch or two interrupting the 'squareness' of the building. With the widow frames no longer being square, the windows shatter from the stress because they are a relatively brittle solid.


OH, we've talked about at what degree steel softens and also about the necessary design of WTC7 because it was built over an existing power station. You may want to go back and reread some of our previous 911 threads for reference.

But in order for the existing NIST theory to have any serious merit there had to be a raging fire on the lower floors (~10) of WTC7, which I've never seen any evidence of. Every photo I have seen had fires in the building about the 11th or 12th floor at the lowest.

As far as any sever structural damage, other WTC buildings suffered much more catastrophic damage but did not collapse. The special design of WTC7 could have led to fires that weakened a parts of the building, and from what I could tell most of the major fires were at or near the WTC Tower1 side, but I feel this would have led to a collapse of part of the building at worst.

The statistical circumstances that led to the complete collapse building in the manner the initial NIST report says it did have to be pretty high.

[Wild Cobra]

The statistical circumstances that led to the complete collapse building in the manner the initial NIST report says it did have to be pretty high.
High but not impossible. So what.

[ChumpDumper]

In order for the conspiracy theory to have any serious merit, there has to actually be a theory.

[smeagol]

In order for the conspiracy theory to have any serious merit, there has to actually be a theory.
Not according to the mookie crowd

[ChumpDumper]

Sorely lacking as it was, he had more of a theory than Dan.

[clambake]

Theories aren't necessary. It was their time to go. It was God's will.

[xrayzebra]

Maybe God will take mercy on us and let this thread "go". Amen

[RandomGuy]

http://limewoody.files.wordpress.com/2006/04/aw_jeez_not_this_shit_again2.jpg

[smeagol]

Sorely lacking as it was, he had more of a theory than Dan.
True.